The God Arguement

[moot]

Won't you guys settle the semantics once and for all?

[Shuckins]

Well Chair, that's not completely true.  I've visited a number of atheistic web-sites.  Some of them talk about their creed, their belief system, and their goals.  Whether one believes it or not, atheism does display some of the characteristics of a religion:  the knee-jerk defense of that creed against all criticism;  the attempt to win converts to the movement;  the citing of the writings and works of their leaders and high-priests;  the denigration and condemnation of all opposing religions;  they worship the various gods of science and reason, in a variety of permutations.

Gallup Polls have consistently shown that the vast majority of Americans are not buying what atheists are selling.  Religion offers something that atheism cannot:  comfort and reassurance about the hereafter.  That is something that atheism will never be able to overcome.  All it can offer as an alternative is "We are here and now....there is no hereafter....so we pursue material and fleshly fullfillment....that's what WE are here after."


As to the subject of miracles, which was mentioned earlier, the faithful see them almost every day, in a variety of things.  Some are contained within the miracle of nature, others are in the realm of the spiritual.

The atheist will never see the latter type, for they are meant only for the faithful.  An atheist wouldn't believe them even if he witnessed them.  Even in the case of miracles of nature, the atheist sees only the results of random chance.

You can preach all you want to about the evils of religion and the liberating effects of atheism, but the public isn't listening.

[Chairboy]

Actually, I don't think I'm preaching, I'm just trying to make sure my kids don't grow up in an american theocracy.  A formal christian US government with the Ten Commandments as law and so on (which I know some people here would like) wouldn't be the USA that I love and would go against the founding principles of the patriots that established this great country over two hundred years ago.

[Shuckins]

Chair, the U.S. government will only be in danger of becoming a theocracy if radical muslims take over.

Till then, your rights are protected by the ACLU, the American Bar Association, and free and fair elections.

And always remember;  all laws are forms of legislated morality, whether of your version of morality or someone else's.  If you don't like the laws, campaign for change, but don't complain about other individuals and groups exercising that same right.

Regards

[phookat]

Originally posted by lazs2
phoo... I have never claimed to be an agnostic. I 100% believe in god... I am agnostic on other peoples god. I am not religious at all in the common idea of the term. I follow no religion that I know of... as I have said.. my god is a personal one. I am indeed a theist. I believe in god even tho I have no proof.

You're right, you didn't claim to be agnostic.  My mistake.  However, you did claim that you were not religious at all in an earlier post (which you attempted to deny), and now you are saying you 100% believe in God with no doubt.  If you believe in God 100%, then you are religious.  That's what religious means.  

Originally posted by lazs2
My god does not dictate to me in the least so I don't know what you are talking about... my god hates socialism as best I can tell.

OK, but I think "your God" has at least a couple of the following characteristics.  And certainly anyone who believes in the Bible believes God has the following characteristics.  He is everywhere and has absolute power and authority.  He knows all your thoughts and can convict you of thought-crimes.  He will torture you eternally in the afterlife for not "believing in him".  And unlike an earthly dictatorship, he continues to rule you forever, even after you are dead.

Yes, this is an eternal totalitarian dictatorship.  A petty dictator, given his horrifying conduct in the Old Testament.  And what kind of being makes "no graven images" one of his main commandments, punishable by death?  Not just a petty dictator, but an insecure petty dictator.

Originally posted by lazs2
marxism is a jealous god.  I believe that you are not seeing the truth in that statement.

Actually, I am.  All my points regarding the 20th century dictatorship stand, and you haven't refuted any of it.  Instead you go back to the tired "atheism is a faith", which it is not, and I have already demonstrated why it is not.  And in any case, as I said in my previous post, the problem in those dictatorships was the instinct to worship and place someone else in total control.  This is a religious action, not the action of a Jefferson or Paine.  Those dictatorships were not "in the name of atheism".  They were "in the name of Stalin" or "in the name of Mao".  As I said before, no society goes bonkers because its people become reasonable and ask for evidence instead of relying on faith.

Originally posted by lazs2
the agnostic in your explanation simply says there is no proof either way so you can't say.. he can still believe in the likelyhood of it being one way or the other.

Moot already explained this above.  Read his reply again.  You are just not getting it.

[phookat]

Originally posted by lazs2
and... why would any god want socialism?   God would want people to be responsible for themselves and for their actions.   God would certainly be pleased with charity freely given but would abhor making people dependent on government handouts I would think...

The whole doctrine of vicarious forgiveness preached by Christians is in fact an elimination of personal responsibility.  Jesus's death forgives your unavoidable sins and sends you to Heaven.  He has no right to make any such claim.  If you steal money from someone, it is only the victim of your theft who is in a position to forgive you.  Vicarious forgiveness of crimes is an immoral idea, and is completely opposite to the idea of taking responsibility for your own actions.

[Shuckins]

The doctrine of forgiveness does not eliminate personal responsibility.  Where do you come up with this stuff?  

The doctrine actually states that man, being fallible, cannot, by his own actions, attain righteousness or salvation.  Asking forgivenes of God, who is the source of all moral law, is the only way to do so.  That does not mean that you are relieved of all responsibility for the moral decisions one makes after that.  Most Christian doctrine teaches that God chastises his own for their transgressions.  

