See comments #22-31. The atheist, awfrick, is responding to some comments I made regarding positive evidence for the existence of God. This little exchange was so typical of my “dialogues” with atheists. Here’s the anatomy of a dialogue with an atheist:
- Step 1 = Atheist tells theist how stupid they are for believing X
- Step 2 = Theist responds to atheist point-by-point, supplying evidence against the atheist’s assertions (rather than demanding that the atheist actually give evidence for his assertion)
- Step 3 = Atheist tells you to read some article/book that will show why your arguments are wrong, rather than offering any rebuttal of his own. It’s the “I know someone who can beat up your dad” response.
- Step 4 = Theist takes the time to read the article and interact with its claims. Responds to atheist with reasons why the article’s claims are mistaken.
- Step 5 = Atheist ignores everything you said in favor of nitpicking at some irrelevant point. Asks for more evidence.
- Step 6 = Theist provides more evidence
- Step 7 = Atheist acts like you skipped step 6, dismisses everything you say with a hand-wave rather than a rebuttal, and resorts to name calling and putdowns.
- Step 8 = Theist calls atheist on the carpet for what he’s doing. Atheist doesn’t respond.
- Step 9 = Atheist goes looking for easier targets – those who will cower at the mention of his intellectual superiority, have nothing to offer in the way of rebuttal, and do not even think to demand that the atheist offer any evidence for his claims.
Awfrick, if you are reading this, I invite you back to truly engage on the topic you started. All other atheists, if this is not descriptive of you, I am not claiming it is. I appreciate the atheists who have engaged me on this blog in a serious dialogue. I cannot appreciate those who assert the greatness of their intellectual superiority and strength of evidence, but never deliver on it. If you’ve got the goods, show me the money. If not, play at a different table. This blog is for the serious–for those who want to engage in dialogue on serious matters in a serious, sensible way.
Thinking to Believe 
November 20, 2009 at 4:25 am
Jason,
I could not agree more. I skimmed your interaction with Awfrick. Yeah. I suppose you might call that lazy atheism – someone has already decided that they do not believe in God and go looking for talking heads to support it and then browbeat others with names. Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Russell, Shermer, PZ Myers,…blah, blah, blah…
And all this nasty name-calling. Is that how to win friends and influence people? I say let the atheists keep up their brow-beating (which they are learning from their gurus like Dawkins, PZ Myers and others), it really hurts their case, imo. What Christian apologists out there treat their audience and their intellectual opponents with such elitism, arrogance, and smug dislike as some of these apologists for atheism?
But really, to all the atheists like this out there, take Jason’s challenge and interact like grown-ups. Learn to think for yourself. Drop the name calling. Be civil. If you have something you want the rest of us to hear say it nicely or keep it to yourself.
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 7:10 am
What’s worse is that after giving you a list of books etc to read, if you come up with your own books, they get shot down mostly by ad hominem arguments against the authors. Even when you mention that they have a PhD from reputable institutions!
Of course, I often resort to when atheists try to argue a point I don’t know that well, but Dr William Craig has already dealt with it, I’ll just say that its not an issue (as Willian Lane Craig argues etc)… Not always the best approach…
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 8:50 am
Naturally some “christians” have a “sheepish” mindset. Some are using their “sheep” mindset as an excuse to be intellectually lazy. In the light of you guys that post here frequently I am an intellectual 1st grader still drinking my cool aide. However, even in the face of the most vicious atheist there are some simple things that should confound them. One being our honesty and thirst for truth. Knowing their MO, like Jason pointed out, should help.
It is great to see people of faith calling the atheist out. I watched a debate of Kyle Butt(Apologetics Press/Church of Christ preacher) with Dan Barker(Atheist). Kyle Butt was disappointing, he seemed timid and unsure of his facts at first. Dan Barker was aggressive with firm conviction.
Jason have you ever formally debated an atheist, if so, do you have the video? Thanks.
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Chad,
Civility. Spot-on. That’s what I’m looking for, coupled with a serious engagement of the issues, and arguments presented.
Jason
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Scott,
Very true.
I think it’s best to summarize an argument rather than referring them somewhere else, but at times it may be necessary to refer them. I’m not opposed to it, but if links to other people are all the opposing side can present, then it tells me I should be talking to the authors at those links, not the person offering them!
Jason
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 12:37 pm
cs,
No, I haven’t.
Jason
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I should add that atheists aren’t the only people who can be guilty of this approach. Christians can do it too. They can ignore arguments, engage in name-calling, and throw out Bible verses thinking they are rebuttals.
Jason
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 1:29 pm
I know OP’s are more into doctrinal debates but it would wonderfully refreshing to see you debate someone like Dan Barker.
