Do Atheists pick on others (Off Topic version)

[Josiah]

A higher power that is inherently supernatural is, pretty much by definition, outside the natural realm. So on that basis I wouldn't expect to be able to see it or measure it.

I know it's a hideously crude analogy but it's a bit like the old children's cartoons about flatlanders and how they couldn't comprehend anything that happened in the third dimension.

I agree. By definition, the supernatural would be.... well..... super natural and thus outside the realm of the natural to prove or disprove. I realize... for those pretty much locked into a materialistic/physical concept of reality (as modern folks tend to be), this automatically creates a problem. PERHAPS my theoretical physics classes drilled into me that even in the physical realm, well.... WEIRD is common, and there may WELL be "reality" that doesn't "fit" our usual, modern, materialistic, human sensibilities? My wife tells of when she was a girl and the family had this pug dog. He liked to watch TV and would be pretty passive about that until some dog came on - then he would run to the back of the TV and hunt for that dog. The kids laughed - even though they didn't have a CLUE how that TV worked, what the real "reality" was - only that there wasn't an actual dog inside the TV. It's hard for some modernists to realize that humans are not all-knowing, that "reality" doesn't necessarily submit to our experiences, concepts, philosophies. I realize that works EQUALLY to the advantage of the one who affirms God as to the one who denies such.... but maybe it just means that some things won't NECESSARILY be "proven" OR "disproven" by OUR materialistic concepts or "reality."


I think, too, there is a tendency in very modern, secular, materialic thought, to confuse faith with certainty. They actually aren't related, they are two quite different things. I think of this whenever I board a plane. I know enough physics to have a loose idea of why planes can fly (although it's a MUCH more mysterious thing that most think). But I wonder..... just wonder..... how many of those boarding the plane and finding their seat know how planes fly..... or even care if they do. And do they KNOW the maintainence of the plane? The pilot? The weather? They DO realize these planes sometimes made an abrupt and unscheduled "landing" resulting in everyone's premature death - but they board the plane. They LACK knowledge, certainty - but they have faith (pistos - to trust, to rely). Heck (since my wife doesn't come to this site)... on my wedding day some 11 months ago, I PLEDGED myself to her.... do I KNOW the future, do I KNOW she's the one to spend the rest of my life with? CAN I KNOW? Well.... I make that "leap of FAITH" as Soren Kierkegaard called it. A reasonalbe lead I agree, but a LEAP nonetheless. We do this all the time (to not is a psychological disorder - to be paranoid). I realize we could simply change the discussion to what is or is not a reasonable leap, but the point I'm making here is that we're embracing a reality that we either don't or can't "prove".... even a reality that may not "fit" a material, physical limit to reality.

But again, I have more "issues" with the Atheist (is no God) than I do with the Agnostic (I conclude I have insufficent cause for certainty). I can understand the patient praying before he signs that consent form for surgery...... but signing the form. I can even appreicate the one whose inability to know leads to them NOT praying and NOT signing the form.



Pax CHRISTI (It means "peace that comes in Christ")



- Josiah

 

[TubbyTubby]

I don't see the relevance in comparing the faith that an aeroplane can fly with the faith that an unevidenced supernatural being created the Universe just by speaking it into existence. There's a huge difference.

That seems to stretch the limits of the definition of faith by several orders just so you can make a link to the real world in an all encompassing 'faith' umbrella.

 

[Josiah]

I don't see the relevance in comparing the faith that an aeroplane can fly with the faith that an unevidenced supernatural being created the Universe just by speaking it into existence. There's a huge difference.

Of course, the POINT was that faith is not certainty, faith is not knowledge - they are very different things. I had thought that was clear.

And I used an example (perhaps not the best) of people TRUSTING/RELYING on a plane without KNOWING everything (or perhaps much of anything) about it.... people TRUSTING/RELYING upon a surgeon and surgery without knowing much about him or the surgery or the outcome. I didn't imply that trusting CAUSES something to be an understood reality, only that TRUSTING/RELYING isn't the same as certainty or understanding.

That seems to stretch the limits of the definition of faith by several orders just so you can make a link to the real world in an all encompassing 'faith' umbrella.

