7thangel

Introduction

I surely agree.

What do you think is the problem? If such experiences prove to you there is no God then that is not a good argument to begin with.

Should we believe all men? IOW, if men possess different notions of God, does that mean there is no God? Have you talked to all Christians? Again if you see majority of theists are irrational, that is not a sign that there is no God.

The Bible said, “wisdom” is the principal thing. It is easy for God to show that He exist. But you should understand that the most important of all is to understand Him and His godhead. The Bible lay unto us what is to know about God, but unfortunately, majority do not understand what the Bible is revealing unto us. One thing for sure, right now, if you see God you will surely believe Him. But the problem is your ignorance will surely bug you as you see Him exist. The same thing for the theists who are ignorant of the godhead. It is the same thing as saying, “If I have a beautiful wife, I will be happy.” For a moment, I guess, you will surely be crazy happy, but not anymore when lust fades away. We see good people, but do we treat them of their due? And what if they respond of punishment? The same thing is when we interact with God with ignorance, we will surely have no peace.

God has a sure reason for these things not to happen openly. For the Bible said in 1 Corinthians 1:18-29:

18. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. 19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. 20. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21. For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. 22. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23. But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24. But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 26. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 27. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 28. And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 29. That no flesh should glory in his presence.

These things happen and is happening so that no flesh should glory. All those things that is happening and is happening will direct us to understand that our relationship to God is like a robot-inventor relationship. So no man, from the least to the greatest is worthy to boast. The preaching of Christ speaks of God’s salvation through predestination. And nowhere could we know perfectly the predestination of God without the testimony of the Bible and the preaching of Christ dying in the cross to save sinners.

Honestly, I don’t see you with an open mind.

I understand that there are a lot of irrational theists. But what I cannot understand is that why would you think they be the reference to conclude of the non-existence of God.

Faith is always supported by naturalistic evidences and reason. The only thing is that Faith is a product of inductive reasoning. We believe God without direct contact with him. Like when a friend says to me that Diana is beautiful and then I agree, then that is faith. When I believed my friend that Diana is beautiful, it is because of rational reasons, like, I believed my friend is saying the truth because she is beautiful, and for her to say that someone is beautiful must be that the person she refers must be beautiful like her, to say the least; that my friend is not a liar; I knew one of Diana’s sister is beautiful, so Diana may be even more beautiful. So faith is not without naturalistic evidences and reason. The only problem is that does our faith lead us to the facts of the matter? That is always the problem on inductive reasoning. We are always kept on hoping, even if the obvious is seen.

On the other hand, the Bible is also written in figurative words. Even the gospel itself is speaking of a mystery, it is showing through history, the mystery of the salvation and of the godhead. Some should not be literally taken as they are, including hell. And it is absurd to believe those who do not understand them.

Well, if you knew that they are not credible to give you and answer about the truth of God, there is no point of them in the argument of God’s non-existence.

You were misinformed so there was no growth that came to your life.

Sufficiency, that is the problem. Is the Bible enough for me to believe of God’s existence? Yes, to me it is enough, because it has passed the criteria I am looking for. Again, do not base your disbelief unto other theist’s ignorance. It is where your whole post does not make sense. Because you are speaking of your experience but not about facts. I mean what have you experienced may be true, but I guess you were not informed of the right faith.

The prophecy plainly says that by wisdom men cannot know God. And the same way, science cannot lead us to know God. I do not mean that we are being irrational in knowing God. But it is that there are other things that are not subject unto the realm of science, like the grace of God, our robot-inventor relationship unto God, the gift of wisdom, and others. To know these things is always inconclusive, that is what faith is – there is an evidence yet it is being hoped.

7thangel

What is the dramatic turn? That your critical ability is “still flawed?” If you conclude that your critical ability is flawed today, what makes you think that the latter critical ability was flawed? You sound like your nemesis.

It is not impossible. But isn’t it also not impossible that God created this world knowing that we actually have no perfect knowledge of how it came to existence? I guess this will be the fair question.

