Atheist you say?

by Rex B13 53 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Abaddon

  Rex sweetie, I hope you had a good weekend. Can I ask you something?

  Did you actually read that properly before you posted it? I can think of some choice words to describe it, but I'll settle for HOGWASH.

  Lets keep this comparatively short and sweet;

  Assertion 1; "We can't live without faith".

  This is utter rubbish; the writer clearly is so closed minded he can only think of one definition of faith. The Cambridge dictionary splits the word into two sections;

  faith (religion: a particular religion, or a strong belief in God or a particular religion

  faith (trust): great trust or confidence in something or someone

  Even Webster 1828 dictionary ('even' is sarcasm directed to the writer of the article, not towards Webster, just in case you wondered) defines faith in different ways;

  Faith

  1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.

  2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.

  3. In theology, the assent of the mind or understanding to the truth of what God has revealed. Simple belief of the scriptures, of the being and perfections of God, and of the existence, character and doctrines of Christ, founded on the testimony of the sacred writers, is called historical or speculative faith; a faith little distinguished from the belief of the existence and achievements of Alexander or of Cesar.

  4. Evangelical, justifying, or saving faith, is the assent of the mind to the truth of divine revelation, on the authority of God's testimony, accompanied with a cordial assent of the will or approbation of the heart; an entire confidence or trust in God's character and declarations, and in the character and doctrines of Christ, with an unreserved surrender of the will to his guidance, and dependence on his merits for salvation. In other words, that firm belief of God's testimony, and of the truth of the gospel, which influences the will, and leads to an entire reliance on Christ for salvation.

  Therefore one can live without some forms of faith very very easily.

  Assertion 2: Asking 'who made god' is not a good arguement.

  The writer of the article refuses to accept that this is a sensible question, but the arguementation he uses predicates upon a belief in god, and is therefore circular and utterly invalid. Examples; 'God is not subject to the dimension of time. He dwells in eternity', 'we have no choice but to accept that fact by faith', and the proverbial many many more.

  That's two utterly stupid arguements down.

  Assertion 3: You cannot say god doesn't exist unless you know everything.

  This arguement is somewhat insubstansial, so let's walk through it...

  First of all it ignores the reverse; you cannot say god exists unless you know everything.

  Secondly it introduces to a series of logical arguements that give indications as to the existence and/or character of god.

  I posted the following at the end of a particulary innane set of scriptual speculations you were party to. I find the lack of certainty or closure in such instances an example of one of the logical arguements against the existence of god.

  Now if I were god, I would make sure that the book I inspired to guide people of good heart who wanted to follow my way was nice and definative.

  It might read more like a legal contract than the King James at times, and I might go to the length of having a word and letter count at the end of each chapter, and having a glossery of terms and an index all as part of the 'cannon' (hehehe... get Paul to do the index... serve the silly sod right).

  Doing this would avoid voyages of scriptual speculation such as we see here.

  But god DIDN'T do that, did it?

  So, that means;

  a) god is being deliberately obscure, which is odd for an entity supposed to be loving and caring, as this obscurity, by definition, can result in harm to those it is meant to love and care for, or

  b) god is imperfect, which is kind of disappointing but does explain why female hyenas have to give birth through their urinary tract, which runs through their massively enlarged (so big that people thought hyenas were hemaphrodites for centuries) clitoris, along with all the other cases of creative incompetance, and a strong case (based on the Bible) for MPD on top of the ordinary imperfection, or

  c) god doesn't exist, and the Bible and all other religous books are a collection of writings by a variety of whack jobs with different motives and beliefs that really only share, at the most, a general theme and a leatherette binding, and normally only share paper and ink. These uninspired books have been the cause of attrocity, ignorance, bigotry, intolerance, and pointless speculation by the latest generation of whack jobs as to a precise meaning that is irresolvable as there is none.

  The basic point is we cannot argue about the existence of gravity, as it obviously exists.

  Therefore something as major as god would logically also be something whose existence could not be a subject of arguement IF it existed, as it would be as evident as gravity.

