About Belief, Religion and God

Meatros · December 17, 2009, 8:18pm

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I believe that nobody is truly an atheist. [/quote]

That’s an interesting belief, directly in stark contrast to the empirical evidence.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
The best a person can be is agnostic.[/quote]

M’kay, so does the agnostic believe in any gods or not?

Surely you aren’t under the mistaken assumption that agnosticism is a position on whether or not God exists, are you? Agnosticism is a position on knowledge of God/Belief in God.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
If you look at the most ancient of civilizations there has always been religious beliefs. [/quote]

So? There’s also always been beliefs in astrology. In fact, I believe that astrology predates religion (at least formalized).

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Whether you call yourself Christian, Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Zoroastrian, or whatever else, you have admitted that the universe is far to complex and expansive to have just come from nowhere.[/quote]

Yes, I admit that - and I’m an atheist. I don’t think the universe sprang into being.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I think that unfortunately most that call themselves atheists are people that have become angry or disinterested in a god.[/quote]

Oh, in that case you are wrong on many levels.

I am no more angry at god/gods then I am angry at Sauron. I am very interested in religion and in god/gods. In otherwords, my existence refutes both of your assertions.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
They feel either their prayers are unanswered or that no god could ever be confined by one religious belief. Of course I can’t speak for everyone, but most atheists I have met share this sentiment.[/quote]

I don’t pray and I don’t believe a god or gods exist.

I don’t think you actually know any atheists.

[quote]BBriere wrote:
Also I think most believers do a poor job at witnessing. They either feel it’s not their job or they come off too strong. They either offend or don’t want to offend.[/quote]

I agree with this - although I would say that most believers make assumptions about those who believe differently then they do (non theists are guilty of this as well, btw).

[quote]BBriere wrote:
I personally call myself a Christian based on my belief in Jesus to be the Christ as promised by God in the Bible. I believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament. These are my personal beliefs, but I would be willing to share them with anyone willing to listen. If someone didn’t want to listen that’s up to them. It’s only my job to share my faith. It’s God’s job to change a person’s heart.[/quote]

Good for you - I believe none of those things.

Sloth · December 17, 2009, 8:44pm

[quote]Meatros wrote:

Really? Can you link to it? I’ve never heard of this.[/quote]

No ‘it’ to link to. ‘Joshua Challenge’ is used for a number of things.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ah, now the question falls apart when presented like this. I’m not an ancient tribal person. I am aware of the fullfilled law, morality, and Christ. I would have to act as a Christian. Being an omniscient God, my time traveling ways would not hide this fact from him.

Meatros:
I’m not sure that you answered the question, supposing you were living back then - with your current ideals. So would you do as God commands and kill the child?[/quote]

No, I wouldn’t. I’m aware of the fullfilled law and am held to that revelation.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But now let me turn the question around on you. Say you go back in time. Say one of these tribes takes pity on your strange looking, oddly dressed, oddly speaking, starving, dehydrated, defenseless self. Say the offer to take you in as one of their tribe. Would you accept? Or, die alone in the desert? If you accept entrance into the tribe, you must accept that you will have to fight for the tribe. If you accept this, you will either have to kill women and chidren of the enemy tribes, or sell them into slavery, when the peace fails.

Meatros
I would not kill defenseless women and children - even if it meant death.[/quote]

Well, ok. No way to test it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
At this point you may wish to tell some grand tale about how you’d wrest control over all the tribal peoples, and dictate to them our “laws of war.” Please don’t. It’d insult our intelligence. And, pretending for a moment you could, what if you actually made the future worse off for everybody? You, after all, wouldn’t have the power of omniscience.

Meatros wrote:
No, I wouldn’t wrest control over anyone - I would probably be killed or die of starvation or whatever. We don’t even have to have me really time travel for this, since this is what essentially occurred in Nazi Germany. Notice though that there were resistors. People did fight back even though the will of the tribe stated that Jews were inhuman.[/quote]

Not a good comparison. Knowledge of the world was obviously, much, much, greater in WW2. We’re talking about tribes whose ‘world’ would be nothing but a small region to us today.