But actually, whether God created it or not is secondary to me as a rational being. You said yourself: “To believe in a universe that is under the guidance of a divine power, in my opinion, is far more reassuring than believing in a random universe that is without divine guidance.” That being said, I would rather believe God created the world. Unless you show me of a rational point, than just saying “is not.”

That does not mean that the apostles and prophets have flawed perception. You are quoting flawed people, not flawed God.

It is unfortunate for you because the promises of God is actually given as grace. In fact you are even an open testimony that man cannot work his salvation through his own knowledge. I guess the salvation as grace of God is not well explained unto you.

Well, I can’t blame you if you were taught of irrational ideas of the godhead. But I guess it will still be irrational to abandon your quest just because you were frustrated and annoyed by ignorant theists.

I actually agree to you of this point. If man, by his own power, can really have a perfect grasped of the existence of God, then salvation will not be of grace; for man would have the right to ask of his salvation. Man is given of God faith, which actually is not a faulty reasoning, but of an inconclusive ones. Faith is always coupled with hope.

What we should know about God is not only of His existence but also of His invisible nature; His love, power, grace, plans. Man can only know partial about these things.

But if you will view our relationship unto God as robot-inventor relationship, then you will understand more the gospel.

Actually you are partially right. If a person insist to do something which is against a person whom he does not know, it can be considered hate to the person. As a theist, there are consequent actions that goes with it, and if you be against such actions, you are against God.

Yeah, but you said, “To believe in a universe that is under the guidance of a divine power, in my opinion, is far more reassuring than believing in a random universe that is without divine guidance.” These words came from a man of better philosophy. And your recent conclusion is just an “anti” to those who did not give you a right information about God.

Good for you to be not like the theist you have known. But does what your doing now solved the very first paragraph you have expressed in your introduction? Well, if you strive for better philosophy, solve what you said yourself.

Well, there are some irrational theists indeed. But does not you sound irrational yourself to insist a theory, if it is a theory? Does not you yourself admit the flaw of our critical ability?

So do you think Darwin’s theory is true? But the God theory is derived from true supernatural experiences, when Darwin’s apes are monkeying around. The only problem is that you did not believe it. I am not against science, but as you admit that theories are theories, unless proven as facts, they are therefore theories unto me. By the way, I am aware of theories considered as facts.

It depends on what scientific theory you are talking about, and what religious faith you are talking about.

Actually there is a bigger truth that you have even believed that unless given an answer will make some other truths meaningless. You are in fact sounding irrational to me, for you actually did not find the answer and become bitter of the people whom you are expecting could give you an answer.

If you really understand the implication you hear from the irrational theists that God is the creator and maker of all things, you should have understood that our relationship unto God is likened unto a robot-inventor relationship, and in those things you should be wise enough yourself to speak to them about these matters. Didn’t you think, that like them you are suffering misunderstanding of what you are trying to understand about God? Hearing from such a person who says that Christ wrote something is proof of your ignorance. Much more you speak of Christianity in general? I guess such post does not deserve such stars.

Well, don’t you yourself see your flaws? Let us see what conclusions I draw from your post.

The very first paragraph, you said, “ To believe in a universe that is under the guidance of a divine power, in my opinion, is far more reassuring than believing in a random universe that is without divine guidance.” So what is it that you have reassured me? There are some truths you said, but your truths will boil down to nothing unless we believe there is a divine power guiding the universe. So you believe that this is random universe, and if we really follow that all things goes to randomness, don’t you understand that this promotes irrationality and chaos? Some atheists, because of not believing that God designed this universe, come into conclusion that the value of human life is dependent to what each put on himself, so what is the reassurance that they would act goodness towards me when their lives are threatened? And didn’t you read the post by an atheist titled “existence doesn’t make sense?” No matter how wonderful they put in words what they believed about the meaning of their lives all these things are chaotic. You know why? Because if man exist with random mind, so what do you expect about order? And what their principles are leading us to? That good and evil change? Didn’t you realize that that is the very same thing that you are trying to avoid in your quest for God? You should have a broad scope of what you are trying to understand.