LikeLike
November 20, 2009 at 3:10 pm
I recently heard James White debate him. Very interesting to say the least. The existence of Jesus is not my specialty, though. While I think Barker is out to lunch and its not too hard to see why, I’m not qualified to debate him on the topic.
Jason
LikeLike
November 21, 2009 at 10:38 am
If there is an active omnipresent god why do people have to argue for his existence?
p.s. I’m not an atheist
LikeLike
November 21, 2009 at 9:20 pm
JesseH., are you asking why the existence of God is not obvious to all? The short answer is that moral imperfection causes alienation from God, making it possible for humans to deny His existence. The slightly longer answer is that God’s purposes are such that mere belief in His existence is not His greatest desire for us; He wants us to have a mutually voluntary and permanent relationship with Him as Lord. For a lot more on this, see http://www.luc.edu/faculty/pmoser/idolanon/GodMoreObvious.pdf.
LikeLike
November 22, 2009 at 7:44 am
Thanks for your response aletheist.
LikeLike
November 25, 2009 at 1:42 am
Step 1 = theist jots down 9 steps to ridicule atheist for not believing X
Step 2 = Theist “thinks” that he responds to atheist point-by-point but all the time indulges in rhetoric. Asking atheist to disprove a negative.
Step 3 = Atheist refers to billions of brainwashing literature produced for centuries by churches, temples and mosques as concrete proves for metaphysical abnormality.
Step 4 = Theist takes the time to read the article but never agrees to any because according to the basic tenants of his beliefs he can not question even a word of god therefor any contradictory statements will be by it very virtue, words of devil/ evil/ satan/ pagan/ et al.
Step 5 = theist ignores everything you said in favor of nitpicking at some irrelevant point. Asks for more evidence (evidence to disprove a negetive, if i may add).
Step 6 = Theist provides more “evidence” (refer to step 3)
Step 7 = Theist acts like step 6 was the “gospel” truth, dismisses everything you say with a hand-wave rather than a rebuttal, and resorts by saying “god is great” and “in god’s name i’ll blow up all non-believers”.
Step 8 = Theist responds by writing an article about how philosophy(which believes in logic) is same as theology(which believes in…).
Step 9 = theist goes back to Step 1.
Step 10 = Santa Claus comes with presents and drinks the glass of milk. Some kids grow up. others go to church/ temple/ mosque.
LikeLike
November 25, 2009 at 7:48 am
may7black
How originally unoriginal. Did you read the comments Jason was alluding to in his post? Give it a read and see how Jason actually gave sound answers while the (typical) atheist resorted to rhetoric. His tone feigned intellectual superiority.
Suggestion: Read the comments without presupposing that no argument is there.
LikeLike
November 25, 2009 at 11:06 am
may7black,
If that’s the best you can come up with, you’re merely corroborating Jason’s point.
LikeLike
November 25, 2009 at 11:58 pm
sorry for my unoriginal jibes. could help myself reading the NINE steps. will hit back soon with “original” response after going through the threads. and am sure i’ll have something to say.
(disproving an absence is indeed an interesting topic.)
LikeLike
November 26, 2009 at 8:52 am
Dr. Anthony J. Flew back in 2003-2004 renounced atheism. This is probably ancient news to some of you but I thought it was relevant to the conversation. Below is a quote:
Flew stated that “the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries” and that “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.”
LikeLike
November 26, 2009 at 10:30 pm
i may be wrong in everything that i am about to say but please bear with me.
i do have huge problems with presupposing atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. This itself implies that the evidence of god is an evident possibility. a possibility in its non scientific or logical evidence is not accepted until otherwise. But doesn’t such an argument invariably sees the evidence of god as the ‘final’ or the logical trajectory.
Isn’t Waiting (or if i use the word “hoping”) for evidence to counteract one’s non-belief is believing in it first?
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 4:38 am
dear cs,
“Give it a read and see how Jason actually gave sound answers while the (typical) atheist resorted to rhetoric.”
please read those threads again. do you call them sound answers?
when tom cruise jumped on the sofa at Ophrah and when john Travolta funded battlefield earth, i found it really funny. But reading all these reverences to the intelligent non-human being i now understand where Scientology took birth from. it is but obvious child of these established beliefs.
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 5:21 am
i will be quoting master Jason:
“The specified complexity of the universe and biological life points to an intelligent designer.”
>Why do we always assume that things that we don’t have answers for now will always remain things that we will never have answers for? why does these complex things have to be products of alien(s)?
>interestingly > why god? why not gods?
“The existence of objective moral values and duties points to a personal moral-law giver.”
>wouldn’t that personal moral-law giver be me or maybe even largely the society (a combination of me and you-s).
“The contingent nature of the universe points to a self-existing, necessary being, who is Himself the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe.”
