Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Mathews · 06-26-2002, 06:08 PM

Hello MadMax,

Quote:

I must say that, from what David has said here, he is a very radical C of C member

David: Yes, undoubtedly.

Quote:

Now I've been out of the loop so to speak for a number of years, but I find it amazing that the C of C could have changed so radically in such a short time!

David: The radical change has not taken root yet, I am well outside the conservative and liberal mainstream.

Quote:

The "evidence" here is a quote from the ancient writings of a nomadic, warrior tribe concerning their tribal deity. It is an assertion and nothing more. Our rejection of this pitiful evidence is more than justified.

David: Perhaps the thoughts of ancient people have no relevance to you, but they are relevant to some people.

Quote:

Atheists, more than most, recognize and accept their own relative insignificance in relation to the cosmos. It is theists who tend to believe they are the special creations of some almighty creator, destined to live eternally. It is theists who tend to hold that their lives have cosmic significant and importance. So this accusation of lack of humility appears to be a very misguided one and a bit hypocritical.

David: I agree. There was a time when I speculated about the character and motives of others. I do not do so any longer.

Quote:

As far as using our tools to determine what is or is not "possible", I'm not really sure what is meant here. As far as I am aware we don't use our tools to determine what is merely possible. We use them to determine what is true.

David: Here you have said something of great interest to myself. How do you determine what is true? How do you distinguish truth from preference, opinion, speculation and error?

Quote:

This atheist does not "exclude" the existence of God. I see no reason to conclude that it would be impossible for a deity to exist. I think there are many reasons to conclude it is very unlikely. I think there are many reasons to conclude that the Christian God is even less likely than other deities. But the point is, this "exclusion" business is little more than a straw man.

David: Am I understanding you correctly: You believe that the Christian God is unlikely, but do not deny the possibility of that God's existence?

Quote:

Equating atheism with humanism shows the profound ignorance of this statement. Atheism has no creeds, no dogmas, it states no principles or morals. Atheists can be Buddhists, naturalists, supernaturalists, materialists, pantheists, and even adherents to the "Force". They only thing that binds all atheists is the disbelief in any Gods.

Atheism may indeed be a part of numerous woldviews and philosophies (such as humanism) which DO expouse such things, but that is another matter entirely. If someone chooses to call a philosophy (humanism) that has no Gods, no prayers, no supernaturual entities, a "religion" I suppose they can, although I think it greatly warps the concept of what a religion is.

David: I did not say that atheism is humanism, nor did I say that humanism is atheism. The recipients of the book were vocal members of a local Secular Humanist organization and atheism was the primary message of their evangelistic efforts. That is why atheism and humanism are used as near synonymns throughout the text: Those addressed were atheists and humanists, and they did not draw a distinction between the two.

Quote:

Atheism is at least as "justifiable" as is any theism. I say it is more likely to be true as the evidence we have favors it over theism. Could it be wrong? Well of course it could be wrong. Likewise if the assumptions of the varoius theisms are wrong, they too must fall. David has only stated the obvious here.

What are these "dogmatic" assumptions about God and reality that atheists supposedly have? I'm very curious.

David: If you state that atheism could be wrong, you are not dogmatic and therefore not the subject of the quote.

Quote:

Its clear to me that many theists will always lash out at science due to the fear it instills. It is demonstrably the most successful method we have devised for determining the truth of things. That its meticulous methods tend to push the existence of the supernatural further and further into the realm of the less likely, will forever be a thorn in the theists side. Its no wonder some rail against it as often as they do.

David: Science has nothing whatsoever to do with truth. Truth belongs to philsophy, knowledge belongs to science.

Quote:

The atheist doesn't seek to comprehend God. He/she doesn't believe a God exist so that would be absurd and it makes this is a fallacy. How could we seek to comprehend that which we don't even conclude exists??

David: It appears to me that atheists are very concerned about comprehending God and that is why they ask so many theoretical questions about what God should or must do in order to display His love/benovolence/omnipotence.

Quote:

Just come up with a demonstrably superior system to science for determining facts about the world David, and then we could view these statements as accurate. My guess is that you have nothing you can demonstrate to be more successful.

David: Atheism is not science, science is not atheism. Why then do I need to search for anything more successful than science?

Quote:

So far, neither has been "proven". If they had these discussions wouldn't occur. We attempt to find out what is most likely based on the evidence available to us at the time. In my opinion, the evidence goes against the theism/supernaturalism and in favor of atheism/naturalism.

David: In your opinion, atheism/naturalism is supported by the evidence. That is just your opinion, my opinion is different from yours.

