Pred's Fantasy Football Forums

Pred's Fantasy Football Forums (http://predsff.com/forums//index.php)
-   Open Discussion (http://predsff.com/forums//forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   Why I am not an atheist. (http://predsff.com/forums//showthread.php?t=8956)

randilover February 13th, 2006 12:31 PM
Why I am not an atheist.
 
One good turn deserves another. The links will take you to a speech given. You can download the mp3 to listen at your convenience.
Part 1:
http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.p...=detail&id=617
Part 2:
http://www.rzim.org/radio/archives.p...=detail&id=623

Nittany Dodgers February 13th, 2006 03:48 PM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Well, I gave this an honest listen. I downloaded and listened to both parts, and as should surprise no one, I was greatly unaffected.

His speech boils down to the following: without God, there is no law, no hope, no meaning, and if you are wrong, there is no recovery.

Law can be debated endlessly. As I previously stated and argued, laws can be based on something other than God. Those who believe in God disagree. It is as simple as that and you can make no compromises to that.

No hope (infering, no hope after death). Correct, for the atheist does not believe in life after death, so why is that a compelling argument?

No meaning? Well, personally, I don't think there is this great meaning to life universal to all. I do agree with the speaker there could be a hint at the meaning of life in kids. Unfortunately, that meaning can be gleaned separately by spiritualists as well as evolutionists. It could very well be that my feelings that my kids give my life meaning is a inherited trait, because that very feeling increases the chances that my kids will thrive and survive, and therefor pass that trait on. Not entirely unplausable.

The last item is Pascal's wager. To a person without faith, this means nothing. If I suppose for a minute there is a God, I would suppose that he can understand my heart, and he would know that even if I pretended for my life I believed in a God, he would know when I got to the pearly gates that I lied to myself for my entire life, because I do not actually believe in a God, and therefor faked it in hopes of eternal life. Do I think that would be rewarded? No, I do not. So I am still where I started with no motivation, or convincement there is a God.

randilover February 13th, 2006 07:09 PM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Well, I gave this an honest listen. I downloaded and listened to both parts, and as should surprise no one, I was greatly unaffected.


Well, I think it’s great that you listened. You’re a fair man, Brian. Actually, these statements are really honest. I mean really honest. It's appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Law can be debated endlessly. As I previously stated and argued, laws can be based on something other than God. Those who believe in God disagree. It is as simple as that and you can make no compromises to that.
It actually isn’t a disagreement, it’s a matter of fact. Without a God, you can do whatever you want. His point was a moral law, not laws in general. He actually draws a contrast between cultural laws and a moral law. For example, remember the Nazi trial point he made. If there is not moral law, then what did those men do wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
No hope (infering, no hope after death). Correct, for the atheist does not believe in life after death, so why is that a compelling argument?
I thought this was surprisingly compelling. What do you do with justice that is not carried out, etc? And it is extrapolated to be no hope for this life. Those who have no hope in the next life have no hope in this one, and without hope, what is the point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
No meaning? Well, personally, I don't think there is this great meaning to life universal to all.
I don’t mean this in a derogatory way at all, I truly don’t. I don’t know you real well, other than what’s been discussed here, and a few pictures of your boys, but this is a sad statement. I don’t know what I’d do if the things that came my way did not have meaning, that he experiences, and the emotions, the thoughts and vitality that come my way and pass through my life just hit a point and stop without carrying out through to meaning, to someone other and outer than myself. I wouldn’t know where to place the emotions and feelings I have towards my wife and kids, how to deal with them on that level, to explain to them that they are valuable, and their lives are meaningful. What on earth do you say to them if not.

Again, I’m not trying to take a higher ground and look down on you point, or intellectually get one up on your or anything like that. I mean, man to man, what do you do?

Ravi made the exact point I’ve made before (which you guys seemed surprised at). If this is all there is, why do what you are doing? Why keep going? Why not just spend all you can out of your body and cash out? Or do you not hold to account those that do? Are you simply just "rolling the stone to the top of the hill" without asking why?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I do agree with the speaker there could be a hint at the meaning of life in kids. Unfortunately, that meaning can be gleaned separately by spiritualists as well as evolutionists. It could very well be that my feelings that my kids give my life meaning is a inherited trait, because that very feeling increases the chances that my kids will thrive and survive, and therefor pass that trait on. Not entirely unplausable.
On this point, his kid story was simply the 3rd level, and he was using it to make a point. If there is something going on their, what is it. Can a man like Bertran Russell say the biggest longing of his life never achieved was love if it is simply some left over trait of some primate ancestor? What about the deaths we as men all go through, burying parents, brothers, sisters, and for some children? What about the unmet longings those deaths bring?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
The last item is Pascal's wager. To a person without faith, this means nothing. If I suppose for a minute there is a God, I would suppose that he can understand my heart, and he would know that even if I pretended for my life I believed in a God, he would know when I got to the pearly gates that I lied to myself for my entire life, because I do not actually believe in a God, and therefor faked it in hopes of eternal life. Do I think that would be rewarded? No, I do not. So I am still where I started with no motivation, or convincement there is a God.
Ah, I think you missed his point slightly. He's not making the point to just do it anyway, whether you believe it or not. (God like you, doesn't appreciate phony facades.) Remember, he says Pascal meant it existentially. Meaning that for the atheist, he has no compelling argument as to why the theist is incorrect, because if all there is in this life is this life, and the theist is happy being a theist, then what is the problem with his point of view. He couldn't be a lose by mistake. I thought it was noteworthy too that the atheist has to make himself think it through, to be sure of himself, because there really is no recovery if he is incorrect.

smsmith40 February 14th, 2006 03:39 AM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Ravi made the exact point I’ve made before (which you guys seemed surprised at). If this is all there is, why do what you are doing? Why keep going? Why not just spend all you can out of your body and cash out? Or do you not hold to account those that do? Are you simply just "rolling the stone to the top of the hill" without asking why?
Well, I suppose I am just a rationalist, I have no need to ask why I am here or what the purpose of my life is. I am just living it, I don't know why I don't engage in a life of complete hedonism but I don't. It has nothing to do with religion, God, the bible or anything else.

