Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's keep in mind: Irkle is a fictional internet persona, like essentially every anonymous internet persona on every internet forum. (Over the past 25 years, I have participated on precisely one internet forum that required the use of real names and real credentials and actually verified who you were.) Irkle is an exaggerated version of his real-life creator. The exaggerations serve to make the points his creator wants to make. Those of you who confuse internet forums with the real world and fail to realize they are Monty Python skits need to get out more. If you understood that these are Python-level discussions among cartoon figures, you'd have way more fun and become far less irritated.
That being said, Irkle's real-life parent does have a considerable ego, but he had that long before he was a Christian. The notion of a "Christian ego" is slightly bizarre - what would it even mean? "A Christian with a large ego" - well, OK, but why would that concern you any more than an atheist or a Hindu with a large ego? If you folks are under the impression that Thou Shalt Subjugate Thy Ego is some sort of Eleventh Commandment for Christians, you are mistaken.
Well, OK. "Naturalistic theism" is indeed a serious position, but it really doesn't posit that God is of the same stuff as the cosmos. It's closer to deism, whereby God isn't involved with the cosmos beyond having created it. In any event, "naturalistic atheism" is a pretty well-understood position that excludes any notion of God or intrinsic purpose or meaning.
Sure, there is a species of atheist (or pretend atheist) who just despises religion (especially Christianity) and finds a meaning of sorts in railing against it at every opportunity. Like a mindless believer, the position of that sort of "atheist" is little more than "All I know is I hate religion, especially Christianity, and want it out of my life." It is well-represented here, I'll concede, which is why the discussions are seldom substantive.
I don't believe I've ever discussed Bayesian reasoning at all, let alone dismissed it.
I attempted to be as objective as I could be in arriving at my convictions about the most plausible explanation for the reality I inhabit. Having reached those convictions, I try to remain reasonably open-minded but do not pretend to be objective in defending my convictions against those who challenge them. I am, in some half-assed way, attempting to fulfill the Great Commission.
Good question! As I have pointed out in many articles and many, many conversations, the quest for metaphysical truth is as important to the "here and now" as to the "hereafter." The positions at which one arrives inform every aspect of one's earthly life.
A Christian understands that he lives in a universe created by God and that humanity exists as a special act of creation by God. He understands that humans are God's imagers on earth and are charged by God to exercise prudent stewardship over it. He understands that he and every other human is precious to God. He understands that humanity exists within a moral order established by God and that deviations from this moral order frustrate God's purposes and are not in humanity's best interests. He understands that his nature and the nature of every other human is fundamentally, mysteriously flawed and prone to sin. He understands that this flawed nature estranges him from God and that this estrangement cannot be overcome through his own efforts because God is perfectly holy. He understands that God so loves the world that he bridged this gap through self-sacrifice via the incarnation, death and resurrection of his son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He understands that he and every other person on earth can participate in this reconciliation and gain eternal life in God's holy kingdom. He understands that participating in this reconciliation brings the Holy Spirit into his life and begins a process of sanctification. He understands that those who do not participate in the reconciliation will not enter into God's kingdom and will be forever separated from God.
Or something like that. Do I believe this perspective informs and guides every moment, every aspect, of the here and now? Absolutely.
A naturalistic atheist believes she exists in an uncreated universe that is "just there," without purpose or meaning. She and her fellow humans exist as random, chance occurrences ("meaty robots," as the saying goes). Consciousness is an epihenon of the brain. Life has no intrinsic purpose or meaning. Morality is a matter of personal opinion; indeed, everything is a matter of personal opinion. When life is over, it's over, with no continuation of consciousness or consequences for the choices one has made.
Do I believe the Christian perspective brings to the here and now a vastly richer and deeper orientation to life and to one's fellow humans and the rest of creation? Absolutely.
If pursued to its logical conclusions, naturalistic atheism would produce a perspective on life so bleak that it could not be endured by many people. This is precisely why most atheists "steal from God" and adopt positions that, logically and rationally, can only flow from theism.
