Well, more precisely, it’s “You atheists / secularists / skeptics / humanists / materialists / infidels don’t have an open mind.”
Sure we do. It’s just that it’s open to new evidence. Not to desires, fears, or arguments from authority.
Present us new evidence of the truth of your beliefs, and we’ll consider it seriously. You don’t even have to provide proof, just some evidence in that direction.
Well? 
P.S. - please, no hiding behind the usual “you people wouldn’t believe even if there was evidence”. You can’t know that, can you? There never was any…
Add to:
Related posts:
The notion of atheists “not having an open mind” might also apply, in the mind of certain hyperconservative Zealots and True Believers, to the Great Unwashed.
Am I on to something, or is it just my dyslexic mind going into overdrive?
I just googled “Evidence of God” and I couldn’t find any real evidence.
I’ll let you know…
There’s also the problem of what believers consider to be evidence. When I argue with them, their position always comes down to taking (their preferred part of) the Bible as historically accurate. The mythology is the evidence for the mythology.
[quote comment="7655"]There’s also the problem of what believers consider to be evidence. When I argue with them, their position always comes down to taking (their preferred part of) the Bible as historically accurate. The mythology is the evidence for the mythology.[/quote]
Yes, I considered adding at the end “P.P.S - the Bible isn’t evidence”.
What’s funny is that they think of the holy books of all the other religions as “just tales”… but then can’t understand how can one not accept their own as “proof” that God exists…
I always chuckle when I hear this from theists. What’s even more hilarious is to here a Christian/theist claim they are “Open Minded”. I can’t even count the times when someone has said to me.. “Yea, I’m an Open Minded Person” yet when I even mention the possibility that God might not exist they are immediately offended and start spitting out the reasons that is impossible.
Besides all of that? How can they say that given the nature of their religion that wants them to forsake all other books except the bible, and isolate themselves from the company of “sinners”?
Truth is…. The issue is not if you have an “Open Mind” it’s do you have a “Reasoning Mind”. Can you forsake your beliefs in order to deduce other possibilities. In my humble opinion, an “Open Mind” would be a mind willing to accept what is was told without proof… but I’m probably drifting off into another full topic all together
Hi all but especially to Pedro and Robert,
First off I am a Christian and open-minded. Is there a possibility that God doesn’t exist? Sure, It’s possible. I don’t find it probable in the slightest but it is possible. Humans are foulable, I can be wrong and you can be wrong. In fact, there is little room for doubt that we are all wrong about many things. In fact we are probably wrong about more things then we are right.
So, let me ask you, what would you consider proof? I mean, obviously the beauty, splendor, vastness, and amazing way everything is connected in such an orderly way doesn’t do it for you. So, what would. If God himself stepped before you, slapped you across the face and said “Be still and know that I am God” would you believe then or, after he left would you say “well, that could have been God but it could have also been just another person, another type of normal being that I haven’t seen yet, or maybe I just imagined it?”
What would God be like if It did exist? What senses would you have to use to see It? If you only heard or felt but did not see God would you believe?
Also, what do you think about the existence of aliens? Yes, no, maybe, possible, probable? How does your answer to that question actually work with your beliefs about God?
So, you always ask what we consider to be evidence. I’m asking you what would YOU consider to be evidence?
Does God have to have a physical body in order to exist? If so, do our thoughts or the wind really exist? If not, what evidence would help you to believe in a non-physical God?
[quote post="208"]Hi all but especially to Pedro and Robert,[/quote]
Hello, nice to meet you.
[quote post="208"]So, let me ask you, what would you consider proof? I mean, obviously the beauty, splendor, vastness, and amazing way everything is connected in such an orderly way doesn’t do it for you.[/quote]
What does this have to do with the existence of an All Knowing, All Seeing god? Just because I don’t believe in god does not mean the world/universe looses it’s splendor. In fact the opposite is true. I’m consistently in awe of the universe, but that does not prove the existence of a god.
[quote post="208"]If God himself stepped before you, slapped you across the face and said “Be still and know that I am God” would you believe then or, after he left would you say “well, that could have been God but it could have also been just another person, another type of normal being that I haven’t seen yet, or maybe I just imagined it?”[/quote]
That would be a good start…
[quote post="208"]What would God be like if It did exist?
[/quote]
This is another dilemma. What is the definition of god?
The christian claim is very general about this; ALL knowing, All seeing, Everywhere at once, Records and Reads ALL our thoughts…. And if he exists, who is to say that Zeus did not exist or all the other gods that came before him.. also, if he does exist, are there others like him? Could it be possible that not only does god exist, but that there is an entire civilization that exists with him?
[quote post="208"]
What senses would you have to use to see It?
[/quote]
sounds like you are well on your way.. and will one day come to the same conclusion most of us have come to
[quote post="208"]
If you only heard or felt but did not see God would you believe?[/quote]
Again, if I heard, felt, smelled, seen, or had any type of repeatable, and verifiable evidence… That would be a good start. Since there is no evidence like that.. we are back to square one.
[quote post="208"]So, you always ask what we consider to be evidence. I’m asking you what would YOU consider to be evidence?[/quote]
Any type of repeatable, and verifiable evidence.
[quote post="208"]Does God have to have a physical body in order to exist?[/quote]
According to christianity he 1) has a spirit form (holy spirit) 2) has taken on human form (jesus) and 3) Created us in his image(???)…. This would leave me to deduce that if he does exist, then he does have a type of homosapien form other wise why would he have said that? would you not agree with that?
