Ask an atheist!

[Allegory]

The good thing is though, when the new accelerator in Switzerland is up and running we can better be able to judge the "correctness" of the theory without having to read up on the details from the comfort of our respective armchairs.

Which is soon I believe.

The LHC is supposed to be up in...what..May or something. Yeah if that thing works out it will be huge for our understanding of the universe. There's a whole bunch of theories that will be made or broken if anything is discovered.

 

[Maxwell511]

There's a whole bunch of theories that will be made or broken if anything is discovered.

It would a great day for humanity but a terrible one for the string theorists so to speak.

 

[andross77]

I wouldn't personally accept it, but then again, I've been raised in a culture with completely different morals.



Exactly. Does it open itself up to possible abuses? Yes. Then again, having one single entity with a self claim to perfect morals does too. What if God said it was perfectly moral to drive over little old ladies crossing the street? It would have to be moral, because God supposedly has perfect morals. Is there anything God could say that would not be moral?



Mainly, yes.

Here's a good example of cultural morality (I ride, and this has been hot news in the horse industry lately). In the US, it is perfectly morally acceptable to slaughter cattle, pigs, goats, and sheep by the millions for human consumption. Horses, OTOH, not so much. Eating horse meat in the US is considered very morally unacceptable. Same with dogs and cats, while in other countries, it's perfectly fine to eat them.

In some countries, if you are caught stealing, it's perfectly acceptable to chop off someones' hand for a first offence. Here, not so much.

There are countless examples. These things are purely influenced by society. See also my post to Yekcidmij- "What I want to know is this: if morality is absolute, why are morals different for different cultures and different time periods? Is God confused and handing out different moral advice? Because in other cultures and time periods, all of the following have been considered moral: polygamy, human sacrifice, wife beating, self mutilation, war, circumcision, castration, and incest, to name a few."

To answer your question in bold, no, God will never command something that is immoral. You raise valid objections at the end and i don't have the time or research to respond to you but you have to take each circumstance in context.

Just the first one for example, polygamy. Please tell me where it says God says polygamy is ok. He doesn't. In Genesis it says, "So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them."

and "Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

Just b/c some men in the bible, patriarchs of the faith even, had multiple wives doesn't mean God condoned it. The Bible is filled with stories of God's love for SINNERS, not God's love for the elite, perfect people.

It would be like saying, since the Israelites were issuing certificates of divorce in Jesus' day that God approved of that too. See what Jesus says in Matthew 19:4-8, "He answered, "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate." They said to him, "Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?" He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

The Israelites, God's chosen people, were divorcing each other just like we do today. But God did not like it nor approve of it or command it.

And i could do this with each of your examples that you listed. God does not, and never has, approve of polygamy, incest, self-mutilation, castration, wife-beating or human sacrifice. Want me to find a verse in the Koran that commands Muslims to beat their wives? I can do that in 2 minutes. Want me to find a verse in the Bible that commands us to beat our wives? I can take the rest of my life and i will not find it in there b/c it was never commanded by God (even if there are stories in Scripture of wife-beating happening).

You are simplifying Scripture and Christianity and by doing so are blinding yourself to the Truth.

From my perspective it is wrong therefore I can call it wrong.

I can even give you reasons for my belief that it is wrong without reference to God and you agree that I can do this. That is my basis.

Your statement about not being able to make claims without absolutes is wrong. It is a philosophy that is ill informed by reality, which sort of makes it redundant. For example I can state that a metre stick in my hand is a metre long and give good reasons for my belief, is it a metre long for everyone else's potential perspective? No, (see special relativity specifically Lotrenz contraction, or string theory if you wanna go a bit nuts however string theory hasn't come close to standards of scientific truth). Does that mean I can make no judgement on the length of the stick because they are no absolute lengths?

Btw I am very sympathetic to the objective moral stance (as in I am undecided on whether there could be an objective morality) however I would think that these standards are informed from biology and not a deity.

According to what's in bold, you are the judge of right and wrong. This means nothing to anyone else. A criminal could say it's right for him to rape and kill your wife or child. What can you say to that? It might be wrong for you but it is right for him.

My little brother is 20 years old he has been a believer in Christ his whole life until this year when he hit some rocky times in his life. For a little while he said he was protestant...he now claims to be agnostic. What is the difference between agnostic and athiest? Why are young adults so quick to claim they don't believe when times get tough?

It is very simple: people let experience and emotions decide their worldview and beliefs. So when someone wins the lottery or marries a beautiful woman or gets a great job, then God is good. But when their wife has a miscarriage or they lose their job or break their leg and can't play their favorite sport anymore, God is bad and out to get them.

We should look at the example of Job for a correct view of God. God is good ALL THE TIME. When war is going on, when we are having sex, when we are toiling in the fields, when we are watching tv, when we are holding our new baby, when we are diagnosed with cancer. God is ALWAYS good, but we leave in a sin-ravaged world.