Personally I think that the rules that the vast majority of societies live to, Christian, Secular, Muslim, Jewish, Multi-theistic or animalistic (sp?) are pretty much the same, and that is no co-incidence. Societies that for instance do not have a strong taboo on murder do not survive, the same with incest or theft are much less likely to survive. Love thy neighbour is a pretty good thing because societies that put the common good first are stronger than societies where the individual takes precedence.

Natural selection took care of those societies where these rules were not in place.

p.s. I can't source any of this because it is my own personal thing, although I am not suggesting any unique thought on my part.

Nittany Dodgers February 14th, 2006 08:56 AM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover

Well, I think it’s great that you listened. You’re a fair man, Brian. Actually, these statements are really honest. I mean really honest. It's appreciated.

Well, after hammering evolution into the ground, a new line of discussion is probably called for. I will say at the outset that I am no philsopher. While I did read a good deal of philosophy in college, it wasn't my strong suit. Thus, I won't delve too deeply into philosophical debates quite the same as I would a scientific one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
It actually isn’t a disagreement, it’s a matter of fact. Without a God, you can do whatever you want. His point was a moral law, not laws in general. He actually draws a contrast between cultural laws and a moral law. For example, remember the Nazi trial point he made. If there is not moral law, then what did those men do wrong?
You contradicted yourself there, or else you didn't really agree with me. Without God, there still can be right and wrong based on societal rules and standards. Right and wrong in a religously moral sense? Probably not, but good and bad can still be defined without God. The speaker was big on word definitions, so lets look at "moral." At dictionary.com, the first definition for moral is: "of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." Now, let's look at the definition of "goodness." One of the definitions of goodness is "that which is good or valuable or useful." So, a society can define was is good or bad (right or wrong) by an actions usefulness to the success of that society. Obviously, killing a bunch of people for no reason other than their religous beliefs does not inherantly benefit society, so it can easily be defined as wrong.


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I thought this was surprisingly compelling. What do you do with justice that is not carried out, etc? And it is extrapolated to be no hope for this life. Those who have no hope in the next life have no hope in this one, and without hope, what is the point?
I don't believe anything will happen to me after I die. Therefor I realize I have one shot in this one. I can't do this (life) again, so everything I need to do, want to do, I have to do now. That's the point. What do I need hope for? What am I hoping for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I don’t mean this in a derogatory way at all, I truly don’t. I don’t know you real well, other than what’s been discussed here, and a few pictures of your boys, but this is a sad statement. I don’t know what I’d do if the things that came my way did not have meaning, that he experiences, and the emotions, the thoughts and vitality that come my way and pass through my life just hit a point and stop without carrying out through to meaning, to someone other and outer than myself. I wouldn’t know where to place the emotions and feelings I have towards my wife and kids, how to deal with them on that level, to explain to them that they are valuable, and their lives are meaningful. What on earth do you say to them if not.
While I said there is no universal meaning to life, that does not mean there can be no point to life. I think each person needs to find for themself what their life is about. For me, with the birth of my kids, my life is about my family. One of my good friends has absolutely no desire to have kids. Can I honestly look at him and make an assessment that his life, becuase he has not drawn the same conclusions as me, has no point? I would be arrogant to do so. And (this is not derogatory either), but I think anyone who tells someone else what the point of their life is is arrogant as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Again, I’m not trying to take a higher ground and look down on you point, or intellectually get one up on your or anything like that. I mean, man to man, what do you do?

Ravi made the exact point I’ve made before (which you guys seemed surprised at). If this is all there is, why do what you are doing? Why keep going? Why not just spend all you can out of your body and cash out? Or do you not hold to account those that do? Are you simply just "rolling the stone to the top of the hill" without asking why?
Much like smith said, I don't ask "why" too much. It's probably because I don't think their is an overall answer, so it is pointless to ask. I think there are a lot of people out there, either in bad situations, living in poverty, experiencing poor family relations, living in violent conditions, that need an answer as to why. It is not an answer I seek or need.


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Ah, I think you missed his point slightly. He's not making the point to just do it anyway, whether you believe it or not. (God like you, doesn't appreciate phony facades.) Remember, he says Pascal meant it existentially. Meaning that for the atheist, he has no compelling argument as to why the theist is incorrect, because if all there is in this life is this life, and the theist is happy being a theist, then what is the problem with his point of view. He couldn't be a lose by mistake. I thought it was noteworthy too that the atheist has to make himself think it through, to be sure of himself, because there really is no recovery if he is incorrect.
As I understand it, Pasca's wager does nothing but reassue one who believes in God that he is not wasting his time. Right? Here's a question. What if you are worshipping the wrong God?

randilover February 15th, 2006 11:18 AM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Well, after hammering evolution into the ground, a new line of discussion is probably called for. I will say at the outset that I am no philsopher. While I did read a good deal of philosophy in college, it wasn't my strong suit. Thus, I won't delve too deeply into philosophical debates quite the same as I would a scientific one.
Well, considering I took fine arts at community college and have no degree, you are probably better read than I am. I am to philosophy what you are to science, somewhat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
You contradicted yourself there, or else you didn't really agree with me. Without God, there still can be right and wrong based on societal rules and standards. Right and wrong in a religously moral sense? Probably not, but good and bad can still be defined without God.
They can be, but that definition will change. The non-theist tries to come up with morals with no moral framework. It’ll collapse if that’s the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
The speaker was big on word definitions, so lets look at "moral." At dictionary.com, the first definition for moral is: "of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character." Now, let's look at the definition of "goodness." One of the definitions of goodness is "that which is good or valuable or useful." So, a society can define was is good or bad (right or wrong) by an actions usefulness to the success of that society. Obviously, killing a bunch of people for no reason other than their religous beliefs does not inherantly benefit society, so it can easily be defined as wrong.
Don’t forget this one: GOOD- Being positive or desirable in nature

But according to their definition of good, it does benefit them. That was his point. (You showing you hand here, saying killing someone for a certain reason is not beneficial.) What do you do with someone, like the Nazi’s, in his example. You either have to say their trials against them were unjust, or else they were wrong to do what they did. But if you say wrong, what are you appealing to?

There’s nothing wrong with killing someone if you believe, as they did, that they were a detriment to their society. Their belief was one of evolutionary superiority, their race was better than the others. Since it was inherent in them that they were inferior, you send them to a concentration camp, get as much work out of them as you can, then dispose of them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, this was it’s outworking. Neitzche wrote about the death of God. Hitler was a Neitzche disciple. He based what he did off of his ideas and writings. His superman idea was taken right from Neitzche. You heard the speaker talking about Hitler giving a copy of Neitzche’s writings to Mussolini. According to Hitler, "God was dead," man could make his own rules.

