Originally posted by jaywillYes it can be part of a “..mechanism to put food on empty tables, cloth naked backs …” etc but it is an unnecessary component of that mechanism for it is kind people and not religion that ultimately “ …put food on empty tables, cloth naked backs…” etc. Why can’t those same kind people be motivated to “ …put food on empty tables, cloth naked backs…” etc but without religion or any other delusional belief?
...
By the way "religion" also provides a mechanism to put food on empty tables, cloth naked backs with cloths, provide medical help for sick, provide shelter for homeless, and parents for orphans, etc.
Traditionally religion has provided a mechanism for many things like this too.
Or would you implying that it is essential to have a religious conviction or some other delusional belief in order to be kind?
Originally posted by jaywill“… I recognize that there are people who state the they do not believe in God. Some of them may even believe that there is no God. I doubt that all of them really feel this way in the privacy of their thoughts late at night… ”
... I recognize that there are people who state the they do not believe in God. Some of them may even believe that there is no God. I doubt that all of them really feel this way in the privacy of their thoughts late at night.
...
A lot of it is wishful thinking. They hope that there is no God.
....
Obviously virtually all people who state they do not believe in god actually believe there is no god -including at bedtime -there is absolutely no premise for the belief that they are all lying.
“…A lot of it is wishful thinking. They hope that there is no God. …”
Actually whether or not most atheists ‘hope there is no god’ is completely irrelevant to the issue!
Do you believe that most atheists are atheists because they ’choose’ to be so as a result of their preferences and desires? If so, you are wrong. That is because one of the fundamental differences between most atheist and most theist (baring those theists that are theists as a result of pure ignorance) is that most atheists are atheists because they allow their intellect but not their desires or wants to determine their beliefs about the cosmos while most theists are theists because they fall into the trap of allowing their desires or wants to determine their beliefs about the cosmos.
Atheists don’t ‘choose’ to be atheists nor do they ‘choose’ not to believe that god exists.
Originally posted by 667joehere's how i see religion: i wanted a bike. i prayed to god for a bike. i did not get a bike. i got my own bike (how is not important really). i found out that i did better w/o god and didn't need god.
I wanted a bike. I prayed to god for a bike. I did not get a bike. I stole a bike. I prayed to god to be forgiven. I was forgiven.
===================================
Obviously virtually all people who state they do not believe in god actually believe there is no god -including at bedtime -there is absolutely no premise for the belief that they are all lying.
=========================================
There is such a strong premise for those who believe the Bible.
It speaks of suppressing and holding down the knowledge of God. This is an act of will power. To shut up the conscience. To hold down and put forth effort to suppress thoughts of the evidence of God.
It is hard for me not to take the Apostle Paul seriously when he writes that people are "without EXCUSE" to be athiests.
" ... men who hold down the truth in unrighteousnes,
Because that which is known of God is manifested within them, for God manifested it to them.
For the invisible things of Him, both His eternal power and divine characteristics, have been clearly seen, since the creation of the world, being perceived by the things made, so that they are without excuse;
Because though they knew God, they did not glorifyHim as God or thank Him, but rather became vain in their reasonings, and their heart, lacking understanding, was darkened."
1.) Paul says that some men "hold down" the truth in unrighteousness. It is morally unrighteous to hold down belief in God according to this. One has to apply clever excuses and an act of will power to hold down the truth of there being a God.
2.) This truth is "clearly" manifested to people. That is the eternal power and divine characteristics of God through the existence of "the things made", ie. all the natural creation.
Paul is saying that not only in the previous age, but in any age, even a thousand years from now, the creation manifests the "eternal power" of the Creator. And in any age of man or man's knowledge and technology, the divine characteristics of God is manfested to man via the creation.
The limited knowledge of the first century AD and the more extensive knowledge of the 21rst century have no bearing on this. In any age of man God's eternal power and divine characteristics are clearly manifested through the existence of " the things made ".
