Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

ABC101 · 12-04-2015 11:03AM

haiyna wrote: »

Alright, well for some reason only Christians can argue for the existence of God so I'm going to leave now but still, be sure to check out all the miracles.

Ah..... I don't think that to be true. However as a believer myself..... in fact as a Christian believer.... I have come to the conclusion.... that modern secular western society... is not anti Christian / anti Islam.

Modern western society appears to be becoming anti God... anti Religon.

At times it appears to be politically incorrect to admit to any faith belief.

Just my opinion... based on my observations of various trends etc

Delirium · 12-04-2015 11:16AM

haiyna wrote: »

Alright, well for some reason only Christians can argue for the existence of God so I'm going to leave now but still, be sure to check out all the miracles.

MOD NOTE

Christians and non-Christians are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

This is the Christianity forum, so the discussion is pertaining to Christianity.

There is an Islam forum for those that wish to discuss Islam.

Thanks for your attention.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 11:20AM

hinault wrote: »

Depends on how you define an atheist.

The person living in some far flung corner of this planet untouched by religion of any kind, who has never communicated with anyone anywhere about religious/spiritual belief, is an atheist.

Is that atheist the same atheist, who as a person was brought up in a religiously observant household, but subsequently rejects that God exists?

I think you'll agree that there is a qualitative difference between both atheists.

You are on this thread discussing the existence, or lack of, an entity known as God.
You have some exposure as to why people here claim that God exists.
You read the posts here from believers advocating for why they believe God exists. Even if you disagree with the claim that God exists, you can't deny that you have knowledge of the claim and some knowledge of what that belief claim advocates.

It is seldom that I hear or read honest claims by atheists.
I suspect that many who claim to be atheists are either mistaken or are lying.

When people claim to be atheists what they actually mean is that they accept that God might well exist but that they don't wish to abide by the rules set by God. They prefer to do their own thing instead and they prefer to live by their own rules.

They would be far more honest articulating that view rather than saying that they don't believe that God exists.

As I said in my earlier reply to you, each and every single one of us has free will to decide to accept or to reject God.
God's lets each one of us determine that choice for ourselves.

The man in the far flung part of the planet, he doesn't have the same choice that you have been given and which I have been given. He has not been made aware that there is an entity known as God that some people choose to believe in. You and I have been made aware that there is an entity known as God that some people chose to believe in.

You state that there is an entity known as God. Why do you need belief?
If God is a reality you have no need for belief.
Once again, from the atheist perspective, you cannot reject a god you don't think exists. Because you have already dismissed the idea that god may exist.
This is not dishonesty. It may be mistaken, but if your doubt is sincere it does not merit an accusation of lying.

katydid · 12-04-2015 11:21AM

ABC101 wrote: »

Ah..... I don't think that to be true. However as a believer myself..... in fact as a Christian believer.... I have come to the conclusion.... that modern secular western society... is not anti Christian / anti Islam.

Modern western society appears to be becoming anti God... anti Religon.

At times it appears to be politically incorrect to admit to any faith belief.

Just my opinion... based on my observations of various trends etc

Secularism isn't anti-religion". It simply wants religion to occupy a certain place in society where people have a choice of whether or not to be involved in it. I am a practicing Christian and a secularist. I don't wish my belief or my religion to impinge on the lives of others, and I respect those who don't share my beliefs.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 11:29AM

tommy2bad wrote: »

The personal God part is God saving you from the consequences if you accept his help. By the way, this help is only possible due to God undoing the consequences of the fall in the first place. And to be honest to remain logical the only real consequence we are saved from is separation from God. How that would play out in ' heaven' is anyone's guess. Worst case an eternity of regret, best case you get annihilated. Not really the threat eternal suffering in a lake of fire is.
Theirs a more sophisticated view that involves suffering in the presence of god because his presence is repugnant to you which I find slightly more convincing.

The best case is that I get annihilated. Charming.
So what does this help entail? What happens?
And how is the fall undone?
In the OT the literal consequence of the fall is the world we inhabit now.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 11:32AM

ABC101 wrote: »

Even if evidence was put in front of you... you still would not believe.

Because the evidence would not be evidence enough.... or not pass the evidence test to be admissable as evidence.

