ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

I'm sure that will be seen as 'preachy', BD.

From what I've seen in this thread, I would say that a common issue that runs through the non-deist's thoughts is that God is a being on the same order as humans, only omnipotent and omniscient.

This certainly isn't what Catholic theology says on the point.

To put it another way, if a human were to be omniscient and omnipotent, he still would not be God (or even 'a god'), because his nature is not God's nature.

Christ, BEING God, would not fall under the above.

I guess what I'm trying to say that one nice thing about a Trinitine God is that there's no way to understand such a being (from a human perspective), and so there's need to try.

For those that want a non-preachy approach to Christianity, I can only refer you to Chesterton's Orthodoxy. Lewis's Mere Christianity would also be profitable, I think.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:
quantum,

Your problem, or attack on my thesis appears to be with your fear of or misunderstanding of Omnipotent and Omniscient. God is both.

Why does God have to lack humor? He see all that was or is or will be humorous at the same time! He calls his creation "Good." He can have feeling of the Whole creation, and a single place and point in time! And yet he gives us free will, so we can make him happy, sad, or angry.

Jesus is the Son of God. His Power comes from His Father, and so He is infallable, because of His Father.

Miracles are not well understood by the church. Mainly, because there don't appear to be concrete rules as to why, or how they work. And so, many christian ask themselves, "Why do children get sick at all?" While the church can has several rules about the faith of the leader, the candidate, and the community, some are healed and some not. A divine mystery I suppose, as "suffering is a part of the human condition" (Pope JPII).

God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'. As for the somewhat absurd comparison to betting, being agnostic is the ultimate safe bet. If you consider that in theory, every religion has an
equal chance of being true, at the point when you die there are a lot more religions that would forgive you for being unsure than for choosing the wrong one.

@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?

[The_Tauren13]

BigDaddy said:Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . .

Ok, lets say god does exist, yet I dont believe it.

Case 1:
Believing there to be no possiblility of gods existence, I live my life just like I actually do, i.e. putting down religion and people who believe in god. So, god strikes me down and I go to hell.
Case 2:
Even though inside myself I believe there is no possiblility of gods existence, I go around like you do preaching to everyone everywhere about how great god is. So I die. Then what does god do? Does he send me to hell even though I spoke his will? Or do I get into heaven, even though I didnt believe in him? If its the former, then Im screwed no matter what I do, and theres no point in not being atheist. If its the latter, thats one messed up god you got there. Why are you preaching the will of a god who lets people lie to buy redemption?

Either way, theres no reason for me not to be atheist. So stop trying to convert me.

[Scott Hebert]

I believe this is exactly the sort of post arryn was speaking of. You state your beliefs, but base them upon very little other than 'they are true'.

To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

@scott: Where they believe it comes from does not much make a difference from the point of view of being a danger to society and themselves. Say Bob believes he can walk through fire unharmed because he has studied with the warlocks of Zaxxon, Fred believes that a god is putting a divine shield around him to walk though fire. How can you say Bob is more a danger?

I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

[Scott Hebert]

The_Tauren13 said:

Ok, lets say god does exist, yet I dont believe it.

Case 1:
Believing there to be no possiblility of gods existence, I live my life just like I actually do, i.e. putting down religion and people who believe in god. So, god strikes me down and I go to hell.

You have made an admittedly common mistake in dealing with God. God does not send anyone to Hell; people go to Hell themselves. Hell, by definition, is being apart from God. If you live your life believing there is no God, when you die and discover there is a God, you will deny Him then (if you have the strength of your convictions). By doing so, you consign yourself to Hell.

Of course, the question then becomes, "Who would willingly consign themselves to Hell?" The reply is, "Who would willingly deny the possibility of God?"

Case 2:
Even though inside myself I believe there is no possiblility of gods existence, I go around like you do preaching to everyone everywhere about how great god is.

If you don't believe in God, and yet try to do God's will, you sound to be quite confused. If you don't believe in God, do not try to tell people about God. You don't go around to adults preaching about the Tooth Fairy, do you?

So I die. Then what does god do? Does he send me to hell even though I spoke his will? Or do I get into heaven, even though I didnt believe in him? If its the former, then Im screwed no matter what I do, and theres no point in not being atheist.

