Christianity as Faith; Atheism as Blind Faith

[Kenneth R.]

the converse side of the argument leaves much to be desired. what does christianity say about the origin of the universe? little to nothing. god created it. how? where did he get the matter? how did he make it come into being? in fact, christians can't agree on that matter. did he form the earth out of nothing, or form it out of a formless state?

one must consent that a supernatural being supercedes natural laws... as for the earlier "problem" i had, Justin S picked up on the word i failed to add... "current". at this time, science can't explain my questions.

 

[the alumnus]

one must consent that a supernatural being supercedes natural laws... as for the earlier "problem" i had, Justin S picked up on the word i failed to add... "current". at this time, science can't explain my questions.

and at this time christianity can't explain my questions either, which was my point about this issue of faith. which is more blind?

 

[speed]

An aphorism by Cioran:

There are moments when even the most humble Christian converses with God on an equal basis. Religion allows our pride these small satisfactions without which we would die suffocated by too much modesty. Atheism flatters our love of liberty: addressing God from above raises pride to the status of semi-divinity. He who has never had contempt for God is predestined to slavery. We are us only to the extent we humiliate him (Tears and Saints p 94).

 

[Kenneth R.]

and at this time christianity can't explain my questions either, which was my point about this issue of faith. which is more blind?

the one for which you have less evidence inclining you to believe in, of course. wherin lies our disagreement...

 

[Iridium]

A couple of words about Christianity:

We are born without the knowledge of the concept of God. We learn about God only from our peers. Atheism is the continuation of one's inherent lack of belief concerning Gods. Theism implies that throughout the lifespan of a person, some event or experience changed his state of God-belief, going from not even knowing what a God is, to believing in him fully. Atheism implies that, literally, the person has found no reason to believe in God. Due to these facts alone, the burden of proof is always on the theist, since the neutral state is not having a belief concerning God, which is atheism (weak).

As for looking at the sky to see evidence of God, that is simply idiotic, since you are implying a non-cogent argument: the world is a cool place, therefore God exists. Do you realize that the sky consists of miles of gaseous molecules? Did you know that past it is a vast and great stretch of emptiness in every direction, with an occasional stellar body showing itself every once in a while? Of course you do, thanks to science. So far, every answer that we have come up with has been done with science. How many answers have we come up with through theology? Theists propose the God of the gaps argument, claiming that just because we do not yet know something, we will never know it, and further, that a strangely inconsistent deity is responsible for all things we do not know. Naturally, they display no evidence to show just how and why this deity is responsible, and, better yet, how they came up with this knowledge, but I guess that's too much to ask. But the intellectual dishonesty gets worse! Certain theists are not content with not yet having an answer: if something cannot be answered, they must fill in one! Their worldviews do not allow them not to be at least pluriscient. When scientists discover a solution to a question posed earlier, theists simply move on to another area of knowledge that the scientific community has not yet fully explored.

Realize that adding "God did it" does not add any new knowledge. Furthermore, for the creationists among us, questioning evolution is trendy and all, but please, come up with a better theory, and then we'll consider it.

 

[SoundMaster]

A couple of words about Christianity:

We are born without the knowledge of the concept of God. We learn about God only from our peers. Atheism is the continuation of one's inherent lack of belief concerning Gods. Theism implies that throughout the lifespan of a person, some event or experience changed his state of God-belief, going from not even knowing what a God is, to believing in him fully. Atheism implies that, literally, the person has found no reason to believe in God. Due to these facts alone, the burden of proof is always on the theist, since the neutral state is not having a belief concerning God, which is atheism (weak).

As for looking at the sky to see evidence of God, that is simply idiotic, since you are implying a non-cogent argument: the world is a cool place, therefore God exists. Do you realize that the sky consists of miles of gaseous molecules? Did you know that past it is a vast and great stretch of emptiness in every direction, with an occasional stellar body showing itself every once in a while? Of course you do, thanks to science. So far, every answer that we have come up with has been done with science. How many answers have we come up with through theology? Theists propose the God of the gaps argument, claiming that just because we do not yet know something, we will never know it, and further, that a strangely inconsistent deity is responsible for all things we do not know. Naturally, they display no evidence to show just how and why this deity is responsible, and, better yet, how they came up with this knowledge, but I guess that's too much to ask. But the intellectual dishonesty gets worse! Certain theists are not content with not yet having an answer: if something cannot be answered, they must fill in one! Their worldviews do not allow them not to be at least pluriscient. When scientists discover a solution to a question posed earlier, theists simply move on to another area of knowledge that the scientific community has not yet fully explored.

Realize that adding "God did it" does not add any new knowledge. Furthermore, for the creationists among us, questioning evolution is trendy and all, but please, come up with a better theory, and then we'll consider it.

Exactly.

 

[Disciple of the Watch]

Saying that God created us only opens up greater question: who created God, or if you prefer it, what was before God?

 

[SoundMaster]

Saying that God created us only opens up greater question: who created God, or if you prefer it, what was before God?

Precisely.
And if you're content, however, to simply respond and say "well he always existed", one could just as easily state that the matter that coalesced into the big bang simply "always existed" as well.

That's why it provides nothing...the god of the gaps is a shallow attempt at answers. Quite shallow, actually.