(FWIW, I can't stand Frank Turek either. He is facile, shallow and glib. Worse than that, he once used one of my emails as the fodder for three solid podcasts while misrepresenting what I had said and never giving me a chance to respond. What may astound you is that the point of my email was that atheists can indeed have a genuine morality of sorts, which Turek hotly denies. He even resorted to the gambit of questioning whether I was "really" a Christian. But his book does make some legitimate points.)
Beautifully written, but with no understanding of atheism or what it is like to think atheist. Much of your argument is just Saying that the evidence supports God (it doesn't - not even Cosmic origins, but we'll probably get to discuss that point by point as you keep posting). But the rest is the irrelevant and wrong 'Life has no meaning without God'.
Of course, Life, the Universe and Everything is here for 'Reasons' (causes) but not planned reasons. But that's just semantics. The bottom line (in atheism) is that the universe has no plan (apart from the survival inherent in evolution) for us and doesn't care whether we live or die.
But we do, and that's all that matters. The world and Universe is amazing and wonderful enough on its' own terms and doesn't need to be a billboard advertising God to be an inspiration. And our own doings, art, culture, are worthwhile, even if they have no Universal meaning, but just for us. We do not need religion awarding a god (name your own) the undeserved credit for it to have value.
And of course, you (and other religious -believers) may see atheism as bleak and hopeless without a god to inflate the flaccid balloon of the Ego, but 'Ask an atheist' how it feels and how it felt to deconvert and you may be surprised, as well as inclined to say 'They can't feel like that; they must be lying'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-26-2020 at 11:52 PM..
Let's keep in mind: Irkle is a fictional internet persona, like essentially every anonymous internet persona on every internet forum. (Over the past 25 years, I have participated on precisely one internet forum that required the use of real names and real credentials and actually verified who you were.) Irkle is an exaggerated version of his real-life creator. The exaggerations serve to make the points his creator wants to make. Those of you who confuse internet forums with the real world and fail to realize they are Monty Python skits need to get out more. If you understood that these are Python-level discussions among cartoon figures, you'd have way more fun and become far less irritated.
That being said, Irkle's real-life parent does have a considerable ego, but he had that long before he was a Christian. The notion of a "Christian ego" is slightly bizarre - what would it even mean? "A Christian with a large ego" - well, OK, but why would that concern you any more than an atheist or a Hindu with a large ego? If you folks are under the impression that Thou Shalt Subjugate Thy Ego is some sort of Eleventh Commandment for Christians, you are mistaken.
Well, OK. "Naturalistic theism" is indeed a serious position, but it really doesn't posit that God is of the same stuff as the cosmos. It's closer to deism, whereby God isn't involved with the cosmos beyond having created it. In any event, "naturalistic atheism" is a pretty well-understood position that excludes any notion of God or intrinsic purpose or meaning.
Sure, there is a species of atheist (or pretend atheist) who just despises religion (especially Christianity) and finds a meaning of sorts in railing against it at every opportunity. Like a mindless believer, the position of that sort of "atheist" is little more than "All I know is I hate religion, especially Christianity, and want it out of my life." It is well-represented here, I'll concede, which is why the discussions are seldom substantive.
I don't believe I've ever discussed Bayesian reasoning at all, let alone dismissed it.
I attempted to be as objective as I could be in arriving at my convictions about the most plausible explanation for the reality I inhabit. Having reached those convictions, I try to remain reasonably open-minded but do not pretend to be objective in defending my convictions against those who challenge them. I am, in some half-assed way, attempting to fulfill the Great Commission.
Good question! As I have pointed out in many articles and many, many conversations, the quest for metaphysical truth is as important to the "here and now" as to the "hereafter." The positions at which one arrives inform every aspect of one's earthly life.