If evidence was put before all of us we would have no need of belief - we would know - we would have knowledge.

silverharp · 12-04-2015 11:41AM

katydid wrote: »

Secularism isn't anti-religion". It simply wants religion to occupy a certain place in society where people have a choice of whether or not to be involved in it. I am a practicing Christian and a secularist. I don't wish my belief or my religion to impinge on the lives of others, and I respect those who don't share my beliefs.

how far will you go though , if asked to vote in a referendum say where your church would be against it, would you vote against your "religious bias" or cast your vote as a religious person thus voting to impinge on the lives of others?

katydid · 12-04-2015 11:49AM

silverharp wrote: »

how far will you go though , if asked to vote in a referendum say where your church would be against it, would you vote against your "religious bias" or cast your vote as a religious person thus voting to impinge on the lives of others?

It's not my business as a citizen to tell other people how to live their lives. I've never been in a situation where my church was against such things, but if it were to happen, my duty as a citizen in a secular referendum would come first.

ABC101 · 12-04-2015 12:01PM

katydid wrote: »

Secularism isn't anti-religion". It simply wants religion to occupy a certain place in society where people have a choice of whether or not to be involved in it. I am a practicing Christian and a secularist. I don't wish my belief or my religion to impinge on the lives of others, and I respect those who don't share my beliefs.

Good for you Katy!!

However I was not referring to "secularism".

I was referring to "modern western society".

There is such a concept as "agressive secularism".

As I am sure you will agree... there are all sorts of agendas / movements at work in a society. Some agendas are honestly and truthfully carried out under a label, i.e. what is says on the tin.

Some other agendas are carried out under a label... but the aim of the movement / ideology is actually in contradicition to the name it is carried out under.

Such is life!!

PopePalpatine · 12-04-2015 12:03PM

"Aggressive secularism"...I only ever hear this term from reactionaries like John Waters.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 12:12PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Woah! Who said it was a test? The only ones saying this life is a trial for suitability for the next life are atheists. Despite being told time after time it's not a test.

Really? But if I don't accept I may have to face the consequences - possibly annihilation.
That's one helluva test.

J C · 12-04-2015 12:29PM

katydid wrote: »

Secularism isn't anti-religion". It simply wants religion to occupy a certain place in society where people have a choice of whether or not to be involved in it. I am a practicing Christian and a secularist. I don't wish my belief or my religion to impinge on the lives of others, and I respect those who don't share my beliefs.

The responsibility, under the great commission from Jesus Christ, is for all Christians to go forth and proclaim the good news of salvation, baptising those who become Saved.
I'd say that this could 'impinge' on the lives of other people allright ... in a very positive way, I might add !!

tommy2bad · 12-04-2015 12:41PM

J C wrote: »

The responsibility, under the great commission from Jesus Christ, is for all Christians to go forth and proclaim the good news of salvation, baptising those who become Saved.
I'd say that this could 'impinge' on the lives of other people allright ... in a very positive way, I might add !!

Big difference between proclaiming the good news and compelling people to follow the rules you think it implies.

Still I do find the iron age book, sky fairy, or zombie Jesus insults tiresome. If only because they are overused.

tommy2bad · 12-04-2015 12:48PM

indioblack wrote: »

Really? But if I don't accept I may have to face the consequences - possibly annihilation.
That's one helluva test.

Ahem if it's all a fairy tail then annihilation is a certainty. Same difference I would have thought. yes it's a bit of a bummer to find you missed out but the thing is you won't find out it'll be the exact same non experience for you.

Unless of course it's the lake of fire, that would be bad. Real shame to find you ended up in eternal agony with gnashing of teeth and pitch fork wielding daemons. :-)

indioblack · 12-04-2015 01:17PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Ahem if it's all a fairy tail then annihilation is a certainty. Same difference I would have thought. yes it's a bit of a bummer to find you missed out but the thing is you won't find out it'll be the exact same non experience for you.

Unless of course it's the lake of fire, that would be bad. Real shame to find you ended up in eternal agony with gnashing of teeth and pitch fork wielding daemons. :-)

No. One scenario is the possible ending of the universe, which would be a natural event.
The other scenario would be the toleration of the extinguishing of our personalities by an entity with the ability to prevent it.
"...a bit of a bummer to find you missed out..."
Is that the best description for attempting to understand the mystery of existence?
As for the last paragraph, amusing though it was, check out H.G. Wells "The Last Trump".