Definition of an agnostic: a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

Definition of an atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

The gist of it is that an agnostic says "they can't know if there is a God for sure" and an atheist says "they know that God or gods don't exist".

Most atheists will call themselves "soft atheists" or "agnostic atheists" since the hard and sure line has been put to shame so many times in academic circles it isn't even funny. All you have to do is ask them how much of all the available information in the entire universe they think they know and if they are honest they will say something like 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of all the information. Then you just say, "and with that amount of knowledge you are sure God doesn't exist without knowing 99.999999999999999999999% of all there is to know?

A Christian says they know God confidently b/c the Holy Spirit communes with their spirit. This of course is foolishness to the world since they have worldly hearts and minds. So then the Christian will go on to talk about the evidence of Creation: it's beauty, it's order, it's detail, it's magnitude, etc. And they will talk about the moral code written on all of our hearts. We can also call on the textural evidence that supports Scripture more than any other piece in literature. Atheists will accept Homer's or Shakespeare's works as 100% authentic but when faced with the Bible, which has literally tens of thousands of more supporting documents within a close proximity to the original writings, they disregard it as fantasy. And other things like that that point to a Creator and a Loving God.

Then, either an atheist or agnostic accepts this overwhelming evidence, or they harden their heart even further and basically say if they can't taste, touch, hear, see and smell God, he doesn't exist. They don't understand the verse that tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God.

 

[Allegory]

Most atheists will call themselves "soft atheists" or "agnostic atheists" since the hard and sure line has been put to shame so many times in academic circles it isn't even funny. All you have to do is ask them how much of all the available information in the entire universe they think they know and if they are honest they will say something like 0.0000000000000000000000000001% of all the information. Then you just say, "and with that amount of knowledge you are sure God doesn't exist without knowing 99.999999999999999999999% of all there is to know?

To be fair, you can't know god exists any more than an atheist knows god doesn't exist. The reason most atheists will accept that there's a small probability of a god existing is because they have accepted the fact that it is not possible to know. But you have to understand that it's not like they're out denying the existence of Yahweh God, they give him as much consideration as they would, say, Thor or something like that.

A Christian says they know God confidently b/c the Holy Spirit communes with their spirit. This of course is foolishness to the world since they have worldly hearts and minds. So then the Christian will go on to talk about the evidence of Creation: it's beauty, it's order, it's detail, it's magnitude, etc. And they will talk about the moral code written on all of our hearts. We can also call on the textural evidence that supports Scripture more than any other piece in literature. Atheists will accept Homer's or Shakespeare's works as 100% authentic but when faced with the Bible, which has literally tens of thousands of more supporting documents within a close proximity to the original writings, they disregard it as fantasy. And other things like that that point to a Creator and a Loving God.

Then, either an atheist or agnostic accepts this overwhelming evidence, or they harden their heart even further and basically say if they can't taste, touch, hear, see and smell God, he doesn't exist. They don't understand the verse that tells us that without faith it is impossible to please God.

I don't really know what you're going on about that here, it's kinda stupid. Atheists don't think Shakespeare's work is non-fiction. Do you think the stories he wrote actually happened?

The problem with saying "I just feel God therefore he must exist" is that you're offering intangible evidence. Nobody can feel what you feel. Even if you do feel God, am I supposed to just take your word for it? And saying "Look at all the beauty and complexity" in the world isn't a very good argument either. Yeah I can see the beauty and complexity just like you can, but unlike you I can accept that there can be simple rules that govern complex things. And these rules have been shown to exist, so what more do you need?

I don't know, maybe you just need to become a mathematician or computer engineer to see what I'm saying.

 

[andross77]

To be fair, you can't know god exists any more than an atheist knows god doesn't exist. The reason most atheists will accept that there's a small probability of a god existing is because they have accepted the fact that it is not possible to know. But you have to understand that it's not like they're out denying the existence of Yahweh God, they give him as much consideration as they would, say, Thor or something like that.

I disagree with your first sentence. We can not "prove" God in some of the ways that atheists or other non-religious people think are the only acceptable ways but we as Christians do know that He exists b/c His Spirit reveals the Truth to us. So the difference is that us Christians KNOW 100% that God exists and we try and spread His Good News while you as an atheist HOPE that you are right but you can never really know for sure (you even admit to it). The difference is in the self-perception. We (Christians) KNOW for ourselves that God exists and is who He says He is (Love). You atheists HOPE that your theories about pre-existence and creation and meaning in life are correct. But you can't know for yourselves.

And it is not just a small probability that God exists. It is a LARGE "probability". Again, looking at Creation, seeing the moral code on our hearts and viewing the available physical textual evidence for Scripture are just 3 HUGE reasons why God "probably does exist" for those people that aren't Christian yet.

I don't really know what you're going on about that here, it's kinda stupid. Atheists don't think Shakespeare's work is non-fiction. Do you think the stories he wrote actually happened?

