Printable View
That is quite simply false. This is what biologists spend most of their time doing. Pick any organ you like and look it up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Those links listed a few more creatures than the archeopteryx.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
I haven't the foggiest idea. That certainly doesn't mean that I have to accept your idea, however.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante
Natural selection at work, then?Quote:
The Archeopteryx was a dead end. They were an unfortunate creature that survived for a very short time unsuccessfully, and did not have enough time to exist beyond that.
who says it was created? maybe the answer eludes us because the question itself is silly. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Baseless and incorrect assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Ask an NSA scientist if you don't want to take my word for it.
Baseless and incorrect assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Hell, I guess it would look like that if you thought a sky-fairy had coughed it all out or whatever he did to get it brought into being - clearly far more logical - after all, it says so in the bible.
Baseless and incorrect assertion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Atheism pre-dates christianity, for starters.
Outright lie. Follow the links I gave earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Outright lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Yet another lie.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
When attempting to argue a point with me, it is imperative to at least know a little about the sucject matter in hand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
You clearly missed that bus, because all of your assertions made above are completely and irretrievably false. I certainly can't disprove god, nor do I particularly want to, but I can refute all of your pseudo-arguments anytime.
No, firstly, he was far too consumed with this world to worry about the next, but his position was clearly agnostic. His position on religion was essentially the same as his opinion on Public Schools - bad idea, essential to survival of the human [English] spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
Religion is outright and claims to require faith, where as atheism appears to rely on science, but has no replacement for religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Again, atheism claims to rely on logic but requires faith to deny faith, whereas religion states that it is based on faith.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You might want to find another response than 'Baseless and incorrect assertion'. What took place before what is neither here nor their.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I did, and I responded to the old archeopterix, which appears to come from nowhere (except the distantly related dinosaurs) and go to nowhere in the evolutionary chain. If you have seen it, it can't have survived long. If it flew, it didn't fly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
See 'Cambrian Explosion'.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The flood part may have been baseless, but look at the dinosaurs. Some meteor or something completely removed them and mammals became dominant directly afterwards.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You might try to prove me wrong using information, rather than 'outright lie' and 'Baseless and incorrect assertion.'[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
As this thread has drifted from the subject matter that is was based on and is becoming rather irritating (partially because of me, I must admit), I am leaving it. Goodbye.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
No point. If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.
Does anyone know what made C.S. Lewis become a christian after being an Atheist?
This thread is about atheism, not evolution. Your "facts" prove nothing beyond the reality that science has found some clues and thinks that it has a good shot at interpreting them into the answer it wants to arrive at. In that way, science is no different than religion - in that it begins with its conclusion (Naturalism) and makes the "facts" fit its plan - just like Christians begin with God and do likewise. Welcom to the presuppositional club - some of acknowledge we're members - others of us pretend we're not.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
On September 19, 1931, Lewis went for an evening walk at Magdalen College with JRR Tolkien and Hugo Dyson. They were discussing their shared interest in mythology and what gave myths their truth. Tolkien argued that the truth of myth is the degree to which it reflects the story of Jesus. Then Tolkien went on to argue for the truthfulness of Christianity. About two weeks later, Lewis converted to Christianity. That's a really truncated version - it's much more complicated than that and I believe Lewis fully lays out his experience in Surprised by Joy.Quote:
Originally Posted by whatsername
Please discuss the topic and not each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Ok in an attempt to get things somewhat back on track I'll answer the original Q.
What do atheists believe in?
Seeing as atheism is a position of only one shared belief, I will answer from a personal standpoint.
1) I do not believe in a benevolent creator/god/supreme being. Looking around at the world I can see no evidence of it - I may be inclined however to think that if there is a creator he/she/it is disinterested and/or incompetent.
2) I believe that humans have the power themselves to do great acts of kindness and huge amounts of evil, and that we are capable of affecting real change ourselves without the need for a god to do it for us.
3) I believe in the "no harm" philosophy, so long as what you do does not adversely affect any unwilling participant I have no real issue with it. Of course with the condition about creating laws/regulations for children and others not able to make the decision on a concious level for themselves with regards to whether they wish to participate or not.