ABC101 · 12-04-2015 01:31PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

"Aggressive secularism"...I only ever hear this term from reactionaries like John Waters.

You will be hearing the term a lot more often.

For example.... Catholic Adoption Agencies in the UK have closed down. Due to the fact that they believe and practise that children should be adopted into a family where the potential adoptive parents should be in a hetrosexual stable relationship.

As the UK has changed the laws with regard for adoptive parents.... Catholic agencies have had to be shut down, as what they believe in and what they are legally allowed to do are incompatible.

J C · 12-04-2015 01:47PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Big difference between proclaiming the good news and compelling people to follow the rules you think it implies.

The essence of true Christianity is the exercise of free will ... which doesn't (and largely never) compelled anybody to do anything ... on the other hand, the secular state (at times allied to Christianity for it's own convenience) and at other times not so allied, compels us to do many things.

You seem to be confusing/conflating the church and the state, Tommy.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Still I do find the iron age book, sky fairy, or zombie Jesus insults tiresome. If only because they are overused.

... overused and insulting ... as well as childish caricatures, that say more about the people who utter them, than those that they are uttered about TBH.

ABC101 · 12-04-2015 01:54PM

indioblack wrote: »

If evidence was put before all of us we would have no need of belief - we would know - we would have knowledge.

If you take the evidence of the Universe... stars, galaxies, moons, etc etc etc..

Some people would take this as evidence that there is a creator... and the creators name is God.

Other people... Athiests for example would take the evidence of the cosmos and not attribute it to a creator at all! Perhaps they would offer other explanations such as laws of physics etc.

At the end of the day however... you are still free to choose.... believe that a God exists..... or simply lack any belief that a God does exist.

If God were to put so much evidence in front of everybody.... then the right to choose....in belief or unbelief would not be possible.

Albert Einstein put it very well when he was describing a theory ...."nature shows us the tail of the lion.... but not the entire lion". That was in relation to a particular theory he was working on.... not necessarily related to religion / or the proof of existance of God etc.

Supposing for a moment you become God. A infinite being with infinite power.

What would you do?

hinault · 12-04-2015 04:30PM

indioblack wrote: »

You state that there is an entity known as God. Why do you need belief?
If God is a reality you have no need for belief.
Once again, from the atheist perspective, you cannot reject a god you don't think exists. Because you have already dismissed the idea that god may exist.
This is not dishonesty. It may be mistaken, but if your doubt is sincere it does not merit an accusation of lying.

Belief and faith are words to describe a person's view in the existence of God.

On one level the opposite of faith is certainty. If you know that something exists in this material world, there is no need for faith or belief.

In terms of the metaphysical, I can't reach in there and pull the evidence which is there in to the material world. Therefore words like belief and faith are the words used to describe a persons view in the actual existence of God.

I think doubt and faith can complement each other. You can witness something in the material world and think "how could God have allowed that to happen". A case of obvious injustice perhaps makes a person question. That questioning would be normal.

It's easy to look at the bad things that happen and to conclude on that basis that a just God would not allow that to happen.
But what about considering all the good that does happen in the world, does that not affirm one's belief?

tommy2bad · 12-04-2015 04:35PM

indioblack wrote: »

No. One scenario is the possible ending of the universe, which would be a natural event.
The other scenario would be the toleration of the extinguishing of our personalities by an entity with the ability to prevent it.
"...a bit of a bummer to find you missed out..."
Is that the best description for attempting to understand the mystery of existence?
As for the last paragraph, amusing though it was, check out H.G. Wells "The Last Trump".

You keep missing the point, the annihilation of the universe is a natural event, moaning that God didn't save you by supernatural means is kinda cry baby, you rejected or refused the offer. That's not gods fault. You chose to believe annihilation was the only option, can't complain when it is the only option.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 04:38PM

ABC101 wrote: »

If you take the evidence of the Universe... stars, galaxies, moons, etc etc etc..

Some people would take this as evidence that there is a creator... and the creators name is God.