Ravi makes a point, in another of his messages (or was it this one), when you take an ethics class, towards the end they will always ask you a question something like the, "Is it right to torture babies?" He further makes the point he’s never heard anyone say yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I don't believe anything will happen to me after I die. Therefor I realize I have one shot in this one. I can't do this (life) again, so everything I need to do, want to do, I have to do now. That's the point.
Well, I agree with part of it. The second part is good, and I would agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
What do I need hope for? What am I hoping for?
What about the examples he gives, the statistics on kids who are useless in the classroom due to not being able to concentrate? If you take hope away from people, you take away their reason to live. What do you tell a generation of people whoa re being raised with no hope communicated to them? What do you do to keep them going? Tell them, "No, those longings and deep questions you have are not real, just old instinctual reactions to left overs from your ascention from long arms and thick foreheads. Make up your own point." You take away their hope, you lose them. Either they will take the way of despair (as we see exemplified in the school shooters) or else some other explanation will come in and take over. Nature abhors a vacuum, right?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
While I said there is no universal meaning to life, that does not mean there can be no point to life.
I think these are related. If there is no meaning, if there is no reason to rolling the stone up the hill, why roll the stone up the hill? As Ravi gave the example, if the overarching umbrella has not meaning, why would anything under that arch have one. It wouldn’t even know where to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I think each person needs to find for themself what their life is about. For me, with the birth of my kids, my life is about my family. One of my good friends has absolutely no desire to have kids. Can I honestly look at him and make an assessment that his life, becuase he has not drawn the same conclusions as me, has no point? I would be arrogant to do so. And (this is not derogatory either), but I think anyone who tells someone else what the point of their life is is arrogant as well.
Unless the one telling you the point was the one who designed the point, or very well is the reason for the point. ;-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Much like smith said, I don't ask "why" too much. It's probably because I don't think their is an overall answer, so it is pointless to ask. I think there are a lot of people out there, either in bad situations, living in poverty, experiencing poor family relations, living in violent conditions, that need an answer as to why. It is not an answer I seek or need.
Well, it might take some reasoning to wonder if there was no reason for the point, how did the answer ever get asked. The principle of the first cause, kind of thing. If it wasn’t there to begin with, how did it find it’s way into the equation.

I’d also say, it’s more those who have not become wearied with pain, but those who are wearied with pleasure who are the ones who ask the question why. Think of Preds’ post on FF. He’s gotten to a point (as have most of us, it seems) where it doesn't really matter anymore. He was in pursuit of something, reached the goal and realized that wasn’t what he wanted. Deion Sanders said one of the worst moments of his life was after winning the Superbowl with the Cowboys. He got back to his hotel room, ordered a Lamborghini (I think) and said he felt totally empty. He had reached the pinnacle, and found out it’s empty there as well. He goes on to talk about his Christian conversion. G.K. Chesterton says if the problem of pain is a question for the Christian, the problem of pleasure is the question for the atheist. When the goal of a man is himself, and he reaches all that he wants, but still finds himself empty, what’s that say about his goal? Men like Satre and Oscar Wilde, both get to the end of their pleasure filled lives still asking questions, and very often denouncing those things that they pursued for their entire lives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
As I understand it, Pascal's wager does nothing but reassue one who believes in God that he is not wasting his time. Right? Here's a question. What if you are worshipping the wrong God?
It’s not only that the theist isn’t wasting his time, but it should also make the point to the atheist to be sure of what he is doing, for there is no recovery from it. It’s an equation that, in one sense, is not balanced.

As for your question: Are you asking me why I follow Christ, or a hypothetical question of, "What if I am wrong?" I think I posted before on the first part on some reasons why. The greatest would be I know him. For the second, it’s a hard hypothetical to answer, as I know I’m not, so I’m not sure. Depends on which God I was wrong to, then the ensuing consequences.

Nittany Dodgers February 15th, 2006 06:01 PM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Well, considering I took fine arts at community college and have no degree, you are probably better read than I am. I am to philosophy what you are to science, somewhat.
While I may be better read, I have little to no recollection of the early modern politically philsophical thinkers (Kant, Neitsche, etc). I remember the earlier writers much better, but still not to the point I'd be able to debate them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
They can be, but that definition will change. The non-theist tries to come up with morals with no moral framework. It’ll collapse if that’s the case.
We've already discussed this point. I've argued in my opinion sufficiently to the contrary. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

Don’t forget this one: GOOD- Being positive or desirable in nature

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
But according to their definition of good, it does benefit them. That was his point. (You showing you hand here, saying killing someone for a certain reason is not beneficial.) What do you do with someone, like the Nazi’s, in his example. You either have to say their trials against them were unjust, or else they were wrong to do what they did. But if you say wrong, what are you appealing to?
But I'm not talking in terms of their limited self interest of good. I'm talking a universally applicable definition. Is it good for society accross societies to eradicate minorities?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
There’s nothing wrong with killing someone if you believe, as they did, that they were a detriment to their society. Their belief was one of evolutionary superiority, their race was better than the others. Since it was inherent in them that they were inferior, you send them to a concentration camp, get as much work out of them as you can, then dispose of them. Nature is red in tooth and claw, this was it’s outworking. Neitzche wrote about the death of God. Hitler was a Neitzche disciple. He based what he did off of his ideas and writings. His superman idea was taken right from Neitzche. You heard the speaker talking about Hitler giving a copy of Neitzche’s writings to Mussolini. According to Hitler, "God was dead," man could make his own rules.

