You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question for the Athiests
- Thread starter athlonmank8
- Start date
Lucrum, thanks for the article, very interesting.
The problem I see on both sides is the spokespeople that they are commonly associated with: the stereotypical ignorant "common man" pit against the stereotypical elitist and condescending Bill Maher type. With such conflicting personalities, it is hard to get a good discussion going, as we've seen in the past 17 pages.
Now, it is clear that for most people, it is not clear cut - the facts are that we don't know if there is a God or gods, and we don't know if there is not.
As for me, I've vacillated between the 2 sides my life. I grew up one religion (not any of the Abrahamic ones), and as I grew older I stopped believing what my parents and everyone else told me. Then was a time I despised the intellectual laziness of those who simply accept as fact that there is a God or gods (everyone from Christians to Jews to Hindus and Muslims and Zoroastrians and everyone else).
Now, after reading much on both sides of the fence, I'm still stuck in the middle. While I would love to have the conviction that both sides have, I think I am content to be unsure and just be as good as I can, without regard for whether some see my unbelief as paving the way to hell. As far as I know, there are many problems with all religions, none has been (as far as I know) completely correct (in terms of writings and histories), and requires some massaging and "interpretation". Nothing wrong with that.
As far as I know, there is no proof that there is anything after today. Nothing wrong with that.
Maybe both sides need to stop judging and trying to convert each other, and just live and let live?
The problem I see on both sides is the spokespeople that they are commonly associated with: the stereotypical ignorant "common man" pit against the stereotypical elitist and condescending Bill Maher type. With such conflicting personalities, it is hard to get a good discussion going, as we've seen in the past 17 pages.
Now, it is clear that for most people, it is not clear cut - the facts are that we don't know if there is a God or gods, and we don't know if there is not.
As for me, I've vacillated between the 2 sides my life. I grew up one religion (not any of the Abrahamic ones), and as I grew older I stopped believing what my parents and everyone else told me. Then was a time I despised the intellectual laziness of those who simply accept as fact that there is a God or gods (everyone from Christians to Jews to Hindus and Muslims and Zoroastrians and everyone else).
Now, after reading much on both sides of the fence, I'm still stuck in the middle. While I would love to have the conviction that both sides have, I think I am content to be unsure and just be as good as I can, without regard for whether some see my unbelief as paving the way to hell. As far as I know, there are many problems with all religions, none has been (as far as I know) completely correct (in terms of writings and histories), and requires some massaging and "interpretation". Nothing wrong with that.
As far as I know, there is no proof that there is anything after today. Nothing wrong with that.
Maybe both sides need to stop judging and trying to convert each other, and just live and let live?
Quote from vhehn:
give it your best shot with your best prophecy.
We have heard talk enough. We have listened to all the drowsy, idealess, vapid sermons that we wish to hear. We have read your Bible and the works of your best minds. We have heard your prayers, your solemn groans and your reverential amens. All these amount to less than nothing. We want one fact. We beg at the doors of your churches for just one little fact. We pass our hats along your pews and under your pulpits and implore you for just one fact. We know all about your mouldy wonders and your stale miracles. We want a this year's fact. We ask only one. Give us one fact for charity. Your miracles are too ancient. The witnesses have been dead for nearly two thousand years.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll,
Geez vhehn, I am not good enough to debate across multiple "thread zones"........LOL
I do believe this conversation is not really about prophecy, but about G-D, religion and the knowability of it.
Since you seem to be fond of Ingersoll, I will "see" your Ingersoll and raise you a Karl Barth:
"...We must begin with the fact that there is a readiness of God to be known as He actually is known in the fulfilment in which the knowledge of God is a fact. In the first instance and decisively the knowability of God is this readiness of God Himself. "God is knowable" means: "God can be known" - He can be known of and by Himself. In His essence, as it turned to us in His activity, He is so constituted that He can be known by us.
But obviously we are not going far enough if we try to be satisfied with saying that the knowability of God is "in the first place" and "decisively" His own readiness to be known by us, i.e., the readiness grounded in His own being and activity. Later on we shall have to speak of a corresponding readiness of man for this knowledge - for it is certainly a question of our human knowledge of God. If there is not a corresponding readiness of man, there can be no knowability of God................."
i think most on my side would agree that if the bible thumpers would keep their superstious beliefs in their homes and churches we would not bring up the subject. we dont go around thinking about imaginary deities unless someone else brings it up first.Quote from yayt:
Maybe both sides need to stop judging and trying to convert each other, and just live and let live?
Quote from Barth Vader:
Geez vhehn, I am not good enough to debate across multiple "thread zones"........LOL
I do believe this conversation is not really about prophecy, but about G-D, religion and the knowability of it.
Since you seem to be fond of Ingersoll, I will "see" your Ingersoll and raise you a Karl Barth:
"...We must begin with the fact that there is a readiness of God to be known as He actually is known in the fulfilment in which the knowledge of God is a fact. In the first instance and decisively the knowability of God is this readiness of God Himself. "God is knowable" means: "God can be known" - He can be known of and by Himself. In His essence, as it turned to us in His activity, He is so constituted that He can be known by us.
But obviously we are not going far enough if we try to be satisfied with saying that the knowability of God is "in the first place" and "decisively" His own readiness to be known by us, i.e., the readiness grounded in His own being and activity. Later on we shall have to speak of a corresponding readiness of man for this knowledge - for it is certainly a question of our human knowledge of God. If there is not a corresponding readiness of man, there can be no knowability of God................."
A man asks for a little fact and you write this.
Thanks for the laugh.
Quote from vhehn:
i think most on my side would agree that if the bible thumpers would keep their superstious beliefs in their homes and churches we would not bring up the subject. we dont go around thinking about imaginary deities unless someone else brings it up first.
very true. It seems that atheists are more tolerant than theists, although it seems like that would be expected.
Quote from NeoRio1:
A man asks for a little fact and you write this.
Thanks for the laugh.
The "man" did not ask.....he was using another to ask..Ingersoll.
If he or you, would ask regarding a specific prophecy, that YOU have desire to debate, I would address the task. I have no desire, nor time, to debate web sites, or quotes from people not present.
I would assume that a specific prophecy, or Biblical tenant was not brought forward, because none was personally known.
I would not insult you or your inquiry by sending you to some web site...I would engage the debate. So, ask the question or bring the argument forward, not a web site.
Respectfully submitted
Quote from vhehn:
exactly why must we begin here? why not begin where the evidence points us? there is nothing up there.
Hummmm?
I look up there and I see a vast complex universe, where did it all come from?
You try to confine God to the knowledge and senses of an lesser being and when you cannot you claim that's the proof for nonexistence?
I'd say that we can not grasp or understand the magnitude of God. The very though of trying to measure or explain scientifically is futile at best, but keep trying. And all the time, as your efforts are in vain, you will keep spouting --- there's no proof. When all you have to do is look up there.
regards,
Quote from Barth Vader:
The "man" did not ask.....he was using another to ask..Ingersoll.
If he or you, would ask regarding a specific prophecy, that YOU have desire to debate, I would address the task. I have no desire, nor time, to debate web sites, or quotes from people not present.
I would assume that a specific prophecy, or Biblical tenant was not brought forward, because none was personally known.
I would not insult you or your inquiry by sending you to some web site...I would engage the debate. So, ask the question or bring the argument forward, not a web site.
Respectfully submitted
Ingersoll asks the same question I ask.
Is the belief you have in your god a fact?
It's a yes or no answer.
You are the one not engaging the debate.