Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 12-24-2003, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rational BAC
I thought we were not going to go into the "troll" thing-------

And I am a Christian and I always thought it was 7 days too. What the hell-----give or take a day.

I guess I must be a troll.

I apologise then. I just assumed Christians knew what the Bible said, especially about pretty basic stuff like that.

braces_for_impact · 12-24-2003, 08:03 AM

Oops, I hit the enter button a wee bit early and posted before I meant to. So forgive me but I shall now tackle your other points.

Quote:

I'm using the first definition from the Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary which states that faith is:

Ok so your using the word faith as trust. So let me ask you a question: Why didn't you just say trust? There must be a reason.

Quote:

For instance, do I know the exact intricate details of how God created the earth in seven days? No. But I think I can describe to you how He could perform such a feat.

Ok go ahead, I dare you. I look forward to this description.

Quote:

Do you know, and is it accepted throughout the scientific community, how the universe was formed? No on that one as well.Therefore, you put your faith in science to ultimately provide the answers(though as of yet unknown) and I put my faith in God for those same answers. Hence, we all have faith, in this sense of the word.

Non sequitur. Just because I trust the scientific method does not mean I believe science has all the answers, or that science will always give the correct answer. As new data is evaluated, theories are refined, etc. I don't have the type of trust you're speaking of. I recognize the fact that science may never be able to explain the origins of the universe. But, this doesn't mean that science as a tool is useless, obviously.

Quote:

Do I lack faith that science is superior to God?

In terms of what exactly? Are you implying that atheists think this? Did I miss the atheist memo on this topic?

Quote:

Again, if someone would like to take this up with me, I do not see how you can refute assertion #1

Well first off you made the positive claim, that everyone has faith in something, so it is you that has the burden of proof here.

Secondly, you are already treading dangerously close to the equivocation I was speaking about with the word faith. Does everyone trust someone or something? Probably, but you and I both know that this is not what theists are talking about the majority of times when they say they have faith god exists. Great, you trust God. I don't doubt that. But, how do you know he exists to trust in the first place? You had better have conclusive evidence of his existence, or you'll have to revert back to the standard definition of faith, which is belief without evidence.

You see this is what you're tring to compare. Faith that god exists isn't trust. It's belief despite lack of evidence. Faith in the manner of trust is not the same. In fact, I'm not sure why you don't use the word trust if that is what you mean. It seems to me yet another attempt to put theism and atheism on the same intellectual ground, and in this way it fails miserably.

Quote:

The Adam Theory simply states having been formed in the image of the all-knowing creator of the universe, man seeks to know and be like God in knowing the functioning, utility, and history of the world

Interesting theory. But this is an assumption. You are assuming man had a creator. Assuming he made man in his own image (whatever that means), assuming that being made in his own image means that his characteristics (in this case curiosity) would be transfered to us. You are also assuming your god has these characteristics to transfer to us in the first place. And it's strongly implied that this particular god is YOUR god as well. Before you can progress any further with this thoery, you have to prove those items first. No skipping steps!

Quote:

But you contend that many many people are not concerned with this type of thinking. To that I respond, "you must be speaking of adults

First it was everyone and now children? Is not everyone made in god's image? Even after they grow up? Of course children have a natural curiosity, this is an adapted survival trait. Children absorb knowedge like sponges because they have a lot to learn in a short time if they are to survive. But you have failed to correlate this with your premise. What are you trying to prove? No offense, but perhaps you should try to organize your thoughts a little better.

Quote:

In my estimation, socioeconomic factors either inhibit or enhance this basic need.

I agree with this.

Quote:

In other words, if we all had the necessary time to reflect and research, we would look into "why am I here?" questions all the time.

Incorrect. I have known people personally, who when introspective and philosophical questions come up, literally say "This is stupid why do we have to talk about this, who cares?"
They seem quite sincere in their lack of self examination, and they had good social/economic status, and time was not an issue. If you fail to face the fact that there are people (plenty of them actually) that couldn't care less, then you need to take a look around.

Finally, I noticed you failed to address any questions that would have made your position difficult. Please read through the posts again and respond. Your first post has been thoroughly examined, and so far your response is to further explain the same premises without responding to the challenges that were made to those premises.