>please read this line with stress on the words : “self-existing”, “necessary being”.
>i do agree on the necessary being point only if you see it as a “necessary evil” (please don’t again equate ‘goodness’ with god).
>”Himself the sufficient reason for the existence of the universe.”
[that indeed is a grave ‘logical’ point? irony.]
“The beginning of the universe points to a transcendent, uncaused, eternal, immaterial, non-spatial, and personal Mind.”
>so a reference to a mind with a capital “M” nevertheless. with lots of oxymoronic words.
“The objectivity and universality of mathematics and logic point to a rational and transcendent Mind in whom they are grounded.”
>might thou enlighten my ignorant mind about the farcical equating of mathematics and logic with god.
“So in the case of God, we are not dealing with an absence of evidence. We are dealing with a good deal of evidence, all of which points in the direction of His existence.”
> evidence?
“irreducible complexity has not been debunked, because no one has been able to show a plausible chemical pathway for how an irreducibly complex system can develop.”
>not yet. every year new discoveries falsifying the previously held “gospel” truths.
>cloning is a very complex system i may add. and its not all that improbable either. is it?
“As for the “who created God” question, this is sophomoric. Dawkins smiles when he offers this because he thinks it reveals his genius, not realizing that all the philosophers who read his material are laughing hysterically at his ignorance. Dawkins would do well to stick to what he knows (biology), rather than what he doesn’t (philosophy).”
>please refer to the ‘original’ step 7.
“When you see the spilt cereal on the floor, do you need a source cited for you to be able to conclude that an intelligent agent was involved, as opposed to just random chance? No. You know by both intuition and experience that an intelligent agent must have been responsible.”
>What you indulge in is a post-facto creation of a pattern. A sense of coherent stickiness is superimposed on events of past to make a (interpreted) sense of the bygones. and thereby hoping that the future shall reflect the past pattern. it does not. therefore what you call as miracles are only coincidences that you make out as having specific messages while it does not.
>and the reply always is(and i am very sure will be this time too)::
“As an eternal being, God never came into existence. He has always existed, and thus He has no need for an external or prior cause to His existence. He is self-existing, the uncaused causer of all else.”
> i don’t have problems with you believing in djinns, ghosts, ghouls, god, santa claus or cross bones (yes, aliens from ‘Mars attack’ too, if you like). all i am asking is not preach that to others. hasn’t religion done enough damage already.
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 11:34 am
mayblack
Comment 18
Evidence is really simple. Look around you. I’ll use this analogy, if you set off an explosion in a junk yard you will not go in and find that the explosion put together the fastest super computer. No matter how many times or how long you give it. Evidence is pretty clear that design points to a designer.
So you are saying Jason’s answers were unsound? Ironic you should say that, and you are calling the answers you just gave sound? Don’t take me as rude but you gave no answers and you gave no evidence. Your comments are built around a preconditioned framework, and before you begin shooting down religion what has evolution taught us? Hitler used Darwinian logic. Again you are lining up with the typical atheist.
LikeLike
November 27, 2009 at 10:53 pm
“Evidence is pretty clear that design points to a designer.”
>sure that’s true. when i see a laptop, i know of a designer. when i see a crater i know of a designer. when i see a hole in the ground i know of a designer.
>in the case of the laptop i know of Adam Osborne. in the case of the crater i know of the meteor. in the case of the hole in the ground i know of john who dung it last night. not just a designer i know of many designers. but nothing points to a ‘omnipotent, omnipresent designer.
“Hitler used Darwinian logic.”
>so what? so many bad things have been caused by people following good logic. you can not say that whatever hitler did were governed by the basic tenant. that is not reason to say that the logic is flawed. and it is funny that you would take examples of people causing terror using an ideology. look into the history and look at the present. look around you. watch news. all around you see evils caused by religion. no one ideology has caused as much damage to humanity as your dear religion has.
>typical atheist you call me. well if being a “typical” atheist is being not like you then am glad i am a “typical atheist”.
LikeLike
November 28, 2009 at 9:53 pm
And you’ve missed the point completely.Have you seen how highly specialized our environment is? Have you noticed that our scientists have not been able to create life? Look at the simple cell and see its complexity. Even if scientists will one day create life it took intelligence to create it.
You speak of craters and holes in the ground and those points are true. Yet, what if the crater was an encyclopaedia of the universe? Point being this, what is the origin of information and who created the DNA? Something beyond us. Something outside of creation some thing that was already, God, his human name would be Jesus.
