You can read those books. That's fine! I'm not saying you can't. But, they will contradict the other books, so you must search for which is true.
An Naturalist/Atheist cannot say that Covid is bad.
- Thread starter you_dont_know_me
- Start date
You can read those books. That's fine! I'm not saying you can't. But, they will contradict the other books, so you must search for which is true.
I mean, if you want me to share my experience I will, but I'm more just showing the absurdity of the atheistic worldview...that no one truly lives consistently with.
Also, atheists have to believe that nothing created something.. logically and scientifically impossible.
(and before you ask) God wasn't created because he exists outside of time, space, and matter...since he created them all. Do I have any idea what that looks like, of course not. Is that observable, testable, repeatable? No.
Remember the scientific method doesn't work for past historical events. You can't observe the past now.
I think we've gotten to the heart of the matter now.
Many people believe that without God there is no "meaning" to life. However, they want their lives to have "meaning," as they've defined it, of course. Therefore, they believe in God so that there is "meaning" to their lives. It's circular no matter whether God actually exists or not. There is no way to know whether or not that is true, however, only leaps of faith and feelings.
Everyone has leaps of faith in their everyday lives (think of the faith in the workers at Boeing, etc. that it takes to board and fly in a plane), but everyone doesn't have the same leaps of faith. I would argue that even among the ultra-religious/spiritual, they have more faith in science on an everyday (and every minute) basis than they do in God, taken in the aggregate. But when it comes to the macro faith vs science arguments somehow all that faith gets reversed.
With God you have an overall plan for creation and mankind, with evolution, you just have "whatever." All suffering is just a part of living.
But, meaning is not the basis of this argument. You have redirected. You have brought up false assumptions. But there is one thing you haven't done...
Answered my question. I know I've talked it out, and yet, all you can do is redirect the conversation.
In response to some of the assumptions... I don't care what the "average" person thinks according to what you think or what they have faith in. It isn't relevant. You also assume that faith and science are incompatible or maybe rather opposing forces. They don't have to be.
I'm not going to respond to others because it just sends our conversation chasing rabbits.
Tell me again why Covid is bad? You can't. I can with a transcendent, objective standard. You just have chance, probability, and your environment...which isn't how you actually live.
The skeptic community has largely been mute on this conversation, and maybe it's because there aren't many of them, or they also have no answer. I think it doesn't have a logical answer, which is why you pivoted to bring up other things...again...since my view has big holes, I'm going to try to poke holes in yours.
That's fine, and I'm certainly guilty of that (maybe in this post) but you still haven't addressed the initial point.
I mean that with no disrespect, and I know now it's super repetitive, but it's just true. If you want to discuss other stuff, start another thread, and I'd be happy to talk on it. but lets not derail this one.
I have answered it, but this is a more interesting conversation. My answer way back when was that looking through your worldview, you are absolutely correct: an atheist cannot have right or wrong or good or bad from a moral standpoint because according to your worldview, right and wrong are relative only to God. I also said that objectivity is impossible because our cognitive conceptions are shaped by our upbringing, culture, experiences, the coincidence of our birth, etc. and that this applies to you too.
However, you are incorrect on what you think my assumptions are, I am not an atheist. I’d call myself a hopeful agnostic. For example, Christians sometimes say they see God in the world around them, particularly in nature. I am more honest with myself; when I see something in nature (or anything really) that evokes a sense of wonder or splendor in me, I like to hope I’m seeing God’s design, but I don’t make the leap of saying that it definitively is God, because we just cannot know.
You want to hear something really weird? I regularly attend a Christian church (or what passes for that now) and follow Biblical tithing guidelines, though most often it is directed to places other than the church. Is it not possible to show the love of Jesus (or whomever I choose) as a non-Christian?
I guess maybe I had the "tune" of saying you weren't hopeful...but I did sense that previously. You have been very reasonable and thoughtful.
You can absolutely be loving... but hopeful agnosticism doesn't get anyone into heaven. In regards to creation....
"18But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who suppress the truth by their wickedness.1:18 Or who, by their wickedness, prevent the truth from being known.19They know the truth about God because he has made it obvious to them. 20For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
21Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn’t worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. As a result, their minds became dark and confused. 22Claiming to be wise, they instead became utter fools. 23And instead of worshiping the glorious, ever-living God, they worshiped idols made to look like mere people and birds and animals and reptiles.