The word literally means to rely. If I step on the brakes of my car, I ergo have faith in the brakes of my car. I may or may not know how brakes work... and may or may not know all about those brakes.... but I rely on them. That's the meaning of the word. Personal example (which may or not be useful).... when I was young, about 5, I had rather serious surgery. I likely would not have lived long and certainly would not have grown to the incredibly smart, handsome, athletic man I am without it. I remember understanding I could die - and I was old enough to understand what that means. Did I understand the surgery? I doubt it (don't even remember having it explained). But I do remember meeting the surgeon. He knew nothing about me (he even called me Joseph.... my name is Josiah).... and I knew even less about him. There was very little understanding. But I was okay having the surgery..... I was even okay with the reality of possible death. It's called "faith" - I actively relied on something that , in this case, was not understood and about which I had no certainty.

Yes, many theist would affirm that God is the Creator. That of course has nothing to do with whether He did so using means, but rather that He is the Creator. An artist is an artist even if he uses paint, canvess, etc. A builder is a builder even if he uses wood and hammer and nails in a process we may know something about - he is still the builder. When my nieces were born, their parents and me gave praise and thanks to God in the belief that GOD created this child and gave this child life. Now, my sister has a Ph.D. in biology and so probably understands a tiny, tiny, small bit of the biology of how God did that (better than me - the last bio class I took was in high school!) but that has nothing to do with God being the Creator, the Life-Giver of those very precious little girls.


I hope that helps.


- Josiah

 

[TubbyTubby]

Of course, the POINT was that faith is not certainty, faith is not knowledge - they are very different things. I had thought that was clear.

And I used an example (perhaps not the best) of people TRUSTING/RELYING on a plane without KNOWING everything (or perhaps much of anything) about it.... people TRUSTING/RELYING upon a surgeon and surgery without knowing much about him or the surgery or the outcome. I didn't imply that trusting CAUSES something to be an understood reality, only that TRUSTING/RELYING isn't the same as certainty or understanding.







The word literally means to rely. If I step on the brakes of my car, I ergo have faith in the brakes of my car. I may or may not know how brakes work... and may or may not know all about those brakes.... but I rely on them. That's the meaning of the word. Personal example (which may or not be useful).... when I was young, about 5, I had rather serious surgery. I likely would not have lived long and certainly would not have grown to the incredibly smart, handsome, athletic man I am without it. I remember understanding I could die - and I was old enough to understand what that means. Did I understand the surgery? I doubt it (don't even remember having it explained). But I do remember meeting the surgeon. He knew nothing about me (he even called me Joseph.... my name is Josiah).... and I knew even less about him. There was very little understanding. But I was okay having the surgery..... I was even okay with the reality of possible death. It's called "faith" - I actively relied on something that , in this case, was not understood and about which I had no certainty.

Yes, many theist would affirm that God is the Creator. That of course has nothing to do with whether He did so using means, but rather that He is the Creator. An artist is an artist even if he uses paint, canvess, etc. A builder is a builder even if he uses wood and hammer and nails in a process we may know something about - he is still the builder. When my nieces were born, their parents and me gave praise and thanks to God in the belief that GOD created this child and gave this child life. Now, my sister has a Ph.D. in biology and so probably understands a tiny, tiny, small bit of the biology of how God did that (better than me - the last bio class I took was in high school!) but that has nothing to do with God being the Creator, the Life-Giver of those very precious little girls.


I hope that helps.


- Josiah

As you point out, there are really two distinct definitions of faith. The first, your faith that your brakes will work when you press the pedal, regardless of your own knowledge is built from an intrinsic understanding of the system by the engineers that built it. There is clear evidence of how it works on which to realise your faith in its effectiveness and reliability.

The second version of faith, is one that requires a person to suspend reality and accept a claim of the supernatural in lieu of evidence. Quite different I think you'll agree.

It's up to an individual to have faith in a supernatural god but I just think it's a misnomer to try and equate both into the same general term of 'faith'.

On another subject, your sister should be fully conversed in the theory of evolution as part of her biology PhD. It's a cornerstone of that field of research. The understanding of Evolution doesn't require faith.

