Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[ding]

Well believe as you will, but forgive me for worrying where you'll be when baryogenesis is solved. Clearly you're a smart man - I know many smart men, and it's their curse to have to choose between deeply facing reality and deeply spurning it. When that extra matter turns out to be a quirk of math, I hope you'll not be too dismayed by it.

I'll be in the exact same place as I am now, believing that the universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence isn't an accident. And given the tenor and tone of your OP I doubt you would hope I wouldn't be too dismayed over anything. I think you would quite enjoy it. As to you believing you are the final arbiter of reality, you aren't, and will likely never be given your level of pride and vanity. To see reality one must die to self which you don't seem inclined to do anytime soon.

 

[ding]

Maybe I can understand your point better, but let's agree that we're not talking about scientific evidence but rather it's reasoned sensibility.

Sure but only if you agree that the evidence for the existence of God is indirect evidence and it's the reasoned sensibility in examining that indirect evidence that science becomes becomes relevant. After all... science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Thus science and God are not incompatible in the slightest.

 

[john54]

I'll be in the exact same place as I am now, believing that the universe popping into existence being hardwired to produce intelligence isn't an accident. And given the tenor and tone of your OP I doubt you would hope I wouldn't be too dismayed over anything. I think you would quite enjoy it. As to you believing you are the final arbiter of reality, you aren't, and will likely never be given your level of pride and vanity. To see reality one must die to self which you don't seem inclined to do anytime soon.

If it caused you dismay, no, I would not enjoy that at all. If one has become so reliant on something that it would destroy them to lose it then of course I'd rather they stay in whatever belief they're in, true or not, to the extent it isn't harming others.

 

[expat_panama]

Sure but only if you agree that the evidence for the existence of God is indirect evidence and it's the reasoned sensibility in examining that indirect evidence that science becomes becomes relevant. After all... science is the study of nature to discover the order within nature so as to be able to make predictions of nature. Thus science and God are not incompatible in the slightest.

LOL!! that's fine I'll agree that there's no incompatibility, but it's kind of like saying that my pencil and the solar system are not incompatible.

the other things u mentioned I think I agree to, as much as I understand them at least.

 

[expat_panama]

If the universe were created intentionally one would expect that there would be signs, right? How many are you willing to discard before accepting life and intelligence were predestined to exist in ours?

Please understand that you're preaching to the choir here.

I find it frustrating to chat w/ a self-proclaimed atheist about the origins of the universe. Like if I put a pencil and a rock on my desk and asked which was a created artifact and which naturally appeared, most would say the pencil was created and the rock was of a natural origin. The reasoning is that the rock is uneven, has no obvious function, has an irregular surface, and in contrast the pencil is obviously for writing (or picking teeth), and written on the side is "No. 2 medium product of Acme Pencil Factory". We got these clues that tell us.

For the same reasoning I see the universe as a created artifact. It serves a clear purpose, it has tidy limits, and it fits together nicely for what it's used, and there are places where it says "Made by Devine Universe Factory".

there's a huge problem in talking about our Creator and the beginning of everything. One problem was that at the beginning of the universe everything was moving at the speed of light which means that time didn't move. There was no before or after and no cause and effect. No creation. Another problem is the fact that God cannot "be" because God is the source of ALL being. Maybe we could expand the language and introduce the idea of a kind of "hyper-being" that God has. imho it still sounds like blasphemy. I just put it on my long list of things I don't understand and I make it a point to show more respect to atheists who at least have the reverence to say that God does not exist --because ultimately they can be seen as having more respect.

 

[john54]

Like if I put a pencil and a rock on my desk and asked which was a created artifact and which naturally appeared, most would say the pencil was created and the rock was of a natural origin. The reasoning is that the rock is uneven, has no obvious function, has an irregular surface, and in contrast the pencil is obviously for writing (or picking teeth), and written on the side is "No. 2 medium product of Acme Pencil Factory". We got these clues that tell us.

Aren't you describing just using "observation" and "conclusion" and skipping the body of the scientific method? By that logic the Sailing Stones of Death Valley would be 'obviously pushed around by someone' since they left trails in the dirt in the middle of nowhere. Turns out it was just a natural process caused by freezing and thawing. That's why we investigate phenomena and don't just say it's obvious from looking that it's this or that. Animals were "obviously" created on earth just as they are until evolution proved otherwise.

 

[ding]

If it caused you dismay, no, I would not enjoy that at all. If one has become so reliant on something that it would destroy them to lose it then of course I'd rather they stay in whatever belief they're in, true or not, to the extent it isn't harming others.