4) I do not believe in marriage, I have never seen the need for a piece of paper or the idea that people somehow love each other more or are less likely to split up if they get married (of course this is influenced by my childhood experiences)
5) I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions - to me pre-destination/fate seems like a huge cop-out, if I work hard enough life will be good.
6) I believe people should believe in whatever works for them without attempts from people to make them see "the light" as it is percieved by the converter. It doesnt matter to me whether people believe in nothing, god, Y-W-H, Allah, Buddah, the tooth fairy or Santa if it works for you go with it. Just dont expect everyone to agree with you.
And I thank you kindly for doing so.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I understand the first statement and the second; I do not understand the third and would benefit from some elaboration.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I agree with the first statement, though I question your use of the word "evil" - if God (and by extension, Satan) do not exist, how does "evil" come into play? Without a Creator to establish an objective morality of good/evil, how can we define anything as "evil"?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
If the second statement is true, then why are so many people in this world unhappy, addicted, dissatisfied? Why aren't we "self-actualized"?
But what is our assessment of "harm" based upon - observation? Can observation truly give us the full measure of the value of an action or behavior? Is anything really OK if both parties are consenting and nobody else is harmed? If I want to die, and I hire someone to kill me, since we're both consenting, are our actions to carry this plan out OK?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
The paper is a symbol, like the ring. It shows the level of committment. We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract - it makes the contract more binding, beyond "OK - I'm tired of you now and I don't particularly feel like investing the time and effort it would take to grow in this relationship so I'm just going to bail out now."Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I fully agree with the first and second statement. The third is impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
"Whatever works" for some people is immoral, selfish and destructive.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
What if I knew with 100% certainty that the stock market would crash in one week and you had thousands of dollars invested. Would you consider my pleas to you to sell off your stock as unreasonable? What if I knew with 100% certainty that a tsunami was heading toward your seacoast town - would my pleas for you to evacuate seem unreasonable? What if I knew the way to become a millionaire and could share that secret with you - would you be annoyed by my trying to do so? Try to understand that Christians believe with 100% certainty that God will eventually execute judgment; as such, we don't want anybody left out of the great rewards that God has in store for everybody (EVERYBODY) who chooses to accept His gift of Salvation. Why wouldn't we be insistent?
"Any other contract"? Don't you think there's something of a difference between a life-long monogamous commitment and 'any other contract'? Mortgage, employee agrement, sale of real estate, renter's agreement, decision to enter into a pact of mutual support and friendship with the one person you love more than anybody else in the world. One of these things is not like the others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
Yes - there is a difference - a huge difference - but I levelled the marriage certificate to the generic term "contract" in order to emphasize its symbolic value in a way that pointed out the need for commitment within the marriage. In fact, my use of contract is actually intended to be ironic in that we take other, far less important areas of our life much more seriously, creating contracts to emphasize our willingness to keep our word - but marriage (the most significant relationship of your life) we treat as if it does not deserve the same seriousness, the same consideration. All this without even me bringing up the spiritual considerations inherent in creating a life-long relationship (it will suffice to quote from Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (2:24).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Oh, yeah. Irony. I knew that. Umm, me too, I was being ironic. Yeah, that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
One could, I suppose, take the opposite view and say that demanding something so crass as a written contract for something so important as a marriage degrades the institution, but I believe we've strayed into the realm of personal interpretation. *Goes off and hides in the "to each his own" corner.*
You're correct on both counts. I think the state "demands" the "contract" because marriage is a socially recognized relationship (in terms of legality and such); for most couples it functions as a symbol. (The more crass - but I suppose practical in some situations - document is the "pre-nup.") I don't imagine it would hold much power in an ugly argument to pull out the marriage certificate and wave it at one's partner and say "Hey - we'ver got a contract here!" Either way, it functions as a tangible reminder that the relationship is an agreement not to be taken on whim or "feeling" (just as I cannot refuse to pay my mortgage on such things).Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
Rereading that I probably should have limited it to "or" what I mean by that goes to my progression to atheism from good little boy with perfect sunday school attendance record to unsure agnostic fearing lightning and thunderbolts to committed non-believer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I used to believe in a benevolent creator, but as I grew older I began to notice all the problems in the world (not man-made here) this led to the belief that either god is benevolent but incompetent with regards to addressing this indiscriminate pain & suffering or is capable of preventing it but is disinterested in doing so. This then progressed to my current belief that there is no God.