 

[TubbyTubby]

And I can understand your desire to make faith equivalent to real world mechanics. Because faith in the supernatural must be such a tenuous and fragile thing, any chance to relate it to pressing a brake pedal will almost bring an abstract concept into the real world.

I don't blame you, I would probably do the same in your shoes.

 

[psalms 91]

Faith is faith by its definition if there is proof then it is not faith

 

[Josiah]

As you point out, there are really two distinct definitions of faith. The first, your faith that your brakes will work when you press the pedal, regardless of your own knowledge is built from an intrinsic understanding of the system by the engineers that built it. There is clear evidence of how it works on which to realise your faith in its effectiveness and reliability.

The second version of faith, is one that requires a person to suspend reality and accept a claim of the supernatural in lieu of evidence. Quite different I think you'll agree.

It's up to an individual to have faith in a supernatural god but I just think it's a misnomer to try and equate both into the same general term of 'faith'.

On another subject, your sister should be fully conversed in the theory of evolution as part of her biology PhD. It's a cornerstone of that field of research. The understanding of Evolution doesn't require faith.

I disagree. And again, you seem to be entirely missing the whole point of my posts here.

Faith = to trust, to rely. What I'm disagreeing with is that faith = certainty, knowledge, awareness. I've given you numerous examples of the distinction.

No, faith does NOT in any sense whatsoever require the "suspension" of ANYTHING. It simple means we at times trust/rely on something without necessarily having knowledge or certainty or understanding of it. You eat at McDonalds. You don't conduct massage numbers of tests on it, the restaurant, the cooks, etc. before you eat - you just bite in. Yes - there MAY be a sign in the window saying the Health Department months ago did a small test on one burger and the PAPER claims the restaurant passed - but do you know it really did and the restaurant didn't just buy that sign on the net (lol) and do you know YOUR burger is okay? Ah..... you don't even check it out, probably don't even think about it. You drink water in full awareness that water kills many people every day.... you board airplanes knowing they at times crash.... you even drive on the freeway!!! Faith is not certainty.... it's not fully understanding things..... it's TRUST/RELIANCE. IMO, friend, you are confusing very different things.


And yes, it makes no sense to insist that the SUPERnatural must be "proven" by the natural. By its very definition, the supernatural is outside the realm of the natural.

My sister largely embraces SOME of the aspects of the THEORIES of evolution.... she also FIRMLY believes that God is the Creator of all life - including her two beautiful daughters.

And I can understand your desire to make faith equivalent to real world mechanics.

Respectfully, I think you have our two positions entirely confused. It seems to be YOUR position that the supernatural must be only natural and subject to whatever you think is natural. It's MY position that the supernatural is likely to be super natural - beyond, outside the realm of the natural and not subject to it or "provable" by it. It seems to be YOUR position that faith can only be in what is comprehended, understood, known, certain about (which makes me wonder how you ever got married, lol).




.

 

[TubbyTubby]

I disagree. And again, you seem to be entirely missing the whole point of my posts here.

Faith = to trust, to rely. What I'm disagreeing with is that faith = certainty, knowledge, awareness. I've given you numerous examples of the distinction.

I agree with you.

INo, faith does NOT in any sense whatsoever require the "suspension" of ANYTHING. It simple means we at times trust/rely on something without necessarily having knowledge or certainty or understanding of it. You eat at McDonalds. You don't conduct massage numbers of tests on it, the restaurant, the cooks, etc. before you eat - you just bite in. Yes - there MAY be a sign in the window saying the Health Department months ago did a small test on one burger and the PAPER claims the restaurant passed - but do you know it really did and the restaurant didn't just buy that sign on the net (lol) and do you know YOUR burger is okay? Ah..... you don't even check it out, probably don't even think about it. You drink water in full awareness that water kills many people every day.... you board airplanes knowing they at times crash.... you even drive on the freeway!!! Faith is not certainty.... it's not fully understanding things..... it's TRUST/RELIANCE. IMO, friend, you are confusing very different things.

