I Can't Shake It! Wtf Is Wrong With Me?

[shantonu]

I guess LNC is going in order. I wonder when he will get to me!!!

[shantonu]

Wait a second, I posted my first question at 8:58 pm. But LNC ingored it and responded to somebody else!

 

I guess he's not going in order after all.

 

Maybe he's taking care of the "hard" questions about science and math and chaos theory and all that before he get's to my point.

[Antlerman]

Two parts to this response. First the struggle aspect. My bringing up the difficulty of changing views was in defense of the topic starter's expression of the programmed fears left in her/him from their former beliefs. That's understandable, and I am correct in saying that "shaking loose" from a former belief goes both ways: to and from Christianity. So you were incorrect in trying to make her look unique in this because of the direction of her conversion.

So, maybe you could give me examples of Christians who came out of atheism who struggled with leaving atheism behind, because, I have never seen this be the case, and I have heard the stories of many of these conversions.

I'm only going to respond to the simpler parts of this response tonight as I don't have the energy to dig in to offer a response to the latter half, though I do appreciate and respect the energy you've put into it. I'll get to it later as time permits.

 

So as an example as you asked above, I already offered myself as an example of this in my previous response. But how do you define "atheism" in order for that to be a meaningful response? Do you mean someone who had actively chosen after a concerted effort of examination that God doesn't exist and the whole religious enterprise was not appropriate for them? In other words on philosophical grounds. That, as opposed to someone who was simply living unaware of God, or simply found the idea foreign or preposterous to them because it sounded fanciful and silly, but upon having some appeal on an emotion level, whether out of personal angst or some desire to belong to a group, was persuaded to join up, to become a "believer"? Or another possibility of calling someone an atheist who lives a "godless" life, having wanton sex, doing drugs, being irresponsible, etc?

 

I've heard the term atheist used pretty broadly. How do you mean it in your example? Are you talking philosophical atheists, or just someone sowing their wild oats?

 

Rather than my making a case here, I'll just ask you to make my case for me by asking for your answer to these questions. Do you accept that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that our species, the human species, is a result of the process of evolution; or have you come to dispute and deny this knowledge that comes from the vast majority of the world's scientists, spanning nearly every field of the sciences, on the basis of a few mainly non-scientists who hold the Bible up (their reading of it to put a sharp point on it) as trumping what comes out of the labors of the scientific community?

 

Answer that truthfully and then we can embark on a discussion of my thoughts about this.

 

I put the age of the universe between 13 and 15 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years old +/- 100K years. You are going to have to more tightly define your definition and distiction on evolution as there are many models out there. I do accept some parts of evolution and believe that others still have issues yet to be resolved to gain my full accptance.

On the first question of the age of the earth, you have my respect for being open to what science shows us. As for what "model" of evolution I mean? Oh, well I don't think its necessary to lay out the different theories of how evolution happened, whether that includes punctuated equilibrium or otherwise. The salient point is that, as far as I'm aware, all models of the ToE accept that our species evolved from earlier species; that life evolves from earlier life forms. I'm not aware of any credible model of evolution that has a bunch of species appearing spontaneously without relationship to each other. Do you?

 

Do you believe man was made from mud, and women from the rib of a man? Or do you see this as symbolic language? Is science wrong about the process of evolution in the natural world explaining how our life forms came into being from earlier life forms, and that it is wrong because the Bible, or one's particular 1800's reading of it, says "it just ain't so"? The fact that you just question what "model" I'm referring to, makes me suspicious of what plays into the absurdities of the uber-fundis isn't rearing its face here as well, in whatever form that might take.

 

For now... that's my brief response.

[LNC]

Your claims have already been disproved by AM earlier in the thread or did you just skip over his post entirely? Why didn't you address AM's post or are you too cowardly to address his points? Again, you're the one who has to prove the bible is historically accurate and the perfect word of God because you're the one making the extraordinary claim. Stop trying to be a coward by shifting the burden of proof.

 

Not so, see my response. I haven't even brought the Bible into my base of evidence yet. I have not made claims about it either. So, you are getting ahead of the argument. I wasn't the one who started this thread by saying he was having a hard time denying that Jesus existed. I did not make that positive claim, the OP did.

 

Your claims have already been disproved by Antillean. Why are you ignoring his post? Isn't this rather rude of you? And how does your source of Josephus have enough evidence to make your case? Your simply saying so doesn't prove it. You have to explain why. And what evidence do you have that the other sources are not in question by scholars? Again, you simply saying so and using wishful thinking doesn't make it true as you much as you may wish it to be.

 

There is a difference between providing evidence and proving something. Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny, which his did not. Sorry it took me a while to respond, but I have a life to live. Besides, yesterday was Sunday, and you know what that means...

 

This makes no sense. That's like saying since your disbelief in Santa Claus has no doctrine is a doctrine itself. Stop trying to abuse the English language to suit your own lies and debate this honestly and quit being a coward.

 

It absolutely makes sense. When someone says we have no doctrines, what is that but a doctrine, that is basic logic.

 

Since when does atheism = materialistic? I think it is fundamentalist Christianity that is truly materialistic and robotic. Fundies believe that if they can follow all the rules in an out-dated rulebook and suck up to God enough, then they can gain immortality and riches in heaven while being unconcerned with the lives of anyone who doesn't agree with them. Fundies don't actually form their own beliefs or think about their religion for themselves but rather they just blindly accept whatever their religion's leaders say without question. In evangelical Christianity, not questioning authority is considered a virtue and Christians are demanded to hand all control of their minds and bodies over to their religion's leaders and simply parrot whatever they tell them to. They don't think for themselves and just let "God" do all the thinking because you'll go to hell if you think for yourself. How is this not robotic and materialistic?