Quote:

Fortuantely many atheists don't start with the assumption that God does not exist, they look at the evidence and conclude that some particular deity most likely does not exist, or that its at least reasonable to disbelieve in such entities. But the point would be that David apparently doesn�t understand what it means to be an atheist.

David: What amount of evidence is necessary to reach a certain conclusion regarding God's existence or nonexistence?

Quote:

Ah, the old lets assert it strongly enough and it'll be true tactic. Interesting. Let me try it. "God doesn't exist, even if theists want it to exist, that won't make it come true." Hey, works like charm.

David: Atheists do make the same sort of assertions that I make regarding theism. This is a very important and relevant observation.

Quote:

Now David has taken up mind reading. Just how would you know this? I for one find nothing offensive about a God. It could even be a neat discovery.

I might however find many things offensive about the actions that God performed or condoned. It would all depend on "which" God or Gods we discovered.

Yes, and theists should not suppose that their own unwillingness to give up their fanciful myths is reason enough to continue to believe in a God. See how such reasoning works both ways David?

David: I am well aware that all of these arguments function as effectively whether framed by a theist on behalf of theism or by an atheist on behalf of atheism.

Quote:

However I salute your openmindness in investigation David. In my time, few would have concured and even fewer would have actually done it. I whole-heartedly encourage every Christian to study the arguments of atheism/humanism/agnosticism/naturalism, not as interpreted by attackers, but as given by atheists themselves. Again its been my experience that many theists are reluctant to so do, as it entertains the idea that they might be wrong - a consideration that was typically not allowed.

David: I am pleased that we have this much in common.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 06-26-2002, 06:13 PM

Hello Jobar,

Quote:

Yet the attributes, the behaviours, the history, and the personality of this singular Being are wildly inconsistent from denomination to denomination. The RC God is not the same as the CoC God- He demands different behaviour of His followers, says different things- remember that the Bible used by Catholics is significantly different from the CoC one- and requires different standards for salvation.

I am sure that you will answer this problem by saying that all these inconsistencies are due to the imperfect interpretations made by humans, who are sinful and erring by nature. If this is so- by what right do you claim that your own interpretation is the correct one? You have no more basis for your claims than do the Catholics- or, for that matter, than do Wiccans, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, or for that matter <a href="http://pub90.ezboard.com/binstituteforunicornresearch" target="_blank">Invisible Pink Unicornians.</a>

David: I do not assert that my understanding is any better than anyone else's understanding of God. I am conscious of my own ignorance and fallibility, so I need not make any claims about the perfection of my own understanding of God's character, behavior or any other attribute of His being.

Quote:

On the other hand, we atheists- in particular 'weak' atheists, who only state that there exists no evidence for any God, and therefore God remains in the same category as tooth fairies, hobbits, fire-breathing dragons, and Santa Claus- have nothing to prove. We make no positive claims- we only ask for evidence.

David: What sort of evidence are you asking for? What sort of evidence would convince you that a god or God exists?

Quote:

In short, we feel about your God the same way that you feel about Odin, or Baal, or Athena. You too are an atheist, except for one specific God.

David: Yes, you are correct in saying so. Two thousand years ago the pagan Romans classified the early Christians as atheists because they denied the existence of all of the gods.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

David Mathews · 06-26-2002, 06:27 PM

Hello Sandlewood,

Quote:

So what is the purpose of Hell then? What exactly are we being saved from? Do you believe that Hell exists? Is it empty except for the devil?

David: Hell exists for the purpose of demonstrating God's absolute, infinite and overwhelming love and grace for His creatures. Justice demands the condemnation of those who have rejected and blasphemed God, but God's love overpowers even His justice.

Quote:

The only thing that can be said of an atheist is that he does not hold a belief in a god or gods. That�s it. Apart from that, atheists may be completely different from each other. There is no atheist message and there is no atheist world view. There is no atheist dogma. Notice definition 1c above. Many atheists rely on the methods of science to try to discover the truth of reality. Science works in the opposite way as dogma.

David: I can't help but perceive that atheists handle science in a manner analogous to the way in which Christians handle the Holy Scriptures. I don't believe that science is atheism, nor do I believe that atheism is directly or indirectly validated by science.

Quote:

You mention that the �message� of atheism is taught through many sources. I fail to see where atheism is taught at all. On the contrary, I think most forms of entertainment in the US push Christianity.

David: You are making a valid point.

Quote:

In the US culture, atheism has been unfairly associated with immorality. You say that atheism�s power is pervasive. Perhaps you have no idea what it is like to live in a society where you avoid revealing your religious (atheistic) status for fear of discrimination. When you say �I�m an atheist�, what people hear is �I�m immoral� or �I have no ethical standard�. Do you think a person could ever be elected president if he or she openly claimed to be atheist?

