Atheists

[Ateam]

Welcome, Ateam.

If I am reading it correctly, your post seems to suggest that man created God through the Book of Genesis, and that if people stopped believing in the notion, the idea of "God" would fade, is that your position?

Thanks in advance,

t.

Do you believe that the Bible is an extraordinary book? My position of 'The Truth' is that the Bible is a collection of writings of unknown date and authorship rendered into english from supposed copies of supposed originals unfortunately lost.

Nice unbeliever rubber stamp. Quite silly.

[caughtinside]

Do you believe that the truth is out there, and that truth actually does exist as being true, or do you believe truth is relative?

Yes, I believe that "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

Do you also ask the same questions of Muslims and Hindus etc?

Sure. Those questions are open to everyone here. I even ask myself. It's a thought exercise. Here's a single true/false question for anyone: Some people have some wacky beliefs, but mine are all sensible. T [ ] F [ ]

[caughtinside]

I'm sorry you put so much time into that response, lady. It was never my intention to wrangle the points with you, only to show that there's a thoughtful response to your question, which though you won't agree with, you can see how someone else might reasonably hold them. I've been pretty clear about that.

[artsylady]

I don't think it will convince you that Secondeve is correct, but it does show a differing position that someone could reasonably hold. In other words, if our aim is to be open to the idea that others with differing views can be as sincere and "soft-hearted" as we are ourselves with ours, I think that response could be helpful.

I understand what you are saying. However, I disagree and feel that it in light of all of the evidence put forth it is more reasonable to assume the Bible was God inspired than carried out through purely human means.

At some point you have to weigh this kind of evidence. Here's just a short run-down, and they are explained in detail by many posters here.

If you don't believe the book is God inspired, you would have to believe it was a huge conspiracy involving many people (most of whom did not know each other), three languages, that spanned over thousands of years, that people died for, rather than renounce, that contained advanced knowledge and prophesy.

[caughtinside]

I don't think it will convince you that Secondeve is correct, but it does show a differing position that someone could reasonably hold. In other words, if our aim is to be open to the idea that others with differing views can be as sincere and "soft-hearted" as we are ourselves with ours, I think that response could be helpful.

I understand what you are saying. However, I disagree and feel that it in light of all of the evidence put forth it is more reasonable to assume the Bible was God inspired than carried out through purely human means.

Yes, artsylady, I figured you wouldn't agree that secondeve's explanation is MORE reasonable!!!!!!! Obviously, secondeve (and others) hold a different opinion than yours, and they have also put thought into theirs!!!!!! Aaaaagh!

Are you tryin' to wind me up? Sneaky cheeky.....

At some point you have to weigh this kind of evidence. Here's just a short run-down, and they are explained in detail by many posters here.

Prediction: that debate will never conclude.

If you don't believe the book is God inspired, you would have to believe it was a huge conspiracy involving many people (most of whom did not know each other), three languages, that spanned over thousands of years, that people died for, rather than renounce, that contained advanced knowledge and prophesy.

artsylady, CULTURE is a massive conspiracy!

Edited March 18, 2008 by caughtinside

[caughtinside]

artsylady, I'm pasting this over from the Pascal's Wager thread, as it seems like a continuation of ideas here:

Just because there are many ideas out there, and even some that are wacky, doesn't mean that all spiritual beliefs are false and untrue.

Of course not. I just noticed that it's interesting that we can see "wackiness" in others' ideas, but we feel our own are reasonable. I'm sure what to think about it. Dinosaurs on the ark? Personally I find that one way out there. But it's reasonable to someone else. Chimps and humans share a common ancestor? Wacky huh? It seems reasonable to me.

This is not an exploration of "What is true" or "What is real". Those are objective questions, and our beliefs are subjective. Maybe what's so intriguing is that for most people, beliefs don't feel subjective. Hence the common switching of the words "believe" and "know". I'm thinking outloud here, interested in other thoughts.

Do you believe in truth?

This reminds me of the question you asked me earlier (nearly identical...), and my answer would be the same. Our capacity to discern it notwithstanding, truth = reality There are other ways to use those those terms, but technically that's how I see it.