There is a gaping problem with this comparison though, in that I am not all powerful. This factor alone renders this dilemma inert when it comes to non theists.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No. I’d know I was either crazy, or, the first guy to hear the antichrist. See Christian theology on revelation.
[/quote]

Christian theology doesn’t say anything about this - in fact, according to Christian theology, you should be able to work wonders. Move mountains and that sort of thing. Since you’ve already admitted that it’s an incomplete revelation, it’s perfectly possible for God to ask this of you again.[/quote]

You’re not listening. The Old testament is incomplete revelation.

No, Christian theology doesn’t say I can move mountains. It says if I faith the size of a mustard seed, the mountain would move. I don’t even have that much faith. Noone does, and that was the point. The same point is made in verses about who ‘earns’ their way to heavan. The answer, noone. We all fall short. I’m sorry, but you’re not understanding what we believe about human nature and faith.

Sloth · December 17, 2009, 8:47pm

[quote]Meatros wrote:
Again, for the Christians, I ask:

Why ought we do what God tells us to do?

Is it just because he can punish us? If so, then there is no special basis for morality (ie, God is not needed as an absolute basis for morality), since it equates to might makes right.[/quote]

I answered this. It doesn’t matter which earthly powers win. It doesn’t matter what earthly powers are the mightiest. There is one who judges the eternal state of all.

Sloth · December 17, 2009, 8:57pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
But now let me turn the question around on you. Say you go back in time. Say one of these tribes takes pity on your strange looking, oddly dressed, oddly speaking, starving, dehydrated, defenseless self. Say the offer to take you in as one of their tribe. Would you accept? Or, die alone in the desert? If you accept entrance into the tribe, you must accept that you will have to fight for the tribe. If you accept this, you will either have to kill women and chidren of the enemy tribes, or sell them into slavery, when the peace fails.

Meatros:
I would not kill defenseless women and children - even if it meant death.
[/quote]

Now, let’s spice it up. Say two of your loved ones, a wife and a child if it applies, are with you. They look to you for leadership, protection, and to get forge out some kind of life in this new time and place. You’re wandering aimlessly, starving, dehydrated, fearing hostile people, and then you run into a tribe. After some initial hostility, nearly to violence, the tribe offers to adopt you into itself. You would be a man of the tribe, and your loved ones would also be protected as a result of your acceptance. Do you accept? Knowing what will be expected of you? Or, do you lead your family off to die, though they’ve looked to you to provide?

Meatros · December 17, 2009, 8:59pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No ‘it’ to link to. ‘Joshua Challenge’ is used for a number of things. [/quote]

Can you explain - I literally have no idea what you are talking about here.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, I wouldn’t. I’m aware of the fullfilled law and am held to that revelation. [/quote]

Meaning what? So the law wasn’t even the law back then? Seriously, this makes zero sense. In essence you are saying that God changed his mind.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, ok. No way to test it. [/quote]

Not for me, personally, but there are plenty of people who have died for such things.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not a good comparison. Knowledge of the world was obviously, much, much, greater in WW2. We’re talking about tribes whose ‘world’ would be nothing but a small region to us today.
[/quote]

?

What does knowledge of the world have to do with anything?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re not listening. The Old testament is incomplete revelation. [/quote]

I am listening - what you aren’t acknowledging is the problem this puts you in. Further, it makes the old testament completely incoherent. So was Jonah in the wrong for obeying God (eventually)? Was Noah? What about Adam and Eve?

What you are suggesting is that the laws didn’t change, but it’s obvious that they did. Is it wrong to kill children:

Old Testament:
No, it can be ‘good’ if God commands it - see Joshua among other books.

New Testament according to you:
Yes, because the old testament is incomplete…

?

In Joshua it was pretty complete. What you are essentially arguing is that A = ~A. It’s logically incompatable and instead of trying to resolve this problem you are consistently deferring to ‘Christian theology’ and ‘incomplete revelation’ as though that answered anything.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, Christian theology doesn’t say I can move mountains. [/quote]

Read Acts.

Shoot, read the old testament - wasn’t it Eziekal (sp?) who called god from the sky to light a fire in order to convince a group of people who worshipped a different god?

[quote]Sloth wrote:
It says if I faith the size of a mustard seed, the mountain would move. I don’t even have that much faith. Noone does, and that was the point.[/quote]

That most certainly was not the point, the point was that if you believed you could do wonders, as the apostles did. In fact, Jesus specifically points out that people who believed on Faith were in a better position then those who required proof (ie, Thomas).