You said,
Then I responded with pointing out Hitler’s use of your religion, evolution, and you make my point for me by responding with…
Which type of religion am I? What is religion? Please investigate this and your dear evolution would be right there with any other religion. And as you pointed out for me. Good logic can be used for bad things. However, the good logic I espouse requires that I behave a certain way. Living my life by the principles of Christ demands that I love my enemies and do good. Other religions demand this as well, except atheism. Yet, even atheists recognize a set of moral standards. Atheism also employs faith.
Look at what you said though… good logic… then you went on and pointed out the damage religion(and evolution) has caused. The problem would be people. Not every religion has caused harm. Look at the origin of the hospitals and charities, did atheism bring about those things? No… it didn’t.
No need in taking this personal. I’m not here to be like you and you’re not here to be like me, however, we both have been drawn here pursuing truth. I say “typical” to you because you are falling into the same pattern that Jason pointed out. Instead of stating your positions rationally and backing it with something besides rhetoric.
LikeLike
November 29, 2009 at 5:01 pm
Jason,
I realize that this thread concerns debating atheists but I’m curious if you’ve considered taking up Rob Bowman’s debate challenge on P&P?
Dale
LikeLike
November 29, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Dear cs and to whom ever it may concern,
It always comes down to the same point. you will argue that things that we do not understand yet, is somehow completely incomprehensible and that only some alien(by alien i mean non-human) being(you might even debate that. Indian philosophy talks about Brahma, the originator of the origins) can create or give meaning to such acts. But i disagree with such an argument for a simple reason and that is i am comfortable with the fact that things do happen accidentally. and the cause doesn’t necessarily have to be one being. it doesn’t have to be one ‘person’ who is designing everything.
i don’t deny the fact that religion was a necessary tool taken by the people to try to explain the world around us when they had no scientific methods to relate facts.
but as far as i am concerned i think religion or even the faith in god was (is) a very selfish worldview. when one believes that the world was only created for the humans (specifically MAN, remember the story of Adam and his Rib?) and that humans are the center of the universe. isn’t that in its base a very selfish way to look at the world and life (often equating life with “the human life”.)
You say “Not every religion has caused harm.”
i say you are wrong. all the religions have caused harm. even the newer ones, the so called reformed religions like Sikhism (the Khalistan movement) or Buddhism (Sri Lanka). What i believe you meant was that all that religion has done is not bad. sure i do agree.not EVERYTHING that religion has done is bad. but most of what it has is bad.
and frankly this is irritating when you write: “Instead of stating your positions rationally and backing it with something besides rhetoric.”
>let me quote master jason’s Step 5:
“Atheist ignores everything you said in favor of nitpicking at some irrelevant point. Asks for more evidence.”
>let me quote master jason’s Step 7:
“Atheist acts like you skipped step 6, dismisses everything you say with a hand-wave rather than a rebuttal, and resorts to name calling and putdowns.”
“Have you seen how highly specialized our environment is?”
this goes back to the same point that anything and everything that happens, happens because it is caused by someONE.
“Look at the simple cell and see its complexity.”
are you telling me that when a two electrons from different cells combine together it’s because god is monitoring such a combination. are you trying to say that the negative and the positive charges are NOT the propensities of a cell structure but rather they are gifts of god.
n.b: when i wrote i am glad that i am not like you. i wasn’t getting personal. by “you”, i meant a typical theist.
did you write “pursuing truth”? what is the connection? what is the connection between “pursuing truth” and religion?
LikeLike
December 1, 2009 at 6:38 am
mayblack
Either I have badly misspoke or you are not counting. There has been more than one point but you will dismiss those in favor of a point that you think you can defeat.
Nowhere have I argued that since we don’t understand yet and things are completely incomprehensible that that points to a being or group of beings that created. Those are your words. In fact I said just the opposite I’ve pointed to things we do understand and can comprehend on some level. Take for instance the point of information I made, the point if we did one day create life it took life to create life. It took intelligence to create. Yet you still chose not to refute those claims.
Yes you can disagree with the argument you propped up, albeit weakly, so you can attempt to crush it because you are uncomfortable with a moral creator. However, you are comfortable with “things do happen accidentally”. Basically you are affirming the absurd idea that an explosion in a Waste Management site would create the world’s fastest supercomputer including all the code it takes for the most advanced operating system. You also are affirming that life comes from non-life that a highly specialized design is birthed from the womb of chaos.
I somewhat agree with what you are saying but I disagree with your conclusion. Religion has fueled discoveries in many areas and many religious people have been at the head of the class of science, take Isaac Newton. Theist to the bone and his faith wasn’t a handicap.
Is this your reason? Since you brought an example from the Jewish text then I will respond with this. If you’ve read the Torah at all you wouldn’t come away with a self centered idea. If you want a selfish religion humanism, atheism, or Satanism is better suited for your argument. “Whatever feels good do it.” Is a nice selfish phrase, yet you will not find that in the Holy Scriptures, old or new covenants.
