tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post5862838483130875382..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: God is a Sadistic Egotistical Monster and I Can Show This With Just a Few QuestionsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger61125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-4825807443213069362010-06-06T17:18:37.276-04:002010-06-06T17:18:37.276-04:00Breckmin: See my above comment about why YHVH or T...Breckmin: See my above comment about why YHVH or THEOS cannot love. Unless you're going to define what you mean by "god" and back it up with empirical evidence from actual reality, any point you make about "god" falls to the <a href="http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/" rel="nofollow">argument from non-cognitivism.</a><br /><br />Appeals to faith fail because knowledge cannot be obtained by faith. Naked assertions about attributes you assign to your fantasies of god(s) contrary to material existence have no power to convince because induction can only work in material existence where the law of identity and causality obtain and because consciousness is awareness of information that in turn is contingent to material existence. Postulating an ontological state other than existence fails because the metaphysical primacy of non-existence is not demonstrable. Only existence exists. Non-existence does not exist. It is then impossible to show a consciousness exists without existence or awareness or information. The god(s) are not real, but you are. Devote your life to improving yourself and those you love. <br /><br />I will no longer follow this thread as it is a waste of my time.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35968429514369466762010-06-05T22:55:37.416-04:002010-06-05T22:55:37.416-04:00it is good to create beings who can love and fello...it is good to create beings who can love and fellowship with each other. God doesn't create out of need. <br /><br />Love is the greater good at the cost of evil existing. Sin/disobedience is a potential byproduct of the ability (choice) to Love.Breckminhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16059206540177008895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-19417131904543474252010-04-21T13:11:54.494-04:002010-04-21T13:11:54.494-04:00i am a Christian, and i want to commend you for yo...i am a Christian, and i want to commend you for your courage and honesty.<br />i am originally from India, and either/or mentality was unknown to me. Both/and is what is in the eastern philosophy, and by extension eastern religions like Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity etc<br />i have read a few things about early Christian teaching (first 400 years), many people then did not think of literal 7 day creation (The Genesis Debate : Three Views on the Days of Creation). <br />my other small point is that Apo Paul himself says that its adam and eves fault (romans 5 last part). and hence it is Christ's responsibility - as in adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive. . Romans 5:18 Yes, Adam's one sin resulted in condemnation upon everyone, even so through one act of righteousness (Jesus’ death) there resulted justification of life upon everyone. <br />thirdly, majority of early christian church did not believe in literal hell and believed everyone is going to have eternal bliss eventually - 1 Corinthians 15:28 When all things are subjected to Him (Jesus), then the Son (Jesus) Himself also will be subjected to the One (God the father) who subjected all things to Him, so that God may be all in all.<br />fourthly, many Christians throughout centuries believe that many errors are in the bible. <br />and i personally believe that Apo Paul teaches concepts and ideas - like justification by faith etc.<br />Book of James obviously disagrees with him, but i being a gentile would rather listen to Apo Paul the apostle to the gentile then James.<br />Unfortunately, this is not acceptable to many Christian teachers and professor etc. they say you cannot pick and choose and one ingressive axiom would destroy the system. they want coherence, systematic fail proof system.<br />the Lutherans recognized this and put something like this "Calvinism is consistent but unbiblical, Lutheranism is biblical but not consistent"<br />But i think they missed the bigger picture- Bible itself is neither consistent nor coherent.<br />So why do i still believe in Physical resurrection of Jesus etc. <br />i don't think i can give you a ...reasonable answer <br />anyways, i commend you again for your honesty and courage. <br />You are Guilt free and i am happy for you.<br />i think i am also guilt free more or less.<br />1) i believe God is love (the whole book of Ecclesiastes screams against me- It says look, look at the evidence vanity of vanities all life is vanity )<br />2) i believe a violent God of the old testament saved all humanity and creation violently in the most primitive fashion - crucifixion of his Son (the old testament disagrees with me- since torah specifically prohibits human sacrifice )<br />etc, etc.<br />i am unable to explain why do i still believe in God, Christ, substitutionary atonement etc etc. despite all the evidence biblically against it - because of the radical nature of disjoin between OT and NT. errors in NT too - like lies of Luke in acts narrative, did the cock crow 2 or three times etc. factual errors in Old testament etc.<br /><br />my mom told me that my grand dad who was a devout hindu saw Jesus many, many times, and had visions of heaven etc. i believe her because she is my mom and i love her, and my grand dad was well respected and loved in the Christian community in india...