Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[bullets]

I haven't had much luck with faith either.

 

[Lighthouse]

If some deity came down from the heavens to tell me they existed I'd think I lost it completely or they were lying there ass off. I mean , who am I , that they'd feel the need to persuade.

Or that they were of a very advanced alien race. To quote A. Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Anyone who can travel light years to meet us would be literally hundreds of years ahead of us in technology, and we would surely see them as Gods.

 

[bullets]

The pastor at my parents church believes UFO's are real but manned by fallen angels. It's an interesting theory but leads me to believe some of the locals would fire upon them.

 

[redhawk23]

Agnostic Christian? I must look into this.

just the literal sense of the word agnostic as it would be properly be used. We don't usually use it in this way. Essentially belief in God is all that they have or require as opposed to intrinsic knowledge of God which is usually a tenant of "gnostic" religions.

 

[kedrell]

just the literal sense of the word agnostic as it would be properly be used. We don't usually use it in this way. Essentially belief in God is all that they have or require as opposed to intrinsic knowledge of God which is usually a tenant of "gnostic" religions.

I thought that was basically Deism.

 

[Lighthouse]

just the literal sense of the word agnostic as it would be properly be used. We don't usually use it in this way. Essentially belief in God is all that they have or require as opposed to intrinsic knowledge of God which is usually a tenant of "gnostic" religions.

Are you sure you don't mean agnostic theism instead of agnostic christian?

 

[Dr.]

The definition of agnostic is already ambiguous. Introducing subcategories like agnostic theist or agnostic atheist doesn't help much.

 

[Lighthouse]

The definition of agnostic is already ambiguous. Introducing subcategories like agnostic theist or agnostic atheist doesn't help much.

True, but it at least separates "knowledge of existence" from "belief".

 

[Oddzball]

You are right. I was shooting from the hip trying to hit 2005 Greek Latin terminology class. But, it's still a belief correct? Atheists believe, have to, that there is no god(s). Am I right or just totally wrong here? They reject a belief system of the existance of god(s) but must believe that there in fact is no god(s). it's a belief none the less though yes?

Not a belief. If you sit on the limb of a tree and start sawing it off my conclusion that you will fall is not belief but on pragmatic laws of gravity.

There are various standards. In law for civil trials a simple preponderance of evidence is adequate. In criminal trials it's beyond any reasonable doubt, which is not the same as beyond any conceivably possible doubt, which is not a standard for any scientific or legal purpose to the best of my knowledge. Simply put, the case for God's existence is based on such marginal probabilities that don't meet a 'reasonable' standard.

I live within a few miles of the coast the possibility that a quake generated tsunami will come along and wreck my car exists. I am not going to park my car in an out of the way hill to protect it from that wave. It's too low a probability to factor in as meeting ante in the game of decision making.

The case for God and the case for the tsunami can be brushed aside like dandruff.

 

[Thundercrack85]

The pastor at my parents church believes UFO's are real but manned by fallen angels. It's an interesting theory but leads me to believe some of the locals would fire upon them.

To be fair, there's actually evidence for UFO's (the non weather balloon-kind). Not really sure where the fallen angels part comes in. But then, most rational people who believe in UFOs (or I should say, who believe some UFOs are craft of extraterrestrial origin), believe that they are piloted by aliens, who like humans, evolved on a planet somewhere. Nothing really supernatural there. Amazing, but not supernatural.

 

[redhawk23]

Are you sure you don't mean agnostic theism instead of agnostic christian?

That would be the more general term but I was just pointing out the way that Gnostic has been used, which is usually when referring to a sect of Christianity.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

There are various standards. In law for civil trials a simple preponderance of evidence is adequate. In criminal trials it's beyond any reasonable doubt, which is not the same as beyond any conceivably possible doubt, which is not a standard for any scientific or legal purpose to the best of my knowledge. Simply put, the case for God's existence is based on such marginal probabilities that don't meet a 'reasonable' standard.
.

Completely agreed.

 

[Destructus86]

If some deity came down from the heavens to tell me they existed I'd think I lost it completely or they were lying there ass off. I mean , who am I , that they'd feel the need to persuade.

If a deity came down to earth to tell you who he was...I would think anyone would think "Who am I that you would take notice of me?? I'm no one compared to a god"

But that's the thing about Christianity....compared to God we are nothing (in terms of existance) we are barely a speck of dust...yet he FOCUSES His attention on us. The fact that there is an all powerful God that loves and wants to focus on mere humans is a pretty powerful concept. Not only that but one that was willing to go against the grain back in ancient times and tell people to love one another among other things which completely go against what we understand of human nature is just as powerful.

 

[redhawk23]

Except that when a God is absolutely all powerful focusing on 7 billion specks of dust isn't really all that impressive.

 

[Destructus86]

Except that when a God is absolutely all powerful focusing on 7 billion specks of dust isn't really all that impressive.

It's not about power. Or even being impressed. It's the fact that an absolutely all powerful God would love each and everyone of those billions of people and care for them as individuals and not just a big group of humans.

 

[Dr.]

Or that they were of a very advanced alien race. To quote A. Clarke's third law, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Anyone who can travel light years to meet us would be literally hundreds of years ahead of us in technology, and we would surely see them as Gods.

It might be supposed (or hoped) that a god-like alien would have evolved a lot of wisdom along with its advanced (“magical&#8221 technology. And craving to be worshipped doesn’t sound particularly wise to me. So if that’s what the alien wanted, this egocentrism and insecurity might be our first clue that this entity wasn’t any sort of god.

Which raises the question, why does the “real God” crave worship and fidelity?

“I am the Lord thy God…Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”

 

[redhawk23]

It's not about power. Or even being impressed. It's the fact that an absolutely all powerful God would love each and everyone of those billions of people and care for them as individuals and not just a big group of humans.