3.) Paul pinpoints the reason behind this holding down of the truth is related to certain people not wanting to be thankful. Not wanting to be thankful is a kind of desire to be independent. To revolt against dependency and declare independence - acknowledging no gratitude, no appreciation, no benefit, no blessing, no reason to say "God thank you."
This is like wanting to declare to someone "I don't need you. I never needed you. I will not be thankful for ANYTHING from you. I don't even acknowledge the existence of you."
Paul says that they are "without excuse". You may say that they have excuses. The Bible says they have none. You may say that the atheists have thier reasons. The Bible says that they are vain reasons.
According to Romans there is no excuse to not believe in a Creator of the things made. And the things made tell us something "clearly" about the invisible things of God, ie. God's eternal power ( limitless ability ) and divine characteristic. I suppose that would be miraculous ability to call into being from nothing the things that are.
Originally posted by jaywill“…There is such a strong premise for those who believe the Bible. …”
[b]===================================
Obviously virtually all people who state they do not believe in god actually believe there is no god -including at bedtime -there is absolutely no premise for the belief that they are all lying.
=========================================
There is such a strong premise for those who believe the Bible.
I ...[text shortened]... the conscience. To hold down and put forth effort to suppress thoughts of the evidence of God...[/b]
When you say ‘premise’ in this context, are you talking about evidence?
If the answer is no then what do you mean by ‘premise‘?
If the answer is yes then what is this evidence you refer to? -I like to see it. Are you implying you can prove god exists through evidence?
“…It speaks of suppressing and holding down the knowledge of God….”
Two questions about this comment here:
How can I or any other atheist be “speaking of suppressing” of any kind of knowledge merely by stating what they generally mean when they say “I don’t believe in god“?
How can there be valid ‘knowledge’ of god if god does not exist?
“…To hold down and put forth effort to suppress thoughts of the evidence of God.…”
Nobody, including I and other atheists, is trying to “suppress thoughts of the evidence of God ” for the same reason why nobody is trying to “suppress thoughts of the evidence of Santa ”
-there is no evidence of either and, even if there was, most of us including myself rather like freedom of thought and so are totally against suppression of thought -including suppression of thoughts that what we are told may not be true -that is partly why atheists are atheists.
You then continue by stating what a long list of other theists think and believe as if that is evidence.
Merely what theists think and believe is not evidence that god exists -it is just opinions without premise.
Originally posted by jaywillAnd yet its clearness is only available to holders of Secret Decoder Rings.
According to Romans there is no excuse to not believe in a Creator of the things made. And the things made tell us something [b]"clearly" about the invisible things of God.[/b]
In fact your whole post makes it clear that it is not in fact clear at all. The very fact that you need to refer to the Bible and Paul and try to justify your claim by using them rather than simply stating the obvious all speaks to the fact that it is not clear.
Simply saying "Paul says its clear, the Bible says its clear" does not make it clear. It only makes Paul and the Bible clearly wrong.
Unless of course I need one of those Secret Decoder Rings to understand what "clear" and "clearly" mean in this context. I guess you did hint at that by making sure you put them in quotes!
Andrew,
==================
When you say ‘premise’ in this context, are you talking about evidence?
==========================
I meant I had strong reason whereas the other person saw no reason. That is reason to believe that someone saying they did not believe in God was not really telling the truth.
Without the statements in that letter I might not conclude the same thoughts. I probably would not be so hard on the atheist. Since the Bible put it that way I have to conclude that there is something to it.
==============
Are you implying you can prove god exists through evidence?
================================
The statements were that God has made it known to us. God has made it known clearly and manifested it to mankind. Through the things made the eternal power of God and His divine characteristics have been made known clearly to people.
It is a statement not on what I have done or can do but on what God has done.
=============================
“…It speaks of suppressing and holding down the knowledge of God….”
Two questions about this comment here:
How can I or any other atheist be “speaking of suppressing” of any kind of knowledge merely by stating what they generally mean when they say “I don’t believe in god“?
========================================
I think some people mean "I don't like religion."
Others mean "I don't know God."
Others mean "I hope there is no God."
Some mean "No. You don't understand. I really don't believe in the existence of God."