Even if I concede the point you make in the first paragraph, the argument falls flat on the second. Every one of their beliefs they relied on were false. Therefor, their justification is non-existant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
What about the examples he gives, the statistics on kids who are useless in the classroom due to not being able to concentrate? If you take hope away from people, you take away their reason to live. What do you tell a generation of people whoa re being raised with no hope communicated to them? What do you do to keep them going? Tell them, "No, those longings and deep questions you have are not real, just old instinctual reactions to left overs from your ascention from long arms and thick foreheads. Make up your own point." You take away their hope, you lose them. Either they will take the way of despair (as we see exemplified in the school shooters) or else some other explanation will come in and take over. Nature abhors a vacuum, right?
Belief and dedication to the Christian faith have given countless people hope and reason to "do good" however you want to define that. I have no problem with that. That dedication usually leads to a life that is productive and beneficial to others. That cannot be argued as a bad thing. Holding up to Christian ideals helps some people out, and it could even be said that it benefits society that live up to its ideals consistently. That, however, is not proof of its "truth." There are just as many people who have lived good lives without the need to be dedicated to Christianity. The problem arises when those who are Christian decide that everyone else must be Christian as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Unless the one telling you the point was the one who designed the point, or very well is the reason for the point. ;-)
He never told me anything. I like Ravi's story about the guy who died and met God and said something to the effect of "you never gave me enough proof you existed." That is EXACTLY how evolutionists look at IDers. How can you look at the evidence and not be convinced? It doesn't make any sense to us, just as it doesn't make any sense to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I’d also say, it’s more those who have not become wearied with pain, but those who are wearied with pleasure who are the ones who ask the question why. Think of Preds’ post on FF. He’s gotten to a point (as have most of us, it seems) where it doesn't really matter anymore. He was in pursuit of something, reached the goal and realized that wasn’t what he wanted. Deion Sanders said one of the worst moments of his life was after winning the Superbowl with the Cowboys. He got back to his hotel room, ordered a Lamborghini (I think) and said he felt totally empty. He had reached the pinnacle, and found out it’s empty there as well. He goes on to talk about his Christian conversion. G.K. Chesterton says if the problem of pain is a question for the Christian, the problem of pleasure is the question for the atheist. When the goal of a man is himself, and he reaches all that he wants, but still finds himself empty, what’s that say about his goal? Men like Satre and Oscar Wilde, both get to the end of their pleasure filled lives still asking questions, and very often denouncing those things that they pursued for their entire lives.
I imagine people get pretty self respective when they near death. Death is probably a scary thing. I don't put a lot of stock in the near death philosophy as anyone. Why would that give you more clarity to answer life's questions? I would think that when you are free from the iminent danger of death, you would be in a better position to reasonably weigh evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
It’s not only that the theist isn’t wasting his time, but it should also make the point to the atheist to be sure of what he is doing, for there is no recovery from it. It’s an equation that, in one sense, is not balanced.
That doesn't answer my earlier challenge to it from the non-believers point of view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
As for your question: Are you asking me why I follow Christ, or a hypothetical question of, "What if I am wrong?" I think I posted before on the first part on some reasons why. The greatest would be I know him. For the second, it’s a hard hypothetical to answer, as I know I’m not, so I’m not sure. Depends on which God I was wrong to, then the ensuing consequences.
I know well enough why you follow Christ. I want to know what you think about the posibility of being wrong. I know you think there is no chance. But consider it for a minute. Assume the consequences are the same for you as they would be for, say, me who does not follow Christ. Assume the other god, whoever it is, has the same consequences for someone who does not devote his life to worshipping him in the way he wants. What then? What does Pascal's wager tell you then?

randilover February 20th, 2006 09:47 AM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
We've already discussed this point. I've argued in my opinion sufficiently to the contrary. We'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
No, I don’t think you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
But I'm not talking in terms of their limited self interest of good. I'm talking a universally applicable definition. Is it good for society accross societies to eradicate minorities?
You are arguing with me that there is no universally applicable definition of good. You are telling me that it is up to a society or a culture to determine if it is good to eradicate minorities. If not, what are you appealing to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Even if I concede the point you make in the first paragraph, the argument falls flat on the second. Every one of their beliefs they relied on were false. Therefor, their justification is non-existant.
What beliefs were false? They just lost the war.

The problem with your present world view is this: You view is that you are a good person, living with a scientific framework or a naturalistic framework, you will never be able to logically answer why you should live your way and not any other way. Atheistic philosophers have even said naturalists and atheists have no rationally compelling reason to be good. Hitler built his framework on the same worldview as yours. Nature shuns equality, why should have he looked for equality?

I’m not saying you’re not good. I think you definitely are. You think rationally and critically. You pursuing the best interest of your kids is one of the greatest things I can think of. The Christian never says you cannot be good, it only says you have no compelling reason to be good. The only reason you can really give is in some self-serving reason that it is better for humanity, but better begs the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Belief and dedication to the Christian faith have given countless people hope and reason to "do good" however you want to define that. I have no problem with that. That dedication usually leads to a life that is productive and beneficial to others. That cannot be argued as a bad thing. Holding up to Christian ideals helps some people out, and it could even be said that it benefits society that live up to its ideals consistently. That, however, is not proof of its "truth." There are just as many people who have lived good lives without the need to be dedicated to Christianity. The problem arises when those who are Christian decide that everyone else must be Christian as well.
I would make an argument that it does, at least to some extent, testify to its truth. If the fruit is good, the tree must be as well. Doesn’t logic conform to reality? But see above. Again, the Christian never says you cannot be good, it only says you have no reason to be good (which then means you have no reason not to be bad). If the evidence of something is validity of it’s truth, you have to weight that into the proof of its being right, much the same way you would look at most of the choices me make every day.

The Christian never decides everyone else must be Christian. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean as it pertains to eternal life/heaven, or just that everyone has to act like a Christian no matter what? As for the first part, the exclusivity we have discussed and doesn’t really discount any of it’s claims, and I’m not sure the second part is true. Just because you sleep in the garage does not make you a car. Making someone act like a Christian is not making him or her to be Christian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
He never told me anything. I like Ravi's story about the guy who died and met God and said something to the effect of "you never gave me enough proof you existed." That is EXACTLY how evolutionists look at IDers. How can you look at the evidence and not be convinced? It doesn't make any sense to us, just as it doesn't make any sense to you.
That was Bertrand Russell, I think. There’s two parts to this. This is why I always say it’s a moral problem, not an evidential one. If it were an evidential one, once the evidence was shown, there’d be no argument. The problem is that that evidence is never compelling enough. You may assume that one day it will be, but by doing show you have showed your hand that it doesn’t at this point, yet you desire to do just that. The problem, from the biblical perspective, is that it isn’t a lack of evidence, it’s a suppression of the truth. See, without "evidence" of God, man can do what he wants and make up his own rules. So he can determine when life begins, who’s worthy of living and dying, his own rules for his behavior, etc. There’s a vested interest in man to keep God out of the equation.