Of course you would. However, how can you claim a moral position of right or wrong when there aren’t any absolutes? My experience from Jesus Christ renews my mind, gives me joy in my soul, and makes me clean from my faults. I and many others like me have benefitted from the truth of God’s Word and a relationship with Jesus Christ. Fortunately if one person disagrees it doesn’t negate the benefit millions have received by following Christ. Even the first century martyrs benefitted.
No need to be irritated…
You made the exact same point when I asked you what would happen if an explosion took place in a junk yard and a super computer was created. You pointed to a someone… Adam Osborne. But I never said anything and everything… I’m pointing to specific things.
Not at all. I’m saying a designer, God, laid out a blueprint or the Law of Physics that guides the electrons and he also gave the DNA for each cell structure. Yet again, you missed the point… in a simple cell there is design.
Yes… pursuing truth otherwise why would you care about refuting our claims? You are declaring you have a “truth” and you are here to refute the claim of an Intelligent Designer, God. Religion in general has lots of good things and good philosophies to live by. There is a truth in Religion but it isn’t just a declaration of an idea but a declaration of a person, Jesus Christ. Sure not all religions point to Christ but if you are searching you will find Christ. Jesus declared you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.
There is something you touched on when you said religion is a selfish thing. Even though you didn’t state it this way and I may not even be saying it exactly right. There is something in the heart of man that longs for and desires: Love, Significance, Meaning, Purpose, Being. Creation points to a creator, one of infinite more power than we. If creation points and religion attempts to describe him which religion is right. There are many myths and legends but there is one that has been proven to be real, Christ. If you are searching then you should seek him. What if you are wrong and God is and Christ is his manifestation?
LikeLike
December 1, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Dear Chad,
I start my Sisyphean ‘tirade’ with your last line: “What if you are wrong and God is and Christ is his manifestation?”. Well that reminds me of an old joke. An atheist once asked a theist, why he believes in god. The theist answered that if he believes in god and god doesn’t exist then that does him no harm but if he doesn’t believe in god and god does exist then he is screwed.
Anyways.
which scientific prove claims that one individual(dear god) created the first life? How can you seriously claim that Adam (the first human) was created by the very hands of an omnipotent entity? How can you claim that the first women was created from the rib of the man? At the base of it how can you believe in creationism?
I am not affirming nor denying any such idea. there are designs and there are patterns but these are not caused or maneuvered by a single entity. this kind of argument just implies that just because something is complicated and advanced it is caused by some supreme arbitrary designer.
i accept. could be.
Well lets for argument sake accept that there is A pattern. that someone designs everything that happens in our life. According to such an argument, could you answer me one little question:
why one god? why not a conglomerate of god? i am not trying to be sarcastic. i do indeed want to know what reasons do you give to yourself to believe that there is one single god.
When i talked about religion being selfish, i wasn’t referring to any particular religion. i was talking in very simple terms. and the logic is very basic. If we believe that the world was created for us. and that the trajectory of life on earth points to MAN, don’t you think that at the base of it a very selfish idea?
i am sorry. there is nothing else i can say if you believe in this.
exactly. i do agree. and this is where religion attacks. this is the main weapons of religion. tell people that an alien loves you. tell them loving the alien back is the significance of life. tell them that is the meaning of life. the purpose and the being. job well done. this is the reason why for time immemorial the Jesuits have been so effective.
this kind of thinking is the anathema(no other word speaks so exactly) of the social world. this gave (gives) rise to the social inequalities. Religion claims that all are equal (in the eyes of god). But what it effectively does is create hierarchies of more-equal people. the unknown god (unknown and also unquestionable), is the supreme master, the high priests are the second in command, the lower ranking priests follow and it goes down to the downtrodden and the miserable (whom the church help create at the first place). i quote the pastor “God does not ask if we like his doctrines. God demands that we live according to his doctrine.” the concept of slavery is so integral a part of religion.
i am sorry. i really am.
nice argument. great logic.
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 9:01 am
Greetings! Brother Dulle
This is why the scriptures of God calls those whom deny the existance of God fools for they have not legitimate argument against the Most High God.
May the God of all grace continue to lead you all to the truth of his word and obedience unto it. in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
Marquest Burton
LikeLike
December 2, 2009 at 11:07 am
may7black
First I must say nice improvement over the scattered thoughts of your previous posts.
First of all you are by-passing the basic argument in favor of creating arguments that I haven’t even began to bring into this. Your last question is the crux of our discussion, unless of course, you want to discuss why I believe in the One God of the Jewish Scriptures and His visible manifestation as a man in Christ Jesus.
