The Atheist's dilemma

[Aldebaran]

There is no original sin. This becomes a huge dilemma for a Christian to explain to non Christians in terms of why the world "needed" a Savior.

It is your burden to prove, not mine.

I think we all, as individuals, have a duty to ourselves to prove one way or another, what is true. Please don't assume that people who think there was no original sin must be correct. Yes, of course you're going to hear disagreements about certain issues. But don't let that make up your mind for you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

So would it be ok for them to give into the temptations of doing something you don't want them to do, and instructed them not to do, just because they think you're not looking?

Let's even put this on an adult level. Do you think it's ok to shoplift if no store employees are looking? How about vandalizing the property of someone you don't like if you knew you wouldn't get caught?

What you fail to realize is that even a 2 year old would have been better at resisting temptation than Adam and Eve. They wouldn't have been able to perceive disobeying god as a wrong choice, because they had no understanding of right or wrong. And given that the snake gave a more detailed and convincing argument, and technically didn't lie, as eating the fruit did give knowledge, and in and of itself didn't cause death, as per god ordering the fall itself and Adam and Eve remaining in Eden until god removed them to prevent them from eating from the tree of life.

But in any case, Adam and Eve would have been incapable of choosing good over evil, because they had no concept of a bad choice.

 

[Deidre32]

I think we all, as individuals, have a duty to ourselves to prove one way or another, what is true. Please don't assume that people who think there was no original sin must be correct. Yes, of course you're going to hear disagreements about certain issues. But don't let that make up your mind for you.

We can't prove that god exists or doesn't. That's the truth we all should be able to agree upon...if we're really thinking objectively.

The other thing is, I don't feel any such duty anymore, as you do. If a god exists, that is fine. If one doesn't, that is fine. I don't have a desire to seek 'truth' as it were, anymore. Because I don't believe we'll ever know for certain anyway, to me there are far more important things to do in the world, like helping those in need, giving of our time to the homeless, and vulnerable of society. Making an actual difference, instead of spinning our wheels looking for answers to things that may never have any.

 

[Aldebaran]

We can't prove that god exists or doesn't. That's the truth we all should be able to agree upon...if we're really thinking objectively.

Do you love someone? Can you "prove" it?

The other thing is, I don't feel any such duty anymore, as you do. If a god exists, that is fine. If one doesn't, that is fine. I don't have a desire to seek 'truth' as it were, anymore.

We all have to decide what's important to us. If truth isn't important in the most fundamental part of our existence, then few other things are. http://realtruth.org/articles/070601-006-teog.html

 

[Deidre32]

Do you love someone? Can you "prove" it?

are you mocking me?

We all have to decide what's important to us. If truth isn't important in the most fundamental part of our existence, then few other things are. The Existence of God – Logically Proven!

That's right. What is important to you, might not be to me. And vice versa. Objective truths are important to me, not hearsay, fables and opinions...no matter how fancy the arguments and flowery the language, in order to get our buy in. But, that's my pov.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

I don't have a desire to seek 'truth' as it were, anymore.

This is all I wanted to know.

 

[Deidre32]

This is all I wanted to know.

because truth (with a capital t) can't be known, for sure. that is why. pretending to know it? i don't believe in doing that.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

because truth (with a capital t) can't be known, for sure. that is why. pretending to know it? i don't believe in doing that.

Another self-refuting statement. It is the same as saying God is incomprehensible.

You say Truth cannot be known. But is that true?

 

[Deidre32]

Another self-refuting statement. It is the same as saying God is incomprehensible.

You say Truth cannot be known. But is that true?

Maybe ''it'' will be revealed some day, but to know for certain? As humans? I don't think so. When I was a Christian, I *thought* I knew Truth, or found it through Christianity. But, there were still 'mysteries' about it, of which didn't make sense. I accepted that, at that time.

I don't expect to know all things. But, I just happen to think that with all the varying religions before us, everyone can't be 'right.' It leads me to think that they are all wrong, since there are a lot of well intentioned, devout religious people from all religions, who believe as you do, with your own religion and faith.