Well, you presuppose that you do not, cannot, and will not believe in God. With that presupposition, what can you expect to happen if and when you find out that God does exist?

The problem with your stance is not that you're an atheist, but that you won't even consider the alternative, except from the standpoint of an atheist.

Either way, theres no reason for me not to be atheist. So stop trying to convert me.

I do agree with you. As long as you're committed to being an atheist, there's no reason for you not to be an atheist.

I do like this quote by a priest, though.

"If the atheist is right, he will never know."
"If the Christian is wrong, he will never know."

[The_Tauren13]

Scott Hebert said:
To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable. It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist"). "One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."* For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever. The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

* Jon Murray and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, All the Questions You Ever Wanted to Ask American Atheists: With All the Answers (1982 ed.) vol. ii., p. 18.


this is from http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1110i.htm

[quantum_mechani]

Scott Hebert said:

To be fair, I've seen very little on the opposite side of the argument besides 'This can't be true.' That, and patently unverifiable assertions that are logically impossible.

I think this is a specious example. In EITHER case, what this person believes will not harm anyone else (though it may kill him). However, in other cases, there is quite a large difference. Say, in the idea that I can change your mind for you. Magic has no problem with this idea, but no miracle would do this (for that would abrogate Free Will).

IOW, what is possible with a miracle and what is possible with magic is quite different. Magic (normally) admits no theoretical limits.

Exactly, there is very little argument for or against the existence of a god.

It is true, in this case the only dangers are to themselves, but that was one of the reasons BD gave for needing treatment. And you could easily extend it and say that they believed that they/a god had given the powers to everyone. I would say advocates of magic/miracles are just as likely to put limits on the powers. "Sorry, out of newts eye, no potions tonight","How am I supposed to teleport something made of iron?".

[johan osterman]

BigDaddy said:
...
God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.

How do you know which brand of religion will result a positive outcome of the bet. What if God rewards people for not worshipping him, and sends to hell those that do. Unless you introduce what it to most atheist very unsatisfactory reasoning it is not at all clear what form of worship you should bet on. While there are christians that like to claim that christianity is the only self consistent religion this is not at all evident to most outside observers. And as long as you have no sure knowledge of how to act in order to achieve a positive outcome of the bet and have no idea of what the reward in itself to be there is no particular point in making the bet at all. So without an effective, effective as in convincing to nonbelievers, way of showing that any particular worship dominates the others and results in a positive outcome the Pascals wager is pointless.

[Scott Hebert]

The atheist makes no claims about gods, but simply observes what is observable and detects what is detectable.

Actually, the atheist claims that God does not exist. A theist (at the minimum) claims that God may exist. Of the two, the one that is the most radical, and least susceptible to argument, is the atheist's position.

Also, if the theists claim (as most do) that God is not directly observable or directly detectable, it should be obvious that someone who relies only on such methods will not find God. That does not mean they are correct.

It is the theist who makes an existential claim (a claim that the thing described, a god, actually exists). The atheist makes no such claim, but maintains the default position: "I don't see any gods" (or, "I don't detect any gods"; or, "I don't conceive that gods exist").

What you believe is the default position has not been the default position of mankind for most of its history. And yes, this opens the whole 'progress' can of worms.

"One cannot prove a negative, nor is that demanded in [the theistic] system of logic. Since negative is not susceptible to proof, the person posting the positive assertion has the burden of maintaining the assertion."*

Lovely. So the theist has to come up with evidence that the atheist can accept, when the atheist fully knows that he can reject anything and everything the theist says.

If someone is looking for something, not looking where it is most likely to find it is absurd.

For this reason, it is the theist -- not the atheist -- who is responsible for backing up her or his claim. Though many atheists are able to provide very strong arguments for the nonexistence of a deity, it is not the atheist's job to make any case whatsoever.

Please make a case for your assertion that atheism is the default position of mankind. That is a positive assertion, and one that I do not accept by its statement.

The reason for this is simple: Nobody can prove that a thing does not exist unless it cannot possibly exist (such as a square circle).

Heh. So how can you say that God cannot exist? You just said you can't prove it.

[The_Tauren13]

It appears even god is atheist