So let’s get to the base of it… that is exactly where I’ve been for the last several comments… at the base of it all. Observe the natural order. Observe and document how things happen, the laws that govern our world. For example gravity, arrow dynamics, each animal delivering offspring after its kind. Notice what you do not see, disorder, lawless nature, a deer giving birth to a dog. You see structure and order. Chaos does not bring order. Look at the human race, we are set apart. We are not like any other creature on this planet. To go further down to the base of it, where did life come from? What created the perfect order? Scientists that I’ve read have come to the conclusion that our world had a point of origin. Life had a point of origin. Life begets life. Order begets order. Purpose begets purpose. There was a cause and not just a cosmic accident. We have yet been able to create the most simplistic of cells that live. And you want to think that it just happened by random chance? I’ll refer you to what Jason said to the other atheist about the possibilities of this happening, I’ll sum it up for you, it is impossible.
“The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” ~ Isaac Newton
You will not affirm or deny that an explosion in a junk yard could possibly create the most advanced super computer and most advanced OS? Then why doesn’t Bill Gates get his R&D team to just start blowing things up? Your argument implies that advanced complexity comes from chaotic explosions… 🙂
However, we are talking about more than just complexity. We are talking about specific kinds of complexity not some random complex pattern in the clouds. Where did DNA originate from? Evolution does not explain the beginning of life, DNA, consciousness.
Do you not see what you are writing? Everything you’ve affirmed flies in the face of the observable world and science itself. You do this to justify your faith. I affirm that design comes from a designer, engineering comes from an engineer, life comes from life, you disagree with what happens every day around you. Simply amazing. I’m not arguing for a pattern and I have not argued that “someone designs everything that happens in our life” those are subjective opinions that you are interjecting as a false argument. Again, it is more than just a mere pattern, more than things happening in our life. It is life itself.
What do you base your faith on? You do have faith. Your prophets and priests may be Darwin, Nietzsche, the X-Club, and Stalin to name a few and they promoted a deadly faith to our fellow man. Why do you desire to know my faith in one God, Jesus Christ? Is it because your frame works of faith has left you empty or is it because you see on emptiness ahead? To quote Nietzsche, “And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”
Not at all. It has the opposite effect; it requires us to be keepers of this earth and calls us to responsibility. It establishes a point of reference for moral behavior, for truth. Jesus summed up all of the commandments by this, Love God and love your neighbor as yourself. On the other hand if we believe that we are the product of random mutations and chance sprinkled with time then nothing matters but survival. This concept isn’t only selfish at its base it is selfish, dangerous, and chaotic at its pinnacle.
What? You are sorry? From where do you gather your sorrow and why should you care? Nothing matters, no truth remains… including atheism… so what is what? You are left wallowing in the mire of the pinnacle of atheism. The fact that you feel sorry is a declaration of moral truth. If a moral truth exists then it had to come from a moral Being- may I introduce you to God.
What tells people that God loves them? Religion isn’t a god that dictates to people. Mankind promotes religion but why? As you agreed it is because mankind has a need. This need is beyond self. God declares his love for his creation. How? By coming to earth in the person of Jesus Christ, he died, was buried, and rose again because He loved you. Mankind is in need of someone who can save them from themselves. We have Jesus.
Anathema of the social world… says who? You? Oh wait I know why you detest God, because you will be held accountable. And it didn’t give rise to social inequalities, many many Christians actually fought to free slaves. Christians established the first hospitals. In the last 100 years who has killed millions? Stalin (atheist) killed 15 million, Hitler(used evolution to justify a superior race) killed millions, Mao(atheist) killed 50 million. Your argument holds no water.
I see you’ve been reading my site… thanks! 🙂 And I stand by that statement. Sure some religions do the hierarchy thing but Christ taught differently and from the church I pastor and other churches like it we are servant hearted. We (Christians in general) are actually called to minister to the down trodden and miserable. Atheism has no edicts, but one of survival of the fittest. To an atheist the weak are just another poorly evolved creature but Christ came to seek and to save those that are lost. The weak, the hurting, the hopeless, are all subjects of God’s love.
My comments are getting too long and this will probably be my last comment but why be sorry… instead why not prove to yourself instead of making excuses. Why not search Christ out and find that he is true?
My logic has nothing to do with the facts that God is and God created. Keep seeking for him and you will find him.
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 4:06 am
Dear cs,
so you do realize that your arguments hold no water and that you are blinded by faith.
well, that is just wishful thinking. i know you will never see my side of the argument.
i do understand that the center of your very existence is based of your faith in god. how would you even exist otherwise? you need to give argument for your existence. yes, we all are searching for meaning but you get satisfied with a cock and bull story about “god” sending his son to pay for human sins(isn’t it a bit like the superman tale) while i refuse to accept this story just for the sake “giving meaning to my life”.