Other people... Athiests for example would take the evidence of the cosmos and not attribute it to a creator at all! Perhaps they would offer other explanations such as laws of physics etc.

At the end of the day however... you are still free to choose.... believe that a God exists..... or simply lack any belief that a God does exist.

If God were to put so much evidence in front of everybody.... then the right to choose....in belief or unbelief would not be possible.

Albert Einstein put it very well when he was describing a theory ...."nature shows us the tail of the lion.... but not the entire lion". That was in relation to a particular theory he was working on.... not necessarily related to religion / or the proof of existance of God etc.

Supposing for a moment you become God. A infinite being with infinite power.

What would you do?

I would make it comprehensible that I embody both positive and negative.
For God to give free will he would have to impose limits on himself.
We would have to be brought to a position where we can only act without full knowledge, (as we do now).
I would hope that it would be understood that in the process of allowing us free will and, hopefully, spiritual growth those things that we perceive as negative may flourish - and, as God, I am ultimately responsible for this.
The stage that I make for this performance is the world. I made the world - as it is - all actions, positive and negative, stem from this, my creation.
It would be this way so that man can grow, through his life experience.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 04:44PM

hinault wrote: »

Belief and faith are words to describe a person's view in the existence of God.

On one level the opposite of faith is certainty. If you know that something exists in this material world, there is no need for faith or belief.

In terms of the metaphysical, I can't reach in there and pull the evidence which is there in to the material world. Therefore words like belief and faith are the words used to describe a persons view in the actual existence of God.

I think doubt and faith can complement each other. You can witness something in the material world and think "how could God have allowed that to happen". A case of obvious injustice perhaps makes a person question. That questioning would be normal.

It's easy to look at the bad things that happen and to conclude on that basis that a just God would not allow that to happen.
But what about considering all the good that does happen in the world, does that not affirm one's belief?

It certainly can.
My point is not that God should intervene, (he appears not to, directly), it's that he can intervene and therefore obviously chooses not to.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 04:52PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

You keep missing the point, the annihilation of the universe is a natural event, moaning that God didn't save you by supernatural means is kinda cry baby, you rejected or refused the offer. That's not gods fault. You chose to believe annihilation was the only option, can't complain when it is the only option.

It may have been my only option, but it can't be god's.
For god to allow these events to run their course when he has unlimited alternatives and abilities indicates that he chose to let it happen.
I'm not crying about it, chum, merely trying to point out again that we may infer from what happens something about god.
I've been trying to get that across to you for some time.
Missing the point - isn't that the definition of sin?

ABC101 · 12-04-2015 05:03PM

indioblack wrote: »

I would make it comprehensible that I embody both positive and negative.
For God to give free will he would have to impose limits on himself.
We would have to be brought to a position where we can only act without full knowledge, (as we do now).
I would hope that it would be understood that in the process of allowing us free will and, hopefully, spiritual growth those things that we perceive as negative may flourish - and, as God, I am ultimately responsible for this.
The stage that I make for this performance is the world. I made the world - as it is - all actions, positive and negative, stem from this, my creation.
It would be this way so that man can grow, through his life experience.

O.K. you seem to have made the same choice as what God has made, but with a few exceptions.

Why would you embody both positive and negative?

What do you mean positive and negative? Good and evil? Bounty and famine?

hinault · 12-04-2015 05:04PM

indioblack wrote: »

It certainly can.
My point is not that God should intervene, (he appears not to, directly), it's that he can intervene and therefore obviously chooses not to.

How do you discern whether God intervenes or not?

indioblack · 12-04-2015 05:17PM

ABC101 wrote: »

O.K. you seem to have made the same choice as what God has made, but with a few exceptions.

Why would you embody both positive and negative?

What do you mean positive and negative? Good and evil? Bounty and famine?

As the creator of all things - and consequently indirectly responsible for that which emerges.
If a person has doubts and believes, (that word again), that these doubts are honestly held what would you say - if you were god?

indioblack · 12-04-2015 05:19PM

hinault wrote: »

How do you discern whether God intervenes or not?

Good point - but I did say not directly.

