Question to Atheists

[quatona]

If she were to suddenly disappear, would you look for her?

What´s that got to do with anything? If my girlfriend suddenly disappeared, her existence would have been obvious to me before, in the first place.

 

[quatona]

Something that happens very often in nearly ANY kind of debate (regardless of topic) is for people to use in-group out-group jargon. For example, we educate, but you brainwash. We skillfully manage while you manipulate. We encourage while you pressure. We share ideas while you force your views.

I have even seen people calling the fact that something is obvious " [its] existence is shoved in your face irrefutably". If memory serves it was even in this very post. Go figure.

 

[LostWarrior]

Hi lost,

Sometimes we end up punishing ourselves. As tasty and wonderful as ice cream is, it would soon become hell if it's all I had to eat every day for the next 20 years.

My views on hell as a lake of fire where people go to burn forever and ever are not exactly traditional. Perhaps there really is such a place. Maybe people will burn forever or maybe they burn for a fixed period of time until they've paid for their sins and then burn up into nothing.

Who knows for sure, maybe there is a chance for repentance in hell itself, but who wants to go there to find out?

My personal understanding is that, regardless of whatever "painful hell" may exist, the more significant hell is simply being away from the love of God. Because God has standards and because we have free choice it may not be fair to put all the blame of punishment squarely on to God's shoulders.

For example, if we get caught speeding by the police and are forced to pay a fine, is it really the police punishing us, or did we do it to ourselves? The truth is probably a mixture of both.

Being fined by the police is, according to the law, because we were doing something that was putting in risk our own life or the life of others. Believes don't have that risk.

Perhaps the roles are reversed here now. It's not up to me to explain why a document containing information on a particular issue is evidence relating to the issue. It's your job to explain why it should be inadmissible.

Because quoting the Bible assumes your God exists while we are trying to discuss his existance.

I can't figure out if this is sarcasm of if I'm just not understanding you.

I said you couldn't explain something that you didn't know to exist (we were talking about how people saw gravity before Newton). You said that's possible towards learning. I said you can only learn if other people assume or know that such a thing exists, right?

I don't want to navigate back to the actual quote cause I'm tired now but you definitely expressed the idea that the abuses were not happening after 1500. Maybe you can go the extra mile and produce the quote yourself? I think it would show a lot of integrity on your part and if I was mistaken then I'm fine to apologize.

«From the Universe. "Where did the Universe come from?". From nowhere. "Right! And nothing can come from nowhere blah blah blah". Yea, I know that one. This is a logical failure, because you say nothing can come from nowhere but then you open an exception and say "Well, nothing can come from nowhere except this amazing being I call God". Of course you could also say "God existed all the time. He never non-existed" but that would open two problems:
1. Prove that something can be timeless.
2. Why can you apply that "timeless" concept to the Universe itself?»

 

[razeontherock]

This only used to be a problem: science has concluded the Universe had a beginning. And that "before" there was matter, there wasn't time either. (Not that the use of the word before is appropriate in this sentence, we just don't have any better way to relate the idea)

In fact, science concludes that time, matter and space are inseparable. And looky there! That's exactly the first thing the Bible tells us: in the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth. (matter)

 

[candle glow]

No, we can make informed choices about what people tell us God wants.

Okay it's good that we are able to agree about being informed.

Whose teachings?

Well, I am suggesting the teachings of Jesus as the best example of a set of teachings which deal practically and fairly with a wide range of issues.

But the point I'm trying to make is, even if there is no author to sign his/her name to the teachings, are we able to look at the merits of the teachings and practice them based on that alone?

Does that mean God´s existence or non-existence is a non-issue?

Haha if it matters to you then I suppose it matters, doesn't it?

that´s merely a conversation between you and you.

Hey, don't pick on me!

Yeah, don't pick on me!

so that we can concentrate on the reasons behind the teachings, instead of concentrating the fact that it´s what God commands us to?

It depends on where you are coming from. The law is for the lawless. Some people respond better by being told what to do. Some people respond better by trial and error.

Whatever the starting point, the basic idea is to learn what the reasoning is behind the rules and internalize the lessons, at which point the rules cease to be rules anymore and become a way of life which we would continue acting on even without the rule, specifically because we understand the reasoning and want it to be a part of our lives.

Which ever way you approach it, one always leads to the other anyway.

Personally, I consider some of the bible teachings and the reasonings behind them (as far as reasonings are given, at all) good advice, and some not so good advice. So where does that leave me?

I dunno, the situation is still a bit too generalized. Can you give an example of a teaching you feel you can agree with and one you feel is not so good?

 

[Skaloop]

I find a lot of comfort in being able to say, "The universe in a little blob of plasma; neato" and then get back what's actually important here and now.