You have expressed that religion is illogical, and that theists are being flawed in their perception of things, and even admitting of having flawed critical ability. But when you said about the writings of Jesus, what would make us think that you really understand anything about Christianity, much more of religion? Secondly, why should you conclude that religious belief is not a reasoned faith, when whom you have spoken so far are those who are trying to understand religion themselves, for you to generalize the conclusion is to me absurd. A very flawed reasoninging indeed!

Badfish

Really? Nothing's going to change. People will be people.

SecularFuture

People can change if they wanted to, or were offerend a good reason to change.

SecularFuture

7thangel
It was a mistake in wording. One word was wrong in that sentence, as many other sentences in my report. Please do not forget that, even through I am an atheist, I am still very human.

I love it when theists hunt down a flaw in writing, and try to exploit it for everything its worth. It is clearly a defense maneuver.

~~~~~~~~~

I do not believe that we should believe all men, and through this belief, I began to doubt his unfounded claims for the supernatural. Everyone has his or her own concept of what a god may be like. My report was not to be a critique of each interpretation, but a journey through theism as a whole. I wanted to see if there was any reason, or evidence to believe in a concept that is without a naturalistic basis.

In the report, I was not referring to the irrational tendencies of the theist. Mainly, in the latter part of the report, I was breaking down the irrationalities of theism as a whole. Why believe in something that could have derived, a long time ago, from our pre-scientific imaginations?

The bible? Why do you assume that your bible is the bible? Your bible says many things about many things. Why should you or I believe that a supernatural deity inspired it all?

Before we start making assumptions and/or start convincing ourselves that a supernatural deity exists, we need to first analyze the facts and ask the right questions. Accepting something through a blind religious faith should not be considered acceptable. We need to have reason for our beliefs, and evidence for our theories. An assumption without reason is nothing.

And why do you believe this? Because a bible that you believe was inspired by god said so? How do you know that your bible was not written by men, with wonderful imaginations, a long time ago? You do not, therefore you are believe in your bible through a blind faith.

And when you finally met her, she could have been ugly. Believing in something through a blind religious faith because you want it to be true is not rational.

When I look at your bible, I see a well-written book with pages and a cover. Why do you see something else? Why do you believe that it was inspired by a supernatural deity? I’ll take the liberty to answer for you. [Because you want to.]

I’m not. I’m basing it on theism as a whole.

What do you think you are doing?

1) You assume that there is a god.
2) You assume that your bible is the bible.
3) You assume that your bible was inspired by the god that you assume exists.

Too many assumptions, unsupported by facts, and believed only through a blind religious faith. You are also using circular reasoning.

Everyone is entitled to his or her opinions.

I have reason to believe in the sun. I have seen it, and there is evidence to support its existence. I do not believe in pink invisible elephants. There is no evidence supporting their existence, and there is no real reason to hold faith to such concept. I feel the same way about your god concept as I do about pink invisible elephants. Without evidence or reason for the god concept you hold faith to, I cannot believe in the religions that claim to have derived from such concept.

Humanity’s critical ability is still flawed.

Yes, believing in a god is comforting. Nevertheless, why believe in a concept that is most likely not true?

Even though the god you believe in could be a myth?

Atheism, by definition, is the denial of theism (a-theism). You are making the claim that there is a god, and I am denying your claim. If I was to go onto a job interview and say, “I can type 100wpm”, it is up to me to prove my claim, and not up to the manager who is interviewing me – or the person who denies my claim. If you cannot prove that god exists, your belief is unfounded. Your belief may be true, but it is definitely without merit.

I wasn’t quoting anyone. I was quoting myself.

A SUPPORTED THEORY:
During our less sophisticated beginnings, before computers and technology were in common use, many of our explanations involved supernatural, or magical, concepts. Many of us thought that the rain was from a deity as a gift and not from condensing clouds.

And through this line of reasoning, it is not hard to see where theism could’ve came from. Man could have easily created god to give meaning to his existence.

- More opinions.

I am not against anything. I just don’t believe in things that are without logic, reason, or evidence.