David: I agree that society as stereotyped and acted in a prejudical manner against atheists.

Quote:

You speak of �the moral standard of atheism�. Atheism has nothing to do with a moral standard. All atheism means is that a person does not hold the belief that a god or gods exist. No more than that. Atheism says nothing about a person�s morality. Atheists can have different morals. But as it happens, atheists in the US tend to have the same morals which also tend to be the same as Christians in the US. It seems to me that morality is bound together by culture more than by religion.

David: Do atheists adhere to a moral standard? Do atheists feel compelled to abide by society's moral standard or have they adopted it because they have verified its utility?

Quote:

After reading that last quote from �Introduction�, I�m a bit confused as to why you think atheists will end up in heaven. Do you believe we will be made to see the folly of our ways before we are allowed in? Or do you believe we will be allowed in exactly as we are, without being brainwashed first? Do you think the �real� Christians will us being there and there and still being �immoral� atheists?

David: I have utmost confidence that God will save atheists according to His grace and for no other reason. I expect to find atheists in heaven, except that in heaven they will no longer be atheists.

Quote:

Either you don�t understand how science works, or you are pretending not to in order to further your argument. If you have a link to information about scientists seeking a new theory based on evidence contrary to the Big Bang, it would be appreciated. Maybe add it to that page. As far as I know, the existing evidence is in favor of the Big Bang. I would not be surprised if scientists are seeking other explanations.

David: I am not opposed to the Big Bang theory, nor am I opposed to cosmology. I don't approach the subject dogmatically though it does appear that the present evidence does favor the Big Bang.

Quote:

When you say �Scientists who believe in the Big Bang minimize the importance of evidence against the Big Bang while emphasizing evidence in favor of the Big Bang�, do you really think that all scientists in the world are secretly in collusion to interpret evidence a particular way? Do you think they all have a secret agenda to push the Big Bang theory as opposed to merely finding out the real truth whatever it is? Why would they want that?

David: It is a common custom of those defending a theory, belief or idea to exaggerate the merits of what they defend and overlook or minimize the objections. I don't consider such behavior dishonest or conspiratory, merely human nature.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Douglas J. Bender · 06-26-2002, 06:51 PM

David,

Quote:

No, what I am saying is that God can and will save atheists even though they remain atheistic in thought, word and behavior. I am saying that I expect to find millions of atheists in heaven, enjoying eternity and all the blessings that Christians expect.

I have no doubt whatsoever that on the Day of Judgment, God will send every atheist to spend eternal life with him as an unprovoked act of supernatural love, an act of grace so astonishing that even those familiar with God's grace will not comprehend nor appreciate.

Sorry to say, but you are an apostate (if you ever were a true Christian), and it is not unlikely that you could soon end up an atheist as the former Church of Christ poster here had become. But, what difference would that make, if you are correct, eh?

Anyway, is "UNBELIEF" a sin according to the Bible, David? Are you familiar with the Bible passage which says, "...the fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God'"? I assume you are aware of Hebrews 11:6, which says,

Quote:

"But without FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to please [God], for he who comes to God MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Now, I'd like to focus more specifically on the following statement you made:

Quote:

I have no doubt whatsoever that on the Day of Judgment, God will send every atheist to spend eternal life with him as an unprovoked act of supernatural love,....

"EVERY" atheist?? Well, if that is what you believe, then you believe that God will "send to spend eternal life with Him" even some unrepentant, unbelieving, sexually immoral atheists. Upon what basis will He righteously allow such to "spend eternal life" with Him, especially considering the following two passages from the Bible:

Quote:

"'But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea. If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed than having two hands, to to to Hell, into the fire which shall NEVER be quenched - where

"Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."

And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into Hell, into the fire which shall NEVER be quenched - where

"Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire - where

"Their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched."'" (Mark 9:42-47)

Quote:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will NOT inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (I Corinthians 6:9-10)

Quote:

"And anyone NOT FOUND written in the Book of Life was CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE." (Revelation 20:15)

Quote:

"But outside are dogs and sorcerers and sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and whoever loves and practices a lie." (Revelation 22:15)

?

Oh, and what's the big deal about preaching repentance and Jesus, if "...God will send every (person) to spend eternal life with him as an unprovoked act of supernatural love, an act of grace so astonishing that even those familiar with God's grace will not comprehend nor appreciate" (I'm assuming that if you think every atheist will be allowed in, that you also believe that everyone will be saved)? The message should be, instead, it would seem,

"Hey, everybody, listen up: Forget about repentance and believing in Jesus, we've all got a free ride into Heaven because God's such a great guy. So, go ahead and live it up, 'cause this is the only life you'll be able to experience all the pleasures of sin. Don't waste your time mourning and repenting, and trying to be holy, since we're all going to Heaven anyway. I know what I'm going to do. Woo hoo!! Oh, and all you preachers out there - Get a life."

