Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[ding]

It's the point of the OP.

I'm pretty sure the OP is being less than genuine with his posts.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Well as is I don't think any atheists I know would care to teach their kids christianity so already this feels like a pretty big compromise on atheists' part to include christianity in the lore they tell their children at night, and perhaps on holidays. And of course I don't think atheists would be willing to make this compromise unless christians did their part.

Obviously there are elements that are very important to you that you would want passed on, like the light and shadow elements. We could include these elements in the lore of course but the obvious problem with including all of these fantastic-type plots in the Bible is that kids are savvy and can be skeptical. George R. R. Martin put it well, that you don't want to include more than 7 fantasy elements in a fantasy or it will be too much for the average reader. In this scenario, I'd want to settle on just 7 elements from the Bible, whether it's walking on water or world floods etc. More than that is probably asking a bit much.

God's followers aren't interested in compromise with evil

"You shall love the Lord your God with all of your heart, soul and mind."

What part of that can you not understand

 

[zaangalewa]

And what of these ancestors? Where is your awe for our ancient grandfathers who survived the wild, swung from branch to branch searching for food, living and dying so we could be here? You stand on their shoulders and yet only look up. Or what of our fish ancestors who swam the oceans? Our early eukaryote ancestors from whence all plant and animal life stemmed, who swam the chaotic mix of the primal stew to produce those who came before us? Where do they fit into your awe?
View attachment 751539

Your problem is that you see in Steve a kind of machince and evolved robot from the 17th/18th century. I remember in the moment not the name of the philosopher - could be it had been Descartes - who solved his intellectual problem by calling all animals machines. By the way: In this time of history had also been called human being 'machines' - the specialist term for had been "slaves".

A grandfather from me had for example been king David. His wife was upset about him because he danced and sang like crazy only because they made a joyful celebration. Is this the behavior of a real king? To behave like a musician and clown? He blamed her in public. She hated this very much.

Now tell me please a story from your king Steve here which has nothing to do with his bone structure or other only biologically interesting facts. By the way: I could do so because I know a lot about the theory of evolution and evolutionary epistemology. I could explain to you why Steve is a good car driver for example - what Steve never knew. From his point of view it will need some time before cars will "evolve". Cars are by the way real machines and it exists also a kind of baby cars. But makes this cars alive - also when we give a car a name? Did you ever give your car a name? Did this change something? Would Steve give his car a name if he had one? Did Steve give names to anything? Was this the begin of science? ...

 

[john54]

The universe itself is the evidence. A universe hardwired to produce life is unnatural. The creation of the universe was unnatural.

It should be obvious that if the material world were not created by spirit that everything that has unfolded in the evolution of space and time would have no intentional purpose. That it is just matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Conversely, if the material world were created by spirit it should be obvious that the creation of the material world was intentional. After all in my perception of God, God is no thing and the closest thing I can relate to is a mind with no body. Using our own experiences as creators as a proxy, we know that when we create things we create them for a reason and that reason is to serve some purpose. So it would be no great leap of logic to believe that something like a mind with no body would do the same. We also know from our experiences that intelligence tends to create intelligence. We are obsessed with making smart things. So what better thing for a mind with no body to do than create a universe where beings with bodies can create smart things too.

We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds beings that know and create.

The biological laws are such that life is programmed to survive and multiply which is a requisite for intelligence to arise. If the purpose of the universe was to create intelligence then a preference in nature for it had to exist. The Laws of Nature are such that the potential for intelligence to existed the moment space and time were created. One can argue that given the laws of nature and the size of the universe that intelligence arising was inevitable. One can also argue that creating intelligence from nothing defies the Second Law of Entropy. That creating intelligence from nothing increases order within the universe. It actually doesn't because usable energy was lost along the way as a cost of creating order from disorder. But it is nature overriding it's tendency for ever increasing disorder that interests me and raises my suspicions to look deeper and to take seriously the proposition that a mind without a body created the material world so that minds with bodies could create too.

If we examine the physical laws we discover that we live in a logical universe governed by rules, laws and information. Rules laws and information are a signs of intelligence. Intentionality and purpose are signs of intelligence. The definition of reason is a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event. The definition of purpose is the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. The consequence of a logical universe is that every cause has an effect. Which means that everything happens for a reason and serves a purpose. The very nature of our physical laws point to reason and purpose.

