if we can't determine there is a higher intelligence.....

[robtex]

The premise is wrong here, Robtex. God has proven himsef to me many times over through revelations. However, you might see the SAME evidence and reach completely different conclusions. It's all a matter of perception.

To me it's like this:

You see an empty glass and declare water to be a myth.

I see an empty glass and look for a faucet.

When you see my glass you declare, "Hah! It's empty!"

I hold my empty glass in my hand and savor the taste of the water I just drank.

We can debate the existance or non existance of God ad nauseum. When you get thirsty enough, you will look for a faucet. It's all a matter of perception.

Taking out the metaphores tell me in terms of Christianty what the glass would be? Something that can be "proven" has to be also verifable. It is a condition that predicates proof. What is verifable to you that makes God "provable"?

In terms of Christianty what evidence are we both looking at that I am in denial about?

 

[michel]

From another thread here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24649

For the theists and deists who say there may be (or is) a higher power but we can't determine, assess, prove or qualify its existance through observation or testing and in the understanding you can't "have a relationship" with something you cannot observe, I have to ask.....why does it matter if a higher power exists or not if you don't interact with it?

For one, I do interact with God; only by prayer, but that is still a form of interaction. I have had occasions when I have believed I have had an experience which proved that my prayer was heard, and acted upon.

The point about "does it matter if.........." is, of course, at the heart of Faith; just that, having Faith in a God who will not reveal himself, who will not prove his reality - because to do so would invalidate the purpose of our having faith in him.

If that makes sense..................

 

[robtex]

The point about "does it matter if.........." is, of course, at the heart of Faith; just that, having Faith in a God who will not reveal himself, who will not prove his reality - because to do so would invalidate the purpose of our having faith in him.

the purpose of having faith is because he won't prove himself or "his reality"?

 

[Quiddity]

Hope for humanity? Many if not most atheist assets that humanity is it own source of hope and community as opposed to God.

Atheistic world views would include

secular humanism,
objectivism
Utilitarianism

to name a few.

Saying, "I'm happy and fulfilled" is an easy accomplishment in [size=-1]prosperous North America and Europe because all our material needs are met[/size] [size=-1]and we can occupy ourselves with various pleasures so that we don't have to[/size] [size=-1]think about the sad realities of the world all that much. We've got Maslow's hierarchy or Tony Robbins to help us. But spewing this crap to millions of sad people telling them that after they lived a crappy life it's all over. But don't worry secular humanism, objectivism, or Utilitarianism is here to save the day.[/size]
[size=-1]I can't even see any of the ideals you provided being a solution in this world. I won't hold my breath. [/size]

~Victor

 

[michel]

the purpose of having faith is because he won't prove himself or "his reality"?

Exactly. God wants us to prove ourselves worthy by our being prepared to devote our lives to him, without having any evidence that we are not just following a pipe dream.....that is the basis of all faith.

Faith is knowing that you are right, but not even needing to have the point attested, which is why it is called 'blind faith' by some, and why people such as your good self, and other atheists find it so hard to accept the way we are prepared to believe in Spaghetti Monsters and whatever other Fabled 'nonsense' as some people see it.

 

[mr.guy]

[size=-1] But spewing this crap to millions of sad people telling them that after they lived a crappy life it's all over. But don't worry secular humanism, objectivism, or Utilitarianism is here to save the day.[/size][size=-1] [/size]

An imaginary God with fantastical angels, prophets and bizarre puranitism is the answer? Don't be a jerk, victor.

 

[Quiddity]

An imaginary God with fantastical angels, prophets and bizarre puranitism is the answer? Don't be a jerk, victor.

C'mon Guy don't be silly man. Your only red-herring to the lack of your answer. The answer is if revelation is true, because that gives us solid, objective facts. God exists; He has a certain benevolent nature; He cares about the world and His creatures, etc. This is a good start.

~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

You have me wrong then: no one is as spiritually bankrupt as I am.

