Atheists....

[Redzeppelin]

the why dont you use the 20th century arguement doesnt work.

Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not sheer absurdity? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.

if the bible is how things should be then christians actions shouldnt change.

The Bible is not "how things should be" (I'm not even sure I understand what that statement means) - it reveals God's character through the history of His chosen people (the Israelites); as such, the story it tells is not "how things should be" but how things were. Luckily, it does contain principles that tell us how we ought to be. That some people have gone off the deep end doesn't indict the Bible any more than some kid who machine-guns a high school campus after listening to heavy metal music indicts heavy metal.

what if you are wrong in some of your beliefs as well, and they change in the future? why is your intepretation right, anf the ones from the past wrong?

Why don't you clarify this wildly unclear statement and then I'll be happy to deal with it.

[EitherOr]

The cosmological and design arguments show that God is necessary, powerful, transcendant, non-contingent, intelligent, and personal;

The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example).

My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.

[Redzeppelin]

The Cosmological argument is based on the idea of an 'uncaused cause' and neglects the idea of infinite regression. There's also no reason to believe the God of the conclusion, should you accept it, is anything like that of the God of any religion (personal for example)..

There is no such thing as "infinite regression." What is known as "actual infinities" do not exist in reality - only potential infinities exist. Explain your "no reason" statement, if you would, please.

My only understanding of ID is that it's based around the fact nature is too complex to have evolved, and therefore must have been designed. This seems to be a great leap (of faith, so to speak), in that it appears to state because we have not seen evolution in progress, then it cannot be true.

No - it states nothing of the sort. ID deals with the idea that the universe betrays signs of a "designer." One of the arguments is the idea of "irreducable complexity." But your final statement also works to justify a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

[Wintermute]

But your final statement also works to justify a belief in God: just because you haven't seen Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. How cool is that?

Howdy Red,

I've noticed similar statements that apply to both trains of thought. For example:

Big Bang: what created it?
God: what created it?

If you accept that God is eternal, doesn't that imply infinity? Has God not been around for infinity?

[Wintermute]

Sure it does; allow me to explain how. You are a free agent in this world - whatever crimes your father may have committed (obviously I'm making this up to make a point) have zero to do with who you are today and what you do today. For me to say "because your father is bad and did bad things, therefore you are bad and do bad things" is equivalent to the historical attack on Christianity. Is that not sheer absurdity? If people in the 21st century are going to criticize Christianity, they need to show that it is still commiting atrocitites equal to those of mislead individuals of the past. Otherwise, you put the "sins" of the father on the son. Unfair, and unfounded.

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

[Redzeppelin]

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

Hi Winter - SCR's potential benefit has been much touted - but it requires the destruction of an embryo - a potential human being. There are other ways to solve the problem. Humans are inventive. Simply because SCR is convenient, we argue to keep it - but something potentially human dies for an unproven theory. No.

I agree that you don't automatically assume that the son is like the father, but you might want to keep an eye on him.

No problem there. Watch us closely - but don't condemn us for what we personally could not condemn/prevent.

Again, its the absolute certainty that leads to zealotry which results in human agony. While you may not have a mean bone in your body Red, many do. And personally, one of my primary fears is that some zealoted religious nut-case will come to power, access old internet postings on forums like this, and hunt us heathens down in the name of his or her Lord. It's a deep rooted fear, and its real--it's happened in the past. And someone said, "those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." (or something similar).

Just my two cents.

I don't think God (or our secular society) would let that happen. The hostility out in the world today is aimed at religion, and Christianity in general. It is I who worry about the future. Intellectual atheists like Dawkins have crossed the line from saying "Christians are confused and deluded" to "Christians are dangerous and their views are destructive."

[billyjack]

The point is an atheist doesn't belive IN deities. The way you put it sounds like 'to belive' has only a single meaning, that is 'having a theistic belief'.

well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

[Redzeppelin]

well said. atheist are typically stonger believers than theist. and by believer i mean someone who is un-open to the unknown and thereby commits intellectual suicide by refussal to hear out other beliefs.

Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

[watkinsguy]

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

[Neo_Sephiroth]

something i would like to ask is why do atheists and other critics 95% of the time target Christianity whenever they have a problem with "religion"? Islam is just as big if not bigger than Christianity membership wise, yet I never hear boo about them. Would any atheist like to answer my question?

It could possibly be that the majority of people are more familiar with Christianity moreso than Islam.

But I probably shouldn't be answering this, I ain't an atheist.