Your statement that Stalin, and by inference Mao, were not the leaders of atheistic governmental systems flatly contradicts the conclusions reached by every reputable historian who has ever written on the subject.  "Religion is the opiate of the masses," became their creed, and it certainly does not indicate any sympathy on their part for religion in any form.  Russian Orthodox Churches were closed and many of their leaders imprisoned or persecuted.  The same happened in China.  The ban on public displays of religion was not lifted until the Soviet Union broke up.

Even in the case of Hitler and the Nazis your statement falls short.  Hitler may have been born a Catholic, but he never developed calluses on his knees from praying too much.  He used ancient religious beliefs and prejudices when it suited him.  However, he considered Christianity to be a debilitating influence upon the German people.  His policies concerning the Jews took advantage of ancient religious prejudices, but were based mainly on his beliefs in crackpot genetic "science" and hate-filled theories of "racial purity."  In effect, he made use of the worst elements of atheism, science, and religious bigotry.

[Chairboy]

While I'm not interested in converting anyone, a statement you made Shuckins leads me to ask the following:

Assume that person X has killed thousands of people.  He is a dictator and has had thousands executed in various terrible ways, and is on his deathbed.

Before he dies, he has a spiritual transformation.  He honestly, and to the very core of his being, accepts Jesus Christ into his heart (no deception, no trickery) and asks for forgiveness.

Does god forgive him and accept him into heaven?  Remember, it's an unreservedly honest transformation and request for forgiveness by a newly, honestly pious man.

[moot]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Phoocat, exactly WHAT parts of the animal kingdom exhibit morality?  No behavior that can be explained by meer instinct is sufficient to stand as an example.

Hmm..

[Shuckins]

Chair, theoretically yes.  However, I think the chances of someone like Stalin or Hiler or Mao suddenly exchanging a lifetime of evil for a cloak of righteousness to be highly unlikely.  You see, Christians believe that the spirit of God has to move or motivate a person to seek salvation.  Yet, scripture also states that the Holy Spirit will not always abide with man, indicating that for the most intransigent and evil of sinners, the chance of salvation is withdrawn by God himself.

Indeed, there are no records or accounts of either of those three undergoing any such transformation.

If there is an actual Hell, those three certainly deserve it.  I think we can all agree on that.


Regards, Shuckins

[phookat]

Originally posted by E25280
The best source for information, evidence, and witnesses to God's works is the Bible.  There are many writings beyond The Book, but it is the most obvious source.

But, you don't believe in the Bible, and so anything I point to in it, you will dismiss out of hand.

You're right.  Everything you give below as "evidence" is taken from a book of what looks like pure mythology (just like a lot of other mythology in other cultures including the idea of a "second coming").  If someone writes in a book and says "Joe went to the supermarket today and  bought some bread", I don't have any particular reason to doubt it.  But if the book says "Today Joe walked on water and raised the dead", then I'm not going to believe it unless it can actually be demonstrated.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

As far as your explanation below, it even if it is true it points to a vindictive God who wants us to suffer.  Don't want to live under Stalin?  See how you like the Gulag, and then maybe you'll enjoy my dictatorship!  In any case, if he were to actually reveal himself for real (and not just in myth), then you know as well as I do that most everyone would bow the knee to him and accept the fact that what he says is true, and thus avoid Hell.  The fact that he doesn't do this means he wants anyone who thinks for himself to suffer eternally, even if they act morally as best they can.  This whole thing is a wicked belief.

Furthermore, all successful religions have anti-doubt antibodies.  The Bible especially has a lot of them: the story of Satan ruling the world now and causing doubt, the verses Seagoon mentioned about contempt for God, the stuff about unbelievers being fools, the condemnation of unbelievers to hell, the notion of blasphemy as a thought-crime, etc.  Islam has antibodies too, e.g. kill apostates (actually the Bible shares this one too).  Hinduism has a story of a Demon who did a lot of bad **** (with God watching all the while), but one day he says "What God?  I don't see God.  There is no God!"  And at that point God jumps out of the wall and tears him painfully to shreds.  Somewhat crass, but the message is pretty clear isn't it.

The presence of this anti-doubt immune system in various religions is capable of a perfectly reasonable, non-miraculous explanation.  Those stories which have such anti-doubt mechanisms survive, and the rest do not.  After thousands of years of fairy tales, only the ones with the most viral survivability are still believed.  The people who wrote the Bible realized it was a pretty fantastic-sounding fairy tale.  And furthermore, they were immersed in a sea of varied religious beliefs and cults (at the time of the writing of the Jesus story, there were a lot of "savior myth cults" in particular, whose stories were very similar to the Jesus one).  So they knew there would be people who didn't believe in it.  They cleverly anticipated the doubts and placed verses in the Bible to demonize those who held them.

Originally posted by E25280
Finally, God sent his Son to be the ultimate example for humankind to follow.  After that ultimate example, complete with the proof that those who follow God's Will exactly will even conquer death, God took his "step back."  (There have been examples of His intervention since then, but they seem to be fewer and farther between to my observation.)

