The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread) [Archive] - Theology Forum

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Freak
Atheism also fails to adequately explain the existence of eternal, unchanging truths, for it rejects the existence of an eternal unchanging Mind.Provide three examples of eternal, unchanging truths and explain how you can be absolutely certain they are eternal.

Atheism cannot offer man any eternal significance.It does not seek to do so. Most atheists of my acquaintance are humanists, they do not seek "eternal significance."

Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God. Au contrairè Jay, since, as nearly as anyone can prove, consciousness ceases to exist after death, the meaning we extract from our lives is as permanent as meaning can be. Once we're done, we're done. A thousand years from now, all your pontification on TOL (and mine as well) will be forgotten. What we do here, we do for entertainment, not for any eternal purpose...

Christianity provides hope after death. Zakath, a breath away you are....then what....you might simply dismiss death...but it is a reality that all humans must face... Finally, we agree, even you will face and be overcome by death one day, Jay. One day you'll see that I'm right. But I can wait. Death comes for all humans, even religionists like you. Neither your deity or your faith will save you from "the long dirt nap"...

Death is a fact of existence here, Jay. You can fear it like a religionist or face it squarely like an atheist. But you cannot avoid it.

Gerald

March 18th, 2003, 03:30 PM

Originally posted by Knight
Because it doesn't match what is self evident.
And it is self-evident is that there exists an invisible, immaterial, volitional being who regularly interacts with the material world?

I'd like to see you demonstrate that. I really would.

Let me ask you what I asked Mustard Seed, to wit:

I get this very same sentiment from people who believe in psychic powers, ghosts, flying saucers, and all the other paranormal booshwah. Am I being closed-minded when I dismiss their claims? Yes or no?

And to repeat an earlier post, if I trip on the rug, is it because I wasn't watching my step, or is it because invisible, immaterial gremlins made me trip, wrinkled the rug just so I would stumble over it? Is it closed-minded for me to not give equal weight to both possibilities? Yes or no?

Evidence for gravity is ubiquitous and impossible to ignore. Do you dispute this? Yes or no? I don't need to go seeking evidence for gravity. All I need to do is...trip on the rug.

Now, if evidence for the supernatural is as ubiquitous as you appear to be claiming, why do I have to be looking to change how I live or what I am to discover it? Why must I jump through hoops for the supernatural but not for gravity?

He never answered. Care to give it a go?

Zakath

March 18th, 2003, 04:05 PM

This should be interesting to watch... Not enlightening, but interesting. ;)

Freak

March 18th, 2003, 04:14 PM

Zakath you asked: Provide three examples of eternal, unchanging truths and explain how you can be absolutely certain they are eternal.

Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.

How can we be absolutely sure they are eternal? The answer is because the Holy Scriptures declare it. I know you are a atheist that denies the inerrancy of Scripture. But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin. That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....

Freak

March 18th, 2003, 04:19 PM

As the debate clearly shows the atheist could not provide any information that debunks the belief in God.

In conclusion, Dr. Martin has presented no persuasive arguments as to why one should expect absolute moral values, eternal and unchanging truths, the beginning of the universe, the universe's continuing existence, the design and order in the universe, ultimate meaning in life, the sanctity of human life, the possibility of human knowledge, and the ultimate defeat of evil in a universe without God.

He goes on:

I have shown that these aspects of human experience are predicted by the theistic hypothesis. Martin's alternatives to my arguments are highly speculative, extremely improbable, and very unconvincing. It is apparent that he is willing to entertain absurdities (such as the universe evolving into existence from nothing, an infinite number of unverifiable universes, the rejection of eternal and unchanging prescriptive moral laws, etc.) in order to escape the conclusion that the theistic God does exist. In short, Martin fails to explain why atheism is a superior hypothesis to that of theism. He is willing to attack theism, but does not even attempt to show that atheism offers a better explanation for the nine aspects of human experience I discussed in my opening statement. Martin unsuccessfully attacks the explanatory power of theism while failing to show that atheism has any explanatory power.6 My thesis remains intact. It is more reasonable to be a theist than it is to be an atheist.

shilohproject

March 18th, 2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by Freak

Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.

How can we be absolutely sure they are eternal? The answer is because the Holy Scriptures declare it. I know you are a atheist that denies the inerrancy of Scripture. But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin. That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....

Freak,

One must be careful here to not confuse belief with proof.

I happen to agree with you on these three points (love, goodness & Jesus), but I am absolutely certain that it is a matter of faith and definition. There is no proof in these assertions, e.g. goodness and love exist outside the Christian world, too.

Freak

March 18th, 2003, 06:19 PM

Originally posted by shilohproject

Freak,

One must be careful here to not confuse belief with proof.

I happen to agree with you on these three points (love, goodness & Jesus), but I am absolutely certain that it is a matter of faith and definition. There is no proof in these assertions, e.g. goodness and love exist outside the Christian world, too.

I have reasonable faith though. Not a blind faith. Big difference that you should see I would think.

Flipper

March 18th, 2003, 06:27 PM

zakath wrote:

This should be interesting to watch... Not enlightening, but interesting.

Really? I just have a weary sense of resignation. How many times can the same things be said in not-very-different ways? How many times will, after a few months of injured silence, will exactly the same points be represented in a slightly different shade of mauve as if they were interesting new arguments? Do some Christians timeshare their memories with goldfish?

Is that what will prevent heaven from becoming boring over eternity? ("hello! Look at that! A rock! How interesting!".... (7 seconds pass)... "What's that? It looks like a rock! Wow!")

Neophyte

March 18th, 2003, 06:30 PM

[Do some Christians timeshare their memories with goldfish?

Is that what will prevent heaven from becoming boring over eternity? ("hello! Look at that! A rock! How interesting!".... (7 seconds pass)... "What's that? It looks like a rock! Wow!")

ROFL!!!!!

Jefferson

March 18th, 2003, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Flipper
Is that what will prevent heaven from becoming boring over eternity? ("hello! Look at that! A rock! How interesting!".... (7 seconds pass)... "What's that? It looks like a rock! Wow!") If you have ever taken LSD (20 years or so ago when LSD actually existed) you can only imagine how fascinating life will be with (not just a redeemed body) but also a redeemed mind. I can't wait.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 07:15 AM

Originally posted by Jefferson
If you have ever taken LSD (20 years or so ago when LSD actually existed) you can only imagine how fascinating life will be with (not just a redeemed body) but also a redeemed mind. I can't wait.

What?! Heaven is like being on LSD????? Think bigger than drug-induced mania.

shima

March 19th, 2003, 07:36 AM

>>I have shown that these aspects of human experience are predicted by the theistic hypothesis.<<

Nope, you haven't shown anyhting.

>>Martin's alternatives to my arguments are highly speculative, extremely improbable, and very unconvincing.<<

Given that Martin looks at the arguements from an atheistic perspective, he finds the arguements much more convincing than yours.

>>It is apparent that he is willing to entertain absurdities (such as the universe evolving into existence from nothing, an infinite number of unverifiable universes, the rejection of eternal and unchanging prescriptive moral laws, etc.) in order to escape the conclusion that the theistic God does exist. <<

Actually, atheists find the probability that the Universe came from "nothing" (not that there is any proof that "nothing" exists outside our universe) much higher than the probability that it was done by God as described in the bible.

>>In short, Martin fails to explain why atheism is a superior hypothesis to that of theism. <<

Well, that depends on your definition of "superior". Most christians would agree with you, while most atheists disagree. After all, if they think that the theistic hypothesis is superior, they wouldn't BE atheist.

>>He is willing to attack theism, but does not even attempt to show that atheism offers a better explanation for the nine aspects of human experience I discussed in my opening statement. <<

Human experience is EXTREMELY subjective to the beliefs of the person involved. If a human believes in God, he will most likely see the existence confirmed in almost every aspect of life. An atheist will NEVER see the existence of a God confirmed in human experience, simply because he interprets the world DIFFERENTLY.

The problem is that the theist has the burden of proof, not the atheist. Since it is impossible to prove a negative, the theist must prove that the God hypothesis is more believable than the atheistic hypothesis. This requires proof that God exists, which in 2000 years no one has been able to do without at some point relying on the bible as "The Word of God" which leads to circular arguementation.

>>Martin unsuccessfully attacks the explanatory power of theism while failing to show that atheism has any explanatory power.<<

I think its the other way around. Atheism has great explanatory power, including why christians think God exists. Theism also has explanatory power, but only when it comes to Christians. The explanation of why there are atheists in the first place fails rather apallingly.

>>My thesis remains intact. It is more reasonable to be a theist than it is to be an atheist.<<

Depending on the definition of "reason".

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath you asked: Provide three examples of eternal, unchanging truths and explain how you can be absolutely certain they are eternal.

Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.

How can we be absolutely sure they are eternal? The answer is because the Holy Scriptures declare it. I know you are a atheist that denies the inerrancy of Scripture. But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin. That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, as you admit, it is useless to me since you cannot prove - the existence of your deity
- the goodness of your deity
- the eternality of your diety
- the inerrancy of the Bible
- or the continued existence of and truthfulness of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, for once, you did actually respond with information.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 07:55 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

Thank you for your response.

Unfortunately, as you admit, it is useless to me since you cannot prove - the existence of your deity
- the goodness of your deity
- the eternality of your diety
- the inerrancy of the Bible
- or the continued existence of and truthfulness of Jesus of Nazareth.

But, for once, you did actually respond with information.

Zakath, neither can *you* prove the nonexistence of God, so what is the point of this banter? Matters of spiritual belief and faith cannot be 'proved' in a scientific sense anymore than your starting premise (there is no God) can be 'proved' in a scientific sense. I fail to see how your retort strengthens your position.

shima

March 19th, 2003, 07:57 AM

>>But that is your problem not mine because there is ample evidence to believe the Scriptures are divine in origin.That is why we can say these are eternal, unchanging truths....<<

Ofcourse, what one person sees as "proof of God" someone else sees as "proof of evolution". The main problem is to prove the existence of God for someone who doesn't believe that the bible is the Word of God.