[quote post="208"]
If so, do our thoughts or the wind really exist?[/quote]
We are having this conversation arent we? As for wind, it can be seen, felt, and observed. Come on.. pick something a little more abstract like dark matter or something lol.. not to give you ammunition, but wind? that’s a bit ridiculous no offence.
[quote post="208"]
If not, what evidence would help you to believe in a non-physical God?[/quote]
Probably the same evidence it would take for the flying spaghetti monster.
Daryl: Robert’s reply is excellent, and I have little to add to it.
You ask what we would consider “proof” of God’s existence. I’ll point you to a very well written essay on Ebon Musings, The Theist’s Guide to Converting Atheists. While it’s more about convincing an atheist that a religion was true than about whether God exists or not, it’s still a proper answer to the question.
Pedro and Robert,
Pedro,
I’ve read the article you pointed out. I agree that there are many closed-minded emotional people on the belief side of the discussion. However, there are many people one the other side who do have other motives/reasons for not believing and hide behind logic/reason. In fact, most of the arguments put forth on both sides of the discussion show an obvious lack of desire to understand and can easily be seen simply as defending one’s beliefs by the shortest route possible even if that route is flawed. Don’t get me wrong, many of my posts are going to have that same characteristic, but I’ll try and avoid it, God willing ;>
Robert,
This one will be a bit longer.
[quote post="208"]What does this have to do with the existence of an All Knowing, All Seeing god? Just because I don’t believe in god does not mean the world/universe looses it’s splendor. In fact the opposite is true. I’m consistently in awe of the universe, but that does not prove the existence of a god.[/quote]
I include it because many believers use these same features as “evidence”. I don’t think they prove the existence of a God but, I do think that they tend to point in that direction more than the other. You might say that the odds are 50/50 (creator/no creator) but I don’t believe those statistics are being done correctly ;> Either way, none of it is “proof”, at most it is simply an indication.
Sorry, accidently hit submit. Please let me continue.
[quote post="208"]If God himself stepped before you, slapped you across the face and said “Be still and know that I am God” would you believe then or, after he left would you say “well, that could have been God but it could have also been just another person, another type of normal being that I haven’t seen yet, or maybe I just imagined it?”
That would be a good start… [/quote]
Sorry, but I don’t think it would. In my opinion, you would find some other way to explain it away. This isn’t really an area of discussion or debat, I just think there is a good chance you aren’t being fully honest with yourself.
[quote post="208"]What would God be like if It did exist?
This is another dilemma. What is the definition of god?
The christian claim is very general about this…[/quote]
What is the definition of God? Now that is a good, good question! Sounds like you are well on your way.. and will one day come to the same conclusion most of us have come to ;> Seriously, that is a question you should try and answer for yourself. What is this God these people are talking about? What is reality? But, up to this point you still haven’t really answered my basic question at all. Why? No, I don’t think that Genesis meant God looks like us, I don’t think that’s what it means at all. I believe it is much more esoteric than that.
… OK, you’ve finally answered a few. Repeatable and verifiable. I think I could show you how to find both… But I’m not at all sure you’d be interested. The research/experiment would take a long time.
[quote post="208"]sounds like you are well on your way.. and will one day come to the same conclusion most of us have come to [/quote]
Ok, I’ve been searching for an understanding of reality for a long time and for you to express a belief that you are somehow closer to it than me brings a quaint smile to my face.
Ok, here it goes. It seems to me that you spend all your time defending your position that there is no evidence for a God and most believers spend theirs defending the opposite view. That is OK, everyone should be constantly questioning their beliefs and one of the most effective ways of doing that is to defend them, if you are open to changing them. My challenge to you is to go forward in search of reality with all the tools available to you.
Everything I seem to read here points to the attempt to understand reality from an experiental-perception based perspective. You have faith in your own perceptions (things you experience yourself) and in the reported findings of scientists, even if you haven’t can’t personally witness the study. Please don’t take this personally but, whether you recognize it or not, there is a degree of faith in that method. There is nothing wrong with that but, there is something wrong with not realizing where the faith comes in. If you need me to point that out I can but I’ve already done so to some degree in reply to the “why people believe in God” posting.
My approach to understanding reality was one of map-building. Let me explain this concept through example. In the medical world there are many “maps” of the human body. There’s homeopathy, modern western medicine, and accupuncture just to name a few. What is most interesting is that while these maps have little in common at first glance they all show signs of working, of being at least somewhat correct. They are all different but looking at the same thing.
Welcome to the world of religion and pure science. Science was originally created as a way to understand what is really happening. The world’s major religions had the same purpose before they were “organized” and over-run. So…
1. Realize that there are limits to what you can accurately perceive with your senses. Also realize that your intellect can often take you to reality when there is not enough “proof” for it. There was no evidence for the possiblity of flight, wireless communications or the harnessing of electricity before they were done but, in reality, they were still possible.
2. Realize that today most religions are set up to help people of average and below-average intellect come to an understanding of, and harmony with, a reality that they can not mentally grasp. Also realize that in many instances it is a case of the blind leading the blind. Think of the world’s religious books as the writings of some ancient scientist(s) trying to explain reality and what its natural consequences to our choices would be to a person of average intelligence centuries ago if that makes it easier to read them. Set aside, but don’t forget inconsistencies. Keep a record of both consistent and inconsistent statements across maps.
