ATHEISTS, might I have a Word with you?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on January 16, 2010 at 13:20

No, I just sent an email out to all those on my 'friends' list...and that does not include the entire member list. I'm not sure how to do an "all member" email.

If you know how, perhaps you can forward my invitation link?

Thank you.

Todd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on January 16, 2010 at 13:31

a) God being real

Which definition of God are you referring to ? There are quite a few. If you mean the God of the Bible - then there is nothing that I find compelling.

b) Jesus being God

I honestly don't care.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on January 16, 2010 at 13:37

what you DO find compelling and persuasive about: a) God being real, and b) Jesus being God.

I have never noted anything that would persuade me your god or any of the other gods(you reject) are an actuallity.

"After holding to your position that God does not exist, you've been presented many reasons from Team Christians as to why He does.



The reasons being.....

A book said so.

Mummy and Daddy said so and subscribe to that.

Other than tradition, or taking cherry picked bits out of a book as literal.. what other reasons do god worshippers have?

JMJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on January 16, 2010 at 13:39

No, I just sent an email out to all those on my 'friends' list

Have you received it yet?

JMJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jew-Man-J on January 16, 2010 at 13:51

Andy,

Follow....what?

JMJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Trevor on January 16, 2010 at 18:51

The two lines or argument that have made me pause a little to question my atheism are

1/ The "fine-tuning" argument
2/ The recent paper that (apparently) showed that the probability of getting a certain protein by chance was 1 in 2-to-the-power-of-77, which reputedly means that life was very unlikely to evolve, even given a billion years and a whole planet. (I haven't yet read it myself yet, so don't take my second-hand word for it!)

Note that these are exceedingly new arguments, in the grand scheme of things.

Note also that they provide no implication that the Christian God exists, nor that Jesus was divine. If you're not immersed in it, it's pretty clear that Christianity is a man-made religion. The only God I occasionally doubt into existence is one that is unimaginably different from anything conjured up by our earthly, primitive religions.

By the way, Todd, I think you perhaps over-estimate the number of good arguments for Christianity we hear. We tend to hear the same tired old arguments that have well-established holes. And (amusingly) half of them are arguments for why the lack of evidence for God is perfectly consistent with the existence of God. This latter kind of apologetics snuggles up alongside the more positive arguments for God in these discussion boards without causing arguments amongst Christians, who seem to be have gotten scarily comfortable with the internal contradictions.

I had a little project collecting arguments for (and against) God a few years ago: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=app_2373072738&gid=2227591399 .

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on January 16, 2010 at 19:36

I like the fact that we are supposed to be unique

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/12/23/chimps-dont-ru...
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/1222/2
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18342-chimps-dance-suggests-a...

but not that unique.

If chimps will dance for rain and fire, will they dance for their God ?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Paul Baird on January 16, 2010 at 20:43

A wonderful series of strawman arguments that does nothing to address the point I raised.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by James on January 16, 2010 at 21:02

Todd,

Thanks for your thoughtfully formatted beginning post.

1. You ask Christians not to do more than to post once. I see in this a belief or maybe just a suggestion that everyone except a Christian is an atheist? Tell me that isn't so please. It certainly is not.

I do not truly believe that there are any atheists in the world but that there are only many who claim thus for reasons of their own. Could be that a professed atheist is just tired of hearing from the religion folk and wants to provoke them a bit just to get even. Could be.

The business of our relationship to God should be private and personal in my view. I sincerely believe that no man on Earth, including the Apostles of Jesus so long ago, has any better or more valid access to God than does any other man then or now. Any of the great scriptures of the world are "of God" but they are all filtered through the mind of man and we are fallible. Scripture is thus less than perfect through the God behind it is not. When I read the Bible, and I do, I largely look far beyond the surface and try to discover what is hidden. The loud and boisterous preacher cannot do this. He is too engrossed in emotionalism for thinking.