[billyjack]

Care to clarify this statement a little? It kind of "loops around" itself and I'm not quite sure what it's saying. Thanks

yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

[Bookworm4Him]

yeah, sure, i'll clarify. when someone truly believes in something, atheist or theist, they tend to make this belief (be it god, truth, ect.) the unquestionable benchmark of any incoming data. meaning, new things can be brought forth to our "believer" but their god or truth cannot be touched because the believer has put up an intellectual fence around their absolute with a no touch sign on it. and athiest are just as guilty of this as theist. the only difference is the name they give to their benchmark of belief.

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with.

[Dante Wodehouse]

The problem I have with this, is that we may not be aware of current 'atrocities'. For example, stem-cell research (SCR) seems to be a no-no for most Christians and many actively work/vote against it. One hundred years from now we may find that SCR saves thousands of lives and that by delaying advancement in the field, Christian voters are directly responsible for much pain, grief, and death that could have been avoided.

Christians do not have a problem with stem cell research, however they do have a problem with research on embryo stem cells. Those who are advocated of embryonic stem cell research are becoming more close-minded. They are refusing to pursue other very good and in some instances certain and more effective stem cells. For instance, umbilical cords have an abundance of stem cells that are just as (and some believe to be more so) usable as those from embryos, and you don't have to kill any potential humans (nor clone them).

[Dante Wodehouse]

Everyone believes in something, as you stated. But not everyone who truly believes in something necessarily believes it blindly. I believe in God, the One True God, the God of the Bible, the Father of Jesus, one of the Trinity. (I could go on, but I'll stop there for the sake of time) That is what I believe in. And of course we have an inclination to protect what we believe in. If we didn't, then you wouldn't be on here. But I am open-minded, also. I have listened and considered other's evidence, and even tried proving Athiesm, and disproving God, to myself to see if it was possible. But no matter how much evidence I examined, no matter how many points of view I took, nothing else proved true, through and through. I find it worthy to be defended now. I realize that many people say that they believe something, and don't even research it, both Atheists and Christians. But I beseech you, try my way of view. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with.

Well said.

[thuraiya]

As I said his attempt 2 find ALLAH does not mean anything at all !!
Surely
I respect his attmpt . *_*
*BUT*
Why did I said that"??

Simply:- If I ask u or him 2 solve a complicated equation !!;

But he did not find any solution 2 it ..
"HE TRIED "
Is that mean the equation does not have any
solution !!
My be u consider the equation as material …
OK
As you believe "everything in this life should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind"
I have one question 2 u ..
If everything should be material 2 be acceptable 2 our mind as u said …*
Could you describe my soul !!
How it looks... What its colour ?
Plz do not tell me that I have not soul because I will not believe u '

hi wintermut.*_*

as u asked:
what do you think God was doing ..... before it (he) decided to create the universe?
i think it is very good qustion ..
as you know everything in this life should have place & time ..
ok ...
just imagine anything without them event or anything u like ..
surly u can not..
what that mean?plz*
are our minds limited or what ??
we can not know what ALLAH WAS DOING
with this limited mind...**

We wonder, thuraiya, how can you be so sure about Corlen's feelings about god? We understand that you are sure in your feelings and that you feel so, but how can one be sure that all people in the world have similar feelings?

hi Taliesin
no i did not say iam sure in my feeling *at all*

and i did not say that that all people in the world have similar feelings..
you can return 2 my post*^*
may be it is misunderstanding...
i said by the actual feeling he will discover the existence of his god..

Hi Thuraiya,



What feeling? Could you please describe precisely what you are talking about. Is it a warm feeling of goodness? Is it awe inspiring? Please be as verbose and descriptive as you are able. These little cryptic, half-sentences are not very helpful, but they are typical of discussions of this nature.


How do you know this? This seems a bit presumptive and arrogant on your part. Do you personally know Colren? Speaking for myself, my attempts at prayer have been loaded with sincerity. I suspect this is the case with Colren too. Folks would not be posting in this forum if their feelings were not powerful and sincere.



Agreed. But, and this is a big but: this concept does not in any way prove or even imply an omnipoten, omnicient, eternal, multi-universal creator/judge. It just means that love is good. It means that baseball is fun and that happiness is to be cherished.

hi...Wintermute *_*

1) the feeling that can make connection between yuor heart & mind
not only with your mind ..

2)you will know the answer if you make comparison between your post & carolin's post what you are saying is completly diffrent with what carolin said *as i see*..


3)as you said it is just concept ...

Posted by Bookworm4Him
. Instead of building the fence against God, try proving God and seeing what you come up with. _


it is very fantastic sentence...
also do not say i am athiest ..
say ... i am looking for truth..