The “as long as God doesn’t define Himself” line of thinking indicates that once you see evidence of this from a scientific factual perspective that now you have something to disprove God with.
This line is not accurate because the only thing that can be tested is the claim being made. "God exists" is not a testable claim.
But if you claim God healed you of, say, the flu, I would be able to test whether you have the flu. If you have it, I could say with certainty that God did not heal you of the flu. Because you still have it. That does not prove God doesn't exist. It does not mean God never heals. It just means a particular claim is empirically false.
I would never cite evidence to "disprove God." I would cite evidence to disprove a claim that is made in his name. But that's only when the claim is testable. "I've been born again" is not a testable claim.
"Thomas put his hand in the side of the resurrected Christ" is a whole lot of untestable claims. I'd have nothing to say about it (except maybe that it was curious three gospel writers ignored this particular post-resurrection appearance, but that's not a scientific, empirical argument).
But that last point. Wow. Just as false as it could be. Not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming it's "Benny Hinn" or "no God." All I said was that religion makes testable claims. Faith healing is a testable claim. But you don't see its adherents emptying hospitals. That doesn't prove all faith healing is false. But all faith healing is a testable claim, regardless of who makes it.
For some reason, when I postited faith healing as a claim made by religion (which it undoubtedly is), the thought that popped into YOUR mind was not gnuine faith healers who genuinely exercise the power of God by healing people. You went straight to huckster charlatans. That's on you, not me. All I said was "Youdidn't see the CPR teamgetting outof the way ofthe faith healers."
I don't recall that I have ever found it necessary to cite Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar (winner of the ConManliest Name in Charlatan History award, better known as the Loy Medal).
In any event, we were talking about non overlapping magisteria, which is one man's effort to short-circuit creation-evolution arguments, and my point is that religion makes MANY claims that cannot be defined as "non-overlapping." Any testable claim overlaps.
Andfacts can be manipulated enough tosway towardsconfirmationbias on either side of theargument.
The need for religion to undermine the reliability of empirical facts will never fade. If "facts" can be manipulated enough to sway toward confirmation bias, just imagine what can be done with "faith."
This line is not accurate because the only thing that can be tested is the claim being made. "God exists" is not a testable claim.
But if you claim God healed you of, say, the flu, I would be able to test whether you have the flu. If you have it, I could say with certainty that God did not heal you of the flu. Because you still have it. That does not prove God doesn't exist. It does not mean God never heals. It just means a particular claim is empirically false.
I would never cite evidence to "disprove God." I would cite evidence to disprove a claim that is made in his name. But that's only when the claim is testable. "I've been born again" is not a testable claim.
"Thomas put his hand in the side of the resurrected Christ" is a whole lot of untestable claims. I'd have nothing to say about it (except maybe that it was curious three gospel writers ignored this particular post-resurrection appearance, but that's not a scientific, empirical argument).
But that last point. Wow. Just as false as it could be. Not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming it's "Benny Hinn" or "no God." All I said was that religion makes testable claims. Faith healing is a testable claim. But you don't see its adherents emptying hospitals. That doesn't prove all faith healing is false. But all faith healing is a testable claim, regardless of who makes it.
For some reason, when I postited faith healing as a claim made by religion (which it undoubtedly is), the thought that popped into YOUR mind was not gnuine faith healers who genuinely exercise the power of God by healing people. You went straight to huckster charlatans. That's on you, not me. All I said was "Youdidn't see the CPR teamgetting outof the way ofthe faith healers."
I don't recall that I have ever found it necessary to cite Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar (winner of the ConManliest Name in Charlatan History award, better known as the Loy Medal).
In any event, we were talking about non overlapping magisteria, which is one man's effort to short-circuit creation-evolution arguments, and my point is that religion makes MANY claims that cannot be defined as "non-overlapping." Any testable claim overlaps.
The need for religion to undermine the reliability of empirical facts will never fade. If "facts" can be manipulated enough to sway toward confirmation bias, just imagine what can be done with "faith."
Yes when you referenced “faith healers” from a context of there not being a genuine side I totally thought those names were what you were talking about by reference.
I do not agree on all instances of “faith healing” being testable. For instance a disease goes into remission for a period of time surrounding prayers. Then re appears later. What does the “test” show there?