<br /><br /><br />I also think that eastern religions should be left for eastern people like me … I don’t know how to convey this point … I guess something in me is comfortable with all this errors and contradictions in the bible. I do not know why I am comfortable to believe in Jesus etc despite all things…<br /><br />I do not know why in the west there is so much animosity against religion. I mean why should there be so much blood shed??? Like crusades, inquisitions, communisms, Marxism, Nazism 2 world wars etc…<br /><br />Perhaps I am not making any sense to you and I am jumping like a bunny rabbit here and there…<br /><br />i cannot tell you how much i enjoyed reading the articles and posts, God bless you and may you go from truth to truth <br /><br />all the besti guess i want to readhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12750708072117782514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55771150487613859832008-03-10T12:50:00.000-04:002008-03-10T12:50:00.000-04:00To Justin: From Robert:Please forgive the tardines...To Justin: From Robert:<BR/><BR/>Please forgive the tardiness of my following comment to this antiphonal clambake.<BR/><BR/>Maternal love is a physical brain phenomena whether you like it or not. That is because reality is not amendable to change via conscious wishes including those of your alleged god or rather your fantasy delusion of a god. Your attempt to blur the distinction between reality and your fantasy world is simply further evidence of your dependence upon the fallacy of primacy of consciousness. Consciousness cannot hold primacy over reality. No matter how much you wish YHVH to be real, it is not. No matter how much you wish Jesus to have existed, the evidence does not support that hypothesis. No matter how much you want to surrender your responsibility to live in accordance with objective reality, still you are responsible for you. No matter how much you wish these words to say something other than they do, they do not. No matter how much you want consciousness to be extant as a stand alone entity conscious only of itself, the inescapable fact remains that consciousness is the awareness of existence, and without existence there can be no awareness and hence no consciousness. Your repugnant and repulsive Christian nonsense is nothing more than an edifice of fallacies built on a foundation of primacy of consciousness. <BR/>******************************<BR/>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080228100717.htm<BR/>“Maternal Love: How A Mother's Brain Responds To Her Infant”<BR/><BR/>The pertinent quote follows: “Researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a tool that enables scientists to study the function of brain circuits in people, to examine patterns of maternal brain activation. The authors asked healthy mothers to view video clips, which showed either their own infant (approximate age of 16 months) or an unknown infant in two emotional conditions -- either happy or upset/crying.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Madoka Noriuchi, senior author on the paper* explains their findings: "We found that a limited number of mother's brain areas were specifically related to maternal love, and the specific pattern of mother's response was observed for her infant's attachment behaviors evoking mother's care-taking behaviors for vigilant protectiveness."<BR/><BR/>In other words, they discovered that particular circuits in the brain, involving several regions in the cerebral cortex and limbic system, are distinctively activated when mothers distinguish the smiles and cries of their own infants from those of other infants.<BR/><BR/>The authors also found that a mother responds more strongly to the crying than the smiling of her own infant, which, according to the authors, seems "to be biologically meaningful in terms of adaptation to specific demands associated with successful infant care.".<BR/>*********************************<BR/>But none of this in anyway alleviates your responsibility to the burden of proof you bear to provide extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary and bazaar claim that a consciousness is responsible for causing existence to ontologically extantuate. How can instantiation of awareness of existence be demonstrated in a state of nothingness? How can awareness obtain when there was nothing to of which to be aware? To bear your burden of proof, you must demonstrate how a rational and properly reasoning person may distinguish the difference between what you think the answers to these question are and what you fantasize the answers to be. But this you cannot do as you do not have a valid philosophical system from which to start.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03469718358131331499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46555595375485994272008-03-04T23:54:00.000-05:002008-03-04T23:54:00.000-05:00Things that don't exist have no properties at all...Things that don't exist have no properties at all.<BR/><BR/>Is God a monster?<BR/><BR/>Do the pixies who live underneath your garden shed like peanut butter?Rev. Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15980273904644917114noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-13017834947021778022008-03-04T18:30:00.000-05:002008-03-04T18:30:00.000-05:00>>I'm simply questioning why it must be sentient a...>>I'm simply questioning why it must be sentient and supernatural.<<<BR/><BR/>Probability requires a sentient being; thermodynamics requires it supernatural.<BR/><BR/>>>Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has studied a wide range of creative individuals and made some interesting discoveries in this area. You can find more information here.<<<BR/><BR/>Thanks, I will look into it.<BR/><BR/>>>Love exists in our world. We can observe it and experience it. Why do you think people are incapable of expressing love without God?