Go to God; The Common Denominator
- Add a comment
- Go to Atheist Are Losers? God's Perfection Vs. Man's Imperfection
Interesting discussion
No amount of logic will convince either an atheist or any particular believer of anything he/she does not want to be convinced of. I'm prone to suspect that an atheist may well be easier to convince with logic though, since logic is their primary tool of engagement whereas direct experience (interpreted through the lenses of your believes) is usually the tool of conviction for the believer. The logical consistency of an argument does not prove the factuality of the statements or the conclusion either. If the assumptions that the argument rest on are not verifiable, the argument will not be grounded in verifiable truth and therefore will still be of no use. This is one of the major problems facing anybody who wants to convince an atheist (with a scientific and logical leaning) that there is a God. As long as they believe that the belief system called materialistic science is the only measure of the validity of information they will never be convinced of anything that has not been verified by scientific method. Even if such an atheist experiences something outside the scope of what is considered normal, healthy and already scientifically verified human experience, they will tend to disregard it and label it as hallucination or some other abberation not worthy of further exploration. Science may well be not much more than yet another system of believes, but it has proved to be very useful in expanding our understanding of the nature of phenomena and has given birth to much that we would not have without it. Just as you as a believer in your particular version of Christianity find those who do not share your view to be misguided, so the astute believer in science find you and those who point out that their preferred belief system is still just a belief system misguided too. I happen to find both sides to this argument misguided if it remains closed to the possibility of some measure of validity in the supposed opposite. Both believers in science, and whatever other system of belief, are integral constituents of the reality that we all share. In my opinion, a central aspect of religion is finding truth and eliminating ignorance. Personal experience is obviously central to this pursuit of truth and does sometimes go beyond the reach of scientific knowledge and instruments. Verification of knowledge is also of primary importance in defining truth. Science is a useful tool for finding practical understanding and methods to deal with the world of events we find in the fields of our senses, but science is not a useful tool in understanding consciousness and lived through experience and therefore spiritual progress. Here religion and spirituality is much more fruitful. For me God is neither limited to whatever whoever believes nor limited to whatever whoever can prove to the satisfaction of any scientist or logician. Ultimately it is a matter of personal experience, conviction and choice. Conscienceless science is as bad for us as conscienceless religion. I aim to go beyond the limitations of both these heartily contested points of view. My God is Reality Itself and not some being who has existence in reality and I'm convinced that This was also the God of Jesus (and many other prophets and holy men in various religions), whom He referred to as His Heavenly Farther. I consider all men and woman who have experienced and acknowledge that there is much more to reality and Life as such than what is explainable by both religious texts and science as Sons and Daughters of God and therefore brothers and sisters of Jesus in the spirit. In the spirit, being our common adoration and exaltation and understanding of God as Reality Itself. The only Real and Living God in Whom we have our being, whether we acknowledge this or not.
posted by
AardigeAfrikaner
on
June 8, 2008
at
3:26 AM
| |
reply
Logic
You stated that "Logic does not rule the universe."
What is the opposite of being logical? Being illogical, of course. Is your God illogical?
If: 1) God is logical; and 2) God rules the universe; then it follows that 3) logic rules the universe. Which, however, means that the corollary is true: If: 1) Logic does not rule the universe; and 2) God is logical; then 3) God does not rule the universe.
Never mind speaking in tongues; speaking in circles is much more fun. :)
Should I elaborate on the perfection of Creation, too?
Maybe later....
posted by
CharlieMine
on
June 4, 2008
at
6:52 AM
| |
reply
seems to me logic is to logical
posted by
spinner
on
June 2, 2008
at
6:39 PM
| |
reply
A COUPLE THINGS
You don't understand that your god is hard to believe in. It is a construct formed originally about 500 BC and added to ever since, and its image differs with the believer. Jew, Christian, Moslem, all have different ideas of this god and his function. Then different Christian viewpoints abound. You would like to believe and would like your reader to believe that there is one god, the one you believe in, when, in essence, there are many versions with Christianity. So to which of these versions do you ascribe.
Maybe you don't understand science. Science explores, discovers, postulates and attempts to provide evidence for its postulation. The more evidence for a statement, the more validity that statement has. This is the scientific method, which is what the Apostle Paul advocated, I believe, when he said, "Prove all things; hold fast what is true."
The problem between science and religion arises when religion maintains a stance that is becoming increasingly untenable, and has been for some time. This is because the original postulations of religion were developed at a time when discovery of the Universe around us was limited. As science opened up the realms of discovery, religion remained with what it embraced in the dark ages before this, calling it, "belief".
It started with Galileo, who discovered (taking a cue from Copernicus) facts about the known Universe that flew in the face of the Church's accepted explanation of things. The Church couldn't accept the new because it did not conform to their belief system.
Churchianity has remained at that point ever since, embracing a mythology that has increasingly been displayed as invalid.
The god that resided then cannot be found with science.
However, if we erase the personal history of this god, then we can embrace the new God that science has helped us to discover. It is not merely a god of material discovery, but a god of inner discovery that has for these 6 centuries been blocked from our vision by the obscuring lens of medieval religious belief and vision.