In Christ,

Douglas

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: Douglas J. Bender ]</p>

Goliath · 06-26-2002, 07:01 PM

David Mathews,

Quote:

Atheists do make the same sort of assertions that I make regarding theism.

I am an atheist, and I make no assertions about the existence or non-existence of any god whatsoever. You are therefore demonstrably wrong.

Sincerely,

Goliath

David Mathews · 06-26-2002, 07:02 PM

Hello MadMax,

Quote:

Atheists do not "know" how the universe came to be, or even that it actually "came to be" in the sense we are familiar with. Of course Christians do no "know" either.

Furthermore, this attempted character assassination that atheists are somehow afraid to discover a deity exists, should be beneath David. The only reason I would fear the discovery of a deity is if that deity were an evil entity that intended to do me harm. Otherwise, why should I fear it?

David: Agreed.

Quote:

Christians might have no faith in atheistic speculations but they seem to have a tremendous amount of faith in their own speculations. At least atheists attempt to construct mathematical models and run tests to verify their speculations. Most Christians seem content to rest on their speculations and pretend they are solid facts.

David: What sort of mathematical models are you talking about and how are they relevant to atheism?

Quote:

This is ridiculous. Atheists offer possible explanations regarding the universe and then go out and attempt support them. They do not hold to them in the fanatical manner that Christians hold to the idea that some God created the universe. They would give them up gladly if evidence for another theory proves superior. Would Christians be willing to do the same?

David: What are the explanations regarding the Universe that the atheists offer? How do the atheists go about verifying these explanations?

Quote:

Christians on the other hand do accept the speculations as laid out in the texts of the ancient Hebrew tribes. And they do so without any evidence whatsoever.

David: Genesis 1-2 is not cosmological or scientific speculation. The creation account does not compete or contradict scientific observations and theories regarding the origin and development of the Universe.

Quote:

Perhaps more of David's mind reading capabilities at work. I suspect most of us recognize it for the character assassination attempt that it is. Probably motivated by the intense need to cast atheists in as poor a light as possible to bolster his own beliefs.

David: If these words are so offensive to you, please be assured that I did not write them about you. I also did not write them as a description of all atheists.

Quote:

Not that I am an advocate of the many worlds hypothesis, but atheists can postulate any damn thing they please. As for offereing evidence for that particular idea, I tend to agree, but as Christians offer no evidence for their hypothesis, its certainly no worse off.

David: Please understand that I appreciate and respect your willingness to defend your right to believe or theorize anything, especially when you contradicting a viewpoint that I expressed.

Quote:

Completely unsupported BS. I dare David to support such an accusation. Evolution might undermine faith in the biblical God and the book of Genesis, but that is a problem for bible believers, not other theists.

There are also a good number of Christians who have no difficulty with the theory of evolution, so David's assertion that it would undermine faith is obviously wrong in any case.

David: Agreed. At the time when I wrote those words I had not yet separated the Theistic question from the Evolution question. I have done so, and therefore would not say the same thing today.

Quote:

Untrue. We could have been created by immortal aliens from a distant galaxy. We could have emerged from the eternal Tao or the Cosmic Consciousness.

Evolution is crucial to naturalists, not atheists in general.

David: I appreciate it very much when you explain your viewpoint and identify the various non-evolutionary options which are available to you. When the things I write motivate such responses I know that I am doing some good.

Quote:

Christians do not "know" that a magical deity can "zap" life into existence from nothing, yet they accept it unequivocably that it did do so. Thus the atheist position is certainly no worse than the Chrisitan position.

However, the atheist does have the weight of history behind him that demonstrates naturalistic causes for things and continually pushes aside supernaturalistic causes. This gives good weight towards the atheistic speculation that a naturalistic answer to the puzzle will be forthcoming rather than a supernaturalistic answer. The evidence we have favors naturalistic atheists.

David: What would happen if it were discovered that there was not a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life? Would that lead you to become a theist?

Secondarily, naturalistic explanations do not intrinsically exclude non-naturalistic (even supernaturalistic) causes.

For example: If there is a forest fire, a naturalistic explanation is available: lightning. A non-naturalistic explanation is also available: arson.

Therefore, the existence of naturalistic explanations for natural events does not exclude the existence of supernatural explanations. God could have created life ex nihilo, or God could have designed the Universe in such a fashion that life could originate naturally in response to chemical interactions and luck.

