"Why won't God heal amputees?"

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

I take your point about many Atheists being former Christians etc, but in my view all atheists and all theists actually start out as atheists. Being introduced to a creed or teaching from one religious sect or another, they become religious, they become theists. Atheists, should they become theistic, are then to put it simplistically, only returning back to the first position, after coming to understand there is a myth which has been indoctrinated into them, to be believed as true.

I've come across this position before but find that there is some fault with it. The notion that all start out as atheists, while seemingly technically true, is false. It's false in the sense of the chicken or the egg argument. In other words, which came first? Religion or atheism? Human history suggests that humans have an undying propensity to formulate theistic ideals. Practically every culture on Earth has had a religion of some sort. That suggests that humans have a significantly higher propensity to form or adhere to a religion, than they are to deny one. That would make a bent towards religion or theistic ideals innate.

I know that you're using the definition of atheism that's termed as "having a lack of belief in God or Gods" as oppossed to the alternate and common "doctrine or belief that there is no God" when stating that we start out as atheists. But even with this definition, the statement that we all start out as atheists is at best speculative. It needs to be proven rigorously. Sure, a baby has no belief in anything. But that doesn't make the baby an atheist. As I stated above, humans have a propensity towards religion. They will create one given enough time. So only a long term experiment with an isolated society that is determined not to indoctrinate their children neither in theism nor atheism will sort that out. Questions about "where we come from" have to be answered with "I don't know" starting with the first generation. Can't answer with "God." Can't answer with "Abiogenesis then evolution." Given just this simple control, history suggests that a theism will inevitably develop in this society within a few generations.

I do however agree with you there are very specific arguments which stand against Christianity and moreso against religion in general, many of which discussions have already soundly confirmed the view of atheism as being more understanding of myth out of the two.

I find many of the atheist arguments invaluable. Many of the atheist arguments are grounded in logic and critical reasoning. Whereas many of the theist arguments are based on wishful thinking, even when the theist's text supports are view different than and more logical than the one they are trying to support. Basically, with theism, most adherrents make it such that anything goes. But for those theists who actually know their text in depth, I have found that they have a significantly better understanding of the theism in question than an atheist has. When atheists confront such individuals they are "forced" to demand "proof" of this theist or they'll state that such a diety is not worth worshipping as that diety is a malicious and unfair monster.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

In other words, which came first? Religion or atheism?

Straightforward unequivocal answer to this. Atheism comes first. All humans are born without theism, therefore are atheist. They are without theism. This is both factually and conceptually true.

Quote from ddunbar:

Human history suggests that humans have an undying propensity to formulate theistic ideals.

Humans' history, political / power / control / ideals are the underlying propensity prior to theistic ones. Theistic ideals were and are added to provide the "ultimate authority" to the need to have ideals judged to be right by other humans.

Quote from ddunbar:

Practically every culture on Earth has had a religion of some sort. That suggests that humans have a significantly higher propensity to form or adhere to a religion, than they are to deny one. That would make a bent towards religion or theistic ideals innate.

No, humans have an inate desire to group, become tribal. They want to be with the biggest strongest tribe. It is a single reaction to enhance survival. Religion is a varied and mulitple faceted method to make your tribe stronger and better than anothers. I don't think religion comes first, an inate homogenious survival instinct and strength comes first. My opinion is that only because religion is still considered ( gladly not so much these days) an easily weilded invaluable tool to give absolute righteousness to those desires and ideals, is it still used today.

Quote from ddunbar:

But even with this definition, the statement that we all start out as atheists is at best speculative. It needs to be proven rigorously.

Sure, a baby has no belief in anything.

Then it really is an atheist. Period.

Quote from ddunbar:

So only a long term experiment with an isolated society that is determined not to indoctrinate their children neither in theism nor atheism will sort that out. Questions about "where we come from" have to be answered with "I don't know" starting with the first generation. Can't answer with "God." Can't answer with "Abiogenesis then evolution." Given just this simple control, history suggests that a theism will inevitably develop in this society within a few generations

I do understand your point ddunbar, but theism IS politics, IS control, IS power, IS fear, first and foremost. Religion is firstly the product of those things and secondly the cause of them. Only after that does religion get developed further indoctrinating in order to achieve all those things for its own ends ... and make money too!.

Quote from ddunbar:

But for those theists who actually know their text in depth, I have found that they have a significantly better understanding of the theism in question than an atheist has.

