The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[Zakath]

Re: Dohhh...

Re: Dohhh...

Originally posted by famousGandalf7
Man, His ways are past finding out.

Yes, that's putting it mildly. So far past that his followers can't figure out any way to demonstrate him or his alleged power to the ignorant.

His Plan of Salvation is offered to all.

Untrue. It is offered only to those willing to become his slaves.

If we could see Him, He would be to busy to save everyone, what with signing autographs, TV appearances, book tours and all.

I'm sure, being omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent that he could handle a tough social schedule.

He lives. We don't live forever without His Grace.

Funny, that's not what your Bible teaches. Mankind had eternal life as an option at one time, until YHWH intevened and cut them off from it...

"And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden..." Gen 3:22-23a

With Him inside of us, we become a new creation, able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

I'm assuming you're speaking metaphorically since I haven't seen any Christians high jumping any buildings lately.

This Holy Spirit, who lives inside of me, is the Living Water that Jesus referred to, which allows us to be thirsty (wondering about whether we are worthwhile to Him or not) no more.

Do you believe that "Holy Spirit" is "God"?

If so perhaps you'd ask him a question for me?

 

[Aimiel]

He is God

He is God

Zakath,

But just because He indwells me does not mean that I can teach Him tricks, or get Him to do whatever I want. This is not slavery, nor even servitude, He has called me His Friend.

What did you have in mind?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

It is offered only to those willing to become his slaves.

Slaves? I prefer "child." Which you are already Zakath. You're just on a different part of your journey. The prodigal son was on a journey too. I pray your journey ends well.

Happy Easter!

God bless,

 

[Lion]

How?

How?

Hey Freak, how do you decide if you are going to believe one way or the other? I mean I know how (that is what criteria) I use to make a decision, but what do you use?

Being in law enforcement, I often have to decide which side is telling the truth without the benefit of actually being there myself to know the truth. I then have to extrapolate the truth from the pieces of evidence at the scene. After I have weighed all the data, (as much or little as I may have), I make a decision. I may not always be right, because there may be data that I didn't know about at the time, but since a decision must be made and there isn't all the time in the world to make said decision, I have found that using the evidence at hand tends to be the best way of deciding. The vast majority of times this has proved to be effective.

I believe we should look at religion in the same way. Look at the evidence, then weigh all the factors available at the time, then weigh them out and make your decision.

The first question I like to ask is; "Is it true that there either is, or is not a God or gods?" Then I look at the data and decide if this statement is true or false. I think the statement itself is true. There either is, or is not, a God or gods. So my answer would be, "Yes, the statement is true."

What would your answer be?

 

[shima]

Lion:
>>What would your answer be?<<

There is no God.

Since you are a cop, I assume that when you weigh any evidence or personal statements, you keep in the back of your mind that the evidence could be misleading, and the statement could be a lie.

I believe the bible is not true. How did I decide that? Internal consistency. The bible doesn't have any. The God of the old testament is a **%&*^%*&^ kind of god while the God of the New Testament might even be ok. Now, if god is meant to be unchangable, then obviously these gods are not the same god.

 

[Zakath]

Re: He is God

Re: He is God

Originally posted by famousGandalf7
...This is not slavery...What did you have in mind?

Two questions, take your pick of one.

1. Explain exactly what the term "slave" means in the following passages attributed to Paul:

• "Don't you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey--whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness." - Rom. 6:16-18
  
  "But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. " - Rom. 6:22
  
  "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart." Eph. 6:4-6
  
  "All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered. " I Tim. 6:1

Or

2. Explain how he is allegedly "pro-life", yet he killed the entire human race, except for eight people, in Noah's day or why he had the invading Israelites slaugher unborn babies when Joshua destroyed all those Palestinian cities in ancient times?

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
Slaves? I prefer "child."...

Slaves (or children) have little say in the matter of what their relationship is those over them. Either way we are allegedl subjected to someone most of us cannot see, hear, or understand.

