Question for Atheists/Naturalist

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Question for Atheists/Naturalist

Post #1

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

It has happened often, within the past 100 years, that if you ask an atheist if he believes in God, he will often say something like "No, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy". So, the belief in God is compared to the belief in fairy tales and such. My question is, do atheists really believe that belief in God is the same as believing in Santa Claus, or is such a statement just an over-the-top, facetious quip?

When you ride past a Church on Sunday, and you see dozens of cars in the parking lot as members are gathered inside for Sunday services as they worship their God...is that equivalent to riding past a dentist and seeing cars parked in the parking lot as the members inside share stories about a geniune belief that they have of the Tooth Fairy?

Now, if I saw cars outside the dentist and the people gathered inside for such...I would probably think they are crazy, or at least, childish in their thinking. Why? Because I don't think a rational adult with common sense can believe in such a thing.

BUT, is that the same way that someone with an atheist perspective will look at us (Church members) who are gathered inside a Church to talk about/worship a geninue belief in God?

Like, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in God whatsoever...what do you think about those that do? Do you look at them as lost, crazy, duped, all of the above?

Some of you on here are probably former believers? Do you sometimes think, "Man, thank goodness I don't have that "God" umbrella over me anymore. I can't believe that I actually BELIEVED that nonsense".

I don't want to fuss or fight...I just want to see your thoughts.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #71

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 66 by For_The_Kingdom]



[center]
Objectivity is what they say.
Part One[/center]

rikuoamero wrote: And how do we tell for sure, in some objective way, what this God desires or approves of?
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
The Bible is the Christian manual for determining what God approves of. Now, of course, the "B" word doesn't do much for you..but I am just answering your question.
Yeah, I agree.. the Bible does give hints as to what God disproves of.
Disobedience of any kind seems to be a big no-no, for starters.

In Genesis, God seems to not like this thing called "knowledge" very much for humans, for example.

We are all being punished for that, even AFTER Jesus redeemed us all too.
Woo.. that God guy REALLY has a temper !!!!


Keeps a good grudge, too.


:)

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #72

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

rikuoamero wrote: I remember you having a thread where you were supposedly giving an argument, a logical argument (i.e. something with premises labelled P1, P2, etc, and then a conclusion) with the goal of proving God exists...but in a preamble before the argument proper, you defined God as necessarily existing.
A cheat, in other words.
So, if I defined YOU as a necessarily existing being...does it follow that it is possible for you to exist necessarily? No, not at all.
rikuoamero wrote: Are they? Why should I accept this claim?
I guess we shouldn't accept non-Christians to accept Christian claims, should we?
rikuoamero wrote: Oh, it is? Because FtK says it is?
I am just telling you what Jesus said...you see, this is Christian theology stuff...and I don't expect this kind of stuff to mean anything to a non-Christian. But to actual believers, it means EVERYTHING.
rikuoamero wrote: So should I go about killing children?
Not according to Christian theology...no. But if you ain't a Christian...do what you want.
rikuoamero wrote: If your answer to this is no, then clearly there has to be something wrong with the idea of killing children, and this ends up creating a problem with the Biblical god, who at one point or another called for the killing of children.
There is something wrong with a man taking a life that doesn't belong to him...there is nothing wrong with God taking a life, that DOES belong to him. All life belongs to God, sir.

Again, Christian theology.
rikuoamero wrote: So...what? Be selfish? Be self-centered?
Be self-saved.
rikuoamero wrote: *cough* Jesus *cough*
The reason human sacrifices weren't allowed was because all humans are sinful, so how can a sinful human give his life for the sins of another human, when he himself is not without sin? Catch my drift?

Jesus' sacrifice was fine and dandy precisely because he was WITHOUT sin...and therefore his sacrifice was SUFFICIENT.

Christian Theology 101.

So, you may want to get some Nyquil for that cough of yours.
rikuoamero wrote: Because I imagine myself in Job's shoes and being pretty ticked off at the whole ordeal. I imagine being ticked off at doing everything God says I should do and as a 'reward', my livelihood is destroyed, I'm infected with diseases, and my loved ones die.
Well, I guess Job felt differently than you...he maintained his faith in God, realizing that God was in sovereign control...and he was acknowledge by God as faithful and was blessed with even more "stuff" than he had prior and was even blessed with more children knowing that he will soon see his lost children again in heaven.