You don’t know if macroevolution is a theory or not? You obviously have not done your research. How many books have you read on macroevolution? Do you even understand any of the basic concepts? This is what upsets me most about many religionists! They denounce a concept before thoroughly researching it.

You’ve just proven my theory! You probably have never researched macroevolution.

Please do your homework:
www.talkorigins.org

A theory is more than an assumption and less than a fact. The god concept, unfortunately for you, cannot be considered to be theory or fact; theism is clearly without any kind of basis.

However, macroevolution theory has basis thanks to years of research through physical evidence. Did we have to see macroevolution to know that it has happened, and is happening? No. Does a police detective have to see a crime happen to know what happened? No. Like biologists, they research through the physical clues.

I became irritated after I realized what Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and all of the other theistic religions were doing to people’s minds. Instead of believing in something that is naturalistic, many religionists would rather believe in something that is magical and unfounded.

Its not a happy thought, but it is (unlike theism) supported by theories.

It does not make sense to do something to someone that you would not want done to yourself. This philosophy is based on a concept called ‘common sense’, or ‘sound mind’. Where did our minds come from? They most likely evolved, but I am not completely sure how. I do not know all of the details because, for one, I am not a doctor in biology; I have other interests. However, simply because I reserve a few doubts does not mean that I am going to jump to an unfounded god conclusion. I am still awaiting more information and research.

Good and evil are unfounded, religious, concepts.

Can anyone prove that a god exists? No. Therefore, to believe in a god you must use a religions faith, a blind acceptance of a concept that you can only hope to be true.

Bathrone

7th Angel I do believe that your contributions to this discussion have been based on the snowstorm tactic

Can you answer this simple question. Prove you have more than emotional faith to Xianty and the wider issue of God and the supernatural. Give me reasoned critical evidence that anything your proclaim as truth, is indeed it.

SecularFuture

7thangel?

7thangel

I apologize for not responding to you at once. I was actually about to make my responses but I realize that it really would not matter that much. I will leave it to those who presume to be wise in themselves to examine both our responses and see it themselves, to the very best of their abilities, that the 4 stars to your post is very undeserving.

As parting notes, Faith, like theory, is a hope. Faith is a product of inductive reasoning, and therefore subject to errors. You even actually knew it very well, and that you appeal to abiding on reasoned faith. No matter how nice your arguments are faith is still ignorance of the very matter we are having faith of. And the Christians, who have basis of their faith, though irrational to you, have a reasonable point on their faith. So you would not have had said ignorance will get us nowhere because we will indeed go nowhere as humans, whom you even said have flawed critical ability. And in fact, the very first paragraph of your original post appeals on faith, because we cannot really know the very fact of the matter of the universe being under God's guidance or not. And your responses particularly concerning about this point is enough for me to convince you, IMO, that rather Atheism is illogical and not acceptable.

Again, I would appreciate if you respect my decision of not responding to your last post. It is not about ignoring you, but of finding it to my advantage to be left as is.

God Bless,

doodad

Religion, or the practice of it, tries to address human emotions that do not respond well to reason, so your solution may be lacking.

Your arguing against religion indicates to me you have some kind of concern for humanity. You seemed compelled to argue against it, so maybe that is an indicaion of a moral obligation?

Do all the benefits of religion come at the expense of others? If it were to ease my grief over the loss of a loved one, is that at someone else's expense? If someone obeys the Ten Commandments, such as not lieing, not stealing, not murdering, not coveting his neighbor's wife or possessions, does that obeyance work to the disadvantage of others?

You say that religion should not be taught alongside science. Religion and science can co-exist because they each address different issues. Granted, teaching that biblical creation is the only answer to our existence is bigoted, but I think the intent of providing people with both scientific and religius POVs on the matter is to give them a choice to choose from. No, religion probably should not be taught in grades k-12 but I think older students can handle it. However, I think it is legitimate for the churches to teach their view privately while the view of science is taught at public expense.