I read NOMA differently. I read it as kind of the thing Dan Brown gets at in his novels - the science verses faith discussion. The Popes special mission priests vs the Illuminati.
I won’t even get into Hawkings parallel universes but that is similar - the knowledge runs in parallel universes. One is not especially pertinent in the other. But they combine together for a more complete picture.
I don't recall saying "all" faith healing is a testable claim. In fact I thought I gave a clear example of how one claim offers a really limited ability to test.
There have been plenty of tests on the healing power/effectiveness of prayer. Those tests demonstrate a result, but that's not the same as "proving" anything, if memory serves.
Anyway, NOMA has its benefits and its limits. But I disagree with its central premise: you can't argue that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria without ignoring gobs of religious claims that do indeed overlap.
I don't recall saying "all" faith healing is a testable claim. In fact I thought I gave a clear example of how one claim offers a really limited ability to test.
There have been plenty of tests on the healing power/effectiveness of prayer. Those tests demonstrate a result, but that's not the same as "proving" anything, if memory serves.
Anyway, NOMA has its benefits and its limits. But I disagree with its central premise: you can't argue that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria without ignoring gobs of religious claims that do indeed overlap.
I like it better with you posting as opposed to lurking.
I would surmise since I discovered it this week that I don’t have a fully developed position on this, am still formulating.
NOMA fits the gap for many known advanced intellects and I find merit in further reading and exploration.
I guess you are are rejecting NOMA because you say the NO in NOMA is not a thing ?
That's not to say it never applies. New birth. Morality. The difference between a fertilized egg and a baby. Science can't touch those topics [well, it can touch the last one, but not in a way relevant to this discussion]. NOMA has lots of applications. Until it doesn't.
Considering that NOMA was developed to put an end to the debate over evolution v creation, it's an abject failure from the start. Those subjects are overlapping. [Reasonable minds disagree].
That's not to say it never applies. New birth. Morality. The difference between a fertilized egg and a baby. Science can't touch those topics [well, it can touch the last one, but not in a way relevant to this discussion]. NOMA has lots of applications. Until it doesn't.
Considering that NOMA was developed to put an end to the debate over evolution v creation, it's an abject failure from the start. Those subjects are overlapping. [Reasonable minds disagree].
I guess at this point I am considering some part of the NOMA idea appealing to logic and motivation.
I can kind of view the NOMA concept as tying together I Cor 2:14 with some concepts.
As an aside the cults all highly utilize the natural man / spiritual man for all sorts of nonsense and shenanigans from reading in hats to justifying shunning.
But if you have two separate parallel Stephen Hawking universes, where in one the natural laws of physics and gravity work and another one where you are weightless and propelled by ideas then those two universes could be the foundation of each - the natural man and the spiritual man.
The problems come in with short circuiting the one to try to bridge to the other.
Now I also have heard a great deal of ridiculousness in extending this metaphor. I am talking Q15 splain AND GB pretend humility splain with respect to I Cor 2:14. The Mo’s have another verse in their scripture which repeats that one like most of their stuff.
Honestly I think sorting through all this is way more work than just erasing it with a rejection. That is super simple.
I don’t want to do that because I do believe there is a spiritual world and spirit is real.
But I feel like spirit and spiritual are terms that are widely abused like the word art.
Art was a friend of mine in middle school who accidentally lit himself on fire trying to burn an anthill with gasoline.
There are so many people running around taking his name in vain.
I keep reading the "God's Budget" thread and coming to the same conclusion. I want you to consider this possibility, even if at first you might find it insulting. It is the byproduct of a different worldview, and not a reflection of what I think of the people on this board as people. I know we are all struggling to know, understand and accept the truth, however uncomfortable it might make us feel.
TO ME: The whole thread looks like what happens when well-meaning believers try to conform reality to their faith. We want to know why the devil gets to do things and why God's ability and willingness don't really seem to align as much as we think. So we propose a God who binds himself to arbitrary rules that explain why he doesn't always seem to do what we could have sworn he promised to do in that little checkbook we used to carry around lke it was something clever. Sorry, we don't have the funds to cover the check. God's budget, doncha know.
But why was the devil allowed to torment Job?