I hold myself somewhat aloof from the voice of man in religion and prefer to bypass or avoid the emotional paths in knowing, as I do, that emotionalism is a base function of a man which cannot reach very high. The reasoning power of mind is far above emotion. They do not mix. Therefore I distance myself from any man/woman who insists upon his /her claims that they alone know the way to God. The writers Paul and John were both of this sort. Very emotional and given to fire and excesses in opinion. If humility, harmlessness and selflessness will get us into heaven then firebrands will have to change before they can see God. Here is a short summation of my view of aggressive Christianity. I fear it. It brings me no comfort. It seems to bring only men who disrupt. But it is being quiet which is the key. He who rants and insists upon his beliefs placing his body of belief in position of primacy just because of scriptural interpretation errs. Where is the example in livingness in any of this?

You see, there are many who think this way and have decided they would claim atheism as a protective measure perhaps. This could very well be true. .

2. Is Jesus God? No. A most emphatic "No". That is much to simplistic and easy a tenant. Again, scripture seems to support this but the same scriptures seem to say otherwise. We conveniently support the claim then by creating a triune entity which allows part of God to be here, part elsewhere and spirit??? Somewhere else? That does not satisfy. I believe that God has never and will never become manifest in the physical world(s). He (who must be all gender at His level) is an entity which is entirely different from any thing made of physical matter. The picture we make of God in a human body is necessary for us as a point of reference. Consider this. God is of all men/women. In His wisdom could He possibly think so little of the vast majority of the people on Earth that He would appear as a man in one small part of the Earth and then expect all those of differing races and cultures to wait until representatives of that culture come to them telling them to adapt to the particular culture which hosted Him? I would not do this if I were God. No. I believe it far more likely that God continues, as from the earliest days of man, to come to us through prophets only. I believe that Jesus was a prophet of God, no more. I believe there are many thousands of prophets in the world, each announced by an Angel as they always have been, all bearing the Christ and the Word formatted for the culture and people they visit.

2. If you will allow I'd like to address the issue of "sin". The word is merely something which serves to define the earth as being imperfect. Do we carry guilt for Adam and Eve? Most Christians seem to think we do and that we must grovel in the dust, begging forgiveness before redemption is granted. No. We need only be aware of those things and live properly in the world. In this religion is not necessary. Awareness of God supplants need for religion. We may easily find forgiveness of sin from God without any knowledge of religion. Since when must we be in the presence of a Christian preacher before we can know God? The anti-thesis of "sin" is in recognition of the presence of God in all we think, say or do. Sin is to be avoided of course. Punishment is certain otherwise. Hell is not eternal though. In the end everyone eventually returns to the Father. It must be so, just as in the story of the lost son of the Bible. When Jesus is to have said that "only through me do you know the Father" (perhaps not exact quote) He did not refer to His person. To have done so would have been typical of an ordinary man. That premise would reduce the idea of God to being no more than a medieval landlord with all of us being serfs. No brothers and sisters in God I do not believe that God would have sent only one man for the whole world. Far more likely that God would bring His message to all the world in different ways being respectful of the times and cultures which are so different from one another. Because of this belief I have never thought that exporting religion was a good idea. And sin? What of it? How is it forgiven? First by realization of the wrong then by making amends. In this, the Light of the Christ is available to all men on earth whether they have ever heard of Jesus or not. Religions are man made. They are competitive by nature. This explains why they send missionaries. They seek in a competitive way to establish their own. They are imperfect and generally very segregated and exclusive. You can have forgiveness but first you have to adapt to my religion. You have to become like me. Should all men on the planet have to become religiously anglo-ized in order to find redemption? What of their own cultures which bring them so much happiness and comfort? God provides for them too, just like He sent Jesus to the middle east long ago He sends the representatives of Christ to all groups of men, everywhere. We, in our vanity, must not forget this when we suppose that only we have the correct message. Very often I hear a Christian declare that Allah is a false god. Can there be only One God while, at the same time, a false one (and a real one)?. When a Christian makes this claim he is effectually stating that there is MORE than one God. How can this be? "Allah" is only a word which means "God" in Arabic. It is NOT a proper name and never has been. We give no name to God. When I hear the evangelist argue this point I think of his gross ignorance of the differences in language. I refuse to be lead by an ignorant man.