Ever hear of Anthony Flew? The world’s most prolific atheist and he recently came forward saying atheism no longer offers the answers to the questions life gives. It’s been said it would be as if Billy Graham announced he was an atheist. Now, here’s a completely rational man, who as time has gone by has debated the historicirty of Jesus and the resurrection, thought through all the issues, etc., and he comes out thinking differently. He’s not a Christian, I hear it’s more of a Deist point of view. But theistic nonetheless.

The second would be that it doesn’t work that way. Belief works on faith, which is inherently based on something that isn’t necessarily an evidence issue, although not irrational. It’s not a destination that the true Christian person seeks after, it’s not a state of mind, and it’s not a location that is important to him. It’s a relationship, of which faith is the fuel. There’s not much good in saying why is it faith based. That’s the way it is. It’d be like asking why your car has to run on gasoline. Ask all you want, you’re not going to get to work without fuel in the tank.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I imagine people get pretty self respective when they near death. Death is probably a scary thing. I don't put a lot of stock in the near death philosophy as anyone. Why would that give you more clarity to answer life's questions? I would think that when you are free from the iminent danger of death, you would be in a better position to reasonably weigh evidence.
I would say the opposite. A man who is at the end can look back at the whole and judge it’s value better than the man in the midst of it. Its why near death experiences can be so life changing for people. It puts all the desires you encounter on a daily basis in perspective of the whole of time, not just the immediate future. If death was near, the things that are truly valuable become even more so, the things that meant little will not even be thought of. It’s why funerals are defined by eulogies that sound like, "He was a faithful husband." Or, "He was a great father," and never, "He could handle an adjustable wrench better than anyone I knew." Death is the great equalizer. Whether you believe is a life after death or not, we’d do well to mark the perspective of someone nearer to death, talking of hopes or regrets, than one in the middle of it with no pending fate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
That doesn't answer my earlier challenge to it from the non-believers point of view.

I know well enough why you follow Christ. I want to know what you think about the posibility of being wrong. I know you think there is no chance. But consider it for a minute. Assume the consequences are the same for you as they would be for, say, me who does not follow Christ. Assume the other god, whoever it is, has the same consequences for someone who does not devote his life to worshipping him in the way he wants. What then? What does Pascal's wager tell you then?
That I am still no less off than you are.


Nittany Dodgers February 21st, 2006 09:00 AM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
No, I don’t think you have.

That's because you are being purposefully obtuse. What part of agree to disagree don't you understand?


Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
You are arguing with me that there is no universally applicable definition of good. You are telling me that it is up to a society or a culture to determine if it is good to eradicate minorities. If not, what are you appealing to?
I am arguing there is no universal arbitrary definition of good based on a relgious belief system. I am arguing there is a methodology to determine what is good and bad that can be applied universally. Will every society/culture come to the same conclusion following the same methodology on all of the details? Probably not, but that does not justify a society from attempting to wipe out a minority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
What beliefs were false? They just lost the war.
Are you being serious here? Are the "aryan" truly a superior race to the Jews? Were the Aryans really the master race of the world? Were the Jews really the cause of all of the problems in 1930s Germanic society?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
The problem with your present world view is this: You view is that you are a good person, living with a scientific framework or a naturalistic framework, you will never be able to logically answer why you should live your way and not any other way.
I can explain it and I have. You refuse to acknowledge it as a logical explanation because it does not fit your own narrow world view.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I would make an argument that it does, at least to some extent, testify to its truth. If the fruit is good, the tree must be as well. Doesn’t logic conform to reality? But see above. Again, the Christian never says you cannot be good, it only says you have no reason to be good (which then means you have no reason not to be bad). If the evidence of something is validity of it’s truth, you have to weight that into the proof of its being right, much the same way you would look at most of the choices me make every day.
That argument fails when it is noted there are a multitude of other peaceful, successful, "good" by any measure (other than the religion the hold to) societies that are not Christian. As the same evidence you just gave credence for proving Christianity proves the validity of their various religions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
The Christian never decides everyone else must be Christian. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean as it pertains to eternal life/heaven, or just that everyone has to act like a Christian no matter what? As for the first part, the exclusivity we have discussed and doesn’t really discount any of it’s claims, and I’m not sure the second part is true. Just because you sleep in the garage does not make you a car. Making someone act like a Christian is not making him or her to be Christian.
Explain the history of Evangelicallism, and the conversionism movement more specifically, then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
That was Bertrand Russell, I think. There’s two parts to this. This is why I always say it’s a moral problem, not an evidential one. If it were an evidential one, once the evidence was shown, there’d be no argument. The problem is that that evidence is never compelling enough. You may assume that one day it will be, but by doing show you have showed your hand that it doesn’t at this point, yet you desire to do just that. The problem, from the biblical perspective, is that it isn’t a lack of evidence, it’s a suppression of the truth. See, without "evidence" of God, man can do what he wants and make up his own rules. So he can determine when life begins, who’s worthy of living and dying, his own rules for his behavior, etc. There’s a vested interest in man to keep God out of the equation.
If God really exists, why would I have a vested interest in ignoring him? I lose out on the whole eternal life thing? So why would I want to do that? Life would be so much easier for me if I just believed. All my decisions would be easier. And I could live my life knowing when I died I'd just be going to heaven. What a load off my mind that would be. Tell me what I have to gain by ignoring God? The problem is I will not blinding accept something I find to be utterly rediculous. If this was any other topic of conversation, you would agree with me (not on the utterly rediculous part). If I wanted you to believe something only on the evidence that I was convinced of it, you would laugh in my face.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Ever hear of Anthony Flew? The world’s most prolific atheist and he recently came forward saying atheism no longer offers the answers to the questions life gives. It’s been said it would be as if Billy Graham announced he was an atheist. Now, here’s a completely rational man, who as time has gone by has debated the historicirty of Jesus and the resurrection, thought through all the issues, etc., and he comes out thinking differently. He’s not a Christian, I hear it’s more of a Deist point of view. But theistic nonetheless.
Here's the difference between you and I. My philisophical view of the world is not dependant on what others think. It does not convince me just for you to say some smart guy said something. No, I did not know who Anthony Flew was (and all I know of him now was what I gleaned of him in 5 minutes of googling him so I at least knew who he was).