The problem with saying "I just feel God therefore he must exist" is that you're offering intangible evidence. Nobody can feel what you feel. Even if you do feel God, am I supposed to just take your word for it? And saying "Look at all the beauty and complexity" in the world isn't a very good argument either. Yeah I can see the beauty and complexity just like you can, but unlike you I can accept that there can be simple rules that govern complex things. And these rules have been shown to exist, so what more do you need?

I don't know, maybe you just need to become a mathematician or computer engineer to see what I'm saying.

It really isn't stupid. I am not saying you think that Shakespeare's writings are non-fiction. I'm saying that everyone accepts Shakespeare's work as Shakespeare's work or Homer's writings as Homer's writings. My question is that then why do you not accept God's writings as God's writings? He wrote His Word over thousands of years using dozens of people and it is all in agreement, has hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled and has more textural evidence backing it up that it is what it says it is (God's Word) than any other piece of literature in the world.

That is what i'm trying to say and hopefully you still don't think it's "stupid".

And i realize that one of the main differences between a Christian and a non-Christian is their sense of awe. So whereas you look at Creation and see some cool flowers and some cool birds, i see a loving God that in His creativity designed hundreds of species of beautiful birds and flowers that all live in harmony. You see a body of water and a few stars and see the bottomless depths of the ocean and the billions of stars in billions of galaxies and their gravitational pulls and pushes.

If you REALLY study the vastness of the universe and the minute complexities of the earth and the human body: dna, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, individual cells, amoeba's; You should come to believe that SOMEONE put it all in motion. Someone made sure that we can all exist together and that there is no chance this all just "exploded into being".

If you don't, your heart is hard. It doesn't mean you are stupid, or haven't thought about these things a lot or can't make an intelligent, informed opinion, but your heart is hard. And it won't be until the end of time when Jesus returns that your hearts will be opened to His Majesty and the true glory of His Creation. And at that point it will be too late.

So i'll just keep harping along until that day happens in hopes that the scales fall from just one of your guys' eyes.

Blessings.

 

[Allegory]

I disagree with your first sentence. We can not "prove" God in some of the ways that atheists or other non-religious people think are the only acceptable ways but we as Christians do know that He exists b/c His Spirit reveals the Truth to us. So the difference is that us Christians KNOW 100% that God exists and we try and spread His Good News while you as an atheist HOPE that you are right but you can never really know for sure (you even admit to it). The difference is in the self-perception. We (Christians) KNOW for ourselves that God exists and is who He says He is (Love). You atheists HOPE that your theories about pre-existence and creation and meaning in life are correct. But you can't know for yourselves.

And it is not just a small probability that God exists. It is a LARGE "probability". Again, looking at Creation, seeing the moral code on our hearts and viewing the available physical textual evidence for Scripture are just 3 HUGE reasons why God "probably does exist" for those people that aren't Christian yet.

The problem you're running into here is that this isn't really very good evidence for God. You could make the same arguments for any other non-Christian God. Why is it that this God exists and not others?

Although, now that I think about it, you'll tell me Yahweh God has revealed himself as himself...or whatever. I don't know, there's not really any arguing with what you're saying because I really can't. How you feel is how you feel.

It really isn't stupid. I am not saying you think that Shakespeare's writings are non-fiction. I'm saying that everyone accepts Shakespeare's work as Shakespeare's work or Homer's writings as Homer's writings. My question is that then why do you not accept God's writings as God's writings? He wrote His Word over thousands of years using dozens of people and it is all in agreement, has hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled and has more textural evidence backing it up that it is what it says it is (God's Word) than any other piece of literature in the world.

That is what i'm trying to say and hopefully you still don't think it's "stupid".

Sorry, I misunderstood what you were trying to say in that case. However hasn't everyone basically concluded that the Bible is God's word interpreted by people and written down? Obviously someone wrote it, there's no denying that, but to make a claim that God wrote it is quite a bit different than saying William Shakespeare penned Othello.

And i realize that one of the main differences between a Christian and a non-Christian is their sense of awe. So whereas you look at Creation and see some cool flowers and some cool birds, i see a loving God that in His creativity designed hundreds of species of beautiful birds and flowers that all live in harmony. You see a body of water and a few stars and see the bottomless depths of the ocean and the billions of stars in billions of galaxies and their gravitational pulls and pushes.

If you REALLY study the vastness of the universe and the minute complexities of the earth and the human body: dna, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, individual cells, amoeba's; You should come to believe that SOMEONE put it all in motion. Someone made sure that we can all exist together and that there is no chance this all just "exploded into being".

If you don't, your heart is hard. It doesn't mean you are stupid, or haven't thought about these things a lot or can't make an intelligent, informed opinion, but your heart is hard. And it won't be until the end of time when Jesus returns that your hearts will be opened to His Majesty and the true glory of His Creation. And at that point it will be too late.

So i'll just keep harping along until that day happens in hopes that the scales fall from just one of your guys' eyes.

Blessings.