Well, you see what happened was...
One of the mental exercises I put myself through was asking: imagine a world in which the things we observe are brute facts, but there is absolutely no spiritual anything behind anything. What would that world look like? Natural disasters wouldn't care about the population they are affecting. The victims of a bridge collapse in San Luis Rey would be no more deserving of death than the survivors of the same incident. Bad guys would sometimes win. Bad deeds would sometimes go unpunished. Etc.
In other words, posit a world without God, and tell me how different it would be from the world we actually have.
The non-existence of God is the simplest explanation for the paucity and lack of predictability of "miracles."
I keep reading the "God's Budget" thread and coming to the same conclusion. I want you to consider this possibility, even if at first you might find it insulting. It is the byproduct of a different worldview, and not a reflection of what I think of the people on this board as people. I know we are all struggling to know, understand and accept the truth, however uncomfortable it might make us feel.
TO ME: The whole thread looks like what happens when well-meaning believers try to conform reality to their faith. We want to know why the devil gets to do things and why God's ability and willingness don't really seem to align as much as we think. So we propose a God who binds himself to arbitrary rules that explain why he doesn't always seem to do what we could have sworn he promised to do in that little checkbook we used to carry around lke it was something clever. Sorry, we don't have the funds to cover the check. God's budget, doncha know.
But why was the devil allowed to torment Job?
Well, you see what happened was...
One of the mental exercises I put myself through was asking: imagine a world in which the things we observe are brute facts, but there is absolutely no spiritual anything behind anything. What would that world look like? Natural disasters wouldn't care about the population they are affecting. The victims of a bridge collapse in San Luis Rey would be no more deserving of death than the survivors of the same incident. Bad guys would sometimes win. Bad deeds would sometimes go unpunished. Etc.
In other words, posit a world without God, and tell me how different it would be from the world we actually have.
The non-existence of God is the simplest explanation for the paucity and lack of predictability of "miracles."
More later, maybe.
There is a lot of practicality involved with this post.
I actually approach things in this fashion when I am figuring out what I need to do in situations. What actions do chock need to take?
If I don’t then the mind normally defaults to complete passiveness along the lines of “let go and let God”. And this has led to long bouts of depression and inactivity. Neither are productive. Although at times in life simply waiting for a more opportune time has proven beneficial for endeavors.
I guess I could sum up my faith by “act as if there is no God, pray like He’s the only difference factor”.
That other thread is a Mikey troll job and responses.
Posit a world without God.
No inspiration. No hope except for eventual extinction. The drivers in life being completely seeking the benefit of self or self seeking. Man does not help fellow man in general in a Darwinian construct.
The scripture quote of “without hope, without God, in the world” come to mind.
"The drivers in life being completely seeking the benefit of self or self seeking. Man does not help fellow man in general in a Darwinian construct."
It looks like that, except not at all. Not even a little.
It's often said atheists have nothing to live for. It's not true. We have fewer things we're willing to die for.
I don't see why the absence of God should automatically entail an every man for himself, eff-all-yall mentality. We are perfectly capable of loving valuing, and living for things other than ourselves, thank you very much. And we do it with zero expectation òf a cosmic reward, crowns, or blessings from the Great Scorekeeper, Charlie Brown.
Completely self-seeking? Man does not help fellow man? People who think that without God, men would be nothing but lawless savages really disclose more about themselves than they do about atheists.
Man does not help fellow man in general in a Darwinian construct.
Really? This is not what I observe. I see man helping his fellow man all the time. I see compassion demonstrated every day by people who believe in gods and by those who don’t.
I think we all need help from each other. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of others, and those others wouldn’t be where they are without my help. This is true whether one believes or doesn’t believe in the right or wrong god or in any god at all.
Could we as human beings ever have made it out of the savanna without cooperating, helping, giving, caring, protecting each other?
Really? This is not what I observe. I see man helping his fellow man all the time. I see compassion demonstrated every day by people who believe in gods and by those who don’t.
I think we all need help from each other. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of others, and those others wouldn’t be where they are without my help. This is true whether one believes or doesn’t believe in the right or wrong god or in any god at all.
Could we as human beings ever have made it out of the savanna without cooperating, helping, giving, caring, protecting each other?