I think if there is a god, he is not what I've been 'taught.' I think man has a deep rooted desire to have everything answered in this life, and for those things that seem to have no answers, he invents answers to help him cope with what he doesn't know. In walks the concept of a god.

Varying concepts of gods have dated back to caveman times, if you do the research. Man wants answers, and will create his own, if there are none.

That's what I think. That Truth (or truth lol) will always be subjective, when it comes to faith. If it were objective, all versions of god would be more uniform. Like you and I walking down the street, we see a dog, and we both may describe it slightly different, but we both acknowledge obvious traits about it. I don't call it a cat, and you call it a fish. It's a dog.

That's religion. Everyone 'competing' for whose god is best, or whose path to god is best and most accurate.

You can't know that. I used to believe a lot of things, but after a lot of time and research, and self reflection, it seems silly to think I could ever really know Truth. It is nothing but subjective, at the end of the day.

That's how I feel, anyway.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's religion. Everyone 'competing' for whose god is best, or whose path to god is best and most accurate.

Yes, that's "religion". Religion is man-made rules. Jesus condemned that. God is not religion.

Originally Posted by halfsaved

Do you love someone? Can you "prove" it?
​

are you mocking me?

Of course not! You said we can't prove God exists. The point I was trying to make is that God isn't something we can see, but the evidence of Him does, if we're willing acknowledge it. If you love someone, you can't prove that either except through actions. Love isn't something you can "see".

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

Maybe ''it'' will be revealed some day, but to know for certain? As humans? I don't think so. When I was a Christian, I *thought* I knew Truth, or found it through Christianity. But, there were still 'mysteries' about it, of which didn't make sense. I accepted that, at that time.

I don't expect to know all things. But, I just happen to think that with all the varying religions before us, everyone can't be 'right.' It leads me to think that they are all wrong, since there are a lot of well intentioned, devout religious people from all religions, who believe as you do, with your own religion and faith.

I think if there is a god, he is not what I've been 'taught.' I think man has a deep rooted desire to have everything answered in this life, and for those things that seem to have no answers, he invents answers to help him cope with what he doesn't know. In walks the concept of a god.

Varying concepts of gods have dated back to caveman times, if you do the research. Man wants answers, and will create his own, if there are none.

That's what I think. That Truth (or truth lol) will always be subjective, when it comes to faith. If it were objective, all versions of god would be more uniform. Like you and I walking down the street, we see a dog, and we both may describe it slightly different, but we both acknowledge obvious traits about it. I don't call it a cat, and you call it a fish. It's a dog.

That's religion. Everyone 'competing' for whose god is best, or whose path to god is best and most accurate.

You can't know that. I used to believe a lot of things, but after a lot of time and research, and self reflection, it seems silly to think I could ever really know Truth. It is nothing but subjective, at the end of the day.

That's how I feel, anyway.

You said that all religions cannot be right. I agree.

But if that leads you to believe that every religion is wrong, then that is something you have to live with.

Seems like a non-sequitur to me.

 

[Deidre32]

Yes, that's "religion". Religion is man-made rules. Jesus condemned that. God is not religion.



Of course not! You said we can't prove God exists. The point I was trying to make is that God isn't something we can see, but the evidence of Him does, if we're willing acknowledge it. If you love someone, you can't prove that either except through actions. Love isn't something you can "see".

I'm not following your point, but that's ok. It doesn't matter, really. If we disagree ...that's ok.

 

[Aldebaran]

I'm not following your point, but that's ok. It doesn't matter, really. If we disagree ...that's ok.

What I was trying to say is that we may not be able to directly prove something or someone exists by showing them to you and say, "Here it is!", but the effects of things can be shown to you in order to prove their existence.

You can't see the wind, but there is evidence that it's there. You can't see love, but it can be demonstrated. You can't see God, but his handiwork is everywhere.

 

[Deidre32]

What I was trying to say is that we may not be able to directly prove something or someone exists by showing them to you and say, "Here it is!", but the effects of things can be shown to you in order to prove their existence.

You can't see the wind, but there is evidence that it's there. You can't see love, but it can be demonstrated. You can't see God, but his handiwork is everywhere.