In essence, ALL "proofs" of the existence of God depend on believing that the bible is the Word of God. So, all arguements for God are circular arguements. There is no proof that does NOT depend on belief in God. After all, if there was proof all people (including those of other faiths) would already be Christians. The fact that they are NOT means that Christians cannot prove that God exists.

>>Love, goodness, and Jesus are all three examples of "eternal, unchanging truths" that you are looking for.

*Since God is love therefore love is eternal for God is eternal.
*God is good therefore goodness is eternal since God is eternal (His attributes never change).
*Jesus is the truth and we know Jesus is God so Jesus is eternal.<<

Ocourse, believing that these are eternal truths depends on belief in God. If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe these are eternal truths.

Belief is a way of coping with all the data pouring into the brain every second. Belief shapes the interpretation of those signals, and the signals shape your belief. Thus, it is a feedback-loop, much like all other signal processing-modelling activities. Ofcourse, some beliefs shape the interpretation more than others, and some beliefs shape the interpretation so strongly that contradictory information is "weeded" out of the signals such that only belief-confirming data remains. Thus, belief shapes (or rather: distords) your view of reality.

And this goes for all beliefs, even belief in Santa or the Tooth Faery. Some are just stronger than others, and some have so much "fail safe devices" that every contradictory signal can be explained in such a way that it seems to confirm that belief (ie: The Devil did it!) rather than contradict it.

However, to eliminate unwanted beliefs from shaping the interpretation, science has devised ways to do away with beliefs and biases which might distord data interpretation. This has been a very powerfull way to detect the working mechanisms of reality, although no matter what belief is still powerfull and cannot be dismissed that easily. Nevertheless, peer-review, double-blind experiments, discussion conferences and other mechanisms do well in exposing/eliminating beliefs/biases from data interpretation.

This is why religion fears science so much, since science is a way to interpret data without the influence of belief. And ALL religions rely on belief to shape the interpretation and safe-guard that belief from being destroyed by contradictory data. When you take away all those safe-guards, all those "collored glasses" and those "blindfolds", what is left is ususally less than nothing.

Ofcourse, some religions are far better at avoiding taking off those "blindfolds". These religions are the ones who survive longest because followers are very hard to convert from their chosen religion. Nevertheless, atheists and other non-religious groups are gaining numbers FAST. I just hope that those religious groups are NOT going to start a fight about it, because the LAST thing this world needs is another Holy War, resulting in the banning of science by those religions. We NEED science, because our world can no longer survive without it.

Face it, most of this world would be better off without religious influences determining peoples choises.

Freak

March 19th, 2003, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Neophyte

Zakath, neither can *you* prove the nonexistence of God, so what is the point of this banter? Matters of spiritual belief and faith cannot be 'proved' in a scientific sense anymore than your starting premise (there is no God) can be 'proved' in a scientific sense. I fail to see how your retort strengthens your position.

Exactly! Zakath is getting there.... but still fails to understand this elementary fact.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by shima

In essence, ALL "proofs" of the existence of God depend on believing that the bible is the Word of God.

Actually, this isn't so. If you can stomach loads of chemistry and physics I highly recommend 'The Creator and the Cosmos', by Dr. Hugh Ross -- most astrophysicists these days, based on scientific evidence, are concluding that there is a Divine Creator.

This is why religion fears science so much, since science is a way to interpret data without the influence of belief.

Again, I would contend that science fears religion - (see above referenced book -- I personally don't believe the two are mutually exclusive.

I just hope that those religious groups are NOT going to start a fight about it, because the LAST thing this world needs is another Holy War, resulting in the banning of science by those religions. We NEED science, because our world can no longer survive without it.

Not all Christians are ignorant fools (any more than all atheists are ignorant fools). Do you *really* think 'religious' people will ban science? Just because people espouse a faith does not mean they will strap bombs to themselves or start burning books.

Face it, most of this world would be better off without religious influences determining peoples choises.

....hmmmm, religious influences were instrumental in founding the United States. I, for one, don't think we'd be better off w/o this great nation.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Dang it! I haven't quite mastered this 'quote' function....(hence the name 'Neophyte' on this board). Sorry folks....not all of the above 'quoted' material was from Shima. (Sorry Shima for giving the appearance I've put words in your mouth).

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by shima
>>
Thus, belief shapes (or rather: distords) your view of reality.

And this goes for all beliefs, even belief in Santa or the Tooth Faery. Some are just stronger than others, and some have so much "fail safe devices" that every contradictory signal can be explained in such a way that it seems to confirm that belief (ie: The Devil did it!) rather than contradict it.

However, to eliminate unwanted beliefs from shaping the interpretation, science has devised ways to do away with beliefs and biases which might distord data interpretation. This has been a very powerfull way to detect the working mechanisms of reality, although no matter what belief is still powerfull and cannot be dismissed that easily. Nevertheless, peer-review, double-blind experiments, discussion conferences and other mechanisms do well in exposing/eliminating beliefs/biases from data interpretation.

This is why religion fears science so much, since science is a way to interpret data without the influence of belief.

You are joking, right? As a former scientist (and now law student) I can tell you that science is MOST DEFINITELY influenced by the bias and belief of the scientist conducting the experiment.

Indeed, science is merely a *method* for observing the world around us, not a *truth*. It is not fail safe, and it is most definitely influenced by bias --- even when attempting double-blind experiments, peer-review (which, by the way, is heavily biased), and criticizing data interpretation.

I also take exception to your contention that belief 'distorts' one's view of reality -- belief (including scientific theories) are lenses through which we view the world; 'distort' is a loaded term that suggests the particular view is wrong.

shima

March 19th, 2003, 08:38 AM

Don't worry, most people will have guessed which parts are yours and which are mine.

I personally haven't read the book, but if I were to hazard a guess: its about things like the electric charge constant, the dielectric constant and how if they would only be slighty slighty different life probably wouldn't have formed here.

I know the arguement, and it fails to hold water because of the lack of imagination on behalf of the writer. If, so goes the arguement, the ratio of the two were slightly different, no stars would be able to form, or those stars able to form would burn all their fuel in a few million years. However, suppose that no stars form at all, would that mean that there would NOT be anthing else in that universe? The basic assumption underpining his arguement is that he cannot imagine that life would look completely different. While we might not have life based on Carbon atoms, we might have life based on Nitrogen bonds, or how about life based on hydrogen cristal deposits? I can understand that if there are no stars, then life might look completely different (perhaps even unrecognizable to our eyes) but that doesn't mean that NO life is possible there.

Basically, ALL arguements involving science try to prove that life/planets/solar systems could NOT have formed by purely natural means, suggesting that the process REQUIRED a Creator. Ofcourse, as any scientists/philosopher will tell you, it is not possible to prove a negative, and thus all those arguements can be dismissed. This includes the "Intelligent Design" and the "Irreducably Complex" arguements.

And since the proof for the existence/absence of God lies firmly on the shoulder of the theist (after all try to prove the absence of this god: the All Powerfull, Invisble Pink Unicorn), we atheists are still waiting (its been about 4500 years now) for the definite proof of God.

quasi

March 19th, 2003, 08:47 AM

it's so nice to see that there are some actual intelligent people ou there.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 08:48 AM

Shima,
Point taken..although I do think the book goes into much greater detail than what you've described here.

Again, as I said earlier in response to Zakath - ultimately the crux of the atheist/theist debate comes down to belief -- on both sides of the argument - since neither side can 'prove' their starting premise!

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Neophyte
Zakath, neither can *you* prove the nonexistence of God, so what is the point of this banter?

From my perspective, the "point of the banter" is an attempt to get religionists (most frequently some flavor of "Christian" on this site) to think about what they believe by asking them to reasonably and logically defend those beliefs.

From the perspective of the religionists, it's basically apologetics, the branch of theology concerned with proving the truth of or defending doctrine.

Matters of spiritual belief and faith cannot be 'proved' in a scientific sense anymore than your starting premise (there is no God) can be 'proved' in a scientific sense. I fail to see how your retort strengthens your position. My position is not one needing strengthening. It's been said many times, even on this site, that "extraordinary claims require extratordinary evidence to be believable."

Christians make many extraordinary claims. I, and others like me, merely ask them for evidence. As you have correctly noted, much of what is provided is far from compelling from my point of view.

While I cannot prove that Jay Bartlett's deity doesn't exist, neither can he prove that Bhrama, Vishnu, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn don't exist. This is a crippling flaw of his apologetic since his religious beliefs require the existence of but a single deity. That's why he must people his universe with an increasingly broader panoply of disincarnate alien beings masquerading as one another and possessing or influencing humans to work their will.

What I can demonstrate, within reasonable certainty (reasonable for me, anyway), is that such entities are so unlikely to exist that, for all intents and purposes, the likelihood of their existence approaches close enough to zero for me to discard the hypothesis of their existence as useless.

Since, during the last ten years, not a single religionist of the hundreds I've questioned from a wide variety of religious backgrounds has been able to directly demonstate the existence of their deity and its alleged impact on the universe which we occupy, I remain an atheist.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by shima

I personally haven't read the book, but if I were to hazard a guess: its about things like the electric charge constant, the dielectric constant and how if they would only be slighty slighty different life probably wouldn't have formed here.

I know the arguement, and it fails to hold water because of the lack of imagination on behalf of the writer. If, so goes the arguement, the ratio of the two were slightly different, no stars would be able to form, or those stars able to form would burn all their fuel in a few million years. However, suppose that no stars form at all, would that mean that there would NOT be anthing else in that universe? The basic assumption underpining his arguement is that he cannot imagine that life would look completely different. While we might not have life based on Carbon atoms, we might have life based on Nitrogen bonds, or how about life based on hydrogen cristal deposits? I can understand that if there are no stars, then life might look completely different (perhaps even unrecognizable to our eyes) but that doesn't mean that NO life is possible there.

Actually, the thrust of the book is the concept of a finite beginning for the Universe which is increasingly being supported by scientific evidence - the author does discuss the incredibly delicate balance - but not just of the electric charge constant and the dielectric constant - virtually every aspect of the universe seems poised to support life on this planet.

