Iconoclastic Atheist Turns To Belief In God

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
181

[quote]Professor X wrote:

Our reality is based on life and death, joy and pain. For every action, there is a reaction. For God, there is the opposite in evil. For only good things to happen, we would have to be devoid of the reality we plunged ourselves into at the beginning of time with the transgressions of Adam and Eve. To understand God, you would also have to understand Satan. This concept of Yin and Yang is the foundation of our plane of existance. The real question is, are you truly asking this to become more aware or so that you can be prepared to degrade what you receive?[/quote]

So what you’re trying to say is that evil exists in the world outside of God. For example, as god is the power of pure good, satan is the power of pure evil. Is this right?

If so, than you are rejecting God’s omnipotence. You are declaring he is not all-powerful, as you have said Satan can create things that God cannot control. Since God has no bearing on that which Satan can (sometimes?) accomplish, he isn’t ALL POWERFUL. Isn’t this so?

{by the way, I don’t have to “degrade what I receive” – whoever devised “the problem of evil” has covered that – there IS NO valid response to it, which is what makes it such a great argument.}

182

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
The question of evil is realy simple.We have Free Will. It is explained real well in Genesis.We can choose to love God as he loves Us, or we can turn away.If by turning away,one embraces a life that includes hurting others, you have made a concious decision to become Evil. Apparently alot of people make that choice every day.
[/quote]

Positing free will (I say “positing” because whether or not we have it is debatable itself) is an inadequate response to the Problem of Evil.

It fails most obviously in that there is plenty of “evil” that is beyond control of human action/choice – the catastrophe in South Asia, for example.

183

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
mindeffer01 wrote:

Now I realy don’t care if someone worships a green, bong hitting,westside lifting bunny, a tree, or the old standard Jesus. As long as they believe in something outside of themselves, that is a source of inspiration and moral guidance."

I and most atheists do hold a belief in something outside ourselves…the vast, complex, and wonderful Universe, the sum of all of our empirical knowledge and experience. What could be more wonderful than that?[/quote]

Our universe is not the sum culmination of all of our empiracle knowledge and experience. If we lived in a universe that was the sum, the outer bounds would be the size of this solar system, which we still have yet to explore,except by the use of satelite,and our empiracle knowledge still can’t explain a myriad of questions that still plague humanitys’ greatest scientific minds.Even the questions that the hypothisies of the unified field theory,string theory, and an everghanging multi-verse attempt to answer can’t be proven,because they can’t be tested.
Don’t get me wrong though, I appreciate the sentiment of your post.I just wouldnt put such confining restraints on the conditions of existence of the universe. In fact it is usualy this path that leads people to the conclusion that this universe wasn’t an accident,and that this is not coincidence.

184

[quote]rainjack wrote:
God gave us the gift of choice. Free Will. He gave that gift to everyone - not just those that believe in him. Our experiences in life are based on our choices. To blame God for evil is to blame the wrong guy - especially since evil is a product of our choices.

I don’t think I have the idea of God that you want me to have in order for your claims to hold true. Oh, he’s omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, but he doesn’t use those just to make us happy, comfy kids. [/quote]

You left out omnibenevolent. Do you think he is all-good?

As I noted in a previous response, free will is a failed response to the problem of evil.

Rainjack, how could an all knowing, all powerful, all good god allow the earthquake/tsunami distaster to occur?

If he’s all knowing, then he knew it would occur.
If he’s all powerful, then he could have prevented it.
If he’s all good, then he has no interest in allowing innocent folks to die in mass numbers.
Thus, how could it occur unless one of these attributes is misplaced?

Perhaps you don’t wish to believe in the God the Bible has created, but instead a “prime mover” – a god that kicked the universe into action. I’m sure this is not something you’ve any interest in, but if you did, it carries with it its own host of complications.

185

[quote]Professor X wrote:
battlelust wrote:
zep,
beliefs are held irrespective of evidence. there is no way to prove the existence or non-existence of a god, yet many people believe in either the existence or non-existence despite this lack of empirical data. this is, fundamentally, irrational. however, I’m not in any way decrying this irrational behavior. as a theist myself, I fully embrace the idea of the irrational. my beliefs, just like yours or Anthony Flew, act as a filter on empirical data. the sunrise means different things to all of us.

Your logic is faulty. Thinking that way would correlate to believing that before light bulbs were invented, that the thought of using electricity to light the dark was irrational. It was a thought based on evidence that later proved to be possible. What is irrational is turning your mind off to a great possibility simply because it isn’t standing directly in front of you. People like that do not become inventors or free thinkers. They are immediately bound by what they believe to be impossible. Thankfully, most of the greatest minds this world has ever seen did believe in a higher power.

