Christian "Love" - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jul 13, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Atheist wrote:

Anon, I didn't understand your post. Could you point out what you consider "conjecture" in my previous post? What do you think I'm "selling"? Atheism is just the lack of belief in gods. What is the "myth" on which you claim atheism is based? You asked to see "cold hard facts", but didn't say what the question or subject was. What are "science gods"? I never heard of them. Do you mean rational thought and logic? I'm sorry if I'm dense, but I just didn't follow your thoughts.

This all depends on how you define a "god". If you define it as "non-sensical explanations that have not been and/or cannot be proven," then it all makes so much sense.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

Once again: All theists do not necessarily believe in an afterlife. I think a fair number of religious adherents in this world (including Buddhists and Hindus) strive to free themselves from the perceived curse of continued existence. Even some Christians do not believe in an afterlife. The whole concept of an AFTERlife presupposes an assumption of contuing time that is similar to that which we experience. Why don't we talk about the nature of time? Naw, let's don't.

It's as simplistic to talk about "atheist" vis-a-vis "theist" as it is to talk about "God" vis-a-vis "no god". It just ain't that simple to most of us. Hell, talk to a hundred Baptists and eventually, you'll hear a hundred different views on the nature of the "one" God they all genuinely perceive andbelieve in. Among all of those who would say there is a "god" there would be such divergence of thought that many in that category would view anothers' belief as "no god."

On the other hand, most folks who hold themselves out as atheists are really just devout agnostics. An agnostic is one who says "Who knows?" An Atheist says, "I know! There is None." I think that leap to absolutism is what strikes some of us as "mere" faith in the non-existnece of god.

Just as a believer cannot prove to a non-believer's satisfaction the existence of god, a non-believer cannot prove the non-existence of god. Take (what I understand to be) a classical theist position: God created the world, set the Big Bang going when He said, "Let there be..." . Then He took a vacation and went to Calcutta or somewhere. Maybe He (She?) just said "I'm done," and checked out to Nirvana. Or the Elysian Fields. Or he slipped back out of time. Or over to another time.

I have been thinking lately of logos as the opposite of chaos. Some folks understandably believe that the whole dang universe is lumbering toward statis. Other folks, despite all the evidence to the contrary, in the face of the obvious and overwhelming futility, still struggle to put things in order. Call it blind faith, but right now, I count myself among the latter. We like to believe -- or maybe just pretent -- that we are on the side of the Creator as we do so.

On an earlier point, Cossack, I agree that we all tend to classify those we wish to kill as not "real people." Fortunately, the folks who craft our laws tend to be a bit more sophisticated in how they identify "real people." (Of course, "sophisticated" and "sophomore" come from the same root, don't they?)

It seems to me unfortunate that the law has never devised a means of distinguishing between "citizens" and "criminals" before a crime has been committed, and some form of due process has been completed. Does one forfeit citizenship when one has been convicted of a crime? Should they? Any crime?

Date: Jul 13, 2006

ram wrote:

... On the other hand, most folks who hold themselves out as atheists are really just devout agnostics. An agnostic is one who says "Who knows?" An Atheist says, "I know! There is None." I think that leap to absolutism is what strikes some of us as "mere" faith in the non-existnece of god. Just as a believer cannot prove to a non-believer's satisfaction the existence of god, a non-believer cannot prove the non-existence of god. ...

Ram, I will respond to this part of your otherwise excellent post. You are correct that "agnostic" refers to knowledge, or rather the lack of knowledge. A person can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist. An atheist is just one who "doesn't believe" whatever god the theist invents or describes. Knowledge isn't involved. The atheist doesn't have the burden of proof or of supplying evidence. That burden is always on the one making the claim, not the one who doubts the claim. (If theist had a suitable definition of "God" then perhaps that definition could be shown to be a logical contradiction.) The important point is the theist making the claim can't supply objective evidence in support of the claim, hence religion is based on faith.

Date: Jul 13, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jul 14, 2006

RE: Christian "Love"

Date: Jul 14, 2006

ram wrote:

Atheist wrote: . . . An atheist is just one who "doesn't believe" whatever god the theist invents or describes. Knowledge isn't involved. . . . I can accept that definition, but it does not comport with my experience. The dynamic you describe has the believer trying to convince the non-believer of the merit of a particular belief. Basically the non-believer is passive and simply does not believe. Those discussions are usually short lived. The believer runs out of steam eventually, if met with no response. My experience has been that such discussions typically progress to a defense on the part of the non-believer, an explanation of the lack of belief or even an argument justifying the lack of belief. When that happens, it seems to me to be tantamount to a statement of belief in an unprovable negative.