I can't agree with you there, I am not so easily convinced. In such a case it sounds as if they have produced nothing more than a plausible rhetoric, as the premise they work off is intrinsically only wishful thinking as you point out. There are many great theistic orators, who have little to say in substance as they must always argue from a standpoint only of a wish and a prayer.

Strip all the fancy talk away and Theism is based upon the blind faith that there is a deity. No more at its core than that.

 

[ddunbar]

Quote from stu:

Straightforward unequivocal answer to this. Atheism comes first. All humans are born without theism, therefore are atheist.

This is a highly misleading statement. Atheism is not simply to be without belief. It is an active process to not believe, examine beliefs, and to demystify them. A baby cannot do any of that. A baby is simply born ignorant. There's nothing passive about atheism. It is the antithesis to theism and is somewhat a more modern thing. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. It's not ignorance of a God. Babies are merely ignorant of God(s) and the concepts surrounding them. They have no beliefs in anything whatsoever because they haven't developed the capacity to think and reason.

So by saying that Atheism comes first then when one jetisons religion in favor of atheism, they are in effect attempting to return to ignorance. What they were when they were born.

A baby born into an atheist family is being indoctrinated into atheism.

This is both factually and conceptually true.Humans' history, political / power / control / ideals are the underlying propensity prior to theistic ones. Theistic ideals were and are added to provide the "ultimate authority" to the need to have ideals judged to be right by other humans.

This is not precise in terms. Religion has been molded to suit politics, power and control. Theistic ideals go back before these things were codified formally or informally into a religion. Theism first addresses such simple concepts as where do we come from, what happens when I die. Religion addresses, how shall I/we live?

No, humans have an inate desire to group, become tribal. They want to be with the biggest strongest tribe. It is a single reaction to enhance survival. Religion is a varied and mulitple faceted method to make your tribe stronger and better than anothers. I don't think religion comes first, an inate homogenious survival instinct and strength comes first. My opinion is that only because religion is still considered ( gladly not so much these days) an easily weilded invaluable tool to give absolute righteousness to those desires and ideals, is it still used today.

I agree on your points about religion. But theism is as strong an aspect of humanity as their survival instinct is. It goes hand in hand. And is most probably why religion exists in every culture on Earth throughout history. Theism addresses the survival of humans in that it addresses or attempts to address life and a possible life beyond. It addresses a possible purpose for humans.

I do understand your point ddunbar, but theism IS politics, IS control, IS power, IS fear, first and foremost. Religion is firstly the product of those things and secondly the cause of them. Only after that does religion get developed further indoctrinating in order to achieve all those things for its own ends ... and make money too!.

No Religion, which is theism taken to the next level - codified, can be power, control, politics etc. But a belief in something greater than yourself (theism), which is not readily evident, is a unique characteristic in Homo Sapiens. That is why humans so readily adapt to theism and not atheism inspite of atheist claims and demands for proof. Atheism will always be a minority view until such time man can evolve away from this innate nature.

I can't agree with you there, I am not so easily convinced. In such a case it sounds as if they have produced nothing more than a plausible rhetoric, as the premise they work off is intrinsically only wishful thinking as you point out. There are many great theistic orators, who have little to say in substance as they must always argue from a standpoint only of a wish and a prayer.

I haven't met many atheists who know the text better than a well versed theist. For that reason, atheists who attack the text rather than the core ideals and logical concepts and constructs, generally seem like angry little children of whom were "hurt" by religion.

The greatest theist orators have dealt with the text in a manner that suggests that if the text is true, then... (da da da) must be true. The weaker ones tend to stray from the text and act as if they have already presented proof of the claims in the text and the opponent is just too blind to see or just doesn't want to.

Strip all the fancy talk away and Theism is based upon the blind faith that there is a deity. No more at its core than that.

Yes, the onus is on the theist to support their claims if they insist upon them as being fact.

I give you the last rebuttal since I believe I took the first.

 

[jem]

In response to vhehn.

I am familiar with the supposed split between the teachings of Paul and the teachings of jesus in the Gospels. To some extent they are what allowed Luther to start the protestant reformation. It is why the Catholic church seems to speak of faith and works and Protestants speak of faith.

Your cut and paste seem to suggest jesus' teachings on salvation -- are about works and faith.