24So God abandoned them to do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other’s bodies. 25They traded the truth about God for a lie. So they worshiped and served the things God created instead of the Creator himself, who is worthy of eternal praise! Amen. 26That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. 27And the men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved.
28Since they thought it foolish to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their foolish thinking and let them do things that should never be done. 29Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, quarreling, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. 30They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They invent new ways of sinning, and they disobey their parents. 31They refuse to understand, break their promises, are heartless, and have no mercy. 32They know God’s justice requires that those who do these things deserve to die, yet they do them anyway. Worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too."
Question: Why do you tithe and attend church?
To give to people in need and to learn; I don't have a spiritual connection to it, obviously. Altruism doesn't have to be related to religion, and non-belief in God doesn't mean you have to presuppose apathy toward fellow man and order. In fact, I'd argue that altruism as a principle is what grounds some atheists and agnostics to an objective idea of right and wrong, though as I've said before, true objectivity is impossible.
I see you as earnest and honest, and I appreciate that.
I agree that altruism isn't directly tied to religion.
Do your contributions to church and religion act at all as a "just in case fund"?
A lot of the money you give will be paid to pastors of the church to further its mission and ministry. Your money will go farther toward another cause percentage wise with a charity than a church.
Romans 1 tells the story above in the quote. Pascal's wager isn't saving faith.
the Bible says you are condemned from sin (John 3:17...don't see it at football games) but those who believe are saved.
I like that you are an optimistic skeptic/agnostic. What hold ups do you have from taking "the plunge?"
There is no "just in case" fund for me. I said I'm a hopeful agnostic, but I'm still as agnostic as it gets when it comes to actual belief, so what would be the point with Christianity since you can't buy your way into Heaven?
I do not often directly give to the church itself, but when I do, I understand that part of it pays for things that I don't necessarily support, but I think the good it does outweighs my personal preferences on those things. I typically give directly to people or occasionally charitable organizations.
I guess for me, it comes down to needing concrete information. A "miracle" wouldn't do it for me; unexplained doesn't mean unexplainable. Minus a direct revelation, it would be very difficult for me to subscribe to a religious faith. But, here's where I differ from many of my atheistic and agnostic fellows: I can't deny the possibility, however unlikely, of direct revelation.
You might be one of the only intellectually honest skeptics I've met. It sounds to me like you hope you are wrong in a sense. (which I think is rational)
It will always be about faith. Without faith, it is impossible to please God.
Do you see yourself as a sinner and offender of the Biblical God? According to the scriptures, do you recognize that on judgment day you will be convicted of breaking God's law and will be thrown into hell?
I think overall it's been much more friendly, diplomatic, and intellectually honest than the common topics. And you didn't have to come in. Glad you did though.When did the political crap board become the religion class board?
What does “faith” mean? I would argue that the English word “faith” is a bad translation of the Greek word “pistis”
There is a good amount of debate on the translation of this word. Of course, in these debates, it seems like it depends on the theology you already have (or don’t have) as to what your preferred translation is, which makes it circular. The very fact that there is debate about our translation and conception of the meaning of this foundational word (and many, many others) does nothing to help the case for believing in it as the inspired word of God.
Hopefully this isn’t new news, but even the translations of the Bible we have are influenced by the theology of the translator. Try reading the New World Translation if you need proof.
The NWT has inserted words, not just interpreted them differently. We have the original greek in manuscripts, they are accurate and reliable.
Have you ever read Lee Strobel's book?
I think a better translation is “allegiance” or “loyalty.” Something beyond mere mental belief.
I'm saying all translations, not just the NWT are influenced by the theology of the translator, otherwise, all translations would be the same. I'd say the fact that we have the original Greek manuscripts lends credence to my argument because there are so many different translations, many of which diverge significantly from each other. This could be explained by a lot of factors, but theological preconceptions have to be at or near the top.
I've actually read both The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel.
There will always be interpretations and words to evolve in meaning at least slightly, but that doesn't discredit the original language and meanings. ..there is slant to translations, but that doesn't mean it isn't reliable.
I do appreciate you have read those books!
I do appreciate you have read those books!
Similar threads
