Atheists.
- Started
- Last post
- 184 Responses
- moth0
"If God claims to be the original creator, and neither you nor anyone else can disprove that fact, then why must it be so insane to believe in him?"
Because you could neither prove or disprove that I myself am Jesus returned to Earth, but if I were to consistently make that claim and believe it absolutely, you would probably label me insane.
Your reason is flawed. It allows you believe in anything that anyone can ever lay claim to - no matter how outlandish. You've left yourself no room for reason and common sense.
You're a good chap an all - but you are deluded ;)
- moth0
mikotondria3 summed it up far more elegantly than I ever will.
- pango0
you guys do realize this argument will again be left with no conclusion right?
sorry, i just had to do it. lol- Sometimes, the play is the thing...TheBlueOne
- I can go along with that Blue. I do relish a good debate.gramme
- gramme0
Miko, I have great respect for you and love conversing with you. I flatter myself to think we'd be friends if we lived in the same neck of the woods.
However, because something seems delusional to you, that does not necessarily make it so. St. Paul, who was a master of reason and wit, often said in his epistles that the wisdom of God is foolishness to the world. So in that sense, I am happy to be a fool for Christ. But let no man say I accept any "truth" blindly, without deep consideration and wrestling. Let no man say that I am deluded merely because I believe in something that cannot be seen as men want to see. God has proven his existence to me over and over again, in miracles, mystical events, and in the lives of other Christians. Believe me when I say this, I worked very, very hard to deny, to rationalize away the existence of God for many years. In the end, he cornered me as he is wont to do with those whom he has chosen for himself. I came to the point where I could no longer deny the metaphysical 800-lb. gorilla in the room, so to speak.
I think of C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, Jonathan Edwards, Kierkegaard, Aquinas... these men were all brilliant, they all were staunch Christians, and they all made large contributions to the canons of philosophy and/or prose. I don't think anyone can be honest with themselves and say that such men were outside their right minds.
- if people like Lewis and kierkegaard were christians, well geez, what am i waiting for!spifflink
- gramme0
Moth:
I would not believe you to be Jesus returned because there is nothing about you that fits the Biblical profile of Christ.
- 3point141590
Bump for Jesus!
- gentleman0
agnostic..
fence sitting - theres better things to worry about.
if there is a god - scripture says he's looking out for us (granted - if you believe... but what if you dont disbelieve... is he that lenient? if not - i dont want to have nowt to do with him
)
if there isnt - i dont want to spend the little time we have here worshipping thin air.win-win
- gramme0
Moth & Miko:
Do you believe in right and wrong? Where does this sense come from? Do you think it's wrong to murder, cheat, or steal? If so, then why?
A common answer I've heard to this question is that as mankind has evolved physically, we have also evolved socially. We have found systems and codes of behavior that are beneficial for all. For example, not killing other people is beneficial to the perpetuity of the human race.
OK, I can buy that idea in theory, just like I can buy socialism in theory. But when the bullet leaves the barrel, the above answers fall apart.
Ever since the beginning of recorded history, there have been moral codes. Who first made those? What evidence do we have that they evolved into place over the millions of years since the dawn of man? For those who believe morality is merely the product of social evolution, do you really believe we are improving as a global society? I think the increasing incidence of war, greed, and corruption (the two latter brought us to our current economical conundrum), says otherwise. I think in some ways, we are going backwards. I think that when we ignore the source of the moral code which to some extent is written on the heart of every man, woman, and child, we begin to forget who we are, why we are here, and how we begin to ignore external, overriding moral codes in favor of our own personal codes.
My brother was just telling me about a paper written by an atheistic scientist who is a student of evolution. This person was writing about social patterns of sex and procreation, and was discussing rape in particular. He concluded that rape is acceptable, because it is a man's natural inclination to spread his seed and ensure the perpetuation of his race. He believed that because this is our natural physical bent—to take without asking—that it is acceptable to ignore moral codes in favor of natural ones. What's next, pedophilia?
This is the "natural" conclusion of a paradigm which refuses to acknowledge God. When they metaphysical doesn't exist, there is nothing but natural law, and anything in man's nature that goes against his conscience becomes acceptable.
Though God is extra-human, above our full understanding, he is a reasonable God as shown in Scripture. When I accept that the only moral code was authored by God—a being smarter and wiser than any human ever born—then I can rest assured that said code was created for my benefit and betterment.
I'm not sure that someone maintain contact with logic and honestly claim that the above is delusion. I submit that it is delusional to believe that our natural tendencies must override any metaphysical promptings. Because I see evidence of the soul in each person by reason of the evidence above (i.e. moral code), I think that to ignore conscience and absolute truth is to de-man man and make of him an animal. And I for one, my friends, and not a fucking animal.