<<<BR/><BR/>Barring the few exceptions, the world lives "godlessly". Love is not expressed in this world in any great or overwhelming amount. Some families have it, some friends have it, some individuals give it unrequited. But, for the vast majority of people, it is missing from their lives. Everywhere they look, it cannot be found. THAT is the human condition.<BR/><BR/>My question is why does even a little love exist?<BR/><BR/>My answer is that love is an infusion of "something" from outside us, outside our universe. It's foreign because it doesn't fit here, and we can't make sense of it or seem to do it ourselves.<BR/><BR/>>>While the universe is a closed system, stars such as our sun manufacture materials and provide energy which helps locally overcome entropy.<<<BR/><BR/>The entire universe is in varying levels of high order, as we we can observe. That cannot happen over the complete universe as a closed system--yet it still is. If it was "local only", we would observe a "soup" outside our local areas, not distinct structures and organization (galaxies, stars, etc.). The structure of the universe, because of the thermodynamic laws, points to an outside influence.<BR/><BR/>>>I'm referring to our ability to step back and observe our thoughts, motivations and beliefs. Our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. "Why do I believe in X?" "I want to do Z, but is it really the best course of action?"<<<BR/><BR/>What makes you say the ancients of 5000+ or 10000+ years ago cannot do this?<BR/><BR/>>>Conciseness allows us to disengage our instincts and helps decide when doing so is appropriate.<<<BR/><BR/>Key word... "appropriate". Disengaging our base instincts is not always appropriate. One concern I have with "reason" is the tendency to disengage all instinct, experience, emotion, etc. for more "objective" evidence. But objectivity reasoning doesn't always tell the whole story. It lacks depth in it's striving to be correct.<BR/><BR/>>>...this does not mean that our view of the world and the role we play in it hasn't changed significantly.<<<BR/><BR/>Is our current view always the right one?<BR/><BR/>>>Behavior that was beneficial to us in the past isn't nearly as valuable to us today. In fact it, may be a hinderance.<<<BR/><BR/>Do you have an example? I would say any behavior which is a hindrance now, was a hindrance then. If there is a difference, I would have to question the perception of benefit/hindrance at one or both times.<BR/><BR/>>>If we've going to grow and thrive as a species, we need to take a hard look at why we do the things we do and question if are the best options for us to pursue.<<<BR/><BR/>If you will pardon the euphemism... AMEN! I agree.<BR/><BR/>>>It appears that your view of God is that of a spokes model for love.<<<BR/><BR/>No, the sole source of it. God is the outside influence that counters the entropy of our hearts. I don't believe love is of human origin.<BR/><BR/>>>We can't find a good enough reason to love each other, so we need some supernatural intelligence to tell us we should.<<<BR/><BR/>In and of ourselves, I don't believe humanity has the capability of love without God putting it in us.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-51837123831548861142008-03-02T19:18:00.000-05:002008-03-02T19:18:00.000-05:00Scott: So we need to invent a supernatural being t...Scott: <I>So we need to invent a supernatural being to tell us this so we'll act accordingly?</I><BR/><BR/>Justin: <I>"Inventing a supernatural being" has not led to humanity treating each other any better. So no, that is not the purpose of believing in God</I><BR/><BR/>I agree that major goals of religion are not being met. Which is why I'm questioning the idea of God. <BR/><BR/>It appears that your view of God is that of a spokesmodel for love. We can't find a good enough reason to love each other, so we need some supernatural intelligence to tell us we should.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-5370965692034027032008-03-02T19:14:00.000-05:002008-03-02T19:14:00.000-05:00As a result of this contradiction, instead of thro...<I>As a result of this contradiction, instead of throwing out God as a fraud for not meeting my definition of perfect, I accept the fact that maybe my definition needs tweaking.</I><BR/><BR/>But at what point does God cease to be "God" and simply become a very smart and powerful being? When does he become a force of nature that caused our universe to unfold? I'm not saying what you've identified as God does not exist, I'm simply questioning why it must be sentient and supernatural. <BR/><BR/><I>What inspires you, Scott? What is the source of that inspiration? Why is the final product so ultimately satisfying?</I><BR/><BR/>For me, the final product isn't the most satisfying part. When something is complete, I'm ready to move on to something else. <BR/><BR/>Dr. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has studied a wide range of creative individuals and made some interesting discoveries in this area. You can find more information <A HREF="http://www.wie.org/j21/csiksz.asp?page=1" REL="nofollow">here</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>I appreciate that. I don't come by faith easily or flippantly (no matter what my poor expression on the board may indicate otherwise). I am willing to accept the only evidence I believe exists--the presence of love in a loveless world.</I><BR/><BR/>Love exists in our world. We can observe it and experience it. Why do you think people are incapable of expressing love without God? <BR/><BR/><I>I concluded it because random clumps of cosmic dust which can think, feel and love cannot occur without outside influence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids it</I><BR/><BR/>While the universe is a closed system, stars such as our sun manufacture materials and provide energy which helps locally overcome entropy. When our sun dies, we'll either need to find another source of energy or die with it. <BR/><BR/><I>I have to disagree. I find no athropological (sic) evidence that the humans of 10,000 BC were not as intelligent or thoughtful as you or I. A lot of guessing, but the ancients had to be pretty keen to build pyramids, live in cliffs, and hunt down woolly mammoths.