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The same point is made in verses about who ‘earns’ their way to heavan. The answer, noone. We all fall short. I’m sorry, but you’re not understanding what we believe about human nature and faith.[/quote]

I’m not understanding it because it is contradictory. Just like this ‘fallen since the garden’ stuff - which is another logical incoherency.

A&E are told not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
A&E do not know what good and evil are (since they haven’t eaten yet).
A&E do not know that disobeying god is evil.
A&E eat from the tree
God punishes A&E for disobeying him, even though they cannot be rationally held responsible for committing the sin!

You say revelation is incomplete. How do you know it’s complete now? How do you know that God wouldn’t command you to kill children? And finally, why ought we do what god says, even if god exists?

Meatros · December 17, 2009, 9:00pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Meatros wrote:
Again, for the Christians, I ask:

Why ought we do what God tells us to do?

Is it just because he can punish us? If so, then there is no special basis for morality (ie, God is not needed as an absolute basis for morality), since it equates to might makes right.[/quote]

I answered this. It doesn’t matter which earthly powers win. It doesn’t matter what earthly powers are the mightiest. There is one who judges the eternal state of all.[/quote]

So then you admit that good and evil are arbitrary whims of God?

Meatros · December 17, 2009, 9:01pm

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, let’s spice it up. Say two of your loved ones, a wife and a child if it applies, are with you. They look to you for leadership, protection, and to get forge out some kind of life in this new time and place. You’re wandering aimlessly, starving, dehydrated, fearing hostile people, and then you run into a tribe. After some initial hostility, nearly to violence, the tribe offers to adopt you into itself. You would be a man of the tribe, and your loved ones would also be protected as a result of your acceptance. Do you accept? Knowing what will be expected of you? Or, do you lead your family off to die, though they’ve looked to you to provide?[/quote]

My answer is the same - further, it’s quite obvious that I could not rationally trust such a tribe.

Headhunter · December 17, 2009, 9:18pm

No one challenges the word of the HH? More heads for my trophy case. Thanks, atheists!

Sloth · December 17, 2009, 9:28pm

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Now, let’s spice it up. Say two of your loved ones, a wife and a child if it applies, are with you. They look to you for leadership, protection, and to get forge out some kind of life in this new time and place. You’re wandering aimlessly, starving, dehydrated, fearing hostile people, and then you run into a tribe. After some initial hostility, nearly to violence, the tribe offers to adopt you into itself. You would be a man of the tribe, and your loved ones would also be protected as a result of your acceptance. Do you accept? Knowing what will be expected of you? Or, do you lead your family off to die, though they’ve looked to you to provide?[/quote]

My answer is the same - further, it’s quite obvious that I could not rationally trust such a tribe. [/quote]

There would be noone else to trust. That’s the ‘world.’

Sloth · December 17, 2009, 9:29pm

[quote]Meatros wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Meatros wrote:
Again, for the Christians, I ask:

Why ought we do what God tells us to do?

Is it just because he can punish us? If so, then there is no special basis for morality (ie, God is not needed as an absolute basis for morality), since it equates to might makes right.[/quote]

I answered this. It doesn’t matter which earthly powers win. It doesn’t matter what earthly powers are the mightiest. There is one who judges the eternal state of all.[/quote]

So then you admit that good and evil are arbitrary whims of God?[/quote]

God defines good. I’ve said so from the beginning. Nothing arbitrary about it. Subjective is arbitrary. One group does this, one group does another. Neither is good or evil.

Sloth · December 17, 2009, 10:11pm

[quote]Meatros wrote:
Can you explain - I literally have no idea what you are talking about here.[/quote]

You asked about the Christian ‘Joshua Challenge.’ There is no one thing. The phrase is used for getaway camps, to refer to the challenge put to Joshua, or Joshua’s challenge of his people. And, even to your own understanding of the “Joshua Challenge.” Yes, we actually talk about these things. Even before atheists started to ask us to consider these topics.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
No, I wouldn’t. I’m aware of the fullfilled law and am held to that revelation.

Meaning what? So the law wasn’t even the law back then? Seriously, this makes zero sense. In essence you are saying that God changed his mind.[/quote]

I’ve explained. See my posts concerning the progressive revelation of God’s law.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, ok. No way to test it.
Not for me, personally, but there are plenty of people who have died for such things. No, not really.[/quote]

Unless of course you’re stilling thinking about people who could time travel. In Joshua’s day and age? Come on…

What’s interesting is that you chose a moral position that would result in your group’s (with you responsible for them) extinction. That doesn’t really jive with morality being tied to the survival and expansion of the group.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Not a good comparison. Knowledge of the world was obviously, much, much, greater in WW2. We’re talking about tribes whose ‘world’ would be nothing but a small region to us today.