A Christian understands that he lives in a universe created by God and that humanity exists as a special act of creation by God. He understands that humans are God's imagers on earth and are charged by God to exercise prudent stewardship over it. He understands that he and every other human is precious to God. He understands that humanity exists within a moral order established by God and that deviations from this moral order frustrate God's purposes and are not in humanity's best interests. He understands that his nature and the nature of every other human is fundamentally, mysteriously flawed and prone to sin. He understands that this flawed nature estranges him from God and that this estrangement cannot be overcome through his own efforts because God is perfectly holy. He understands that God so loves the world that he bridged this gap through self-sacrifice via the incarnation, death and resurrection of his son, the Second Person of the Trinity. He understands that he and every other person on earth can participate in this reconciliation and gain eternal life in God's holy kingdom. He understands that participating in this reconciliation brings the Holy Spirit into his life and begins a process of sanctification. He understands that those who do not participate in the reconciliation will not enter into God's kingdom and will be forever separated from God.
Or something like that. Do I believe this perspective informs and guides every moment, every aspect, of the here and now? Absolutely.
A naturalistic atheist believes she exists in an uncreated universe that is "just there," without purpose or meaning. She and her fellow humans exist as random, chance occurrences ("meaty robots," as the saying goes). Consciousness is an epihenon of the brain. Life has no intrinsic purpose or meaning. Morality is a matter of personal opinion; indeed, everything is a matter of personal opinion. When life is over, it's over, with no continuation of consciousness or consequences for the choices one has made.
Do I believe the Christian perspective brings to the here and now a vastly richer and deeper orientation to life and to one's fellow humans and the rest of creation? Absolutely.
If pursued to its logical conclusions, naturalistic atheism would produce a perspective on life so bleak that it could not be endured by many people. This is precisely why most atheists "steal from God" and adopt positions that, logically and rationally, can only flow from theism.
(FWIW, I can't stand Frank Turek either. He is facile, shallow and glib. Worse than that, he once used one of my emails as the fodder for three solid podcasts while misrepresenting what I had said and never giving me a chance to respond. What may astound you is that the point of my email was that atheists can indeed have a genuine morality of sorts, which Turek hotly denies. He even resorted to the gambit of questioning whether I was "really" a Christian. But his book does make some legitimate points.)
This forum is about a statement of belief about god. The one you are up against is a statement of belief about anti-god. we can't ignore that fact that avoiding some science in a forum means the forum is not about facts and truth.
how would you discussing god in a forum filled with Muslims? Buddhist? or any other religion?
Its the exact same here. This site is filled with atheist that are fighting for their statement of belief about god. Its not about truth or comparison, its about their statement of belief about god.
its not about truth for them anymore than it is for you. How would you argue with a Muslim? that is the exact same way they will argue with you.
the difference is there are some atheist here that don't care about atheist religion looking groups, we only care about the best truths we have. So the faith based atheist can use some of our stuff, albeit selectively.
Very interesting question! I only read about 8 pages of the thread (it’s long!) but there are some fascinating answers.
I don’t believe in God, so a lot of my mental time and energy is dedicated to self reflection to make sure I’m making good choices for me and my family and community, and pondering if my moral compass is properly oriented as I learn new things or encounter more nuances. I struggle — successfully, for the most part— with bringing meaning to my life and relishing every moment. I had many sleepless nights in my 20s coming to terms with what mortality means. Now in my mid thirties, I still spend nights reflecting on how mortality should influence my life choices. It’s not an easy burden to carry all the time, but I’ve found it rewarding, empowering, and self-defining. I carry the responsibility of my choices, for better or worse, and that’s come to give me self worth.
If I discovered for certain there was a personal God, say the Abrahamic one, since the OP juxtaposes Christianity with atheism, my world and self worth would collapse. Instead of decades of struggling to take on personal responsibility and bring meaning to my life and the life of those around me, I’d feel like a play thing in someone else’s game, where my personal choices and efforts no longer can affect the world... they can only serve to reward or punish me, personally, under the judgement of God. That would be my first reaction. I’ve read the Bible and have a fair amount of non-professional New Testament scholarship under my belt, so I’d be able to pick up the necessary routines pretty quickly. And I would do so. But the hole this would leave in my purpose for living would be hard to fill. I think I’d come to terms with it after a decade or so. Hard to say. Then, as I get older, I imagine I’d grow fond of the idea of eternal life after death. It’s not like I relish the opposite notion.
Last edited by Zmunkz; 09-27-2020 at 08:17 AM..