Perhaps we are trying to shoehorn a very wide scope of philosophy and trust of evidence based research into a single term - 'faith'. It just doesn't seem to fit, it needs a new word.

And yes, it makes no sense to insist that the SUPERnatural must be "proven" by the natural. By its very definition, the supernatural is outside the realm of the natural.

My sister largely embraces SOME of the aspects of the THEORIES of evolution.... she also FIRMLY believes that God is the Creator of all life - including her two beautiful daughters.

I'm not sure how anyone could accept some aspects of ToE but disregard others. I'd be interested in hearing where your sister makes the split?

Respectfully, I think you have our two positions entirely confused. It seems to be YOUR position that the supernatural must be only natural and subject to whatever you think is natural. It's MY position that the supernatural is likely to be super natural - beyond, outside the realm of the natural and not subject to it or "provable" by it. It seems to be YOUR position that faith can only be in what is comprehended, understood, known, certain about (which makes me wonder how you ever got married, lol).

I'm not confused, I just don't understand what 'supernatural' actually is and nobody has yet explained it to me in 40 odd years since I gained self awareness.

What that has to do with my being married is even more baffling to me.

 

[Josiah]

Perhaps we are trying to shoehorn a very wide scope of philosophy and trust of evidence based research into a single term - 'faith'. It just doesn't seem to fit, it needs a new word.

I think the word "faith" works perfectly. It means to trust, to rely. Usually in something that that one does not fully understand, comprehend, know. I gave you many examples.

I'm not confused, I just don't understand what 'supernatural' actually is and nobody has yet explained it to me in 40 odd years since I gained self awareness.

It's not limited to natural... thus insisting that it be defined and "proven" in terms of the natural is... well..... entirely inappropriate. It's rather like insisting that life on Mars be proven entirely by things on Earth.... Mars is outside the realm of the Earth, just as the supernatural is beyond the realm of the natural (which is why it's called SUPER natural). You may choose to limit yourself to the realm of physics as you understanding - and I have no problem with that (it is your choice) but I disagree with rebuffing others who do not so limit themselves simply by imposing your frame of reference upon others. "You can't PROVE the supernatural by limiting yourself to the natural" seems to be a popular claim of atheists.... but I find it baseless (at least). (And I haven't even approached the issue of "PROVE" lol).

What that has to do with my being married is even more baffling to me.

I suspect you made a leap of FAITH. I tend to think it's impossible to get married otherwise, lol.




- Josiah

 

[tango]

If there was an eternal god, why did he decide to create life 6000 years ago after waiting for eternity without creating anything? Did it just get bored all of a sudden?

From a deistic point of view it seems pretty improbable. If you try to fit the Abrahamic god of the bible into the picture it seems even less likely.

Assuming for the sake of brevity that this eternal god exists, why he did anything in particular now is something we'll probably never know. But that isn't really an argument for or against the existence of such a deity, merely an acknowledgement that we might not understand why it would do something at one time rather than another time.

 

[tango]

Who says there was nothing? If you propose a supernatural being that existed eternally before anything of the known Universe came to be then where did it exist and what form did it take? Why did it deliver life, and it's message from prophets only to a small outpost of a medium sized galaxy of 100 billion star systems amongst billions of other galaxies after 14 billion years?

If we go far enough back in time and trace cause and effect we can see that I was born to my parents who were born to their parents and so on. Trace the line far enough back and you get an early living thing. Then you have to explain how something not-living became something living (in other words where evolution theory hands over to abiogenesis theory). From there you have to figure where the not-living thing came from in the first place. Taking current scientific theory you go right back to the Big Bang, and the idea that there really was nothing until something exploded and made the universe (I know that's a massively simplified version of the Big Bang theory, I'm just trying to keep my post short). Prior to the Big Bang, was there something or nothing? Sooner or later, if you go back far enough, you either conclude that some eternal entity exists that always was and always will be, or that no such being exists.

I suppose you could argue that some inanimate entity is eternal, but you'd still have to accept that something that has no beginning and no ending actually exists to take that stance.

As to where it existed and why it did what it did, the fact we might not understand the behavior of an eternal deity doesn't have any bearing on the discussion of whether or not it exists.