To my way of thinking science does not teach ethics or morality, and that is the province of religion. That's not to say that religion has a corner on the concepts of morality, but one of its objectives is to teach right from wrong. Suppose those who developed the nuclear bomb or those responsible for using it had no scruples?
Does science teach them scruples? It can reveal or forecast the hideous consequences of using nuclear weapons, but it cannot dictate the use of it. That involves a regard for mankind, a conscience.

There are sects of Chrisianity that are relatively tolerant of homosexual behavior, and my church is one of them. We take a lot of heat from the fundies because of our tolerance. When it comes to ethnocentrism, that can be found in a secular institution, such as communism, or even the more authoritative socialistic cultures. Nationalism is also ethnocentric, so what' the big deal about religion being ethnocentric? It's a group concept practiced by groups of people wanting to be civilized, so yes, there will be some ethnocentrism involved.

Thanks for the word by the way, as I have been needing one to describe my feelings about organized religion on the faith based forums. Religions such as Judaism and Chrisianity promote altruism, which at the society level is ethnocentric to me. I don't mind sharing with others, but I don't like being told how much or when to share. I want to do it my way and in my own good time.

Judaism is no stranger to communism, but you atheists conventiently overlook that. I think it's not viewed as a threat to humanity because it isn't evangelic in nature. By the way, science is loaded with practicing Judaists, as is the arts, medicine, government, media, and finance. So if you are really concerned about the deleterious effects of religion may you guys need to clean house. Whether you want to admit it or not, they have you eating out of their hands and you are gobbling it up. Might
science also be some kind of perverted belief system?

Why is religion ethnocentric? From my perspective religion can be applied at two levels, the individual or personal level, and at the social or group level. The idea is to promote acceptable behavior of individuals so that they can get along with others, or at the social level. I'd like to think that even the non-thiest community sees the merit of people living together in concert and with compassion, and yet you have a problem with religion espousing such concepts. Granted, there have been tragic abuses done in the name of religion, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water.

Yes, the bible, especially the OT, presents some bizarre human behavior, and I'm currently trying to determine the mindset of the ancient Jews. The goal of absolute truths should be pursued as an ideal, and I'll agree that it's probably not achievable. However, contrary to your assumptions, most religious principles of behavior are based upon millenia of years of experience and correlate well with secular based principles. In spite of what the fundamentalists say about the bible being divinely inspired and being the word of God, I say that the principles therein reflect the mores and needs of the culture that hosted the writings. Yes, there's a lot of the human element in biblical scripture in spite of what the bible thumpers want you to believe.

To me a belief system is like a political system in that however idealistic and absolute it is portrayed to be by its proponents, the weakness is the human element. People make mistakes, and mistakes cause grief and cost lives. I make no excuse for that, but that does not condemn the ideal as being invalid. Yes, it's a little impractical in places if taken literally, but I don't use my religion that way. To me it's an option I could probably make do without, but I have bought into it in hopes of gaining from it.

Yep, religious fundies prey on the ignorant and the gullible, and
yep we should leave our religious preferences out of government
policy. Hopefully we can replace Bush and his religious right crowd at the next election. It isn't ethical to deceive people, especially the innocent and the ignorant, but I think it is ethical to provide forms of rationalization and displacement to those who may benefit from it when there's no better therapy to offer. Religion serves that purpose and is relatively inexpensive. However, like any type of medical or psychiatric therapy, it should be applied with reason and with caution. The problem with handing an inexperienced fundie a bible is akin to handing him a loaded gun. He doesn't have the skill to use it and he's like a loose cannon. Sad as it is, that's life, and as long as people have egos than need stroking there will be fools that will do it by playing God.

Fiach

He or She is using the name 7th Angel from the Book of Revelations, who interestingly has the vial that when opened brought a voice from heaven and precipitated earthquakes. thunder and lightening, a great hailstorm, the demolition of mountains and the disappearance of islands, and the splitting of the Great whore of Babylon, and such bollocks.

I think that Howard Philips Lovecraft may be the real writer of Revelation under the pen name John of Patmos.

Fiach