Rational BAC · 12-24-2003, 08:03 AM

Steven---

Genesis is just a fairy tale for me. Or maybe a very interesting metaphor. Doesn't make me not a Christian.

4God · 12-24-2003, 08:07 AM

Steven....

You must have missed the "or" when i referred to various authors. Please re-read that portion and then rethink the comment you made.

Gnostic authors....*sigh*...it's a matter of opinion who these authors were...i'm not assuming who they were or not, unless specifically stating. That's my own personal opinion, you can disagree at will.

...lastly, i do not perceive that you all are idiots. But, you have not in a detailed manner looked at any of my arguments, and that's disappointing. You've instead written one or two little barbs. I too can quote this website or that website...but if that was case i wouldn't be here.

brighid · 12-24-2003, 08:07 AM

Quote:

Can I just say this? I find it horribly perplexing that many(if not most) find it completely implausible that people like themselves have come to different conclusions than they have. Many of you worte that in order to believe in God, you must cast off all reason and logic. To that I say...that's pretty lame. If, in order to refute an opponent's argument, you simply state that your opponent has not taken the the time to prepare his perspective...then you are not commenting on the merits of his position. Instead, vis a vis your own presupposition(s) you display the debating skills of a toad.

You have committed the sin of hypocrisy, as well as managed to insult a lot of people. It is absolutely ignorant to think that we have not considered the conclusions you posit. Perhaps you do not know that the vast majority of atheists posting here were once Christians of some sort. We have former preachers and priests, seminarians, Sunday school teachers, alter boys, Church elders, youth group leaders (such as myself), and so on down the line. The road you assume we have not traveled is dusty, warn and every bend, turn, hill, obstacle, nook and cranny is well known.

No one has stated that you (the opponent) has not takenn time to prepare his perspective. However, you accuse us of this fault. Yes, we are not commenting on the merits of your perspectives, we are commenting on what we know and why we disbelieve.

We have been in your position. We have been amongst the faithful. We have prayed until our knees have bleed, and cried a river of tears pleading for this God to reveal Himself. Some prayers were "answered" and others went unanswered. We lived and breathed the Christian life. We have devoured every page of the Bible, and studied it from every possible angle. We have spent endless hours debating, researching, and many of us with the strong desire to disbelieve the evidence we could no longer ignore. Some of us took decades to come to this conclusion, some were spared that pain and came to a conclusion much sooner. Therefore it is you who need to do as you own Bible commands and walk a mile in the shoes of the unbeliever. We have already taken your journey and we have concluded that we find no evidence of your specific God, just as you find no evidence of the Hindu, Greco-Roman, Celtic, Egyptian and all the other historical Gods.

All that has been asked of you is that you take some time to reflect upon those Gods and Goddesses you disbelieve in, and why you disbelieve. After this has been done (and surely this search will be one of self-improvement) to honestly apply the same standards to your own faith, religious stories and mythology. If after you have done so, earnestly and with absolute honesty, and remain strong in your faith, so be it. No one can fault you, but if you fail to walk a mile or more in our shoes, and fail to strictly and honestly apply those standards to your own faith, then you have willfully chosen to walk the path of hypocrisy and surely your God will judge you by the same measure you judge others. If your faith is strong, and your God true then an honest and strict application of those standards will only result in a deepening of your faith. Then you will have emerged as a better man, for you will be able to understand and hopefully empathize with those you do not presently understand.

If you are truly here for understanding, please take the advise that was given in good measure, and please understand that when I say I lack faith as you define it, I am being nothing more then honest. I have confidence in what is tested and proven to be reliable. I am skeptical of a great many things, and open to be proven wrong. Can you honesty say the same of yourself? (and I don't mean that in any sort of condescending fashion, but as a springboard of self-inquiry.)

Your journey here will be bumpy, but if you honestly inquire and discontinue attacking your fellow human beings (and we are not opponnents), but rather treat us as you desire to be treated (applying that Golden Rule) you will find your stay much more pleasant. iidb is wealthy in knowlegde and experience. Use our libraries to read the writings of great philosphers, theologians, historians, etc. Expand the libraries of your own knowledge, and hopefully you will do so in the spirit of honest inquiry to better understand those men and women you share this Earth with. This WILL make you a better man, and no Gods are needed to take that journey.