You will only find God when you seek him. You will only seek God when you thirst for him.

If i have you right, netdoc, only the spiritually bankrupt can deny god? Do we sit around in denial of thirst?

My faith can not only be proven, but it is verifiable as well. Miracles were performed and those that saw them denied them as well. The problem is not in the evidence: it's in the hearts of those exposed to the evidence.

Something that can be "proven" has to be also verifable.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your only red-herring to the lack of your answer. The answer is if revelation is true, because that gives us solid, objective facts.

huh

 

[mr.guy]

C'mon Guy don't be silly man.

Do you mean the "silliness" of atheism? I often forget that our "wrongness" is only momentarily tolerated.

Your only red-herring to the lack of your answer.

I have no idea what this means. I hope it isn't important.

The answer is

if revelation is true, because that gives us solid, objective facts.

It does no such thing; they're arbitrary facts, aren't they?

[size=-1] we can occupy ourselves with various pleasures so that we don't have to[/size] [size=-1]think about the sad realities of the world all that much.

So atheism is the luxury of the rich, no? You've yet to tell us how it makes us so inhuman and monsterous.[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1]

But spewing this crap to millions of sad people telling them that after they lived a crappy life it's all over. But don't worry secular humanism, objectivism, or Utilitarianism is here to save the day.

Why is selling them a fantasy better? Better for them, i mean.[/size]

God exists; He has a certain benevolent nature;

He cares about the world and His creatures, etc.

He gives no indication of any of the above qualities.

 

[mr.guy]

My faith can not only be proven, but it is verifiable as well. Miracles were performed and those that saw them denied them as well. The problem is not in the evidence: it's in the hearts of those exposed to the evidence.

So an atheist, at heart, is little more than willfully ignorant?

 

[Scuba Pete]

You keep trying to put words into my mouth. Why is that? Are you trying to trap me in my own words? Do you think I am a bigot? Troll someone else, I find your antics tiring.

 

[mr.guy]

You could just tell me i've got you wrong, netdoc. By your analogies, one would have to be deliberately ignoring plain fact and evidence to be an atheist. Am i incorrect?

 

[Quiddity]

Do you mean the "silliness" of atheism? I often forget that our "wrongness" is only momentarily tolerated.

I would rather use agree and disagree. Tolerate has a sense of being measured. Momentarily?

I have no idea what this means. I hope it isn't important.

To often it is said that Christian God/world view is horrid, unreasonable, and a number of other things. Hardly do I get a concrete answer to what Christians are concerned about. Only objections, never a solution to the same things they object to. Like right and wrong, the happiness of humanity, etc. As Dostoevsky once said "if God doesn't exist, anything is permissible." Although I don't suggest you or other atheist in this forum agree with that statement I have no idea on what grounds you would impose otherwise.

It does no such thing; they're arbitrary facts, aren't they?

On the contrary. They are non-arbitrary.

So atheism is the luxury of the rich, no? You've yet to tell us how it makes us so inhuman and monsterous.

That's not what I meant. I don't doubt many atheist are doing good works and probably agree with me on moral issues. My point was that atheism has no mechanism to bind people to an ideology without being in the same position as God. Consequences, cannot be carried through in a non-arbitrary [size=-1]manner, and will always end up incoherent and morally objectionable. Since full understanding is not a prerequisite for Christianity, we don't find ourselves in the same boat. And that's the way God works, with supernatural qualities such as LOVE, FAITH, TRUST. It's quite real to me.[/size]

[size=-1]

[size=-1]Why is selling them a fantasy better? Better for them, i mean.[/size]

[/size]
I answered this above.

He gives no indication of any of the above qualities.

So you say..

Peace
~Victor

 

[Scuba Pete]

You could just tell me i've got you wrong, netdoc.

I seemed to have tried that and apparantly it didn't work.

By your analogies, one would have to be deliberately ignoring plain fact and evidence to be an atheist. Am i incorrect?