But that is the difference between belief, and unbelief....faith, and unfaithfulness.
rikuoamero wrote: As someone who has lost contact with siblings for years (currently standing at 20 years for my oldest sister :( ), I am well aware of the pain that absence of loved ones causes.
Sorry to hear that.
rikuoamero wrote: If a specific man violently beats his wife, but that wife isn't personally upset over it (or says she isn't), does that mean that wife-beating is now okay?
Well, why wouldn't it be ok? Again, who made the law that says wife beating isn't ok? They do it all the time in some sects of Islam. It is right to them. On naturalism, anything goes.

Where is this sense of morality coming from? Who told you that wife-beating is wrong? Why?
rikuoamero wrote: I can beat my wife now if I want to, because I can point to a story where a wife didn't seem pissed off at being beaten by her husband?
Well, you can probably point to a "story" in your life where you killed a fly or a roach. On a cosmic scale, your life isn't any more "important" than the fly that you killed. If you think your life is more important than the fly, then you are a speciest, believing that your "species" of life is more superior than others, which is the same concept as racism...which is a concept that most morally decent human beings are disgusted with.

So you are essentially murdering flies and have no quams about it, but have the nerve to talk about how wrong it is to "beat" your wife.

What is worse, the beating or the murder? LOL.
rikuoamero wrote: So tormenting a man is objective morality. Gotcha. Therefore, there is no reason why I shouldn't go out and torment men right now. If it's objective morality, it's moral to do so.
Be right back...
On naturalism, go right ahead.
rikuoamero wrote: You're a human aren't you? A finite created human being aren't you? So who are you to say that something is objective morality or not? Just up above you said something I said was objective morality, but now here you are saying that humans can't determine such.
I am obviously appealing to a higher standard than that of my own finite/created standards.
rikuoamero wrote: Readers, please remember that when I asked are these actions objective morality, I included tormenting men in that list of examples, and that FtK said 'yes'.
And yet somehow...it is not an objective moral. Somehow. It seems to me here that FtK is saying that A = not-A. A clear contradiction.
?
rikuoamero wrote: So what is the difference between murdering and killing? If a society has rules against picking up sticks on a particular day of the week, and attributes that rule to their god, is that murder or killing?
http://blogs.lawyers.com/attorney/felon ... cide-2977/
rikuoamero wrote: What you've just done by pulling the 'murdering vs killing' card is allow ANYONE to cause the death of another human, and for that first person to have the defence of "God ordered his death".
The question would be; "Did God order his death"...and if the answer is "yes"...then it would be a justified death ordered by the ALMIGHTY.
rikuoamero wrote: How can you argue against that person? For all you know, God really did tell him to kill.
It is not up to me to judge why a person committed an act. If the person is lying on God's name...that is a no-no in Christianity...and that person will be judged accordingly, by God.
rikuoamero wrote: If you do end up arguing against that person, all you've got are your subjective religious beliefs. That other person could be an ISIS member, who believes quite strongly that God ordered the death of a gay person. That God too is judge, jury and executioner.
Depends on which God we are talking...the one TRUE God (Christian)...or the bootleg, fake version (Islamic).
rikuoamero wrote: (Besides, wouldn't God being all three mean that God would have to do all three actions himself, and NOT have to use humans as proxies to kill other humans, like in the Joshua Conquest stories?)
Sure...he could have..but he didn't.
rikuoamero wrote: Since logical contradictions seem to be built into the Christian belief system (such as the contradiction of an all knowing and all loving God who punishes people for exercising the free will he gave to them...)
The subject of free will is a debate for another day.
rikuoamero wrote: , I honestly wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if the Bible authors actually were that foolish/naive.
I'm not saying that they definitely were...just that I don't discount the possibility.
We all have our opinions, don't we?

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #73

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Blastcat wrote:
Oy!

How can we ever forget !
That's not an argument, it's a bald and very bold assertion.

