Atheism discussion

God did not put them in that situation.

The original parents did.

 

God did not put them in that situation.

The original parents did.

Well yeah, because there is no God. But the christian perception of a God is that he is the creater of all living things so therefore that person being raised in that home was the will of God.

"Ephesians 3:9-11 And to enlighten all that they may see what the economy of the mystery is, which throughout the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things, In order that now to the rulers and the authorities in the heavenlies the multifarious wisdom of God might be made known through the church, According to the eternal purpose which He made in Christ Jesus our Lord."

The whole idea of God by christians, muslims, and jews is that God is the creator of all living things.

So which is it? Do you stand by those views only when you see fit? Do you pick and choose the scripture depending on the argument?

 

Cyprusg,
I wish you'd read my posts as this was addressed.

"If God created us exactly how he intended, how can he judge us for that? We are who we are because of nature and nurture, both factors that God supposedly created for us. The environment in which we're raised and the brain in which God created make us who we are."

Let's put this to bed reasonably shall we?

This is an argument at core about responsibility and consequences.

One need not be "perfect," nor to have been created "perfect" to be accountable for his or her actions.

That is reality.

God or no "god" we are here, and we are not "perfect."

I think everybody recognizes this truth of reality.

As imperfect creatures, God or no "god," we already hold each other accountable for doing wrong (as in my murderer analogy).

If as imperfect being we know this, how much more would a "perfect" being recognize this?

Therefore, Adam need not have been "perfect," and in committing sin, knowingly doing wrong, as scripture indicates, he is responsible.

That simple.

This has no impact on God being "good." All evil is based on that which opposes God's will and intentions.

We've all done something in our lives which we knew to be wrong, something Mom or Dad told us not to do. We all made choices in full knowledge of our going into it in the wrong. This doesn't mean because we did wrong Mom and Dad did wrong in giving birth to us, or that they are responsible for the choice we made.


Mom and/or Dad are no less Mom or Dad because we disobeyed their instructions, nor are they somehow less good because we ignored their warning.

God warned Adam in advance. Adam disobeyed "Dad."

Logically this doesn't impact God.

It tries to scapegoat God; "It's all God's fault! I didn't ask to be born!"

 

Darth_Brooks, I've got one question. Are your parents christian?

Same question towards Ob1.

 

Cyprusg,

The will of God has at least two basic components;
1.)His express will.
2.)His permissive will.

I think before we attempt to judge God we should see how things turn out in the end, eh?

Yes, God is responsible for the creation of all living things, ultimately.

God also took responsibility for our scapegoating, dying on a Cross for our sins. He didn't have to do that, nor did he have to provide anyway for us to go to Heaven. He doesn't owe us, we owe Him.

 

No, Cyprusg, my parents are not Christians.
I was not raised in a Christian environment, although I had exposure, and the prevailing attitude and lifestyle was definitely not Christian.

I became a Christian at 27.



EDIT: In fact, I could give a list of my anti-Christian activities with witnesses.

However, an encounter with the Living God immediately convinced me I had been totally wrong. It would be fairly hard for me to suggest you aren't real after we've corresponded here in this forum, wouldn't it?

 

I think before we attempt to judge God we should see how things turn out in the end, eh?

Well we're not going to get a chance because when we die we cease to exist, so I'd like to get this out of the way now....

Before I go back and argue the rest of what we were talking about, let me get this out of the way. Perfect does not PERFECT in how we regard perfect on this earth. Perfect purely means God created us exactly how he intended it, perfectly. So the perceived faults that we have are not faults at all in the eyes of God. Get it?

So again if God created us perfectly (exactly how he intended) how can he judge us for those actions? Every action is based on stimulus from the brain (in which God created), so every thought, every emotion, goes back to the creation of God. In order for your will to truly be free, and of your own making, the path to every decision you make must not be influenced or in any way encumbered by anything that is outside the decision itself. All actions and decisions are based on factors and stimulus that are not of our own making. If every stimulus has a cause then every cause leads up to God.

Again, like Einstein said if God were to pass judgement on his own creation for doing things he fully intended to happen, he would be in a way judging himself.