That's fine for you. Some people have a greater interest in that little blob of plasma, and want to understand the nature of it. Developing this understanding could have very important implications in the here and now.

 

[LostWarrior]

This only used to be a problem: science has concluded the Universe had a beginning. And that "before" there was matter, there wasn't time either. (Not that the use of the word before is appropriate in this sentence, we just don't have any better way to relate the idea)

In fact, science concludes that time, matter and space are inseparable. And looky there! That's exactly the first thing the Bible tells us: in the beginning (time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth. (matter)

Then what is God, how is it possible for Him to exist, and how did he came into existance?
Because that's the part where it goes against science.

 

[quatona]

Okay it's good that we are able to agree about being informed.

Jokes are fine and dandy - as long as you don´t forget to address the point.

But the point I'm trying to make is, even if there is no author to sign his/her name to the teachings, are we able to look at the merits of the teachings and practice them based on that alone?

I did understand that this was the point you tried to make - but it distracts from the actual question that was being discussed and that you responded to: What´s the point in God not making his existence obvious to everyone?

Haha if it matters to you then I suppose it matters, doesn't it?

No, it doesn´t matter to me. However, I thought it was the key point in being a theist. Now, if doesn´t matter to you, as well, I guess we can drop any questions regarding God.

It depends on where you are coming from. The law is for the lawless. Some people respond better by being told what to do. Some people respond better by trial and error.

Whatever the starting point, the basic idea is to learn what the reasoning is behind the rules and internalize the lessons, at which point the rules cease to be rules anymore and become a way of life which we would continue acting on even without the rule, specifically because we understand the reasoning and want it to be a part of our lives.

Which ever way you approach it, one always leads to the other anyway.

Why is it I always get the impression you say a lot of good stuff - yet it always moves away from what was the point of discussion?
So again, in light of your above paragraph, how does the fact that God plays hide and seek help with either of these approaches?

I dunno, the situation is still a bit too generalized. Can you give an example of a teaching you feel you can agree with and one you feel is not so good?

No, I certainly am not going to do this. It´s not necessary for discussing the question we are discussing. It will just lead further away from my question being answered.

 

[candle glow]

That's fine for you. Some people have a greater interest in that little blob of plasma, and want to understand the nature of it. Developing this understanding could have very important implications in the here and now.

Like what kind of important implications?

Then what is God, how is it possible for Him to exist, and how did he came into existance?
Because that's the part where it goes against science.

For the first 3 questions, I dunno.

For the second part, I get the feeling your own personal understanding of science is probably not to the point that you can confidently exclude from science entities which you are not able to contain in your test tube just because you can't see it.

It's like that for most of the world, I think.

Jokes are fine and dandy - as long as you don´t forget to address the point.

It's not a joke. You started by suggesting that you were not able to get an informed opinion. I suggested you were. You made a counter suggestion to mine, but that counter suggestion still included the option to be informed.

What´s the point in God not making his existence obvious to everyone?

Because he wants to give people something not to choose. It would be a bit like a dictator suddenly deciding to have multiparty elections. Why would he do that if he wanted to maintain power?

Well, maybe he decided that he wants to know who really wants him as their leader in a situation where they really are free to choose.

Obviously, if God did shove himself in our faces with irrefutable proof of his existence it would create A LOT of pressure to conform just because that's what's expected. But in a situation where people are free to choose whether he exists for them or not, the artificial pressure is not there.

It's just you and your very own choices.

No, it doesn´t matter to me. However, I thought it was the key point in being a theist. Now, if doesn´t matter to you, as well, I guess we can drop any questions regarding God.

Oh yes, it matters very much to me. I just assumed that you would not be asking a question which did not matter to you.

Why is it I always get the impression you say a lot of good stuff - yet it always moves away from what was the point of discussion?

Have you ever seen a person with a wandering eye?

So again, in light of your above paragraph, how does the fact that God plays hide and seek help with either of these approaches?

have you ever seen children playing with one another, and perhaps one child will bully another? When an authority figure steps out the child will most likely be very good and not bully the other children. The authority figure may even compliment all the children on how well behaved they are.

But when the authority figure leaves the children to play, what do you think will happen?

From my understanding, it's like that with us and God. Much like the naughty children who bully other kids because they think the authority figure is out of the room and not watching, some people have come to the conclusion that there is no authority figure because he has stepped out of the room for a bit.

God doesn't want children who are nice only because he's standing there with them in the room. That is the point of character, integrity, and compassion. What will we do when we are given total autonomy.

No, I certainly am not going to do this. It´s not necessary for discussing the question we are discussing. It will just lead further away from my question being answered.