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm not referring to intelligence. I'm referring to our ability to step back and observe our thoughts, motivations and beliefs. Our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes. "Why do I believe in X?" "I want to do Z, but is it really the best course of action?"<BR/><BR/><I>I'm not sure disengaging instinct is a good idea. I think it may be part of our problem.</I><BR/><BR/>If you've driven a car with a manual transmission, you know the clutch is engaged more often than not. However, the ability to disengage the clutch is a critical part of retaining control over the car. Conciseness allows us to disengage our instincts and helps decide when doing so is appropriate. <BR/><BR/><I>I don't think there is any evidence that this is any different than 5000 years ago. In more modern eras and cultures, such wasn't the case and it bred huge problems (20th Century western civ, e.g.).</I><BR/><BR/>While we may have a different set of problems, this does not mean that our view of the world and the role we play in it hasn't changed significantly. Behavior that was beneficial to us in the past isn't nearly as valuable to us today. In fact it, may be a hinderance. If we've going to grow and thrive as a species, we need to take a hard look at why we do the things we do and question if are the best options for us to pursue. <BR/><BR/><I>God is required to be the outside influence to the closed system. Thermodynamics demands it. </I> <BR/><BR/>As mentioned above, our sun locally counteracts entropy. However this is temporary in the grand scheme of things.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46728149195057131342008-03-01T10:27:00.000-05:002008-03-01T10:27:00.000-05:00Scott wrote:>>So we need to invent a supernatural ...Scott wrote:<BR/>>>So we need to invent a supernatural being to tell us this so we'll act accordingly?<<<BR/><BR/>"Inventing a supernatural being" has not led to humanity treating each other any better. So no, that is not the purpose of believing in God<BR/><BR/>>>What does this say about your view of humanity?<<<BR/><BR/>Even though this question assumes I believe in God in order to change everyone, I'll answer by saying I do indeed have a dim view of humanity. There is no evidence to convince me otherwise. We treat each other horribly... there are exceptions, however.<BR/><BR/>>>I don't see fear and superstition as a reasonable answer to this problem.<<<BR/><BR/>I agree, it is not. Fear and superstition are not what I have proposed, here.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2499612140757653872008-02-29T19:18:00.000-05:002008-02-29T19:18:00.000-05:00I don't think we are worthless, either. Quite the ...<I>I don't think we are worthless, either. Quite the contrary. But humanity in general does not act as if we think we are people of worth. The obvious are murder, slavery, rape, war, abortion... these acts indicate we don't think too highly of ourselves, that we think we are worthless. That's what I mean.</I><BR/><BR/>So we need to invent a supernatural being to tell us this so we'll act accordingly? What does this say about your view of humanity?<BR/><BR/>I don't see fear and superstition as a reasonable answer to this problem.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46737499192788868742008-02-27T20:29:00.000-05:002008-02-27T20:29:00.000-05:00Scott, I don't think I answered your question very...Scott, I don't think I answered your question very well:<BR/><BR/>>>I do not think clumps of random cosmic dust which can think, feel and love are worthless. In fact, they quite amazing if you stop and think about it. How did you come to this conclusion?<<<BR/><BR/>I don't think we are worthless, either. Quite the contrary. But humanity in general does not act as if we think we are people of worth. The obvious are murder, slavery, rape, war, abortion... these acts indicate we don't think too highly of ourselves, that we think we are worthless. That's what I mean.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75749547007818941142008-02-27T19:33:00.000-05:002008-02-27T19:33:00.000-05:00scott wote:>>Most theists would claim that God doe...scott wote:<BR/>>>Most theists would claim that God does not change and that perfection is a intrinsic property that cannot be added, removed or be dependent on external factors.<<<BR/><BR/>I think I see a disconnect here (not yours). Most "theists" have imparted their perspective and expectations on God--put God in a box, so to speak. Most of that is derived from very poor biblical scholarship.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the bible describes a God who changes his mind, often. But it also describes God as "perfect", as often. Now, is that really perfect, or just who's definition of "perfect" is God?<BR/><BR/>As a result of this contradiction, instead of throwing out God as a fraud for not meeting my definition of perfect, I accept the fact that maybe my definition needs tweaking.<BR/><BR/>>>While I too "don't know" [snip] there is not enough evidence for me to make the leap you've taken.<<<BR/><BR/>I appreciate that. I don't come by faith easily or flippantly (no matter what my poor expression on the board may indicate otherwise). I am willing to accept the only evidence I believe exists--the presence of love in a loveless world.<BR/><BR/>>>I do not think clumps of random cosmic dust which can think, feel and love are worthless. In fact, they quite amazing if you stop and think about it. How did you come to this conclusion?