That's probably where you're coming from. I heard you. But I also have to take seriously what the book of Romans says. And that is that God has made known to mankind certain attributes about Himself - His eternal power and divine characteristics through the things made.
Now some will say that those things have NOT been made known to them at all. I suspect that they have to use a herculean amount of cleverness to come up with complaints like:
"What does design look like?"
"Well, what would make God?"
These kinds of objections usually become games of symantics.
Someone will object and protest that they are not holding down any truth at all. I take them at their word that they may believe that. However it is possible for someone to lie to themselves to the point they believe their own lie.
The creation is here. Out of nothing comes nothing. It didn't pop into existence out of nothing probably. And saying that the universe is eternal and was always around would go against of the lattest scientific evidence.
======================================
How can there be valid ‘knowledge’ of god if god does not exist?
“…To hold down and put forth effort to suppress thoughts of the evidence of God.…”
============================================
We cannot under estimate man's ability to suppress his conscience.
In the Nurenburg Trials some of the charged Nazis were very defiant. They started out predicting that Hitler would go down in history as a hero. Afterwards when all of the evidence was dragged out about Hitler's crimes one of them said in essence "There is no need for Germany to condemn Hitler. Hitler has done that to himself."
His conscience caught up to him. You see, I believe that with many people it is simply a matter of time. Thier conscience will eventually catch up with them. What is cleverly suppressed with all kinds of seemingly profound arguments of good logic are likely to give way.
Bertrand Russell was a strong atheist. He was a very positive humanist who saw the sunny side of man to the point that God was not necessary for anything. When they asked him how life looked to him after the death of his son, I believe he said "Very dark."
Maybe he was in the process of his conscience beginning to catch up to him.
=======================================
Nobody, including I and other atheists, is trying to “suppress thoughts of the evidence of God ” for the same reason why nobody is trying to “suppress thoughts of the evidence of Santa ”
=======================================
The argument that God is roughly on the same level as Santa Claus never impresses me from atheists.
They don't treat them the same. Search the Internet for debates and discussios trying to debunk Santa Claus and compare that with the time and effort of atheists trying to argue that there is no God.
Somehow, I see only minimal effort against Santa and 1000 times the effort to argue against God's existence. Don't tell me that to the atheist that they are roughly the same.
========================================
-there is no evidence of either and, even if there was, most of us including myself rather like freedom of thought and so are totally against suppression of thought -including thoughts that what we are told may not be true -that is partly why atheists are atheists.
===========================================
I find much more "freedom of thought" in acknowledging that the things made indicate a the limitless power, knowledge, and wisdom of God.
Thoughts that we are told may not be true. I agree.
Some thoughts like "God requires some thing to have been the origin of God" "Where did God come from then?" I have to reject.
Originally posted by jaywillBertrand Russell was a strong atheist. He was a very positive humanist who saw the sunny side of man to the point that God was not necessary for anything. When they asked him how life looked to him after the death of his son, I believe he said "Very dark."
Andrew,
[b]==================
When you say ‘premise’ in this context, are you talking about evidence?
==========================
I meant I had strong reason whereas the other person saw no reason. That is reason to believe that someone saying they did not believe in God was not really telling the truth.
Without the statements ...[text shortened]... gin of God" "Where did God come from then?" I have to reject.[/b]
Maybe he was in the process of his conscience beginning to catch up to him.
This is pretty ridiculous. Ask ANYONE how life looks after the death of someone they love as much as I'm sure Bertrand Russel loved his son and I would bet they wouldn't say "Happy and lovely".
Maybe he was in the process of greiving for his lost son and hence life was pretty dark?
As people have said "The worst thing for a parent is to bury their child" - I hope something like this would never happen to you, but if it did I would expect despite your faith that you would probably see life as being pretty dark too and I wouldn't be so idiotic as to imply that it has to do with your conscience catching up to you.
=================================
This is pretty ridiculous. Ask ANYONE how life looks after the death of someone they love as much as I'm sure Bertrand Russel loved his son and I would bet they wouldn't say "Happy and lovely".