I can see it now, “Making butter out of peanuts is irrational because I have not seen it before”. Or, “using mold to fight infection? Are you crazy? That is irrational because no one has done it previously”.

This world was built by the people you claim are “irrational”. Thank God for that.
[/quote]

Amen!

186

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Positing free will (I say “positing” because whether or not we have it is debatable itself) is an inadequate response to the Problem of Evil.

It fails most obviously in that there is plenty of “evil” that is beyond control of human action/choice – the catastrophe in South Asia, for example.
[/quote]

This is a classic question - Why do bad things happen if God is so good? God is omin-everything. That does not imply that he has to prove it you you - he doesn’t need to prove anything to anyone. It doesn’t mean that all you questions will be answered. If it were as empirical as you wanted it to be, then there would be no need for faith - which is where the athiests lose interest.

You are regurgitating the same basic argument - you just used a different subject.

187

R.S.U.
You sound pretty shook up about Asia. But what wappened there was a catastrophe,not an occurance of Evil.To use that as an example of evil would be to presume to know the mind of God,and based on the assumption that he allowed or caused it to happen.If that would be impossible for someone who believes in God, how is that possible for someone who doesn’t?
I’m not sure where you stand on the existance of God. Do you believe and just disagree with him, Or do you not believe at all.
I used to subscribe to the idea that if God gets all the credit, God gets all the blame too. I finaly just had to agree to disagree on some pionts, like the loss of my parents and other loved ones. I’m not saying that you should try this, but it worked for me. Now I have faith that things will work out in the end.

188

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:

So what you’re trying to say is that evil exists in the world outside of God. For example, as god is the power of pure good, satan is the power of pure evil. Is this right?[/quote]

Yes, that is right.

[quote]
If so, than you are rejecting God’s omnipotence. [/quote]

Wrong, because even in the bible, satan doesn’t act out of control of God. There are things that are allowed to happen but not forced by the hand of God. As I stated before, that is the reality we live in. That is the “test”. If we lived in paradise, there would be no need for faith. As humans, we created this human condition by our own actions at the beginning of time. The reality that we face as a result requires good to be balanced by evil.

[quote]
You are declaring he is not all-powerful, as you have said Satan can create things that God cannot control. Since God has no bearing on that which Satan can (sometimes?) accomplish, he isn’t ALL POWERFUL. Isn’t this so?[/quote]

Read above. You wish this were so and you wish that christians thought this way so you could easily explain it away. As others have stated, you are not smarter than anyone else in this forum. Why would you assume that these questions you are asking are original? You have chosen to not believe. I can continue to answer any questions you ask within the understanding of my own faith, but that won’t do any good if your goal is to simply degrade my religion. If your goal is understanding, ask away.

[quote]
{by the way, I don’t have to “degrade what I receive” – whoever devised “the problem of evil” has covered that – there IS NO valid response to it, which is what makes it such a great argument.} [/quote]

How is the response I gave NOT valid? Because you say so? PROVE it is not valid.

Oh, and before you continue this, read about Job in the bible and then tell me what you get from that. Please don’t go forward until you do…even though I am sure you will.

189

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Right Side Up wrote:

It seems to me that the athiests are trying really hard to marginalize the theists with absurd examples, all the while pushing the idea that we are abnormal compared to them. That we are not as enlightened.

Man, this get better and better, doesn’t it? What could be more “absurd” than the virgin-born carpenter’s son who claims to be the Son of God, makes fish multiply, heals the sick, allows mortal man to kill him and then rises from the dead? Do you not get it that, to an atheist, this tale is about as wacky and unbelievable as it gets (my Pink Bunnyrabbit is downright normal, by comparison!).

And, just for edification’s sake, how about showing me where you were called “abnormal,” or that you were not as “enlightened.” In re-reading these posts, the only thing I can see is that atheists disagree with your belief and raised questions about it. You claimed in a previous post how rock-solid your faith is, but you and others (Prof X) seem awful precious about absorbing conflicting views.

[/quote]
Boscobarbell,
Do you think the account of Jesus?s life is a little odd? This is what has convinced me that Christianity is the truth. What human beings would have ever come up with such a story? Man made stories are much more interesting, and not nearly as odd. I mean what man would think to say that our savior died on a cross. Men would not think this up, so I believe that it must have happened. I also believe that Jesus rose form the dead because if he would not have Christianity would have died with him. These men must have seen something that turned them form modern everyday people, to martyred apostles. I do not think that they would have willingly gave there lives as they did if they had not seen something.

