Nice reply, I unfortunately only seem to have these conversations with Christians who are more composed than I so my expression pales in comparison. Essentially what you are saying is "You can't disprove god" nice, by the way your somewhat condescending and pretentious digs throughout the post doesn't impress me. Perhaps you are a little butt hurt in response to me indirectly calling you delusional.
[1]
It is more of a bit of the kettle calling the pot black much. If you have the right to challenge logic, then why don't I?
I know it appears condescending, but that is exactly how you would appear in your initial response. I am not so much hurt, as confused, in where you have the basis for that charge?
Yes I am not always perfect in reasoning either. If I was, and my arguments were completely there, which they aren't to be honest, then even then, this topic would not be resolved.
I highly doubt that your very initial response which was
"I think in 100-200 years from now, people will look at religious views in the same way we would look at people who believe that the earth is round. Religious belief is delusional considering the length people go to distort their logic in order to justify their beliefs. " can be taken as but condescending as well. In fact the issue I take is you are doing the same thing you claim is problematic with the way I respond.
Generally, I am not impressed either, but heck this is text exchanges online. Tone and well-meaningness (if that is a word) tend to be lost, and words like pretentious, condescending, deillusional, I am not that impressed. Maybe if you had developed a bit more substance, no offence, then maybe your claims may appear justified, but now it just seems like throwing things around. I like throwing ideas around, and questioning the status-quo, even within my own religion, but I don't like that we have to resort to conclusions, simply because we either don't understand or haven't at least provided enough information to suggest that you have sufficiently examined the arguments/cases.
[2]
The claim I am making is that not that "You can't disprove god" but that if you are trying to say that Christians have to prove God's existence, then atheists have to prove that God does not exist. Simply, I am only extending the very logic you are offering, but saying the "onus" is on the one making the claims, so it is a bit ironic that you are getting upset about that. Please do not be upset by that.
You are making many claims about God, religion and you are expecting me to answer them?? I am very confused. Sure I will happily address the claims of Christians, but you need to provide a bit more detail on your claims, if you don't want me to appear like I am assuming things, in a manner you have described...
[3]
I know you are frustrated and upset, but you will notice this thread has 718 pages, and still has not been resolved. If you really want to engage with the topics then go for all you like. Just understand that most people here, are not always able to respond quickly as they have other things to do. I have a bit busy like most people, and don't always have time to address everything that is said....
But have a bit more thought, before jumping to the conclusion, where theists are all illogical and hence stupid.
In fact you claim that by stating that religion turns what would be normally smart people, into something lesser? Is that not equally as condescending?
I am not so much upset, but curious or in some measure confused why is the atheist thinks he is somehow justified?
[4]
The basis of my argument is that your logic is based entirely around the belief that the Bible/word of God is true. If you put that aside you don't really have anything. I've been reading back a few pages and notice your arguments seem to exist primarily by criticizing the way a person writes their argument rather then their content.
Sometimes it is just to clarify things, typically I have been trying to help DrSoccerball in his clarity. While we disagree on some religious matters, we have much agreement, at least on the existence of God.
In terms of the Bible being true, of course I believe that, what Christian doesn't.
But generally my argument for that centres on something a bit different:
It is based around two things:
1. Jesus existed and died.
2. The resurrection of Jesus is trustworthy.
Those are actually my underlying assumptions more so than the Bible is true, and most of my understanding of the Bible actually stems on these two facts, not the other way around. What you find is the Old Testament ends up being consistent with the New Testament, because of these two things. In fact the earliest and closest portion of the New Testament is in 1 Corinthians 15, some history for you and says:
"Christ died according to the Scriptures, Christ was buried according to the Scriptures, Christ was raised according to the Scriptures"... and appeared to this person, this person, and 500 at once etc. etc.
Not only do scholars think this is a creed or something that is I guess, dating even earlier than the earliest of the accounts of Jesus' life; but we also have fragments of this that date beyond the 2nd century, which is relatively speaking very good from a historical perspective.
Both of these assumptions, atheists reject and deny; Muslims reject the death and resurrection and have a entirely version of Jesus that is different (that is the main thing behind my discourse with them that I focus more-so on)...