- Furthermore, how does defense of the poor and needy fit in with the survial of the fittest?gramme
- When and how did we decide that it is beneficial for humanity to look out for the weak?gramme
- this is a decent explanation: http://plato.stanfor…spifflink
- don't claim something doesn't work out because you don't understand itspifflink
- that's just the thing, I do believe I understand it. You will of course disagree...gramme
- gentleman0
also..
im with gramme on this
but also with moth
but also against both...you cant prove it, you cant disprove it.
so its unreasonable to believe and unreasonable to outright deny it.its prerogative.
common sense tells me if neither side is outright correct.. to withdraw my vote.. hence agnosticism.
but you take that a step further.. and you start to think that there is too much time spent debating the to's and fro's and it takes me to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apa…
end of
- gentleman0
also made me smile
- moth0
gramme - I believe in myself and my upbringing. I have faith only in myself. Right and wrong has evolved through mans trials and errors. We are quite possibly the only creatures in existence to be able to contemplate death and seek to avoid it, prevent it, remove ourselves from harm, and generally thus desire to be comfortable. Running around clubbing each other to death didn't make life easier.
Just as I'm sure you believe that God presented you with all these miracles mystical events, I believe you presented them to yourself, just I have presented to myself my own achievements and goals. I believe I can attain things. I believe I can will myself to improve, and I will improve. That's my faith right there. I call it positive thinking. You call it God. The output is the same.
I'd also agree with you that we are going backwards. Not everyone is as enlightened as you or me think we are. I don't have faith in other people to ALWAYS do the right thing. In an ever increasing population this becomes more evident, and by the failure of your Gods' or evolutions' design, we're still animals who WILL and DO regress to instinct and fear and violence to survive when pushed.
God is the result of our fear of this failing.
God is, perversely, the apparent (and blindingly obvious given the amount of blood spilt) catalyst for our failure.
Religion is the atrophy of man.
I heartily believe we would survive a little longer without it. Not a lot, but a little.
Stripped bare, we are animals.
- If God makes you strong gramme, the keep him.
But he's only the middle man to your good self ;)moth
- If God makes you strong gramme, the keep him.
- mikotondria30
actually Gramme, I live about 5 miles from the 44 :)
- 3point141590
- read the fucking thread.
We're not doing too badly here.moth - fuck you atheist!3point14159
- read the fucking thread.
- gentleman0
this also made me smile
- ukit0
I am not absolutely ruling out there is a God...there well could be, despite the fact there isn't much evidence for one that I can see. But there could also be millions of other possible explanations, all equally likely or unlikely. The universe could be riding on the back of a giant tortoise for all I know.
Think about this though...if we zoom down to the cellular level, you wouldn't see much that reminded you of a full sized, intelligent human being. It would be a completely alien world. Similarly, if we zoom up many more orders of magnitude to the meta level, it strikes me as highly unlikely that there's a human-like consciousness at the root of everything, much less an old man with a beard. The actual nature of reality is probably far too bizarre for us to ever imagine, much less for primitive humans to have grasped thousands of years ago when the Bible was written.
- primative humans are aware of the exact same reality we are and they still know GodKwesiJ
- KwesiJ0
you think about it backwards...its not a humanlike conciousness at the root of everything, there's a god like conciousness at the heart of all conciousness. Thats God, we're a small reflection of that. Just like our bodies are composed of psychsical matter our human conciousnes is an effect of cosmic intellegence.
- ukit0
I have no doubt that the world we see is a reflection of some kind of larger reality. But a reflection of a thinking God that answers our prayers, gets angry at individual people, and beams his son down to Earth in human form to be gruesomely murdered? You lost me there.
- no you lost yourself when you so narrowly define God as a story book sort of character.KwesiJ
- you're trivialising the 'higher reality' as something that can't be this so called God...when it should be acknowledged as that which is most like God, God.KwesiJ
- ...that which is most like God, so logically as God itself, the REAL God.KwesiJ
- I'm trivializing it? I think the Bible and organized religion are doing that.ukit
- no you're trivialism religion and history and many people's knoweldge and ideas.KwesiJ
- If you want to call whatever is at the root of reality God, fine, so be it.ukit
- And i don't mean to trivialise what you're saying but you're trivialising for the sake of upholding staunch atheismKwesiJ
- But do you agree or disagree with the literal interpretation of the Bible? That's kind of what we're arguing here.ukit
- no i disagree with the literal interpretation of the bible but thats not to say it holds some hefty weight historically and intellectually.KwesiJ
- there's lots philosophy and early forms of history writing in it, its facinating really.KwesiJ
- but the discussion around God should have some real persepective beyond the BIble itself just like its always been. Aristotle didn't have the Bible.KwesiJ
- Aristotle didn't have a Bible.KwesiJ