Even if you argue that God is NOT the creator of all living things you still run into paradoxes given the perception of God by Christians (that's not including the fact that the basis of christian belief is that God is the creator). No matter how you look at it your argument crumbles under the weight of logic and reason.

However, an encounter with the Living God immediately convincved me I had been totally wrong. It would be fairly hard for me to suggest you aren't real after we've corresponded here in this forum, wouldn't it?

Considering every religion throughout history has had "visions" of God or Jesus or Mary or Mohammed or whatever the case may be, I find it funny that you rely so heavily on your illusion. I've had similiar experiences when I was a christian, looking back it was just one great imaginitive experience.

 

cyprus, it seems to me you're assuming that human beings are completely contained within the physical universe -- that our actions are simply the inexorable and predictable responses to external stimuli.

While I understand this assumption, I disagree with it, and so does Christianity. Hence, the concept of the soul, a part of a human life (the essential part) that exists outside the physical universe and can thus be an independent cause of human actions.

Unless you can prove that the Christian belief in the soul is wrong (and it is as difficult to prove as your glib assertion that "when we die we cease to exist"), you should probably simply admit that the difference between our worldview and yours is -- at least on the question of free will -- not based on some illogic on our part, but on two different sets of assumptions.


And all of this begs at least one question: if human beings' thoughts and actions really are nothing more than the inexorable response to external stimuli -- if we are just complex chemical reactions -- what on earth are you doing acting is if a certain group of human beings are "thinking men"?

If we're just complex chemical reactions, none of us truly think, and your condescending tone towards those of us who disagree with you is sound and fury, signifying absolutely nothing.

 

Bubba

And all of this begs at least one question: if human beings' thoughts and actions really are nothing more than the inexorable response to external stimuli -- if we are just complex chemical reactions -- what on earth are you doing acting is if a certain group of human beings are "thinking men"?

This is only my response, but because that is what thinking is? What do you mean by 'truly thinking?'

Brooks

Please explain how what you said in your reply to my post a few pages ago directly addressed anything I said (we each mentioned something about free will, but beyond that basic similarity...)? You basically ignored the point I hoped I made by stating that we don't have absolute free will (which is rather obvious to me but beside the point I was trying to make). My point was that after a person chooses to obey God that they no longer need to use free will since they can just obey God; that you basically don't have to make choices any more.

 

cyprus, it seems to me you're assuming that human beings are completely contained within the physical universe -- that our actions are simply the inexorable and predictable responses to external stimuli.

While I understand this assumption, I disagree with it, and so does Christianity. Hence, the concept of the soul, a part of a human life (the essential part) that exists outside the physical universe and can thus be an independent cause of human actions.

Unless you can prove that the Christian belief in the soul is wrong (and it is as difficult to prove as your glib assertion that "when we die we cease to exist"), you should probably simply admit that the difference between our worldview and yours is -- at least on the question of free will -- not based on some illogic on our part, but on two different sets of assumptions.

What is a soul? How does it think without a brain? How does it control our brain? Why, if a supernatural soul exists and has power over our physical self is it so easily manipulated by the natural? You could certainly make a case that our souls are actually the ones controlling our physical self, but logic would show that's not the case. People are still a product of their environment, would a soul be just as easily manipulated by external factors as the brain is? Does this supernatural soul make right and wrong choices, does it lead you to do harm or to do good? If it did it's still a creation of God so you'll run into the same paradoxes as before. If a soul has such little control over what makes us who we are then your point is moot anyway since God would still be judging us on the factors that he himself put us in.

So no matter if a soul exists it still doesn't help your argument anyway. Your argument is illogical, that doesn't mean you're right or wrong, it just means that it's void of logic. Sure, you can reply like my sister does and say "it's not supposed to be logical because we're dealing with the supernatural" but that's just really a cop-out for saying "I'm brain washed and want to stay that way". (Not saying you're brainwashed)

And all of this begs at least one question: if human beings' thoughts and actions really are nothing more than the inexorable response to external stimuli -- if we are just complex chemical reactions -- what on earth are you doing acting is if a certain group of human beings are "thinking men"?

What are you talking about?

 

Darth Brooks
"All evil is based on that which opposes God's will and intentions."

