Does God Suffer From Vanity?

[FanOfFridays]

Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:

"My argument has been consistent. Simple inability to believe."

Poppycock.

Your atheism is not a function of inability to believe.

You are able to believe in God, you opt not to...you are unwilling to believe, not lacking the capacity or inability to believe. It is a choice, a willing, conscious, and derived though a thought process for you, not a condition of no choice. You are actively, willingly rejecting belief in God.

In fact you opt to believe in non God.

Difficult to describe what a total pile of crap this truly is. But then it is difficult to comprehend the kind of mindset that Z represents.

There is no evidence for the existence of God. That is why I don't believe in God.

I don't blame pre-Einsteinian civilians for not believing that time runs slower for a traveller moving at high speed relative to an observer. There was no evidence for it pre-Einstein.

The problem is - there is and there will never be any proof for the existence of God (i.e. the theory of ID). Those who believe in God do so because of their ability to believe in something with no evidence; that is, to believe in it on faith alone. The only proof that God exists will be when the heavens open up and angels with trumpets pour out, followed by multi-eyed goats.

To say that a lack of faith in God involves some sort of active decision to not believe is the lowest form of assertion. It is too bad that the Christian faith should be sullied by people like this member for whom scoring a debating point on an anonymous internet forum is more important than his own self-respect.

No self-respecting Christian would ever say that those who don't believe in God are 'choosing' to do it, and that they could if they would only try. Nor do I say that any Christian like ZTroll could believe in a Godless universe if they only tried. These people have their faith and it is unshakeable. That faith is in the unseen, unproved, unknowable. It is faith in the existence of ghosts and goblins, and magic and incantations, and an unseen hand that guides our lives. In the end it is a faith that death has some meaning, because it is the fear of death that is assuaged by religious faith.

We agnostics put our faith in what we can see, know and measure. And we do not insist that the world be seen by others in the same way we see it.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

Stu, I must laugh and here's why?

There are atheists that disagree with you! And they've laid out why! Yet you don't seem to want to address that.

I laid out my case. It's solid. It's also confirmed by atheists, explicitly. You're entitled to your opinion, of course. But as I said which you seem to be unable to address, "take it up with your atheist brethren who ardently disagree with you." Since, as it seems there is no general concensus among atheists, given that on the web you see some seemingly unskilled atheists trying to run with the idea that babies are atheists without any sound discourse as to why this is valid, all the while there are atheists who reject such a notion as ridiculous and illogical and have addressed why in a logical and prudent manner, arguing with me is pointless as I'm not the one who needs convincing.

Start a web page or blog and let atheists debate it with you. You won't be able to cry "theists are stupid or block headed."

Wordplay demonstration on my part? LOL. Seriously. LOL. The interpretation of a sentence, paragraph, and conceptualization in the bible is not wordplay. It's a mode of interpretation. It could be allegorical, literal, or contextual. You see my fine fellow, there is enough ambiguity in the creation story to allow for further interpretation than the one which was prominent millenia ago.

Wordplay, which you are clearly doing and was shown by an atheist's site, is assigning a meaning to a word for which there is no sound logical grounds for doing so.

Bye bye now.

ddunbar I will admit I am a little disappointed at your reaction but not surprised.

On previous occasions you have been more gracious when confronted with the 'bleedin obvious' , but this time a straight forward statement seems to have gotten your irrational defenses out in their true colors.

Not only will you re-define a word's etymology to fit meanings you want it to have, deny sentences say what they say in a childish reasoning which eventually rests your case on what 'atheist brethren' don't actually say , but then you openly demonstrate how to recommend people alter the meaning of words, particularly in the Bible and obviously anywhere else, in order to make a 'solid' argument to defend the indefensible.

All to deny the simple fact babies are born atheist by definition.

How disappointing. Laugh and skit all you will but it's a pity that in the end you came only to rely on what is the inability to provide something more substantive than the alteration of principle meaning in attempt to justify the refusal of that fact, because you don’t like the sound of its application.

Well then, I notice once again the affect religious apologia has on some people.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

ddunbar I will admit I am a little disappointed at your reaction but not surprised.

On previous occasions you have been more gracious when confronted with the 'bleedin obvious' , but this time a straight forward statement seems to have gotten your irrational defenses out in their true colors.

Not only will you re-define a word's etymology to fit meanings you want it to have, deny sentences say what they say in a childish reasoning which eventually rests your case on what 'atheist brethren' don't actually say , but then you openly demonstrate how to recommend people alter the meaning of words, particularly in the Bible and obviously anywhere else, in order to make a 'solid' argument to defend the indefensible.

All to deny the simple fact babies are born atheist by definition.

How disappointing. Laugh and skit all you will but it's a pity that in the end you came only to rely on what is the inability to provide something more substantive than the alteration of principle meaning in attempt to justify the refusal of that fact, because you don’t like the sound of its application.

Well then, I notice once again the affect religious apologia has on some people.