Deism is actually a philosophy I don't have much of a problem with. I know you won't like the source, but the first line of description from the Wikipedia site is "Historical and modern Deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God." That sounds good to me. Erasing the reliance of revalation and tradition reduces most of the issues I have with modern Christianity. Besides, if I had to label myself, I'd label myself agnostic vs. atheistic, only because I am convinces I will never be able to determine if there is a God in my lifetime, and quite honestly, it is not all that important for me to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
The second would be that it doesn’t work that way. Belief works on faith, which is inherently based on something that isn’t necessarily an evidence issue, although not irrational. It’s not a destination that the true Christian person seeks after, it’s not a state of mind, and it’s not a location that is important to him. It’s a relationship, of which faith is the fuel. There’s not much good in saying why is it faith based. That’s the way it is. It’d be like asking why your car has to run on gasoline. Ask all you want, you’re not going to get to work without fuel in the tank.
I totally 100% agree with you that belief is dependant on faith. That is a much easier answer for me to swallow than page after page of trying to convince me that science is on your side as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I would say the opposite. A man who is at the end can look back at the whole and judge it’s value better than the man in the midst of it. Its why near death experiences can be so life changing for people. It puts all the desires you encounter on a daily basis in perspective of the whole of time, not just the immediate future. If death was near, the things that are truly valuable become even more so, the things that meant little will not even be thought of. It’s why funerals are defined by eulogies that sound like, "He was a faithful husband." Or, "He was a great father," and never, "He could handle an adjustable wrench better than anyone I knew." Death is the great equalizer. Whether you believe is a life after death or not, we’d do well to mark the perspective of someone nearer to death, talking of hopes or regrets, than one in the middle of it with no pending fate.
First off, near death and death bed are far from the same thing. Near death experiences are a totally different ball of wax. I don't know how many people you have been in contact with on their death bed. I have been in contact with only a few that I knew personally, and a number more in a brief stint as a volunteer in an "old folks home" as we used to call them. None of them would I look to for any philisophical insight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
That I am still no less off than you are.
Is that really the best you can come up with?

randilover February 22nd, 2006 02:02 PM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
That's because you are being purposefully obtuse. What part of agree to disagree don't you understand?
It was the part where you said you have sufficiently explained your self. See my next point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I am arguing there is no universal arbitrary definition of good based on a relgious belief system. I am arguing there is a methodology to determine what is good and bad that can be applied universally.
Sure it can, but based on what? That is my point. You can’t have a methodology in a vacuum. It can’t start from nothing. It has to have something it can point to as the starting point. I’m arguing for conscience based on man and what we know of him. It’s not based on a belief system, it’s based on what you and I (and others) know to be true based on what we appeal to when we talk about right and wrong. As far as moral law is concerned, I haven’t even brought up a belief system. I’m making the point that people as a whole stick to a moral law, therefore there must be a moral law giver. I haven’t come close to the Christian God when I talk about that.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Will every society/culture come to the same conclusion following the same methodology on all of the details? Probably not, but that does not justify a society from attempting to wipe out a minority.
Yes, it does. There’s not much you can say differently about it, if they believed that is right, what are you going to say to them? What greater form of morality are you going to appeal to? If you just say yours because it’s better, you have to explain what you mean by better, but to do so you are lining yours and there’s up against a larger standard. Who’s standard is that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Are you being serious here? Are the "aryan" truly a superior race to the Jews? Were the Aryans really the master race of the world? Were the Jews really the cause of all of the problems in 1930s Germanic society?
No, no, and no, but I can explain why. I was making the point that you cannot, based on what you are telling me about no absolute moral law. I quoted Chesterton before, the problem with believing in God is not that you are believing in nothing, but that you will wind up believing in anything. You have no logical argument as to why they were wrong and you were right.

Hitler based his belief on Neitchze’s superman. He believed that Germany was superior because there they were, poised to take up that cause of superiority (over all other races, not just Jews), smarter and more technologically advanced than any other country or society on earth. Nature proves the strong survive, nature shuns equality, and therefore he could too. The problem was that, as Lewis said, he created men without chests. All physical strength, no heart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
I can explain it and I have. You refuse to acknowledge it as a logical explanation because it does not fit your own narrow world view.
Don’t get mean about it. Let’s take a step back and tone things done here. My point is I don’t think you have explained why you should live your way and not any other way. That’s what I keep hitting on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
That argument fails when it is noted there are a multitude of other peaceful, successful, "good" by any measure (other than the religion the hold to) societies that are not Christian. As the same evidence you just gave credence for proving Christianity proves the validity of their various religions.
Yes, but I’d never just offer than in and of itself as the reason why. It’s corroborative evidence, so to speak.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Explain the history of Evangelicallism, and the conversionism movement more specifically, then.
Is there something you are thinking of specifically? I’m not sure where we’d be going with this one (other than off on a tangent). Billy Graham never preached a crusade saying you should act a certain way. Passover came before the law was given. Redemption is always put before change in behavior.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
If God really exists, why would I have a vested interest in ignoring him? I lose out on the whole eternal life thing? So why would I want to do that? Life would be so much easier for me if I just believed. All my decisions would be easier. And I could live my life knowing when I died I'd just be going to heaven. What a load off my mind that would be. Tell me what I have to gain by ignoring God?
I actually said that above. Simply put, if there is no God, I can do what I want. I have no accountability. Man makes up his own rules. In the garden, the devil tempted Eve by stating, "God did not say…" He went on to say God doesn’t want you to do it because he knows you’ll be just like him if you do; in essence, be your own god. It’s been downhill ever since. It’s a pride thing. Man wants to be autonomous, on his own. Make his own rules, do what he wants. Problem is he find himself out there with no starting point, nothing to call home base.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
The problem is I will not blinding accept something I find to be utterly rediculous. If this was any other topic of conversation, you would agree with me (not on the utterly rediculous part). If I wanted you to believe something only on the evidence that I was convinced of it, you would laugh in my face.
I’m not asking you to. I’ve never talked about "blindly" accepting something. I’m just trying to make the point that there is a rationality to it, it’s not like you check your brain at the door to a church. It’s a misconception that faith and rationality are in conflict with each other. (On a side note, having it be ridiculous or not isn’t really an issue, one of the arguments for Christianity is that is it is quite conceivably one of the most ridiculous things ever thought of, proving the point a man wouldn't have come up with it.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Here's the difference between you and I. My philisophical view of the world is not dependant on what others think. It does not convince me just for you to say some smart guy said something.
Me either, but I was proving my assertion that it is not a rational hang up to believe in a god. There are completely rational people who do, and people who were atheistic and then through reasoning came to believe in a god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Deism is actually a philosophy I don't have much of a problem with. I know you won't like the source, but the first line of description from the Wikipedia site is "Historical and modern Deism is defined by the view that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God." That sounds good to me. Erasing the reliance of revalation and tradition reduces most of the issues I have with modern Christianity.
I’d agree with the revelation part, but not the tradition part. Jesus saved his harshest words for the traditionalists. They were the ones who crucified him, so you are in good company. As for the revelation part, I’m not sure what to say to that. That’s where you are, then so be it, I can respect that as a position. Would you explain why that is a hang up for you? Man to man I mean. I won’t attack you for it or anything. Just like to hear what you have to say.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Besides, if I had to label myself, I'd label myself agnostic vs. atheistic, only because I am convinces I will never be able to determine if there is a God in my lifetime, and quite honestly, it is not all that important for me to do so.