Finally... Please forgive me my words above. Atheism might be no more than a protective device against the insistences by Christians that only their God is supreme and that the beliefs of others are in second place. I could very well be the case.

I am Muslim. I am not a typical Muslim. I am American of German, Hungarian, Polish, French descent. I am Anglo only in my first language. You may not believe it but Islam is free of the usual insistences of religion that theirs is the WAY. It really is. Satan has done a good job of infiltrating our religion and making best use of the ignorance of the masses. Had Islam been a product of America there would be no suicide bombers. We would simply send Citibank and Visa to dominate all of you. If you remove Islam from the violence in the middle east right now only references to religion would be missing. The cultural fears which are behind the violence would still be there only now with a different banner held high.

Please, Christians, now is not a good time to try to get people to change religion. Now is when the world needs the other things that you can bring them. When all the wars stop then, if you must, bring your Bibles. To introduce your religion to Muslims in their home countries at a time like this is madness in the extreme. The reason for their anger at the west is born of our long interference in their part of the world in the first place. Do we put out a fire by pouring gasoline on it? God would have us think before we act.

Will all of you please do an experiment? Look at a group of men in a culture considering their mores, their general attitudes in life, then remove religion and see what has changed. Really do this thoughtfully. What I have found is that most people need what religion brings them but not all men need to be steered in this way.

I've answered more than was asked here. I seem to always do that. Sorry.

Peace of God be upon us all (Assalamu alikum)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on January 17, 2010 at 0:04

James: Is Jesus God? No.

That is the single most important question we can answer this side of death.

You answered it.

Duly noted.

Todd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lee on January 17, 2010 at 0:30

Hi Todd,

Sorry, I’ve not got time to get into a discussion any more (as you know, just give me a month or so and I will be back)

And since this isn’t a debate, I will just state my opinion on the matter (for the record) if that is OK, so you can add it to your list.

I doubt I will be able to follow up on anything I say here.

Sorry, I hope you understand.

"After holding to your position that God does not exist, you've been presented many reasons from Team Christians as to why He does. Certainly not every claim or argument presented has been entirely dismissed. Assuming it hasn't or that they haven't, I would be extremely interested in knowing what you DO find compelling and persuasive about: a) God being real, and b) Jesus being God.

Basically like the other non-believers here – no evidence for the specific claims made.

Repeat – specific.

I do not reject the possibility of all gods – just the ones that have been detailed to me to date (with the exception of the deistic god – that could exist, but what would be the point in believing that)

No, I just find them unlikely, no evidence for them, or just not need to think that.

Just like believing in the tea pot in orbit around Mars (or between Earth and Mars – the thing varies)

It might exist, but I have no reason to think that it does.

Another example would be that I might be a brain in a jar on a shelf of some mad scientist’s lab – however there is no evidence or reason to think this. It does not change anything of course – it could still be true - but I will just stick with what I know thank you.

As for the arguments FOR God... firstly, which God. This is keyt.

Most of the ‘good’ arguments for God are for the deistic god only.

I place ‘good’ in quotes because really they are playing with our ignorance and really they are arguments that highlight how stupid we are. (To be clear, I mean the whole of mankind in the ‘we’ here )

i.e. The first cause argument and the fine tuning argument.

The question “what is north of the North Pole” shows the stupidity of the first cause argument, and asking the question “fine tuned for what” answers the next.
(A biologist friend tells me it is clear the universe was fined tuned for pubic lice, since everything, including humans have clearly been created with them in mind. I go for blackholes myself, there are the long term future – in the end, that is what will happen...)

Lastly on the fine tuning argument – it assumes that the constants could actually be something else.

This is never been shown by the theist, only asserted.

For example - Pi is a constant, does the theist know how they could divide a circumference of a circle by its diameter and get any other value?

Nope, but they assert that the other constants can be change.

No one knows that today... no physicists has that knowledge (they may never have it) - the final theory of everything just is not known yet -the theories of QM and gravity have not been brought together. Yet in the position of ignorance, the theist claims they 'know'

The constants we see could be depended on other factors, like Pi and so cannot BE anything else.