May God Bless You

190

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Boscobarbell wrote:

I specifically wrote that to another poster based on what he was writing. It involved his partaking of a religious act but claiming no religious background or desire. You need to learn how to read in context. If anyone is thin skinned around here, it is you. Next time, learn when you are being spoken to and when you are not.
[/quote]

Hey, Shakespeare, ever consider it’s your writing that lacks a bit of specificity? :slight_smile: Yes, you were writing to another poster…another atheist, one whose beliefs mirror mine. And although the immediate context was of his “hijacking” of a religious rite, the overall discussion related to his beliefs in regard to any number of issues concerning morality, right and wrong, etc.

So let me be the bigger man, here…if, indeed, you never meant to include all atheists in your comments about lacking “foundations,” then my apologies. And I will leave this portion of the discussion confident that you do not, in fact, believe that atheists are lacking in any of the “foundations” required to achieve morality, ethics, etc. Fair enough??

Peace…

191

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Haney,

If you reason for believe lies in “the written record of proof,” where does this leave your faith? You seem to have supplanted faith with reason; so which are you – a man of faith or a man of reason? I don’t beleive “both” is an option here.

RSU[/quote]

The Bible does not say we should just believe for no good reason. Look as Justin Martyr. He was converted in the second century. He found reason to convert. I can have faith, and reason. I believed first! I have found evidence as I have encountered these arguments before. The Bible is very clear that we should be ready at all times to give an answer about the faith we have. So technically I can have both. It is my faith that believes. My faith in action that seeks reason to continue to believe.

192

[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
I’m sorry, buddy. But you did miss my point. Making some unverifiable claim like “Jesus raised my dog from the dead, and then vanished into thin air”, and then saying “I’m right, because you can’t prove me wrong” doesn’t make any logical sense. This is the basis of your “bible is truth” argument. It just doesn’t hold water.

[/quote]
Well Tacitus seemed to think the early Christian made the same claim. So did Josephus. Two outside sources. Once again though the Jews could of silenced this whole uprising really quickly if they were to produce a body. We know He was crucified! Yet no one said hey here is the body, you guys are wrong!

Actually this is not the same thing. We have no record of a green bunny that lived, that claimed He was god, has outside historical references, has reference to a historical time and place. That is verifiable.

Things we know about Judea during Christ life.
Pilate existed
the temple still stood
religious and political movements
Judea still had a king
Herod existed
The list could go on, and on.
Your bunny would lack such things so it is not the same thing. If you had them then that might be of some interest.

Understood, but all personal feelings aside it would still be more than a work of art. At its smallest summation it could be called a political tool for an ancient people. Similiar to what “common sense” was to the American Revolution

[quote]
The Green One is fast as shit. He loves westside. Seeing a Green Bunny bench press is pretty unreal. We only see him when we’re really baked, but I’m sure that has nothing to do with it! :slight_smile: [/quote]

Let me guess your ritual service for the bunny consists of watching kung fu moveis and getting baked.

193

[quote]MentalMuscle wrote:
Actually, Christianity has changed a LOT since 1500. Just the fact that I can walk down the street and proclaim that I am an atheist and not get burned at the stake says a lot. Many people now work on Sundays. Dietary restrictions have been eased. Priests/ministers can now either get married, be female, be homosexual (depending on which form of Christianity you are talking about). The creation of Mormonism was a huge change in Christian thought. Compare Roman Catholicism with Catholicism that is practiced in the U.S. and then try to tell me that it has not changed.
[/quote]

Our belief structure has not changed. While the doctrine might be up for debate. It is very easy to follow the practices of the first Century Christians if you just read and follow the Bible. Doctrinal believes, and practices are not the same.

It bothers me. I never said He was right. I could use Calvin, or a host of others. He was just easier to use.
Who said I followed Martin Luther. I merely stated that He was the last to make radical changes to the way we read the gospel. He also thought James was a worthless epistle, and You don’t see me throwing it out . Just because He did somethings wrong, is not the same as following someone who most likely derived their ideas from their insanity.

Also Martin Luther didn’t really make changes he was just the first person to come along and a while and interpret the gospel the way it was intended. How he was anti-semetic and a firm follower of the gospel is a mystery. Then again no believer is perfect, so he would be allowed his flaws just like I would.