Why would someone have to do that though? There are so many elegant mathematical explanations for why things happen the way they do that it's really unnecessary that such a being would be needed to bring us into existence. Certainly nobody has all the answers as religion claims to, but as Bran put it so brilliantly in her thread, "having an answer is different from having the right answer".

 

[Yekcidmij]

There is no objective evidence of the existence of a higher power.

To make this statement you would have to survey everything. Your only logical position should be agnostic.

Standard of good and bad is subjective, based on culture and society.

I will have to parrot what I said in that last post. Who is society accountable to? If society violates one of their standards, who are they accoutable to for what they "ought" to do? The answer you should give is "nobody". Societies morality is arbitrary.

Not sure what I didn't answer. Like I said, it's been really busy! Buying a new car, selling my old one, finishing finals, getting Xmas presents, going to Xmas parties... I'm already worn out and it's not even Xmas yet! So I'm sorry I don't have time to thoroughly analyze every single sentence the way I would like to be able to, given infinite time. I wish some other atheists would step up and help out! Anyways...

Hey no problem at all. I drove for 11 hours yesterday becasue my leave period started and I had to get home for Christmas. So, take your time because I won't be able to respond as fast as I normally would either.

To answer: why I assume he doesn't exist: there is no objective scientific evidence. It's that simple.

OK. This partially answers my question. What kind of evidence do you need? Scientific. What scientific evidence do you have that allows you to use science itself? Your answer will likely be circular if you somehow presuppose science to answer this question.

No. You said it yourself. They are extremists.

Yea, I acknowledge objective morals so I'm allowed to say that. You say they are based on society and guess what their small society says? They say they ought to fly planes into buildings. In your model, they cannot possibly be wrong or immoral.

No. Society in general does not feel genocide is right.

Which society? Some of them certainly feel that it is needed. In your model, genocide is not immoral so long as it's done by a society.

Try Dictionary.com.

Yea, it says an organized group of persons....how ambiguous can this definition get? I encourage everyone to go read this one for yourself.

See above. One does not just define society on a whim and claim all are members.

Says who? The dictionary? Who made the dictionary the final authority and how is the dictionary going to enforce it's rules? I see, society made the dictionary, wich includes societies definition for "society". It doesn't get much more circular than that. So who is it that says I cannot create a new society? Martin Luther King Jr. did so I can too.

Technically, yes, they could do all those things. And society has to be accountable to the people/individual. There is no one else to be accountable to.

Bam! Finally. Society is accountable to society. If society violates its morals then they are in quite a bind because they are accountable to nobody. All of that to show that this big circular argument makes societies morality very circular and arbitrary. And if society is accountable to the individual as you said, then morality is really based on individual's morals. Now what's moral for you is not moral for me and we are getting very close to the verge of complete absurdity. In your model, morality depends on the individual and morality is therefore based on each individual's very arbitrary moral decisions. And who are the individuals accountable to? Themselves of course which makes for yet another circular argument.

Didn't you complain about circular arguments some time ago?

I'm sure you will have a response, but we've almost established the axiological argument for the existence of God.

If you want, you can give me the best that you've got, but I'm not going to waste your time trying to have you prove something that has no proof. If there was, faith would not be necessary.

You have already decided before hand that there is no proof, then you ask me for proof. Haha....why even bother?

Society is accountable to the individual.

I addressed this mostly above. Then morality is circular and an individual's choices are arbitrary.

Whoa there. Things don't need to be true in 100% of cases to be applicable.

Sure, it's just not applicable in this case. See how easy it is to refute arbitrary statements?

What I want to know is this: if morality is absolute, why are morals different for different cultures and different time periods?

Yes, and the bible has an answer, but you will undoubtedly not like it. It talks about sin and it's effects all throughout it.



Again, you skipped over my part on logic. You did not justify it's use and cannot do so anyway without being circular and arbitrary, so in order you to stay consistent, you must stop using logic.

 

[karisma]

To answer your question in bold, no, God will never command something that is immoral. You raise valid objections at the end and i don't have the time or research to respond to you but you have to take each circumstance in context.

If God stated it was moral to kill others at will, it would have to be moral, since according to you, God is the source of morality.

Just the first one for example, polygamy. Please tell me where it says God says polygamy is ok. He doesn't.

It doesn't explicitly state that, but there were many cases of men who "found favor in the eyes of God" who were polygamists, and God never told them to not have multiple wives, so it was obviously morally acceptable.

And i could do this with each of your examples that you listed. God does not, and never has, approve of polygamy, incest, self-mutilation, castration, wife-beating or human sacrifice. Want me to find a verse in the Koran that commands Muslims to beat their wives? I can do that in 2 minutes. Want me to find a verse in the Bible that commands us to beat our wives? I can take the rest of my life and i will not find it in there b/c it was never commanded by God (even if there are stories in Scripture of wife-beating happening).

Right. My point is that there are no absolute morals. There are societal morals, family morals, and individual morals. But there are no absolute morals; they all are, to some extent, relative.