The analogy (in terms of probabilities) is something like this: Imagine a pile of dimes, the width of which is the size of North America, stacked from here to the moon. Now, multiply that pile by about 1 billion. Paint ONE dime red. Blindfold a friend. Have that friend pick out the one red dime --- the probability of him getting it on the first try is like the probability of this Earth/Universe existing as we know it today by pure chance.

What is fascinating is HOW the scientific community is responding to such findings -- even Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein could not escape the conclusion of design - but were unwilling to accept it b/c they didn't like the consequences of accepting it.

The author also addresses your last point -- ie, just because life exists as we see it now doesn't mean it couldn't have existed in some other form --- but not having the book in front of me (and having read it some time ago) I can't remember his retort.....I'll see if I can dig it up and get back with you.

Flipper

March 19th, 2003, 09:14 AM

Shima:

Face it, most of this world would be better off without religious influences determining peoples choises.

See, I disagree. I don't believe that people are wholey rational creatures. Religion is one lightning rod for this tendency but there are many others, ranging from the small superstitions that people have day-to-day, to their unwarranted faith in fad pseudoscience or in lottery tickets, or Nigerian email scams.

If it weren't religion, it would be something else. Nationalism, perhaps.

shima

March 19th, 2003, 09:14 AM

>>You are joking, right? As a former scientist (and now law student) I can tell you that science is MOST DEFINITELY influenced by the bias and belief of the scientist conducting the experiment.<<

Yes, I know that it is extremely hard to eliminate bias from experiments and interpretation. Nevertheless, science is doing a good job trying to explain reality through natural "cause and effect" means. We've come quite a long way ever since the first people gazed up at the stars and peopled it with Gods of Thunder, Fertility etc.

>>Indeed, science is merely a *method* for observing the world around us, not a *truth*. It is not fail safe, and it is most definitely influenced by bias --- even when attempting double-blind experiments, peer-review (which, by the way, is heavily biased), and criticizing data interpretation.<<

I never suggested that science is in any way "perfect", since this is not possible because science is done by PEOPLE. Yes, peer-review is done by scientists and hence is biased, but science is MUCH faster in the uptake of new ideas and the rejection of old ideas proven wrong. It only took about 20-25 years for General Relativity to replace Newton's description of gravity, and slight less for Quantum Mechanics (which is extremely counter intuitive from a laymans perspective) to replace the "billiard balls" approach to small particles.

>>I also take exception to your contention that belief 'distorts' one's view of reality -- belief (including scientific theories) are lenses through which we view the world; 'distort' is a loaded term that suggests the particular view is wrong.<<

Well, as lenzes go, "distord" is indeed a very good description since some lenzes do "distord" reality. Some do so more than others. Now, science is very good at trying to get a view of reality that does NOT involve lenzes or distortion. And this is why most religions but Christianity in particular don't like science.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 09:16 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

From my perspective, the "point of the banter" is an attempt to get religionists (most frequently some flavor of "Christian" on this site) to think about what they believe by asking them to reasonably and logically defend those beliefs.

From the perspective of the religionists, it's basically apologetics, the branch of theology concerned with proving the truth of or defending doctrine.

My position is not one needing strengthening. It's been said many times, even on this site, that "extraordinary claims require extratordinary evidence to be believable."

Christians make many extraordinary claims. I, and others like me, merely ask them for evidence. As you have correctly noted, much of what is provided is far from compelling from my point of view.

While I cannot prove that Jay Bartlett's deity doesn't exist, neither can he prove that Bhrama, Vishnu, or the Invisible Pink Unicorn don't exist. This is a crippling flaw of his apologetic since his religious beliefs require the existence of but a single deity. That's why he must people his universe with an increasingly broader panoply of disincarnate alien beings masquerading as one another and possessing or influencing humans to work their will.

What I can demonstrate, within reasonable certainty (reasonable for me, anyway), is that such entities are so unlikely to exist that, for all intents and purposes, the likelihood of their existence approaches close enough to zero for me to discard the hypothesis of their existence as useless.

Since, during the last ten years, not a single religionist of the hundreds I've questioned from a wide variety of religious backgrounds has been able to directly demonstate the existence of their deity and its alleged impact on the universe which we occupy, I remain an atheist.

I respect your position - it is clearly well thought out and makes sense to you. I am willing to 'reasonably' and 'logically' defend my beliefs. But if the only 'reasonable defense', in your mind, is absolute proof of God's existence, I'm afraid the conversation would be rather dull. I cannot offer you 'proof' of God.

I can say that the likelihood of the existence of the Universe in its present form, and the life supporting characteristics of our planet within that universe, are so mathematically improbable (virtually zero) if left to chance, that I reject the hypothesis that they exist by pure chance. The overwhelming impression is one of design.

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 09:17 AM

Flipper,

I think history bears this out by the devotion of people to their nation state in non-religious societies like China and the old USSR.

Gerald

March 19th, 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Neophyte
I can say that the likelihood of the existence of the Universe in its present form, and the life supporting characteristics of our planet within that universe, are so mathematically improbable (virtually zero) if left to chance, that I reject the hypothesis that they exist by pure chance. The overwhelming impression is one of design. Why is it that religionists keep falling back to the origin of the universe? Is that the last place they can make a stand?

Even if the universe is the result of Divine Artifice, that says nothing about the Artificer. It is a very big leap to say "Divine Artificer = the God of Abraham".

Many religionists claim that there exists an invisible, immaterial, volitional being (or beings) who regularly interacts with the material world. However, they have yet to demonstrate that this is so.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by shima
Well, as lenzes go, "distord" is indeed a very good description since some lenzes do "distord" reality. Some do so more than others. Now, science is very good at trying to get a view of reality that does NOT involve lenzes or distortion. And this is why most religions but Christianity in particular don't like science.

Agreed. And yes, I think you are right that a great many Christians fear/loathe science. I hope you'll be pleased to know that there is at least one Christian out there (namely me) who happens to love science. I have never believed that religion and science are mutually exclusive - that is of course, until the day we have 'absolute proof' (in the sense demanded by most atheists) of the existence or nonexistence of God. Since this hasn't happened in all the history of the human race I don't think we are anywhere near such a state.

What amazes me about most scientists, is that they are every bit as closed-minded and 'dogmatic' about their particular 'lense' as Christians are about theirs. But most scientists refuse to acknowledge they are wearing a lense at all. (I freely admit that most Christians also refuse to acknowledge they are wearing a lense). Many scientists tout their ability to 'correct' and 'criticize' their interpretations yet are remarkably unwilling, even in their own communities, to actually do so.

Zakath

March 19th, 2003, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Neophyte
What amazes me about most scientists, is that they are every bit as closed-minded and 'dogmatic' about their particular 'lense' as Christians are about theirs. It shouldn't be amazing, really. Humans are closed-minded, dogmatic, etc. Scientists are just human beings, afterall.

But most scientists refuse to acknowledge they are wearing a lense at all. (I freely admit that most Christians also refuse to acknowledge they are wearing a lense). Many scientists tout their ability to 'correct' and 'criticize' their interpretations yet are remarkably unwilling, even in their own communities, to actually do so. Anyone who's studied the history of science knows how resistant to change many theoretical positions have been. It's just their humanity showing.

History does point to one difference between science and religion: one normally doesn't get burned at the stake or driven out of their town for holding a differing scientific viewpoint. ;)

shima

March 19th, 2003, 09:39 AM

>>Actually, the thrust of the book is the concept of a finite beginning for the Universe which is increasingly being supported by scientific evidence - the author does discuss the incredibly delicate balance - but not just of the electric charge constant and the dielectric constant - virtually every aspect of the universe seems poised to support life on this planet. <<

Ah, but this isn't true. There is virtually NOTHING outside our own solar system that is poised to support life on THIS planet, and THIS planet ONLY. The circumstances of our Solar system are far from unique. We have already detected planets outside our solar system, making the arguement that this could be the ONLY star with planets moot.

>>The analogy (in terms of probabilities) is something like this: Imagine a pile of dimes, the width of which is the size of North America, stacked from here to the moon. Now, multiply that pile by about 1 billion. Paint ONE dime red. Blindfold a friend. Have that friend pick out the one red dime --- the probability of him getting it on the first try is like the probability of this Earth/Universe existing as we know it today by pure chance.<<

And HOW would he arrive at those numbers? The numbers could easily have been:
Paint 1/2 of them in different colors of your choise. Now, what is the chance of picking out the exact RED one? Extremely small ofcourse, but the chance of picking a COLORED one is 1/2.

Every arguement that tries to "calculate" the CHANCE of our universe existing is moot, because chance doesn't work this way. For chance to have the meaning we normally use (like: the CHANCE that a 6-sided die comes up a 6 in one throw) we need MULTIPLE events, or enough knowledge of the circumstances outside our universe. Since we have neither, any calculation is no more than speculation.

>>What is fascinating is HOW the scientific community is responding to such findings -- even Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein could not escape the conclusion of design - but were unwilling to accept it b/c they didn't like the consequences of accepting it.<<

What I find fascinating is that, even though all design arguements are extremely flawed, nevertheless people believe in those arguements as if they are really meaningfull. Einstein and Hawking and many others like them reject the Design arguements not because they don't like the conclusion, but because the arguements are flawed into the extreme and they know it. And btw, Einstein was religious.

>>The author also addresses your last point -- ie, just because life exists as we see it now doesn't mean it couldn't have existed in some other form --- but not having the book in front of me (and having read it some time ago) I can't remember his retort.....I'll see if I can dig it up and get back with you.<<

Please do. He's probably spouting things like: "its all hypothetical" but since he cannot prove that life MUST be formed from Carbon atoms his arguements are moot.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Gerald
Why is it that religionists keep falling back to the origin of the universe? Is that the last place they can make a stand?

Even if the universe is the result of Divine Artifice, that says nothing about the Artificer. It is a very big leap to say "Divine Artificer = the God of Abraham".