194

[quote]rainjack wrote:

I know, I know the burden of proof lies with the theists, yada, yada, yada. That’s just a semantical point to keep you guys from having to do anything to prove your position. [/quote]

Actually, it’s not really the province of atheists at all. All logicians, debaters…hell, even courts of law, demand this logic in order to further discourse. Cool by me if you wish to disagree with that conventions. Just know it wasn’t something we dang heathens concocted!

[quote]rainjack wrote:

If you could prove, conclusively, that there was no God - you would. But you can’t. You’ve proved it enough to convince youself, but that’s about it. So you try to substantiate your position by making the theist position look absurd.[/quote]

Two things here. First of all, I’ve proved nothing to myself. Actually, that’s what atheism is all about. We simply lack the belief in a god, usually because it either appears illogical and/or because we’ve never been shown convincing evidence of one. That’s it. And for most of us, if god decided to take a stroll down Main Street tomorrow, I’d be the first to scream out how wrong I’d been. So far, no luck, but I’ll continue waiting.

Secondly, I’m still not getting this whole “absurd” charge. Maybe you could be more specific, or maybe just let this suffice: You and I disagree. In discussing our disagreement, each brings up what they understand, how their position differs from the other, and why they believe they’ve made the correct decision. No insult intended, nor should any be taken.

And I stand by my offer…show me where I’ve been insulting to you and I’ll quickly either explain the misunderstanding or withdraw the comment. Just don’t point out where I’ve debated my position as it differs from yours, as I assumed that was the point of this whole exercise.

195

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
Actually, it’s not really the province of atheists at all. All logicians, debaters…hell, even courts of law, demand this logic in order to further discourse. Cool by me if you wish to disagree with that conventions. Just know it wasn’t something we dang heathens concocted![/quote]

Maybe I confused you. I’m not saying that the rules should be changed for this debate. I’ve said time and again that this debate is unwinnable by either side. Our side can’t provide the ‘evidence’ your side requires.

My point was, because of the way the debate is set up, you guys can sit behind the proof rule, and not have to say anything except, ‘prove it’. It’s very very frustrating from this side of the argument because the proof we have is not quantifiable.

I think you’re wrong. You say quite factually that it’s all a myth. A fable. It seems to me that you vascilate between knowing nothing and knowing everything quite easily.

Your BR deserves as much consideration as the God that has been worshipped since man was created. I think that is incredibly absurd. You will disagree, I’m sure. But that’s how I, and many others on this thread interpret your attempts at an analogy.

196

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Maybe I confused you. I’m not saying that the rules should be changed for this debate. I’ve said time and again that this debate is unwinnable by either side. Our side can’t provide the ‘evidence’ your side requires.

My point was, because of the way the debate is set up, you guys can sit behind the proof rule, and not have to say anything except, ‘prove it’. It’s very very frustrating from this side of the argument because the proof we have is not quantifiable. [/quote]

Right. Different mindsets. I demand proof for ALL the things I believe in my life. You do not…or at least not “proof” as defined here. Again, differing viewpoints, but nothing to get uptight about.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
I think you’re wrong. You say quite factually that it’s all a myth. A fable. It seems to me that you vascilate between knowing nothing and knowing everything quite easily. [/quote]

I believe that all claims are false, or at least suspect, unless proven otherwise. And, indeed, the more fantastic the claim, the greater the proof required. Your christian god is no exception. I “know” all those things that have been proven to my satisfaction…and nothing more.

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Your BR deserves as much consideration as the God that has been worshipped since man was created. I think that is incredibly absurd. You will disagree, I’m sure. But that’s how I, and many others on this thread interpret your attempts at an analogy.
[/quote]

To reiterate, my point with the PB was two-fold. First, to show that it is (at least the the conventional sense demanded by logicians) impossible to disprove the existance of an entity not logically contradictory. Second, it was to address the label of “closemindedness” bandied about by theists in dismissing the atheist position. My point was that you, too, are “close-minded;” after all, you dismissed my PB. Why? Because I presented a fantastic claim without any proof.

Do you see the parallel? We’re all “close-minded” when it comes to things in which we don’t believe. As a matter of fact, you even have a strain of atheism in your blood. Why? Because you dis-believe in Zeus, Pan, the Taoist God of Revenge, the Shinto spirit of the Fox, etc. etc. etc. You have chosen a god in which to believe, and scores others to disregard. I simply have one more dis-belief than you do. Does that make me “close-minded?”

