Religious debate (split from main board)

[BeecherVol]

Now Beech, you know that when one opens thier mind, things tend to fall out!

Been covered.

 

[Oldvol75]

An atheist is open-minded, but it does not seem so to the believer. The reason why is that to an atheist the idea of a God is as laughable as Unicorns, etc. Believers are much more ready to accept the idea that a God could exist, even if it seems unlikely or fanciful.

I believe the saying goes like "Don't be so open-minded that your brain falls out".

How can one say that they are open-minded when ones continues to say "The reason why is that to an atheist the idea of a God is as laughable as Unicorns, etc." Its clear that you couldn't be open-minded by that statement alone. Someone thats open-minded would respect others beliefs and not say such things. But again it only proves the point that open-mindedness is a one way street.

 

[jamesd1628]

How can one say that they are open-minded when ones continues to say "The reason why is that to an atheist the idea of a God is as laughable as Unicorns, etc." Its clear that you couldn't be open-minded by that statement alone. Someone thats open-minded would respect others beliefs and not say such things. But again it only proves the point that open-mindedness is a one way street.

I'm a little confused by all of this open-mindedness talk. By definition, an athiest does not believe in a god. His mind is made up and closed on the issue. The opposite is true of believers. Their mind is made up that God exists and the issue is no longer open for them. Neither is open-minded, at least on the issue of whether God exists.

 

[joevol320]

religious forums are tough because they do require say too much typing.

 

[joevol320]

I'm a little confused by all of this open-mindedness talk. By definition, an athiest does not believe in a god. His mind is made up and closed on the issue. The opposite is true of believers. Their mind is made up that God exists and the issue is no longer open for them. Neither is open-minded, at least on the issue of whether God exists.

open minded is only for Christians and conservatives. it's what liberal say when they are trying to justify their behavior. libs try to portray them as old fashion closed minded ignorant.

it's the same when discussing politics with a liberal, you know your winning when they start calling your racist, homophobe, biget, etc....

 

[Snakes on a Wii]

How can one say that they are open-minded when ones continues to say "The reason why is that to an atheist the idea of a God is as laughable as Unicorns, etc." Its clear that you couldn't be open-minded by that statement alone. Someone thats open-minded would respect others beliefs and not say such things. But again it only proves the point that open-mindedness is a one way street.

Because some things are ridiculous even if people believe in them. How do you feel about Zeus, Baal, Apollo, Thor, etc? To an atheist the Christian god is on that level. And it frustrates an atheist when people tell them to respect their belief in mythology.

 

[Oldvol75]

Because some things are ridiculous even if people believe in them. How do you feel about Zeus, Baal, Apollo, Thor, etc? To an atheist the Christian god is on that level. And it frustrates an atheist when people tell them to respect their belief in mythology.

Why should frustrate you? That makes no sense. Things that you spoke of, I don't even think about. If I where a true atheist, I would do the same thing.

Why fight so hard against something that you say is a myth? If I wondered about things like Zeus,Baal,Apollo, Thor etc... then I would learn all I could then either accept or reject. Then once I made my choice, I wouldn't think about the others. Thats what gets me about atheist all you seem to want to do is put down Christians and Christianity, just because we believe. Just because we hold different standards and believe different things. I believe thats really the issue, not so much that we believe, its what we believe. Thats really puzzling?

Since atheist always ask for proof of God, how about proof thats God is a myth.

 

[BeecherVol]

Because some things are ridiculous even if people believe in them.

Amen!

 

[jamesd1628]

Why should frustrate you? That makes no sense. Things that you spoke of, I don't even think about. If I where a true atheist, I would do the same thing.

Why fight so hard against something that you say is a myth? If I wondered about things like Zeus,Baal,Apollo, Thor etc... then I would learn all I could then either accept or reject. Then once I made my choice, I wouldn't think about the others. Thats what gets me about atheist all you seem to want to do is put down Christians and Christianity, just because we believe. Just because we hold different standards and believe different things. I believe thats really the issue, not so much that we believe, its what we believe. Thats really puzzling?

Since atheist always ask for proof of God, how about proof thats God is a myth.

That's a good point there. Seems to me, Christians and athiests have the same problem, neither belief can be conclusively proven. Athiesm takes as least as much faith as Christianity.

 

[turambar85]

That's a good point there. Seems to me, Christians and athiests have the same problem, neither belief can be conclusively proven. Athiesm takes as least as much faith as Christianity.

A strange conception of the burden of proof you have (I accidentally slipped into Yoda speak, and I think I will leave it). You cannot prove that Bertrand Russel's Celestial Teapot doesn't exist. You cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. You sound here like Xenophilius Lovegood from Harry Potter. He isn't a serious character, btw!

We can, however, say that the concept of God is: a) not necessary, b) incoherent, c) highly unlikely to describe an existing entity based on logical and scientific reasons, and d) immoral in nature.

Addendum: I'm sorry for quoting you, as you were only referencing OldVols quote.