Ram, you are very observant. I agree with everything you say here. From my experience the reason this happens is the theist presents an argument based on faith or an unsupported assumption that the atheist doesn't hold. The atheist tries to use logic to show the theist why what is believed is irrational, or unsupported. At this point they are talking apples and oranges. The theist becomes defensive because they perceive the atheist as "attacking" when the atheist is only pointing out logical errors. (This has occurred earlier on this thread.) However, some consider a strong argument against the misuse of logic supporting one of two diametrically opposed positions is evidence for holding the opposite position to be true.

Example: T) It's going to rain today.

A) Why do you say that?

T) I saw some birds flying south?

A) What does that have to do with rain?

T) I believe when birds fly south it will rain.

A) What evidence do you have to say that?

T) My grandmother told me.

A) With due respect to your grandmother, that is not rational?

T) I'm entitled to my belief just as much as you are to yours. Why do you attack me just because you believe so strongly it won't rain?

A) I'm not attacking you. What do birds flying south have to do with rain other than what your grandmother says?

T) You guys are all alike trying to force your beliefs on others.

A) I have no beliefs about the rain. You are wrong because you can't show a cause-effect relation between the birds flying south and the rain.

T) If you have no beliefs about the rain, why do you argue so strongly against me?

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Then how about settling for this?

"I'm a believer and comfortable in my theism."

"I'm a non-believer and comfortable in my atheism."

"Cool, let's go to lunch and talk about the ballgame."

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Atheist wrote:

... However, some consider a strong argument against the misuse of logic supporting one of two diametrically opposed positions is evidence for holding the opposite position to be true. ...

I should have qualified the above statement. I don't consider it to be a valid position because another person my have an argument which is logically sound. However, after many years of inquiry if all arguments presented are not logically sound and you are told all such positions are based on faith, one begins to think that is strong evidence for the opposite position.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Noesses wrote:

Then how about settling for this? "I'm a believer and comfortable in my theism." "I'm a non-believer and comfortable in my atheism." "Cool, let's go to lunch and talk about the ballgame."

Of course, Noesses, you can do what you wish. You seem to be suggesting, "Let's just stop thinking about it". But some of us are searching for "truth". That is what science is doing. Others are searching for happiness or comfort and will sacrifice "truth" to obtain it. I have no problem with that unless it gets in the way of truth or causes other problems for society.

Scientist aren't "comfortable" in your sense because their ideas and theories are constantly being challenged. That is the way to truth. In my opinion searching for comfort is the road to deception. An atheist must consider all arguments of theist in order to search for truth so they can't be "comfortable" in your sense.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Atheist wrote:

You seem to be suggesting, "Let's just stop thinking about it".

Actually Atheist that is not at all true. I spend a great deal of time thinking about and discussing faith, diversity of faith, and lack thereof. I don't, however, proselytize about my faith and I don't like people who do. Sometimes, it seems to me, that you proselytize about your lack of faith. It appears, again to me and perhaps not to others, that you argue in a condescending way by trying to poke holes in the faith of believers rather than by promoting your perceived advantages of an atheist perspective. My suggestion, facetious though it was, was avoidance of the need to convince each other of anything.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Noesses wrote:

Atheist wrote: You seem to be suggesting, "Let's just stop thinking about it". Actually Atheist that is not at all true. I spend a great deal of time thinking about and discussing faith, diversity of faith, and lack thereof. I don't, however, proselytize about my faith and I don't like people who do. Sometimes, it seems to me, that you proselytize about your lack of faith. It appears, again to me and perhaps not to others, that you argue in a condescending way by trying to poke holes in the faith of believers rather than by promoting your perceived advantages of an atheist perspective. My suggestion, facetious though it was, was avoidance of the need to convince each other of anything.

Noesses, I was responding Ram when you posted a suggestion we just be "comfortable", have lunch and discuss baseball. It sounded like you just didn't want to think about it, but now you say that was facetious. Sorry if I misunderstood. I also don't intend to be condescending. If you read my earlier post responding to Ram, I gave an example of how these discussions go. You will notice we are no long discussing substance, but rather style. I took your statements at face value; you now say that was only a joke. Then I'm accused of "possibility" proselytizing atheism (I'm not sure if that is even possible.) when all I do is discuss logical arguments. I know of no "perceived advantages of an atheist perspective" except no one can accuse you of believing without evidence. (I doubt an atheist would give their life for 72 virgins in the hereafter. )

I never considered myself trying to "convince others" of anything except logical thinking. Do you consider logical thinking a threat to theism?