  So that is the three arguements made in the item you posted rendered invalid. It is a good thing you have faith Rex. YOU NEED IT.

  Big hugs and all the best

  Gyles

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  funkyderek

  I think the point Rex is trying to make is that unless we know absolutely everything, we cannot be 100% certain there is no god. And of course he's right. The same goes for the dragon in my garage. There's just no way you can prove it doesn't exist. You can, however, narrow down the types of dragon that can exist there. He must be invisible as you can't see him. He must be immaterial as you can walk right through him. His flames must have no heat and be invisible. Eventually, you get to the stage where you've run all the tests that can be run, and you still haven't proved there isn't a dragon. Then you realise that there's no point worrying if there is a dragon or not, just as there's no point checking every single corn flake for poison. Life's too short to worry about remote possibilites. The same goes for gods. Clearly, gods with certain attributes cannot exist given what we know. (The god of the Young Earth Creationists, for example.) But we can never entirely remove the possibility that there may be something somewhere that qualifies as a god, if you loosen the definition enough.
  That's why I'm an atheist, not because I've disproven the existence of gods, but because it can't be done.

  --
  Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
• 

  Utopian Reformist

  I find myself in the middle of the road these days, neither leaning too much in either direction. However, certain images trouble me a great deal and cause me to continue hoping for real truth.

  The images of human suffering around the globe plague me with fear. The more I hear about natural disasters, hunger, illness, war, the more saddened and fearful I become. Amongst this planet of billions, who at times may seem like nothing more than insects scurrying about in different situations, there are creatures I know by name and personally love.

  I want none of them, nor anyone else for that matter to ever have to undergo suffering. It hurts to think that humans are just another species, and that all of our knowledge and accomplishment is temporary and there is no real hope. It's just not enough.

  I think I will keep searching. George Harrison said there was no cause more urgent than the search for God.
• 

  joelbear

  I certainly don't know whether there is a god or not and don't claim to have proof either way.

  One of the things I observe in making my personal determinations on this question is the behavior of those who claim to believe in God and how this affects how they act.

  Rex says:

  the Latin equivalent for the Greek word is "ignoramus." The Bible tells us that this ignorance is "willful" (Psalm 10:4). It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him.

  Joelbear says:

  I can assure you that calling atheists and agnostics names is not going to help your or any believers argument. Neither is making sweeping statements such as, atheists don't believe because they like being irresponsible.

  Joel
• 

  Seeker

  Rex just loves to tell us how we can't possibly understand the mind of a true Christian, but he sure can tell us all about the mind of the atheist...
• 

  ashitaka

  Does God exist-I always think of Khalil Gibran's couplet from The Prophet; "Do not say God is in my heart, but I am in the heart of God." I beleive that people use God to keep themselves in check, and they make the bible their moral register.

  Do I believe in a physical God, who cares for us? Sometimes. Do I think that if He is there watching us, that he is angry at our derision or apathy of Him or his purposes? No. How can an all knowing God not know the difficulties we face? If He is there, he sees them.

  He wants good people on the earth, just like we want good neighbors to live next to us.

  If there is no God, then believing in Him is a delusion...so what? Some delusions are beautiful, and can enrich our lives. Most of us don't truly believe in magical creatures, but when we read fiction with those creatures in it, isn't there an element to our lives opened up to us that we may not have seen before?

  On both sides of the coin there are advantages and disadvantages. some atheists may quarrel over the true meaning of morals and existentialism. Some God fearing men may quiver unnaturally at the prophecies in the bible, not looking for the meaning behind the words-which in many cases is love.

  Many athiests can be free, and let their lives be full of opportunity because they are not chained to superstition. Many God fearing men change bad habits and move their hearts to love like they never had before, because of their beliefs.

  There are no clear-cut answers...there never will be. There will never be a world-wide epiphany, where we all see a sign and believe....or disbelieve. That is why God, Atheism, and Agnostisism are all beautiful-the ideas are inherently human, and any human can make beautiful things.
• 

  Frenchy

  I don’t believe that any sane person would universally condemn faith per se. Faith itself is really not the issue. Where there is a basis for faith, (as in those everyday things you cited) most sane persons are willing to have faith. There is a point, however, where faith starts thinning out.