Since this is an Atheism thread, not the bible hour, the Atheist response would be that evil is that which opposes and offends the humanity of others, and by extension, the sovereignty of nations, or the preciousness of animal life, and so on. Thus, Atheists fully accept a moral code but reject your notion of an ultimate creator, because there is no evidence that your creator is the source of any goodness

 

And all of this begs at least one question: if human beings' thoughts and actions really are nothing more than the inexorable response to external stimuli -- if we are just complex chemical reactions -- what on earth are you doing acting is if a certain group of human beings are "thinking men"?

What are you talking about?

I believe that he is asking this question:

If all of our thoughts and actions are really based in chemical reactions and external stimuli, how is it logical to label one group of people "thinking men"? Would we not all be equal in the amount of "thinking" (or lack thereof) that we are capable of?

Kimball Kinnison

 

If all of our thoughts and actions are really based in chemical reactions and external stimuli, how is it logical to label one group of people "thinking men"? Would we not all be equal in the amount of "thinking" (or lack thereof) that we are capable of?

Of course not. I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion.

 

Of course not. I don't see how you're coming to that conclusion.

I don't see how someone wouldn't come to that conclusion. I think an epistemological, or "reason", argument is one of the stronger one's that works in favor of a universe with a God. A naturalistic universe (one where there is no supernature or god), demands that all phenomina be describable in terms of cause and effect. But what results when you try to explain reason, or human knowledge, in terms of cause and effect, is that it stops being reason or knowledge. If our thoughts and idea's are just the natural outcome of chemical and physical processes that have come before, then there's no justifiable way to assume that they are true insights, or actual knowledge. So, it follows that,if a naturalistic interpretation of things were corrects, then statements like "All thinking men are Atheists" or "All thinking men are Theists" are meaningless. There would be no such thing as "thinking," just the illusion that the random movement of energy that is you can actually grasp a truth about the universe, while still being caught helplessly in the flow of it

 

I think the absurdity of the discussion here of late only underline the absurdity of the christian concept of God.

Bubba:

cyprus, it seems to me you're assuming that human beings are completely contained within the physical universe -- that our actions are simply the inexorable and predictable responses to external stimuli.

Physical schmysical. God created it, physical, etherial, or ultra-hyper-trans-dimensional or not, right?

Hence the same logic applies 110%. Trying to cop-out to a transdimension doesn't fly.

While I understand this assumption, I disagree with it, and so does Christianity. Hence, the concept of the soul, a part of a human life (the essential part) that exists outside the physical universe and can thus be an independent cause of human actions.

...but since God created also this, this line of reasoning is completely irrelevant and a red herring.

Unless you can prove that the Christian belief in the soul is wrong (and it is as difficult to prove as your glib assertion that "when we die we cease to exist"), you should probably simply admit that the difference between our worldview and yours is -- at least on the question of free will -- not based on some illogic on our part, but on two different sets of assumptions.

Quite the reverse, the existance of nonexistance of "soul" is completely immaterial (pun gleefully intended) to the problem at hand.

And all of this begs at least one question: if human beings' thoughts and actions really are nothing more than the inexorable response to external stimuli -- if we are just complex chemical reactions -- what on earth are you doing acting is if a certain group of human beings are "thinking men"?

Because "thinking" is precicely that, response to external stimuli. Highly complex and modal responses, yes, very very VERY complex, but responses nevertheless.

And before you attemp to devalue that into some kind of "but that is not true thinking" line of reasoning - of course it is. What else would true thinking be?

If we're just complex chemical reactions, none of us truly think,

Of course we do. These are invalid random assumption on your part based on flawed pre-conceived notions of what "to think" means.

/Z

 

The following isn't directed personalization and is an objective analysis of what's going on in this thread right now:




Generally, it is a waste of time for theists (such as myself - I must say) to get into a quid pro quo with atheists over core beliefs and vice versa. There really is no point to bang one's head on the wall on either side of this discussion.

As Zap demonstrates, atheists hold theism contemptable and any rationalization to justify faith is a moot point to them.

Example:

the absurdity of the christian concept of God.