I totally 100% agree with you that belief is dependant on faith. That is a much easier answer for me to swallow than page after page of trying to convince me that science is on your side as well.
I don’t think science is antagonistic to my side either. But again, I wanted to make the point that it’s not irrational to believe in a god. I just think the Christian one is right because of how it answers the questions and longings that I have.

See, I’ve said before that it is not a place or mental state or behavior, it’s a relationship. I could not scientifically prove to you my wife. I could show you a birth certificate, a driver’s license, pictures of our wedding (man, did she look beautiful), etc. But that still wouldn’t prove to you she exists. But I could then talk to you about how much she means to me, how after I met her, she changed my life. How I love her qualities, like her driving pursuit of honesty and transparency, how great of a mother she is, her beauty, etc. We’d be a little closer, but you’d still have the potential to doubt. There’d have to be a point where you’d have to either say, "Look, I really believe your wife exists, can I meet her" or, "I believe she really could exist, but if so I’m not interested in meeting her." Faith is like that. I have some driver’s licenses, birth certificates, so to speak, and I am telling you that I have met that person and how beautiful his character is. But at some point there is a place where all that doesn’t matter because you’ll need to do the relating to, or at least let the evidence stand that that person could be there.

Now, we can both go separate ways, I don’t look down on you, or consider you less of a person or anything (except when I beat you next season in SAC’D), but that is the nature of it. Yes it is faith, but that says a lot more than just blindly leaping.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
First off, near death and death bed are far from the same thing. Near death experiences are a totally different ball of wax. I don't know how many people you have been in contact with on their death bed. I have been in contact with only a few that I knew personally, and a number more in a brief stint as a volunteer in an "old folks home" as we used to call them. None of them would I look to for any philisophical insight.
Yeah, I bet. But just thinking, are you saying you have a clearer view of life right now, or will it be better when it has been lived out and you can see where you went wrong, where all the blind spots were you were unaware of? How actions from when you were younger hurt others, etc.?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nittany Dodgers
Is that really the best you can come up with?
No, but this seems like a distant tangent and these posts are long enough.

Nittany Dodgers February 22nd, 2006 04:04 PM
Re: Why I am not an atheist.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
It was the part where you said you have sufficiently explained your self. See my next point.
The issue I took with you reply was your ignoring or missing the part of my statement where I said "in my opinion." Your response didn't reflect that, IMO, crucial part of my statement, resulting in my snippy reply.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Sure it can, but based on what? That is my point. You can’t have a methodology in a vacuum.
I've already cited a way to do this is another thread. It is a comprehensive moral philosophy that does not collapse upon itself. This is quite apparent to me. It is not to you. You disagree. I respect that. There is no resolution to this issue, so again we'll have to agree to disagree (we can wittle a number of these topics down pretty quickly).