So, an argument from ignorance.

Science today does not know how or where these constants come from or why they are what they are.

This does not mean that tomorrow they in fact find, like Pi, they are dependent on other factors. I am not saying we will ever know this, but it does show it is merely an argument from ignorance – “You do not know A, therefore it must be B” nonsense.

One more thing, to Trevor... "The recent paper that (apparently) showed that the probability of getting a certain protein by chance was 1 in 2-to-the-power-of-77"

Probabilities are interesting, but they show/prove nothing when used like this... the brute fact is the probability for this protein was 1, it happened.

If someone (a theist) then says "yes but the chances were 1 in 2-to-the-power-of-77", my response is “and?”... there is still the 1 in this statement, and what are the alternatives, what is the probably of that? (More importantly – since we are playing with an unknown event, how were these possibilities calculated – more on this later)

We cannot compare probabilities until ALL are known. What is the probability of god - the theist will say 1, I would say it is much higher.

A stalemate - this then isn’t an argument for or against God.

I realise I have to be careful here – it might seem I have rejected all possible supernatural events by saying no matter how great the odds are (1 in 2-to-the-power-of-77 is pretty high) then a natural explanation always wins out.

This is not what I meant – only in cases where our science/knowledge is vague and incomplete would I say this would be a valid position to take.

One of my ‘evidence for God’ has always been “If God shows me the ‘far side of the moon’ by speeding up (or slowing down) the rotation of the moon over night – thus breaking it out of its current tidally locked position.”
That would be evidence of a god for me.
Of course, there is a trillion, trillion, trillion whatever to 1 possibility that this just happened – however here I would reject it and say it was indeed a ‘miracle’ since our knowledge of physics is good enough to say this sort of thing just does not happen naturally.
Hope that clears that up.

To carry on then...

Arguments that use the ‘absolute morals’ or ‘where did logic come from’ are no better than word games to me.

And “deep down inside we all know it” (the famous William Lane Craig quote there with his foundation of his moral argument for God.)

The argument for both seem to be killed off with the “Euthyphro dilemma” years ago.

I’ve not got time to go into this further, so I will leave just a couple of links for further reading for anyone who is interested.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Moral_argument

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=TAG

Aside - Todd, you may like to take a read of this site - a very good resource of atheist arguments... it may help you with your website. Take a look at the sermon on the mount as well. Very interesting

Now, finally, to show the emptiness of the arguments used by theists for their God of choice, I have many times been happy to concede the existence of the deistic god.

This washes away most of the arguments above and focuses on the specific claims of the Christian.

It is now that we finally see the weakness of the evidence for their claim... the bible is full of supernatural events that SHOULD leave evidence in non-Christians historical sources.

Two examples... the claim that God held the moon and sun still for 24 hours would NOT have gone unnoticed by the pagan sun worshipers.

Yet there record is silent... why?

Special pleading is the best we get from those the believer the claim – rejection of the biblical claim itself by those who concede there is no evidence.

Second, 6 hours of darkness, earthquakes and dead saints getting up making themselves known...

Nothing again, so the Christian are forced to plead that although the Romans, Greeks and Jews who would have also seen this event most have either forgot about it, or didn’t write it down. The claim (special pleading) is ONLY the Christians knew to remember it and to tell the tale.

It is far easier to think the Christians just made it up... and if they did, why believe the larger claims?

OK... that’s it, my swan song – how it was in tune.

A broken record? Maybe... so i will get my coat.

Take care, and thanks for the questions Todd, and the discussions

I will read this discussion with interest, but I doubt I will have time to write anything further (though I know I will feel the need to correct some nonsense, I will leave that to other atheists here)

Must go... my son wants to see some dinosaur fossils.

TAKE THAT Mr Creationist – 'evidence' for the Flood (and another major claim in the bible) just washes away.

Lee

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Todd Pitner on January 17, 2010 at 1:52

Lee: One of my ‘evidence for God’ has always been “If God shows me the ‘far side of the moon’ by speeding up (or slowing down) the rotation of the moon over night – thus breaking it out of its current tidally locked position.”That would be evidence of a god for me.