Once again though, that's not really an incredible feat for a god.

 

[bunk]

Our human relationships are meaningful because they require effort to maintain. An all powerful being could not work at anything.

 

[Bat-Mite]

If a deity came down to earth to tell you who he was...I would think anyone would think "Who am I that you would take notice of me?? I'm no one compared to a god"

But that's the thing about Christianity....compared to God we are nothing (in terms of existance) we are barely a speck of dust...yet he FOCUSES His attention on us. The fact that there is an all powerful God that loves and wants to focus on mere humans is a pretty powerful concept.

Well, I'm glad that after thousands of years, we have finally found someone with proof that not only does God exist, but the Christian God in particular is the true one. Please share your evidence with us that we may also know that it is a fact. We can just close this topic and talk about how silly and ignorant we were after you have enlightened us.

Not only that but one that was willing to go against the grain back in ancient times and tell people to love one another among other things which completely go against what we understand of human nature is just as powerful.

Uhh...

The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful. - Lao Tzu, as quoted in the Tao Te Ching

May all beings be at ease.
Whatever living beings there may be;
Whether they are weak or strong, omitting none,
The great or the mighty, medium, short or small,
The seen and the unseen,
Those living near and far away,
Those born and to-be-born,
May all beings be at ease!

Let none deceive another,
Or despise any being in any state.
Let none through anger or ill-will
Wish harm upon another.
Even as a mother protects with her life
Her child, her only child,
So with a boundless heart
Should one cherish all living beings:
Radiating kindness over the entire world
Spreading upwards to the skies,
And downwards to the depths.

- The Buddha, as quoted in the Metta Sutta.

I'm sorry, but the teachings of Jesus on love and compassion are not as unique as you seem to think they are. Both of these founders of other religions not only taught these things, but taught them about 500 years before Jesus was even born.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

 

[Sloth7d]

It's not about power. Or even being impressed. It's the fact that an absolutely all powerful God would love each and everyone of those billions of people and care for them as individuals and not just a big group of humans.

Of course then you have to deal with the paradox presented by Epicurus, Hume, and Jinasena about an all loving, all powerful God allowing the existence of suffering. Such a deity, as defined, is a contradiction to reality. To make God work, he can't be one of those things, the most likely of which is the whole "all loving" part.

 

[chaseter]

Not a belief. If you sit on the limb of a tree and start sawing it off my conclusion that you will fall is not belief but on pragmatic laws of gravity.

There are various standards. In law for civil trials a simple preponderance of evidence is adequate. In criminal trials it's beyond any reasonable doubt, which is not the same as beyond any conceivably possible doubt, which is not a standard for any scientific or legal purpose to the best of my knowledge. Simply put, the case for God's existence is based on such marginal probabilities that don't meet a 'reasonable' standard.

I live within a few miles of the coast the possibility that a quake generated tsunami will come along and wreck my car exists. I am not going to park my car in an out of the way hill to protect it from that wave. It's too low a probability to factor in as meeting ante in the game of decision making.

The case for God and the case for the tsunami can be brushed aside like dandruff.

You are basing all of this off of our current scientific knowledge. 500 years ago everyone was certain that the Earth was flat. 500 years from now who knows what we will know. Heck, just a few years ago we were all certain that nothing travels faster than the speed of light.

As for probability, it seems you are saying that there is some probability that a deity(s) exists but it is so small that you aren't going to change your daily routine. Correct? If so that's fine...I totally agree with people that don't deal in absolutes that they cannot prove. I can't say a god exists for certain but I feel that one does. I don't agree with people that say that God exists because he cured them of cancer just as much as I don't agree with people who say that God does not exist because there is no proof. It's a fruitless argument since neither can be proven right or wrong. All it amounts to is what you choose to believe at this point in time.

 

[Destructus86]

Of course then you have to deal with the paradox presented by Epicurus, Hume, and Jinasena about an all loving, all powerful God allowing the existence of suffering. Such a deity, as defined, is a contradiction to reality. To make God work, he can't be one of those things, the most likely of which is the whole "all loving" part.

Their logic is flawed. And partly because of how small they are viewing the universe. For one...a loving God would not deny its creations the enjoyment of freewill.

Second...it can be seen as a parent to a child. A loving parent allows for freewill (after all, it's how any child learns), but punishes when they do something wrong as defined by their moral standard. This punishment is not acted out of anger or an uncaring heart, but out of deep love and caring. Now transfer that concept on a universal and spiritual level and you have a better idea of how it works. Often times it's not even direct punishment, but more letting the child face the consequences of their action so as to learn. (during life)

The popular response is "How could a loving God allow his creations to go to hell?" I would not say "allow" but pursade against. Just as a parent might try and pursade/stop a child from getting into serious trouble...but that's all that can be done. We can't force our will onto another, God works the same way. It's up to us...it's our decision. And someone who has not been purified cannot enter the presence of a pure and Holy God without being destroyed.

 

[redhawk23]

That's all fine and good but the argument does nothing to support the existence of either God or Hell to begin with.

 

[Sloth7d]

Their logic is flawed. And partly because of how small they are viewing the universe. For one...a loving God would not deny its creations the enjoyment of freewill.

Yes. This is the stock response to the paradox. The problem is that it assumes two things, though I'll only focus on one for sake of brevity. It assumes free will to be something that is valued as good, but if free will introduces misery into the world then it isn't; and would not be something a loving god would give to his creation if it caused them misery where instead they can have paradise in Heaven.

 

[bunk]

I'm sorry, but the parent/child explanation never works. No real loving parent would sit back and watch their child burn in fire, even if that love wasn't reciprocated.