Now one of these (the resurrection) is often rejected, offhandly with the assumption that this world is all that there is, and there hence must be a naturalistic/material (matter) explanation for the miracles, and the explanation that braintic opted for was the "schizophrenic explanation".
So there is the "atheistic assumption" that matter is all that there is (I don't think even from a scientific perspective that holds, there is an argument called the introspective argument, that uses the distinction between mind and matter). There are other arguments, such as the "first cause/intelligent design or fine tuning" argument, or the "ontological argument". There are moral arguments, particularly the problem in the lack of God, there is a tendency towards a moral vacuum, where words like "love" become redefined into something, let the reader understand, subjective and in some cases trivialised to simply the exchange of chemicals, or sexual interactions between creatures.
Generally, I won't tend to speak outside of what I am more familiar with though. But it is worth looking into for you...
[5]
Often my beef/criticism concerning atheism is against naturalism, as a couple of posts up may entail. The problem we have in this argument, is the assumption:
1. Assumption: the natural world is all that there is
2. Therefore God does not exists, because he is not in the natural world.
Your counter argument basically rests:
1. This person has not addressed the content
I don't always need to address the conclusions, correct, but mainly address the things that lead to that conclusions, atheists do that all the time and never get brought up on it, there are sites called rationalwiki or whatever it is called that is linked on the first page, that uses the same kind), they have plenty of arguments, and most are copied onto the first page, if you really want me to I can address those as well.
2. This person has assumptions I disagree with, well of course that is true
Just as you can question the assumptions I have, so can I do likewise. That is what I have been doing.
[6]
Thirdly, you asked for an explanation in this quote, so again I don't see why you can complain. You can reject it of course, but you cannot make the claim that Christians don't have some understanding on the matter. I have already addressed the content of this phrase already,
It doesn't make sense that the God of the universe who in all his complexities (atoms, sub-atomic particles e.g.) could not think of a better way to forgive man of his sins than to have himself tortured to death on the cross. Christians will say this is 'love' which really just confirms the extent to which you have to warp your logic in order to believe these kind of things.
Let me break it down
Why? See below...
could not think of a better way to forgive man of his sins than to have himself tortured to death on the cross
I am sure if there was a better way to have it done, it would have happened. I have already given the explanation why it was necessary. It is no so much a proof of God's existence.
To address the next bit I am going to address two claims at once.
How does my claim that religions distorts the minds of otherwise smart and logical people? Religious ideologies are inherently ideological, which preach of a malevolent god who is ostensibly responsible for punishing any question to his rule. He is "all seeing" and "all hearing", sounds allot like 1984, where you will burn in hell for eternity for thought crime (homosexuality, lust).
Christians will say this is 'love' which really just confirms the extent to which you have to warp your logic in order to believe these kind of things.
What do you really mean? You say this confirms the extent in which you have to warp your logic to believe this? How does this confirm it?
Doesn't this just demonstrate that there is a different understanding of "love"?
Lets look at it legally..., since there can be some common understanding...
The very thing with the cross, is God is taking upon himself the punishment that you were supposed to?
We see this in movies sometimes, where someone dies in battle for instance for the sake of freedom, isn't that what most wars are about? Now if you are a pacifist or hold to a different understanding of love (and the LBTIQ issue being mentioned may suggest you do in some measure).
Maybe we don't seem to understand the idea of treason anymore, but consider this, if you were to take a knife and attempt to kill the Queen, you would be arrested, thrown into prison. So I think it is reasonable if treason on the highest level against the very creator of the universe, that is if he exists (which is a whole separate argument). Now what is the evil here? Letting it go completely unpunished, or punishing some a crime would be more evil.
So your argument basically boils down to God does not exist, because I think he is mean/malevolent, now that is problematic, because God is a God of justice, he punishes those who reject him.
At the heart of the things, you specifically mentioned are not the problem as such, it is the very attitude of the heart. A reasonable enquiry into whether God exists or not, is not the problem. The problem is the attitude of the heart. Imagine if a child said to his parent, I hate you and want what you have, but not you. That is the exact illustration Jesus uses in the well-known Lost Son passage in Luke. That is a description of the rebellion we have against God.