 

Can you tell me what exists beyond the material realm from your perspective? Are you claiming that the supernatural exists? Because that is all that can lie beyond the natural realm. Now, if there is no realm beyond the material realm, which is a basic assumption of atheism, then man is the sum of his parts and controlled by his DNA. That is why so many people want to find a gene to explain all sorts of behavior that we want to rationalize. My view, on the other hand, allows for the possibility of man being a free agent, with the ability to make real decisions because we have a spiritual dimension that is not bound by our DNA. BTW, I am not a "Fundie" so I don't see the need to answer your arguments in that regard as they don't apply to me or my beliefs. None of what you said is what I believe.

 

Since when? Where in the bible does it say this at all? I'm not aware of any such verse. Doesn't the bible say that all of us have sinned and there is none that is righteous and anyone who says they are without sin is a liar? So, if you claim to be a Christian that has no guilt, then according to your own bible, you're a liar. Maybe you should try reading your own holy books first before you try to reconvert us?

 

Since Christ came and died on the cross. It is explained throughout the NT of the Bible. However, if you want to start reading somewhere, go to the Book of Romans. By the third chapter it should all be clear. In fact, the verses that you quote are from Romans 3 and other places. I didn't say that I am without sin, I said that I am without guilt since Jesus has taken that guilt and paid for it (John 19:30). So, you see, I am not a liar and am very much a Christian in full agreement of what the Bible says to me and about me.

 

Because not believing in God isn't anymore of a form of indoctrination than not believing in faeries is. Saying not believing in God is the same thing as having a religious belief is like saying not belonging to a club is the same thing as belonging to one. You make no sense what you say at all. Can you please stop with the nonsensical sophistry and start speaking sense?

 

But, you believe things about God and those beliefs are either true or false (logical law of non-contradiction and excluded middle), so you may have false beliefs in which you have been indoctrinated by some of the atheist websites that I am sure you peruse. So, saying you don't believe in God is not the same as saying that you don't believe anything about God. You have proved that this is not the case even in the post to which I am responding. I hope that I have made myself clear.

[shantonu]

Two parts to this response. First the struggle aspect. My bringing up the difficulty of changing views was in defense of the topic starter's expression of the programmed fears left in her/him from their former beliefs. That's understandable, and I am correct in saying that "shaking loose" from a former belief goes both ways: to and from Christianity. So you were incorrect in trying to make her look unique in this because of the direction of her conversion.

So, maybe you could give me examples of Christians who came out of atheism who struggled with leaving atheism behind, because, I have never seen this be the case, and I have heard the stories of many of these conversions.

I'm only going to respond to the simpler parts of this response tonight as I don't have the energy to dig in to offer a response to the latter half, though I do appreciate and respect the energy you've put into it. I'll get to it later as time permits.

 

So as an example as you asked above, I already offered myself as an example of this in my previous response. But how do you define "atheism" in order for that to be a meaningful response? Do you mean someone who had actively chosen after a concerted effort of examination that God doesn't exist and the whole religious enterprise was not appropriate for them? In other words on philosophical grounds. That, as opposed to someone who was simply living unaware of God, or simply found the idea foreign or preposterous to them because it sounded fanciful and silly, but upon having some appeal on an emotion level, whether out of personal angst or some desire to belong to a group, was persuaded to join up, to become a "believer"? Or another possibility of calling someone an atheist who lives a "godless" life, having wanton sex, doing drugs, being irresponsible, etc?

 

I've heard the term atheist used pretty broadly. How do you mean it in your example? Are you talking philosophical atheists, or just someone sowing their wild oats?

 

Rather than my making a case here, I'll just ask you to make my case for me by asking for your answer to these questions. Do you accept that the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that our species, the human species, is a result of the process of evolution; or have you come to dispute and deny this knowledge that comes from the vast majority of the world's scientists, spanning nearly every field of the sciences, on the basis of a few mainly non-scientists who hold the Bible up (their reading of it to put a sharp point on it) as trumping what comes out of the labors of the scientific community?

 

Answer that truthfully and then we can embark on a discussion of my thoughts about this.

 

I put the age of the universe between 13 and 15 billion years old and the earth to be 4.5 billion years old +/- 100K years. You are going to have to more tightly define your definition and distiction on evolution as there are many models out there. I do accept some parts of evolution and believe that others still have issues yet to be resolved to gain my full accptance.

On the first question of the age of the earth, you have my respect for being open to what science shows us. As for what "model" of evolution I mean? Oh, well I don't think its necessary to lay out the different theories of how evolution happened, whether that includes punctuated equilibrium or otherwise. The salient point is that, as far as I'm aware, all models of the ToE accept that our species evolved from earlier species; that life evolves from earlier life forms. I'm not aware of any credible model of evolution that has a bunch of species appearing spontaneously without relationship to each other. Do you?

 

Do you believe man was made from mud, and women from the rib of a man? Or do you see this as symbolic language? Is science wrong about the process of evolution in the natural world explaining how our life forms came into being from earlier life forms, and that it is wrong because the Bible, or one's particular 1800's reading of it, says "it just ain't so"? The fact that you just question what "model" I'm referring to, makes me suspicious of what plays into the absurdities of the uber-fundis isn't rearing its face here as well, in whatever form that might take.