Happy Easter! God bless,

Thank you.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zakath,

Slaves (or children) have little say in the matter of what their relationship is those over them. Either way we are allegedl subjected to someone most of us cannot see, hear, or understand.

You and I must have had significantly different relationships with our parents.

With my parents, I most definitely did not understand why I had to do what they said. However, I did believe that they always had my best interests in their heart, so I trusted them. As I grew older, I began to understand that my parents knew a thing or two about how to live a happy life, and I began to understand why they gave me all those "rules" to follow. In otherwords, faith precedes understanding. Sometimes, when we try to force understanding to precede faith, we get frustrated and our understanding gets stuck in perpetual opposition to what our parents taught us. Like a teenager who never gets through his "rebellious" years. When I let faith precede understanding, and not the other way around, it made all the difference in the world.

God bless,

 

[Zakath]

At my age, my relationship with other mature entities (human or allegedly otherwise) is much more dependent on my interaction with those individuals rather than good or bad relationships with my parents forty or so years ago.

The problem lies in my experience with deities - they are not at all interactive.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zakath,

My above post is exactly why I think this quote, although clever, is a bunch of crap...

"Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, "yes, gravity is real! I will have faith!" - Dan Barker

When I studied electrical engineering many, many years ago, I most certainly discovered that truth does not demand belief. However, understanding that truth almost always requires faith.

For example, I would not have discovered E=mc^2 on my own. It comes from much trust in the wisdom of the "fathers" of physics. And quite honestly, although I passed my Quantum Physics course, even today I need to have faith that Schroedinger's equation is true, because I don't have a clue as to why, and I'm not real certain I ever did.

God bless,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zakath,

I understand. I too was one who only believed in the truth I could experience, or in the truth that could be empirically proven or reasoned to. However, today I have faith that there's more to truth than what my ego, no matter how enlarged (and my wife can testify to the size of my ego ), can grasp or measure.

God bless,

 

[Zakath]

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
Zakath,
My above post is exactly why I think this quote, although clever, is a bunch of crap...

That's quite a strong reaction...

When I studied electrical engineering many, many years ago, I most certainly discovered that truth does not demand belief. However, understanding that truth almost always requires faith.

Barker's point is that scientists need not rely on faith, in the religious sense, since the physical world appears to operate independently of human belief. In other words, when the dictionary falls from the shelf onto my foot, no faith need be applied to produce the bruise.

On the other hand, when something is not empirically verifiable, it is not scientific. It may be philosophy, theology, or any one of several other disciplines, but it is definitely not pure science.

Faith is the realm of the theologian and religionist. The bible teaches that "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the unseen evidence". When the evidence is seen, one passes from faith to knowledge which moves into the realm of science.

For example, I would not have discovered E=mc^2 on my own. It comes from much trust in the wisdom of the "fathers" of physics. And quite honestly, although I passed my Quantum Physics course, even today I need to have faith that Schroedinger's equation is true, because I don't have a clue as to why, and I'm not real certain I ever did.

But you will certainly not "rot in hell" if Schroedinger's mythical cat was toasted because his equation was faulty. The esoteric mathematical modeling of subatomic particle physics does not diretly impact most of our daily lives. Like the vast majority of the human race, you would probably have lived the rest of your life quite productively and happily if you'd never heard of Schroedinger and his math.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zakath,

Zakath,
My above post is exactly why I think this quote, although clever, is a bunch of crap...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's quite a strong reaction...

Sorry for my vulgarity ... I still have a lot of military habits still in me.

Like the vast majority of the human race, you would probably have lived the rest of your life quite productively and happily if you'd never heard of Schroedinger and his math.

I agree. Nor do I believe one will "rot in hell" if they misunderstand and therefore do not assent to a truthful religious doctrine. Otherwise that poor downs syndrome child I taught many years ago is doomed.