Of course that’s true I just would say the same folks perhaps are operating outside of a Darwinian construct.
Suppose for a moment your waitperson plunks a huge bowl of your favorite ice cream in front of you and says, "Enjoy! It's on the house."
If you're anything like most people, you enjoy the opportunity. But, now, suppose they add, "This flavor may never be available again."
Now you have a choice to make. Do you become saddened at that prospect? Or, do you find a special delight in every spoonful? Maybe you even see it as an opportunity to share a special treat with your dining partner.
The choice is up to you.
disclaimer: No lactose intolerant posters were harmed in this analogy.
What does "Darwinian Construct" mean to you guys. Guaranteed it's a parody of what Darwinism would actually predict.
I've wondered what this phase means. I'll let Chockfull explain what he means.
However, I suspect it's a pejorative against Darwinism as dogma. Darwin's theories are not dogmatic. Evolutionary theory today, and even those predating Darwin, have never been dogmatic.
It could imply something about "survival of the fittest." A phrase that cannot be attributed to Darwin -- and a very superficial description that is insufficient for evolutionary theory.
I really don't know what Darwinian Construct means.
whether individual or collective I would say the Darwin concept is the promulgation of self or one’s own kind over that of what is perceived to be a lesser kind for the purpose of long term survival.
People help those they perceive to be “like them” and typically do not help those they perceive to be “not like them”.
Most won’t help across these constructs.
I actually don’t know who helped N though so I can’t say whether they fit that statement or not.
So if I’m presenting a parody of Darwin please help me out on how the mechanics of natural selection work in your world.
whether individual or collective I would say the Darwin concept is the promulgation of self or one’s own kind over that of what is perceived to be a lesser kind for the purpose of long term survival.
People help those they perceive to be “like them” and typically do not help those they perceive to be “not like them”.
Most won’t help across these constructs.
I actually don’t know who helped N though so I can’t say whether they fit that statement or not.
So if I’m presenting a parody of Darwin please help me out on how the mechanics of natural selection work in your world.
So, humans who help humans to survive but do not help deer to survive are operating within a Darwinian construct?
So, humans who help humans to survive but do not help deer to survive are operating within a Darwinian construct?
So why are you cherry picking two words I used to describe a world without God and starting a fight over it rather than talking about what a world without God looks like to you?
I was just describing general description of what came to mind about the topic.
But people like to pick at shiz and debate.
Which actually proves my point more than you think.
So why are you cherry picking two words I used to describe a world without God and starting a fight over it rather than talking about what a world without God looks like to you?
I was just describing general description of what came to mind about the topic.
But people like to pick at shiz and debate.
Which actually proves my point more than you think.
We don't have to use those words. Not trying to start a fight. Not even trying to debate. Truly, just trying to understand what you mean.
You're trying to describe a world without God. That's helpful. I get it.
Yes that was the focus of the multi paragraph answer.
Right. And I challenged the the idea that man does not help his fellow man unless an idea of God is involved. You seemed to imply that helpfulness must come from outside a godless framework (Darwinian Construct).
I have received loving kindness and generosity from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians of various sects, non-theists, Taoists, Buddhists... I can't speak to their motives. Maybe they were operating out of fear of reprisal or hope for reward. I only know that they were all equally helpful, whether with God or without.
And I have extended loving kindness and generosity to the same folks. This I have done without thought or hope for reward or fear of reprisal from any god or any human.
Exactly. The notion of "Darwinian construct" as implied in the statement I quoted demands a definition that is a caricature of what Darwinism predicts. It basically says, goodness can only come from God. Therefore, where there is no God, there is no goodness.
This is, of course, horse hit.
The problem is, most people don't recognize "darwinian construct" and "survival of the fittest" as something of a tautology. A tautology is a definition of something as itself. For example, in the dictionary, under the word "redundant," is says, "see: redundant."
Get it?
"Survival of the fittest" is the notion that those species best suited to their environment will live long enough to reproduce, thus passing on their genes. Humanity developed as a social species. So did ants and bees, though their structure is rather more rigid.
Survival of the fittest does NOT mean "every man for himself," as that would be harmful to our long-term survival as a species.
But it's rather easy and elitist to dismiss godlessness as goodlessness.