People do make up stories all the time. my Masters in English literature taught me that. The Scientologists have their alien story. The Hindus have their Ramayana and Mahabharata. You have your own tales. A simple Google search throws up so many religions and their beliefs in different tales. and all of them believe in theirs being THE TRUE STORY. yes with passing time, the older the story gets the more authentic it seems. it exists in a garb of so called TRUTH.
but you do believe in virgin birth. ah. but then it is divine, right? so an unnatural act (lawless nature) is divine. thereby an “unnatural” act of homosexuality should also be divine. isn’t it so?
i do think the concept of chaos is lost on you. Chaos does bring order. any order by the very logic is a development of the chaos.
perfect order. there is no perfect order. human life is progressive. it is a continuation. it changes with time. it evolves. even your doctrines say as much. the Jews became Christians. isn’t that a “progress”?
i beg to disagree. There was a cosmic accident that gave gave rise to this sense of cause.
Probably he did. and most probably every scientific discovery had to undergo lots of failure in order to become the useful product that they eventually did. every creation is built on destruction of others.
yes indeed it does.
Do you imply that the random complex pattern in the clouds is not designed by god?
Please do not use slanderous terms like ‘priests’ and ‘prophets’ for people like Darwin, Nietzsche, the X-Club. Stalin’s communism was as detrimental to human thinking as religion. Well Religion has always been against free thinking. case in point the X-club.
this kind of brainwashing works in churches pretty well. But sorry i don’t see emptiness ahead. what do you mean by that anyways? This is what religion always indulges in: rhetoric. wordplay. oxymoron.
no. the fact that i feel sorry for you is a declaration of my emotions for a fellow human.
accountable to whom? to god? at the day of judgment? i don’t think so.
this is a myopic example. their main political belief led them to these killings and not their belief in atheist. you logic is plain farcical. just look into history and you will find millions and millions of killing directly caused due to religious beliefs. how can you even argue on this point? all recent major acts of terrorism has happened due to religious extremism.
ah ha!!!
goodbye then. at least your beliefs are motivated towards doing good for others unlike the religious extremism that we generally encounter nowadays.
“Thank god for that.”
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 4:09 am
Marquest Burton,
GROW UP
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 10:18 am
Hello all!
may7black…
question: as far as you are concerned, what would convince you that there is a God?
ps – I tried to scroll through the numberous long posts to see if you in fact already answered this question or gave clues to answering this question, but I did not see it. IF you did, please forgive me! But please repeat! lol
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Dale,
I have considered it, and my name has been floated. We’ll see what happens. It’s not something I am actively pursuing.
Jason
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Jason
My apologies for the long posts feel free to shorten them if you so desire. Or even delete them altogether.
may7black
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 12:58 pm
opps… misspelled my
LikeLike
December 3, 2009 at 9:30 pm
@ cs & may7black:
Good dialogue; you managed to bring up almost every argument for and against the concept of an intelligent designer–I can think of no new ones to add, save a few corrections (which would probably be construed as rhetoric by at least one of you).
What I can add (and am surprised that no one else has yet) is this:
When it comes to a debate about intelligent design, arguments can usually be simmered into a nice reduction (might be tastily paired with an argument about the outdated sins in the OT) about faith. The theist chap tends to mention that the lack of evidence itself “points to” the existence of God, since God wants his creation to approach and worship him of their own volition, and not as automatons. This sometimes gives the atheist the giggles as he thinks to himself pityingly that theism really should be classified as a mental illness. He gives himself a point on the scoreboard of life and plans mentally which atheist friend to tell this story to first.
Regardless of your opinion, please realize that there is simply no reconciling these two perspectives logically, scientifically, or philosophically. Spirituality intrinsically requires that belief be based on faith. Conversely, by the very nature of scientific theory, the concept of faith is silly.
I hadn’t planned on showing my cards here, but a scripture pops to mind as I write this:
“Instead, God chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose things that are powerless to shame those who are powerful.”
I Corinthians 1:27 (NLT)
may7black: You’re not supposed to be convinced of God’s reality because of logic. You may never completely win a debate against a theist (because although it is difficult to express it eloquently, a lot of things moral and physical do seem to indicate the existence God, even from a scientific perspective) but rest assured that you will never lose either, because I can guarantee you that complete ‘proof’ of God’s existence will never be found.
Regards to you both; you are both intelligent (if a bit condescending at times) Gentlemen/Ladies.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 1:21 am
everyone
a thousand apologies for my rather futile attempts to make sense (to myself, i must add). i am not an atheist, a theist or an agnostic. i do not believe in one universal reality or one universal truth. my attempt was to investigate into one particular reality.
dear cs
Thank you.
michaelwbryant
Do you seriously wish for an answer to this?