We have discussed this previously (need for "divine authority" for law/moral code etc) I disagree that it is needed, however I fully understand that you think it is - one of those agree to disagree things I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Because as a society we have not yet come to the full realisation that things work better if we try and work together instead of pulling against each other (cant really go too far into reason here due to forum rules on political discussion)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
By harm I mean causes a negative impact or undue mental/physical/emotional suffering. If you know a better way to assess this than observation I am willing to listen, but until we have mind reading equipment I think observation is the best way yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
With regards to the agreement to terminate life, I may be slightly opposed to the idea of payment being offered in this respect (but that is a personal thing). However if you were of sound mental health and came to this decision that for you life was meaningless or intense pain (as in the case of medical euthanasia) I would respect your decision....I may not agree with it but I would not passjudgement on you for it.
As I said this is really influenced by my childhood, I realise for a lot of people marriage adds extra significance to the relationship. For me however it seems pointless....Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think for my last statement it really depends on what you consider required for life to be "good" I dont really need much, I live a pretty simple life so long as I have a roof over my head and I am not constantly worrying about how to pay my bills I am perfectly content. I believe I can achieve this with hard work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
And as such would go against the "no harm" belief I stated earlier. The belief itself is ok, the acting on it would not be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
You can tell me once, but if I choose to reject your advice then that is my decision to make. If you repeatedly tell me your secret to being rich then yes I would get pretty annoyed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I dont think there are many people who have not been exposed to the main ideas of religions at somepoint throughout their lives, I have made my choice I will accept any consequences they hold in store for me.
I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Well, you assume He has reasons for permitting suffering. Because, say, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and homeless from a tsunami seems like just the sort of thing that a benevolent God would stop if He could, or cared to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
But oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a universe in which God takes care of us and one in which there's no God.
Interesting.
I have no doubt that there is a god.;) I believe that God permitts suffering because of the fact that we screwed up so many times. Note the fact that God only let the suffering start after the first time humans sinned. Plus there are people who gain Christ through suffering. I personally would not be a Christian if it were not for having to have open heart surgery at the age of 14, I was in the hospital for over three months because the doctors made a mistake. I had to relearn how to walk. My parents were told I would die in less than a week. You know that saying about how you never forget how to ride a bike? Well my best friend had to reteach me. I never saw something miraculous but for some reason I just knew. I will never regret going to have the surgery, instead I praise that I have. I know there are many people who suffer more than myself, but there are also many who suffer less. After suffering comes compation, which is the only godly persona in suffering. God doesn't want us to suffer, he never has wanted to hurt us, he wants to help us through the suffering we get from the world. Suffering comes from the world not from God.:banana:Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
See the suffering caused by the actions of humans I could always reconcile in my head, the issue I have is with the natural disasters which cause so much suffering e.g earthquakes, tornadoes etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think there is a distinction to be drawn here I dont think we need to adopt a servant nature. I would far prefer an "equal nature" I know this is really idealistic, I am cynical enough to realise this will never happen but I believe it can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yep harm is related to a moral frameworkQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I would think with the example you gave we would need to have an examination of sound mind and an idependently witnessed agreement in order to prevent somone killing another and then saying they had been asked to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
With regards to the meaningless qualifier, I would think if you have decided you want to die you have already decided that your life is also meaningless.
With regards to not agreeing & that itself being a moral judgement: I may think that I would never do such a thing, but I do not have to live that persons life. - I do not so much see this as judging the morality of the act, I am ascribing it as neither good or bad just simply something I wouldnt do.