Edited March 18, 2008 by caughtinside

[artsylady]

When someone labels themselves as atheist, I do believe they are hard-hearted. In fact, it's find it hard for me to even respect this term. (Although the Bible teaches we are supposed to be respectful) I do have respect for the agnostic viewpoint, but when you say you know that there is no God, it seems arrogant. In order to know there is no God, you would have to BE a god, with all of the widsom of the ages....

It's amazing to me that christians label non-believers, especially atheists, as "arrogant." How is it any more arrogant to say, "I know that there is no god" than to say, "I know that there IS a god?"

No one KNOWS if there is or isn't a god.

I don't really see how the viewpoint that "there is a God - someone far more intelligent than I am and I worship Him" is "arrogant."

Can I ask you if the following sounds logical: "We know very little of our universe. The unknowns far outweigh the knowns. But I do know that there is not an intelligent creator in charge of it all"?

[Arthur Durnan]

The religion of atheism lacks vital certainty as it's based on ignorance of whether or not the Creator-God exists. Does atheism possess a GPS of the entire universe in its non-search for God? What if the Creator-God lives on Alpha Centauri or on Barnard's Star? How about Ross 154 or Luyten 1159-16? Maybe even Stein 2051 or Wolf 359? What about God's possible existence on the Martian Olypus Mons or on its Arabia Terra? Jupiter has, what, 39 moons, Saturn 35 including Pan, Prometheus, Mimas, Janus, Dione, etc? And they've just discovered 2003UB313 and its moon! Could be. Could quite possibly be. How can ANYONE state with clarity & certainty that a Creator-God "DOESN'T exist ANYWHERE AT ALL" unless that particular individual has concrete EVIDENCE to support the claim? An "agnostic"? Yes, of course. But a "definitely-NO-God atheist"? Sure, methinks of course, the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on. Check with Chris Hitchen's chief nemesis, razor-sharp Dinesh D'Souza.

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[caughtinside]

The religion of atheism lacks vital certainty as it's based on ignorance of whether or not the Creator-God exists. Does atheism possess a GPS of the entire universe in its non-search for God? What if the Creator-God lives on Alpha Centauri or on Barnard's Star? How about Ross 154 or Luyten 1159-16? Maybe even Stein 2051 or Wolf 359? What about God's possible existence on the Martian Olypus Mons or on its Arabia Terra? Jupiter has, what, 39 moons, Saturn 35 including Pan, Prometheus, Mimas, Janus, Dione, etc? And they've just discovered 2003UB313 and its moon! Could be. Could quite possibly be. How can ANYONE state with clarity & certainty that a Creator-God "DOESN'T exist ANYWHERE AT ALL" unless that particular individual has concrete EVIDENCE to support the claim? An "agnostic"? Yes, of course. But a "definitely-NO-God atheist"? Sure, methinks of course, the dogs may bark, but the caravan moves on. Check with Chris Hitchen's chief nemesis, razor-sharp Dinesh D'Souza.

As I understand it, "definitely-NO-God atheists" examine the major theisms, feel there is a more convincing explanation for them than what the theisms propose, and then induce that the concept of God itself is manmade. Are you asking why they don't settle for Deism instead? I guess they don't see any evidence for it, and they don't see a need to. It may also be something of a reaction against religion, which is something they don't like. Humans are reactionary. Is it important to you that atheists at least concede the possibility of a creator-God living on Ross 154?

[OneLight]

Can I ask you if the following sounds logical: "We know very little of our universe. The unknowns far outweigh the knowns. But I do know that there is not an intelligent creator in charge of it all"?

Sounds at least as logical as "We know very little of our universe. The unknowns far outweigh the knowns. But I do know there IS a god - someone far more intelligent than I am and I worship him."

No one KNOWS if there is or isn't a god.

God is a personal God who chooses to live in us. No more can I pull my spirit out of me and show you that I have one, then I can His Spirit. If a person can not see God in the creation of everything and is not willing to know Him as a personal savior, then the only time a person will truly know Him is when that person stands in front of Him to give account of their life, but then again, this is what I believe and can not prove to anyone that it is true until it happens. That is why we live by faith in Him, or don't have faith in Him. It is a personal choice.