 

For now... that's my brief response.

 

I love you Keith, but I think you are over-intellectualizing this issue. God probably doesn't exist, and we know that God probably doesn't exist, not because of what we know about science but because of what we know about morality, history, and the goodness of non-Christian people.

 

Thus we know that genocide is wrong because we've seen the suffering of Rwandans and Jews. We've actually met people who have suffered genocides. I have actually. I personally know some Holocaust survivors. I grew up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. There was a shop keeper there who survived the Holocaust. His name was Izzy. He owned a shop called the Mill. I knew this man. In the summer when he rolled up his sleeves, you could see the tatoo the Nazis put on his arm. He was a good man. He died when I was about 16, but I got to know him. He was Jew and for no other reason than that, the Nazis tried to kill him.

 

Genocide is wrong. A God that authorizes genocide is not a God worthy of worship. I would not care if He set the Universe in motion; I would not bend my knee.

[LNC]

That is not the evidence I have to conclude that Christianity is not true. I stated that I had found sufficient evidence. I never even touched on what that was. The lack of guilt is just further evidence, but definitely not the be all and end all of the evidence I have found. It is the evidence that I have found (which I have not posted on this thread) that allows me to overcome those brief moments (becoming brieffer and further apart) of fear. You perhaps do no understand just how horrifying the whole concept of eternal suffering actually is because you have the belief you are safe from it. As a Christian the thought of hell never bothered me either, because I believed I was safe from it. When you leave the faith sometimes the "what if" questions arise. It's only natural when you are faced with such a terrible threat that you believed was true for so many years. The fact remains when you come from disbelief to Christianity there is no such fear to deal with. You never get new Christians asking themselves "Oh boy, I wonder if perhaps Allah is the true God and I'm going to go to Hell because I chose Christ".

 

If lack of guilty feelings is evidence, then there are many criminals who could go free for lack of guilty feelings as evidence of their innocence. However, apparently, you have not overcome all of your fear. I do not understand the depth of eternal suffering as I am but a mortal of limited perspective. Yet, even though I don't understand the length, breadth, and depth of it, I do know that it is horrible, which is why I try to warn people to avoid it. If I am safe from it, it is only by the grace of God, which is freely available to all - even you. However, I don't know why I would be any less horrified by hell since I know the depth of hell in my own heart and that is only a limited perspective. I wouldn't spend my time interacting with you if I didn't believe that hell is a horrible place and that I will try to do what I can to tell people that they don't have to end up there because of the free gift that Jesus offers. It doesn't matter whether a person chooses not to believe, if hell is real, and I believe it is, then it is something to fear. Denial does not negate reality.

 

I am not an atheist, but an agnostic. God may or may not exist, but there is no evidence to show it and Christianity definitely did not show me it was truth. My stance now is one of no faith. I look at everything now with an open mind, with thought and reason.

 

There is evidence, whether you choose to accept it or not is the question. But to say that there is no evidence is not being honest. If you have an open mind, and I have no reason to doubt you, then consider three questions and tell me how they came to be from a purely materialistic perspective. The origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the same, and objective moral values. If you can adequately explain them from a purely materialistic viewpoint, without making metaphysical assumptions (as those would be faith positions), then I would like to hear your explanation.

 

The guilt I felt as a Christian was nothing more than conviction. I knew I was justified by faith and that Christ's blood covered me. Condemnation is not conviction however and not from God.

 

I am not sure how you differentiate guilt and conviction, maybe you could fill me in. Are you saying that condemnation is not from God? If so, how do you arrive at such a conclusion?

 

It is only Satan who accuses people of being lousy Christians, and it seems to me it would be Satan who would like Christians to believe that others were never true Christians to begin with. Because that sort of judge mental attitude just makes ex-Christians realise even more they were right to reject Christianity.

 

It is not my place to judge a person's heart as to whether they are or are not a Christian. Yes, Satan is an accuser as his name indicates; and often, Christians can play the judgment game as well, it unfortunately, is part of our fallen nature. However, I hope that you have seen that I do not come here to judge people, ideas I will judge, but not people. You all have been very respectful in how you have interacted with me, and I hope I have shown the same respect for all of you.

[LNC]

Enough for tonight, more tomorrow, hopefully.

[shantonu]

Enough for tonight, more tomorrow, hopefully.

 

Wow. What a total waste of time. I guess I waited in vain for a response to the very simplest of questions about Scripture.

 

Folks, I think we can tell when there is a fraud among us.

[shantonu]

Ah, the pleasures of New York City!

 

I grew up knowing a Holocaust survivor. And just as I was about to go outside to get some coffee--because I have loooong night ahead--I realized that I had also once met a survivor of the Rwandan genocide.

 

In 2005, I was working in Brooklyn at a community based organization. The organization had a refugee project. I wasn't working in that project but a different one that focused on housing. But at the orientation all the different units were thrown into one big group. And we went around and talked about who we were and whatnot. Then a small African woman introduced herself. I can't remember her name, but she told us that she was a Tutsi and had survived the Rwandan genocide. This motivated her to work with refugees.