<<<BR/><BR/>I concluded it because random clumps of cosmic dust which can think, feel and love cannot occur without outside influence. The Second Law of Thermodynamics forbids it. The universe is in a very high state of organization, thus a low state of entropy. Over 15 or so billion years of a closed system, that cannot happen without something outside the system altering it.<BR/><BR/>>>For example, I think that creating efficient and elegant software architectures is a form of creativity and has the ability to impact a very wide audience. And I enjoy creating real-time graphics and video that interacts with live music.<<<BR/><BR/>I agree you are being very creative. I don't mean to limit creativity to music or painting or other "arts". I am a civil engineer. My canvas is dirt and concrete.<BR/><BR/>>>But I do share your observation that some people are not nearly inspired to create as others.<<<BR/><BR/>What inspires you, Scott? What is the source of that inspiration? Why is the final product so ultimately satisfying?<BR/><BR/>>>Personally, I think some of it has to do with the picture of the world you were presented as a child.<<<BR/><BR/>I agree. We all have our presuppositions, learned or otherwise. I will also admit I was predisposed to believe in God because of my upbringing. Early on I saw the B.S., and it gave me reason to pause. What I noticed was that most "christians" didn't act like "Little Christs", and so I had a choice to make--disbelieve God because of his followers actions, or disbelieve his followers.<BR/><BR/>>>Were you taught that you could make a difference or that you are flawed and insignificant?<<<BR/><BR/>Both. I was taught that in spite of my flaws and insignificance, I could make a difference in the world... that my flaws and insignificance did not define my course.<BR/><BR/>>>Is the world a place to explore and learn about or is it a dangerous place that we must be weary of and shield ourselves from.<<<BR/><BR/>Again, both. I greatly enjoy astronomy (should've studied it in school, but I digress). I long for long trips in the wilderness just being a part of it. I also enjoy history and other cultures. But, I'm not so naive to forget that someday the sun will engulf the planet, the wilderness is full of bears and cougars, and that there are other people in this world who would kill me simply for my faith or my wallet. It's the risks of life that make it... well, fun.<BR/><BR/>>>I also think that human beings have only had the capacity to really step back and "observe" our own thoughts for 3 to 4 thousand years.<<<BR/><BR/>I have to disagree. I find no athropological (sic) evidence that the humans of 10,000 BC were not as intelligent or thoughtful as you or I. A lot of guessing, but the ancients had to be pretty keen to build pyramids, live in cliffs, and hunt down woolly mammoths.<BR/><BR/>>>allowing us to disengage from our instincts<<<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure disengaging instinct is a good idea. I think it may be part of our problem.<BR/><BR/>>>Men play a stronger role in raising their children. We can see how people can make a difference in others lives. We're more aware of cause and effect and have a much bigger picture to consider.<<<BR/><BR/>I don't think there is any evidence that this is any different than 5000 years ago. In more modern eras and cultures, such wasn't the case and it bred huge problems (20th Century western civ, e.g.).<BR/><BR/>>>In other words, we are not in final form. We are still changing and evolving. To think otherwise requires ignoring what we know about history and biology.<<<BR/><BR/>I don't think otherwise. I think we are "evolving" against our base tendencies to devolve.<BR/><BR/>>>But I don't see why God is required.<<<BR/><BR/>God is required to be the outside influence to the closed system. Thermodynamics demands it. "And in this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!!!" (my apologies for the Simpsons quote, I couldn't help it.)<BR/><BR/>>>Hell is creating false exceptions about our existence and trying to live up to them. Hell is a failure to see life as it is. Hell is needless suffering of our own making.<<<BR/><BR/>Exactly.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29743736227542233552008-02-27T14:35:00.000-05:002008-02-27T14:35:00.000-05:00Maybe he wasn't "perfect" until he created. Maybe ...<I>Maybe he wasn't "perfect" until he created. Maybe his purpose wasn't fulfilled until he could express himself. </I><BR/><BR/>Most theists would claim that God does not change and that perfection is a intrinsic property that cannot be added, removed or be dependent on external factors. <BR/><BR/><I>Maybe, I don't know.</I><BR/><BR/>I appreciate your honesty. <BR/><BR/>While I too "don't know" my lack of knowledge leads me to a different conclusion. I simply do not believe the theist's claim that God exists. Regardless of how "nice" it would be if true, there is not enough evidence for me to make the leap you've taken. <BR/><BR/><I>If I understand your question, I believe so, yes. More so. But we don't believe it--we think we're just a worthless clump of random cosmic dust with no purpose--and so we act accordingly.</I><BR/><BR/>I do not think clumps of random cosmic dust which can think, feel and love are worthless. In fact, they quite amazing if you stop and think about it. How did you come to this conclusion? <BR/><BR/><I>Which the vast majority of humans do not show. Human nature is to kill or be killed, not show love and artistic expression. Why then do some buck the trend? It seems to me that if love and creativity were truly human attributes (based in human nature) nearly everyone would do it. Mere observation of how we behave shows that to be mistaken.