Two traits can evolve simultaneously (within a species or between different species) that have no bearing on whether an animal lives long enough to reproduce. Vegetarian animals (cows, deer, horses) may have different dental structures. It proves there's more than one way to eat plants. The animals were suited to their environment and survived to reproduce.
We can go over a ton of examples, but the bottom line is: nothing in Darwinism requires a worldview that man does not help his fellow man. TO the contrary, our evolution as social animals demonstrates a need to work cooperatively to achieve common goals. It's how we survived.
The other half of the post is fine, by the way...
On 4/30/2023 at 12:10 PM, chockfull said:
Posit a world without God.
No inspiration. No hope except for eventual extinction. ...
The scripture quote of “without hope, without God, in the world” come to mind.
What does your world look like without God?
Most of that, can't argue with it. If you put your "hope" in an existence beyond your death, there is NOTHING atheism can offer you.
Our argument is that there is ZERO evidence of an existence beyond death. There is zero evidence of a soul or a spirit that survives your body's demise.
But no inspiration? That depends on how you define the word. I am inspired all the time. With awe, all the time. I mean, when you consider the mathematical odds against your specific existence, you HAVE to be filled with awe. Had a different sperm cell fertilized the egg in your mother's womb, you would not exist right now. I might never know the alternative person who came to be. WOW!
One of the accusations that always amazes me (and I am not attributing it to anyone in this conversation) is that atheists are somehow arrogant. Heavens, no. To realize there is nothing cosmically different between my life and that of a cockroach is far from arrogant. Arrogance is the feeling that you are unique among all the species of the cosmos in attracting the attention and affection of the Creator to the point that your species, and only yours, will live forever AND that only those among your species who happen to agree with you on the subject of religion will enjoy that privilege.
What does my world look like without God? Same as yours. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Disasters happen to good people while sinister people rise to the highest ranks of society. Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler end up in the same place as decent people who never hurt anyone. I guarantee if you went through the 3,000 or so names who died on 9/11, you would find no pattern that shows divine justice at play, that those who lived deserved to live or that those who died deserved to die.
A world without God looks precisely like the world in which you and I live.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
21
6
8
Popular Days
May 1
17
Mar 7
13
Mar 10
8
Mar 6
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 16 posts
chockfull 21 posts
OldSkool 6 posts
Nathan_Jr 8 posts
Popular Days
May 1 2023
17 posts
Mar 7 2023
13 posts
Mar 10 2023
8 posts
Mar 6 2023
7 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Churches should be taxed, just like any other profit driven business. When snake oil ceases to be a profitable commodity, the number of people selling it will "miraculously" shrink.
skyrider
Maybe that should also apply to all "non-profit" foundations that are set up by celebrities, retired sports figures and the like where the administrative costs and payroll fees to family members are n
Raf
Why do we no longer see the miracles that were prevalent before we could scrutinize them and subject them to inquiry? Why is it easier to make excuses for why an omnipotent God is powerless to br
Raf
This line is not accurate because the only thing that can be tested is the claim being made. "God exists" is not a testable claim.
But if you claim God healed you of, say, the flu, I would be able to test whether you have the flu. If you have it, I could say with certainty that God did not heal you of the flu. Because you still have it. That does not prove God doesn't exist. It does not mean God never heals. It just means a particular claim is empirically false.
I would never cite evidence to "disprove God." I would cite evidence to disprove a claim that is made in his name. But that's only when the claim is testable. "I've been born again" is not a testable claim.
"Thomas put his hand in the side of the resurrected Christ" is a whole lot of untestable claims. I'd have nothing to say about it (except maybe that it was curious three gospel writers ignored this particular post-resurrection appearance, but that's not a scientific, empirical argument).
But that last point. Wow. Just as false as it could be. Not sure where you got the idea that I was claiming it's "Benny Hinn" or "no God." All I said was that religion makes testable claims. Faith healing is a testable claim. But you don't see its adherents emptying hospitals. That doesn't prove all faith healing is false. But all faith healing is a testable claim, regardless of who makes it.
For some reason, when I postited faith healing as a claim made by religion (which it undoubtedly is), the thought that popped into YOUR mind was not gnuine faith healers who genuinely exercise the power of God by healing people. You went straight to huckster charlatans. That's on you, not me. All I said was "You didn't see the CPR team getting out of the way of the faith healers."