 

She did not cry or describe her experiences in any detail: but you just knew from her tone that she had seen and suffered much. I never got a chance to interact with her or to find out what she really experienced. I don't know where she is today, somewhere in Brooklyn I supppose. But I met her, I saw her, I heard her. It was an honor to have done so.

[pitchu]

OK, the ball is in your court, as it were. Please explain how you can have a worldview that includes more than just the material world without the existence of God/gods.

 

So I presume you choose not to address the burned boy and the burned brain. All right. Then I'll address your request, above, with the caveat that it is solely my own outlook and does not necessarily represent that of any other atheist on this board or of atheists, in general. Atheists, in fact, don't seem to be anything "in general" -- we are those cats which others find difficult to herd.

 

********************************************

 

A teardrop is of the material world.

 

The reason for the teardrop is a conscious human recognition of something within the material world.

 

One may know the physical properties and chemical makeup of the teardrop, the tear duct, and all the adrenal and brain activity which preceded its formation.

 

But that which elicited the teardrop -- in one person's eye, but not that of another person -- is currently sort of ineffable, and maybe someday will be known.

 

All that is contained within mere material existence is capable of eliciting human responses which are not supernatural, but which are supra-material: joy, sorrow, outrage, humility, love, fury, jealousy, gratitude... all of the responses attributed to the fictional character, God... maybe except for the humility thing.

 

And the more exalted of these feelings are usually recognized by theists as being a human spiritual response to the awareness of god. The baser ones aren't. Yet I postulate that all human conscious responses are always brought about by some aspect of the material world, and that christian religious leaders have, conveniently for their cause, riven these responses to manufacture false categories of what is spiritual and what is venal.

 

In this way, a human is separated from his/her normal perceptions of, and reactions to, the material world; divided against him/herself; and made ready to become dependent upon myth in order to have any sense at all of being grounded in "reality."

 

It's a fabulous trick.

 

In this way, you and I both experience existence with consciousness born of physical-causal-necessity, but your convictions require you, I suppose, to label my conclusions materialistic and yours spiritual.

 

I don't care that much about the labels, though, because I continue to interact just fine with material existence -- with All That Is, And Only All That Is -- and I require no polyester divine embroidery around the edges of it.

[pitchu]

I have to be honest. I think I've got LNC a bit puzzled. Anybody out there want to help him figure out why God ordered the killing of babies? God is a baby-killer. Right? Anyone want to help out our friend LNC?

 

Heeellooooooo is anybody out there????

 

I guess no one wants to help LNC justify the killing of babies. And here I thought atheists would jump at a chance to justify killing babies!

 

Okay, shantonu, since LNC doesn't seem ready to tackle your question, and I'm an atheist, I'm jumping at the chance.

 

Just imagine you're god and you're having a helluva time keeping your people in line. You've shown your control-freak nature by ordering them to do all sorts of atrocious things. But they're still grumbling and whining and everything. You gotta think about what would bind them to your power, absolutely. You gotta think about what would make them toss and turn with nightmares about what they did for you, so they never question you again. Sooooo..... You gotta order them to kill babies! Even tear them right outta their mama's belly! Yeah!

 

 

Yeah. You gotta think like Charles Manson.

 

 

(If this is off-base, LNC, you set me straight, okay?)

[nightflight]

If lack of guilty feelings is evidence, then there are many criminals who could go free for lack of guilty feelings as evidence of their innocence.

 

The problem with Christianity is that it makes everyone a criminal. So the very word becomes meaningless.

 

However, apparently, you have not overcome all of your fear. I do not understand the depth of eternal suffering as I am but a mortal of limited perspective. Yet, even though I don't understand the length, breadth, and depth of it, I do know that it is horrible, which is why I try to warn people to avoid it. If I am safe from it, it is only by the grace of God, which is freely available to all - even you.

 

If you are not sickened by the idea of eternal suffering itself, then your character should be questioned. Its time Christians stopped being treated with kid gloves while they spout the most horrific doctrines and spread them (to children even!).

 

However, I don't know why I would be any less horrified by hell since I know the depth of hell in my own heart and that is only a limited perspective. I wouldn't spend my time interacting with you if I didn't believe that hell is a horrible place and that I will try to do what I can to tell people that they don't have to end up there because of the free gift that Jesus offers.

 

Oh for fuck's sake, its not a free gift! It comes with a whole lot of baggage, like self-hate, accepting that your "loving" god will hurt people in the worst ways imaginable forever; and worshiping (kissing ass) the being who acts like a petty tyrant! Who you kidding here?

 

It doesn't matter whether a person chooses not to believe, if hell is real, and I believe it is, then it is something to fear. Denial does not negate reality.

 

Ah, the essence of Christianity, threats. This is it's power. One wonders why they call it "good news".

 

There is evidence, whether you choose to accept it or not is the question.

 

Your evidence is wanting.

 

But to say that there is no evidence is not being honest. If you have an open mind, and I have no reason to doubt you, then consider three questions and tell me how they came to be from a purely materialistic perspective. The origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the same, and objective moral values. If you can adequately explain them from a purely materialistic viewpoint, without making metaphysical assumptions (as those would be faith positions), then I would like to hear your explanation.

 

No one knows the origin of the universe (yet). But that is no reason to say goddidit. That's a cop-out, its lame. And fine-tuning? Why would an almighty god need to "fine-tune"? He can do anything, right? Are you saying that there are some kind of constants that existed prior and outside of god that he must work with? So much for omnipotence. And lastly, objective moral values; obviously they are a product of our evolution as social beings. Besides, people who worship and love a being who commits genocide, and sends people off to eternal suffering have no business telling the rest of us anything about morality. Come back when you give up the double-standard, mkay?