Thomas
Rightly said.
i completely agree.
That my friend, i do not agree to. nevertheless. there is nothing i can do about it. But it has been a great learning experience.i am NOT being condescending.it truly has been.
Thomas, you have a rather “priest” like ability to find a middle ground, if i may say so.
Thank You. “that’s all folks!”
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 8:09 am
Thomas
Thank you. I actually think I poorly represented the truth but it has been a year or so since I’ve dialogued with anyone along these lines. Yeah I didn’t touch several things but I was trying to stay focused on the origin of life itself.
I somewhat disagree with you. The universe itself is logical, purposeful, and testable. If it were a crime scene it would point to a malefactor. If it were a laboratory it would point to a scientist. Just because the individual is out of the room doesn’t mean they are not reality. The finger prints of God have implicated Him and now we must find Him out.
Yes, faith is a requirement for a proper relationship with God. However, even in science faith has a voice it is often times called “Theory”.
I do believe you can be convinced of God’s reality by using simple logic. If we chose to reach beyond our understanding and surmise other possibilities then at best we will be left without a conclusion. We would not be able to conclude evolution did it. We could not conclude then that God didn’t do it. I think that is what you are saying.
🙂 Yes, my tone betrayed good diction at times. My apologies if it wasn’t conducive to godliness.
may7black
Thank you. If I may add, believing in the absence of a universal truth would be affirming a universal truth. You are still left with a truth that no one truth exists and by definition it defeats itself. If I understand you properly that is.
LikeLike
December 4, 2009 at 10:11 am
may7black,
Have you left the building? (Forum rather…)
Yes, I seriously asked you a question and was waiting for a serious answer from you – why would you think otherwise?
But yeah man – my sincere and genuine question for you still remains: what would convince you that there is a God?
LikeLike
December 6, 2009 at 10:39 pm
cs
The answer is no. You do not. a thousand words could not make no sense. Samuel Beckett rightly talked about the futility of words.
michaelwbryant
may7black has not left the building.
after a hundred broken arguments and a thousand twisted logic one mistook the question (apparently enough)as a non-serious question. well if a question is asked of me then i shall indeed answer. a hypothetical question nevertheless.
the answer my friend is ONE SMALL MINUTE PROOF. believe me if i come across one tiny proof, i will be the very first one to run to the Church/ Temple/ Mosque/ Synagogue/ Gurudwara. For if there is an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent entity, i wouldn’t want to piss him/her off.
till then may7black must speak none. Thomas, the court is all your. make sense if you can.
LikeLike
December 7, 2009 at 8:35 am
may7black
So I actually did understand your claim to a universal absence of truth. And that argument is self defeating.
You can hide behind the idea of words are futile but that is a lie. Words express an idea or thought and if words are futile then ordering from the drive through window at Burger King would not work. It is how you express your thoughts and ideas.
Imagine my confusion by your comments below.
You said on comment 18.
Then you said in comment 37,
Then you told Thomas,
If you are right then not only are words futile but everything is, there is no hope, no help, nothing.
LikeLike
December 7, 2009 at 10:46 pm
dear dear dear chad Sullivan
exactly. there is nothing. we should stop trying to make sense of everything. most of it might well be meaningless.
Chad, goodbye. but wishes still exist. i wish that all your wishes come true.
LikeLike
December 8, 2009 at 6:34 am
may7black
You can pretend that everything is meaningless in your world, but the truth is still glaringly obvious. One day you will realize this.
LikeLike
December 8, 2009 at 9:18 pm
cs
Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down and broke his crown
And Jill came tumbling after.
“human eyes are so obsessed with clarity. what if truth is a blur?”
LikeLike
December 10, 2009 at 9:00 am
May7black –
You mention “the answer my friend is ONE SMALL MINUTE PROOF.”
Well, that is what I am asking of you: for you, what would be ‘one small minute proof’ -? There are other things that you accept to be valid, true, real…for those particular things, you must have encountered the proof to convince you. So, as it relates to the existence of God, what is an example of “one small minute proof” that you demand which would lead to you being convinced?
LikeLike
December 12, 2009 at 11:36 am
Oh what if…
Thankfully truth isn’t a list of what if’s. Truth can be experienced, observed, and found.
LikeLike
December 13, 2009 at 9:32 pm
if you want to keep on pretending that god exists then so be it.
LikeLike
December 14, 2009 at 6:36 am
May7black –
was that a response to my question?
LikeLike
December 14, 2009 at 9:39 pm
dear michaelwbryant,
No, that was the reply to cs.
LikeLike
December 21, 2009 at 5:47 am
[…] The main post on the site: Theosophical Ruminations :A collage of theological and philosophica… […]
LikeLike