His post above demonstrates his contempt for theism/theists in general: i.e., theists are simple-minded and theism is mythology, the same as any Santa Claus story told to children.

So, the point of the discussion here is not to attempt to invalidate the other's point of view by unprovable statements/proof, contempt, hostility, or veiled insults. It is to express why YOU feel this way.

I.E.: I believe theism is correct because X, Y, and Z. - or - I believe atheism is correct because Z, Y, and Z. I believe theism has X, Y, and Z effects on society. - or - I believe atheism has X, Y, and Z effects on society.

We can discuss what politics and the implications of theism/atheism upon it.

We can discuss education and the impact of atheism in schools.

We can discuss why the Atheist believes what he does.

However, we SHOULD NOT point to the other and say: "You're basically a fool to believe what you do." (in an outright or veiled fashion).

Hostility is a sign of insecurity. If one is secure in their beliefs, there is no need to berate the other - no matter what side you are on.

Surely the members here know that minds really are 99.9% not likely to be changed, so the discussion should focus on perspective only.

 

Darth Mischievous,

You make a true point, the greatest miracle of God is the believer in Christ.

People tend to think in terms of the miraculous as water into wine, or lame healed, but it is instead within the quiet of the heart in response to the still small voice of the Lord.

 

Zap,

"I think the absurdity of the discussion here of late only underline the absurdity of the christian concept of God."

"I do not think you know what that word means." (Absurdity.)

I've yet to see you in months present one legitimate example of an "absurdity" actually doctrinally present within the Christian concept of God.

While I've seen your defense of atheism roam all over the board often contradicting your own prerequisites for what is apparently considered by yourself a 'non-absurd' belief system.

 

Yeah, but you also have to realize that no one thinks the same way, which rather obviously means that the chemicals and physics in everyone?s head are slightly different. What I mean by that is that person A may have more of chemical A in their head where as person B may have some pathway blocked that prevents physical process B from happening fully. Millions of these differences like that may hinder or help our thinking processes but they clearly make us unique. Once our brain decides something it basically leaves that decision alone and goes on to thinking about other things.

That, the chemical and physical processes, is all that thinking is, knowledge is just information stored in our brain as opposed to a book or hard drive or whatever. Insight is simply when the chemicals and physical processes attach several bits of knowledge and/or thought in a useful way that, by chance, no one else had put together.

Yes, our brains and everything is based on cause and effect. When was the last time you made a decision or choose something that did not have a cause? Even Brooks said he believes in God due to a cause (experiencing the Living God was the cause of his faith). Even if you are just being rebellious and your personality says to try to do a 'random' thing, that itself is a cause.

Theists seem to think that there is something more to thinking that what I said above (don?t take what I said as the content of every book ever made on the human mind, I mean in the sense being debated). What is that something more? Again (I realize that Bubba has not had a chance to reply, but to anyone this time) what is 'truly thinking?'

 

I've yet to see you in months present one legitimate example of an "absurdity" actually doctrinally present within the Christian concept of God

No?!? Look at the rather humorous circle-hopping going on in the last dozen posts, where theists are frantically trying to plug the loophole of Gods "perfection" vs. "evil" vs. "free will".

To me, the illogic in these presupposition is to blatantly self evident, that even beginning to argue it is a huge waste of time. Simply because anyone who is blind enough not to see these glowing contradiction, is already a lost case, and not worth discussing with, since this person is obviously locked into his little circle of strange excuses and "god works in mysterious ways" cop outs.

I had Jehovas Witnesses here yesterday.

Without saying much more than "uh-hmm", and "well, yeah, if you believe that", I managed to get him to basically reason himself into a corner. It was quite amusing.

absurd

\Ab*surd"\, a. [L. absurdus harsh-sounding; ab + (prob) a derivative fr. a root svar to sound; not connected with surd: cf. F. absurde. See Syringe.] Contrary to reason or propriety; obviously and fiatly opposed to manifest truth; inconsistent with the plain dictates of common sense; logically contradictory; nonsensical; ridiculous; as, an absurd person, an absurd opinion; an absurd dream.