I, like Justin Martyr, believe many children of God, even professed atheists, live in accordance with the grace that has been given to them by Christ without ever knowing it or believing it. You seem to more rail against fundamentalist theism than the form I assent to. That's ok, I railed against it as well.

God bless,

 

[Z Man]

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
I, like Justin Martyr, believe many children of God, even professed atheists, live in accordance with the grace that has been given to them by Christ without ever knowing it or believing it.

How can someone be saved and not know it? How can a person's heart be changed by the Power of God and not know it? How can one love God and obey Him, yet not know they are doing those things? Sounds kinda fishy if you ask me....

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by itsjustdave1988
Zakath,

I understand. I too was one who only believed in the truth I could experience, or in the truth that could be empirically proven or reasoned to. However, today I have faith that there's more to truth than what my ego, no matter how enlarged (and my wife can testify to the size of my ego ), can grasp or measure.

God bless,

I wonder if you have any idea how pompous this sounds: "Oh, I was once a fool like you, but now I'm so much wiser than I was then (and you are now)...."

 

[shima]

PureX
>>I wonder if you have any idea how pompous this sounds: "Oh, I was once a fool like you, but now I'm so much wiser than I was then (and you are now)...."<<

Atheists could say almost exactly the same. "Once I was a christian, untill I started asking some questions and I didn't get awnsers." You see, christians who were once atheists think they are now "wiser" (lets leave the discussion about what "wise" means out of this), and the same goes for atheists who were once christians.

So, who is right and who isn't. Or, is a "correct" awnser to the question ever obtainable in life (death doesn't count since the dead are notoriously uncommunicative)?

 

[PureX]

Originally posted by shima
Atheists could say almost exactly the same. "Once I was a christian, untill I started asking some questions and I didn't get awnsers." You see, christians who were once atheists think they are now "wiser" (lets leave the discussion about what "wise" means out of this), and the same goes for atheists who were once christians.

So, who is right and who isn't. Or, is a "correct" awnser to the question ever obtainable in life (death doesn't count since the dead are notoriously uncommunicative)?

People change because they believe that the change is for the better. But how wise are they really, when they then automatically assume that the way in which they have changed is the way everyone else should go, too?

As far as I'm concerned, neither the atheist's nor the Christian's position has much merrit when it leaves them still using themselves as the model for everyone else's life.

I will be interested in their path, whatever it is, when they can show me how to get past using ourselves as the measure for judging others.

 

[wickwoman]

Originally posted by PureX
People change because they believe that the change is for the better. But how wise are they really, when they then automatically assume that the way in which they have changed is the way everyone else should go, too?

As far as I'm concerned, neither the atheist's nor the Christian's position has much merrit when it leaves them still using themselves as the model for everyone else's life.

I will be interested in their path, whatever it is, when they can show me how to get past using ourselves as the measure for judging others.

I agree. Until we all accept that everyone is searching for the same things we are searching for, we will never be truly wise. Thinking you already know everything is a detriment to learning. How does the saying go? "As soon as I realized I was humble I was not."

"Dissolving the mind,
Or the highest meditation,
The world and all its works,
Life or death,
What are they to me?

I sit in my own radiance.

Why talk of wisdom,
The three ends of life,
Or oneness?

Why talk of these!

Now I live in my heart."

-Ashtavakra Gita 19:7-8

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Zman,

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus (Romans 2:14-16).

Paul speaks of the Romans who have God's will written in their hearts. They are neither Jew or Christian, yet Paul say that even these are judged by their "hidden works through Christ Jesus."

I don't think this is fishy at all.

God bless,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

PureX,

You can think it is pompous or not, that's up to you. However, all I've asserted is a corollary to what Zakath had already admitted.

Zakath showed correctly that truth exists whether we believe or not. My corollary would be that it also exists whether we can experience it, measure it, or reason to it. In short, truth also exists whether we understand it or not.

God bless,