Interesting choice of words. Were you intending the insult to be thinly veiled?

 

[ding]

LOL!! that's fine I'll agree that there's no incompatibility, but it's kind of like saying that my pencil and the solar system are not incompatible.

the other things u mentioned I think I agree to, as much as I understand them at least.

Not sure how your pencil and solar system analogy is applicable though. I have better ways of understanding the existence of the solar system than a pencil. I don't have a better way of understanding the existence of God other than to study what he supposedly created.

If I found something you created - but didn't know who or what created it - could I use what I found as evidence to learn something about the creator of the object?

 

[ding]

Please understand that you're preaching to the choir here.

I find it frustrating to chat w/ a self-proclaimed atheist about the origins of the universe. Like if I put a pencil and a rock on my desk and asked which was a created artifact and which naturally appeared, most would say the pencil was created and the rock was of a natural origin. The reasoning is that the rock is uneven, has no obvious function, has an irregular surface, and in contrast the pencil is obviously for writing (or picking teeth), and written on the side is "No. 2 medium product of Acme Pencil Factory". We got these clues that tell us.

For the same reasoning I see the universe as a created artifact. It serves a clear purpose, it has tidy limits, and it fits together nicely for what it's used, and there are places where it says "Made by Devine Universe Factory".

there's a huge problem in talking about our Creator and the beginning of everything. One problem was that at the beginning of the universe everything was moving at the speed of light which means that time didn't move. There was no before or after and no cause and effect. No creation. Another problem is the fact that God cannot "be" because God is the source of ALL being. Maybe we could expand the language and introduce the idea of a kind of "hyper-being" that God has. imho it still sounds like blasphemy. I just put it on my long list of things I don't understand and I make it a point to show more respect to atheists who at least have the reverence to say that God does not exist --because ultimately they can be seen as having more respect.

I'm not arguing with you or John54 for that matter. I'm just offering food for thought. Honest men can have honest differences of opinions. I'm a huge fan of diversity of thought because that's how objective truth is arrived at; different opinions and ideas fighting it out. But that doesn't mean the men and women who hold those different opinions and ideas have to fight it out or be disrespectful to each other just because they hold different beliefs.

So yeah... we are preaching from the same hymnal, so to speak.

 

[john54]

Interesting choice of words. Were you intending the insult to be thinly veiled?

No. I am trying to gauge whether it's even safe to talk with some people about matters concerning their faith though if losing faith would be so devastating for them they might hurt themselves or something. I will absolutely avoid genuine faith conversations with anyone I find out is at risk of that. A reasoned conversation can't be had around anything someone's that dependent on.

 

[ding]

No. I am trying to gauge whether it's even safe to talk with some people about matters concerning their faith though if losing faith would be so devastating for them they might hurt themselves or something. I will absolutely avoid genuine faith conversations with anyone I find out is at risk of that. A reasoned conversation can't be had around anything someone's that dependent on.

If you are looking for a reasoned conversation... then starting off telling others to subordinate their beliefs because their beliefs are fairy-tales is probably not the best way to begin.

I believe everyone is reliant upon God (even you) because God supplies reality - the physical world is made up of mind stuff - but that reality is not contingent upon their acceptance of God. That reality is only contingent upon God continuing to supply that reality.

So I don't give you any power to harm me. I control my destiny. You can continue to make all of the thinly veiled insults you like. Just like I can continue to point out all the thinly veiled insults you make.

 

[john54]

If you are looking for a reasoned conversation... then starting off telling others to subordinate their beliefs because their beliefs are fairy-tales is probably not the best way to begin.

I believe everyone is reliant upon God (even you) because God supplies reality - the physical world is made up of mind stuff - but that reality is not contingent upon their acceptance of God. That reality is only contingent upon God continuing to supply that reality.

So I don't give you any power to harm me. I control my destiny. You can continue to make all of the thinly veiled insults you like. Just like I can continue to point out all the thinly veiled insults you make.

I once had a conversation with a friend who had been assaulted as a kid. Apparently he'd never had decent therapy for it and he kept telling me that his attacker wasn't a bad person, and defending his attacker's merits. I insisted he was wrong and that his attacker was evil and he got extremely upset and told me that I really don't know how to talk about these things with an abuse victim - to which I agreed. I didn't know how Stockholm syndrome or whatever he might be going through worked and how to deal with his need to defend his abuser. So we didn't discuss it further.

I have had intense deja vu of that experience while talking with some Christians about their faith. Like it's something that needs to be talked about in a very gingerly manner or not at all. I've been trying to discover exactly what that manner is or if I'm just not the man for the job.