I don't recall that I have ever found it necessary to cite Benny Hinn or Creflo Dollar (winner of the ConManliest Name in Charlatan History award, better known as the Loy Medal).
In any event, we were talking about non overlapping magisteria, which is one man's effort to short-circuit creation-evolution arguments, and my point is that religion makes MANY claims that cannot be defined as "non-overlapping." Any testable claim overlaps.
The need for religion to undermine the reliability of empirical facts will never fade. If "facts" can be manipulated enough to sway toward confirmation bias, just imagine what can be done with "faith."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Please explain why YOU BELIEVE it's not remotely true?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Well, for one thing, when did I say anything that remotely equates to that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes when you referenced “faith healers” from a context of there not being a genuine side I totally thought those names were what you were talking about by reference.
I do not agree on all instances of “faith healing” being testable. For instance a disease goes into remission for a period of time surrounding prayers. Then re appears later. What does the “test” show there?
I read NOMA differently. I read it as kind of the thing Dan Brown gets at in his novels - the science verses faith discussion. The Popes special mission priests vs the Illuminati.
I won’t even get into Hawkings parallel universes but that is similar - the knowledge runs in parallel universes. One is not especially pertinent in the other. But they combine together for a more complete picture.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I don't recall saying "all" faith healing is a testable claim. In fact I thought I gave a clear example of how one claim offers a really limited ability to test.
There have been plenty of tests on the healing power/effectiveness of prayer. Those tests demonstrate a result, but that's not the same as "proving" anything, if memory serves.
Anyway, NOMA has its benefits and its limits. But I disagree with its central premise: you can't argue that science and religion are non-overlapping magisteria without ignoring gobs of religious claims that do indeed overlap.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I like it better with you posting as opposed to lurking.
I would surmise since I discovered it this week that I don’t have a fully developed position on this, am still formulating.
NOMA fits the gap for many known advanced intellects and I find merit in further reading and exploration.
I guess you are are rejecting NOMA because you say the NO in NOMA is not a thing ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Pretty much.
That's not to say it never applies. New birth. Morality. The difference between a fertilized egg and a baby. Science can't touch those topics [well, it can touch the last one, but not in a way relevant to this discussion]. NOMA has lots of applications. Until it doesn't.
Considering that NOMA was developed to put an end to the debate over evolution v creation, it's an abject failure from the start. Those subjects are overlapping. [Reasonable minds disagree].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I guess at this point I am considering some part of the NOMA idea appealing to logic and motivation.
I can kind of view the NOMA concept as tying together I Cor 2:14 with some concepts.
As an aside the cults all highly utilize the natural man / spiritual man for all sorts of nonsense and shenanigans from reading in hats to justifying shunning.
But if you have two separate parallel Stephen Hawking universes, where in one the natural laws of physics and gravity work and another one where you are weightless and propelled by ideas then those two universes could be the foundation of each - the natural man and the spiritual man.
The problems come in with short circuiting the one to try to bridge to the other.
Now I also have heard a great deal of ridiculousness in extending this metaphor. I am talking Q15 splain AND GB pretend humility splain with respect to I Cor 2:14. The Mo’s have another verse in their scripture which repeats that one like most of their stuff.
Honestly I think sorting through all this is way more work than just erasing it with a rejection. That is super simple.
I don’t want to do that because I do believe there is a spiritual world and spirit is real.
But I feel like spirit and spiritual are terms that are widely abused like the word art.
Art was a friend of mine in middle school who accidentally lit himself on fire trying to burn an anthill with gasoline.
There are so many people running around taking his name in vain.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I keep reading the "God's Budget" thread and coming to the same conclusion. I want you to consider this possibility, even if at first you might find it insulting. It is the byproduct of a different worldview, and not a reflection of what I think of the people on this board as people. I know we are all struggling to know, understand and accept the truth, however uncomfortable it might make us feel.
TO ME: The whole thread looks like what happens when well-meaning believers try to conform reality to their faith. We want to know why the devil gets to do things and why God's ability and willingness don't really seem to align as much as we think. So we propose a God who binds himself to arbitrary rules that explain why he doesn't always seem to do what we could have sworn he promised to do in that little checkbook we used to carry around lke it was something clever. Sorry, we don't have the funds to cover the check. God's budget, doncha know.