All we have done so far is to make a logical argument for spirit creating the material world. Certainly not an argument built of fairy tales that's for sure. So going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything I have described was just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.

And then there's the moral law...

You're just assuming that there weren't innumerable other universes that failed to produce the laws ours have, which allow atomic nuclei to stabilize and electrons to orbit them and in which gravity isn't too strong or too weak etc. If there are other universes, which is one theory based on substantial actual evidence and scientific theory, your argument collapses.

We have two variables at play, the auspicious nature of our universe's life-allowing properties, and the auspicious nature of earth's life-conducive environment. So just add this to the pickup sticks analogy:

Let different universes be represented by immense tables

Let different planetary environments within a universe be represented by innumerable
pickup sticks placed on each table

Now, drop all of those innumerable tables with the sticks on them and watch as the vast majority of tables break or knock all the sticks off when they land (just as most universes don't produce laws making life even possible), and then look as many tables, few and far between, but many, did not break or land slanted and so their pickup sticks remained, and among those many tables, some produced sticks landing straight up at that incredibly rare, 90 degree angle (in other words they produced life).

If any of those rare, up-pointed sticks thinks, "How could both my  table have landed in this perfectly flat position, and then on top of that how could I have landed in this perfectly upright position? It must have been intended this way." Then that stick just has survivor's bias. Innumerable tables failed to land flat (failed to produce stable physical laws) and knocked their sticks off, and even among the tables that landed flat, innumerable numbers of them failed to produce upright pickupsticks (failed to produce life).

Does that make sense?

 

[john54]

That's incorrect. We aren't the guiding hand. Consequences are the guiding hand. Actions having consequences is an artifact of truth and logic. So Truth is the guiding hand and Logic is the guiding hand. God is Truth and God is Logic. God isn't a "thing." That's how actions having consequences implies a guiding hand. Everyone is being pruned. God's power isn't put forth to achieve certain results. God's power is put forth to achieve certain results under certain conditions and to affect changes in the lives of those living them. It's the evolution of consciousness. Consciousness will continue to evolve and make the leap to the next level (Christ consciousness) just like every other evolutionary stage of the evolution of space and time before it.

If the consequences of me knocking a pencil off a table are that it falls to the ground, that would be a result of gravity and other physical laws of our universe. Looking at everything as something happening to you for a divine reason is like walking around blindfolded bumping into things and claiming someone must have put those things in your way so you'd walk into them. It sounds self-focused and like you're just trying to make illogic work...

 

[john54]

Your problem is that you see in Steve a kind of machince and evolved robot from the 17th/18th century. I remember in the moment not the name of the philosopher - could be it had been Descartes - who solved his intellectual problem by calling all animals machines. By the way: In this time of history had also been called human being 'machines' - the specialist term for had been "slaves".

A grandfather from me had for example been king David. His wife was upset about him because he danced and sang like crazy only because they made a joyful celebration. Is this the behavior of a real king? To behave like a musician and clown? He blamed her in public. She hated this very much.

Now tell me please a story from your king Steve here which has nothing to do with his bone structure or other only biologically interesting facts. By the way: I could do so because I know a lot about the theory of evolution and evolutionary epistemology. I could explain to you why Steve is a good car driver for example - what Steve never knew. From his point of view it will need some time before cars will "evolve". Cars are by the way real machines and it exists also a kind of baby cars. But makes this cars alive - also when we give a car a name? Did you ever give your car a name? Did this change something? Would Steve give his car a name if he had one? Did Steve give names to anything? Was this the begin of science? ...

I'm sorry I've had trouble understanding what you've been trying to say.

 

[zaangalewa]

I'm sorry I've had trouble understanding what you've been trying to say.

Sure. US-Americans are self-centered idiots. That's why. Tipp: Learn somehting about the theory of evolution if you like to discuss with others - specially if they are not US-Americans - about the theory of evolution. "Creation vs evolution" is only in your culture a never ending strange 'discussion' for and from idiots.

 

[john54]

Sure. US-Americans are self-centered idiots. That's why. Tipp: Learn somehting about the theory of evolution if you like to discuss with others - specially if they are not US-Americans - about the theory of evolution. "Creation vs evolution" is only in your culture a never ending strange 'discussion' for and from idiots.