Lastly, you’ve again failed to show where I labeled you “absurd.” This is my third attempt, and please remember that I don’t a Christian’s patience!! :slight_smile: Did I use absurdity to prove a point?? You betcha. But I never leveled such an ad hominem attack (except to Prof X, which is a whole other twisted tale!!).

197

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
And although the immediate context was of his “hijacking” of a religious rite, the overall discussion related to his beliefs in regard to any number of issues concerning morality, right and wrong, etc.

So let me be the bigger man, here…if, indeed, you never meant to include all atheists in your comments about lacking “foundations,” then my apologies. And I will leave this portion of the discussion confident that you do not, in fact, believe that atheists are lacking in any of the “foundations” required to achieve morality, ethics, etc. Fair enough??

Peace…
[/quote]

Don’t leave just yet. I wrote these questions to you posts and posts ago yet you avoided them completely…although you wrote above that you had answered them. Please enlighten me with the answers (which you apparently typed in invisible internet dust) now:

In what do your base your concept of right and wrong? Do you even believe in “right and wrong”? If so, why do you believe in right and wrong? What motivates you to do right at all? Why not simply do wrong all of the time? Where are your boundaries and why do you have them? If no one was to find out, would killing someone else outside of self defense be “wrong” to you? Please explain in detail.

198

[quote]Boscobarbell wrote:
rainjack wrote:

I know, I know the burden of proof lies with the theists, yada, yada, yada. That’s just a semantical point to keep you guys from having to do anything to prove your position.

Actually, it’s not really the province of atheists at all. All logicians, debaters…hell, even courts of law, demand this logic in order to further discourse. Cool by me if you wish to disagree with that conventions. Just know it wasn’t something we dang heathens concocted!

[/quote]

Actually both sides ask for Burden of proof. Theists ask you to prove Christ didn’t rise from the dead. Atheists ask for proof that He really did.

We think because there are eye witness accounts that settles it. You believe they are made up. It is really all in how you view it.

199

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:

You left out omnibenevolent. Do you think he is all-good?
[/quote]

Yes He is all good.

God made us in His image. That image is one that is allowed the ability to choose. So free will is a very good response. God gave us a choice, and allowed us to do wrong. Everyone wants to say “How can He be good if He allows evil?” People forget He is also justice. Just like a jurry who might not want to sentence someone to the death penalty, but feel that for justice to be served they must. There is a sense of regret, but duty would come first.

True.

True

By who’s standard are they innocent?
According to the Biblical view that most of the theist posters seem to share. No one would be innocent.

If God fore warned that because of our sin that pain would exist then this would be a result of the fall which would not misplace any of His attributes.

[quote]
Perhaps you don’t wish to believe in the God the Bible has created, but instead a “prime mover” – a god that kicked the universe into action. I’m sure this is not something you’ve any interest in, but if you did, it carries with it its own host of complications.[/quote]

Lets say that at midnight tonight God was going to remove all evil from the world. Who would be left? If all sin is wrong in God’s eye’s than who would last? By the Biblical God no one would. It says very clearly no one is good but God.

The problems that you state would exist if you removed justice from God.

200

[quote]bamit wrote:
Do you think the account of Jesus?s life is a little odd? This is what has convinced me that Christianity is the truth. What human beings would have ever come up with such a story? Man made stories are much more interesting, and not nearly as odd. I mean what man would think to say that our savior died on a cross. Men would not think this up, so I believe that it must have happened. I also believe that Jesus rose form the dead because if he would not have Christianity would have died with him. These men must have seen something that turned them form modern everyday people, to martyred apostles. I do not think that they would have willingly gave there lives as they did if they had not seen something.[/quote]

Is it just me, or does bamit give anyone else the creeps? So bamit believes it because it is such an improbable story. Fascinating. No doubt you believe people are being anally-probed by aliens (why would someone just make that up?). As for Jesus being nailed to the cross, that was not an uncommon thing for the Romans to do.

I am also getting tired of hearing about these “first hand accounts” of Jesus dying, being resurrected, turning water into wine, etc. You are reading a book that was written over 2,000 years ago. I could write a book right now about my “first hand account” of the Civil War and in a couple hundred years no one would be the wiser.

Professor X, you silly melon-head. Maybe you should do your homework before you start taking the test. Marriage is not a religious ceremony. It is a ceremony. Period. You have to get a license from your state to get married, not your church and any magistrate can marry someone.

Well, I won’t be posting much more on this board–boscobarbell seems to be doing an excellent job now that he is back anyway. Being an atheist, I have some raping, pillaging and random murders to attend to.