HRG

The same way that theism accounts for the existence of a specific god, and for his decision to create exactly our universe

You should realize that "God did X" is no more an accounting (I prefer "explanation") for X than "X simply is", unless you add an accounting for God, and describe his methods and motivations - for doing X and not Y.

IOW, "God created the universe" has the same explanatory power than "my cat created the universe last Thursday".

Various scenarios for abiogenesis exist which are quite compatible with established physics and chemistry.
How does theism account for the origin of life ? "God did it" is but a pseudo-explanation - see above.
Evolution from primate ancestors. Any problems with that ?
Cultural development. Any reasons why this should be less an explanation than "God created us in his image" (without saying what that image is, however) ?

Regards,
HRG.

Theli

David...

Where do you get this from?
Why isn't temporal existence real?

Ted Hoffman

David Matthews,
David: I think it is noteworthy that a Christian can be an "atheist by definition." If that is the case, what does that say about your atheism?
So a christian can be an atheist at the same time?
So much for "useful" contradictions.
I think at this point I will join Bill and sandlewood and withdraw from this discussion. I may rejoin it if I see any signs of progress.

But as I will be lurking, I would appreciate it if you provided feedback concerning what your impressions are concerning the "Two Dozen or so Good things about atheism" and whether you still feel that atheism offers nothing positive.

It was a pleasure.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

HelenM

BH, it is wrong of you to 'lump me together' with someone else in this thread just because we are both theists.

You imply that I have not shown love for David - where? Quote me back! Is asking him questions not showing him love??? How? Again I say, quote me back. I do my best not to judge people. If my comments show where he diverges from more conservative Christianity then - what's unloving about that? It's just a fact, if he does, and the extent to which he does. So - either 'lay off' or give evidence of where I didn't show love to him!

No, that is not respectful at all. You know no such thing as you claimed to know, about me!!!
Respect begins with listening to the other person rather than assuming you 'know' things you can't possibly know.

Yeah, me too . (Amongst other reasons )

So, do you think it really all happened as written, or it probably didn't but it's such an inspiring story you don't care whether it did or not, or something inbetween or something else?

Yeah really! If it was it sure failed

Thanks!

I am glad that unlike BH you have paid attention to what each of us has actually posted and not just lumped us together as the two theists...

In saying that, you have shown more wisdom than BH; although he (?) may be wise in other ways...

David I'm impressed that you've diligently responded to so many posts here and that you've avoided getting angry with anyone.

I don't much discuss my own theology here. I figure that most people who come here have already heard John 3:16; in fact some of them can probably read the Bible in the original languages, which I can't. So, although people sometimes ask me why I don't defend mine, I haven't been able to come up with a reason to, here. And I'm sorry when people take that personally. But...it's just the way it is, for me, so far.

I have a website; people are free to read it and draw their own conclusions from it. I have posted the URL to the church where I am a member and it's on my website too. People are free to go there and draw their own conclusions. As they do seem to like to do!

love
Helen

David Mathews

Hello Kind Bud,[

David: Jesus' sacrifice is real within the context of reality present in this Universe. That flesh and blood are not real is acknowledged numerous times in the Scriptures.

All people should keep in mind that atoms do not volunteer to bind themselves into the complex chemicals which compose a living body. Atoms prefer independence, they will escape from their bonds without reservation and leave the body without regret. The atoms which compose your body don't care about the body and they have no desire to preserve life.

You don't own your own atoms. Your atoms are not loyal to you. In what sense are you real?

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Ted Hoffman

David,
David: Jesus' sacrifice is real within the context of reality present in this Universe. That flesh and blood are not real is acknowledged numerous times in the Scriptures
Is reality real?
Is a mountain and a sea real?
if human flesh and blood are not real, you need to explain why Jesus had to ressurect in flesh and blood. And if you will tell us that his body transformed, you should also explain to what his body transformed to.

In essence what you are telling us is that christs suffering on the cross was a ruse ie. not real (symbolic). If that is the case, doesnt that mean there was NO historical Jesus? ie Christinity is based on something that never took place (ie symbolic or not real)? ie a lie?

The atoms which compose your body don't care about the body and they have no desire to preserve life.
They do not have to. "Caring" is a mental thing - a result of neourones firing in the brain and the memories and psychological conditioning.

Even "life" itself is just used to describe atoms working in a particular coordinated manner. There is no life without atoms.

Without atoms, you have nothing.

Thats why your description of God as unchanging, immaterial, infinite, invisible and undetectable is merely a description of nothing.

Only atoms can produce/ emit forces/ charges that can change atoms.

So, what exactly is life? And where is it in the human body? You will find that life is just a state of those atoms (that make up body organs and systems).

You don't own your own atoms. Your atoms are not loyal to you. In what sense are you real?