 

[karisma]

To make this statement you would have to survey everything. Your only logical position should be agnostic.

Do I need to try every single squash in the world before declaring I think it's the most disgusting vegetable I've ever tasted and it makes me feel like I'm going to vomit?

According to you, the only logical position about anything would be to be agnostic or undecided... about the presence of unicorns, elves, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink elephants, or flying space walruses.

I will have to parrot what I said in that last post. Who is society accountable to? If society violates one of their standards, who are they accoutable to for what they "ought" to do? The answer you should give is "nobody". Societies morality is arbitrary.

I already said in a previous post society has no one else to be accountable to.

Hey no problem at all. I drove for 11 hours yesterday becasue my leave period started and I had to get home for Christmas. So, take your time because I won't be able to respond as fast as I normally would either.

OK, but I may not be around the next few days. 4 straight days of family get togethers

OK. This partially answers my question. What kind of evidence do you need? Scientific. What scientific evidence do you have that allows you to use science itself? Your answer will likely be circular if you somehow presuppose science to answer this question.

Like I said, there is no evidence, so don't waste your time. That's why religion is based on faith.

Yea, I acknowledge objective morals so I'm allowed to say that. You say they are based on society and guess what their small society says? They say they ought to fly planes into buildings. In your model, they cannot possibly be wrong or immoral.

No, their society does not say that. It is a small group of religous extremists.

Which society? Some of them certainly feel that it is needed. In your model, genocide is not immoral so long as it's done by a society.

Right. Technicially, if a society/culture determines genocide is ok, who is to say they are wrong? It's all relative.

Says who? The dictionary? Who made the dictionary the final authority and how is the dictionary going to enforce it's rules?

Words ultimately have no meaning if one can just change all the definitions on a whim.

Bam! Finally. Society is accountable to society. If society violates its morals then they are in quite a bind because they are accountable to nobody. All of that to show that this big circular argument makes societies morality very circular and arbitrary.

I'm not denying that. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why do they need to be accountable to someone?

And if society is accountable to the individual as you said, then morality is really based on individual's morals. Now what's moral for you is not moral for me and we are getting very close to the verge of complete absurdity. In your model, morality depends on the individual and morality is therefore based on each individual's very arbitrary moral decisions. And who are the individuals accountable to? Themselves of course which makes for yet another circular argument.

There are lots of kinds of morality (cultural, familial, individual). But yes. I agree. We are getting somewhere. You seem to think they must be accountable to a higher power. I say, they don't (because there is none).

Didn't you complain about circular arguments some time ago?

Yes. I said we have no way of knowing if God is truly "good" or not.

I addressed this mostly above. Then morality is circular and an individual's choices are arbitrary.

Right. Just because you don't like that or it scares you doesn't make it not true.

Yes, and the bible has an answer, but you will undoubtedly not like it. It talks about sin and it's effects all throughout it.

You stated previously that you believed in absolute morality because it's something inherent in all of us. My point is it's not inherent, because different cultures have different ideas about what is moral and what is not.

 

[Maxwell511]

According to what's in bold, you are the judge of right and wrong. This means nothing to anyone else. A criminal could say it's right for him to rape and kill your wife or child. What can you say to that?

If someone says to me that something is right or at least not wrong I would not take that as an agrument. Saying you think are right to do something isn't justification, you sort of have to say why you are right to do it.

What I would say to such a man would probably be the pretty close to what you would say to him.

You know that as an am an atheist I believe that your morals are not from a deity and are simply from your perspective. The only difference is that when I give my reasons for why his actions are wrong I just don't say cos it is in Bible. All you have is one extra reason that is based on your theological beliefs.

I'm curious, do you think that if God does not exist that it could be possible to justifiy as a moral action the raping and killing of someone's wife? Personally I cannot conceive any. I can conceive why it is wrong, none about how it could be the right thing to do. Now I could imagine people with supernatural beliefs thinking so (as in the was something their god liked) but personally I view that as madness.

 

[jonpaul]

how do you respond to the great abundance of evidence in support of the New Testament?

by evidence i mean references from secular sources such as tacitus and pliny the younger, the historical reliability and archealogical support for the text itself,and the fact that both christ and the apostles suffered greatly and died horribly in defense of the gospel.

 

[Allegory]

how do you respond to the great abundance of evidence in support of the New Testament?

by evidence i mean references from secular sources such as tacitus and pliny the younger, the historical reliability and archealogical support for the text itself,and the fact that both christ and the apostles suffered greatly and died horribly in defense of the gospel.

Mmm... Care to hit us up with some reading material on this?