Big deal.
Anyone can make those up.....
Oh yeah, try it.
Blastcat wrote: If it's possible that necessary beings exist, then they must.
True proposition.
Blastcat wrote: If it's possible for matter to exist, then it does.
That is false. Matter is contingent.
Blastcat wrote: If it's possible that you are right, you must be.
Contingent.
Blastcat wrote: If you imagine that presuppositional apologetics makes any kind of sense, it does.
Hey, it's at least POSSIBLE.

It's also possible that you are completely over your head.
So by your reasoning, you must be.

All we have to do is to throw in the word "NECESSARY", and were good.

:)
You clearly don't understand the difference between contingent/necessary truths. What a pity.

User avatar
marco
Savant
Posts: 12314
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:15 pm
Location: Scotland
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #74

Post by marco »

For_The_Kingdom wrote:
rikuoamero wrote: If a specific man violently beats his wife, but that wife isn't personally upset over it (or says she isn't), does that mean that wife-beating is now okay?
Well, why wouldn't it be ok? Again, who made the law that says wife beating isn't ok? They do it all the time in some sects of Islam. It is right to them. On naturalism, anything goes.

Where is this sense of morality coming from? Who told you that wife-beating is wrong? Why?
You have crossed sides in the debate. If Islamists beat their wives or kill homosexuals then they get their instructions from God, just as those who "suffered not a witch to live" took their message from Yahweh.

Why would we not beat our wives? It is certainly NOT because God forbade it but because man, in growing civilised, recognises that hurting others is wrong. Some animals behave in the same decent way, but one does not attribute religious faith to their actions. When God enters the scene then good people may be induced to do evil, despite their feelings of revulsion.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #75

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

Blastcat wrote: Even if Christianity doesn't know what God's reason IS, Christianity CLAIMS TO KNOW that it is "GOOD".

That's not the greatest argument for believing in something that I've ever heard. because it contradicts itself. If we don't KNOW the reasons we can't TELL if they are naughty or nice.
So basically, what you are saying is; once we know the reasons, we will then be able to determine if the are good or bad.....cool......but once we DECIDE whether it is good or bad, what will we be basing it off of? Our own personal/subjective standard for what is good or bad, right?

From where does this moral landscape/foundation come from? And how do we even know if THAT is even right or wrong? There is just no answer to this on naturalism...and if you don't believe in objective moral values..you have absolutely no basis for being judgmental about anything...sure, you can certainly express your opinion, but so can every else. So it is one big cosmic stalemate.
Blastcat wrote: BUT "Christianity" seem to be able to TELL anyway.
Hey, let's give good ol' God a break, here, good ol' benefit of the doubt, why not?
Or, don't give him anything..no worship, no praise, no acknowledgement..no nothing..and continue doing whatever the heck we want. That is an option too, ya know.
Blastcat wrote: SOMEBODY'S got to speak up for the guy.
We want to.
Blastcat wrote: Nobody knows, but everybody knows.
We know what we know, and we don't know what we don't know.

For_The_Kingdom
Guru
Posts: 1915
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 3:29 pm

Post #76

Post by For_The_Kingdom »

marco wrote: You have crossed sides in the debate. If Islamists beat their wives or kill homosexuals then they get their instructions from God, just as those who "suffered not a witch to live" took their message from Yahweh.
The bottom line is simple; if God commands you to do it, you don't need to ask "is this right?" or "Is this wrong?".

You simply do it. Now, who God tells what is a different story..the point is, if God tells you to do something, you do it.

That being said, I explicitly deny the Islamic version of God based on my reasons in believing that Christianity is true.
marco wrote: Why would we not beat our wives? It is certainly NOT because God forbade it but because man, in growing civilised, recognises that hurting others is wrong.
So, if man decided that hurting others is right, would it be right?
marco wrote: Some animals behave in the same decent way, but one does not attribute religious faith to their actions. When God enters the scene then good people may be induced to do evil, despite their feelings of revulsion.
Again, if you call any act evil, you are assuming that this act has fallen short of a given standard. Well, where does this standard come from, and how do you know it is good...what determines whether or not this standard is good and who gets to decide it?