Maybe he was in the process of greiving for his lost son and hence life was pretty dark?
As people have said "The worst thing for a parent is to bury their child" - I hope something like this would never happen to you, but if it did I would expect despite your faith that you would probably see life as being pretty dark too and I wouldn't be so idiotic as to imply that it has to do with your conscience catching up to you.
======================================
You made a fair point.
Okay. Bad example.
Originally posted by PsychoPawn"What does design look like?"
Bertrand Russell was a strong atheist. He was a very positive humanist who saw the sunny side of man to the point that God was not necessary for anything. When they asked him how life looked to him after the death of his son, I believe he said "Very dark."
Maybe he was in the process of his conscience beginning to catch up to him.
This is p ...[text shortened]... 't be so idiotic as to imply that it has to do with your conscience catching up to you.
"Well, what would make God?"
These kinds of objections usually become games of symantics.
It's not about quibbling about semantics, it's about defining terms - which when you are trying to present evidence for something is very important.
If I say I have evidence for gobbledygook then you would be will within your rights to ask me to define what it is that I'm referring to.
It's not invalid to ask what you're actually referring to when you use a term. Especially in the case of god where the definition is different to most people.
Originally posted by PsychoPawnI think the gobblydygookness of an entity depends on the density of its bogusity.
"What does design look like?"
"Well, what would make God?"
These kinds of objections usually become games of symantics.
It's not about quibbling about semantics, it's about defining terms - which when you are trying to present evidence for something is very important.
If I say I have evidence for gobbledygook then you would be will ...[text shortened]... a term. Especially in the case of god where the definition is different to most people.
Originally posted by jaywill“…
Andrew,
[b]==================
When you say ‘premise’ in this context, are you talking about evidence?
==========================
I meant I had strong reason whereas the other person saw no reason. That is reason to believe that someone saying they did not believe in God was not really telling the truth.
Without the statements gin of God" "Where did God come from then?" I have to reject.[/b]
==================
When you say ‘premise’ in this context, are you talking about evidence?
==========================
I meant I had strong reason whereas the other person saw no reason….”
Ok, so what is this ‘strong reason’ ? and before you answer, if you simply quote as your answer what some other theist/theists said they believe or their opinion then I would respond by arguing that that is not ‘strong reason’ because that belief or opinion expressed by that other theist/theists is not based on evidence and so is not ‘strong reason’ for the same reason. And, by “…whereas the other person saw no reason….” part of that statement, are you implying that atheists do not reason? If so, in that case, what am I doing now?
“…I think some people mean "I don't like religion."
Others mean "I don't know God."
Others mean "I hope there is no God."
Some mean "No. You don't understand. I really don't believe in the existence of God…"
No! you are still deluding yourself! They ALL mean "No. You don't understand. I really don't believe in the existence of God…" ! I already made that clear. -although, of course, some (probably most) but not all atheists would also say "I don't like religion." But that is not what they mean by “I don’t believe in god“. Please stop telling us what WE atheists believe! You are not an atheist and you cannot read our minds.
“…
======================================
How can there be valid ‘knowledge’ of god if god does not exist?
“…To hold down and put forth effort to suppress thoughts of the evidence of God.…”
============================================
We cannot under estimate man's ability to suppress his conscience. …”
What do you mean by “suppress his conscience”? Are you implying that, for some mysterious reason, we atheists are suppressing feelings of guilt because we happen not to believe there is a god? -don’t be absurd! I believe that two plus two equals four. I do not have any feelings of guilt about that belief or any other belief for the same reason, why feel guilty about what you think is the truth? Atheists have no more reason to feel guilty about their atheistic belief as other mundane beliefs.
You then sink to totally new depths by comparing us atheists with the Nazis -I would normally really hate to say this but since you have brought this up anyway; if anything, the Nazis have more in common with theists: they both have beliefs that are not based on evidence -for example, the Nazis believed that ’all blacks are inferior’ and this is not based on any evidence etc.
Most educated atheists believe we evolved. The theory of evolution is based on actual physical evidence.