</I><BR/><BR/>Some people have different ways of being creative and unique. For example, I think that creating efficient and elegant software architectures is a form of creativity and has the ability to impact a very wide audience. And I enjoy creating real-time graphics and video that interacts with live music. <BR/><BR/>But I do share your observation that some people are not nearly inspired to create as others. <BR/><BR/>Personally, I think some of it has to do with the picture of the world you were presented as a child. Were you taught that you could make a difference or that you are flawed and insignificant? Is the world a place to explore and learn about or is it a dangerous place that we must be weary of and shield ourselves from.<BR/><BR/>I also think that human beings have only had the capacity to really step back and "observe" our own thoughts for 3 to 4 thousand years. As such, we are transitioning between instinctual urges that served us well in the past and a new found consciousness which can act as a clutch - allowing us to disengage from our instincts and help shape the future evolution of human beings. <BR/><BR/><I>It's more like I give humans "love-like" attributes. Humans are not inherenty loving--history bears that out. Love comes from somewhere outside of us.</I><BR/><BR/>History shows we lived in tribes with males who fought for dominance of the group. While we still have a long way to go, our outlook has changed dramatically. Men play a stronger role in raising their children. We can see how people can make a difference in others lives. We're more aware of cause and effect and have a much bigger picture to consider. <BR/><BR/>Again, I think we are essentially toddlers when it comes to understanding the interaction between our instincts and conciseness. In other words, we are not in final form. We are still changing and evolving. To think otherwise requires ignoring what we know about history and biology. <BR/><BR/><I>It doesn't add up in mine, either. Good intentions are not love. Commitment, self-denial, sacrifice, those are start to define love.</I><BR/><BR/>But I don't see why God is required. Does making love a sentient being give it more appeal?<BR/><BR/><I>Hell is the default result of our existence. It is only this love injected into life that keeps us all from degrading into complete entropic chaos.</I><BR/><BR/>Hell is creating false exceptions about our existence and trying to live up to them. Hell is a failure to see life as it is. Hell is needless suffering of our own making.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81167277888000366852008-02-27T04:21:00.000-05:002008-02-27T04:21:00.000-05:00Jamie- yes, I know what Darwin said in his Autobio...Jamie- yes, I know what Darwin said in his <I>Autobiography</I>- he says he was formerly a theist, believing in an intelligent First Cause, but is now an agnostic. You might say that he is mistaken. But what you said is this:<BR/><BR/><I>If you guys are going to talk about the God of the Christian Bible why do you constantly mischaracterize him into a god of your own making.<BR/><BR/>This was Darwin's problem and it sounds like it is yours as well.</I><BR/><BR/>There's a difference between being an agnostic, and "mischaracterizing" the God of the Bible into a God of your own making. Darwin had no God of his own making, at least at the end of his life, much less one that mischaracterized the God of the Bible: he said that such things could not be known.<BR/><BR/>Jamie, you quote Darwin saying:<BR/><BR/><I>But then arises the doubt, can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?</I><BR/><BR/>And then say yourself:<BR/><BR/><I>These questions as Darwin admitted are to grand for a man whom evolved from a monkey.</I><BR/><BR/>In the first place: if you think people evolved from monkeys, you should really check out <A HREF="http://www.talkorigins.org/" REL="nofollow">TalkOrigins</A>. People did not evolve from monkeys: we share a common ancestor.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, we must consider the <A HREF="http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/library/cd_relig.htm" REL="nofollow">context</A> of Darwin's quote:<BR/><BR/><I>When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.<BR/><BR/>This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.</I><BR/><BR/>So the "grand conclusions" that Darwin questions here are not his theory of evolution, or weakening belief in an intelligent First Cause, but rather <I>belief</I> in God. He is saying that while our belief in God may strike us as being "necessary", it might rather be a result of inherited and inculcated belief, and thus not "necessary". Read it again.<BR/><BR/>Btw- Darwin advances a version of the Argument from Evil here too, especially as animals are concerned. If I remember correctly, Lee Randolph has articulated the same argument here at DC.<BR/><BR/><I> That there is much suffering in he world no one disputes. Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement. But the number of men in the world is as nothing compared with that of all other sentinent beings, and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement. A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to supose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of the lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.</I>zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-46519857470545588622008-02-26T23:39:00.000-05:002008-02-26T23:39:00.000-05:00scott wrote:>>How can God be perfect if his "natur...scott wrote:<BR/>>>How can God be perfect if his "natural" state is loneliness and the "natural" state of the universe and humanity is non existence? There seems to be something wrong with this picture.<<<BR/><BR/>Maybe he wasn't "perfect" until he created. Maybe his purpose wasn't fulfilled until he could express himself. Maybe, I don't know.