  Not all wives shadow their husbands to work and spy on them…just the ones that find lipstick on the shirt collars! Not all people examine their coffee cups so carefully before filling them...only the ones that swallowed a lump of something one morning that they still don’t know what it was! And I NEVER trust the weather man because he has consistently been wrong more than he has been right.

  So it boils down to having a basis for faith on the above matters. Most atheists (profess no belief in God) are rational persons (perhaps a greater percentage of them are than those who profess belief in God?) and manifest faith in the things mentioned here.

  The ‘explanation’ about God having no beginning and end is far from being simple. It’s impossible. Impossible to explain, that is. There is no shortage of verbiage in the attempt to do so, however, but in fact, we have, at present, no explanation that satisfies all conditions. (If we did, there would be no need of the faith of which you speak.)

  You make a statement that I would like clarified if you would. “The Scriptures tell us that God will eventually withdraw time, and we will then dwell in eternity.” Where is that scripture, the one about time being withdrawn?

  You make an analogy about a surgeon, an operation, and God. The problem for the atheist is that he can see and converse with the surgeon but he has yet been able to do so with God. So it’s not the same thing.

  Rex I’ve learned that in order to make a good argument/discussion (esp. on a controversial matter such as this on a forum such as this one) one should know the pros and cons before entering such. I think that perhaps you need to listen to the arguments of the atheists first. I mean, really listen to what they have to say. I think that you lack a grasp of the arguments of atheists. The replies that you have already received is evidence of that.

  A common mistake that believers make concerning atheists is that first of all they are ignorant (lack the necessary information) of the ‘proofs’ of God’s existence. This is the believer’s mistake. The atheist has heard what the believer considers ‘proofs’ and refutes these.

  You make the statement: “Somewhere, in the knowledge you haven't yet discovered, there could be enough evidence to prove that God does exist.” The atheist reads that statement and nods his head and tells you that somewhere in that body of knowledge yet undiscovered there could be evidence to prove the non-existence of God. If you are reasonable you would have to agree with him. Now where are you? Back to square one.

  I also have to disagree with your statement: “It's not that a person can't find God, but that he won't. It has been rightly said that the "atheist" can't find God for the same reason a thief can't find a policeman. He knows that if he admits that there is a God, he is admitting that he is ultimately responsible to Him.” I’m sorry but you are wrong there, Rex. I have known some good people who tried very hard to find God and somehow were unable to. They are not criminals or immoral people. They are not ignorant as you suggest nor are they wicked.

  The good as well as the bad die. The good as well as the bad experience pain and suffering, pleasure and joy. The Bible says that God causes it to rain on the just and the unjust. Now rain can be good and it can be bad so it can and should be taken both ways.

  I believe in God, Rex. This belief once came very easy to me and then I lost it, perhaps for that very reason. The next time it came only after some great anguish and turmoil and no little amount of tears. I did not find God in some brilliant and clever illustration nor did I find him in some elaborate explanation or some ingenious, fancy footwork of logic. God did not come to me in a vision or a flash of inspiration. He did not come to me in lightning and thunder and wielding miracles. I’m not saying that he cannot do so, I’m just saying that it was not that way for me.

  It’s been my experience that helping someone with their faith is a lot like helping an alcoholic break his habit. There is no way to do it until the person first decides that this is what he wants to do. A person must be ready to quit and accept help before you can do anything for him. Same thing with faith. A person must be ready to search for God before you can assist that one (assuming that the person wants assistance in the first place. God certainly does not need our assistance for that.)

  I believe that we will all eventually find God. If not in this world then in another one. I believe that the journey will be different for each of us inasmuch as we are all different in some respects from one another. For some, life in this world ends quickly and for others it lasts too long. Whatever the issues are, they will not be settled in this world alone. Do we not read of problems in heaven? (rebellious angels and the devil himself come from there!)