3. Start to compare and “overlay” all the maps. Search diligently for the truth without leaving a single stone unturned and - POW - in an instant they will all overlay perfectly and you will begin to perceive what many faiths call God.
When that happens you will begin to have compassion for the other beings around you - you will begin to see their true wisdom and ignorance in places you could have never thought to look before. You will not judge a person by the map they follow toward reality but will seek to help them along the path.
Next, at some point in your journey you will realize that you must apply your understanding, intellect and remaining time to the details of one map, without forgetting the generalities of the others, if you want to progress faster (and you will want to progress faster). In selecting that map we will all apply different criteria but, in the end I believe one choice is so unique that it should win out. For me, that choice is Christ/Christianity because of the uniqueness of it’s message. If you want to know where I see it’s uniqueness please look at my response to the post “Christianity isn’t unique”.
You might think that this means I’m not a Christian. Far from it. It may mean that I’m not a Catholic, a particular denomination or that I won’t be accepted into a particular church. That’s fine, they have to work at their own paces. My relationship with Christ, and my desire and attempt to follow His example make me a Christian (literally, follower of Jesus Christ).
As I’ve recently told my Pastor. “My loyalty is not to you, this church or this denomination. So long as the actions of all three are in harmony with God I will be here but, make no mistake about it, my loyalties are to Him.”
Or, as I said while walking out of a Baptist Sunday school class at the tender age of thirteen. “I’m going to find God, He doesn’t seem to be here.” I was right and wrong with that statement - but that will be hard to explain for now.
Well, that will get you started. If you’re really interested in approaching an understanding of reality and think you need something else just let me know.
P.S. It isn’t usually a fast process time-wise but, the moment of realization is immediate when it finally comes. Who knows what will bring it about for you, I certainly don’t. For me, believe it or not, it was physics and organic chemistry.
I really don’t think it matters though. You see, most believers and non-believers alike are very comfortable with their current level of knowledge and understanding. I would be surprised if one in a million really wanted to explore deeply enough to understand what is happening.
Either way, we can continue the conversation or, if not, I wish you all the best.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!
Daryl, hope that you’ll consider starting your own blog. Your patient, thoughtful tone on an emotional topic makes you awesome.
[quote post="208"]Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence![/quote]
Hmmm. I don’t know about this one Doughnuts. What do you believe in that doesn’t have any evidence? Unicorns? The Boogey man? No, those two are preposterous.
Yet, it seems that God needs no evidence to be thought of as real.
The harsh part is that with no proof, one can always use evidence and take a guess. But without even evidence…
Thank you for the interesting conversation… but I’m going to end with this final comment
answering all your questions.
[quote post="208"]You might say that the odds are 50/50 (creator/no creator)[/quote]
No, I would not say this. I would say there most certainly is NOT a Creator/God.
[quote post="208"]Sorry, but I don’t think it would. In my opinion, you would find some other way to explain it away. This isn’t really an area of discussion or debate, I just think there is a good chance you aren’t being fully honest with yourself.[/quote]
I was being honest with you and myself, this type of evaluation is rather presumptuous on your part, but that’s OK.. because i do understand where you are coming from here
[quote post="208"]What is the definition of God? Now that is a good, good question! Sounds like you are well on your way.. and will one day come to the same conclusion most of us have come to ;> Seriously, that is a question you should try and answer for yourself. What is this God these people are talking about? What is reality? But, up to this point you still haven’t really answered my basic question at all.
[/quote]
If you are speaking of the God the “Christians” are talking about… I know the definition of that God, and no I do not believe that God exists, and I think it would be horrible if he ever did! As for the question I didnt answer I’m assuming you mean the “What would God be like if It did exist?” That’s a mute point since I don’t believe God exists. Why should I be forced to speculate about something I don’t claim to exist.
[quote post="208"]My challenge to you is to go forward in search of reality with all the tools available to you.[/quote]
I will and continue to do so… Thank you for the support. I wish you the same.
[quote post="208"]Everything I seem to read here points to the attempt to understand reality from an experiential-perception based perspective. You have faith in your own perceptions (things you experience yourself) and in the reported findings of scientists, even if you haven’t can’t personally witness the study. Please don’t take this personally but, whether you recognize it or not, there is a degree of faith in that method. There is nothing wrong with that but, there is something wrong with not realizing where the faith comes in. If you need me to point that out I can but I’ve already done so to some degree in reply to the “why people believe in God” posting.[/quote]
Now your just playing with words…. “Faith” as defined by Webster: {allegiance to duty or a person, fidelity to one’s promises : sincerity of intentions : belief and trust in and loyalty to God : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion : firm belief in something for which there is no proof : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs}
By that definition, No there is no degree of faith. Yes, maybe a degree of Trust, but definitely not faith. I have trust in my perceptions, because the are verifiable and repeatable by myself and others. I have trust in reported findings and science because they are verified by others as well including myself at times. If you would have said Trust, I would agree, but faith no I’m sorry we will have to just disagree on that one. And no I don’t take it personally…
As for the rest of your post… I think you would be quite surprised as to my history, and how my journey has brought me where i am today. I’m no stranger to the christian faith. I am surprised that out of all the religions that it seems you have “Mapped” you would choose Christianity.. but like you say that is another topic.
Have a good one….
Robert,
Ok, so you want to use the word trust. Makes no, or at least little, difference to me. What religion would you think I would have choosen after having “Mapped” them? And I would love to be surprised by your journey. I am more than willing to share mine.