I've got to say something about Atheism because you totally misrepresent it. It is NOT, as you say, "belief that God does not exist"; but it is no belief at all in god. The former implies a god that they refuse to believe in. The latter means that the just don't see that there is a god.
Let me address this statement of yours: "Non-believers base their beliefs on logic and science which are nothing
more than man-made theories. At one time in our history it was logical
that the earth was flat. Logic does not rule the universe."
This is an odd statement. It was not logical that the Earth was flat. That was a superstitious supposition that was supported by religion, a concept drawn from the most ancient of superstitious religions, taken from the view that the Earth was carried abound by a tortoise and that the Milky Way was milk flowing out of the breasts of Isis, who spanned the starlit night sky.
It was logic and the scientific method that told us that the world is round, it is not the center of the Universe, that it revolved around the sun.
I also like your reference, it seems to something I mentioned, which is a syllogism: "It seems that if an atheist can not say: 1. Human beings live on earth.
2. John Doe is a human being. 3. Therefore John Doe lives on earth,
then it does not compute with them."
The primary syllogism that I referred to, from a book called Rhetoric, probably was written by a Christian, although I personally have never investigated the author's religion. It emphasizes producing logical sequences. I have used the one example: All lions are cats; but not all cats are lions. Also the mathematical syllogism: A=B and B=C; therefore A=C. This is total logic; this is the backbone of effective and logical statements. Without logical statements, then we left with the beliefs of the Medieval Church that ordered Galileo not to further broadcast his statement, however logical and true.
We have a choice: accept with blind faith a religion that was produced with limited vision; one that subsequently rearranged and reinterpreted the original intent of this person whom they purport to follow and created an edifice that he whom they claim was their founder would not recognize as anything but the edifice that he was preaching against . . .
OR
Do as Paul advocates: "Prove all things . . ." and see in the scientific method the means to discover the real God.
posted by
Xeno-x
on
June 2, 2008
at
12:27 PM
| |
reply
Science, logic and reasoning were all used to create the computer
It is not that science and logic are limited, but
our understanding is limited, so we do not have all the knowledge needed to
fully use science and logic. Due to the growth in knowledge of science and
logic, someone was able to use their brain to create a computer and then thanks
to ever advancing science and logic we now have the computers that are in front
of us. That is how society evolves. If it was just the brain as you suggested,
then why did we not have computers at the dawn of man? We needed time to expand
our understanding of science, logic and reasoning.
"The mere precision of our universe disproves this [Big Bang]
theory."
There is a precision to the universe? Could you show me where this idea
comes from? Chaos is a great factor in creating and keeping the universe
going.
Logic does rule the universe. If you disbelieve
that, could you give me some level of reasoning to defend such a statement.
Also, could you find for me some of those atheist
you talk about here? The ones who "desire to place themselves in authority, quick to respond that there
is no God at every possible opportunity in a post or comment." I've not
seen them anywhere on Blogit.
Then you end with two questions, not
one:
#1 - "Why do atheist attack God as they do if He does not exist
according to their own belief?"
They don't attack God. They just openly explain
why they do not believe in God and what flaws they see in religious
ideas.
#2- "If he does not exist then why the attacks on God and
Christians?"
Once more, atheists are not attacking God nor are they attacking
Christians. Could you find for me some actual examples of this if you really
believe this is happening? I would gladly try to help to clearly what is
actually being said in the various comments and posts you seem to
misunderstand.
"To believe
an atheist is to believe that there is something out there we must attack and
disprove that does not exist."
Why? Where are you getting this from? Give examples please.
"This fact
also tells me that it was the atheist that attacked the Christian, not the other
way around as they would like you to believe."
What fact? That was you opinion there. And I can tell you that when I
first came out as an atheist, I was attacked left and right by various
fundamentalist who basically tired to do all they could to break me. They made
it so I either was forced into pretending to be a believer and live my life
under a lie, or fight back to try and get them to see my views. Here on Blogit
when I first joined I saw lots of atheist bashing going on and no atheist
speaking out. I started my posts as way to try and get my beliefs heard and the
attacks on atheism stopped.
posted by
kooka_lives
on
June 1, 2008
at
1:00 PM
| |
reply
Re:
Your first sentence here is incredible! This first sentence is all that needs to be said. Thank you!
posted by
RedStatesMan
on
June 1, 2008
at
9:22 AM
| |
reply
Re: Ok, RedStatesMan, where to start...
I never wish to be labeled an intellectual, psuedo or not, my ego is not one that needs stroking constantly by desiring to be called an intellectual. I do not claim to be nor do I desire to be. I simply give my opinion as all of you do. If you would read the post by GEPRUITT then the comments from Kooka, you will then understand my post. My apologies for not making that clearer from the start.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on
June 1, 2008
at
9:21 AM
| |
reply
Unless an individual can get out of their own ego and allow God to enter their being, they cannot understand His power to do good for all humanity. We can only spread the good news, it is the individual who must set his course. The Lord has the attention of the atheist more than they realize. Again, kudos for stirring the reader! sam
posted by
sam444
on
June 1, 2008
at
5:11 AM
| |
reply
Ok, RedStatesMan, where to start...