  So, my friend while I admire your efforts and sincerity I hope that you do not tire yourself out trying to do what is God’s job. You will meet much resistance in your efforts and I hope that in the end it does not wear you out for I have seen faith worn down to a frazzle. It’s very, very hard to nourish it back to health once that happens.

  God calls to each and everyone of us as he sees fit. Sometimes we hear sometimes we don’t. He calls more than once, however, and in time we shall all hear his voice.
  We are all his children after all. God is not be found in the intellect or the reasonings of our minds. God, when he is found, is in a person’s heart. That is the place that is beyond logic and arguments. For knowledge is forever being discovered and what was once believed to be fact is replaced by something else that becomes fact until it too is swept away in the flood of more knowledge. But what is in the heart is far above this ever changing knowledge. THAT, I believe is the wisdom of God, of coming to us in a place that remains intact while we exist, live and die, in a world that is ever changing.
• 

  Abaddon

  Seeker; Rex is a question of mind over matter. I don't mind WHAT he says, and he doesn't MATTER.

  Utopian; "George Harrison said there was no cause more urgent than the search for God" Yup, he said that, and he was a massive contributor to a rather dodgy sect or cult (the Hare Krishnas). He contributed to 'The Natural Law Party', which wanted to set up prayer centre around the world to bring world peace and yogic levitation to all, or something similar. So what did he know about god? Or politics!

  Don't great me wrong; he more-or-less invented charity concerts, was a lovely man by all accounts, I was outside Abbey Road studios on Friday night, I am a definate Beatles fan. But just 'cause George said it means diddly. If god cared we wouldn't have to search for him, unless god is a sock, in which case he's not much bloody good unless your feet are cold.

  Take care you look both ways, the middle of the road is dangerous and habitated by bad music.

  Rex; I look forward to seeing myself and others here laugh at your next post. You make the world a funnier place, where the absence of god is highlighted in a different yet amusing way each day. Thank you!!

  People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
• 

  funkyderek

  I don’t believe that any sane person would universally condemn faith per se. Faith itself is really not the issue. Where there is a basis for faith, (as in those everyday things you cited) most sane persons are willing to have faith. There is a point, however, where faith starts thinning out.

  Good point Frenchy. Rex's argument was essentially: "You have faith that your cornflakes aren't going to be poisoned, therefore you should have faith in the existence of an invisible, omnipotent being." Clearly, one does not follow from the other. Without getting into semantics too much, I would not consider the first one faith in the religious sense. It's simply pragmatism. The odds of anyone wanting to poison you, or your being poisoned accidentally, are too low to spend hours every day testing your food. You don't need faith to believe that the cornflakes are OK, it's based on trust, experience and reason.
  Faith, in the sense Rex uses it, is more like someone who believes that cornflakes are always poisoned and therefore never eats them. If someone shows him a box of cornflakes that isn't poisoned (or 100 boxes, or a million) he's not going to change his mind. Just because one box (or 100 etc.) is OK, doesn't mean they all are. Similarly, the lack of evidence for a god in areas we understand doesn't mean that god(s) can't be lurking somewhere, but there's really no point in believing without positive evidence.

  --
  Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit attrocities - Voltaire
• 

  Frenchy

  Credulity is often confused for faith and vice versa.

  In order to believe, one does not have to believe all.

  One but has to do a word search of the New Testament on 'faith' to see how much it is a part of worship. Christianity is itself called 'the faith'. ...And yet some of us believers insist on providing proof to the unbeliever. Truly amazing.

  I remember a particularly long discussion I had on another board with supporters of the Trinity doctrine. I remember on poster in particular who boasted that he could provide proof for the Trinity. Of course he was immediately confronted with the impossibility of three being one and one being three in the sense that the Trinity is defined in the Catholic Encyclopedia. Within three posts he had resorted to the old, time worn and much misused phrase: "Well, with God all things are possible!" True as that statement may be, it still offers no proof of anything.