/Z

 

I don't see how someone wouldn't come to that conclusion. I think an epistemological, or "reason", argument is one of the stronger one's that works in favor of a universe with a God.
I don't see how, the ability to "reason" do not point to a God. It just show that being thinks to achieve goals. Even a bird can think of something.
A naturalistic universe (one where there is no supernature or god), demands that all phenomina be describable in terms of cause and effect. But what results when you try to explain reason, or human knowledge, in terms of cause and effect, is that it stops being reason or knowledge. If our thoughts and idea's are just the natural outcome of chemical and physical processes that have come before, then there's no justifiable way to assume that they are true insights, or actual knowledge.
What do you mean by true insight, what do you mean by actual knowledge ? You got to understand that there is no TRUE true, or TRUE false. From a line of resoning, someone can deduce things, thats all. It does not matter if it is 110% super dupper God-approved true, as long as it works. If I throw a rock, I say it will fall on the ground, am I 100% absolutely sure, no(who knows? anything could happen), but for all pratical purposes, I can rely on the assumption that the rock will fall. That is the knowledge of gravity.

So, it follows that,if a naturalistic interpretation of things were corrects, then statements like "All thinking men are Atheists" or "All thinking men are Theists" are meaningless.
The meaning is nothing more than the statement. You says "All thinking men are atheists" means that all thinking men are atheists, nothing more, nothing less.

There would be no such thing as "thinking," just the illusion that the random movement of energy that is you can actually grasp a truth about the universe, while still being caught helplessly in the flow of it
So, what's your point ? If we are not thinking, but it is an illusion so good that it does/feels/is like the same damn thing as thinking, then for all pratical purposes, this "illusion" is thinking and so far, I'd say it works very well.

 

Everyone believes in something

Indeed that is true, god does not have to be that very thing, human nature, the Force, sceince, nature, evolotion of life and death, the list goes on.

 

Bubba:

Unless you can prove that the Christian belief in the soul is wrong (and it is as difficult to prove as your glib assertion that "when we die we cease to exist"), you should probably simply admit that the difference between our worldview and yours is -- at least on the question of free will -- not based on some illogic on our part, but on two different sets of assumptions

In the Bible, ?soul? is translated from the Hebrew ne´phesh and the Greek psy·khe´. Bible usage shows the soul to be a person or an animal or the life that a person or an animal enjoys. To many persons, however, ?soul? means the immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. Others understand it to be the principle of life. But these latter views are not Bible teachings

Gen 2:7 says God created man as a living soul, not that he has a soul.

1 Cor 15:45 says how Adam became a living soul

1 Peter 3:20 says that 8 souls were carried safley through the water.

Ezek. 18:4: ?Look! All the souls?to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son?to me they belong. The soul* that is sinning?it itself will die.? (*Hebrew reads ?the ne´phesh.? KJ, AS, RS, NE, and Dy render it ?the soul.? Some translations say ?the man? or ?the person.?)

Matt. 10:28: ?Do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul [or, ?life?]; but rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul* and body in Gehenna.? (*Greek has the accusative case of psy·khe´. KJ, AS, RS, NE, TEV, Dy, JB, and NAB all render it ?soul.?)

Acts 3:23: ?Indeed, any soul [Greek, psy·khe´] that does not listen to that Prophet will be completely destroyed from among the people.

So you assertations that the soul survives the body and the fact that it can be killed kinda undermines your glib notion that you cannot prove that you cease to exist when you die!

 

There would be no such thing as "thinking," just the illusion that the random movement of energy that is you can actually grasp a truth about the universe, while still being caught helplessly in the flow of it

What do you guys think thinking is? It's just a highly complex system of neurons that transmits electrochemical signals to form what we know as "thinking".

What has me confused is, what the heck is "truly thinking" and what has your perception of thinking been all this time?

 

Everyone believes in something

Only to a point. There is a huge difference between believing something is probably/practically true (because how else could we live, it is not really a choice), and believing something is absolutely true. No atheist/agnostic that I know really believes that evolution, big bang, whatever is absolutely true (but there probably are a few I don't know about). It is only the theists that I know who ever say that they believe (heck, they will even use the word know) that something is completely true, and to me that is a large part of what faith is.