[Kuroikaze]

So when a Muslim threatens you with Islamic hell do you become afraid of such because you cannot prove Islamic hell doesn't exist?

 

Why should I as theirs is a system that can be falsified pretty easily.

 

Lol, the cognitive dissonance is strong with this one.

 

 

Since you clearly miss my point I'll make it clearly. I am also not the slightest bit frightened of your version of hell for the SAME REASON

 

 

OK, but why do you feel guilty in Type 1? If there is not objective standard for morality, is your guilt just an outmoded feeling that you must overcome and do away with? If it has no objective grounding, which it cannot if God does not exist, then you haven't really wronged anyone and have no reason to feel guilty, but you do...

 

How do you deal with this? Quite easily. The claim that objective grounding requires god to exist is a bald assertion, and I reject it outright. Morality and ethics do not derive their meaning from supernatural beings. It isn't even a sensible claim if one thinks about it. It honestly amazes me that Christians keep using the claim when it is just so stupid.

 

You can't define god into existence and you can't and you can't claim he exists through an affirmation of the consequence.

 

I'm not going to bother trying to educate you on any of the secular models for moral grounding. Do you own homework. I have no need to justify my life or my choices to you.

 

It is the same guilt feeling and you feel it to be unjustified, but then, I showed that Type 1 is unjustified, so in essence, by your standard, they are the same. BTW, I don't see how you show circular reasoning here as you claim. I don't assume God's existence, I simply acknowledge, as do many of us in this world, that objective morals exist, and if they exist, they must have objective grounding, which argues for the existence of God. So, no, it is not circular reasoning.

 

wait, wait, wait, the existence of objective morals and the existence of an objective grounding for morality are two different claims. I would accept the second one as existing (reality makes a much better objective grounding for morality than god anyway) but I reject the first claim, at least in the sense fundamentalists use the term "objective morals."

 

In any case, there is nothing in the existence of either which necessarily leads to the existence of any sort of god.

 

Anyway, your argument is still circular, sorry you can't see that.

 

What particular arguments do you find lacking credibility? Often I hear this from Christians only to find that they are only aware of this arguments as presented by Christian apologists which tend intentionally phrase them in a way that makes them seem less credible than they are.

 

You pick your favorite and we will see if it stands the test.

 

Uh....no.

 

I don't really care.

 

Atheism, at least for me, isn't about trying to argue FOR something anyway. Pointing out that your claims are not very reasonable is not the same as claiming that I am always right.

 

Anyway, we have been discussing things, and if you reject non-theism on such flimsy reasoning as you give here, I'm not terribly impressed with your knowledge on the subject.

 

Absolutely, in fact, it is not only I who does, but many cosmologists do as well. Take Paul Davies for example, he repeatedly in his books shows that the universe is extremely finely tuned. Even Dawkins tacitly acknowledges the fine tuning of the universe in The God Delusion; however, he tries to explain it away by a faulty composition argument.

 

The fine tuning argument is full of holes. There are lots of alternative explanations for the "fine tuning" of the universe. I don't particularly like that term as it is rather imprecise for such a conversation, but for the sake of argument.

 

You just attempt to explain this away by inserting god, but by doing so you create a paradox.

 

The argument is generally stated like this

 

P1: The universe is finely tuned

P2: Finely tuned things must be created

C: The universe must have had a creator.

 

The problem? God is, by the Christian estimation, finely tuned, infinite and so on. By this argument god must therefore have a creator. You, also, must admit that P2 is false, that something "finely tuned can and DOES exist without being created by something else." You want to assume that it must be other than the universe, but I can find no reason to do so beyond personal preference.

 

The issue of suffering is a separate issue from the fine tuning of the universe. However, acknowledging suffering points also to the fact that we are not just biological machines. Machines don't care what happens to other machines. If you don't believe me, sit at your computer long enough and you will realize that it doesn't care about you, and mine proves that to me quite often. If there is no God, then suffering is just a brute fact for which we should not be concerned. However, your acknowledgment of the "awe inspiring" nature of the universe is further evidence that it and we are designed. The universe is designed and we are designed to see that design.

 

No, we are evolved to recognize patterns. I use the term "awe inspiring" merely as deference to the fact that the universe is much bigger than me, and doesn't much care about me at all. It makes one feel small and insignificant, but hardly suggests a divine hand.

 

Your suggestion that we are just "biological machines" without god, is one I've heard from theists enough to make me want to puke. It is a strawman, such a conclusion is NOT necessary in non-theism. You act as if nihilism is the default without god, but it requires you to ignore several thousands years of philosophical thinkers who dispute this by building moral and ethical philosophies without relying on divine command theory.

 

Suffering IS a brute fact, but that hardly means we should just get used to it. It is part of the nature of living beings to change their environment to suit them. I see no need to philosophically justify my desire to not suffer. I choose too, that is enough reason for me.

 

Your statement about the universe ceasing to be beautiful if God is in charge is a non-sequitur. The universes state tells about the wonder of our God who created it with such precision, that we don't even have instruments that can measure that precision. It is not God who has made a mess of our world, we have been given free agency to make choices, and the chaos that we see cannot be divorced from man's freedom to make choices, many of them destructive. But then, what is the alternative, we could be machines - which is what we would be if God didn't exist, if we existed at all. But that is a whole nother discussion.