I never even came close to trying to make the leap you are suggesting here - namely, that "Divine Artificer = God of Abraham" -- the point I was trying to make was that if (and it's a BIG IF in these circles) one accepts the existence of a "Divine Artificer" one cannot continue to be an atheist.

As for why religionists 'keep falling back to the origin of the universe', its probably because atheists insist on scientific proofs for everything. If someone wants 'proof' of God, you can't just retort w/biblical passages or personal experiences -- atheists want hard science and evidence. If the evidence suggests a Divine Artificer - that's a clear indication that maybe (just maybe) there is some Prime Mover out there. And isn't that what atheists are complaining about anyway? I don't understand why someone would complain they need scientific evidence of God, then reject any evidence of God as being a 'last place to make a stand.'

Incidentally, it isn't the "last place to make a stand." I'm just trying to move in your circles since you are clearly unwilling to move in mine.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 09:47 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

History does point to one difference between science and religion: one normally doesn't get burned at the stake or driven out of their town for holding a differing scientific viewpoint. ;)

True 'nuff! It's just their humanity ....(wait! Their 'inhumanity') showing!

shima

March 19th, 2003, 09:50 AM

>>Incidentally, it isn't the "last place to make a stand." I'm just trying to move in your circles since you are clearly unwilling to move in mine.<<

This is correct. Other places to stand are:
- Absolute Morality
- The origins of Life
- The origins of Love
- The existence of Good and Evil
- Heaven and Hell
- The existence of a Soul

None of these places are hard, solid evidence for Gods existence (from the viewpoint of the atheist) but neither are they disproven by cold, hard science (yet).

Gerald

March 19th, 2003, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Neophyte
Incidentally, it isn't the "last place to make a stand." I'm just trying to move in your circles since you are clearly unwilling to move in mine.
And what would those "circles" be?

Regarding the question of Divine Artifice, I can only respond with a shrug and say "I dunno".

I'm much more intersted in seeing this:

There exists an invisible, immaterial, volitional being (or beings) who regularly interacts with the material world

demonstrated.

Note that "volitional being" doesn't necessarily mean "god". It could just as easily mean "ghost" or "demon" or "fairy".

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by Gerald

And what would those "circles" be?

You're right, that sounded totally snotty. My apologies. I just meant I was confining my discussion to scientific evidence since that was where the atheist arguments were coming from and that aspect of my response (proof of a divine beginner) was what you were taking exception to.

Regarding the question of Divine Artifice, I can only respond with a shrug and say "I dunno".

I'm much more intersted in seeing this:

There exists an invisible, immaterial, volitional being (or beings) who regularly interacts with the material world

demonstrated.

I too would like to see it physically demonstrated, right here before my eyes. As I'm typing this message in fact. Fortunately, I don't always get what I want. I say fortunately b/c I don't think too many of us would enjoy having our world turned upside down by such an experience - we would have to concede that 1) we don't have all the answers, and 2) we are not in total control. A hard pill to swallow.

Gerald

March 19th, 2003, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Neophyte
I say fortunately b/c I don't think too many of us would enjoy having our world turned upside down by such an experience - we would have to concede that 1) we don't have all the answers, and 2) we are not in total control. A hard pill to swallow.
I dunno, I easily concede 1 and 2; no bitter pill for me, as the truth of 1 and 2 do not address the issue of a supernatural dimension to existence.

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 12:04 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

I dunno, I easily concede 1 and 2; no bitter pill for me, as the truth of 1 and 2 do not address the issue of a supernatural dimension to existence.

Yes...1 and 2 do not address the issue of a supernatural dimension to existence - I merely meant that they are potential reactions to it (by many people ... not you, perhaps) if we had a present physical demonstration of the kind you were describing.

I wasn't trying to be litigious....just pondering.

...**darn it!*** I did it again...somehow sent the post before I was done typing.....see below (obviously I've figured out the edit function but I couldn't figure out how to delete)

Neophyte

March 19th, 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Gerald

I dunno, I easily concede 1 and 2; no bitter pill for me, as the truth of 1 and 2 do not address the issue of a supernatural dimension to existence.

Yes...1 and 2 do not address the issue of a supernatural dimension to existence - I merely meant that they are potential reactions to it (by many people ... not you, perhaps) if we had a present physical demonstration of the kind you were describing.

I wasn't trying to be litigious....just pondering. Incidentally, I was using the term "we" to refer to humanity in general - I didn't mean to imply that either one of us believes we "have all the answers", etc.

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Neophyte

What?! Heaven is like being on LSD????? Think bigger than drug-induced mania. That's not what I'm saying. LSD (that is, real LSD, not the garbage today that is called LSD) increases a peson's I.Q. Back in the 60's and 70's double blind studies were conducted on LSD. Subjects were given an I.Q. test before taking LSD. After taking LSD, the subjects were given another I.Q. test and the results showed that their scores rose significantly.

But today the I.Q. scores decrease. I don't know what's in the junk today that people are claiming to be LSD but it's obviously not the real thing. Real LSD hasn't existed for at least 20 years.

My point is that, with redeemed minds in heaven, I imagine our I.Q.'s are going to be tremendous. I can't wait. This has nothing to do with halucinating (which by the way is the most boring part of real LSD).

Knight

March 19th, 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Jefferson
That's not what I'm saying. LSD (that is, real LSD, not the garbage today that is called LSD) increases a peson's I.Q. Back in the 60's and 70's double blind studies were conducted on LSD. Subjects were given an I.Q. test before taking LSD. After taking LSD, the subjects were given another I.Q. test and the results showed that their scores rose significantly.

But today the I.Q. scores decrease. I don't know what's in the junk today that people are claiming to be LSD but it's obviously not the real thing. Real LSD hasn't existed for at least 20 years.

My point is that, with redeemed minds in heaven, I imagine our I.Q.'s are going to be tremendous. I can't wait. This has nothing to do with halucinating (which by the way is the most boring part of real LSD). I get your point Jefferson but I don't think this is a great path to take in describing what Heaven will be like.

Jefferson

March 19th, 2003, 08:35 PM

Originally posted by Knight
I get your point Jefferson but I don't think this is a great path to take in describing what Heaven will be like. I agree in that our raised I.Q.'s will be a very minor thrill compared to seeing Him, knowing Him fully, and being like Him in holiness. Our glorified bodies (and minds) will be nice but that won't be what heaven is all about.

Flipper

March 20th, 2003, 12:26 AM

Jefferson and Knight wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jefferson
That's not what I'm saying. LSD (that is, real LSD, not the garbage today that is called LSD) increases a peson's I.Q. Back in the 60's and 70's double blind studies were conducted on LSD. Subjects were given an I.Q. test before taking LSD. After taking LSD, the subjects were given another I.Q. test and the results showed that their scores rose significantly.

But today the I.Q. scores decrease. I don't know what's in the junk today that people are claiming to be LSD but it's obviously not the real thing. Real LSD hasn't existed for at least 20 years.

My point is that, with redeemed minds in heaven, I imagine our I.Q.'s are going to be tremendous. I can't wait. This has nothing to do with halucinating (which by the way is the most boring part of real LSD).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get your point Jefferson but I don't think this is a great path to take in describing what Heaven will be like.
_________________

Probably not. But this certainly explains quite a lot.

Jefferson, do you have any evidence for this idea that LSD used to increase IQ points, or was it all suppressed by the government?

My guess is that the evidence of the IQ-extending potential of LSD in the 1960s is similar to that of a personal experience with Jesus. It's all in your head, dude.

It was also said of that acid in the 1960s that it could make you think you could fly. Apparently, it also made other people think they were clever.

I'm also fascinated to know more about the evolution from a trip-droppin' acidhead to a hardnosed conspiracy-theorist rightwinger. How did this happen? Did a blue-skinned, six-armed Nixon come to you in a dream?

shima

March 20th, 2003, 04:42 AM

>>I'm also fascinated to know more about the evolution from a trip-droppin' acidhead to a hardnosed conspiracy-theorist rightwinger. How did this happen? Did a blue-skinned, six-armed Nixon come to you in a dream?<<

Haha.

LSD does have a slight problem: it remains in the body for about 20 years. The sister of a friend of mine used it twice, and after 6 years she STILL occasionally has a "bad" flashback when the LSD starts acting up again.

LSD is not for me. However, I did have some very "nice" (in the meaning of: insightfull) trips on Magic Mushrooms.

Zakath

March 20th, 2003, 07:07 AM

The claims of a link between LSD use and raised IQ appear to be based on a case study conference presentation in the 1960's by Albert Kurland (Maryland Psychiatric Research Center - 1967) about a low IQ alcoholic patient who, after being dosed with LSD, responded to psychotherapy and underwent a religious conversion. Kurland thought this was noteworthy since psychotherapy traditionally does not work well on low IQ patients.

All the reports I found were anecdotal (i.e. single patient cases). I could not find any references to formal studies relating IQ changes to LSD use.

There does appear to be significant research indicating that LSD breaks down ego boundaries (the portion of the mental structure that seperates an individual from the rest of the perceived universe). Thus users are more likely than the non-using population to respond to religious coercion and "convert" to one religion or another. A mental health professional might question whether his "commitment to Christ" and apparent devotion to the type of religion Enyart espouses is merely another delayed manifestation of Jefferson's former drug use.

LSD use is also linked to some, shall we say, unusual changes in perception. That might shed a bit of insight on Jefferson's prediliction for insisting on using pictures of corpses and bloody body parts in his postings here and elsewhere.

Neophyte

March 20th, 2003, 09:31 AM

Thank you, Zakath...as always a well-reasoned and informed response.

I find Jefferson's reply to my question absurd. It speaks for itself. :rolleyes:

Zakath

March 20th, 2003, 12:11 PM

Thanks Neo. My pleasure.

Jefferson is..., well, he's just Jefferson!

quasi

March 22nd, 2003, 01:33 PM

I'm not going to argue for or against atheism. I'm agnostic, i truely beleive that we just don't know. There's no way to prove the argument either way so what's the point in argueing over something that no one has the answer to? Sure, many will act like they know all the answers, but what if all we thought was true is wrong? Are even asking the right questions?