<BR/><BR/>>>But these are human attributes.<<<BR/><BR/>Which the vast majority of humans do not show. Human nature is to kill or be killed, not show love and artistic expression. Why then do some buck the trend? It seems to me that if love and creativity were truly human attributes (based in human nature) nearly everyone would do it. Mere observation of how we behave shows that to be mistaken.<BR/><BR/>>>Are we as necessary and significant as a painting or a poem created by a human being?<<<BR/><BR/>If I understand your question, I believe so, yes. More so. But we don't believe it--we think we're just a worthless clump of random cosmic dust with no purpose--and so we act accordingly.<BR/><BR/>>>Why do you have to give "love" human like attributes?<<<BR/><BR/>It's more like I give humans "love-like" attributes. Humans are not inherenty loving--history bears that out. Love comes from somewhere outside of us.<BR/><BR/>>>I agree. But making love some kind of sentient being that uses eternal punishment as motivation doesn't add up in my book. As they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."<<<BR/><BR/>It doesn't add up in mine, either. Good intentions are not love. Commitment, self-denial, sacrifice, those are start to define love.<BR/><BR/>As you might imagine, I don't believe eternal punishment to be any sort of motiviation used by God (regardless of how the church and/or religionistas might use it for their purposes). Hell, in my view, is the logical result of a lack of love, not a punishment for failing to put enough money in the collection plate.<BR/><BR/>Hell is the default result of our existence. It is only this love injected into life that keeps us all from degrading into complete entropic chaos.Delinquent Minerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17261239652546133640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50730084030481541882008-02-26T19:05:00.000-05:002008-02-26T19:05:00.000-05:00God lacked someone who would love back.So, God is ...<I>God lacked someone who would love back.</I><BR/><BR/>So, God is an omnipotent and omniscient being that had no beginning, yet before the act of creation, he existed in utter isolation and yearned for someone who would love him in return. <BR/><BR/>How can God be perfect if his "natural" state is loneliness and the "natural" state of the universe and humanity is non existence? There seems to be something wrong with this picture. <BR/><BR/><I>Another reason to create is the same reason an artist *must* paint, or a poet *must* write. But my fuller answer is love.</I><BR/><BR/>But these are human attributes. Are we as necessary and significant as a painting or a poem created by a human being? <BR/><BR/>Why do you have to give "love" human like attributes?<BR/><BR/><I>And this world sucks because of a nearly infinite lack of it.</I><BR/><BR/>I agree. But making love some kind of sentient being that uses eternal punishment as motivation doesn't add up in my book. As they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-74608374670116755112008-02-26T18:20:00.000-05:002008-02-26T18:20:00.000-05:00be,Read this: For when we were still without stren...be,<BR/>Read this:<BR/> For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.Jamie Steelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13186614354346762218noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17791666937781872302008-02-26T17:52:00.000-05:002008-02-26T17:52:00.000-05:00Loving god portrayed in the bible?Name one thing i...Loving god portrayed in the bible?<BR/><BR/>Name one thing in the Bible that backs that up.<BR/><BR/>I can think of the flood, Lot and the pillar of salt, numerous genocides. All support the exact opposite of what Christians claim is representative of their God.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, all Christians are heathens and infidels as the one true god is The Flying Spaghetti Monster and all true enlightened folk understand this. All hail his noodly appendage.behttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11245895064971997250noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55239482228012220812008-02-26T17:46:00.000-05:002008-02-26T17:46:00.000-05:00lol No, definitely not. I'm just going on what we ...lol No, definitely not. I'm just going on what we do know about God and as far as I'm aware, there's no indication God feels shame due to the actions of individuals who don't believe He exists. But I could be wrong. Maybe an all-powerful, all-knowing entity can shamed by a few of the unbelieving mortal creatures it gave life to. Who knows :)Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-90510463754200526172008-02-26T17:28:00.000-05:002008-02-26T17:28:00.000-05:00Jason,Are you saying you know the mind of God?Jason,<BR/><BR/>Are you saying you know the mind of God?Evanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14299188458940897810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34507464982731054682008-02-26T16:21:00.000-05:002008-02-26T16:21:00.000-05:00...for I am shaming this entity for not having let...<I>...for I am shaming this entity for not having let us know that he exists for sure.</I><BR/><BR/>Just a thought but I don't think God is going to be all that hurt...Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-55964892070698022008-02-26T15:32:00.000-05:002008-02-26T15:32:00.000-05:00Iconoclastically Agnostic said... perhaps that is ...Iconoclastically Agnostic said... <I>perhaps that is why I am agnostic (rather than atheist) . . . there are very few things I believe in.</I><BR/><BR/>There isn't much difference between an atheist and an agnostic. Robert Ingersoll said "an agnostic is an atheist and an atheist is an agnostic." An atheist denies the various religions. That's the easy part, and we all do it. But that which she affirms is done so tentatively, at least from those I know. So an atheist is an agnostic about that which she affirms to a great extent.