 

I don't really have anything to say here, since this represents such poor critical thinking skills my brain starts to hurt when I even try to think of where to begin.

[shantonu]

Guys look, LNC can go on and on about science and methods of proof or whatever, but he can't account for the simplest thing: if the Bible is trustworthy, then God must have sanctioned the killing of infants, even when other alternatives were obvious (such as adopting the infants).

 

What kind of God is that?There doesn't seem to be anything "supreme" about his wisdom. He seems to lack common sense and prudence.

 

I mean, we can go on and on. Moses comes down from Mt. Sinai with really, really, really important moral rules--rules that come from the mouth of God Himself. And what are they? Kant's Categorical Imperative? No. Mill's Utilitarianism? No. Jesus's Golden Rule? No. Almighty God, after having gotten the Israelites attention by doing all these miracles, splitting the seas, and whatnot came up with the following rule: "Don't steal goats."

 

Therefore, I don't see what use there is engaging with LNC on all these technical matters if the simple stuff remains a complete mystery. Explain why God picked out a tiny sliver of humanity to be the "chosen" rather than, say, the Chinese. Explain why it's okay to kill infants yet it's not okay to steal goats or donkeys or whatever. Explain why God thought it so important that people not steal goats that he said "don't steal goats," intead of just saying "don't steal." In fact, explain why God spent a whole commandment on "don't steal," when it's pretty obvious that you shoudn't steal. None of this makes any sense. These aren't rules to live by, they're just crap.

 

Really folks, the whole thing is quite silly (if taken too literally). Of course, as many of you know, I think many parts of the Bible are wonderful, the Book of Job, the Gospel of Luke, some of the Psalms. But the inerrant Word of God? Just read the thing and you'll see it can't possibly be that.

[Tabula Rasa]

And once again, Tab, the mad deist pulls out his broken record.

 

Lnc, never mind all the contradictions in the bible, never mind Josephus and Tacitus, let's just look at it with a bit of common sense.

 

Christians say that God is omnipotent. He can do anything. There is nothing impossible for him. I believe you can agree on this point.

 

So then,should it be necessary for an Omnipotent God to reconcile himself to humans, having all power, he could come up with a much, much better way than the blood soaked sacrificial system of the Old Testament and the equally horrific human sacrifice which was supposedly God sacrificing himself to himself just so he could change a rule and forgive us.

 

Better yet, why tempt Adam and Eve with the Tree of Knowledge in the first place? And even if this was neccessary, isn't he big enough to forgive two of his creations who had the minds of children?

 

If there is a God, and it's omnipotent, it's name is neither Yahweh, Jesus or Allah, because none of them can redeem anything without bloodshed.

[shantonu]

Common sense rules. Literalists claim that God is supremely wise, good, and just.

 

The textual record is otherwise.

 

Rather than wise and good, God seems wasteful, vengeful, silly, imprudent, and incapable of meeting even the most basic standards of modern justice.

[shantonu]

I mean look, the Buddha is not "god." The Buddha is not considered a "diety." But you can read the Buddha's words and see that he cares for you. The Buddha says, "you aren't happy. I want you to be happy. Here is how to be happy. Follow these steps and gain inner peace."

 

That's what a loving person does.

 

To some extent, I believe that Jesus is really attempting to do something quite similar (at times). So, despite his flaws, I respect Jesus as a wise and great teacher.

 

But the God of the Old Testament? C'mon. He's a tyrant. I can't see any passages where he shows lovingkindness or mercy or gentleness or even justice. Look how he exterminates innocents. Where is the justice in that? What iis even the point of that? Did God love the Egyptians any less than than the Israelites? Weren't they his creations too? Could he not have taught his lessons differently?

 

We, with our own very human faculties, can discern a thousand places where God could have done things differently. Yet we're taught that we must not judge God by human standards. But why not? Shouldn't he surpass human standards? Yet I think you'd get better justice from a court in Tehran than you would before God.

[Kuroikaze]

I think many parts of the Bible are wonderful, the Book of Job, the Gospel of Luke, some of the Psalms.

 

Not sure I'd go as far as wonderful, and I don't really care for psalms myself. Though to be sure there is a lot of things in the bible that are valuable from literary or historical perspectives.

 

If I had to pick my favorite book in the bible, it'd probably be Song of Songs. Erotic poetry FTW

 

But the inerrant Word of God? Just read the thing and you'll see it can't possibly be that.

 

LNC is is proof that, unfortunately, it takes more than just reading the bible. Fundamentalist are quite good and denying the 'elephant in the room,' as it were.

[OnceConvinced]

There is a difference between providing evidence and proving something. Evidence has to stand up to scrutiny, which his did not. Sorry it took me a while to respond, but I have a life to live. Besides, yesterday was Sunday, and you know what that means...

Religious rituals. More so than any other day of the week.

[OnceConvinced]

That is not the evidence I have to conclude that Christianity is not true. I stated that I had found sufficient evidence. I never even touched on what that was. The lack of guilt is just further evidence, but definitely not the be all and end all of the evidence I have found. It is the evidence that I have found (which I have not posted on this thread) that allows me to overcome those brief moments (becoming brieffer and further apart) of fear. You perhaps do no understand just how horrifying the whole concept of eternal suffering actually is because you have the belief you are safe from it. As a Christian the thought of hell never bothered me either, because I believed I was safe from it. When you leave the faith sometimes the "what if" questions arise. It's only natural when you are faced with such a terrible threat that you believed was true for so many years. The fact remains when you come from disbelief to Christianity there is no such fear to deal with. You never get new Christians asking themselves "Oh boy, I wonder if perhaps Allah is the true God and I'm going to go to Hell because I chose Christ".