That would do it, for sure. That would mean the end of the earth as we know it. We would all be dead. Immediately, you would, or would not, meet your Maker. If the majority of humankind has gotten it right, you will (to debate "which" God will then be a moot point for all of us...obviously I think the smart money's on Jesus). If the very rare few percent like you got it right, you won't. Neither will we. So then, who cares? Dust to dust without an Author of dust. Congratulations on your self-possessed wisdom.

The difference between you and me, Lee, is that I possess inside information on God's existence. I have a personal relationship with Him. You don't. Before this forum, if someone told me there was this real person named "Lee" (you) from ___ who has ___ kids and ___ job and posts within ___ forum and holds ___ view about ___, I could have argued with them forever that "I lack belief in Lee"...and then dismiss every bit of evidence presented to me that you really do exist. However, I have a personal relationship with you. I have never seen you, other than your sort-of-spooky photo, but I know when I communicate with you via the typed word, you respond. Nobody would ever be able to convince me that you do not exist. People could challenge my evidence, they could minimize my true relationship with you as "a toaster orbiting around a pink unicorn in blah, blah, blah," but they could never get me to disbelieve in you after all our communications, Lee. I know you exist. Can I empirically prove it based on my communications alone? No. Certainly you could be that brain in a jar thought up by my brain in a jar wished into existence by that darned unicorn toaster. Why do I bring this up in this way? Because I have a personal relationship with God. I communicate with Him daily. He communicates back. He communicates back not only through His written Word, but inside my heart and head as well as through life circumstances that I give Him credit for.

You talk about receiving personal proof from God. Based on what would satisfy your intellectual cleverness, we would all need to die as God shows you the opposite side of the moon. Thanks a lot, Lee. That's real Christianly of you. I have to wonder, would anything less suffice? How about the miracle I received, Lee? Do you believe me? Do you believe my wife? Were it only me, you could have a field day, certainly. But my wife? Then an atheist? Frankly, I do not care if you believe it or not. I wonder though, Lee, were it you instead of me that experienced this spontaneous healing as described, would you have given credit to God? Your wife is an atheist, yes? Knowing her as you do, if she witnessed your spontaneous healing and conceded that it was indeed a miracle (again, read the story, I did my very best to capture it as it honestly happened) that then opened her mind to the Gospel...by which she later came to have her OWN relationship with Christ Jesus, would that provide any affirmation for you? Or would you deny your own wife's ability to reason, and your own?

All I'm saying is, Lee, your rationalizing God's non-existence not only denies credit to your Maker, but it also denies the personal experience of those like me. You can call me a liar, deluded, jar-minded...whatever...but I am a living proof to God's existence and the reason why you will never win this debate is because I will never lose it.

I can't lose it, Lee. There's nothing to lose. For me. Christ lost it all for me on Calvary. God won it all on the third day.

2+2=4. I know it to be 4. Knowing it to be 4, you could argue with me for eternity that '4' is just an asserted solution and that you find zero evidence for its absolute truth. Even if you didn't believe in the absolute truth of '4' being the answer, Lee, does not make 2+2 to equal anything other than '4'. God exists, with or without your acknowledgment. I know Him. You don't. Until you make the attempt to befriend Him, He'll certainly never befriend you.

It comes down to something I doubt you will ever do, Lee, because of the oldest sin in the Book, intellectual pride: Make a commitment you cannot follow through on. In Christ, you will find that you can do what you currently will not do. You're just not ready to receive.

Proverbs 3:34 God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

James 4:5-8 Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says:
"God opposes the proud
but gives grace to the humble."

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

Come near to God and he will come near to you, Lee. Those are His rules. Don't say they were never given to you.

I know you have to run, Lee...that's understandable.

So let me leave you with one last Word from a Christian Brother:

Joshua 24:15
And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.”

I concur, Lee. As for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.” I'll kick that can all the way into Heaven.

Todd

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 70
• Next ›
• Page