By my analogies if you don't see a need for God, you won't see God. The facts are the same: but our analysis of them is dependent on what we are looking for. You can draw your own conclusions, please just don't ascribe them to me.

 

[mr.guy]

My point was that atheism has no mechanism to bind people to an ideology without being in the same position as God.

It would have to be a religion first. I find it a hard sell that a uniform anthropomorphism is the basic groundwork for a good, functioning ethical framework.

Consequences, cannot be carried through in a non-arbitrary [size=-1]manner, and will always end up incoherent and morally objectionable.

Vic, i could come along and say that the concept of eternal life cheapens the value of our mortal one. I don't think you'd be a hypocrite for disagreeing with this (as you should), but i'm just letting you know i can make extreme, unfounded arguments belittling concepts i've no use for as well.[/size]
[size=-1][/size]
[size=-1][/size]

 

[mr.guy]

Hey netdoc, turn down the volume why don't ya? I've "ascribed" nothing to you. I've asked you to clarify your opinion on atheists (note: not your politics). Be it that you dislike how leading i've been may be reason to be up in arms; but bear in mind that as an atheist it isn't uncommon to be told i'm misguided, unknowing, hard-hearted, morally confused/ambiguous, etc. Of course we all hear this from someone, somewhere; and just like you i've little tolerance for patronizing arguments that sheath what i might think is intellectual contempt. If i think you're a bigot netdoc, i promise i'll say as much, rest assured.

 

[Quiddity]

It would have to be a religion first. I find it a hard sell that a uniform anthropomorphism is the basic groundwork for a good, functioning ethical framework[/QUOTE]

I personally don't see it as a religion. But what exactly is so hard to belive? You either follow it or you don't. The framework is already there.

Vic, i could come along and say that the concept of eternal life cheapens the value of our mortal one.

Really? How so? I'm curious. Another thread?

I don't think you'd be a hypocrite for disagreeing with this (as you should), but i'm just letting you know i can make extreme, unfounded arguments belittling concepts i've no use for as well.

You can do without many things in theistic thinking. But that's not the point. The point is which one works with real people if atheist's presuppositions, taken to [size=-1]their ultimate logical and practical means are reached. I can only see relativism to the point of absurdity. If you disagree, that's fine, but I have yet to read something that works besides the theistic world view with a higher power.[/size]

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The point is which one works with real people if [/color]atheist's presuppositions, taken to [size=-1]their ultimate logical and practical means are reached. I can only see relativism to the point of absurdity. If you disagree, that's fine, but I have yet to read something that works besides the theistic world view with a higher power.

One is forced to assume, then, that you read little. You might consider Confucius, for example. You could also read the Tao Te Ching. The pathetic arrogance of one who would denigrate the moral compass of entire cultures could only be based on such broad-based ignorance.

 

[mr.guy]

Really? How so? I'm curious. Another thread?

For what, exactly?

The point is which one works with real people if atheist's presuppositions, taken to [size=-1]their ultimate logical and practical means are reached.

"ultimate logical and practical means"? Your theistic supposition of divinity has "practically" failed in many avenues; the logic is internal and arbitrary....outside of a catholic discussion, you can't really throw this one around that much, [/size][size=-1]vic. Your initial characterization of "secualr crap" (to loosely paraphrase) talks less of possible humanistic ethical formation (which in my view, you've dismissed as impossible and absurd) and definative necessity of "otherworldly" consequences for any type of enforceable order, sense of morality, or the possiblily of benevolence that isn't exceptional. I don't know how you've narrowed it down to this tidy conclusion; it's not as leggy as it sounds.[/size]

you disagree, that's fine, but I have yet to read something that works besides the theistic world view with a higher power.

vic, if the fear of god is the only thing that keeps you in line, then sucks to be you. If the same such fear is the only way you can trust your fellow man, then be prepared to be scared.