 

If lack of guilty feelings is evidence, then there are many criminals who could go free for lack of guilty feelings as evidence of their innocence.

Go free? Since when does a guilty criminal go free just because they don't feel guilt. You have erected a strawman here.

 

It is you that claims that guilt is evidence of truth. Therefore if I show a lack of guilt, that shows evidence that Christianity is not the truth. You can hardly compare a guilty criminal to someone who has left a religion. A criminal is guilty regardless of whether they feel guilt or not. But your argument here is that if Christianity is the truth, then an ex-Christian would feel guilt for leaving it. However that is not true in my case.

 

However, apparently, you have not overcome all of your fear. I do not understand the depth of eternal suffering as I am but a mortal of limited perspective. Yet, even though I don't understand the length, breadth, and depth of it, I do know that it is horrible, which is why I try to warn people to avoid it. If I am safe from it, it is only by the grace of God, which is freely available to all - even you. However, I don't know why I would be any less horrified by hell since I know the depth of hell in my own heart and that is only a limited perspective. I wouldn't spend my time interacting with you if I didn't believe that hell is a horrible place and that I will try to do what I can to tell people that they don't have to end up there because of the free gift that Jesus offers. It doesn't matter whether a person chooses not to believe, if hell is real, and I believe it is, then it is something to fear. Denial does not negate reality.

And just because one believes wholeheartedly in something does not make it so either. I don't think you truly understand just how insidiuous Christianity is when it comes to indoctronating people. You don't just walk away from it without suffering ill effects psychologically. These things take time to heal.

 

There is evidence, whether you choose to accept it or not is the question. But to say that there is no evidence is not being honest.

The evidence for is extremely weak. The evidence against is huge and overpowering. It's not a matter of choosing to accept the evidence. If the evidence is convincing there is no choice but to accept it. But the evidence is most definitely not convincing, not to me anyway.

 

If you have an open mind, and I have no reason to doubt you, then consider three questions and tell me how they came to be from a purely materialistic perspective. The origin of the universe,

I have no strong opinion on this. I choose to sit on the fence. As nice as it would be to know, I now realise that we may never know. However Evolution is starting to make more sense to me and when it comes to a creator, the question still remains "who created the creator?" And no I don't buy the arguments that Christians give about it. There is too much presumption in it.

 

the fine tuning of the same,

I don't see any fine tuning here. If evolution is how this earth got here, then life evolved to suit the planet, not the other way around. On another planet with a totally different environment completely different life may evolved, life that would never survive on ours. The hole didn't get there to suit the puddle, it's just natural that water should form that way. I see a lot of flaws in this universe and if I were to believe God created it, I could only come to the conclusion that it was a God who was not perfect, all powerful and all-knowing. No doubt it would be an amazing feit what he has accomplished, but it is far from perfect and finely tuned. I no longer look at the puddle and marvel how perfect the hole is. I have learnt to look at it from a different perspective which makes far more sense.

 

Either way you look at it, Evolution or God, the fact that we are here is infathomable. Absolutely incredible. But I no longer need to attribute God to it.

 

 

and objective moral values.

I see no reason why we need God for moral values. In fact I'm incredulous when I hear people insisting that only a God could bring morals to humanity. I can see how evolution can take care of this and I didn't need evolutionists to lead me to that conclusion. Morals change as time goes by, we see it all the time. Culture defines them. People know when they are wronged, they don't like it, so rules will be constructed where certain behavior is considered not acceptable so as to protect people. It is most likely that rules will be dictated by those in charge, based on what they like or don't like. Seems pretty simple to me.

 

If you can adequately explain them from a purely materialistic viewpoint, without making metaphysical assumptions (as those would be faith positions), then I would like to hear your explanation.

I don't know if I have answered as you would have liked, but I've gone through the whole believing God to be the creator bit and I just don't buy it anymore. The arguments for a God creating the universe are just way too weak IMO. I God really did create me in my mother's womb then it was he who put in me the need to question and challenge, to look at things logically and rationally. He would understand why the evidence you believe to be so great is not convincing to me and others here.

 

The guilt I felt as a Christian was nothing more than conviction. I knew I was justified by faith and that Christ's blood covered me. Condemnation is not conviction however and not from God.

 

I am not sure how you differentiate guilt and conviction, maybe you could fill me in. Are you saying that condemnation is not from God? If so, how do you arrive at such a conclusion?

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

Conviction is when we know we have done something wrong and we need to put ourselves right with God. Any one who claims to be a Christian would experience this. It is not condeming in the fact God does not accuse us of being evil sinners and that we will go to hell if we keep it up. It is more of a gentle thing, not something you'd feel guilt for if you put yourself right with Christ. No scriptures come to mind at the moment on that one. I wish I had more time to look up references, but it's 12:30am here and I need to get some sleep. Maybe I have explained enough for you to know what I'm talking about when it comes to conviction vs guilt.

[OnceConvinced]

In fact, explain why God spent a whole commandment on "don't steal," when it's pretty obvious that you shoudn't steal. None of this makes any sense. These aren't rules to live by, they're just crap.