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Atheist wrote:

I never considered myself trying to "convince others" of anything except logical thinking. Do you consider logical thinking a threat to theism?

Here is a perfect example of what I meant. You are not presenting a position but trying to put me in a position to defend mine. No, trained as a scientist, I do not believe logical thinking is a threat to theism nor do I believe that theism interferes with science.* I was not attacking you nor making light of your exchange with others. I was trying to make the point that not all religious people have the need to convert others or defend their personal faith. Jews, for example, don't actively seek converts. Many brands of christianity shudder at the thought of evangelism. You appear (again, to me and I am truly trying to go overboard not to generalize from my interpretation) from your many posts on this subject and frequent return to it on new threads seem to be obsessed with trying to point out the logical flaws of faith without proof. I was not trying to move from "substance" to "style" but rather to say that there is common ground for theists and atheists that I think is more productive for discussion than trying to defend/deny the unprovable.**

*Not to say that I don't think the political agenda of organized religion interferes with science but that's a different topic.

**At this time.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Noesses wrote:

Atheist wrote: I never considered myself trying to "convince others" of anything except logical thinking. Do you consider logical thinking a threat to theism? Here is a perfect example of what I meant. You are not presenting a position but trying to put me in a position to defend mine. No, trained as a scientist, I do not believe logical thinking is a threat to theism nor do I believe that theism interferes with science.* I was not attacking you nor making light of your exchange with others. I was trying to make the point that not all religious people have the need to convert others or defend their personal faith. Jews, for example, don't actively seek converts. Many brands of christianity shudder at the thought of evangelism. You appear (again, to me and I am truly trying to go overboard not to generalize from my interpretation) from your many posts on this subject and frequent return to it on new threads seem to be obsessed with trying to point out the logical flaws of faith without proof. I was not trying to move from "substance" to "style" but rather to say that there is common ground for theists and atheists that I think is more productive for discussion than trying to defend/deny the unprovable.** *Not to say that I don't think the political agenda of organized religion interferes with science but that's a different topic. **At this time.

Thanks for the explanation. I now understand. Your footnotes, * and **, could make for interesting discussions.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Atheist, I would just love you if you would not repost in its entirety whatever you're replying to.

On another note, I am revisiting my belief in a particular doctrine. As a Protestant, I've never paid much attention to the idea of Purgatory. Now, however, I'm looking at that again. I think there should be at least a ten-thousand year sentence for those who apply wallpaper directly to drywall without primer. And Atheist, since you seem to have a lot of extra time on your hands, have I got a job for you!!

Date: Jul 14, 2006

LVN wrote:

... As a Protestant, I've ...the idea of Purgatory. Now, however, I'm ...apply wallpaper directly to drywall without primer. And ...seem to have a lot of extra time ...for you!!

LVN, as you requested, I didn't quote your whole post.

Sorry, LVN, I don't paper or do drywall, unless you want a mess. I wanted so badly to discuss your mention of Purgatory, but being a considerate person , I decided to give it all a rest. But remember theists I will be watching ...err...reading. May the Great Pink Invisible Unicorn bless each and everyone of you.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

A., you were so busy with the icons, you misread my post. I'm trying to get the @#$% paper OFF the drywall. Which was not primed first. Which means . . . oh, never mind. Maybe it's supposed to be MY Purgatory. I'll be there a long time, for sure.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Well, LVN, I heard it's good for the soul. Don't use up all of your @#!#%#@$ words.

I hope you are soaking the wallpaper well enough with the remover solution before trying to remove it. Otherwise it will be a pain in the *ss.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

That's the point of all the @#$%^^ -- if the drywall isn't primed first, then you can't soak the paper, and chunks of drywall come away with the paper. I'm picking wall paper off with my fingernails, and the whole room will have to have a coat of mud before it can be painted or anything.

Maybe 10,000 years isn't long enough.

Is this a slow news night, or what?

Date: Jul 14, 2006

You're not in Purgatory, LVN, you're in H*ll. I hope it makes you feel better to know I'm praying for you.

Date: Jul 14, 2006

Try fabric softener.

Date: Jul 16, 2006

More Love & Reporter:

Please repost on new threads. Thanks.