Quote:

No one has ever observed a deity magically create life from nothing either. And?

David: The similarity between the theistic claims of God creating life and atheistic claims that life formed naturally is very important.

Quote:

Yes, and Christians simply hand wave over their "dogma" that a magical sky god called Yahweh created life from nothing. They are compelled to believe it even though they recognize the severe problems that confront their blind acceptance of magical powers and supernatural entitites. In spite of the evidence that works against such things.

David: What sort of evidence is there that a God could not create life?

Quote:

Evolution has nothing to do with the "origin" of life. That is abiogenesis. Evolution deals with the development of life after[/] it has begun. A deity could have jump started the first living organism or aliens could have planted it here and evolution could still be true.

David: So you do believe that a God could have originated life?

Quote:

In spite of the lack of evidence favoring a supernatural origin for life, Christians are forced to believe it. In spite of any verifiable evidence for the supernatural at all, Christians are forced to believe it. In spite of the huge success of naturalistic explanations, Christians are forced to believe in the supernatural.

I at least have something to support my assumptions of naturalistic explanations David. What have you got?

David: What sort of evidence are you talking about?

Quote:

Actually I am rather open regarding the origins of life on earth. We may well find we were planted here either on purpose or accidentally. Its even possible we were created by a deity of some kind.

However when I go to weigh these possibilities to determine which is more likely, the first one to drop out is the supernatural creation by a deity. Why? At least the other options have some evidence to support them, even if indirect. I have nothing thats supports a supernatural origin by a magical deity.

At the very least, the atheist position is no worse than the Christian position. I happen to think its significantly superior.

David: That is your opinion and you are entitled to it.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Hans · 06-26-2002, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Douglas J. Bender Wrote:
[Quoting Hebrews:] "But without FAITH it is IMPOSSIBLE to please [God], for he who comes to God MUST BELIEVE THAT HE IS, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Doesn't say they will not go to heaven, neither does anything else you quoted.

Douglas J. Bender · 06-26-2002, 07:04 PM

David,

Here's the crux of your error:

Quote:

Hell exists for the purpose of demonstrating God's absolute, infinite and overwhelming love and grace for His creatures.

No. Read the Bible, where it says that Hell was created "for the Devil and his angels", and will be a place where "the fire is not quenched", and where at the very, very least the Devil, the Beast from the Sea (the Antichrist), and the Beast from the Earth will be "tormented day and night FOREVER AND EVER".

Quote:

Justice demands the condemnation of those who have rejected and blasphemed God,...

Correct. But don't lose sight of God's justice.

Quote:

...but God's love overpowers even His justice.

"Overpowers"? Is that kind of like "sweeping under the rug"? THIS is where you make your foundational, it seems, error, David. God's love does not "overpower" His justice, but His love made a way for Him to JUSTLY have mercy on those He otherwise would have to judge. If He was to consider a person and simply say, "You led a life of lying, stealing, adultery, and blasphemy, and you never repented of your sins; oh well, come on in, glad to have you", then He'd be unjust. The BASIS for forgiveness, David, is REPENTANCE AND FAITH IN JESUS. In this way, God can maintain His justice (the person confesses guilt - takes responsibility for their actions), and extend mercy (the person's judgment was meted out to Jesus, in Whom they have faith). Without BOTH repentance and faith in Jesus, there is no way for God to righteously extend forgiveness to a person. You have denied the Gospel, by saying that God will accept atheists, as atheists, into Heaven.

In Christ,

Douglas

Goliath · 06-26-2002, 07:04 PM

David Mathews,

You've also stated that you expect to find atheists in heaven. What if I, as an atheist, do not want to go to heaven? Do you believe that I will have a choice in the matter?

Sincerely,

Goliath

David Mathews · 06-26-2002, 07:05 PM

Hello Icarus,

Quote:

Though an atheist, I find myself gripping at my armrests and looking upward from my fourteenth floor office in anticipation of the apocalypse, for it is a rare occasion to encounter an employed preacher who is both a universalist and a 'non-sectarian' of the Stone-Campbell variety. Are the members at your congregation aware of your beliefs?

David: I am not an employed preacher, nor have I ever sought to become a preacher. The congregation which I attend is aware of my beliefs. Some Christians view me as a heretic, though their opinion of myself is of little consequence to me.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2002, 07:04 PM	#89
Goliath Banned Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Fargo, ND, USA Posts: 1,849	David Mathews, You've also stated that you expect to find atheists in heaven. What if I, as an atheist, do not want to go to heaven? Do you believe that I will have a choice in the matter? Sincerely, Goliath

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.