Awwww... c'mon don't be like that. The issue is the merits of examining Jesus' teachings (in place of a visible irrefutable God) as worthy to apply or not. My question about examples which you said you feel you could agree with and others which you find more questionable is very much relevant.

oops, it's quite late here so I need to go. I'll check back tomorrow. thanks for the chat.

 

[razeontherock]

Then what is God, how is it possible for Him to exist, and how did he came into existance?
Because that's the part where it goes against science.

Disagreed that it goes against science. You are most welcome to demonstrate your positive claim.

He did not "come into existence."
What is G-d? Unknown. G-d is Spirit, and many things about this are revealed; however, the bottom line remains - unknown.
"How is it possible for Him to exist?" This is an irrational question, if one takes into account what the very word G-d attempts to refer to.

 

[Skaloop]

Like what kind of important implications?

Who knows. Maybe understanding it will help us figure out how to more safely harness nuclear power, and put an end to any potential energy crisis. It might allow us to make advances in medicine that will save millions of lives. Or it might just be an increase in human knowledge, which in itself is of value. I don't know. But that's not any reason to not study it as best we can in order to learn.

 

[razeontherock]

Who knows.

it might just be an increase in human knowledge, which in itself is of value. I don't know. But that's not any reason to not study it as best we can in order to learn.

Agreed. There are certain people, both within the body of Christ and w/o, who's life work is and should be pursuing science for its own sake. I'm simply not one of them (and neither is Candle Glow)

 

[Skaloop]

Agreed. There are certain people, both within the body of Christ and w/o, who's life work is and should be pursuing science for its own sake. I'm simply not one of them (and neither is Candle Glow)

I hope I didn't come across as meaning that everyone should be gung-ho about it. Totally understandable that not everyone has the level of interest required (I myself don't much care for history, but definitely see the benefit that comes from studying it).

But I have heard people say that studying the Big Bang, or some other sort of scientific endeavour without direct applications right now, is a waste of time. I was speaking more against that sort of attitude, rather than your sort of stance of "Interesting, but I'll leave it to the professionals."

 

[razeontherock]

Agreed again! And this is one more reason why C's should be in contact with atheists ...

 

[Skaloop]

Agreed again! And this is one more reason why C's should be in contact with atheists ...

Well, not necessarily atheists (although I think that's good, too) in this case, but scientists, certainly. Regardless of said scientists' religious views.

 

[quatona]

Have you ever seen a person with a wandering eye?

Yes, and I am not even trying to keep eye contact with them. Makes me all dizzy.

 

[candle glow]

Yes, and I am not even trying to keep eye contact with them. Makes me all dizzy.

Hey quatona, did you see my post in response to that stuff you were asking me about?

Who knows. Maybe understanding it will help us figure out how to more safely harness nuclear power, and put an end to any potential energy crisis. It might allow us to make advances in medicine that will save millions of lives. Or it might just be an increase in human knowledge, which in itself is of value. I don't know. But that's not any reason to not study it as best we can in order to learn.

I certainly don't have anything against learning. I think the motive is all important. The motives you describe here sound quite reasonable.

But razed is right. I don't got no brains fer seech stuff! My area of interest is more focused on social interaction rather than technical advances. I think they both are useful for achieving the same goal of helping people but they both require different personalities. Or maybe not! It's all just a big ball of plasmic mystery!

 

[LostWarrior]

Disagreed that it goes against science. You are most welcome to demonstrate your positive claim.

He did not "come into existence."
What is G-d? Unknown. G-d is Spirit, and many things about this are revealed; however, the bottom line remains - unknown.
"How is it possible for Him to exist?" This is an irrational question, if one takes into account what the very word G-d attempts to refer to.

You have just answered your own question (and if you still don't get it, then tell me what else is there on science that didn't come into existance; is unknown; and the questions "how is it possible for X to exist" is irrational).

 

[quatona]

Hey quatona, did you see my post in response to that stuff you were asking me about?

Yes, I have. Thanks for your explanations. Gotta admit, though, that with all of your posts I have a hard time selecting the relevant parts from the "wandering eye" stuff.
(Not blaming you for it - just trying to explain why your discussion style requires an extra effort from me to deal with your posts. I might give it a try tomorrow, ok?)

 

[candle glow]

Yes, I have. Thanks for your explanations. Gotta admit, though, that with all of your posts I have a hard time selecting the relevant parts from the "wandering eye" stuff.
(Not blaming you for it - just trying to explain why your discussion style requires an extra effort from me to deal with your posts. I might give it a try tomorrow, ok?)

Ok good. Regarding the wandering eye stuff, that was really just a joke. I don't see the same kind of wandering you do and I suspect that it's not so much that I am wandering, but that something is causing you to have trouble processing the information (possibly because I really AM giving you solid answers and you may not be used to that).