I think therefore I am.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: IntenSity ]</p>

Theli

1st of all, "Atoms prefer independence"?
huh?
How can atoms prefer things?
Don't you believe that aminoacids are made of atoms?
I would say (reffering to gravity) that atoms like grouphugging rather than independence.

Is this what you would say at a chemistry lesson.
I give you an F-.

Didn't he sacrifice his body?
I mean, his spirit still lives in heaven, right?
So his sacrifice was flesh and blood, in another word - not real.

So everything made of matter is not real?
It was not a long time ago that you told me that "physical" is all that is real.
And that god was outside reality because he was nonphysical... remember?

To end my reply - Is anything at all real?

HelenM

Hi David

I am confused by your use of the term 'real'.

It's quite simple to say that 'the blood of Christ' is metaphorical in the same way that if I give you a check that is not 'real' dollars; in fact if I give you cash the paper isn't worth the value the cash represents.

So in this world we are all familiar with dealing with representations.

The point is that the blood of Christ is a representation; there is - we believe - a promise behind it, from God, that we are forgiven; "the blood of Christ' is the symbol, representation or metaphor, that Christians linguistically and conceptually refer to, to mean that. Christians understand what they mean by it; they have learned to understand it.

If you're here with the intention of having as meaningful interaction as possible with people here, I suggest you do your best to use words in the same sense that they do. I sense that you aren't, exactly, with the word 'real'. If by using it a different way you are trying to make a point I think it would be easier for all of us if you could simply make the point in plain language.

I hope this suggestion doesn't count as being 'unloving'

love
Helen

Ryanfire

We should use our time more wisely and stop talking to somebody that does not exist, as david does not exist in reality, as reality is not real.
He is a contradiction unto himself, he exists, but existence isn't real.

I don't know what you guys think, but from a psychology viewpoint, david lives a life of imagination and nothing more.

Contradictions are truth, imagination is truth, reality is false, god is false in a false reality, god is real in imagination.

Keep living a fantasy David, best of luck to you.

I must now go talk to my coworkers who don't exist. That'll be fun

Ryan.

madmax2976

Hello David,

<strong> Funny David, for something that "is not much at all", you seem to rail against it a lot. So do a lot of other theists.

For clarity David, atheism isn't supposed to be more than a position on a subject. Thus your attempt at deriding it for not being more than that is completely non-sensical. If you really want to disparage atheism, you'll have to come up with something better than this sort of double talk.

<strong> I suspect you think no one will notice you left off the other definition, that being the lack of belief in any deities. Your really sneaky David. (or is it dishonesty?)

But again, this whole point is based on nothing more than your illogical implication that atheism should be more than it is. I supposed since you can't come up with any facts or logic with which to disparage atheism, this is all you've got to work with.

<strong> Actually it also address the lack of belief in any deities and I'm sure you know this. The fact that you leave it off is most telling in regards to what your actually attempting to do here.

But in any case, if you believe your statement above is true, then you have no point to make at all apparently and thus your characterization of atheism as "not much at all", is meaningless.

As I suspected, you actually have no point to make, other than an obvious attempt at the derision of atheism.

<strong> The statements "There are no gods", "God does not exist", and "I don't believe in any God or Gods", all clearly do have meaning, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

If I tell someone I don't believe in any God or Gods, I am quite sure most people will have an understanding of what that statement means. Thus your characterization of those statements as being "empty and meaningless", as usual, has no factual support or logic to support it.

As for your unsupported assertion that atheists view their position on the existence of deities as having "great importance", I have no idea what point this is suppose to make either. Even if it were true, it may be incomprehensible to you, but that hardly means its incomprehensible to others.

So try again David to support your statement about atheism being incomprehensible in some way. So far you have failed completely. If all you mean is that its incomprehensible to you, than thats not saying much.

<strong> There are many mystery's in nature. Whats your point? If all you mean by "incomprehensible" is that there are things that are currently not understood, then thats fine. But as you attempted to deride naturalism by claiming it couldn't explain everything, this is obviously not the sense you intended, as it would be absurd to think we would currently have absolute knowledge of all that is natural.

You obviously intended to say that naturalism cannot ever explain certain things. Now I have called you on this and you have yet to dredge up any support for it whatsoever. So I ask you again to support the statement or withdraw it. So far your batting zero.

<strong> All these questions are irrelevant given the context of your statement David. Even if I had no answer for any of them, all that would mean is that I currently have no answer. It does NOT mean that there is no natural answer which was clearly the intent of your claim.

So again David, please prove that there is something that naturalism cannot answer - not something we don't currently understand - but something it cannot ever answer.

All these posts and David has still failed to support any assertions regarding atheism or his own theism - amazing.

[ July 03, 2002: Message edited by: madmax2976 ]</p>