 

[telegram]

I disagree with your first sentence. We can not "prove" God in some of the ways that atheists or other non-religious people think are the only acceptable ways but we as Christians do know that He exists b/c His Spirit reveals the Truth to us. So the difference is that us Christians KNOW 100% that God exists and we try and spread His Good News while you as an atheist HOPE that you are right but you can never really know for sure (you even admit to it). The difference is in the self-perception. We (Christians) KNOW for ourselves that God exists and is who He says He is (Love). You atheists HOPE that your theories about pre-existence and creation and meaning in life are correct. But you can't know for yourselves.

Well, I think anyone who claims to have any knowledge on these issues probably don't. Atheists and Theists. The Holy Spirit that gives you your "knowledge" doesn't actually have to be the Holy Spirit. Many people, especially when dealing with the irrational, can get themselves to a point where they feel like they can claim knowledge on a particular subject (even though they probably don't know what they think it is that they know) and this is especially easy when dealing with the unknown. And when you have an excuse to reject logic or rational thinking.

And it is not just a small probability that God exists. It is a LARGE "probability". Again, looking at Creation, seeing the moral code on our hearts and viewing the available physical textual evidence for Scripture are just 3 HUGE reasons why God "probably does exist" for those people that aren't Christian yet.

"Creation" just points to a Creator, not your God. And then again, reasons for believing in Creation are a little shaky and on don't rest on evidence. The "moral code" in our hearts is based on logic, rationality, and empathy. As well as other things. We know killing is wrong because we don't want to be killed. We don't want our loved ones to killed. And, many of us, don't like to hurt other people. Evidence for scripture is just historical evidence, which provides no evidence for the supernatural elements of scripture.

It really isn't stupid. I am not saying you think that Shakespeare's writings are non-fiction. I'm saying that everyone accepts Shakespeare's work as Shakespeare's work or Homer's writings as Homer's writings. My question is that then why do you not accept God's writings as God's writings? He wrote His Word over thousands of years using dozens of people and it is all in agreement, has hundreds of prophecies that were fulfilled and has more textural evidence backing it up that it is what it says it is (God's Word) than any other piece of literature in the world.

Well, actually, not everyone believes that Shakespeare's writing was his. But that's another story. We have numerous sources telling us that Homer and Shakespeare existed. We don't have that for God. As far as the prophecies being fulfilled, could you provide some examples and sources?

And i realize that one of the main differences between a Christian and a non-Christian is their sense of awe. So whereas you look at Creation and see some cool flowers and some cool birds, i see a loving God that in His creativity designed hundreds of species of beautiful birds and flowers that all live in harmony. You see a body of water and a few stars and see the bottomless depths of the ocean and the billions of stars in billions of galaxies and their gravitational pulls and pushes.

The universe we exist in is beautiful. Not all of the time though. But I see the same things you see, I can't really say what I see gives me any reason to believe in a Creator though. But I feel a very strong connection to the world around me. I appreciate every second of it. I don't just look at in some very logical/scientific way. Though, science does provide an explanation to many of the things I see.

If you REALLY study the vastness of the universe and the minute complexities of the earth and the human body: dna, protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, individual cells, amoeba's; You should come to believe that SOMEONE put it all in motion. Someone made sure that we can all exist together and that there is no chance this all just "exploded into being".

I have studied it. I don't understand why someone had to put it into motion. That thinking is just a matter of applying patterns we are used to here on Earth to a subject we really know nothing about. Which is why we're here and how we got here.

Everyone feels a connection to something when they look outside. When they look at nature. And it's our natural reaction to want to put another intelligent being at the other end of that connection. That's how we live here on Earth and we want to know that same connection exists outside of Earth. Putting an intelligent being at the other end of that connection gives us comfort. But it's us putting an intelligent being at the other end of that connection whether we realize that or not. And we're not doing it consciously. We don't really know what's at the end of that connection. We can speculate. We might be wrong, we might be right. But we can't know.

 

[kallenfranchise]

The fulfillment of prophecy in the book of Revelation should convince anyone to believe and follow in Christ. Why not you? Why do you continue to deny Christ? Why do you continue to justify sin?

 

[Allegory]

The fulfillment of prophecy in the book of Revelation should convince anyone to believe and follow in Christ. Why not you? Why do you continue to deny Christ? Why do you continue to justify sin?

I mostly do it just to spite Christians, you know. They can't seem to stand the thought of me having a different viewpoint of the universe so I just, you know, just do it to make them uncomfortable.

 

[andross77]

Well, I think anyone who claims to have any knowledge on these issues probably don't. Atheists and Theists. The Holy Spirit that gives you your "knowledge" doesn't actually have to be the Holy Spirit. Many people, especially when dealing with the irrational, can get themselves to a point where they feel like they can claim knowledge on a particular subject (even though they probably don't know what they think it is that they know) and this is especially easy when dealing with the unknown. And when you have an excuse to reject logic or rational thinking.



"Creation" just points to a Creator, not your God. And then again, reasons for believing in Creation are a little shaky and on don't rest on evidence. The "moral code" in our hearts is based on logic, rationality, and empathy. As well as other things. We know killing is wrong because we don't want to be killed. We don't want our loved ones to killed. And, many of us, don't like to hurt other people. Evidence for scripture is just historical evidence, which provides no evidence for the supernatural elements of scripture.