No answers, on naturalism.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Post #77

Post by Divine Insight »

For_The_Kingdom wrote: From where does this moral landscape/foundation come from? And how do we even know if THAT is even right or wrong? There is just no answer to this on naturalism...and if you don't believe in objective moral values..you have absolutely no basis for being judgmental about anything...sure, you can certainly express your opinion, but so can every else. So it is one big cosmic stalemate.
So your argument for a "God" boils down to nothing more than your own personal opinion that there needs to be a cosmic authority to decide what is absolutely right or absolutely wrong?

That's a pretty weak argument for the existence of an absolute authority don't you think?

I mean, your argument itself can't be shown to be anything more than your own personal subjective opinion.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #78

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 71 by For_The_Kingdom]
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
So, if I defined YOU as a necessarily existing being...does it follow that it is possible for you to exist necessarily? No, not at all.
Why not?
Could you demonstrate your reasoning?

:)

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #79

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 75 by For_The_Kingdom]
For_The_Kingdom wrote:
The bottom line is simple; if God commands you to do it, you don't need to ask "is this right?" or "Is this wrong?".
They tried that defense at Nuremberg... didn't work for them. "Just following orders" doesn't seem to be good enough for modern people.



:)

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #80

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 65 by For_The_Kingdom]
rikuoamero wrote:

People like me ask why were the people enslaved in Egypt in the first place, if this God loves the Hebrews so much?


I don't know.
Thank you for saying that. To be honest, I expected you to say that the Hebrews must have disobeyed God, to make their enslavement in Egypt fit in with the later stories we read in the OT about them disobeying him and him letting foreign powers conquer them.
However, you didn't. Instead, you say you don't know.
Is this because you didn't think of the answer I expected of you, or because you did but dismissed it for one reason or another? I'm curious as to your thought process here.
Out of the blue? You just said yourself that there was a few hundred years in between the ending of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus. So what do you mean, out of the blue? Do you expect the same Pharaoh to be in power after 480 years?
Poor wording on my part perhaps. I meant that Genesis closes with Joseph being very highly favoured by Pharaoh, it ends, then we cut to the next book of the Bible and there's a new pharaoh who just decides to be evil and enslave the Hebrews.
First off, I never said that God "only" punishes the Hebrews if they are disobedient. I merely said that the entire theme when dealing with the Hebrews was simple...obey and be blessed, disobey and be punished.

And who said that the enslavement of the Hebrews was a punishment from God? Did I say that? No.

I don't know why God allowed the Hebrews to be enslaved..but what I do know is, according to Christianity...God has a good reason for everything that he does...even if we can't see it.
Here's the thing. You lack any and all justification for calling something good if you don't know anything about it. I have no reason to believe that the reason is 'good' if you, the person telling me that it was in fact good, admit you know nothing of it.
Imagine you're handing me a box to me on my birthday, saying that inside the box is the greatest gift one can give to another. I ask excitedly 'what is inside?' and you say '...dunno'. I would say the exact same thing then as I am here.

The approach you take with something that is unknown is that 'oh it must be good'. Me, I take it as a hole in the theology, something that helps expose it for being not so sound after all.
Maybe their enslavement was entirely on him...but if God had a morally justified reason for allowing their slavery, then it is what it is.
And with that, you've just admitted that slavery is objectively moral. I'm constantly hearing from folks like yourself that God is the source of/dictates what is moral/immoral. Well then...slavery is moral. Slavery can be morally justified.
Wow...looks like one of the standard criticisms atheists have for Christianity has just been verified by none other than a Christian!
Maybe you need to re-read Exodus, because God clearly said..
Well in this case, we have a problem of conflicting passages.
Indeed, just a few lines down from what you yourself quote, I see
"Then you must go with the leaders of Israel to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has revealed himself to us. Now allow us to travel three days into the desert to offer sacrifices to the Lord, our God.’" That is indeed the exchange that happens in Chapter 5.
So I have one of two possible scenarios here
1) The goal all along was for the Hebrews to go into the desert for the three day feast. All that talk about freedom and a promised land was just that...talk.
2) Moses here is being ordered by God to lie. Think about that for a moment. If God can and seemingly does order Moses to lie, where else can this be said to have happened? What does this do the trustworthiness of the Bible?
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

Post Reply