But why was the devil allowed to torment Job?
Well, you see what happened was...
One of the mental exercises I put myself through was asking: imagine a world in which the things we observe are brute facts, but there is absolutely no spiritual anything behind anything. What would that world look like? Natural disasters wouldn't care about the population they are affecting. The victims of a bridge collapse in San Luis Rey would be no more deserving of death than the survivors of the same incident. Bad guys would sometimes win. Bad deeds would sometimes go unpunished. Etc.
In other words, posit a world without God, and tell me how different it would be from the world we actually have.
The non-existence of God is the simplest explanation for the paucity and lack of predictability of "miracles."
More later, maybe.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
There is a lot of practicality involved with this post.
I actually approach things in this fashion when I am figuring out what I need to do in situations. What actions do chock need to take?
If I don’t then the mind normally defaults to complete passiveness along the lines of “let go and let God”. And this has led to long bouts of depression and inactivity. Neither are productive. Although at times in life simply waiting for a more opportune time has proven beneficial for endeavors.
I guess I could sum up my faith by “act as if there is no God, pray like He’s the only difference factor”.
That other thread is a Mikey troll job and responses.
Posit a world without God.
No inspiration. No hope except for eventual extinction. The drivers in life being completely seeking the benefit of self or self seeking. Man does not help fellow man in general in a Darwinian construct.
The scripture quote of “without hope, without God, in the world” come to mind.
What does your world look like without God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"The drivers in life being completely seeking the benefit of self or self seeking. Man does not help fellow man in general in a Darwinian construct."
It looks like that, except not at all. Not even a little.
It's often said atheists have nothing to live for. It's not true. We have fewer things we're willing to die for.
I don't see why the absence of God should automatically entail an every man for himself, eff-all-yall mentality. We are perfectly capable of loving valuing, and living for things other than ourselves, thank you very much. And we do it with zero expectation òf a cosmic reward, crowns, or blessings from the Great Scorekeeper, Charlie Brown.
Completely self-seeking? Man does not help fellow man? People who think that without God, men would be nothing but lawless savages really disclose more about themselves than they do about atheists.
More later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Really? This is not what I observe. I see man helping his fellow man all the time. I see compassion demonstrated every day by people who believe in gods and by those who don’t.
I think we all need help from each other. I wouldn’t be where I am today without the help of others, and those others wouldn’t be where they are without my help. This is true whether one believes or doesn’t believe in the right or wrong god or in any god at all.
Could we as human beings ever have made it out of the savanna without cooperating, helping, giving, caring, protecting each other?
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Of course that’s true I just would say the same folks perhaps are operating outside of a Darwinian construct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Suppose for a moment your waitperson plunks a huge bowl of your favorite ice cream in front of you and says, "Enjoy! It's on the house."
If you're anything like most people, you enjoy the opportunity. But, now, suppose they add, "This flavor may never be available again."
Now you have a choice to make. Do you become saddened at that prospect? Or, do you find a special delight in every spoonful? Maybe you even see it as an opportunity to share a special treat with your dining partner.
The choice is up to you.
disclaimer: No lactose intolerant posters were harmed in this analogy.
Edited by waysidermissed a word
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Tell me you don't know what a "Darwinian construct" is without using the words "I don't know what a Darwinian construct is."
Hint: "Every man for himself, eff-all-yall" is not a Darwinian construct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
What does "Darwinian Construct" mean to you guys. Guaranteed it's a parody of what Darwinism would actually predict.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I've wondered what this phase means. I'll let Chockfull explain what he means.
However, I suspect it's a pejorative against Darwinism as dogma. Darwin's theories are not dogmatic. Evolutionary theory today, and even those predating Darwin, have never been dogmatic.
It could imply something about "survival of the fittest." A phrase that cannot be attributed to Darwin -- and a very superficial description that is insufficient for evolutionary theory.
I really don't know what Darwinian Construct means.
Chockfull? A little help?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
whether individual or collective I would say the Darwin concept is the promulgation of self or one’s own kind over that of what is perceived to be a lesser kind for the purpose of long term survival.