 

[tango]

Perhaps we are trying to shoehorn a very wide scope of philosophy and trust of evidence based research into a single term - 'faith'. It just doesn't seem to fit, it needs a new word.

Faith is arguably a very broad term, meaning anything from me having faith that the bridge won't collapse as I walk over it to having faith that my car will still be in my garage in the morning to having faith that my wife isn't going to leave me to having faith that God exists and loves me. All could technically be regarded as faith, and all require a degree of consideration.

Having faith that the bridge won't collapse is a matter of looking at it and taking a stance on whether to cross. The nice bridge at the bottom of the hill from my house is a hefty concrete thing. I've seen big trucks drive over it, so I can be confident that it will take my car and totally confident that it will take me on foot. Maybe I'll step on the one part of it that is critically weak, but it seems unlikely.

Faith that my car will still be in my garage in the morning is a matter of experience. I've been parking it there for years and to date nobody has stolen it, so chances are it's still going to be there tomorrow. There's a chance tomorrow morning will yield a nasty surprise but I wouldn't bet on it.

Faith that my wife isn't going to leave me is a matter of seeing how she interacts with me and given I've had nearly 20 years with no particular warning signs that she's unhappy I can be confident she's not suddenly going to run away. But that is almost exactly what happened to a guy I know quite well, and who had no idea his wife was unhappy until she announced she was leaving him, so it's worth making sure she is happy.

Faith that God exists is based on consideration of the evidence as I see it, concluding that on the balance of probability it's more likely that God exists than not, and concluding through interactions with God through prayer that there is a being on the other end who is listening and responding at least some of the time.

I'm not sure how anyone could accept some aspects of ToE but disregard others. I'd be interested in hearing where your sister makes the split?

If you break down evolution into adaption (aka micro-evolution) and speciation (aka macro-evolution) you have a convenient place to segregate the two. Adaptation is something you can demonstrate in a laboratory using microbes and manipulating their environment - that was demonstrated back in about 1990. Speciation is something that as far as I can tell is much harder to demonstrate.

I'm not confused, I just don't understand what 'supernatural' actually is and nobody has yet explained it to me in 40 odd years since I gained self awareness.

I'd say the supernatural is anything that apparently breaks the laws of nature. Things that are essentially unrelated but then act as if they are linked. Let me give you a couple of examples, from my own experience.

Many many years ago someone did me a great wrong. The details aren't relevant here but at the time I was involved in the occult, so I put a curse on the man who wronged me. At the time he was living about 150 miles from me. Two days after I put the curse on him he took a massive overdose and ended up in the ICU. He survived but from what I gather for a time he wasn't expected to pull through. (Precise information is slightly patchy but I have credible sources who confirmed the essentials). Was that natural, coincidence, or a direct result of the curse?

More recently (once I'd left the occult far behind me) I was in a prayer meeting where we were praying for a person a few of us knew who was fighting cancer as well as a possible onset of septicemia (at the time the person was being kept asleep on a respirator in a high dependency unit). One of the people present spoke a particular prayer and the rest of us all sensed that something had changed. A couple of days later I visited the person in question and the prognosis had gone from extremely poor, to the septicemia no longer being an issue and most of the cancer having apparently disappeared. I think it was a couple of weeks later they were sent home, weak but most definitely alive. Was that an answer to prayer, or just a coincidence?

I realise there's no way you can verify either of these examples, so you'll have to decide for yourself whether you consider me credible in relaying them. You might even have to decide whether to have faith in me here

 

[TubbyTubby]

If you break down evolution into adaption (aka micro-evolution) and speciation (aka macro-evolution) you have a convenient place to segregate the two. Adaptation is something you can demonstrate in a laboratory using microbes and manipulating their environment - that was demonstrated back in about 1990. Speciation is something that as far as I can tell is much harder to demonstrate.