<BR/><BR/>My claim is that a distant god is no different than none at all.<BR/><BR/>One way to look at this is in John Roth's theodicy. His view is that we must shame God into doing right, and it's calls a "theodicy of protest." He must protest the sight of a burning child in order to shame God into doing what is right.<BR/><BR/>Well, I think that theodicy is bull, but I see no reason why I cannot go beyond what he argues for in affirming atheism. I affirm atheism even if it ends up that a God exists, for I am shaming this entity for not having let us know that he exists for sure.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-36577367346219591482008-02-26T15:09:00.000-05:002008-02-26T15:09:00.000-05:00“So understood, but I'm not so sure what it means ...<B><I>“So understood, but I'm not so sure what it means to say this . . . for we all hold to beliefs that cannot be defended on Harvard yard . . .”</B></I><BR/><BR/>Yes, as you mentioned, it is my hope that people are better thinkers (or at least thinkers – perhaps that alone would be an improvement over the majority’s current condition???). I am not overly concerned with “education” . . . just, please, don’t be blind – don’t be dumb, - don’t be ignorant. <BR/>As for the second part of the pieced-together quote above, you’re right . . . unless you’re like me (Sounds funny, and yes – it was a joke). Seriously, perhaps that is why I am agnostic (rather than atheist) . . . there are very few things I believe in. I am not sure if the risk of being wrong is worth the leap of faith. Some day I might grow up.<BR/><BR/><B><I> “So, whether based on ignorance or not, shouldn't we be pleased when people agree with us?” </B></I><BR/><BR/>I’m not so sure . . . wait . . . well, actually, I think I figured it out. If one is solely looking out for the good of the people, then, of course, we would want then to believe the truth. We would also want them to understand why they believe what they believe, but that would be secondary. <BR/>On the other hand, people who are driven by jealously and bitterness are not so keen to great with open arms. Sadly, I believe I am in this second category (although I don’t think I am bitter and jealous – just not gung-ho for the good of the people). Weekly I meet people who claim to believe (or to un-believe) the same things I do; however, unlike me, years of legwork has not led them to their conclusions. It somehow cheapens my experience. Selfish is not the right word – but the first one that comes to mind. <BR/><BR/>Take a moment to think about the brief period of time following the issue of the Edict of Milan . . . the postmodern world is ripe to see atheism take center stage—to become pop culture. When that happens, I fear the influx will do as much harm to the atheistic and scientific communities as it did to the early 4th century church. Unlike McDowell, I do care about integrity. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for the stimulating conversation.Iconoclastically Agnostichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04123551512265808547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18253599146896475002008-02-26T13:11:00.000-05:002008-02-26T13:11:00.000-05:00John,Okay, I won't lie: The answer to your questio...John,<BR/><BR/>Okay, I won't lie: The answer to your question is "yes". If I was omnipotent, with no equal, I would create a world like this for my own glory. I admit it.Jasonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13029527163229375153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76467370147669008782008-02-26T12:22:00.000-05:002008-02-26T12:22:00.000-05:00Iconoclastically Agnostic said...Anyway, one of my...Iconoclastically Agnostic said...<I>Anyway, one of my fears is that people will be swayed and “deconverted” through unsound arguments (I am NOT implying that your views are so). Just as I am frustrated by those who ignorantly embrace Christianity, aggravation ensues from the ignorant embracing of atheism.</I><BR/><BR/>So understood, but I'm not so sure what it means to say this, except that you prefer that people are better educated and better thinkers, for we all hold to beliefs that cannot be defended on Harvard yard, so to speak. We hold to inconsistent beliefs and don't even know that we do, for no mortal man can know it all, nor is any man a logic machine. All I can say is that to the best of my knowledge, given my brain matter, education, and life experiences that I think I'm right. There will always be someone who has thought more deeply and is better educated than I am on some topic, even a particular one that I have spent a great deal of time on, and even if I am considered a scholar on a topic.<BR/><BR/>What are we to say about people who agree with the conculsions of our more informed opinions who are ignorant and uneducated about them? Tell them to get educated. Tell them to think deeper and show them how. But to tell people to believe the correct things because of the correct arguments is going to frustrate you the rest of your life, and is asking the near impossible for some people who just don't have the necessary brain equipment. <BR/><BR/>So, whether based on ignorance or not, shouldn't we be pleased when people agree with us? After all, they vote with us, encourage us, learn from us, and financially support our cause. <BR/><BR/>I'm sure Christians don't care much whether someone is converted by McDowell, Van Til, Craig or Geilser's writings so long as they reach the correct conclusion when they believe. For them that's the first priority even if they disagree with the other apologetical methods and reasoning...and they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com