Sorry, I will understand if you don’t reply. From the tone of your last post it seems I have said something to offend you or in some other way struck a nerve. I did however provide you with the beginnings of a method for understanding what is happening but not if you hold onto the blinders of your perception. Blinders which even science shows exist.
Your eyes would tell you my car is blue but science would say otherwise, your eyes would tell you my desk is solid and not moving in any way but science would say otherwise. Heck, even when we are “standing still” we are moving through space at a fantastic speed. Yep, my senses lie to me all the time and I can admit it.
I like doughnuts, thank you and I am seriously considering it.
Kren, Absense of evidence has always worked, to one degree or another, to be evidence of absense. For example, in the absense of evidence for the ability to harness electricity, communicate via wireless “airwave” technology, or build a machine that could fly most people considered it to be impossible. Turns out they just weren’t looking at it in the right way.
You did not offend me nor did you strike a nerve. I actually enjoyed the posts. As both of us have mentioned though we are drifting into topics that are in of themselves long discussions. If you do start a blog please let me know, I would definitely become a regular visitor.
Great Robert, I look forward to it. Uhm, Uhm, peace (?) be with you ;>
[quote post="208"] in the absense of evidence for the ability to harness electricity, communicate via wireless “airwave” technology, or build a machine that could fly most people considered it to be impossible. Turns out they just weren’t looking at it in the right way.[/quote]
Actually evidence was present for all of these.
Flying- Birds (Of course we made silly fools of ourselves many times before using an engine and math. The thing is that we could see animals that could fly, that was enough evidence for us to say “I WANNA FLY TOO!”
Harnessing electricity- Actually they were harnessing ENERGY, (Steam engines and such) for awhile before electricity. Electricity was an obvious, yet mysterious form of energy.
Radio waves- I’m not familiar for how it actually happened, but long distance communication started a long time before, (torch signals at night, smoke signals at day ect..) I’m sure that whoever developed the first (maybe it was called something else) walkie talkie was aware that radio waves existed and had enough evidence to persue making them work for the advantage of humans.
Point being, even though these things are all proven now, they all at least started with some form of (small as it may be) evidence.
Back to the topic at hand: Open minds and Atheism.
Anybody can have an open mind, it just means being open to new evidence.
Any atheist who decides 100% that there is no God, that’s it, end of story, and wouldn’t change thier minds if a huge hand came out of the sky, turned water into wine, and gave Earth the finger, would be close minded.
Just like any believer, when shown an absence of evidence of God, and evidence of a universe without a God, would be close minded to say that they were 100% sure there WAS a God.
Kren,
Thank you, You’ve got it. When I ask about God coming down and personally slapping you and you say “that would be a good start” well, that makes me start thinking that maybe your standards of proof are a little high.
Though I think you’ve stretched your “evidence” on most of these that is my opinion. Defend yours with whatever tools meet your needs.
It would seem quite the opposite. An athiest would be thinking for himself and not let an organized religion do it for him. And to stereotype a group of people would be closed minded.
The Advanced Soul,
I agree completely. Stereotyping a group of people is closed minded. However, it is awefully hard to have a discussion about each individual atheist and theist, wouldn’t you agree? Yes, there are closed-minded theists and atheists. There are atheist and theists that will never change their minds. In fact, I would venture to say that we are all closed-minded to one degree or another.
Also, please don’t think I let an organized religion control my thoughts. I very much think for myself, if I found one person in my church that agreed with my views about reality and God I would be surprised. My understanding of the Bible is my own and I haven’t found it organized anywhere except in my head (and that’s up for debate).
On the subject of evidence for the existance of God, I would say that the average believer’s opinion that faith is more important than proof is well supported by the Bible, which is the only piece of evidence, or mention of the Biblical God anywhere in the universe, and therein lies the problem since the Bible is so full of inconsistencies, contradictions, and proveable (word?) mistakes that it cannot be considered to be a reliable source of anything but fairy tales, and morality tales; much like Aesops fables meets The Hobbit.
Wow! That has to be the longest runon sentence I have ever written, but I’ll let it stand.
R Nicolas,
Well, to be fair, that is not completely true. The seperate books that make up the Bible are comprised of just a few of the books that were available on the faith at the time.
The difference between it and Aesops fables of The Hobbit? Well, for starters, there is at least some rudimentary proof of the existence of Jesus as a Human from sources outside of Christianity. Again, I think the question would be, what, if anything were these people trying to teach me? Was Jesus a person? Is there any value to his teachings? Take everything for the value it possesses at that time, then maybe things will change over time.
I came across this while asking the internet my own questions:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vB67n85QrM
Which does coincide with other things that I’ve read. There probably WAS a Jesus who was a priest of some sort.
And yes his teachings are golden, but there’s no way to be sure that HE actually taught those. Regardless of that, most of the same teachings can be found in Buddhism.
Yes, the basis of His teachings can be found in Buddhism and other faiths also. Please note that I’m not saying he taught those basics first, we are probably all aware that Buddhism is older.
That said, there is as much evidence for His existence and personal teachings are there are for many of the great people throughout history that you would probably have no trouble believing existed and did what is said of them. So, I think there is enough proof of his teachings. To me, the real questions come down to the miracles and His claims about his parentage.
Ah, questions that can’t be answered.