"Let me be the first to say
that I don't have all the answers
I don't have a clue
ain't going to pretend like I do
Just trying to find my way
the best I know how." lifehouse

on a side note- jefferson- what is that a picture of? i'm afraid i don't want to know, are you trying to make a statement or something?

shima

March 24th, 2003, 05:06 AM

>>There's no way to prove the argument either way so what's the point in argueing over something that no one has the answer to?<<

Because argueing over your preferred oint of view brings you into contact with other peoples point of view. Thus, you might change your mind about what is the "correct" awnser because you are hearing new arguements.

>>Sure, many will act like they know all the answers, but what if all we thought was true is wrong? <<

Its very possible. Perhaps the Omnipotent Invisble Pink Unicorn IS real, and He doesn't like me making fun of him. I'd be in BIG trouble if he did exist.

No one has all the awnsers, because we as human beings are very limited in knowledge and learning. We cannot at present gather all information that this Universe has to offer and we cannot make all the connections between that information that is required for a "correct" awnser to the question. Even then, the qustion:"Do we know all that there is to know?" is not awnserable by a simple "yes" or "no" even in the case that we may have a HUGE amount of information.

>>I don't have a clue ain't going to pretend like I do<<

Quite true, but people cannot live without awnsers to questions. Its BECAUSE we know that some awnsers are "true" that we can function at all. You can walk because your body "knows" how gravity works. If gravity changes, your body has a hard time addapting. You can "learn" because your brain "remembers" what the awnsers to certain questions was. If you cannot remember, you cannot learn and you will therefore always be stuck in the "baby" phase.

I've had some experience with Magic Mushrooms, and one trip involved me loosing what I was learned by society. It involved things like knowing what "1+1" was, or the capitals of Europe, etc. It also involved me not remembering how things worked, and who people were and what they were like. I also couldn't remember why I thought they were important. Friends became just as important as anything else. And I coulnd't remember the concept of "time" untill my friend explained it to me. And it was scary, because I realised that, if my memory didn't come back, I'd have lost EVERYTHING from the past 25 years. And that includes my identity.

Identity involves making choises. You might regret some of them (like me) and you want to celebrate some as the most important "correct" choise you have ever done (but won't realise it untill later). Those "choises" are YOU. Just like the subjects YOU hold to be important are a part of your identity. And ofcourse, what you want to do in life is ALSO a part of you.

Your belief is also part of your identity, and most people will not like it if that belief is disproven. Better to close your eyes to all the evidence rather than admitting you were wrong. A friend of mine converted from Christian to Atheism after two bad years. She was actually HAPPY after that, because she could accept being responsible for things herself, but she just coulcn't accept that God had it in for her.

Society has some awnsers to "What is life all about?", but they are frequently only the awnsers that will improve society and make it function. Anyone who holds different ideals will find that society doesn't really like them. Society want people to work, marry, procreate and become useless after giving 40 years of your life to a job you didn't like.

Not for me. I'll go out and find my OWN awnsers. "You are NOT a beautifull snowflake. You are the same decaying organic matter as the rest of the world." So, start by accepting that one day you are going to die, then start wondering what to do with the time you have remaining.

Since you cannot predict WHEN you are going to die, the FUTURE is just as important as the NOW. If you are living only for the future ("In 20 years, I'll retire and THEN I'll enjoy life") you will find that you have wasted the better part of your life looking ahead, instead of looking ahead AND at the present. Enjoying life NOW is just as important as enjoying life 5 years from now.

So, what do you want to do with your life?

Z Man

March 24th, 2003, 08:27 AM

I know I'm a little late in this thread, sorry, but I'd like to throw my 2 cents in... :D

Originally posted by Freak
Temporary meaning in life is insufficient, for our accomplishments die with the death of the universe -- there is no ultimate purpose in a universe void of God.

Then Zakath responded, saying:

Originally posted by Zakath
Au contrairè Jay, since, as nearly as anyone can prove, consciousness ceases to exist after death, the meaning we extract from our lives is as permanent as meaning can be. Once we're done, we're done. A thousand years from now, all your pontification on TOL (and mine as well) will be forgotten. What we do here, we do for entertainment, not for any eternal purpose...

Then what would our hope in this life be, Zakath? Why should people look for various ways to cure sicknesses, or implament laws to protect our lives? According to your way of thinking, the only thing we live for in this life is entertainment. That means the media is what makes us; deceides what our lives will be like. Being saturated in TV, movies, video games, clubs and bars, alcohol, drugs, sex, pleasure, and entertainment as a whole is the way Atheist's escape from the reality of their hopelessness. The very thing we like and take pleasure in is the very thing that destroy's us in the end, yet we create more of it for the next generation. It's a never ending cycle of death. There is nothing new under the sun. This hope of pleasure from the media that the Atheists worship is the very thing that masks them from the hope of being set free from it. They are tuned out from the reality of the eternal realm, like mice following the Piper...

Don't bother me with details,
Don't bore me with what's real.
Distractions all I need, all I need, all I need to
Shelter me, sweet escape.
I'm looking for a place to run to.
Shelter me, sweet escape.
I'm looking for a place to hide inside...

Shelter Me, Mercury
Truthless Heroes
Project 86

shima

March 24th, 2003, 08:40 AM

>>Why should people look for various ways to cure sicknesses, or implament laws to protect our lives? According to your way of thinking, the only thing we live for in this life is entertainment. That means the media is what makes us; deceides what our lives will be like. Being saturated in TV, movies, video games, clubs and bars, alcohol, drugs, sex, pleasure, and entertainment as a whole is the way Atheist's escape from the reality of their hopelessness. <<

Nope. Most atheists happen to set their own goals in life. Discovering a cure for cancer is one way of an almost infinite number of ways to spend your time.

Entertainment is also important. Perhaps you should read my above post.

Z Man

March 24th, 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by shima
Most atheists happen to set their own goals in life. Discovering a cure for cancer is one way of an almost infinite number of ways to spend your time.

Whatever goals an Atheist may set in life, that becomes their entertainment/hope/God.

shima

March 24th, 2003, 09:06 AM

>>Whatever goals an Atheist may set in life, that becomes their entertainment/hope/God.<<

Yes? So what is the problem then? Christians choose God as their goal, atheists preferr something different. Getting a cure for cancer, a publication in Nature, going to the moon, discovering alien life.

Freak

March 27th, 2003, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by Z Man
I know I'm a little late in this thread, sorry, but I'd like to throw my 2 cents in... :D

Then Zakath responded, saying:

Then what would our hope in this life be, Zakath? Why should people look for various ways to cure sicknesses, or implament laws to protect our lives? According to your way of thinking, the only thing we live for in this life is entertainment. That means the media is what makes us; deceides what our lives will be like. Being saturated in TV, movies, video games, clubs and bars, alcohol, drugs, sex, pleasure, and entertainment as a whole is the way Atheist's escape from the reality of their hopelessness. The very thing we like and take pleasure in is the very thing that destroy's us in the end, yet we create more of it for the next generation. It's a never ending cycle of death. There is nothing new under the sun. This hope of pleasure from the media that the Atheists worship is the very thing that masks them from the hope of being set free from it. They are tuned out from the reality of the eternal realm, like mice following the Piper...

Don't bother me with details,
Don't bore me with what's real.
Distractions all I need, all I need, all I need to
Shelter me, sweet escape.
I'm looking for a place to run to.
Shelter me, sweet escape.
I'm looking for a place to hide inside...

Shelter Me, Mercury
Truthless Heroes
Project 86

Zakath's atheism fails once again to provide real answers to real issues.

Z Man

March 27th, 2003, 07:55 PM

He just dosn't want to be bothered with what's real. Zakath, you really wimped out man...

temple2006

March 27th, 2003, 08:58 PM

Zak...I did not know that we can almost, nearly prove annihilation at the time of death. But anyway if 75 years of entertainment satisfies you, who am I to say...what a waste!

shima

March 28th, 2003, 04:14 AM

>>Zakath's atheism fails once again to provide real answers to real issues.<<

This is wrong. There is a difference between a "real" awnser (which Zakaths awnser is) and a "correct" awnser.

The meaning of Life is one of the most ancient of questions. Most people struggle to provide any kind of awnser whatsoever, and most people stop asking that question very early because they didn't find the awnser and it made them uncomfortable. Most people at the END of their lives suddenly start to become very interrested in the awnser, because they want to know what the did with life, and if their life held the "meaning" which according to the "correct" awnser it should have held. The reason most people don't find an awnser is because of there is no "correct" awnser to the question.

The "meaning" of life is a question we aks because our brain is a never stopping pattern seeking device. We seek patterns everywhere, this is how people LEARN things. Babies take several months to learn what gravity does, and several more to learn how to cope with it in a upwardly mobile fashion. The pattern of "falling down, hurt your body, pain" quickly establishes that gravity is a ***** and not to be trifled with.

However, our brain is ALSO good at "imagining" a pattern where there is none. Look at the white noise of the TV screen, and most people see patterns. From the theoretical physics perspective, the white noise on your screen is random. So the patterns most people see are not really there.

So, it is quite possible that the "meaning" of life is a question that our brain asks because that is the way the brain functions. However, from a BIOLOGICAL point of view life has only one meaning: live long enough to procreate and provide your offspring with the tools they need to do well at procreating themselves. That way, your genes spread the most.

Since human beings are very spiritual in nature, this awnser doesn't satisfy many people. They seek a more "enlightened" awnser to the question, but they don't realise that there may be NO awnser from a universal point of view, or from a biological point of view, mainly because the biological question doesn't deal with "meanings" and "patterns" from a spiritual point of view. Since there as yet is very little science concerning the "spiritual world", there are no definite "correct" awnsers to that question.

So, we humans are free to come up with any awnser that satisfies the person in question. Some say that "God did it" is a satisfying awnser, and they look forward to joining those they love in heaven. Others, Hindu's perhaps, believe in reincarnation on this earth after they die. They are therefore very concerned about the chances they will have in their next life.