People help those they perceive to be “like them” and typically do not help those they perceive to be “not like them”.
Most won’t help across these constructs.
I actually don’t know who helped N though so I can’t say whether they fit that statement or not.
So if I’m presenting a parody of Darwin please help me out on how the mechanics of natural selection work in your world.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
So, humans who help humans to survive but do not help deer to survive are operating within a Darwinian construct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
So why are you cherry picking two words I used to describe a world without God and starting a fight over it rather than talking about what a world without God looks like to you?
I was just describing general description of what came to mind about the topic.
But people like to pick at shiz and debate.
Which actually proves my point more than you think.
Also humans hunt deer.
So yes.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
We don't have to use those words. Not trying to start a fight. Not even trying to debate. Truly, just trying to understand what you mean.
You're trying to describe a world without God. That's helpful. I get it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yes that was the focus of the multi paragraph answer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Right. And I challenged the the idea that man does not help his fellow man unless an idea of God is involved. You seemed to imply that helpfulness must come from outside a godless framework (Darwinian Construct).
I have received loving kindness and generosity from atheists, agnostics, Jews, Christians of various sects, non-theists, Taoists, Buddhists... I can't speak to their motives. Maybe they were operating out of fear of reprisal or hope for reward. I only know that they were all equally helpful, whether with God or without.
And I have extended loving kindness and generosity to the same folks. This I have done without thought or hope for reward or fear of reprisal from any god or any human.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Exactly. The notion of "Darwinian construct" as implied in the statement I quoted demands a definition that is a caricature of what Darwinism predicts. It basically says, goodness can only come from God. Therefore, where there is no God, there is no goodness.
This is, of course, horse hit.
The problem is, most people don't recognize "darwinian construct" and "survival of the fittest" as something of a tautology. A tautology is a definition of something as itself. For example, in the dictionary, under the word "redundant," is says, "see: redundant."
Get it?
"Survival of the fittest" is the notion that those species best suited to their environment will live long enough to reproduce, thus passing on their genes. Humanity developed as a social species. So did ants and bees, though their structure is rather more rigid.
Survival of the fittest does NOT mean "every man for himself," as that would be harmful to our long-term survival as a species.
But it's rather easy and elitist to dismiss godlessness as goodlessness.
Two traits can evolve simultaneously (within a species or between different species) that have no bearing on whether an animal lives long enough to reproduce. Vegetarian animals (cows, deer, horses) may have different dental structures. It proves there's more than one way to eat plants. The animals were suited to their environment and survived to reproduce.
We can go over a ton of examples, but the bottom line is: nothing in Darwinism requires a worldview that man does not help his fellow man. TO the contrary, our evolution as social animals demonstrates a need to work cooperatively to achieve common goals. It's how we survived.
The other half of the post is fine, by the way...
Most of that, can't argue with it. If you put your "hope" in an existence beyond your death, there is NOTHING atheism can offer you.
Our argument is that there is ZERO evidence of an existence beyond death. There is zero evidence of a soul or a spirit that survives your body's demise.
But no inspiration? That depends on how you define the word. I am inspired all the time. With awe, all the time. I mean, when you consider the mathematical odds against your specific existence, you HAVE to be filled with awe. Had a different sperm cell fertilized the egg in your mother's womb, you would not exist right now. I might never know the alternative person who came to be. WOW!
One of the accusations that always amazes me (and I am not attributing it to anyone in this conversation) is that atheists are somehow arrogant. Heavens, no. To realize there is nothing cosmically different between my life and that of a cockroach is far from arrogant. Arrogance is the feeling that you are unique among all the species of the cosmos in attracting the attention and affection of the Creator to the point that your species, and only yours, will live forever AND that only those among your species who happen to agree with you on the subject of religion will enjoy that privilege.
What does my world look like without God? Same as yours. Good things happen to bad people and vice versa. Disasters happen to good people while sinister people rise to the highest ranks of society. Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler end up in the same place as decent people who never hurt anyone. I guarantee if you went through the 3,000 or so names who died on 9/11, you would find no pattern that shows divine justice at play, that those who lived deserved to live or that those who died deserved to die.
A world without God looks precisely like the world in which you and I live.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.