This is the thing with morals. They're obvious. Stealing, lying, cheating, abusing etc etc are all harmful to people. So of course rules are going to be made to combat these. They are going to be considered things you don't do. I am dumbfounded that anyone would believe that a God would be needed for obvious morals such as the likes of these.

[shantonu]

I think many parts of the Bible are wonderful, the Book of Job, the Gospel of Luke, some of the Psalms.

 

Not sure I'd go as far as wonderful, and I don't really care for psalms myself. Though to be sure there is a lot of things in the bible that are valuable from literary or historical perspectives.

 

If I had to pick my favorite book in the bible, it'd probably be Song of Songs. Erotic poetry FTW

 

But the inerrant Word of God? Just read the thing and you'll see it can't possibly be that.

 

LNC is is proof that, unfortunately, it takes more than just reading the bible. Fundamentalist are quite good and denying the 'elephant in the room,' as it were.

 

I hear you, but sensible people should be able to tell that something is amiss--and without recourse to Darwin or any sophisticated science. I agree that fundamentalists are blind. I'm not sure that LNC is a fundamentalist. However, the simple is the true: the Bible cannot be the word of God simply because it's ethics are too primitive. For example the 10th Commandment reads " You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour."

 

First of all, oxes and donkeys? WTF? But leaving that aside, the 10th Commandment if taken literally would make it wrong to steal a slave from his or her owner for the purpose of freeing the slave. So rather than condemn slavery (as any modern moral system would) the 10th Commandment endorses slavery.

[shantonu]

In fact, explain why God spent a whole commandment on "don't steal," when it's pretty obvious that you shoudn't steal. None of this makes any sense. These aren't rules to live by, they're just crap.

This is the thing with morals. They're obvious. Stealing, lying, cheating, abusing etc etc are all harmful to people. So of course rules are going to be made to combat these. They are going to be considered things you don't do. I am dumbfounded that anyone would believe that a God would be needed for obvious morals such as the likes of these.

 

This by itself should lead to the recognition that the Bible was written by humans, not by God. Only humans make up moronic rules like "Don't steal donkeys." The 10 Commandments has about as much moral insight as a list of rules posted in a public park, i.e., don't litter, don't play the radio loud, keep your dog on a leash.

 

Vastly superior to this is the simple Golden Rule, but the Golden Rule isn't original to Jesus and it can be put much more strongly (as Kant did with the Categorical Imperative).

 

Again, I don't see how we get to the "big questions" regarding science, Darwin, the ground of knowledge, etc. After all, the most basic question--whether the Bible makes any moral sense--has gone unanswered. If the Bible can't give clear answers to whether genocide is right or wrong or slavery is right or wrong then I'm not sure why I should trust it about complex and nuanced questions of human experience.

[LNC]

Who's claiming that man is anything more than an advanced robot?

 

You are missing the emergent properties phenomena. We make a car out of parts not for the sum of its parts but because of what properties it has when those parts are assembled. Water has different properties than it's parts. Sodium Chloride has different properties than it's parts. These new properties make salt necessary for life even though its parts are poisonous to life taken straight up.

 

The properties (behaviors) of a chimp are emergent properties of its parts and its socialization -- since it is a social animal. Assuming that you don't assign a chimps behaviors to a soul, why would you have to assign a human's behaviors to a soul?

 

That our behavior is directly linked to our parts is easy to experience by knocking back a fifth of Jack Daniels. I saw it when my grandpa disappeared a couple of years before his body died. The more bits of his brain that died, the more of him was gone. He was a good Christian by the way, but those last couple of years he wouldn't have known Jesus from a planter. Did his soul appear in heaven piecemeal? Was he half demented in heaven and on earth at the same time?

 

So, yes you are the product of your DNA and your socialization. If you had been raised in Saudi Arabia by Muslim parents you would touting the wonders of Allah and his Prophet (peace be unto him).

 

Just because you cannot grok the idea or you don't like the idea of being the sum of your parts with their emergent properties, doesn't make it not so.

 

I am glad that you are consistent with your worldview; however, I wonder if you really are. When you speak of emergence, I wonder whether you are referring to weak emergence or strong emergence, or both. Weak emergence is likely, and sounds like what you are referring to; however, we cannot be said to simply be the result of weak emergence since we have freedom to act contrary to our genetics. Yet, some would compare the concept of strong emergence to magic. Since emergence is such a slippery term, maybe you could define what you mean by the term.

[LNC]

Humans really are machines and I have this coming from two evangelical Christians who had a rather thorough understanding of how the human body worked. They are self-sustaining electrical creatures that need certain compounds and chemicals to maintain optimal functioning. Hate to say it, but any religious point of view is interpreted by human beings therefore it is nothing more than a material perspective. Dare I say it is just another humanistic perspective.

 

Furthermore, I ask this of you. If I as a material atheist take up some kind of moral system of belief, why is it automatically inconsistent of me to have one and why am I called a moral parasite? If an atheist some how came up with a moral system based of keen observation of the material world, why will the Christian automatically disregard it?

 

I still can't seem to wrap my head around that one.

 

Interesting. Why would a materialist even care about morality since right and wrong are immaterial concepts and thus really don't exist. Thoughts, ideas, numbers, concepts, don't exist. You cannot measure these things scientifically, therefore, they are meaningless.