 

[turambar85]

I'm a little confused by all of this open-mindedness talk. By definition, an athiest does not believe in a god. His mind is made up and closed on the issue. The opposite is true of believers. Their mind is made up that God exists and the issue is no longer open for them. Neither is open-minded, at least on the issue of whether God exists.

Open-minded does not mean that one doesn't have a position. It doesn't even mean that one isn't confident. It does mean, however, that the person would, if presented with a good argument or valid piece of evidence, give it sufficiently good consideration. I have, on that basis, met many open-minded Christians and atheists. I consider myself one, as well (heavy talk doesn't equal a lack of consideration). I actively seek out conversation with people I disagree with for two reasons: 1) I might learn something from them, and 2) I might learn something from myself. Convincing somebody else is last on my list; I'm not a proselytizer.

 

[turambar85]

How can one say that they are open-minded when ones continues to say "The reason why is that to an atheist the idea of a God is as laughable as Unicorns, etc." Its clear that you couldn't be open-minded by that statement alone. Someone thats open-minded would respect others beliefs and not say such things. But again it only proves the point that open-mindedness is a one way street.

Open-minded also doesn't mean you have to "respect other peoples beliefs". That is, perhaps, contained under decency and is not related to how biased you happen to be.

Also, open-minded people can be, as I state later, 100% sold on a position...so long as they wouldn't reject a good argument just because it came from the opposing camp. Also, an open-minded person can be contemptuous of people or their ideas for being illogical or immoral.

 

[BeecherVol]

A strange conception of the burden of proof you have (I accidentally slipped into Yoda speak, and I think I will leave it). You cannot prove that Bertrand Russel's Celestial Teapot doesn't exist. You cannot prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. You sound here like Xenophilius Lovegood from Harry Potter. He isn't a serious character, btw!

We can, however, say that the concept of God is: a) not necessary, b) incoherent, c) highly unlikely to describe an existing entity based on logical and scientific reasons, and d) immoral in nature.

Addendum: I'm sorry for quoting you, as you were only referencing OldVols quote.

I would like to add 1.
e) impossible to fully understand, due to him being God.

 

[turambar85]

That's a good point there. Seems to me, Christians and athiests have the same problem, neither belief can be conclusively proven. Athiesm takes as least as much faith as Christianity.

However, I will quote you to mention a couple of things. First, atheism does not, under any definition, require as much faith. This is for several reasons. A) it requires a lot less faith and speculation to not believe in the existence of something you have never seen than it does to believe. B) there are some reasons to believe that there is not a god. C) there are many reasons to believe there is not the Christian god.

Second, I don't like your usage of faith. If an atheist is to be said to have "faith" it is only in a trivial, diluted sense. Faith, as an atheist may have it, would be more akin to the phrase "prima facie acceptance of a position." What this means is that we tentatively (even if we do so strongly ... the two aren't incompatible) hold the position until we are shown to be wrong. We believe, perhaps without 100% evidence (though evidence there is), that there is no god. This is not the faith of the bible.

The Christian conception of faith is something more like the phrase "permanently holding a position on a subject because we are not in a position to know by reason, and so must suspend the use of reason in this arena." The Christian conception of faith is neither temporary nor partial. It is consuming and eternal in nature - even if they occasionally fail.

If atheists have something that can be called 'faith', it is an inconvenience and a temporary place-holder until more evidence can be found one way or another. For a Christian it is the destination ... at least on Earth.

For those reasons, it is wholly inappropriate to speak of atheists and christians similarly holding positions of 'faith'.

 

[turambar85]

I would like to add 1.
e) impossible to fully understand, due to him being God.

Perhaps. However, you have just hit on the crux of a major issue. If God is unknowable, then there is an impenetrable chasm between us and it. This is due to the definition of god as a supreme being, not due to any christian doctrine as such.

Now, we add in the strong assumption that faith is always either 100% blind, and therefore arbitrary, or is directed by reason. What I mean is that you either accept as a child whatever your parents tell you, and then hold it via faith as a psychologically necessary position, or you come to the position as more of an adult, and do so on the basis of some reasons. I say this because any volitional or cognizant use of faith must always be directed; you must always chose where to aim your leap of faith.

The reasons for aiming your leap in any particular way are several. A few would be: because your parents believe it and couldn't be mistaken, because god has revealed itself to you, because the christian religion makes sense, or because you had a religious experience. Now, any of these (with the possible exception of the first one) presumes a use of reason. This reason is directed towards the divine. The 2nd and last assume that any revelation is comprehensible and is legitimate in its source. The 3rd assumes that god put forth itself clearly and honestly in the christian doctrine, something based on your extrapolation from god's alleged character. But, regardless of the specifics, the point is that all religious people have reasons for their faith. However, if god and the divine are completely unknowable and ineffable, then your reasons are of no use. You are reduced to arbitrary acceptance, and might as well, for all it is worth, be a Muslim.

In short, you seem committed to one of two things; a) god is ineffable and reasons are of no use - natural theology is dead and faith is the beginning and is arbitrary, or b) god is at least partly knowable in certain ways, and through this faith is directed and grounded.

 

[BeecherVol]

What I am committed to.