That of course depends on whether you believe marriage should be repaired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Quick history perhaps giving some insight as to why I think this: My parents were together for 7years, my dad left my mother for another woman and stayed with her until she died approx 16years later (never remarried to her)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes but we can not prosecute people for a thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Ok, if that happens I will think kindly on the person who tried to alert me to the situation - the annoyance/dislike would be for myselfQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I understand the explanation, and that people think that way. I am just unable to agree with the position.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I posted a poem by Norman McCaig called Assissi in the favourite poems thread (somewhere near the top of page 20 if I remember correctly) The second stanza really sums up my opinion (wrong word, but best I can think of) on the matter:
"A priest explained
How clever it was of Giotto
To make his frescoes tell stories
That would reveal to the illiterate the goodness
Of God and the suffering
Of His Son. I understood
The explanation
And the cleverness"
That surprises me that you blame God for the disasters that nature causes? Generally people get angry at God for the inhumanity they see coming from human beings.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Einstein said that only a life of service is worthwhile (paraphrased); Mother Teresa proved it. Our culture's demand that we all be "equal" hasn't done much to improve the condition of society. Choosing an attitude of service might be an improvement.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
We agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
How could you ever really be sure? Are you saying my desire to die (which may show up many times for reasons that may or may not be that dire) is sufficient reason to end my life?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Are we always the best judge of the value of our own lives (especially when our value to those around us is often unclear to us)?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
May I push a bit further? Why wouldn't you do it? Your choice not to do something implies an evaluation of some sort.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
But aren't you condemning the institution for the failure of the people in it? My parents split when I was 12 - I know the drill. My first marriage ended within one year; my second has struggled mightily - but I think there is great value in a committed relationship and the growth that can result from it. We assume marriage is supposed to make us "happy" - I believe it is to help us grow - but many of us run because the required growth asks more than we are willing to give (but I also understand [from experience, mind you] that some things cannot be repaired).Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Avoiding marriage doesn't avoid pain - it just avoids the seriousness of the commitment.
Right - and I wouldn't advocate that. What I was implying was that although people are free to believe as they wish, that atrocious behavior is always preceded by atrocious thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Unfortunate, but understandable.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Yes, that's one way of seeing things.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
There is no way that I could ever be athiest. I've grown up in an Apostolic Pentecostal church all my life and I've seen the deaf ears open and people with cancers have them completely healed when they went back to their doctors. I've seen my Youth Pastor get his big toe healed after he ran it over with a lawn mower and take off running and jumping in praise. God's real no doubt in my mind. He's a great God.
This comment presupposes some idea as to what a universe with God in it would look like. What would such a universe look like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
No, I blame humans for humans problems, for example I do not blame God for the fact that my brother needed major facial reconstructive surgery, has 3 plates in his head & is still being treated for PTSD 2& a half years later, I blame the 3 #$%^%$^&$&$&$ that callously attacked him and the useless police force for not charging anyone in connection with it. I see things like earthquakes as a "design" flaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This again relates to my political views, which I cant go into here. Suffice to say my issue with the servant nature is that it is dependent also on a masterQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
100% certainty on most things is impossible, however I think we can be pretty close to sure using psychological techniques. As far as the reaons behind the choice, I would hope that the person has put at least some thought into it, and if they have not the discussions necessary in a case like this would cause them to if the reasons are simple things they would come out in this process and the person may well change their mind about going ahead with it. If they are still committed to the deed so be it (I know that seems kinda cold and uncaring)Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
This has to do with other issues from my past which I have since put behind me and do not really like discussing, suffice to say at one point I sat with the knife in my hand, but was unable to make the cut.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
My point with the example about the difference in time period my father spent with my mother compared to the second women was to show that the level of committment was not reduced by not being married to her, if anything he was more committedQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes, I understand and agree with that but until they act on those beliefs we can not do anything about it & we cant prevent them from holding the beliefQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I agree that human beings are responsible for their behavior. I would suggest that earthquakes may or may not have been God's inteded ideal for the earth; Chrisitian thought (at least one strain of it) believes that sin affected all of reality - not just humanity. In my mind, expecting God to stop how nature appears to work is similar to expecting him to stop all humanly-constructed tragedies.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Right - but I speak in terms of ideal: ideally, if all people have a servant attitude, there are no masters. (Granted, human nature pretty much squashes the practicality of this idea to an extent: I think it is possible to serve without becoming enslaved - you serve because you choose to - not because you're obligated to.)Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I suppose my response would be that humans are very emotional, fickle, and self-interested creatures; without a moral law to say "look - this behavior is wrong" we then end up with situations like you described where we really have no good reason to say "no" to a particular behavior - but we naturally recoil from it and think "I'm not totally comfortable with this."Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Fair enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
But why not "dot the i's and cross the t's" since he was so committed? I think "burning one's ships" is a demonstration of commitment; if you intend to stay forever, why not demonstrate thusly? What's gained by refusing to offer public affirmation of commitment? How is the relationship better for not getting married?Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
I'll agree there.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
Why don't you tell me?Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
It seems our universe has as much brutality as beauty, and rewards us with its wonders as often as it shocks us with its heartlessness.