...it's so nice of you to give Atheists their due respect by not claiming all of them to be losers.
I'm sure they'll sleep easier tonight, knowing that.
I'm not here to contradict your belief in a creator, but, only to point out that your argument in refutation of Atheism does a gross injustice to Creationism in it's total lack of intellectual consistency and even basic coherence.
For you to assert that science and factuality and logic disprove the claims of Atheism and then lampoon science and factuality and logic as inadequate avenues to truth, is so blatantly self-contradictory, that you have done much violence to your own purposes.
And I applaud vickip for pointing it out to you.
As for your claim that Atheism proves the existence of God by attacking belief in God, is like saying that people prove the existence of leprechauns by refuting the existence of leprechauns.
Do you see, RedSatatesMan, how you have failed to make any sense whatsoever in your assertions?
Creationism would be so much better served, if pseudo-intellectual lightweights, such as yourself, would leave the debate to people who know what the hell they're talking about.
Otherwise, you do great harm to the purpose you claim to serve.
I apologize for my harshness. I have nothing against your sentiments, except that it is so poorly and inadequately argued.
posted by
metalrat
on
May 31, 2008
at
11:18 PM
| |
reply
Re: Are you under the impression that everyone but
Red Raider Gal! I love the fact of your southern christianity as I too am the same. I should have made myself more clear. I have always been in deliberation with gomedome and kooka for years abouth religion. They are self proclaimed atheist; I am Baptist and very much a believer in God. Always have been. This post is in reply to a post by gepruitt that stated "atheist are losers". I agree with you that losers come in many forms. As you stated anyone who harms a child is not only a loser but deserves the ultimate punishment. My daughter was shaken at age 5 months by her so-called babysitter as is now 10 years old but is handicapped. So as far as losers go I can give you list a mile long.
In this post I was writing about how the beliefs of any atheist is incorrect. I guess I should have done a better job of introducing this one than I did. The glass in my house is an ongoing cleaning process due to constant spiritual warfare, if you know what I mean.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on
May 31, 2008
at
10:51 PM
| |
reply
No, not into teams ... but you gotta love the colors ...!
posted by
VictoriaP
on
May 31, 2008
at
10:06 PM
| |
reply
Are you under the impression that everyone but
Atheists believe in God? That everyone but Atheists dispute or challenge your belief that God exists? Or are you just calling them out for the purposes of saying you would never call them losers? To turn a phrase and wax ironic? I believe in God, wholeheartedly and without a doubt in my mind. What I don't believe in and what just flies all over my Southern, Christian sensibilities is the ignorance of a so-called Christians who spend so much time judging their fellow man they don't have a second to spare in order to pray for them, which is what God wants you to do ... it's His job to judge, right? Is it a stretch to say you may be one of the reasons the Atheists here flinch at the mere suggestion of a discussion on religion with your ilk? I don't think it is. For the record, losers come in all shapes and sizes and in every religion ... I would call Priests who molest children losers ... but my lessons have taught me I am supposed to pray for them, and with them so that they might never molest again. Hard to do, and not something easily done, but it is the Christian way. The time spent by good Christians writing blogs such as this might be
better spent cleaning all that glass on the house where they reside - that's as much logic as I know when it comes to this subject.
posted by
VictoriaP
on
May 31, 2008
at
9:55 PM
| |
reply
Re: I'm so sorry ... I just can't get past this to read the rest ....
By the way vickup, GO RED RAIDERS! The best football uniforms in college football, even though you are not into teams.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on
May 31, 2008
at
9:28 PM
| |
reply
Re: I'm so sorry ... I just can't get past this to read the rest ....
1.their belief that God does not exist is factually, logically and scientifically incorrect
2.Science and logic can not explain everything. That is a fact. Yet there are people out there who refer to logic or science as if they were our creators..."
1.I am speaking of atheist that believe God does not exist. Atheist use facts, logic and science to try to disprove God.
2. I am speaking of sciecne and logic not explaining everything in our universe which is a fact yet there are atheist who refer to logic or science as if they were the what we should rule our lives by as in our beliefs versus believing in God.
posted by
RedStatesMan
on
May 31, 2008
at
9:24 PM
| |
reply
I'm so sorry ... I just can't get past this to read the rest ....
You wrote: "I can not say if all atheist are losers anymore than I can say
anyone else is a loser because I do not know all of them personally.
However, what I can and will say is that their belief that God does not
exist is factually, logically and scientifically incorrect."
And then you write in the next paragraph: "My belief has always been that science and logic are so limited in
their respective abilities to explain all in our universe. Science and
logic can not explain everything. That is a fact. Yet there are people
out there who refer to logic or science as if they were our creators..."
Huh??
posted by
VictoriaP
on
May 31, 2008
at
9:09 PM
| |
reply
Copy (or write down) this comment's web address (URL), which is:
Next, go to the email or web page where you want to link to this comment, and paste
(or type) the web address.