1) Human nature drives us to find factually (scientific in some cases) answers to everything. Humans crave wisdom. Im not advocating, that we should not explore, and try to understand more than we do. We learn new things most everyday.
- Personally I don't think that is possible, to ever understand everything. Im sure not everyone believes that, but none the less.

2) As far as God, he has explained in the Bible, that I will not totally understand everything about Him. And If I beleive that, through my understanding of God, I can accept that. Especially If I believe my first statement, about human knowledge.

Isaiah 55:9

"As the heavens are higher than the earth. So are my ways, higher than your ways, and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts."

 

[turambar85]

What I am committed to.

1) Human nature drives us to find factually (scientific in some cases) answers to everything. Humans crave wisdom. Im not advocating, that we should not explore, and try to understand more than we do. We learn new things most everyday.
- Personally I don't think that is possible, to ever understand everything. Im sure not everyone believes that, but none the less.

2) As far as God, he has explained in the Bible, that I will not totally understand everything about Him. And If I beleive that, through my understanding of God, I can accept that. Especially If I believe my first statement, about human knowledge.

Isaiah 55:9

"As the heavens are higher than the earth. So are my ways, higher than your ways, and my thoughts are higher than your thoughts."

Perhaps, and yet here your reason must come into play. It must tell you "I know enough about god to know that god would not reveal 'himself' to me through the Bible and yet misinform me. God must be honest in his word." Without that piece of reasoning, and knowledge of the divine, you must be lost forever in a meaningless sea of faith propositions.

 

[BeecherVol]

Perhaps, and yet here your reason must come into play. It must tell you "I know enough about god to know that god would not reveal 'himself' to me through the Bible and yet misinform me. God must be honest in his word." Without that piece of reasoning, and knowledge of the divine, you must be lost forever in a meaningless sea of faith propositions.

This is where you get into, "what do you expect, out of God?"

Some would expect God to give them a million dollars, because they prayed to him for it. My understanding of Him, tells me not to "hold my breathe", in that situation. While those that don't understand that about him, say that he does not exist, because he did not provide it.

 

[turambar85]

This is where you get into, "what do you expect, out of God?"

Some would expect God to give them a million dollars, because they prayed to him for it. My understanding of Him, tells me not to "hold my breathe", in that situation. While those that don't understand that about him, say that he does not exist, because he did not provide it.

No, Im only speaking of what you must expect out of god to be a Christian; that gods revelation was real, that the bible is the word of god, and that god will not lie to you, won't mislead you, and didn't allow the bible to be sullied by human hands. These must be your precepts. And they stand on a pillar of reason. To you, god must not be ineffable.

 

[BeecherVol]

No, Im only speaking of what you must expect out of god to be a Christian; that gods revelation was real, that the bible is the word of god, and that god will not lie to you, won't mislead you, and didn't allow the bible to be sullied by human hands. These must be your precepts. And they stand on a pillar of reason. To you, god must not be ineffable.

I agree with everything you said. Up to the bold part, which if you mean a totally understanding, (and explination) of everything God does, or has done. Then no.

It is explained in detail, what he expects of you, and what is essential to being "born again", and a follower of Jesus Christ.

 

[turambar85]

I agree with everything you said. Up to the bold part, which if you mean a totally understanding, (and explination) of everything God does, or has done. Then no.

It is explained in detail, what he expects of you, and what is essential to being "born again", and a follower of Jesus Christ.

Well, what I meant by "not ineffable" is that we can make some headway towards general understandings of god. Not that we must be able to know a little bit about everything in god, or everything about something in god. Just that our reason can connect in some way to the divine. Otherwise we are just playing games.

Yet again, to accept the explanation is to say that you can rationally come to some truths about god.

 

[BeecherVol]

Absolutely.

 

[turambar85]

Absolutely.

The problem now becomes that people cannot (rationally) say about any given inquiry "you cannot know god" or "god is unknowable" or "it is a mystery" without some further argument justifying this. To say that god is in some ways knowable, and then to respond to a question with "we can't know god" is inadequate. What we need, then, is a further explanation stating why the particular question is referencing an actually unknowable part of god. And this is hard to do.

 

[BeecherVol]

Yes, it is hard to do, even for many christians. But that kind goes back to, what are you expecting from God? Some (even christians) are expecting God to fix their problems, and make life easy for them. And if he doesn't, he has not revealed himself.

Christ's apostles had to be reminded of who he was, several times while he was on earth.
At the time, it was hard for them to comprehend it, even as he walked with them and revealed himself to them.

 

[Oldvol75]

Second, I don't like your usage of faith. If an atheist is to be said to have "faith" it is only in a trivial, diluted sense. Faith, as an atheist may have it, would be more akin to the phrase "prima facie acceptance of a position." What this means is that we tentatively (even if we do so strongly ... the two aren't incompatible) hold the position until we are shown to be wrong. We believe, perhaps without 100% evidence (though evidence there is), that there is no god. This is not the faith of the bible.

.

Faith depends on exactly what you believe. Are you basing your lack of believing because of science?