Occam's Razor, amigo. The word "God" might help you make sense of it, but the rest of us are just fine with the universe the way it is.
Because I asked you the question - that's how questions work. Whoever gets asked the question is supposed to answer it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
If you claim a definition of what a "godless" universe is like, I assume that you must have some idea about what a "God-filled" universe looks like (because to claim something as "less" - example: "heartless" - you must know what it is that is "minus" [if I have no feelings, compassion or love, I am, therefore, "heartless"]). If you can't or won't answer the question, that's fine, but I don't know how you can say what a "godless" universe looks like unless you have some idea as to what the universe is missing in terms of events or actions of characteristics that reveal that God's not here.
The universe does not have a "heart" - its ability to kill us is incidental and not a matter of intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
I have no idea why you're telling me this. Why bring up Occam? I'm waiting for you to present what the universe would look like with God in it, since you seem to know what a "godless" universe looks like. I await a better answer than the one you've given.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Yeah, I've heard this reasoning before. It's never really worked for me however. My main issue is with the indescriminate nature of natural disasters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I think we may be arguing semantics here, what you describe I would describe as an equal nature seeing as everyone has the same natureQuote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Yes we are emotional, fickle and a lot of the time self-interested. What makes me more uncomfortable is not having a good reason to refuse a particular behaviour, but still telling people they can not do it because a preconcieved notion of how we might act under the circumstances.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
If people wish to get married and wish to display it publically that is fine. However if the two people involved in the relationship, are happy living a "private" life that is fine also it is just what works for some people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
I have also realised I never actually responded to one of your previous points
I believe you are referring to Matthew 6v24 here: "Man can not serve 2 masters etc" This is/was one of my favourite verses from the bible. It is a point which there is some degree of difficulty arguing with seeing as it is a personnally (albeit wideheld amongst the religious in nature) held belief. For a number of people the belief in a God gives their life extra meaning, for others it adds little.Quote:
I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.
Speaking of people healing, on the same day my pastor's daughter found out her "hole in the wall of her heart was completely gone" and she was discharged my best friend went to the doctor and found that her breast cancer that had been there a week ago was completely gone. God works gread miracules!Quote:
Originally Posted by wrestle-135
No need to be snide. You being a believer, I thought you might have a better idea what to expect from an omnipotent deity.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redzeppelin
Can I assume there would be any discernible difference between a universe controlled by an all-powerful, all-loving God and one without? Am I naive to think that this Being would protect His creatures from harm? That the innocent would not suffer? Isn't that what prayers and submission and belief are all about?
The mere fact that the innocent DO suffer should make us wonder whether belief in the all-loving-all-powerful God isn't wishful thinking. Because then we have to create ad hoc explanations for why the omnipotent Being, no doubt in His infinite wisdom, allows such random brutality in His creation.
I invoked Occam's razor, because it's relevant to this dilemma. Is the universe amoral and indifferent because that's just the way it is, or is it because God is trying to make us think that's just the way it is? Are we being honest with ourselves about the tragedy inherent in the suffering of the innocent, or merely trying to rationalize it away by pretending it's not really tragedy?
In other words, is there actually a good reason to think there's an all-powerful-all-loving God overseeing the universe? How would the universe look if there weren't an omnipotent Being controlling everything?