Ah yes, now we finally get to it.  Please elaborate on these actual examples.

Originally posted by E25280
Christ will return, do away with this system of things, and restore the order that was originally intended.

Yes, the return of complete servility.  Something to look forward to, no doubt.

[phookat]

Originally posted by E25280
Please quote for me where in the Bible it states that you will be tortured for eternity.

To my knowledge, that is one of the many confused teachings of man, and is NOT a teaching of God.

So you don't believe in Hell?  What do you think happens to people who are condemned with "original sin" and do not accept Jesus as their saviour?  Here are the some of the passages in the Bible which talk about Hell:

Matthew 5:22
Matthew 5:29-30
Matthew 18:9
Mark 9:43-47
Matthew 10:28
Luke 12:5
Mattthew 23:33

[Shuckins]

Moot, you do know, don't you, that male chimpanzees have been known to conduct warfare?

They have been observed traveling through several miles of jungle to conduct raids on smaller neighboring troops.  They kill rival males and steal females.  Do they see it as wrong?  Is it a violation of moral law?

Certainly not, if one believes what I do about natural law.  Such behavior can be explained in terms of thel law of survival of the fittest.

Does this give us insight into the origins of human warfare?  Absolutely, but it also raises questions about the origins of human thought concerning concepts such as right and wrong, murder, and sin.  Are such concepts purely natural adaptations or the gift of God....or a combination of the two?

As I stated earlier, mankind is the only animal on the face of the earth capable of distinguishing between the two.

Regards, Shuckins

[phookat]

Originally posted by Shuckins
The doctrine actually states that man, being fallible, cannot, by his own actions, attain righteousness or salvation.  Asking forgivenes of God, who is the source of all moral law, is the only way to do so.  That does not mean that you are relieved of all responsibility for the moral decisions one makes after that.  Most Christian doctrine teaches that God chastises his own for their transgressions.

The latter part of this makes sense.  I stand corrected on the personal responsibility issue.  However, I still think vicarious forgiveness of sins is an immoral idea.  God is not in a position to offer forgiveness for a crime committed against someone else.

Furthermore, you say God is the source of all moral laws.  So I'm going to ask you again.  Do you believe God is perfect, and the Bible is his perfect word?

Originally posted by Shuckins
Your statement that Stalin, and by inference Mao, were not the leaders of atheistic governmental systems flatly contradicts the conclusions reached by every reputable historian who has ever written on the subject.  "Religion is the opiate of the masses," became their creed, and it certainly does not indicate any sympathy on their part for religion in any form.  Russian Orthodox Churches were closed and many of their leaders imprisoned or persecuted.  The same happened in China.  The ban on public displays of religion was not lifted until the Soviet Union broke up.

It is false to say "atheism caused these dictatorships".  The reason historians refer to these dictatorships as "atheist" is because they did not believe in supernatural God.  Religious worship need not be applied to the supernatural only.  It can be applied to human beings as well, and it was in these cases.  As I said before (and which has still not been refuted), the cause of those terrible regimes was a desire of the people to worship a God in the form of a man.  The instinct to worship is the same whether the object of worship is supernatural or not.  And I'm going to have to repeat myself: no society goes nuts following the principles of Jefferson and Paine.  That is what you have to argue against if you want to say "atheism causes catastrophe".

Furthermore, all religions have suppressed others when they had the power to do so.  In Islamic states today, we can see what happens when supernatural religion takes over a state.  Brutal oppression is the order of the day.  Christianity today in most of the West looks very meek and mild and friendly, a smile and handshake.  But remember what it was like when it was in control.  Absolute tyranny, torture and murder.  Those who wish or think the US is a "Christian country" might do well to remember this.  It's a damn good thing that the US is a secular republic.

Only in a secular society such as ours, can you have freedom of thought and freedom of belief.  

Originally posted by Shuckins
Even in the case of Hitler and the Nazis your statement falls short.  Hitler may have been born a Catholic, but he never developed calluses on his knees from praying too much.  He used ancient religious beliefs and prejudices when it suited him.  However, he considered Christianity to be a debilitating influence upon the German people.  His policies concerning the Jews took advantage of ancient religious prejudices

Those "ancient" prejudices were not so ancient in Christianity, as I pointed out.  And anyway, the warrant to hate Jews is explicitly in the Bible.  The Jews "killed your saviour and asked for his blood to be on their heads to the remotest generation", at least according to that fairy tale.  This is pure barbarism, and it is Biblically warranted.

[phookat]

Originally posted by Shuckins
Chair, theoretically yes.

 What you are suggesting and advocating and believing and defending here is wicked.  And it originates in your religious belief.  Here is a clear example of someone believing something evil because of faith.  You don't question this dogma, and you see it as a virtue to believe in this sort of thing without questioning.

Originally posted by Shuckins
However, I think the chances of someone like Stalin or Hiler or Mao suddenly exchanging a lifetime of evil for a cloak of righteousness to be highly unlikely.

If it is even possible for such a thing to happen, for God to forgive something on "someone else's behalf" just because he believes in Him, then God is acting immorally.