I hope the road meets you well.

Brighid

Rational BAC · 12-24-2003, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by braces_for_impact
Oops, I hit the enter button a wee bit early and posted before I meant to. So forgive me but I shall now tackle your other points.

Ok so your using the word faith as trust. So let me ask you a question: Why didn't you just say trust? There must be a reason.

Ok go ahead, I dare you. I look forward to this description.

Non sequitur. Just because I trust the scientific method does not mean I believe science has all the answers, or that science will always give the correct answer. As new data is evaluated, theories are refined, etc. I don't have the type of trust you're speaking of. I recognize the fact that science may never be able to explain the origins of the universe. But, this doesn't mean that science as a tool is useless, obviously.

In terms of what exactly? Are you implying that atheists think this? Did I miss the atheist memo on this topic?

Well first off you made the positive claim, that everyone has faith in something, so it is you that has the burden of proof here.

Secondly, you are already treading dangerously close to the equivocation I was speaking about with the word faith. Does everyone trust someone or something? Probably, but you and I both know that this is not what theists are talking about the majority of times when they say they have faith god exists. Great, you trust God. I don't doubt that. But, how do you know he exists to trust in the first place? You had better have conclusive evidence of his existence, or you'll have to revert back to the standard definition of faith, which is belief without evidence.

You see this is what you're tring to compare. Faith that god exists isn't trust. It's belief despite lack of evidence. Faith in the manner of trust is not the same. In fact, I'm not sure why you don't use the word trust if that is what you mean. It seems to me yet another attempt to put theism and atheism on the same intellectual ground, and in this way it fails miserably.

Interesting theory. But this is an assumption. You are assuming man had a creator. Assuming he made man in his own image (whatever that means), assuming that being made in his own image means that his characteristics (in this case curiosity) would be transfered to us. You are also assuming your god has these characteristics to transfer to us in the first place. And it's strongly implied that this particular god is YOUR god as well. Before you can progress any further with this thoery, you have to prove those items first. No skipping steps!

First it was everyone and now children? Is not everyone made in god's image? Even after they grow up? Of course children have a natural curiosity, this is an adapted survival trait. Children absorb knowedge like sponges because they have a lot to learn in a short time if they are to survive. But you have failed to correlate this with your premise. What are you trying to prove? No offense, but perhaps you should try to organize your thoughts a little better.

I agree with this.

Incorrect. I have known people personally, who when introspective and philosophical questions come up, literally say "This is stupid why do we have to talk about this, who cares?"
They seem quite sincere in their lack of self examination, and they had good social/economic status, and time was not an issue. If you fail to face the fact that there are people (plenty of them actually) that couldn't care less, then you need to take a look around.

Finally, I noticed you failed to address any questions that would have made your position difficult. Please read through the posts again and respond. Your first post has been thoroughly examined, and so far your response is to further explain the same premises without responding to the challenges that were made to those premises.

Just the last paragraph-------

Hey give the guy a break. I remember very well trying to debate 10 people at one time with all their questions-------and the inevitable "Why didn't you answer MY question-----are you avoiding me because I am so brilliant and you obviously could not come up with an answer for ME"

braces_for_impact · 12-24-2003, 08:22 AM

Quote:

I think we should give this "condescension" crap a rest.

Quote:

We are all guilty of condescension. Atheists tend to be very thin skinned on that subject. I don't know why because you all are just as guilty of that as we are.

Perhaps it's because the very people that claim to have a superior morality handed down to them by god should understand the basics of respecting people, but that often doesn't seem the case. In fact, I'd say 80% of the time, they don't even realize how they're treating people. Few things upset people faster than hypocrisy.

As for atheists having a particularly thin skin with regards to this, I could speculate on it, but I don't want to derail the thread.

Quote:

"You talked down to me" "No you talked down to me"---------Waste of bandwidth.