The creation groans as we do due to the existence of evil, within and around us. I guess some of us find that hard to accept. And a few might say, 'Well why did God create evil?' Some of us accept that there was a Fall and find that an explanation of sufficient strength. I believe this might be a partial response to some of the comments above.
But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by ennison
So am I blaspheming for asserting that I don't see what greater good He could want to achieve by allowing child abuse or devastating tsunamis? Or are you blaspheming by asserting that God is basically responsible for these things since he doesn't deign to prevent them?
:( I'll pray for him.Quote:
Originally Posted by kilted exile
No snideness intended. You said this: "No, generally people just realize that either is exactly what we'd expect from a Godless, indifferent universe."Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
So, I assumed that such a statement implied a knowledge of what a godless universe looked like. To know this, one must have an idea of what is missing. To turn it back to me struck me as a way of avoiding an answer. My apologies if my reply was offensive.
To answer your question would take many very lengthy paragraphs. In short: God gave His creatures freewill - as such, the presence of freewill brings with it the potential for suffering, because human beings are free to choose evil instead of good. To stop humans from exercising their free choice would be to deny freewill. Now, if we assume that God is all-benevolent and morally perfect (as the Bible describes Him), then we must assume He has a valid reason for making the world in the way He has; that is not meant to justify the fact that good people suffer - it merely explains that the existence of suffering does not negate the existence of God. For God to prohibit the exercise of men's freewill would ultimately be to limit free thought (since thought precedes action); God won't do that - He desires His creatures to be free. Prayer is not "all about" just getting things we want - it is about communication with God and the development of a relationship with Him. It is His prerogative (as an all-knowing, all-powerful Being) to answer prayers in a number of ways - one of those ways being "no."Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Only if God is merely an exaggerated version of a human being. He's not. If He is all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing as He is described, then we must assume that He has good reasons for the way He allows what He allows. Just like children who don't always understand the complexities of the adult world that influences adults to make the decisions they do, God's decisions are far beyond what we - with our limited perspectives - are sometimes able to understand. We see only now - God sees the entire picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
It is tragedy; it is suffering. Saying that it exists and that God has reasons for allowing it to exist is not "rationalizing" it so much as framing it in a way that suggests that there is a reason for its existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
Two good reasons exist: 1) God sacrificed His own Son - Jesus Christ - to redeem all of humanity from the consequences of sin - Christ who was sinless paid the price for the sin of all humanity; as such, God freely has given us Grace, and we all may have eternal life if we choose; 2) God's kindness and compassion shows up in the people of this world who choose to serve Him by trying to alleviate suffering wherever they can.Quote:
Originally Posted by Babbalanja
In a godless universe, there is no need for good to exist at all.
Bah, and again I say bah. 'Good', almost by definition, is an excellent way to meet certain basic human needs, such as the need to not be murdered. That's a good enough reason for me, quite independant of the existence of any God or gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
'But you're really not accepting it if you think it's all part of "God's plan," are you? Either you accept that tragedy and happiness are part of our existence, or you relinquish the right to see anything as tragic, since God has His reasons for making or allowing it to happen.'
Well as a matter of reality I do accept it. If I get caught in the rain (as I often do) then I get wet. Whether I like it or not I have to accept it.
And as I said The Fall explains things for many of us - at least up to the limits of our understanding.
The question of evil could be seen as a consequence of darkness which I take to be not created by God but the thing/condition from which God separated life/ Creation and which The Fall allowed back in to Creation.The fourth verse of Genesis 1 seems clear to me that Darkness is a negation of God's work. Evil belongs to darkness. Darkness is in us, as it was not in Adam and Eve at the start.
And yes I do see your point about 'Why doesn't an omnipotent God etc?' but what benefit is it to me to take such a line which can leave individuals who have suffered loss as embittered, angry and unconsoled? Unless, of course, you want us to be supermen. There have been and are some who claim such status.
I may be a deist, but i'm definitely not an atheist.
I didn't say it wouldn't exist or couldn't exist - I said there is no need for it to exist at all and its existence would be a chance occurrence that we might/might not find usefull.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppajoe_9
There are plenty of situations where bad/evil is the more expedient, practical or convenient way to protect myself and my interests.