Pedro
You are so right on the money. Sometimes it feels as if though having a conversation with a christian is like beating your head against a brick wall. Here is a fun one if you are interested http://angelsdepart.blogspot.com/2007/02/shaking-down-trey.html
Angelsdepart,
I have to take issue with your analogy between xns and brick walls.. brick walls are infinitely more open to reason!
The brick wall at least does not have a position that necessitates denying evidence, reason, and all of reality, it simply has no belief at all.
Daryl, [quote]That said, there is as much evidence for His existence and personal teachings are there are for many of the great people throughout history that you would probably have no trouble believing existed and did what is said of them.[/quote]
XNs always make this claim, and shout it repeatedly as if they believe that if they are simply loud enough then it will become true. The problem arises whenever anyone asks for that evidence, then suddenly there is nothing whatsoever behind the claims of the xns. They point to a book written by men to control others, and this is the strongest “evidence” and yet it fails entirely to offer any support whatsoever for the existence of any god, much less the self-defeating notion of the judeo-xn god. In fact because the xn bible is itself contradictory, it lessens the support (which if you will recall begun at zero) for the judeo-xn god.
No number of repetitions of the claim that evidence exists will cause evidence to exist.
Just a litle background so you can respect where i come from. I am 23 and have been a follower of Christ for about 4 years. before that i got drunk almost everynight, did coke, meth and many other drugs. I was constantly partying, drinking and driving, having sex with women and anythign else i could do to feel loved and wanted. Then within 5 or so months of being evicted for partying God dramatically pulled me away from that scene and told me that he has offered something so much better than all of that to me if i would just listen.
Wow, these have been some great posts. Great questions, good conversations…..Daryl thank you for taking a true Christ like stand by loving and caring about everyone.
To everyone who has posted or is reading this you must understand, to believe in God you must have faith. There might be proof here and there and those things are great tools but in order to believe in something you truly cannot see you must have faith. You cant see God but you can see his amazing creations.
Where does the bible contradict itself? and why would a group of people hundreds of years a part write a book to control people? (txstorm this is a reply to your claim).
A very wise godly man once said, you cannot reason or explain a perfect mighty, amazing God to people who do not desire to believe at all. There will never be enough “proof” on this earth for many people. Which is why FAITH is so important.
It is so very sad and bizarre that people could think we are only on this earth by chance and that are are essentially meaningless, and we live then die and that is it. If i am wrong and i die and never see “heaven” and my lord Jesus Christ face to face then i am dead and have lost nothing. If i am right then i have gained the most valuable prize and you have lost everything.
I pray all of you have a face to face encounter with God and that you realize God offers all of himself to you!
If anyone here ever has any questions about a new life reborn in Christ, please reply to this post and i would be happy to talk with you.
not the same man: First, thank you for today’s confirmation of some of the myths about atheists.
This time, it’s the “without religion, life is meaningless” one.
You can’t, conceive, then, that, just because you can’t find meaning for your life without some external factor, it doesn’t follow that nobody else can, right? That there can be many other reasons to be alive? I can’t speak for others (atheists or not), but, to me, the purpose of life is life itself. Life needs no external justification.
Then you proceed to use Pascal’s Wager. I’ve written about it here. The first post only states it; scroll down a little for my refutation of it. There are so many problems with Pascal’s Wager that, when someone uses it (often without even knowing what it’s called), it just shows that they haven’t really thought much about it. I don’t want to repeat myself here; please follow the link above.
As for contradictions in the Bible… that link shows almost 400 of them. You might explain a couple of them away with the usual excuse of “errors in translation”, but… the fact is that, very often, the Bible really contradicts itself.
Why would someone write a book to control people? I’d say the answer is obvious: to control people! If you want people to do as you want, what’s more effective: to say “I want you to”, or to say “God wants you to”?
You say that faith is important; I agree that it’s required in order to have a belief that has no basis in reality. But I prefer to look at reality honestly, thank you very much. Reality is what is; my wishes, fears or beliefs don’t enter into it.
Again: you may have been taught that atheists live meaningless, empty lives of despair, and that we’re immoral since, without God, there’s no reason to be moral. Both claims are absolutely false. The former, because, by accepting that this life is “it”, we know how precious it is; it’s not just a “test” to see whether you go to a nice place or a bad place. The latter, because, as I once wrote :), behaving yourself just because daddy will spank you otherwise does not make you a nice child. I don’t need threats or rewards to respect and feel empathy for my fellow human beings.
God did not do anything for you, you did it for yourself but do not feel right in taking the credit for whatever reason. If there were a god, and it was to have the credit, then it must also have the full credit for all of th evils and harms in your life (as well as the lives of every other person on the planet) which would necessarily make this “god” inherently cruel and evil.
As for the value of faith, there is no different in faith in a talking invisible blue space weasel or faith in you own nonexistence, or faith in the impossible notion of “god.” The point is that faith is necessarily misleading and illusory. It cannot tell you anything about reality since it is the antithesis to reality and reason. What is the value of illusion? What is the value of dishonesty?
As for the contradictions etc. check out evilbible.com for a lengthy resource, or you could read the xn bible. As for the control issue, why does anyone seek to control others? They want the power, the prestige, the wealth, etc. The xn church stole the stories of many religions so as to more easily control local populations (thank the celts and others for xmas…) Those who seek such power have their own motivations, and since those who adopt faith are abandoning reason, reality, evidence, etc, it is the best possible path for those seeking to use that power without negative consequences.. after all their response to all refutations is “well you do not have enough faith” which itself is of course nonsensical and cannot be proved or disproved.