What does knowledge of the world have to do with anything?[/quote]

You are comparing WW2 era people, who’d have a much deeper history behind them. And, who’d have an understanding that “the world” can work in different ways. That the world, isn’t just Nazi Germany. That the world isn’t just the way it has been, is, and always will be, since the rise of man. The comparison doesn’t work.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
You’re not listening. The Old testament is incomplete revelation.

Meatros wrote:
I am listening - what you aren’t acknowledging is the problem this puts you in. Further, it makes the old testament completely incoherent. So was Jonah in the wrong for obeying God (eventually)? Was Noah? What about Adam and Eve?

What you are suggesting is that the laws didn’t change, but it’s obvious that they did. Is it wrong to kill children:[/quote]

This is the last time Meatros. Not angry with you, but I’m just repeating myself now. At some point you either accept my responses. Or, you don’t.

Through a progression of time, MAN’S laws were superseded. Changed. Man’s laws, customs, warfare, marriage, divorce, etc were changed over time. This is absolute, back to the basics, Christianity now. We Christians do not believe the laws were fullfilled until Christ. So the laws, the punishment, the warfare, that came before was a mix of God’s Laws, and a resignation to what humanity knew and was. Even in the abscence of simply info dumping Christian understanding of morality–marriage, divorce, punishments, vengeance, and yes, warfare–even with a progressive revelation…the people rebelled and disobeyed, again, and again.

God’s laws were complete before we ever existed. It is the introduction of them, the revelations, over time, that I’ve shared. You can reject this. However, it would no longer be Christianity as your foe.

ephrem · December 18, 2009, 12:31am

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…for Sloth: a proper explanation of atheism: http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2009/12/problem-of-defining-atheism.html

“A too-common detraction from the concept of atheism is that it is a belief system and thus a competitor to religion.”[/quote]

From your link:
“In other words, we cannot reject something that we cannot observe. Dictionary publishers would have to choose between these two perspectives for their definition. So far, they’re siding with the theists.”

This translates into: If we cannot observe it, then we cannot reject it. By contrapositive, that translates to: If we reject it, then we observe it.

I submit therefore that this definition of atheism is illogical.

I’ll try to fix it for you: Atheism is rooted in observation, as the author admits. Atheists must be logical empiricists. Therefore a major premise of atheism must be: any concept not formed by abstraction from percepts is an empty concept.

But then, what is ‘love’? What is ‘integrity’? What is ‘justice’? Following the reasoning of atheists, those things cannot exist, at least not in the same sense of ‘chair’ or ‘person’.

The philosophic roots of atheism thus depend on humans thinkin at the level of dumb animals. I’ll pass.[/quote]

…your logic fails miserably HH, love/integrity, justice are concepts that are verifiable and quantifiable. God however is neither, and that is the objection an atheist, regarding the belief in god, makes. If you’d actually think for once, instead of relying on books to do your thinking for you, you might even rise to the level of dumb animals…

ephrem · December 18, 2009, 12:43am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…i misunderstood Pat, i generally use the term “metaphysical” in a divine or spiritual sense, not abstract thought. But even seen in that light, i don’t get how this relates to anything godly or absolute. Explain?
[/quote]

Metaphysics is not the stuff of religion. There are many aspects, facets, and layers. Everything rolls up, however. We can agree perhaps that, say morality exists. Where does it come from? And then where does that come from, etc. This is actually what becomes the cosmological form of argument for the existence of God.

If you follow the chain of questions you have one of two scenarios, an infinite regress or a stop or conclusion.
Infinite regress is a logical fallacy, because it begs the question…For innstance, “Why are we here, because we’re here…Roll the bones” ~ Neil Peart

You cannot answer a philosophical question with a logical fallacy, it invalidates the arguemt, so you have to stop it to make it deductively correct. So you have a succession of things, each caused by the other. What properties must something have that started the process?
Well, it has to be able to cause with out being caused. If it is not, it cannot be the initiator. If it cannot be put in to existence, it must necessarily have always been as well. It could not just pop into existence with out itself being caused. And there you have it, the cosmological argument for the existence of God.