There may be a god, yes. But, I disbelieve he is the one characterized in the Abrahamic faiths. For a number of reasons, and some of which I listed already in this thread. What you say is true, but heaven, hell, original sin, Jesus' death and resurrection, etc...these are the tenets of Christianity that have no validity in and of themselves. No matter how much I believe something, doesn't make it fact.

If someone told you that the Holocaust took place, but there was no historical proof of it, just some hearsay allegations of it, would you believe it? Probably not. But, there's a lot written about it. Eye witnesses, some who are still alive, to tell what happened. WWII was a well documented war. It isn't hearsay, written in one book, for you to 'guess' at.

That's why the Bible is an insufficient book to use as proof of a god. But, it can be a sufficient book, if one chooses to believe the story told within it. But, for me, I got tired of making excuses for the obvious gaps and contradictions made throughout it. Faith shouldn't cause me to employ no logic, and logically speaking, the Bible story has no historical merit to it.

But, to your point, you can still feel that a god exists.

 

[Aldebaran]

If someone told you that the Holocaust took place, but there was no historical proof of it, just some hearsay allegations of it, would you believe it? Probably not. But, there's a lot written about it. Eye witnesses, some who are still alive, to tell what happened.

You're actually making a point for the validity of the bible here. It can be proven in the same way you said the Holocaust can be proven, except for the eye witnesses who are still alive. But once they're gone, you only have what is written, and the eye witness accounts of people who are gone. The bible has that, plus archeological evidence, and in many cases it matches historical records written by others.

With all this in mind, why would these historical events listed in the bible be interlaced with God (as the basis), miracles, and other supernatural things if they didn't actually happen? The events listed there aren't just ones they wanted to put there to make the writers look good. They listed the 400 years of slavery they spent in Egypt, along with how God worked miracles that allowed them to escape. Why would they say such things if they weren't true, along with the miracles that happened in response to their own disobedience? Those aren't flattering things to put in history. Yet those are things listed in the O.T., and the Jews take it very seriously as a part of their history.

 

[Deidre32]

We will have to agree to disagree, halfsaved. I was once a Christian and witnessed often, like you are. The truth is, that if one believes, no evidence is necessary but if one doesn't, maybe none will be enough. It wasn't easy leaving Christianity. For some it is, for some, it isn't. I know what I left and why I did.

Thanks for chatting.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What you fail to realize is that even a 2 year old would have been better at resisting temptation than Adam and Eve. They wouldn't have been able to perceive disobeying god as a wrong choice, because they had no understanding of right or wrong. And given that the snake gave a more detailed and convincing argument, and technically didn't lie, as eating the fruit did give knowledge, and in and of itself didn't cause death, as per god ordering the fall itself and Adam and Eve remaining in Eden until god removed them to prevent them from eating from the tree of life.

But in any case, Adam and Eve would have been incapable of choosing good over evil, because they had no concept of a bad choice.

No one wanted to address this?

 

[variant]

I've noticed certain atheists have told these certain claims. That doesn't necessarily mean a single atheist makes both claims, but rather I've seen both claims come from the atheist community

Atheist claim #1: Humans have become religious because it helps them survive and more likely for their offspring to survive.

Atheist claim #2: Religion is the reason for the vast majority of wars, conflict, and suffering in the world.

Notice both these claims cannot be true, either #1, #2, or neither is true. So, which is it?

Also, if I am misrepresenting any ideas, please tell me. I'd appreciate it.

I don't see much of a contradiction. Why couldn't something that causes warfare and suffering also be based upon a basic survival tool?

Racism probably comes about based upon primal in/out instincts that are basic survival skills too, doesn't make it a good thing.

 

[Aldebaran]

No one wanted to address this?

I'm starting to wonder if there's any point in addressing it.

All I can tell you is that God is a much higher being than any of us humans. His wisdom is far beyond ours. So there's going to be things he does that don't always make sense to us at the present time.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I'm starting to wonder if there's any point in addressing it.

All I can tell you is that God is a much higher being than any of us humans. His wisdom is far beyond ours. So there's going to be things he does that don't always make sense to us at the present time.

That explanation is a dodge, saying "oh you just don't understand" to try to explain how something is moral just shows you don't understand how it could possibly work yourself.