ABC101 · 12-04-2015 05:50PM

indioblack wrote: »

As the creator of all things - and consequently indirectly responsible for that which emerges.
If a person has doubts and believes, (that word again), that these doubts are honestly held what would you say - if you were god?

Hmmmm.... I'd like to focus on your point about being indirectly repsonsible.

For example....

You are a builder / developer. You build a housing estate. Most inhabitants live peaceful lives.... however in one or two houses... there are cases of domesitic violence.... child abuse.

As a builder / devloper.... are you responsible... are you indirectly reponsible.... even a small bit for the violence?

You are a motor car manufacturer.... the overwhelming majority of your products are used for transportation of goods / people. However some of your products are used for "bank getaways" or Joyriding.

As a car manufacturer... are you responsible either directly or indirectly responsible for the illegal activity of your product.

Another example.... you are a parent of 4 children. You are active in the development of your offspring until they are 21 years old. Your role then as a parent is effectively over. However 3 of your children go on to live peaceful lives... but the 4th child.... develops bad habits and ends up falling foul of the law.

As a parent of this person.... how much responsibility do you carry for your childs bad actions?

My answers to these questions would be that as the primary source of these items ... i.e.. car, house, child.... you are responsible for the development of the primary product only. If the car gets used for illegal activities that is not the manufacturers fault, if the house is the scene of various forms of violence.... that is not the builders fault. If your child eventually becomes a person with a serious criminal record... then that is not the parents fault.

Subject to caveats... i.e. the parent did not actively encourage the child to engage in illegal activity.

So moving back to the original topic....i.e. God. I see God having set the stage... i.e. planet Earth and all things therein. But I don't see God as having responsibility for the actions of mankind.

indioblack · 12-04-2015 06:03PM

ABC101 wrote: »

Hmmmm.... I'd like to focus on your point about being indirectly repsonsible.

For example....

You are a builder / developer. You build a housing estate. Most inhabitants live peaceful lives.... however in one or two houses... there are cases of domesitic violence.... child abuse.

As a builder / devloper.... are you responsible... are you indirectly reponsible.... even a small bit for the violence?

You are a motor car manufacturer.... the overwhelming majority of your products are used for transportation of goods / people. However some of your products are used for "bank getaways" or Joyriding.

As a car manufacturer... are you responsible either directly or indirectly responsible for the illegal activity of your product.

Another example.... you are a parent of 4 children. You are active in the development of your offspring until they are 21 years old. Your role then as a parent is effectively over. However 3 of your children go on to live peaceful lives... but the 4th child.... develops bad habits and ends up falling foul of the law.

As a parent of this person.... how much responsibility do you carry for your childs bad actions?

My answers to these questions would be that as the primary source of these items ... i.e.. car, house, child.... you are responsible for the development of the primary product only. If the car gets used for illegal activities that is not the manufacturers fault, if the house is the scene of various forms of violence.... that is not the builders fault. If your child eventually becomes a person with a serious criminal record... then that is not the parents fault.

Subject to caveats... i.e. the parent did not actively encourage the child to engage in illegal activity.

So moving back to the original topic....i.e. God. I see God having set the stage... i.e. planet Earth and all things therein. But I don't see God as having responsibility for the actions of mankind.

I see your point. But my answer would be that these examples are of people functioning within a system they did not create.
God did create the system and as long as his omnipotence is upheld logically he may be said to have indirect responsibility.
Following my earlier answer in my last post I would repeat that an omnipotent god would have to allow both positive and negative to flourish for us to be - well, as we are now - with the capability of choice and the possibility of growth.
By the way what's your answer to my question?

silverharp · 12-04-2015 06:11PM

ABC101 wrote: »

For example....

You are a builder / developer. You build a housing estate. Most inhabitants live peaceful lives....

So moving back to the original topic....i.e. God. I see God having set the stage... i.e. planet Earth and all things therein. But I don't see God as having responsibility for the actions of mankind.

Very weak analogies, I'd accept them if you were a deist. firstly the quality of its work , very poor, humans having all the issues aggression etc of pre human brains . The sheer number of pathogens "designed" to kill us. The lack of resources on the planet. No owners manual and the lack of any meaningful or universal revelation. And although christians might deny it , no meaningful two way communication.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Part 2)

Comments