Some, like atheists, believe that this life is the ONLY life that any person will have. Therefore, they seek to experience certain things in this life. Some seek to experience all facets of this world and travel the globe. Others seek to experience love and seek a girlfriend. And yet others seek entertainment and will therefore go to festivals, parties and theme parks. Some aks themselves: "what do I find important in life?" and then seek to involve themselves in that important thing. However, the realisation that you have only this life (and therefore that other people do too) makes the atheist very interrested in how this life is proceeding. They therefore want to make the best of it. For those with empathy, this also means that they want OTHER people to make the best of it as well.

While christianty teaches "Love thy neighbour", very few christians actually FOLLOW that teaching, because the realisation that for them the goal is to go to heaven makes them far less concerned about this life. Hindu's are very concerned about their Karma and will help other people not out of kindness but out of concern and fear. Only atheists help people because they WANT to help people.

I am an atheists, and I help certain people because for me this life is the only one they will get. I will help them trying to overcome their fears and their flaws. Why? Because I want them to get the most out of their life as well. THAT is what is important to me.

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Z Man
Then what would our hope in this life be, Zakath? Why should people look for various ways to cure sicknesses, or implament laws to protect our lives? According to your way of thinking, the only thing we live for in this life is entertainment...

<snipped a bit of the paean to the entertainment industry...>

This hope of pleasure from the media that the Atheists worship is the very thing that masks them from the hope of being set free from it. They are tuned out from the reality of the eternal realm, like mice following the Piper...

ZMan,

Question: Where did I ever indicate that my life focus is entertainment?

Answer: No where. While I have stated several times on the board that the reason I post here is "for entertainment", I do not consider the occasional post on TOL "living my life".

Now if you have a gallows from which you'd like to suspend the entertainment industry, that's your privilege. Just don't hang "the Atheists" with that rope...

I think it is a measure of some people's (lack of) depth of character that they cannot possibly conceive of anything more than entertainment as a life focus if they give up religion. Attempting to tar your enemies with that which you find reprehensible is merely intellectual laziness unless you've made an effort to find out what they really think.

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Z Man
Whatever goals an Atheist may set in life, that becomes their entertainment/hope/God.

You are a religionist and you equate "entertainment" with "God"?

What religion do you follow, the Paul Crouch, TBN version? :rolleyes:

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath's atheism fails once again to provide real answers to real issues.

No, actually Zakath didn't reply previously because had billable work to get done so he could feed his family... ;)

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by temple 2000
Zak...I did not know that we can almost, nearly prove annihilation at the time of death.

How many humans have you seen die T2K?

In every case (of a non-comatose individual) I've seen it goes like this...

10 mins before death:
Body produces heat, vital organs function to some degree, individual communicative.

10 mins after death:
Body dropping to room temperature, organs cease to function as blood and oxygen are denied, individual does not respond to any attempt to communicate.

Can you provide another conflicting observation?

Perhaps you've seen someone "raised from the dead"?

But anyway if 75 years of entertainment satisfies you, who am I to say...what a waste! See my comment to Zman above.

Z Man

March 28th, 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Zakath

ZMan,

Question: Where did I ever indicate that my life focus is entertainment?

Answer: No where. While I have stated several times on the board that the reason I post here is "for entertainment", I do not consider the occasional post on TOL "living my life".

Ok, ok, sorry for making you look like an "entertainment" junkie. Maybe you're not the one to take life as some sort of amusement park, but there is some kind of hope in your life. Everyone has hope.

I think it is a measure of some people's (lack of) depth of character that they cannot possibly conceive of anything more than entertainment as a life focus if they give up religion. Attempting to tar your enemies with that which you find reprehensible is merely intellectual laziness unless you've made an effort to find out what they really think.

And for some people, that hope is in the pleasures of this world. Some try drugs to find peace and joy, others sex. Basically, if someone does not have hope in God, then they are left with only what this world has to offer. Thats all I was trying to say.

You are a religionist and you equate "entertainment" with "God"?

What religion do you follow, the Paul Crouch, TBN version?

Haha! The Paul Crouch, TBN version; that's funny! Actually, I hate religion. Anyone who tries to live a good life to be acceptable in God's eyes, to me, is a religious individual. I realize that no one can live a good life, and that God is the only one who can make us "acceptable". But you don't want to be bothered with all these details, nor bored with what's real...

Basically Zakath, whatever an Athiest sets their goals for; whatever in life they are trying to attain or accomplish, this becomes their hope; their drive and compassion in life. The result is, after a lifetime of pursuing your goals, and loving what you have done and are pursuing to do, this drive for success becomes your God. But when your time comes (and if God is gracious enough to allow you to reach old age) and you look back on your life, you will realize and question the worth of your success. What did it really accomplish? It all amounts to nothing in the end...

shima

March 28th, 2003, 07:37 AM

>>And for some people, that hope is in the pleasures of this world. Some try drugs to find peace and joy, others sex. Basically, if someone does not have hope in God, then they are left with only what this world has to offer. Thats all I was trying to say.<<

Well, they may believe in other things than just God. Perhaps reincarnation, Karma or Allah. Others believe in "doing the right thing", or "love thy neighbour". They might even believe that there is nothing after you die. Does this make life meaningless? Not in the least. While it doesn't have the meaning Christians would attribute to it, it DOES have the meaning you YOURSELF attribute to it. So what if that meaning isn't God?

>>Basically Zakath, whatever an Athiest sets their goals for; whatever in life they are trying to attain or accomplish, this becomes their hope; their drive and compassion in life. <<

True.

>>The result is, after a lifetime of pursuing your goals, and loving what you have done and are pursuing to do, this drive for success becomes
your God. But when your time comes (and if God is gracious enough to allow you to reach old age) and you look back on your life, you will realize and
question the worth of your success. <<

Everyone asks these questions. The awnser is NOT: "did my life have any meaning?" but "Did it have the meaning I attributed to it?". People die and that is a fact. What happens to them afterwards is definitely NOT a fact. It could be that there is no God, in which case christians have wasted their life in pursuit of a delusion. Atheists however set their own goals, and a wasted life would be one in which you didn't accomplish any of them.

>>What did it really accomplish? <<

Hopefuly: that which you set out to do.

>>It all amounts to nothing in the end...<<

That depends on what you call "nothing". I woulnd't call "helping others" nothing. I wouldn't call "a cure for cancer" nothing. I wouldn't call "walking on the moon" nothing. I woulnd't call "Being a millionare" nothing. I wouldn't call "Making people happy" nothing.

Yes, in 5 billion years time our Sun will die. Everyone on earth at that time will perish. In about 100 billion years our universe will die a slow heat-death, with no usable energy left. However, IN THE MEAN TIME, life DOES have a meaning, namely the one we ourselves attribute to it.

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath's atheism fails once again to provide real answers to real issues.

Jay, try reading the thread more carefully. Your cut and paste is tagging ZMan's words as mine... :nono:

Z Man

March 28th, 2003, 08:00 AM

Originally posted by shima
People die and that is a fact. What happens to them afterwards is definitely NOT a fact. It could be that there is no God, in which case christians have wasted their life in pursuit of a delusion.

It could be that there is a God, in which case atheists have wasted their life in a pursuit of a delusion.

Atheists however set their own goals, and a wasted life would be one in which you didn't accomplish any of them.

Are you saying that Christians don't have goals in life? Everybody has certain things they would like to do in their lifetime. The difference between a Christians goals and an Atheists goals is that we try to do things to and for the glory of God; you know, things that really matter. But atheists pursue their goals for themselves, which really dosn't matter or count for anything when you're dead. Those who die with the most toys still die.

>>It all amounts to nothing in the end...<<

That depends on what you call "nothing". I woulnd't call "helping others" nothing. I wouldn't call "a cure for cancer" nothing. I wouldn't call "walking on the moon" nothing. I woulnd't call "Being a millionare" nothing. I wouldn't call "Making people happy" nothing.

What's the point? One day you could help cure a young child's sickness, and the next, that kid could get hit by a car and die. One day you could be walking on the moon, and the next, your spaceship blows up. One day you could win the $100 billion dollar jackpot lottery, the next, you could get in a fatal car crash.

Life is a dream; a drop in the ocean compared to eternal realities. We must pursue the life we were meant to live when we were created; we must try and attain that perfect morality and holiness that we were created for. We must strive to live in the image of our Heavenly Creator; because in the end, this is all that matters... :angel:

temple2006

March 28th, 2003, 08:13 AM

Zak...I have seen bodies cease to function and rigor mortis set in. Do you think I have led such a protected, sheltered life? BUT, prove to me that there is no afterlife and I will stop hoping but I will not stop 'living' as I do not DO THINGS in the hope of getting some gold stars or something. Gimme a break, man.

shima

March 28th, 2003, 08:27 AM

>>Are you saying that Christians don't have goals in life? Everybody has certain things they would like to do in their lifetime. The difference between a Christians goals and an Atheists goals is that we try to do things to and for the glory of God; you know, things that really matter. <<

And how would Atheists goals NOT really matter? You see, the problem with your persepctive is that to you all meaning MUST come from God. For an atheists, "meaning" is something we ourselves impose. There doesn't have to be a God for something to be meaningfull. As such, what is important to one person is not important to another. Which creates tremendous diversity and is basically the strength of humanity.

>>But atheists pursue their goals for themselves, which really dosn't matter or count for anything when you're dead. Those who die with the most toys still die. <<

So? If God doesn't exists, how is that different from YOUR life? "Everyone dies, not everyone really lives."

>>What's the point? One day you could help cure a young child's sickness, and the next, that kid could get hit by a car and die. One day you could be walking on the moon, and the next, your spaceship blows up. One day you could win the $100 billion dollar jackpot lottery, the next, you could get in a fatal car crash. <<

The point is that I WANT TO. I want to walk on the moon, have friends, find a cure for cancer and I want to be a millionare. I call that my "goals" in life just as sure as God is your goal in life. You don't think my goals are worthy, then so be it. However, to you all goals other than God are not worhty. And this mindset has caused great problems in this world, because all other things are NOT important. So, solving world hunger is NOT important, peace is NOT important, the environment is not important.