Oh and as for meaning in life. how can you have meaning without actually living? You are denying this life, denying your very self in favor of faith (mindlessness) such that you cannot live this life. So yes you have chosen to lose everything for nothing.
I can enjoy this life, appreciate this life, understand and accept my own responsibility (also prevented if one chooses faith) for my actions and choices. I can appreciate a wonderful hike through the hills for what it is without injecting baseless and nonsensical notions about evil deities controling my life.
TXStorm, i am sorry you think i live that way. It’s actually very funny. To say i couldn’t go on a hike and enjoy it for what is is??? You must think i wear the same clothes everyday and sit in my living room on the floor praying. That i only have christian friends. That i blame others, evil and God for every act that i do. How narrow minded that is. Can you please explain to me what i am not enjoying. I have enjoyed far more in this life living it with Jesus. The sad thing is, is that you will might never know that but i have lived on both sides.
I am sorry if an extreme “christian” who believes in a dull, sheltered life has ruined your view of “true believers.” Christ offers an abundant joyful life. JOYFUL meaning not momentary. I am happy when i have gas in my car but i remain joyful if it runs out on the freeway because the car, gas in the car, my apartment, my thigs, are not my joy.
have a good day
TXStorm,
I’ll start by saying that “not the same man” (ntsm) is profoundly more gentle than I. You make assumptions and assumptive statements that can in no way be backed up through science or logic however you put them forward as fact. Your beliefs, I am sorry to say, are not based on logic or science but are based completely on how you feel. Your anger burns hot and will consume you.
You come across as a very hateful and judgemental person. I hope the source of that hate leaves you soon.
In the mean time, just realize that when you run around slapping people with a smirk on your face one of them will run up and smack you back - that’s karma, another totally unprovable concept from a completely different religion. But, if you pay attention you will find that it actually happens and you’ll be saying “how did he know that”?
Daryl,
Instead of making baseless accusations, why not offer actual evidence or sound reasoning? Your claims that the statements of fact and the sound arguments offered cannot be supported by reality and logic are simply a sad attempt to cast doubt where none actually exists, as is evidenced by the complete absence of anything at all in your post to back up these bold false accusations.
As for anger and hatred, no I am not religious
I have neither in my life thanks. I understand how you could interpret the willingness to see reality, to love the way that it is, to enjoy life as antithecal to faith, but remember that just because a particular religon practices hatred using the label “love” it does not follow that all that is really love then must be hate.
What makes you take simple observations such as noting that 2 2=4 as some sort of “slapping the smirk” off of the faces of the faithful? Even if there could be a god, would it really want you (and others) to so hate reality as to deny it?
NTSM,
Much of what I mention to Daryl, applies as a response to your strange and very presumptuous post. As for denying the now, I can only suggest that you read of your religion and recall that “worldly pleasures” (and in fact all pleasure) is condemned by the religion (assuming you actually believe and accept all of it, which if you do not then it is not really your religion is it? Taking physical pleasure in the world that is, is sinful (anti-god/anti-faith/anti-xnty). So either you must deny that pleasure, or else necessarily you are denying that religion.
Oh and as to the presumption that no one but you personally can “see both sides” I would simply recommend noting that it is supposed to be that impossible entity “god” that is supposed to be omniscient, not its herd..:) You are always better served not presuming to know the totality of the experience and knowledge of others when making assertions about them. This will help you make fewer false assertions such as those which constitute your last post.
TXStorm,
OK, here is support for my so-called baseless accusations.
[quote post="208"]You are denying this life, denying your very self in favor of faith (mindlessness) such that you cannot live this life. So yes you have chosen to lose everything for nothing. [/quote]
Prove this statement.
[quote post="208"]I can enjoy this life, appreciate this life, understand and accept my own responsibility (also prevented if one chooses faith) for my actions and choices.[/quote]
Prove that understanding and accepting one’s own responsibility is prevented through faith.
[quote post="208"] I can only suggest that you read of your religion and recall that “worldly pleasures” (and in fact all pleasure) is condemned by the religion (assuming you actually believe and accept all of it, which if you do not then it is not really your religion is it? Taking physical pleasure in the world that is, is sinful (anti-god/anti-faith/anti-xnty).[/quote]
Please provide concrete evidence of this. Oh, and I won’t bother mentioning the difference between experiencing pleasure and being attached to it.
Please prove through logic or science that faith is also mindlessness.
Also, if one had faith in reality - that is the some of ones beliefs were true and factual but were, at least for that person, only supported by faith, would they be living in illusion and be mislead? I ask because you say “The point is that faith is necessarily misleading and illusory. It cannot tell you anything about reality since it is the antithesis to reality and reason”
TXStorm,
first off i’m not sure what you gathered when i said i enjoy things on this earth. I love playing basketball and i love hanging out with friends. God has put these passions in my heart and is satisfied when those things that i do are done joyfully because of him. Man i am sorry you think religion/christianity = hate because i can tell you first hand that i am christian and i dont hate anyone. so much for that argument. yes some christians may hate people but no one ever said they are right or that that is what Jesus would do.
I’m sorry i never said only I could see both side of life. And what i meant was i lived the sinful unrepentant life. A life of self pleasure and selfish motives. Now i live a life of repentance for the sins i commit and i have faith in my Lord Jesus Christ. So i have lived both ways is what i meant.
I hope in time you become less angry with Christians as a whole and allow imperfections in human beings.