Seriously, there's something off with you.

You take your minority view and attempt to make it fact by imperatively restating it ad nauseum while ignoring not only a majority view, but several excerpted posts from atheist websites which ardently disagree with you in an explicit and verified manner. You failed to address them and the fact that they themselves define atheism as a worldview. You failed to adress them and still do.

Then you have the audacity to claim that some religious apologia has an affect on my "inability" to embrace your position? Grow up.

I've had many discussions with atheists. It's how I've come to respect and in some cases, admire them. What I respect most is the fact that they will rely on logic and critical reasoning. They will reasonably address points. And will acknowledge what is readily apparent.

Where ZZZZx10 is to the extreme of theists, you, stu, are the extreme of atheists.

Here's another link to a website promoting the idea of babies being atheist: (selling T-shirts about it no less)

http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion/639033

You will note, they make a proper distinction by calling that particular brand of atheism, "non-cognitive atheism." Something, if you recall, I suggested it be called but you contested to the point of whining.

So again, you freaky-deaky-freakazoid, take it up with your atheist brethren who routinely seem to disagree with you.

It's got nothing to do with theism. It's got everything to do with rational thought and understanding of words.

Final to you, for life. (unless of course you change your user name and I inadvertently get sucked into a convo.)

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

Seriously, there's something off with you.

You take your minority view and attempt to make it fact by imperatively restating it ad nauseum while ignoring not only a majority view, but several excerpted posts from atheist websites which ardently disagree with you in an explicit and verified manner. You failed to address them and the fact that they themselves define atheism as a worldview. You failed to adress them and still do.

Then you have the audacity to claim that some religious apologia has an affect on my "inability" to embrace your position? Grow up.

I've had many discussions with atheists. It's how I've come to respect and in some cases, admire them. What I respect most is the fact that they will rely on logic and critical reasoning. They will reasonably address points. And will acknowledge what is readily apparent.

Where ZZZZx10 is to the extreme of theists, you, stu, are the extreme of atheists.

Here's another link to a website promoting the idea of babies being atheist: (selling T-shirts about it no less)

http://www.cafepress.com/antireligion/639033

You will note, they make a proper distinction by calling that particular brand of atheism, "non-cognitive atheism." Something, if you recall, I suggested it be called but you contested to the point of whining.

So again, you freaky-deaky-freakazoid, take it up with your atheist brethren who routinely seem to disagree with you.

It's got nothing to do with theism. It's got everything to do with rational thought and understanding of words.

Final to you, for life. (unless of course you change your user name and I inadvertently get sucked into a convo.)

What patronizingly over sensitive self-opinionated nonsense is that?. I have made it clear my only point extends to exactly that -one principle meaning- you have quoted yourself.

" that particular brand of atheism, 'non-cognitive atheism.' "

wtf is that ddunbar if it isn't atheism !? What is a "brand of atheism" if it isn't atheism. What the hell is a brand of coffee if it isn't coffee!?

The only extremism here is the absurd demonstration of how you will contradictingly and obstinately deny the very definition of something defined by yourself.

I have acknowledged I understand why you may want to add further conditional qualifications to the word, but you have given not one sufficient reason for wanting to alter it's original meaning.

People are well aware of the non cognizance of a baby, so why do you have to add that? Do you always need to describe theism as - "cognitive theism"?

What is so ridiculous about your argument is the impatient dismissal and taking of such offense over a simple word with straightforward meaning.

So babies do a " particular brand of non-cognitive atheism." -- they do atheism - they are atheist .
It follows. You describe it so. what the hell is the problem with that which gets you all pissy.

 

[ddunbar]

For any who have been following the now ended convo between Stu(freaky-deaky-freakaziod, lol) and myself, here's what is meant/intimated by non-cognitive atheist in connection with babies.

cognition: (adj) The mental process of knowing, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, and judgment.


cognitive (adj):1. of, relating to, or being conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words)
2.of or pertaining to the mental processes of perception, memory, judgment, and reasoning, as contrasted with emotional and volitional processes.

non-cognitive being the opposite of cognitive above makes a non-cognitve atheist, what?

Equivalent to a rock, a piece of paper, or a scissors and all other such mindless things that are devoid of cognition.

I suppose (actually certain) that's the reason why many atheists (that's theist with a "A") oppose the use of the term atheist for a baby. It's insulting to associate atheism with mindlessness given the amount of thought and courage that goes into being an atheist and the struggle for the worldview atheism espouses.

But some atheists are so desperate to expand who can be termed an atheist in order to gain acceptance (safety in numbers which has the effect of mitigating insecurity) that they are willing to dilute and denigrate the great school of thought that is paramount to and the hallmark of atheism. That being, rationalism.

 

[ddunbar]

In case anyone who might be following along missed it given that it was ignored, a solid piece authored by an atheist ('cause if it were by a theist, we all know it would have to be held suspect) concerning why a baby shouldn't be considered an atheist. Especially see the second link.

http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_3.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_4.htm

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from Guildenstern:

The opening statement is circular reasoning ala St. Anselm (google it, I don't remember the manifest but it is St. Anselm's only famous one).