Im sorry but if that's what your sister thinks then she's not a biologist. She's denying evidence in favour of religious mantra. There's no such thing as a micro/macro distinction in the ToE.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Many many years ago someone did me a great wrong. The details aren't relevant here but at the time I was involved in the occult, so I put a curse on the man who wronged me. At the time he was living about 150 miles from me. Two days after I put the curse on him he took a massive overdose and ended up in the ICU. He survived but from what I gather for a time he wasn't expected to pull through. (Precise information is slightly patchy but I have credible sources who confirmed the essentials). Was that natural, coincidence, or a direct result of the curse?

I'm not sure whether I should take this seriously or not. Putting spells on people is in the realms of fantasy books, it's not reality.

For the sake of argument though and accepting that your curse was the cause of overdose, who was it that you contacted in the supernatural world to transfer your ill wishes into your victims mind to make him take the pills?

 

[psalms 91]

Tubby Tubby, have you ever met someione who was involved with the occult or satanism, I am not talking the rpetenders but the real thing, a serious satanist? Curses are real, just as real as the spiritual side of things with God. Satan can also do things and cause things

 

[Alithis]

Tubby Tubby, have you ever met someione who was involved with the occult or satanism, I am not talking the pretenders but the real thing, a serious satanist? Curses are real, just as real as the spiritual side of things with God. Satan can also do things and cause things

he is one -where on earth do you think his reasonings come from ! his mind is overwhelmed and for all his many words his heart is dark and echoing with emptiness .
as all of us he has the choice to choose to beleive and reach out to take hold of what God offers .

because we are all made flesh .

and the lord Jesus became one of us ,
he died on the cross for OUR sin ..
he was bruised for OUR guilt .
he lay in the ground for three days and three nights

and then he rose again from the dead in victory over sin and death

that whoever puts their faith in him , repents to god ,and is baptised ,will recive the holy Spirit of eternal life ...

 

[TubbyTubby]

he is one -where on earth do you think his reasonings come from ! his mind is overwhelmed and for all his many words his heart is dark and echoing with emptiness .
as all of us he has the choice to choose to beleive and reach out to take hold of what God offers .

My thoughts and reason come from me, there are no supernatural forces directing my actions I assure you. I'm fairly low on the emotional scale I suppose but hardly 'dark and echoing with emptiness'. I'm a pretty nice person overall I think. At least thats what my family and friends would tell you I hope.

 

[TubbyTubby]

Tubby Tubby, have you ever met someione who was involved with the occult or satanism, I am not talking the rpetenders but the real thing, a serious satanist? Curses are real, just as real as the spiritual side of things with God. Satan can also do things and cause things

Nope. I tend to steer well clear of stuff like that mainly because I don't believe it.

 

[Rens]

he is one -where on earth do you think his reasonings come from ! his mind is overwhelmed and for all his many words his heart is dark and echoing with emptiness .
as all of us he has the choice to choose to beleive and reach out to take hold of what God offers .

because we are all made flesh .

and the lord Jesus became one of us ,
he died on the cross for OUR sin ..
he was bruised for OUR guilt .
he lay in the ground for three days and three nights

and then he rose again from the dead in victory over sin and death

that whoever puts their faith in him , repents to god ,and is baptised ,will recive the holy Spirit of eternal life ...

My goodness, an atheist is not a satanist. I used to be one. I simply could not believe He existed until I read some occult stuff. Then I wanted to know if there was an upperspirit too. Jesus said to one man: unless you people see signs and wonders you will by no means believe and He healed his son and the whole family got saved. So instead of saying he has to choose to believe, which he can't, go pray for him and show him evidence. Torben Sondergaard asked an atheist to translate for him. He picked all the sick people from the street and saw them all getting healed. Then he wanted to know more and later got convinced. Torben said: next time I'll look for an atheist to translate again.

 

[psalms 91]

My goodness, an atheist is not a satanist. I used to be one. I simply could not believe He existed until I read some occult stuff. Then I wanted to know if there was an upperspirit too. Jesus said to one man: unless you people see signs and wonders you will by no means believe and He healed his son and the whole family got saved. So instead of saying he has to choose to believe, which he can't, go pray for him and show him evidence. Torben Sondergaard asked an atheist to translate for him. He picked all the sick people from the street and saw them all getting healed. Then he wanted to know more and later got convinced. Torben said: next time I'll look for an atheist to translate again.

Excellent