Well, actually, not everyone believes that Shakespeare's writing was his. But that's another story. We have numerous sources telling us that Homer and Shakespeare existed. We don't have that for God. As far as the prophecies being fulfilled, could you provide some examples and sources?



The universe we exist in is beautiful. Not all of the time though. But I see the same things you see, I can't really say what I see gives me any reason to believe in a Creator though. But I feel a very strong connection to the world around me. I appreciate every second of it. I don't just look at in some very logical/scientific way. Though, science does provide an explanation to many of the things I see.



I have studied it. I don't understand why someone had to put it into motion. That thinking is just a matter of applying patterns we are used to here on Earth to a subject we really know nothing about. Which is why we're here and how we got here.

Everyone feels a connection to something when they look outside. When they look at nature. And it's our natural reaction to want to put another intelligent being at the other end of that connection. That's how we live here on Earth and we want to know that same connection exists outside of Earth. Putting an intelligent being at the other end of that connection gives us comfort. But it's us putting an intelligent being at the other end of that connection whether we realize that or not. And we're not doing it consciously. We don't really know what's at the end of that connection. We can speculate. We might be wrong, we might be right. But we can't know.

thanks for disagreeing with me in an agreeable way . i need to go read a brief history of time and the universe in a nutshell. Then i need to read up on more apologetics. I always love to discuss existence and meaning with atheists or anyone, even if i don't "win" the argument.

The best argument is obvious living a life of love but i still believe some types of people respond to rational and logical arguments. So i just need to sharpen my ability to coherently explain the rational, logical, experiental and cosmological reasons for the existence of God. I know they exist, i just have a hard time verbalizing it

 

[Yekcidmij]

Do I need to try every single squash in the world before declaring I think it's the most disgusting vegetable I've ever tasted and it makes me feel like I'm going to vomit?

You don't have to do anything. But your personal preferences mean very little to this conversation.

According to you, the only logical position about anything would be to be agnostic or undecided... about the presence of unicorns, elves, flying spaghetti monsters, invisible pink elephants, or flying space walruses.

Well, you can always declare (as you already have) that God doesn't exist. But there is no way you can prove that claim so it's best to stop making the statement. Your example here also commits the fallacy of equivication. It's not a good comparison to compare God to whatever it was you mentioned.

I already said in a previous post society has no one else to be accountable to.

Yep, arbitrary.

Like I said, there is no evidence, so don't waste your time. That's why religion is based on faith.

How do you know there is no evidence? You must be pretty all knowing.

No, their society does not say that. It is a small group of religous extremists.

So are you defining for them what their society is? Your in a different society (or are you?) and cannot tell them how to define their own culture.

Right. Technicially, if a society/culture determines genocide is ok, who is to say they are wrong? It's all relative.

Look at what you wrote; look at what you are forced to agree to! So now you are reduced to ridiculous positions such as agreeing that genocide is ok. In your model you are forced to say that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were highly immoral since they went against "society". Why in the world would anyone agree with you?

Well, at least you are making an attempt to be consistent, but you are failing. Who are you to say morality is relative for them? It seems you are making an appeal to some absolute authority by which to tell them this when you believe in no such authority (more below on this). Arbitrary.

I'm not denying that. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Why do they need to be accountable to someone?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp a higher authority? Why do you have to be accountable to yourself?

Becuase there is a sense of "ought" in moral values. I should do [blank] or I ought to do [blank]. That ought is not to society and especially not to myself.

Yes. I said we have no way of knowing if God is truly "good" or not.

I have no reason to think that He's evil. As a matter of fact, my model excludes that completely.

Right. Just because you don't like that or it scares you doesn't make it not true.

Just because you don't like the idea of God doesn't mean He doesn't exist and don't assume that whatever it was, scares me. When I said your choices are arbitrary what that means is your reasoning and rationality is whacked up. Your argument(s) is/are terrible because they are arbitrary.

You cannot define for me (in your model) what morality is. You say morality is cultural dependent/relative, well by doing that you are making an appeal to another absolute truth, namely that morality is relative.

You stated previously that you believed in absolute morality because it's something inherent in all of us. My point is it's not inherent, because different cultures have different ideas about what is moral and what is not.

Yes, and some of them are wrong.




I also noticed that you keep skipping my comments on your use of logic. I don't know why. But I am glad we seem to have gotten past the circular argument part. Everyone will eventually argue in a circle when it comes to talking about the final authority as we have finally seen. And I don't have a real problem with that because I know it happens and I think you see it now too. But if you are going to argue for individuals or cultures as the final authorities you are going to run into serious problems. You are demonstrating this fact too. You cannot condemn genocide since it can be moral in your model and you cannot commend reformers of society since they are immoral.