 

[ding]

I once had a conversation with a friend who had been assaulted as a kid. Apparently he'd never had decent therapy for it and he kept telling me that his attacker wasn't a bad person, and defending his attacker's merits. I insisted he was wrong and that his attacker was evil and he got extremely upset and told me that I really don't know how to talk about these things with an abuse victim - to which I agreed. I didn't know how Stockholm syndrome or whatever he might be going through worked and how to deal with his need to defend his abuser. So we didn't discuss it further.

I have had intense deja vu of that experience while talking with some Christians about their faith. Like it's something that needs to be talked about in a very gingerly manner or not at all. I've been trying to discover exactly what that manner is or if I'm just not the man for the job.

Congratulations on another thinly veiled insult.

Your friend's position had nothing to do with the Stockholm syndrome and everything to do with people being complex. No one is all good or all bad.

All you are managing to do is show others how insecure you are in your beliefs. Or should I say non-beliefs? It's because you are insecure that you feel the need to tear down others to build yourself up. It's not a good look.

 

[john54]

Congratulations on another thinly veiled insult.

Your friend's position had nothing to do with the Stockholm syndrome and everything to do with people being complex. No one is all good or all bad.

All you are managing to do is show others how insecure you are in your beliefs. Or should I say non-beliefs? It's because you are insecure that you feel the need to tear down others to build yourself up. It's not a good look.

I was 11 when I stood in front of my family's church, where I was supposed to give some address they had kids give, and instead read an essay I'd secretly prepared explaining how "faith" is defined as believing things you dont know to be true and that I could not participate in a church that teaches people to believe things they don't know to be true. I left and never returned. I didn't feel insecure about my non-beliefs then, and still don't. You've misread my motivations.

Yes, people are complex. We have powerful needs that can make it very difficult to see some things clearly.

 

[ding]

I was 11 when I stood in front of my family's church, where I was supposed to give some address they had kids give, and instead read an essay I'd secretly prepared explaining how "faith" is defined as believing things you dont know to be true and that I could not participate in a church that teaches people to believe things they don't know to be true. I left and never returned. I didn't feel insecure about my non-beliefs then, and still don't. You've misread my motivations.

Yes, people are complex. We have powerful needs that can make it very difficult to see some things clearly.

That's not the definition of faith though. The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.

I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. I'm not saying some people don't do that because some probably do do that. I'm saying people putting complete trust in something or someone without good reason wouldn't be the norm.

 

[ding]

I didn't feel insecure about my non-beliefs then, and still don't.

Your behaviors say otherwise.

 

[ding]

Yes, people are complex. We have powerful needs that can make it very difficult to see some things clearly.

You mean like your need to see the person who attacked your friend as being an evil person?

Sometimes people do bad things. That doesn't necessarily make them evil people. It makes them people who made bad mistakes.

 

[john54]

That's not the definition of faith though. The definition of faith is having complete trust in something or someone.

I never put complete trust in something or someone without good reason. I'm not saying some people don't do that because some probably do do that. I'm saying people putting complete trust in something or someone without good reason wouldn't be the norm.

It's a paraphrase of the second definition, which is especially applicable to how religion is generally taught: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Whatever argument you might make for God, you don't have proof. Despite not having proof, can you go beyond mere faith and -know- that God is real? Yes, you can and do. I knew Santa Claus was real - knew it for a fact- because I wanted to believe in Santa so badly and childishly blocked out my skepticism.

 

[john54]

You mean like your need to see the person who attacked your friend as being an evil person?

Sometimes people do bad things. That doesn't necessarily make them evil people. It makes them people who made bad mistakes.

Well the person who attacked him molested him. I'd think if there was such a thing as evil that would meet the standard?

 

[ding]

It's a paraphrase of the second definition, which is especially applicable to how religion is generally taught: "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

Whatever argument you might make for God, you don't have proof. Despite not having proof, can you go beyond mere faith and -know- that God is real? Yes, you can and do. I knew Santa Claus was real - knew it for a fact- because I wanted to believe in Santa so badly and childishly blocked out my skepticism.

No. It's not a paraphrase at all. It's a re-writing of the definition.

We've been discussing the evidence for 10 pages; creation is the evidence, the evolution of space and time is the evidence. That you continue to make comparisons to Santa Clause and believe that is a realistic analogy is ridiculous. The only possible motivation for you making such a ridiculous comparison and re-write the definition of faith is to suit your purpose. Unfortunately it shows an incredible lack of intelligence and honesty. Arguing that belief in God is equivalent to belief in Santa Clause is not a serious argument. And if you believe it is you are a dummy. Are you a dummy?