But I have noticed almost everybody leaves out jesus teaching about eternal life right after the sermon on the mount. John chapter 6 starting around vs 51. Here jesus gives a very concrete way of achieving eternal life. You must gnaw on jesus flesh is the translation. And he said this multiple times. This was not figurative speech. his teaching made jews and gentiles alike walk away. When Jesus asked and apostle if the teaching caused him to want to leave the apostle replied where we go. You wish a to attain eternal life, according the teachings of jesus, one way is eat his body and drink his blood. (gnaw on this flesh). Just like the Jews had to eat the lamb after marking their door posts with the blood of the lamb in the shape of a cross prior to the last plague in egypt.

As you have written Jesus does speak of other ways to achieve eternal life, but for me they are much more difficult.

Now since there is an element of belief and action in receiving Jesus's body and blood, are Jesus's teachings so different from Paul's.

You have to understand that faith is a verb. You must act in accordance with your faith.

The acts do not necessarily have to be good works, they just have to be the acts of a believer.

Many like to bring up the book of James and say faith without works is dead. I think they should actually read the passage and see what kind of work James references.

When Abraham was willing to go through with the act of sacrificing his son on Mount Moriah his actions made him righteous. On that very mountain God would someday sacrifice his own son. Was Abraham's act a good deed, the type one might put in a salvation piggy bank. I do not think so, but it was an act which manifests faith.

it is my contention that when you understand that faith is a verb and your acts manifest you faith the works vs faith conundrum is solved.

You must act on a promise. That action manifests your faith. Saying you believe in Jesus is not enough you must act like you believe in Jesus. My belief is manifest when I go to communion knowing that his body and blood is actually present in the bread and the wine and that mass I am celebrating recreates the last supper. For my faith jesus has said I will have eternal life.

 

[stu]

Quote from ddunbar:

Atheism is not simply to be without belief. It is an active process to not believe, examine beliefs, and to demystify them.

No its is not just that, but if you do not have theism for whatever reason, you are atheist. A-theism, A-political. Both of the same connotation. Without theism without politics. You do not require an active process to examine or demystify politics to be a-political. You simply don't do politics. Same with atheists. They don't do God.

I appreciate what you say about a baby being ignorant, however it is without theism therefore to ones who are not so ignorant in that way, the baby is A-theist. as it is also strictly speaking A-political. Obviously it is. There is no theism present as there is no politics present to the baby.

Atheism may also be described as a belief or understanding there is no God but that is another strand away from its core meaning and construction.

I don't think you can project an understanding of God onto something that has no understanding of God and then say or claim there is an inate understanding of God. It just doesn't stand up .

Quote from ddunbar:

Religion has been molded to suit politics, power and control. Theistic ideals go back before these things were codified formally or informally into a religion. Theism first addresses such simple concepts as where do we come from, what happens when I die. Religion addresses, how shall I/we live?

No I am sorry ddunbar, theism starts with "there is s deity". Human instinct starts with I want to survive. I agree though , Religion addresses, how shall I/we live and is therefore foremost political.

Quote from ddunbar:

I agree on your points about religion. But theism is as strong an aspect of humanity as their survival instinct is. It goes hand in hand. And is most probably why religion exists in every culture on Earth throughout history. Theism addresses the survival of humans in that it addresses or attempts to address life and a possible life beyond. It addresses a possible purpose for humans.

Worshipping a deity, be it the Sun the Moon or an invisible Sky Fairy is born out of humans ignorance and or fear of life / death. Atheism also addresses possible purpose for humans. And there are countless methods of addressing such matters, it is not the special domain of theism any longer to do so. When it is pushed to the front through history to society so much by its proponents mainly because of its usefulness as political power, that may seem to make religion the dominant or single format. But it isn't and it never was. Even democratic politics were around well before theism, which really caught on by being so useful a means to always have right on ones side.

Quote from ddunbar:

I haven't met many atheists who know the text better than a well versed theist. For that reason, atheists who attack the text rather than the core ideals and logical concepts and constructs, generally seem like angry little children of whom were "hurt" by religion.

Whoa there. Ok there are many atheists AND theists who act like angry little children. There are many well versed theist who return to being atheist(not meaning to rub that in ). I agree, attacking a belief for the sake of it is silly. But attacking a belief which claims it is true, as theists often claim by demanding or insisting there is only a certain way to live, and require society conform to it and indoctrinate its children with it, - is legitimately open to attack, and so it should be. If the Bible is used to back up such claims, then so too should it be brought to account. When that is ever done, in my experience, it is always found to be sorely lacking, due mainly to contradictions and confusions within its very own text.

Quote from ddunbar:

The greatest theist orators have dealt with the text in a manner that suggests that if the text is true, then... (da da da) must be true.