Daryl,
Are you really asserting that coincidence is identical to sound reasoning?
[quote] It cannot tell you anything about reality since it is the antithesis to reality and reason”
[/quote]
Yes faith is the denial of reason, that is the very definition of it. If there is reason for knowing X then necessarily faith is not involved or introduced.
Take the guy who believes that he can predict the outcome of the lottery. Are you really taking the position that the wholehearted belief that he is correct necessarily makes his prediction true? Are you also asserting that if in fact he manages to get a number or even all of the number correct, that he in fact knew them before hand, that is to say that he could not be mistaken about that belief, that he had sound basis for that belief?
ntsm,
[quote] i can tell you first hand that i am christian and i dont hate anyone. so much for that argument[/quote]
Then necessarily you are not xn. Xnty requires hating not only yourself (as subservient and worthless in the eyes of this impossible entity) but also homosexuals, women, and non-believers (or different believers). So as already noted, either you embrace xnty and thus embrace hatred, else you have another religion entirely.
As for the “angry” accusations, they are still misplaced. I simply find it very easy to debunk the evil beliefs and cite the evil nature of xnty and of xns. I do not bother with anger over it any more than I would be angry at an occassional mosquito.
TXStorm,
[quote post="208"]Are you really asserting that coincidence is identical to sound reasoning?
It cannot tell you anything about reality since it is the antithesis to reality and reason”
Yes faith is the denial of reason, that is the very definition of it. If there is reason for knowing X then necessarily faith is not involved or introduced. [/quote]
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen that definition of faith. I have heard it called belief even in the absense of evidence. But never the denial of reason. You did not answer the question. I made no assertions and stated no beliefs. I simply asked a question that was not answered.
Also, there are four other points of discussion that I hope you get to soon. After all, you have called my statements baseless. If you can show me how that is I will accept it.
Also,
Here is a definition of Christian found at dictionary.reference.com: “exhibiting a spirit proper to a follower of Jesus Christ; Christlike”. As in, a follower of Christ.
That, I do not believe you can prove NTSM not to be.
[quote]I have heard it called belief even in the absense of evidence. But never the denial of reason. [/quote]
Two sides of the same coin. However if you would like this fact to be cited by another check out Samuel Clemens on faith..
As for your question, I sought clarification on your loose use of the terms so as to avoid confusion. Rather than answer you simply lash out yet again. Why avoid honest civil discussion?
As for showing that your claims about your private and different knowledge of my mental states are baseless here it is again since you have missed every other explanation of it: YOU ARE NOT ME. You cannot know my mental states period. You have no basis whatsoever for your presumptions of omniscience. There is no evidence whatsoever that you are in fact omniscient. If you want to pretend that you are, then YOU need to make the case proving that in fact you are omniscient. Short of that, there remains no reason at all to believe that in fact you are omniscient and that you know my own mental states, experiences, knowledge, and life better than I could. Seriously do you realize how simply absurd your position has gotten when you take such positions?
BTW you might want to start answering questions yourself before you start attacking others for failing to answer yours, expecially when your questions have been specifically addressed.
Oh and as to the “definition” you offer of xnty, check out Pedro’s posts concerning the hatred of homosexuals and others where specific element of the XN bible are cited which come into direct conflict with the statements of ntsm concerning his belief which he calls xnty.
Please don’t take this the wrong way but, I really don’t care what Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) thinks about faith.
I’m also sorry that you felt that I lashed out. I felt that I had simply stated fact.
I disclaim any omniscience you may think I have claimed to have. Now that we are past that….
What term were you seeking clarification for? I don’t see that in the post at all.
Were have my questions been specifically addressed?
As far as I know every question that has been asked of me has been specifically addressed.
[quote comment="8807"]Oh and as to the “definition” you offer of xnty, check out Pedro’s posts concerning the hatred of homosexuals and others where specific element of the XN bible are cited which come into direct conflict with the statements of ntsm concerning his belief which he calls xnty.[/quote]
Back to Leviticus Huh, I’ve already posted much in that blog by Pedro.
Just in case you are wondering what I’m talking about with attitude - putting “definition” in quotes is a perfect example. That definition was not mine, it was from the website quoted. Putting it in quotes served no other purpose than to be demeaning.
If you are now willing to deny your presumptions of omniscience, then your entire position is defeated since it rested solely upon this set of presumptions. Recall that all of your claims about me, my intentions and all of the sound refutations of your claims were exclusively “supported” by your claims about your own personal greater knowledge of me, reason, and of reality (that of course you could not and cannot ever prove, so we are directed to simply believe you contrary to reason and reality).
Or do you hold the contrary positions that your claims are true, but that you are not in fact omniscient and superior to all others as well as the whole of reality?
As for the “definition” or rather your emotional reaction to the noting of it as insufficient at best, I would strongly recommmend The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival by Wendy McElroy as a starting point for understanding the rudimentary elements of honest civil intellectual discussion, including the use of quotations, so that you can avoid this unsupported set of accusations that you made.
As to the hate core of xnty, regardless of whether you have posted on the subject or not, the fact is that it remains squarely central to xnty thus if it is denied, so is xnty itself.
TXStorm,
Actually, tis not the case. My case does not rest on said assumptions - which I never made. They rested on an observation of your writings, which I have to take to mean what they say. There were four statements that you made which I used as evidence for my thoughts/beliefs. Please address those questions if you will. As I hold them out as evidence for my “baseless claims”.