Reason: Typo
Very interesting question! I only read about 8 pages of the thread (it’s long!) but there are some fascinating answers.
I don’t believe in God, so a lot of my mental time and energy is dedicated to self reflection to make sure I’m making good choices for me and my family and community, and pondering if my moral compass is properly oriented as I learn new things or encounter more nuances. I struggle — successfully, for the most part— with bringing meaning to my life and relishing every moment. I had many sleepless nights in my 20s coming to terms with what mortality means. Now in my mid thirties, I still spend nights reflecting on how mortality should influence my life choices. It’s not an easy burden to carry all the time, but I’ve found it rewarding, empowering, and self-defining. I carry the responsibility of my choices, for better or worse, and that’s come to give me self worth.
If I discovered for certain there was a personal God, say the Abrahamic one, since the OP juxtaposes Christianity with atheism, my world and self worth would collapse. Instead of decades of struggling to take on personal responsibility and bring meaning to my life and the life of those around me, I’d feel like a play thing in someone else’s game, where my personal choices and efforts no longer can affect the world... they can only serve to reward or punish me, personally, under the judgement of God. That would be my first reaction. I’ve read the Bible and have a fair amount of non-professional New Testament scholarship under my belt, so I’d be able to pick up the necessary routines pretty quickly. And I would do so. But the hole this would leave in my purpose for living would be hard to fill. I think I’d come to terms with it after a decade or so. Hard to say. Then, as I get older, I imagine I’d grow fond of the idea of eternal life after death. It’s not like I relish the opposite notion.
Welcome. This witness reveals the major flaw in the mainstream Christian dogma. We are NOT pets responding to rewards and punishments. We are children trying to mature and become adults like our parent. This is what you HAVE been doing and is what we all are supposed to be doing.
We are NOT pets responding to rewards and punishments. We are children trying to mature and become adults like our parent.
No, no, my wording was a little clumsy. Let me try again.
I don't mean that each time you are confronted with a choice you're balancing reward or punishment in your head, and that is how you decide. My thinking is more like this: Suppose God has a plan, and in that plan is a path for me and a path for each of my children (and everyone else, obviously). That path might include adversity and challenge, designed, presumably, to help us mature as you say. But the problem is, if that is the case, then my own output as a person making choices can't spread any fundamental ripples across the paths laid out for everyone else. I can't make a choice that impacts the plan set out for my son, say, because that path is between him and God. So in the end, whatever my hopes or intentions, everything I do ultimately reduces in functional impact to only representing me in my own final judgement with God.
Does that make sense? It's not exactly a free will problem, although it is related. It's about what meaning my actions can have on the world ultimately. I fear the answer is: none at all.
No, no, my wording was a little clumsy. Let me try again.
I don't mean that each time you are confronted with a choice you're balancing reward or punishment in your head, and that is how you decide. My thinking is more like this: Suppose God has a plan, and in that plan is a path for me and a path for each of my children (and everyone else, obviously). That path might include adversity and challenge, designed, presumably, to help us mature as you say. But the problem is, if that is the case, then my own output as a person making choices can't spread any fundamental ripples across the paths laid out for everyone else. I can't make a choice that impacts the plan set out for my son, say, because that path is between him and God. So in the end, whatever my hopes or intentions, everything I do ultimately reduces in functional impact to only representing me in my own final judgement with God.
Does that make sense? It's not exactly a free will problem, although it is related. It's about what meaning my actions can have on the world ultimately. I fear the answer is: none at all.
Trust me, I understood your point. You are highlighting more of the flawed dogma emanating from the assumed motives of God. We are not constrianed by any plan of God, just our fundamental purpose in existing as children of God - reproduction. However perfectly or imperfectly we achieve our purpose is entirely up to us. Under Chrsitianity, the perfection is believed to have been achieved by Jesus for the rest of us making our imperfections less of an overall issue. Although, our imperfections will have consequences manifesting as "reaping exactly what we sow."
Why is it a hijack since I am talking about what I consider is wrong about God. Why do you call my views hijacks and not yours?
I started the thread. I think I know when it has gone off topic. You need to go back and read the OP.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