>>Life is a dream; a drop in the ocean compared to eternal realities. We must pursue the life we were meant to live when we were created; we must try and attain that perfect morality and holiness that we were created for. We must strive to live in the image of our Heavenly Creator; because in the end, this is all that matters...<<

That only matters to christians. And besides , one of the facets of christianty is that the "perfect" morality is unatainable because of the nature of SIN. Only one has ever achieved it, and you worship Him as a God because to you he IS God. Good luck achieving it. And besides the fact that I don't believe in "perfect" morality, I already have one with which I'm very happy.

shima

March 28th, 2003, 08:31 AM

To christians, there are people and there is God. People are insignificant compared to God,so only God is important to them. All other things are not. To atheists, all there is is people. Therefore, people are IMPORTANT. Which is a very good incentive to develop a good morale. Christians derive their morale from the bible, which is filled with hororstiories of rape, murder and torture committed by the followers of God. And that they call a "good" morality. Go figure.......

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by temple 2000
Zak...I have seen bodies cease to function and rigor mortis set in. Do you think I have led such a protected, sheltered life? ...Gimme a break, man.No offense intended, T2K. Realize that since I do not know you personally, I have no idea regarding your life experience, gender, or age. All I have to go on is a few posts and your profile. That's why I qualified the post. To my understanding, most people below middle-age in the U.S. have never actually seen another human being die.

BUT, prove to me that there is no afterlife and I will stop hoping ...How can one prove that? I doubt I could be any more successful than you could proving the non-existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, or garden fairies, trolls, or honest politicians.

I cannot prove what does not exist. I base my belief on the evidence I have available. You base your belief on hope.

Therein lies a major difference between us, T2K.

Perhaps you can produce some empirical evidence supporting continued non-corporeal existence for us to consider... :confused:

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by shima
To christians, there are people and there is God. People are insignificant compared to God,so only God is important to them. All other things are not. To atheists, all there is is people. Therefore, people are IMPORTANT.

Succinctly stated, Shima. :thumb:

temple2006

March 28th, 2003, 09:45 AM

But Zak, Lack of evidence is not evidence anymore than my lack of proof positive that an afterlife exists. I suspect that atheists live happy productive lives, but so do I. I enjoy my life so much that I want it to continue and continue and continue. I sense an immense longing in myself. I do not fear death because for me dying is being born into another dimension just as emerging from my mother's womb I was born into a very different dimension, a world of light that my senses could and did experience. I use the preceeding as a metaphor. The poet, Gibran says, what is dying but standing in the wind and melting into the sun. :)

Zakath

March 28th, 2003, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by temple 2000
But Zak, Lack of evidence is not evidence anymore than my lack of proof positive that an afterlife exists. Truly said. Lack of evidence is just that - NO EVIDENCE!

Without evidence, all that's left is to either say that something doesn't exist or to fill the perceived void with comforting fantasies...

I suspect that atheists live happy productive lives, but so do I. I should hope so. Religionists continually claim that embracing their particular set of beliefs will provide happiness and productivity.

I enjoy my life so much that I want it to continue and continue and continue. I sense an immense longing in myself. "Wanting don't make it so." (See "NO EVIDENCE" above).

Z Man

March 28th, 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by shima
However, to you all goals other than God are not worhty. And this mindset has caused great problems in this world, because all other things are NOT important. So, solving world hunger is NOT important, peace is NOT important, the environment is not important.

You got it backwards: To love God and put your hope in Him gives one a greater understanding of the world around them. Everything becomes important to that individual, especially the things that involve charity. But a life without God is meaningless, and hopeless. All the things you may accomplish in life amounts to nothing in the end. NOTHING!

Life has no purpose
Unless it's Yours
Life without You has no goal
All that fulfills me
Is doing Your Will
Knowing that You're in control

All That I Am
Insyderz

shima

March 28th, 2003, 08:37 PM

>>You got it backwards: To love God and put your hope in Him gives one a greater understanding of the world around them. <<

No, it doesn't. It gives them a DIFFERENT understanding, sure, but not nessecarily a better one. Ofcourse, you think its better but that is mainly because you cannot see the difference between belief and knowledge.

>>Everything becomes important to that individual, especially the things that involve charity. <<

Really? That is certainly not the attitiude of most christians.

>>But a life without God is meaningless, and hopeless. All the things you may accomplish in life amounts to nothing in the end. NOTHING!<<

Once again: helping others isn't nothing, a cure for cancer isn't nothing, and love isn't nothing. Life isn't meaningless TO ME, and life isn't HOPELESS to me. In the end, that is all that matters.

But what about you: striving for a "perfect" morality you know you canot attain because the only person who could was God himself. Seems pretty hopeless to me.

Freak

March 28th, 2003, 11:31 PM

Originally posted by temple 2000
Zak...I have seen bodies cease to function and rigor mortis set in. Do you think I have led such a protected, sheltered life? BUT, prove to me that there is no afterlife and I will stop hoping but I will not stop 'living' as I do not DO THINGS in the hope of getting some gold stars or something. Gimme a break, man.

Zakath continues to believe he alone has experienced life in the fullest. How wrong he is.

Zakath, I have lived in war zones of third world nations. I have seen the extreme suffering & death. Until you have witnessed the extreme evil & injustice I have witnessed firsthand, it might be best to keep thy mouth shut.

Zakath

March 29th, 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath continues to believe he alone has experienced life in the fullest. How wrong he is.Hardly. I'll leave all such absolutes to you religionists...

Zakath, I have lived in war zones of third world nations. I have seen the extreme suffering & death. So what, Jay? My point was that many, many Americans, particularly the younger set, have never had first hand experience of being present at the death of a human being.

Many of us have spent time in the third world. We just don't wear it on our sleeves and brag about it. Some professionals aren't even allowed to discuss what they've seen due to the nature of their "business".
Until you have witnessed the extreme evil & injustice I have witnessed firsthand, it might be best to keep thy mouth shut. You don't know me personally, so you have no idea what I've seen or witnessed unless I post things here. Why do my little ramblings perturb you so much? Is doubt and unbelief cutting into your book profits or the bookings for your speaking engagements?

I find it amusing that someone who is allegedly backed by the ultimate power in the universe is afraid of a little competition in the marketplace of ideas. Even your religion is reliant on simple market psychology, Jay. If your ideas and teachings really are perceived of as valuable and superior by those you sell them to then they will win out. If not, they won't.

Freak

March 29th, 2003, 08:34 AM

Zakath, thanks for the sermonette. Why did you ever leave the pastorate?

You said: I find it amusing that someone who is allegedly backed by the ultimate power in the universe is afraid of a little competition in the marketplace of ideas. Even your religion is reliant on simple market psychology, Jay. If your ideas and teachings really are perceived of as valuable and superior by those you sell them to then they will win out. If not, they won't.

Yes, my ideas which are based on the Scriptures are superior to those you hold. This is a fact.

2,000 years of the growth of the Body of Christ prove my ideas are victorious.

Zakath

March 29th, 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath, thanks for the sermonette. Why did you ever leave the pastorate? Because my conscience wouldn't let me continue to make money off of preaching falsehood.

Yes, my ideas which are based on the Scriptures are superior to those you hold. This is a fact. Only if you consider a "fact" to be something you believe but cannot prove. I would consider such asubjective opinion, not a fact.

2,000 years of the growth of the Body of Christ prove my ideas are victorious. Growth? Have you looked at things over the last fifty years?

Of course, depending entirely on how one defines "Christian", there are less than 1/6th of the world professing adherence to that religion. Islam has done just almost that well in about 2/3rds the time. Look at the growth statistics and get your head out of the sand. Unless something changes radically in the next 20 years, Christians are likely to be second place to the Muslims.

BTW, if you want to see interesting growth rates, look at the growth of those claiming no religious belief in Europe and the U.S. during the last twenty years... ;)

Freak

March 29th, 2003, 08:52 AM

Zakath, the truth is truth. Truth is not falsehood. You cannot prove otherwise. You cannot make 2+22=56. It is always true to state 2+22=24. Something you can change. Jesus is the truth. You cannot change it even with your dislike for Jesus (who by the way loves you).

I know this is hard for you to grasp but keep on trying.

Zakath

March 29th, 2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Freak
Zakath, the truth is truth. Truth is not falsehood. But what you claim to be "truth" is based on your subjective belief, not empirial evidence, Jay. Thus it is your opinion, not verifiable truth.

It's America so everyone's entitled to express their opinion, but don't expect everyone to believe it because you or your religious book says it's so.

I know this is hard for you to grasp, but keep trying. ;)

itsjustdave1988

March 29th, 2003, 01:48 PM

Zakath,

Ever been in love? Could you prove it?

God bless,

itsjustdave1988

March 29th, 2003, 01:50 PM

Zakath,

Also, I'm wondering what led you from Christianity to atheism.

God bless,

Freak

March 29th, 2003, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
Zakath,

Also, I'm wondering what led you from Christianity to atheism.

God bless,

Zakath has made it clear. He stated a few posts ago why he left ministry for atheism:

Because my conscience wouldn't let me continue to make money off of preaching falsehood.

itsjustdave1988

March 29th, 2003, 02:41 PM

Well, I'm sure there are many factors for rejecting Theism. I would expect the main factor would be an underlying personal experience (negative), just as often the case for accepting theism (positive). Pure rationalism rarely brings about much conviction.

I for one don't see many proofs, by the strict sense of the word, for either atheism or theism. However, I've come to accept theism, not because of proofs, but due to many converging clues.

I'm an engineer and a military member. I look at things methodically and, although I never have complete information, I'm often called upon to decide a course of action with incomplete yet trustworthy evidence. Wavering in indecision rarely allows you to advance in any endeavor. Thus, I've decided for theism. Have I taken the wrong road? I dunno. I don't think so. I believe the converging clues support the road I've chosen.