You also cannot appeal to a source of absolute truth which you have managed to do multiple times. The problem we keep running to is that I don't agree with your source of authority on morality and you don't agree with mine. But we know one or the other is wrong; maybe it's me and maybe it's you. You appeal to culture or individuals as final authority for morality and I appeal to God as the source of morality. My view excludes your final authority and your view excludes my final authority and we have a conflict because we both know that we are not both correct. If it is indeed true that individuals or societies are the final authority for morals then you cannot possibly tell me anything (and by 'anything' I literally mean anything), becuase every time you think and speak or type you are going to make absolute truth statements and adhere to laws that are not culturally dependent thereby appealing to some authority that is beyond individuals and cultures that you don't believe in. You cannot avoid it. I think that morals are part of these absolute laws that everyone appeals to at times, but they are the easiest to dismiss and usually the first truths to discard. When you say that morals are relative you are appealing to the absolute truth claim by saying it is true that "morals are relative". Now if it is indeed true for all people and all cultures that "morals are culturally dependent" then you have appealed to an authority beyond cultures for that truth. But that should be impossible in you model shouldn't it?

 

[andross77]

You don't have to do anything. But your personal preferences mean very little to this conversation.



Well, you can always declare (as you already have) that God doesn't exist. But there is no way you can prove that claim so it's best to stop making the statement. Your example here also commits the fallacy of equivication. It's not a good comparison to compare God to whatever it was you mentioned.



Yep, arbitrary.



How do you know there is no evidence? You must be pretty all knowing.



So are you defining for them what their society is? Your in a different society (or are you?) and cannot tell them how to define their own culture.



Look at what you wrote; look at what you are forced to agree to! So now you are reduced to ridiculous positions such as agreeing that genocide is ok. In your model you are forced to say that Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were highly immoral since they went against "society". Why in the world would anyone agree with you?

Well, at least you are making an attempt to be consistent, but you are failing. Who are you to say morality is relative for them? It seems you are making an appeal to some absolute authority by which to tell them this when you believe in no such authority (more below on this). Arbitrary.




Why is it so hard for you to grasp a higher authority? Why do you have to be accountable to yourself?

Becuase there is a sense of "ought" in moral values. I should do [blank] or I ought to do [blank]. That ought is not to society and especially not to myself.





I have no reason to think that He's evil. As a matter of fact, my model excludes that completely.



Just because you don't like the idea of God doesn't mean He doesn't exist and don't assume that whatever it was, scares me. When I said your choices are arbitrary what that means is your reasoning and rationality is whacked up. Your argument(s) is/are terrible because they are arbitrary.

You cannot define for me (in your model) what morality is. You say morality is cultural dependent/relative, well by doing that you are making an appeal to another absolute truth, namely that morality is relative.




Yes, and some of them are wrong.




I also noticed that you keep skipping my comments on your use of logic. I don't know why. But I am glad we seem to have gotten past the circular argument part. Everyone will eventually argue in a circle when it comes to talking about the final authority as we have finally seen. And I don't have a real problem with that because I know it happens and I think you see it now too. But if you are going to argue for individuals or cultures as the final authorities you are going to run into serious problems. You are demonstrating this fact too. You cannot condemn genocide since it can be moral in your model and you cannot commend reformers of society since they are immoral.

You also cannot appeal to a source of absolute truth which you have managed to do multiple times. The problem we keep running to is that I don't agree with your source of authority on morality and you don't agree with mine. But we know one or the other is wrong; maybe it's me and maybe it's you. You appeal to culture or individuals as final authority for morality and I appeal to God as the source of morality. My view excludes your final authority and your view excludes my final authority and we have a conflict because we both know that we are not both correct. If it is indeed true that individuals or societies are the final authority for morals then you cannot possibly tell me anything (and by 'anything' I literally mean anything), becuase every time you think and speak or type you are going to make absolute truth statements and adhere to laws that are not culturally dependent thereby appealing to some authority that is beyond individuals and cultures that you don't believe in. You cannot avoid it. I think that morals are part of these absolute laws that everyone appeals to at times, but they are the easiest to dismiss and usually the first truths to discard. When you say that morals are relative you are appealing to the absolute truth claim by saying it is true that "morals are relative". Now if it is indeed true for all people and all cultures that "morals are culturally dependent" then you have appealed to an authority beyond cultures for that truth. But that should be impossible in you model shouldn't it?

Your ability to put into words these apologetics is outstanding. But i fear that the atheists here do not want to hear the truth and are set in their ways (we have heard the truth and the truth has already set us free).

There is nothing scarier for an atheist than to be confronted by the Living God.

 

[SaintInChicago]

karisma I have a question for you:

Thermodynamics shows that the universe will end in heat death. Therefore we can know that the universe had a beginning because if it has an end it cannot exist infinitely into the past. So which is the most reasonable explanation to you:

The universe created itself.

The universe popped out of nowhere for no reason.

Something created the universe.

 

[noodle]

Well, at lease you're getting courious about something other than Atheistiam.