Please explain briefly the nature of the circular logic specifically, rather than merely pointing to an extraneous reference that may or may not have application. Thank you.

 

[rcanfiel]

Coming late to this discussion & tried to read a lot of the notes to this point. 55 pages is kind of mind-blowing. I am a strong proponent that that people should be allowed to have and state their opinions, and that forums are a good place to dialogue.

I will state specifically, I accept the entire text of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. I consider its contents as "God-breathed," meaning perfectly transmitted to prophets/apostles, who precisely recorded God's words through the work of the Spirit. I neither accept that "man wrote the Bible" nor recognize other religions as anything other than human fabrications. In fact, I don't consider biblical christianity as a religion, but as a family construct.

I have degrees in, and constantly review the latest news/research in the sciences (bio, chem, cosmology, geology, engineering...). I am among a small percentage of biblical christians who are theistic evolutionists. I have no problem with a 4.6 billion year old Earth, a 13+ billion year old (11-dimensional) universe (possibly multiverse), or the evolutionary process. But neither do I think anyone can settle this by either quoting scipture or science. I consider that proving or settling the manner of our origins as way beyond our understanding.

By background, I was raised a liberal protestant, (all Gods basically valid, believe what you want, etc.). I was an agnostic for several teen years. After a conversion experience prior to senior year of college, I became a Southern Baptist for about 13 years (mainline evangelical). For the past 12 years, I have been a conservative Presbyterian (I mostly accept the "reformed" doctrine, after the opinions of John Calvin/calvinism).

 

[kjkent1]

Does this mean that you accept that God has created a dual reality which accomodates the existence of both the Antideluvian age of the Bible and geological science?

Or, do you have a scientific explanation for the many contradictions between Biblical and scientifically derived conclusions about the Earth's history?

If the former, then why do you think God would do this?

If the latter, then how do you reconcile the contradictions?

 

[rcanfiel]

Quote from kjkent1:

Does this mean that you accept that God has created a dual reality which accomodates the existence of both the Antideluvian age of the Bible and geological science?

Or, do you have a scientific explanation for the many contradictions between Biblical and scientifically derived conclusions about the Earth's history?

If the former, then why do you think God would do this?

If the latter, then how do you reconcile the contradictions?

What I accept is irrelevant. If I believe 2+2=5, this does not change reality. I say that the entire of contents of scripture is true. I also say that modern science's grasp of many things has much truth in it, although limited. I think many modern Biblical christians think they understand Genesis, but I believe Genesis is almost as beyond our grasp as Revelation. I see no need to defend scripture as saying the earth was created in 4004 BC, or a number of other things. To me, that is what people interpret it as, but I think it is almost a fool's errand...

My explanation for the apparent contradictions would not be based on science. In my opinion, compared to God, modern science is still in diapers. Science is in a continuous "aha" experience. They are barely grasping what God has created. I consider the Scripture as millenia beyond what we can currently grasp. it was only in the 1990s, when cosmologists realized that the contents of the known universe appear to be 25 times more than they realized. (Visible or baryonic matter seems to be about 4%, dark matter about 23% and dark energy about 73% of all things.) String theory may be true, but many argue that while it may explain things, it is very convenient to found things on something which we likely can never prove exist.

Regarding the contradictions, I think there is not one underlying reason. I have not spent much time worrying about it. Some seem to flow from different views across the 4 gospels or across different sets of writers, such as the writings in Samuel, Chronicles and Kings (or by different major/minor prophets recording the event in the twin kingdoms of Israel/Judah. They were written to different audiences, and often only included a subset of the event. I was raised on that "contradiction theory" throughout my childhood.

The bible was not written to the world (nonbelievers). In fact, it contains multiple clear messages that it would be impenetrable to those who don't believe. For example (paraphrasing here): "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing." Luke 8:9-10 at the end of the parable of the sowers is a good example " Then his disciples asked him what this parable meant. He said, “You have been given the opportunity to know the secrets of the kingdom of God, but for others they are in parables, so that although they see they may not see, and although they hear they may not understand. "

How do I reconcile the contradictions? I can only speculate. I think the problem lies with people on both the pro and con side of whether scripture is true. If I have to state a belief, then I think that the Bible is so far beyond anyone's grasp, that we are the blind men and the elephant. It was written so anyone who reads it (yet does not believe), will never find God on their own power. As I said before, they will only bump up against "The preaching of the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing." They will laugh and chuckle about its contents, which was precisely its original design. And that is also precisely what it said would be the case, throughout the Old Testament, for example in Isaiah 53. It gives a very clear impression that, when He came, He would be rejected and despised - even by His own people.

No one can possibly understand Scipture as if they have "arrived". Even to the believers it says, "now we see through a glass darkly, but then, face to face."