The goal of Religion, I believe, is "the attempt of man, conscious of his helplessness, to unite himself with the powers which do actually dominate." (R. B. Perry, "Religion. An Introduction"). So, given this definition, it seems far better to me to be religious rather than irreligious. Atheism seems a relatively new and novel idea of man compared to all the ideas of history. What are the odds that this new path is correct? What happens if I take a chance on theism and I'm incorrect? Do I face a different fate than the atheists in the end? On the other hand, what happens if I choose atheism and I'm incorrect? What a blunder that would be!

I like this article with regard to understanding the "heretical imperative"* of choosing either to be religious or not:

Religion. An Introduction - Lectures on the Harvard Classics (1909-1914) by R.B. Perry (http://www.bartleby.com/60/221.html)

*From the title of a book by Sociologist Peter Berger. He uses the original root meaning of the word "heretical", that is "to choose." I recommend his book to all atheists and theists, although, it's not an easy reader, as he's a sociologist, who by nature do not write simply.

God bless,

Freak

March 29th, 2003, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
Well, I'm sure there are many factors for rejecting Theism. I would expect the main factor would be an underlying personal experience (negative), just as often the case for accepting theism (positive). Pure rationalism rarely brings about much conviction.

I for one don't see many proofs, by the strict sense of the word, for either atheism or theism. However, I've come to accept theism, not because of proofs, but due to many converging clues.

I'm an engineer and a military member. I look at things methodically and, although I never have complete information, I'm often called upon to decide a course of action with incomplete yet trustworthy evidence. Wavering in indecision rarely allows you to advance in any endeavor. Thus, I've decided for theism. Have I taken the wrong road? I dunno. I don't think so. I believe the converging clues support the road I've chosen.

The goal of Religion, I believe, is "the attempt of man, conscious of his helplessness, to unite himself with the powers which do actually dominate." (R. B. Perry, "Religion. An Introduction"). So, given this definition, I'm seems far better to me to be religious rather than irreligious. Atheism seems a relatively new and novel idea of man compared to all the ideas of history. What are the odds that this new path is correct? What happens if I take a chance on theism and I'm incorrect? Do I face a different fate than the atheists in the end? On the other hand, what happens if I choose atheism and I'm incorrect? What a blunder that would be!

I like this article with regard to understanding the "heretical imperative"* of choosing either to be religious or not:

Religion. An Introduction - Lectures on the Harvard Classics (1909-1914) by R.B. Perry (http://www.bartleby.com/60/221.html)

*From the title of a book by Sociologist Peter Berger. He uses the original root meaning of the word "heretical", that is "to choose." I recommend his book to all atheists and theists, although, it's not an easy reader, as he's a sociologist, who by nature do not write simply.

God bless,

Excellent post. Perhaps Zakath will think about it.

shima

March 29th, 2003, 08:09 PM

>>The goal of Religion, I believe, is "the attempt of man, conscious of his helplessness, to unite himself with the powers which do actually dominate." (R. B. Perry, "Religion. An Introduction"). So, given this definition, I'm seems far better to me to be religious rather than irreligious. <<

However, it means that all the gods invented by those theists are not real, but rather figments of their imagination. As we understand the "dominating" powers more clearly, we see that they do NOT posess the randomness of a human personality, but rather obey strict natural laws.

>>Atheism seems a relatively new and novel idea of man compared to all the ideas of history. What are the odds that this new path is correct? What happens if I take a chance on theism and I'm incorrect? Do I face a different fate than the atheists in the end? On the other hand, what happens if I choose atheism and I'm incorrect? What a blunder that would be! <<

So, you have a choise: be a atheist or be a theist. When you choose to be a theist, then choose your religion.

Should you choose theism and you choose the incorrect religion, then the effects are just as bad as being an atheist. However, atheists will have at least ONE life that isn't wasted, as they tend to follow their own ideals, and not some religious ideals.

As there are very many religions on this world, the chance of choosing the correct one (if there is any ofcourse) is small. The chance that one religion in particular is "correct" doesn't depend on the amount of followers. So, since we cannot predict in any way that our current choise of religion is true, why not be an atheist in the mean time? At least you get to CHOOSE this life as you see fit. In the case of theism, you stand a very good chance of having NO choise of life.

Should, for example. Hinduism with its idea about reincarnation and Karma be true, then it wouldn't particularly matter if you are an atheist or not. Rather, what WOULD matter is your choise of "morality" in life. I tend to believe atheists have a far more social choise of morality than most theists, mainly because to a atheist people are the ONLY important things. Theists tend to believe that their god/gods are more important than people and thus neglegt the importance of people.

itsjustdave1988

March 30th, 2003, 03:42 PM

Shima,

However, it means that all the gods invented by those theists are not real, but rather figments of their imagination. As we understand the "dominating" powers more clearly, we see that they do NOT posess the randomness of a human personality, but rather obey strict natural laws.

I disagree. What evidence do you have that brings you to this conclusion? On what do you base the claim that atheists see the "dominating" power more clearly?

Certainly a theist is allowed to use figurative language to describe the attributes of God without then making God a figment of the imagination. If I can describe the sun as setting and rising without scandal, then certainly I'm allowed to describing God as "Father." My choice of wording does not prove God is an imagination any more than it proves the sun is not real. My religion is not opposed to Natural Law.

Should you choose theism and you choose the incorrect religion, then the effects are just as bad as being an atheist. However, atheists will have at least ONE life that isn't wasted, as they tend to follow their own ideals, and not some religious ideals.

False dichotomy - either I choose a religious life which is a waste, or I choose atheism and my will is free. This is a false dichotomy because you haven't proven that a religious life is a waste. You also imply that religious people are not following their own free will. I am.

Also, how are the effects of choosing the wrong religion "just as bad" as being an atheist? You must be mixing me up with some other theist who believes in exclusive membership to their religious denomination as a requirement for salvation.

I have merely decided in accordance with my free will, based upon the available evidence for religion versus irreligion. I'm admitting that man is not the power than dominates, and I'm choosing to seek to unite myself to the powers which do actually dominate.

That is, I am living my own ideals as I have adopted a way of life which brings joy into my life like I never had before, whether it's the "wrong" religion or not. Like R.B. Perry concludes in the article I referenced,

Thus it is fair to conclude that religion is universal in two senses. On the one hand it springs from a universal need. On the other hand, it possesses a universal value, and cannot fail, however much of error or blindness there may be in it, to elevate and dignify life. True religion is better than false, but it is not less certain that religion is better than irreligion.

Religion is a "win, win" situation. If merely seeking to do God's will pleases God, even if I goof it up along the way, then there's hope for any theist. If the atheist is correct, I have nothing to lose. Where's the down side again?

As there are very many religions on this world, the chance of choosing the correct one (if there is any ofcourse) is small.

I've studied all the mainstream world religions and the choice seemed pretty easy for me. One stands out among the rest. However, the point is I haven't mentally closed the door to religion, and so I could continue the endeavor to seek the power that does dominate. The evidence does not suggest that the power that dominates is man.

Also, even if choose the incorrect religion, I am seeking God through reason and faith, and doing my best to do his will. I've put myself on a path toward something greater than my selfish needs. Seeking to do God's will can only please God, no matter what blunders I make along the way.

The chance that one religion in particular is "correct" doesn't depend on the amount of followers. So, since we cannot predict in any way that our current choise of religion is true, why not be an atheist in the mean time?

Let me give you an analogy. I took Quantum Physics in college. We know that we are not correct. There's something incomplete about the prevailing theory of physics. Also, we know that in our lifetime, we probably won't figure it all out. However, does that stop us from trying? I sure hope not. Because, no matter how much our theory of physics is in incorrect, however much of error or blindness there may be in it, we know that it can serve to improve our human existence. Just because it's unlikely that we have all the answers of physics, doesn't mean I should stop trying to figure out physics. Likewise, it doesn't mean that physics does not have value to humanity. And although we don't have all the certainty we wish we have, we're pretty confident that the choices we made thus far have lead us down the right path in physics. The same could be said of theology.

We know we don't have all the theological answers. However, despite not having all the facts, we choose to reject some opinion in favor of others. Do you stumble through life with that much doubt about your day to day choices? If not, why do you assume that I've made choices which I cannot say with more confidence than not that they are true?

Atheism is one among the plurality of choices that you speak of. The chance that the form of atheism that you chose is correct is no greater than form of theism I chose. A specific form of atheism is just as much a rejection of all the other choices as a specific form of theism. We have a heretical imperative. As I said before, I'm methodical and must choose, as indecision gets you nowhere in any endeavor. I took a top down approach to theology. I looked at the evidence and concluded that atheism was a dead end choice. What ever is right, I believe it's behind door #2, that is, theism.

At least you get to CHOOSE this life as you see fit. In the case of theism, you stand a very good chance of having NO choise of life.

You must have had a very bad theistic experience in your life. Because I cannot even relate to what you are saying.

I have studied atheism and theism, and practiced many theologies in my quest to learn the truth. To freely choose any one of these theistic beliefs is an improvement over atheism, in my experience. I choose this life as I see fit. I choose theism. And, when I look back at my choice, I wouldn't have had it any other way.

Should, for example. Hinduism with its idea about reincarnation and Karma be true, then it wouldn't particularly matter if you are an atheist or not.

I believe a Hindu would certainly disagree with you. When I studied Hinduism, I believe it's attempt at bringing some meaning, some sense and spirituality to the world and our relationship to it was much better, in my opinion than the "life is absurd" theory described by the atheist, Albert Camus, for example.

Rather, what WOULD matter is your choise of "morality" in life. I tend to believe atheists have a far more social choise of morality than most theists,

:rolleyes: False dichotomy, again. A theist or atheist can live a moral life. I depends upon the kind of atheism or theism chosen and upon each individual choice we make in our lives. Morality matters. However, I don't believe it is all that matters.

mainly because to a atheist people are the ONLY important things.

Yes. And in my experience, I've found this conclusion to be incorrect. People are important. But I see no evidence to suggest that people are the ONLY important th