The beauty of the argument, is that you can start at any point. When dealing the physical, you have the problem of time, events preceding one another. However, once you hit the metaphysical, time ceases to be a problem as metaphysical objects are not subject to time. For instance, the “idea” or “point” of chair is the same whether discovered a million years ago, or today.
Lastly, in metaphysics, you only discover what is there, we are not capable of anything original. The “laws” of physics was discover not invented. The principals of math were discovered not invented. If it were invented, we could change the ‘rules’ and we cannot. It’s not relative, but completely concrete. I like to be rooted in the concrete.

My biggest challenge with atheists is to get them to understand that they deal in the metaphysical everyday, if not constantly. Once we get past that point, then the order becomes much easier to understand. [/quote]

…there are a couple of flaws in your line of reasoning pat. That morality exists does not automatically lead towards a Creator. Time is a philosophical concept that does not actually exist. Therefore, you can’t say one thing, the Universe, must have a Creator because it cannot exist by itself, when that same Creator is able to exist by itself…

…the Universe exists, that i can verify. Whether God exists is something i can only believe in, and that i’m unable to. Watch this vid: The Known Universe by AMNH - YouTube on The Known Universe: The Known Universe takes viewers from the Himalayas through our atmosphere and the inky black of space to the afterglow of the Big Bang. Every star, planet, and quasar seen in the film is possible because of the world’s most complete four-dimensional map of the universe…

…you say you like to be rooted in something concrete, yet opt for a belief instead of reality and that is something i don’t understand. You may believe to have everything figured out by believing in God, but these beliefs don’t actually prove or mean anything what our reality in concerned…

Headhunter · December 18, 2009, 1:18am

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
…for Sloth: a proper explanation of atheism: http://www.dontfeedtheanimals.net/2009/12/problem-of-defining-atheism.html

“A too-common detraction from the concept of atheism is that it is a belief system and thus a competitor to religion.”[/quote]

From your link:
“In other words, we cannot reject something that we cannot observe. Dictionary publishers would have to choose between these two perspectives for their definition. So far, they’re siding with the theists.”

This translates into: If we cannot observe it, then we cannot reject it. By contrapositive, that translates to: If we reject it, then we observe it.

I submit therefore that this definition of atheism is illogical.

I’ll try to fix it for you: Atheism is rooted in observation, as the author admits. Atheists must be logical empiricists. Therefore a major premise of atheism must be: any concept not formed by abstraction from percepts is an empty concept.

But then, what is ‘love’? What is ‘integrity’? What is ‘justice’? Following the reasoning of atheists, those things cannot exist, at least not in the same sense of ‘chair’ or ‘person’.

The philosophic roots of atheism thus depend on humans thinkin at the level of dumb animals. I’ll pass.[/quote]

…your logic fails miserably HH, love/integrity, justice are concepts that are verifiable and quantifiable. God however is neither, and that is the objection an atheist, regarding the belief in god, makes. If you’d actually think for once, instead of relying on books to do your thinking for you, you might even rise to the level of dumb animals…[/quote]

If your basic premise is contradictory, whatever follows logically from that premise is invalid.

As for the very abstract concepts I listed, you state that you can point out instances of things like ‘integrity’ and form the concept of integrity. Well, then why can’t I point out instances of what I deem as manifestations of God and form the then very valid concept of God?

Finally, I don’t have much issue with your rejection of religion. I’m a believer in DIRECT experience.

BBriere · December 18, 2009, 2:04am

Meatros,

Agnostics are under the assumption that knowing whether a deity exists is impossible. Atheists hold that since there is no empirical evidence for God then he must not exist. My statement was based on people that I have met. I’ve never met you so you may truly believe there is no God. Even the most staunchly atheistic people I’ve met eventually concede the fact that there may be a deity of some sort. They usually just deny that God could be an omniscient, omnipresent being. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted there may be some sort of higher being. Strong words from a man that critizes Christianity for its lack of empirical evidence, yet claims as an undisputable fact that all life started from a single celled ancestor despite lack of empirical evidence.

Anyway, as I said before, I’m not going to criticize you for calling yourself an atheist. Everyone feels something different. I’m always willing to talk to anyone about concepts of faith though if you are willing.

ephrem · December 18, 2009, 2:26am