Well, I meant your English grammar is confusing. U.S. Americans are largely self-centered idiots. This is true.

 

[zaangalewa]

Well, I meant your English grammar is confusing.

Yoda said it's okay.

U.S. Americans are largely self-centered idiots. This is true.

And you infect everyone else on this planet with the same sickness. One's by the way not really a self-centered idiot who calls oneselve a self-centered idiot. "Selbsterkenntnis ist der este Weg zur Besserung" = "Self-knowledge is the first path to recovery."

 

[john54]

Yoda said it's okay.



And you infect everyone else on this planet with the same sickness. It's by the way not really a self-centered idiot who calls oneselve a self-centered idiot.

Well hopefully someday we'll sort ourselves out.

 

[john54]

First, my experiences are mine. You can search out and seek your own. God is nothing like a sad mother or a father stomping around taking bites of cookies. People tend to look for God where they think He should be instead of where He is. They look for a being they imagine might be instead of who He is. Believe me, that part cannot be imagined.

All you need is what is in the Bible, "Seek and you shall find." That's all I had, and that's all anyone needs.

Physical experiences have loads of meaning. Why do you think those are the only types of experiences?

I don't see why you would need to insult Santa, a cherished and magical entity, albeit a fictional one, who resides in the hearts of children and adults alike, even if only as a memory for the latter. It makes me question if my described experience of this pure and good, bearded old man watching over me might have been too close for comfort to your own experience with the God you've spoken of.

My ex would frequently express personal hurt at my sometimes insensitive critiques of her religion, and of the God that she believes resides in her. Hearing you dismiss and scornfully put down this treasured fictional memory from my past is helping me understand what I think she may have felt. Fiction is powerful, and we can identify with it because we treasure our fictions.

 

[Meriweather]

It's the point of the OP.

Compromise? Shrug. I find I agree with Janis Joplin:

Don't compromise yourself. You are all you've got.

 

[Meriweather]

No, you don't know. You might say you do, but how can you?

The promise is true. If you seek, you will find.

 

[Meriweather]

Unless of course God is talking directly to you. An ex's friend talked to God once, God told him he'd pass all his exams, so he didn't study, and failed them all.

Nothing like that. That person should continue the search.

 

[Meriweather]

There are people who believe the Earth is flat too....

What can I say, making a fantasy world to hide reality seems to be a human trait.

The greatest fantasy of all is imagining God cannot be found.

Why come to the religion site to tell people how wrong they are when you could go to the flat earth site and really have a ball?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The promise is true. If you seek, you will find.

Well, I'm sure if I say Harry Potter is my God and I become so fervent, I will no longer "believe", I will "KNOW"

 

[Meriweather]

I don't see why you would need to insult Santa, a cherished and magical entity, albeit a fictional one, who resides in the hearts of children and adults alike, even if only as a memory for the latter. It makes me question if my described experience of this pure and good, bearded old man watching over me might have been too close for comfort to your own experience with the God you've spoken of.

Are you aware the story of Santa can be traced back to the fourth century. On the other hand, God is timeless.

Grin. Should you ever have an experience of God you would laugh yourself silly over your "too close for comfort" statement. Or burst into tears. Hard to say.

 

[Meriweather]

Fiction is powerful

You should try reality.

 

[Meriweather]

Well, I'm sure if I say Harry Potter is my God and I become so fervent, I will no longer "believe", I will "KNOW"

Kind of like if you fervently believe if you pick up a rock at the side of the road and fervently believe you can take it to the store and buy groceries, afterwards you will no longer fervently believe a rock cannot buy you groceries--you will know it cannot.

There is a difference between believing and knowing. Another thing that comes with knowing, it more blessed to believe without seeing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The greatest fantasy of all is imagining God cannot be found.

Why come to the religion site to tell people how wrong they are when you could go to the flat earth site and really have a ball?

Why come to the religion site to ignore others and just push your own religion? That's what a lot of people do. I come here because it interests me. The psychology behind it all, why people feel the need.
I'm not opposed to religion when it's for good. I've known people who found life easier because of religion. However if someone chooses to talk to me about it, I will talk frankly.