If that text is true, then all text must equally be true.

Quote from ddunbar:

Yes, the onus is on the theist to support their claims if they insist upon them as being fact.

I definitely agree with you there and respect your acknowledgement of that.

Quote from ddunbar:

I give you the last rebuttal since I believe I took the first.

I've enjoyed our discussion. Thank you.

 

[james_bond_3rd]

Here is the wikipedia definition of atheism:
"Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities: the opposite of theism. This encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically regard as atheists only those people who assert the nonexistence of gods, leaving other nonbelievers classified as agnostics or non-theists."

A lot of people confuse atheism with anti-religion. Therefore somehow atheists are the Godless bad guys. In fact, although there are a few atheists who actively oppose religion, many are either agnostics or don't even care. In that sense, babies are also atheists.

 

[stu]

apologies jem, you did not direct to me but I'm probably on your ignore so you won't know..

Religious excess has become acceptable to most tolerant folk but you can only get away with this kind of thing in fictional events on a message board or in a church. Talk that way outside and you will get put in the same hospital as Hannibal Lector. That really is a bit sick you know and quite vile. It is only alleviated by the fact that people generally accept that religion definitely has the strong wacked out side to it..

Quote from jem:
You wish a to attain eternal life, according the teachings of jesus, one way is eat his body and drink his blood. (gnaw on this flesh).

Quote from jem:
You must gnaw on jesus flesh is the translation

Quote from jem:
This was not figurative speech.

Quote from jem:
his teaching made jews and gentiles alike walk away

they did right.

did jesus say they should literally eat him when he was alive ot after he was supposed to have been crucified?

ugh. i'll put myself on ignore after that, was going to have chicken wings for supper. major yuks dude.

 

[archimedes]

And now, for a levity break, Ricky Gervais' take on Genesis: http://www.vsocial.com/video/?d=39855

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from ddunbar:

From my POV, it's:

Atheism : Myth - debunked.

That's it, really.

Most atheists are former theists. In fact, most are former Christians. Predominately from the Catholic Chruch. Another large portion of atheists were former Pentacostals. Neither of these sects of Christianity presents a clear understanding of the Bible. Therefore, the atheists born out of these groups, generally fail to have a firm understanding of the theism that sprung from the bible. Other atheists are those who were "hurt" by God. Meaning, some event in their life went sour after having prayed about it or just some "godsmack" hit them out of nowhere and they just couldn't sustain a faith in a god who would allow such a thing to happen. his group has the abosulte least understanding of the bible.

I have met and debated with some highly intelligent atheists from various backgrounds in my walk. The ones I respect most are those who attack the core of theism as it relates to Christianity. They don make the mistake of attacking concepts they can't fully grasp. They use only logic. Of the few core arguments against Christianity, one stands out as paramount. God's sovereignty and omniscience vs. a suppossed man's freewill. It was, is, and will be the most important discussion.

theists always start at the point of "there is a god and all you have to do is read gods word to understand him". atheists are usually people who look at the evidence and realize that all available evidence indicates that there is nothing up there. when that happens all of the other pieces fall into place. it is easy to see the bible as a collection of fables and the idea of "man cannot obtain salvation with out god" or "God's sovereignty and omniscience vs. a suppossed man's freewill" become meaningless. they are simply superstitious emotions.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

apologies jem, you did not direct to me but I'm probably on your ignore so you won't know..

Religious excess has become acceptable to most tolerant folk but you can only get away with this kind of thing in fictional events on a message board or in a church. Talk that way outside and you will get put in the same hospital as Hannibal Lector. That really is a bit sick you know and quite vile. It is only alleviated by the fact that people generally accept that religion definitely has the strong wacked out side to it..
they did right.

did jesus say they should literally eat him when he was alive ot after he was supposed to have been crucified?

ugh. i'll put myself on ignore after that, was going to have chicken wings for supper. major yuks dude.

Stu so scared of a little religious talk you have to get your immature point on the thread. Look a believer who believes in something not supported by my observation. Help help.

Once you understand that God and is not governed by time the way you are, and you understand that Catholics believe the Mass brings that back in time to when Jesus sacrificed himself for you on the cross, it really should not be all that hard for you to understand that he could make himself present in the wine and the bread.

I do not expect you understand because you choose not to believe in God.

But my very rational point is that once you choose to believe in Jesus, and the Bible you ought to consider his teachings and his words to be very significant if not paramount. Especially when your interpretation is supported by paul in corithians and early church practices.