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
As far as moral law is concerned, I haven’t even brought up a belief system. I’m making the point that people as a whole stick to a moral law, therefore there must be a moral law giver. I haven’t come close to the Christian God when I talk about that.
This is the same posturing Behe did in his response to the Dover school district opinion. When you, I, and the world know you are arguing for the basis of a Christian God as the moral law giver, it is really a waste of time for you to pretend you are not, or ignore the fact you are. Why should I waste my time arguing against and "unknown" absolute souce of moral authority when I know the "unknown" absolute source of moral authority you are arguing for is the Christian God? Why not focus the conversation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Yes, it does. There’s not much you can say differently about it, if they believed that is right, what are you going to say to them? What greater form of morality are you going to appeal to? If you just say yours because it’s better, you have to explain what you mean by better, but to do so you are lining yours and there’s up against a larger standard. Who’s standard is that?
I'm not saying mine is better, and that is the end of it. I'm saying it is not logical to say that eradicating a minority is beneficial to society as a whole. Your only response to that is "well, the Germans thought so" and my response is the Germans' reasoning was erroneous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
No, no, and no, but I can explain why. I was making the point that you cannot, based on what you are telling me about no absolute moral law. I quoted Chesterton before, the problem with believing in God is not that you are believing in nothing, but that you will wind up believing in anything. You have no logical argument as to why they were wrong and you were right.
I've already explained how I have come to my conclusion not using an abritrary belief system, but using logic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Hitler based his belief on Neitchze’s superman. He believed that Germany was superior because there they were, poised to take up that cause of superiority (over all other races, not just Jews), smarter and more technologically advanced than any other country or society on earth. Nature proves the strong survive, nature shuns equality, and therefore he could too. The problem was that, as Lewis said, he created men without chests. All physical strength, no heart.
You've repeatedly gone to the Neitchze well. Just because Hitler used Neitchze's philosophy for evil, does not justify the existience of a absolute moral authority. For the record, I agree with you here. Hitler was wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Don’t get mean about it. Let’s take a step back and tone things done here. My point is I don’t think you have explained why you should live your way and not any other way. That’s what I keep hitting on.
Because I'm quite sure I have explained it (not in this thread). You don't accept it. That's fine. I don't accept your philosophy either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Yes, but I’d never just offer than in and of itself as the reason why. It’s corroborative evidence, so to speak.
But corroborative evidence of a multitude of things. How much is that kind of evidence worth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Is there something you are thinking of specifically? I’m not sure where we’d be going with this one (other than off on a tangent). Billy Graham never preached a crusade saying you should act a certain way. Passover came before the law was given. Redemption is always put before change in behavior.
I'm thinking of the long Church history (both pre and post reformation, and both Catholic and Protestant post reformation) of Christians forcing (either overtly, or subtely) non-Christians to become Christians. It's not like Christians are known throughout the word of having a reputation of "we have a great religion here. Come join us if you like, but if not, no skin off our back." The history of Indian schools in this country and the recent Wedge Strategy are just two of a multitude of instances of Christians asserting, or attempting to assert their belief system onto a population.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I actually said that above. Simply put, if there is no God, I can do what I want. I have no accountability. Man makes up his own rules. In the garden, the devil tempted Eve by stating, "God did not say…" He went on to say God doesn’t want you to do it because he knows you’ll be just like him if you do; in essence, be your own god. It’s been downhill ever since. It’s a pride thing. Man wants to be autonomous, on his own. Make his own rules, do what he wants. Problem is he find himself out there with no starting point, nothing to call home base.
Autonomy is not my motivation at all, since I already believe there is another logic based method to determine morality. I don't believe I get to walk around and wreak havoc just because I don't think there is a god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I’m not asking you to. I’ve never talked about "blindly" accepting something. I’m just trying to make the point that there is a rationality to it, it’s not like you check your brain at the door to a church. It’s a misconception that faith and rationality are in conflict with each other.
I understand and conceed that it is possible to come to the conclusion that one should believe in Christianity. Like countless issues in American polticial life, rational people can disagree. Rationality neither proves or disproves either side. However, from my point of view, from what I have experienced and seen, it is not possible for me to come to the same rational conclusion you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
(On a side note, having it be ridiculous or not isn’t really an issue, one of the arguments for Christianity is that is it is quite conceivably one of the most ridiculous things ever thought of, proving the point a man wouldn't have come up with it.)
I've never heard that theory before. However, I would submit that it was far less rediculous 2000 years ago, which would to a certain degree, dillute that argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Me either, but I was proving my assertion that it is not a rational hang up to believe in a god. There are completely rational people who do, and people who were atheistic and then through reasoning came to believe in a god.
Agreed, but just because a number of people have come to that conclusion does not mean everyone eventually reaches that conclusion, nor would I agree it is the correct conclusion to reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I’d agree with the revelation part, but not the tradition part. Jesus saved his harshest words for the traditionalists. They were the ones who crucified him, so you are in good company. As for the revelation part, I’m not sure what to say to that. That’s where you are, then so be it, I can respect that as a position. Would you explain why that is a hang up for you? Man to man I mean. I won’t attack you for it or anything. Just like to hear what you have to say.
Well, assuming we are on the same page of revelations, as I am talking about the divine conversations between people and God and them being a foundation for a religion. That, to me, is impossible to determine what is and what is not authentic. Joseph Smith anyone?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
I don’t think science is antagonistic to my side either. But again, I wanted to make the point that it’s not irrational to believe in a god. I just think the Christian one is right because of how it answers the questions and longings that I have.
That's where were disagree. Unless you are using the Behe definition of science, the science just isn't on your side and that is why we will have no reconsiliation. I can find it rational if you come at me with arguments of faith, but once science is brought into the equation, Christianity become irrational.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
See, I’ve said before that it is not a place or mental state or behavior, it’s a relationship. I could not scientifically prove to you my wife. I could show you a birth certificate, a driver’s license, pictures of our wedding (man, did she look beautiful), etc. But that still wouldn’t prove to you she exists. But I could then talk to you about how much she means to me, how after I met her, she changed my life. How I love her qualities, like her driving pursuit of honesty and transparency, how great of a mother she is, her beauty, etc. We’d be a little closer, but you’d still have the potential to doubt. There’d have to be a point where you’d have to either say, "Look, I really believe your wife exists, can I meet her" or, "I believe she really could exist, but if so I’m not interested in meeting her." Faith is like that. I have some driver’s licenses, birth certificates, so to speak, and I am telling you that I have met that person and how beautiful his character is. But at some point there is a place where all that doesn’t matter because you’ll need to do the relating to, or at least let the evidence stand that that person could be there.
This goes to Smith's comments on the difference between proving something historically, and proving something scientifically. You can't prove scientifically that she does exist, similarly you can't prove scientifically that God exists (not yet anyway). You could prove to me sufficiently to satisfy me belief that your wife does exist by giving me at least anecdotal evidence that she does exist (stories, pictures, etc) that assuming I trust the source I would be convinced she did exist. But science doesn't enter the equation. It is not a scientific question. Same with God. You can give me the evidence you have that I can look at and judge, but it is not a question of science. Science does not enter the equation. I have yet to see any kind of compelling evidence for God's existience, and so I remain unconvinced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Now, we can both go separate ways, I don’t look down on you, or consider you less of a person or anything (except when I beat you next season in SAC’D), but that is the nature of it. Yes it is faith, but that says a lot more than just blindly leaping.
Hey, I thought we were keeping this civil?

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
Yeah, I bet. But just thinking, are you saying you have a clearer view of life right now, or will it be better when it has been lived out and you can see where you went wrong, where all the blind spots were you were unaware of? How actions from when you were younger hurt others, etc.?
As each year goes by I continue to see mistakes I have made. Time always allows oneself a better perspective on their live. However, when you have reached the almost certain end, that reflection is clouded by the unknown that is the long term future. That, in my opinion, cloud's one's judgement. At say the age of 50, someone who is in good health has the advantage of more years of self reflection to judge their life and come to conclusions more so than the same man at 40. At age 60, assuming continued good health, he'll be even better off to make those judgement. However, when he starts being affected by cancer, etc, and is near death and on top of a lifelong self introspection, he also has to determine what happens after he dies, he no longer has the ability to think and judge clearly. Fear as reared its ugly head. Fear of the unknown wasn't a factor (not immediately) at 40, 50, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by randilover
No, but this seems like a distant tangent and these posts are long enough.
Too bad. I posed this same scenario to a good friend of mine who recently converted to Catholism, and who has in the passed presented me with Pascal's Wager. The problem boils down to people who think Pascals' Wager is compelling think there are only 4 scenarios, when in fact there are a multitude of posibilities. Pascal's Wager only accounts for a minority of them.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2000-2022 - Preds Fantasy Football Forums