But there is more, it is described as a warfare, the Bible calls it spiritual, but maybe for your sake, you could consider it intellectual, between evil and good. The best movie that I have seen as a visual example, although not perfectly, is the Matrix, and you would find much similarities between I guess existentialism and Christianity. Even the Lego Movie for instance.
But the difference between existentialism and religion/nihilism(*) is honestly, where they turn to? Existentialism looks towards the fundamental good within each human (it resembles gnosticism), while religion turns to God, and nihilism hopelessly does not find anything but in the struggle.
I find that the first option is easily examinable by seeing the full capacity of evil that humans carry out, e.g. stabbings. Obviously you would dispute what else can be considering "wrong". But that is an argument of moral ethics (I personally find some ethical choices by some non-religious schools of thought, e.g. consequentialism, repulsive)
Religion is an appropriate response for one who has been convinced by the evidence falls in favour of God's existence and is also convicted on the world's brokenness and need for restoration. Of all the religions, Christianity has the most compelling evidence that I find to be most trustworthy and generally consistent, so which is why I opt for that one.
Secondly....
You mean your claim is the religion is effectively opium for the masses, and makes people dumber. How is that not condescending?
I am not so much hurt, but confused, that you think that you can say the same of religious people.
Secular ideologies are also inherently just that, ideological, and the point I am trying to make is you complain about religious thought, granted, there are indeed those within religion who are corrupt and who indeed have used as a means of power, but cannot one say the same thing of atheism, especially for instance Marxism, the very things that you hold to be true? I am sure there are plenty who would also happily reject to some measure the new "tolerance" and "equality" that is shutting down debate on topics.
Since you used the example of 1984, may I also use the example of Frankenstein will it get to a stage where all moral reasoning is thrown out, simply because we can. no of course not, you would agree that is absurd, yet in some advances in science that is what is happening, and it isn't atheism itself, but some variants within atheism.
"Once we assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects of a cruel experiment whereby we are created to be sick and commanded to be well, and over us to supervise this is installed a celestial dictatorship, a divine North Korea" - Christopher Hithchens.
Maybe I should be a quote maker?====
Once we don't assume a creator, what better are we, we still have this 'cruel' dictatorship, we just call it different names, chance, the universe, evolution etc. In some cases the atheists are no much better that the theists at this point. The only difference is one can claim higher moral or intellectual ground before the other complains of being pretentious or not so much humble. Everyone has a god, the question is whether people believe in god, but which one do they believe in. Obviously for those who are opposed to the idea of a divine being may indeed be confused, but don't indeed we look to other things to fill the place, where theists appropriately put God instead? Although some theists have been wrong in putting God in the absence of evidence (God of the gaps), that does not mean that God does not exist, maybe just misunderstood. In fact, indeed, we should not consider God as the explanation in the lack of evidence, but indeed something greater... we do not assume nor prove God, if he really care he will make himself known, the question is will we spot him when he does?
Will it be better to be captured and captivated to do good and be bound to goodness, then to be bound to evil? If God is indeed malevolent, then of course it would be a loss either way, but is God actually evil, if he rightly brings to justice, those who oppose his rule? I am sure if one plotted assassination against the Queen, one would find themselves rightly guilty of treason. Indeed, some have the habit of doing the same with God. This is the heart of the problem. Now is it good to oppose God if he is good, by no means no. And how do we know that he is good, because indeed we have life. Unless we consider existence as a curse, as some might, indeed we receive that great good thing of living and loving. He has done this also by setting man, as puny as he is, over the other creatures with dominion/power, and giving him the desire to learn, understand and master the other things of the universe, whether abstract or concrete.
====
Aside:
This is more relevant for the next post...
To draw on the question of the following post, reality according to Christianity is a tale of two kings, God and the Devil. The devil is some cases is very deceptive hiding the fact that he rules and reigns over the world. When God's Son came he disarmed the devil by dying on the cross and rising again, conquering the things that the Devil uses to reign over us, death and sin. That will hopefully provide some context for the following question.