Omniscience is not required to have an understanding of another. The only way to defeat my position is to answer those questions.
I still do not see how you will defend them but, we could imply that “no evidence of a defense is evidence of no defense” but that would be pointless.
TXStorm,
it is interesting to me that you dislike christians / christianity so much and for some reason you have studied so hard to unravel it? I have only brought truth and love to this discussion yet you still try to rip it apart.
Maybe you have studied the bible more than i have because i have never seen where JESUS says “hate homosexuals” and “pedro is the key to life.” The way i see it is most atheists or those against God, only read 1/100th of a book and assume the ending. If you are not going to read the whole thing and or at least some new testament books then please don’t quote that you know anything about true crhistianity.
[quote] They rested on an observation of your writings, which I have to take to mean what they say.[/quote]
Quite the opposite is true. Recall that where I address errors in the arguments presented, citing specific claims and specific fallacies, you pretend that I am makeing personal attacks against you, that because I am willing to acknowledge errors of reason I am full of hatred, that I am angry, etc. You have not taken the words at what they mean, but rather simply reacted emotionally to the very notion that someone might now bow down to your attempts at bullying, nothing more.
[quote] Please address those questions if you will. As I hold them out as evidence for my “baseless claims”.
[/quote]
All of your questions have been addressed fully, there is no reason to try to continue this deception. As for evidence, we both know full well that nothing whatsoever has been offered thus far to support any of your claims. If you have evidence you would surely have offered it, but the record clearly indicated a wholesale absence of evidence (recall that evidence points to the conclusion, and not to another and it is VERIFIABLE). You get no traction at all with the repetition of these false claims.
The necessitation of the assumption of omniscience in your arguments is evidenced by your repeated stipulation that you know my life, my experiences, my knowledge, my intentions, and my mental states infinitely better than I could possibly know them. Further evidence is your stipulation of private unprovable “knowledge” of how the world *really* is. Furthermore it is supported by every instance where your claims and reality are in conflict and you respond by simply denying reality.
Your questions have been wholly addressed, though you are not willing to offer that most basic level of respect to others (further evidence of your presumed omniscience and superiority, as well as the profound lack of respect for others).
All one needs to defeat your claims that you have offered evidence is point to this blog and allow the record to stand for itself. You have not offered any evidence whatsoever, only the repeated claims that you have offered evidence without even a single citation of any instance of offering any evidence. If you had any, surely you would have provided it by now.
I have suggested it several times before, and I suggest it here again: I believe that this would be better placed on the forum which Pedro created for exactly this sort of exchange (well actually for fruitful ones where the other is also willing to engage honestly, civilly, and intellectually), rather than waste space and continue your distraction tactics here on the blog.
ntsm,
Can you offer some new definition of the word “truth” that makes your claim true? Truth actually refers to correspondence to reality, whereas your claims fail to correspond to the religion you cite, much less to reality.
Why continue with the ad hominems btw? What purpose do they serve? Do they make you feel better by trying to attribute emotional stances to simple statements of fact? Regardless they are of no positive value in any discussion, expecially given the false nature of the claims.
You quote me twice, neither of which are actual quotes or related to what was actually said. Is there a reason for such dishonesty? Why not simply take what has actually been said? How do you reconcile these personal attacks and dishonest accusations with your claim to have brought only “truth and love?”
Regardless, as you very well know I never so much as hinted that “Pedro is the key to life” rather I simply pointed you to a resource to save time in addressing issues already repeatedly addressed.
I cannot be against that which cannot exist, so that accusation too is false, as well as absurd. Your assumption that I have not read the xn bible is also false, and of course has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion but instead is simply yet another ad hominem. While I contend that this is another fine example of what xns consider “truth and honesty” given that it is false and insulting, as well as unreasonable, it can never serve you well in honest civil discussions.
Since your entire post was nothing but an attack on me as a person, completely avoiding the issues raised, is it safe to assume that you have nothing of substance to offer, or at least nothing to offer which is honest, civil, and reasoned?
TXStorm,
thank you for you honesty in the way you feel. I had no idea that i offended you and that was not my intent at all! The truth i brought is the truth i have come to believe through personal relationship with Jesus Christ. It may not be what you consider truth but it’s not my concern to argue truth with you.
I have a question. This is a real question and i am not trying to be rude. What do you believe in?
You said -
“Since your entire post was nothing but an attack on me as a person, completely avoiding the issues raised, is it safe to assume that you have nothing of substance to offer, or at least nothing to offer which is honest, civil, and reasoned?”
I was not trying to attack you as a person. I have nothing against you. I apologize if i hurt your feelings.
In closing i have to say, you really know how to play the victim. The only reason i come on this site is to possibly clear up what other supposed christians have done. I only try and tell people who do not believe that there are always going to be people who screw up and mislead others. But I would never want what 1 confused christian ruin someones whole view of Jesus.
Thank you for this discussion.
TXstorm,
one last thing. i stated i was not here to argue truth with you. I meant i am not here to argue what the word “truth” means.
thank you.
Ntsm,
You did not hurt my feelings, I stated the objective fact that your post was naught but a personal attack with a complete avoidance of the issues. This does not make me a victim, nor playing a victim, so this particular dismissal tactic also fails. Why not address the actual issues instead?
As for the people screwing up and one confused xn misleading others, this is rather presumptuous of you to assume that I (or anyone else who is able and willing to employ reason) is