Politeness is never a waste of bandwith. If I feel someone is being condescending, I will respond, sometimes in like behavior. I'm sorry if you don't like it. I feel like I have to often "tip toe" around religion so as to not insult anyone, but I rarely get the same respect. You may think my skin is too thin, and I may think you insensitive. /shrug

brighid · 12-24-2003, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Hey give the guy a break. I remember very well trying to debate 10 people at one time with all their questions-------and the inevitable "Why didn't you answer MY question-----are you avoiding me because I am so brilliant and you obviously could not come up with an answer for ME"

I would agree. It may also be that he has life more demanding then some of us here have

I know that in about 38 minutes I will be out of here until Monday. My silence doesn't mean I don't have any answers of that 4God is so brilliant I can't answer him!

It just means I have to get out of here, go buy some good Polish food from a distant deli so my family can enjoy some traditional Perogis, chruschiki, krupnik, etc.

Brighid

4God · 12-24-2003, 08:24 AM

I believe most of you have gone through and through. Charles Templeton, a contemporary of Billy Graham, is a pretty well known preacher-turned-atheist. He wanted to believe God but found the evidence lacking.

I'm not here to fight. I just came upon this sight because I wanted to know more about atheism, its roots, and those that adhered to it. I will make a pointed effort not to underlay my comments with sarcasm.

I'm very much hoping that I learn more here. My wife thinks I'm nuts, but she usually does.

I am still in the process of answering 2,3,4 of what I thought were the questions most were asking. If there is something you think i am purposely omitting please let me know. It's certainly not my intent, it's just that i wasn't expecting such a large response. I think God likes people talking about Him.

when i use the word "opponent", i'm just using an old debating term that's stayed with me since highschool. It means nothing more than someone on the other side of the debate. It's not meant to be fighting words.

As for Steven, you have proved to me what I stated in the second soliloqy today. That numerous volumes have been written in favor and against God-with reasonable people coming to the conclusion of both. However, to the both of us only one of these can be correct. I don't fault you for your conclusions and would appreciate the same respect.

Rational BAC · 12-24-2003, 08:26 AM

Really 4God ---------you shouldn't have used the "toad" thing. Just pisses people off---and you start to lose them.

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

12-24-2003, 08:03 AM	#43
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Steven--- Genesis is just a fairy tale for me. Or maybe a very interesting metaphor. Doesn't make me not a Christian.

12-24-2003, 08:07 AM	#44
4God Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: USA Posts: 72	Steven.... You must have missed the "or" when i referred to various authors. Please re-read that portion and then rethink the comment you made. Gnostic authors....sigh...it's a matter of opinion who these authors were...i'm not assuming who they were or not, unless specifically stating. That's my own personal opinion, you can disagree at will. ...lastly, i do not perceive that you all are idiots. But, you have not in a detailed manner looked at any of my arguments, and that's disappointing. You've instead written one or two little barbs. I too can quote this website or that website...but if that was case i wouldn't be here.

12-24-2003, 08:24 AM	#49
4God Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: USA Posts: 72	I believe most of you have gone through and through. Charles Templeton, a contemporary of Billy Graham, is a pretty well known preacher-turned-atheist. He wanted to believe God but found the evidence lacking. I'm not here to fight. I just came upon this sight because I wanted to know more about atheism, its roots, and those that adhered to it. I will make a pointed effort not to underlay my comments with sarcasm. I'm very much hoping that I learn more here. My wife thinks I'm nuts, but she usually does. I am still in the process of answering 2,3,4 of what I thought were the questions most were asking. If there is something you think i am purposely omitting please let me know. It's certainly not my intent, it's just that i wasn't expecting such a large response. I think God likes people talking about Him. when i use the word "opponent", i'm just using an old debating term that's stayed with me since highschool. It means nothing more than someone on the other side of the debate. It's not meant to be fighting words. As for Steven, you have proved to me what I stated in the second soliloqy today. That numerous volumes have been written in favor and against God-with reasonable people coming to the conclusion of both. However, to the both of us only one of these can be correct. I don't fault you for your conclusions and would appreciate the same respect.

12-24-2003, 08:26 AM	#50
Rational BAC Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Tampa Bay area Posts: 3,471	Really 4God ---------you shouldn't have used the "toad" thing. Just pisses people off---and you start to lose them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.