 

[Kenneth R.]

the gap is in your argument.

the difference:

what came before a supposedly omnipotent immortal being? who can say, if any, the conclusion as you say would be that they always existed and always shall.

what came before a supposedly occurring event? why, simply, the event or lack thereof before it. unless you're saying that either God is an event or the "big bang" is a deity.

 

[Kenneth R.]

A couple of words about Christianity:

We are born without the knowledge of the concept of God. We learn about God only from our peers. Atheism is the continuation of one's inherent lack of belief concerning Gods. Theism implies that throughout the lifespan of a person, some event or experience changed his state of God-belief, going from not even knowing what a God is, to believing in him fully. Atheism implies that, literally, the person has found no reason to believe in God. Due to these facts alone, the burden of proof is always on the theist, since the neutral state is not having a belief concerning God, which is atheism (weak).

As for looking at the sky to see evidence of God, that is simply idiotic, since you are implying a non-cogent argument: the world is a cool place, therefore God exists. Do you realize that the sky consists of miles of gaseous molecules? Did you know that past it is a vast and great stretch of emptiness in every direction, with an occasional stellar body showing itself every once in a while? Of course you do, thanks to science. So far, every answer that we have come up with has been done with science. How many answers have we come up with through theology? Theists propose the God of the gaps argument, claiming that just because we do not yet know something, we will never know it, and further, that a strangely inconsistent deity is responsible for all things we do not know. Naturally, they display no evidence to show just how and why this deity is responsible, and, better yet, how they came up with this knowledge, but I guess that's too much to ask. But the intellectual dishonesty gets worse! Certain theists are not content with not yet having an answer: if something cannot be answered, they must fill in one! Their worldviews do not allow them not to be at least pluriscient. When scientists discover a solution to a question posed earlier, theists simply move on to another area of knowledge that the scientific community has not yet fully explored.

Realize that adding "God did it" does not add any new knowledge. Furthermore, for the creationists among us, questioning evolution is trendy and all, but please, come up with a better theory, and then we'll consider it.

a few words about christianity:
(from a Christian, and actually correct, as opposed to the above hearsay)

1. you have no proof that awareness of God is a peer manifested phenomena. verbal knowledge perhaps, but essential knowledge, we do not know this. therefore your supposition about theism is inaccurate...

2. God is not in competition with science. science is a method and a tool, unless you worship it. it can disprove theology just as well as it can disprove itself, but it cannot answer every question at current.

3. Christianity does not say "because we don't know now, we never will". it says "we do not now know, at some point it may be discovered, through science or through God. (either we find or we are shown)

4. science constantly proves its own theories wrong as we work towards finding what is right. Christians believe that which is decreed by God and those who witnessed Him cannot be proven false. cases of this can be shown.

5. you address your post as words on Christianity, but then mark each argument with the term "Theist" which represents all those who believe in any god. are you generalizing the vast scope of theology with these claims, or are you simply confusing Christianity, a specific faith, with this seemingly misused term?

 

[infoterror]

From my experience people tend toward belief, and they're all worshipping the same thing, but use different structures to describe it. Those structures of belief define what they expect, and thus how they go about dealing with it... and therein is the problem.

Christianity can be saved, but only if it gives up its lower attributes, which descend almost exclusively from Jewish misinterpretations of Greek thought (neo-Platonic, like neo-Conservative).

 

[Iridium]

Yes: since you are Christian, you are more likely than me to have an objective, unbiased view of Christianity.

1. I have my own experience, which should be enough (unless your God specifically chooses who gets to believe in him inherently and who gets screwed out of it, though I'm sure an experienced apologist like you can justify such an inconsistency). Furthermore, name me one person who discovered the Christian God without having come into contact with other Christians, or the Bible (notice, even if God-belief was inherent, you still have to prove that it is Christian God-belief which is inherent). This is also evidenced by the existence of a variety of religions/faiths drastically different from Christianity, and the fact that Christians have mostly existed as members of sects. However, the main proof is within our own ecological behavior. Altruism, survival, and reproduction are all instincts, and instincts are the only type of "knowledge" that is inherent in us. Since "God-belief" is obviously not an instinct (though it may eventually come into play when curiosity is mixed with the need to explain things), it is not an inherent belief.

2. No? Well it appears that creationism is at war with science, and is deeply rooted within theology. Science can explain things whereas theology cannot. Once again, I ask you to point out a question which theology has accurately answered and which science has not. It can disprove theology only concerning areas of knowledge in which the two (science and theology) both offer answers. So far, the track record of science is infinitely superior to theology.

Note: science attempts to answer questions about our world, not philosophies, preferences, or morality. I concern myself in this debate solely with the task of describing the world.

3. I don't know exactly what you are babbling about here, but the god of the gaps argument, often proposed by Christians, is nothing more than stating "since we do not (yet) know something, God did it." Recall, not a single thing has been discovered "through God" yet, and most Christians have more faith in him than in the process of induction.

4. So basically, the difference between science and religion is that with science, if a theory does not accurately take into account certain evidence, the theory is scrapped, whereas with religion, if a theory does not accurately take into account certain evidence, the evidence is scrapped. Okay, so you're unwilling to make it falsifiable. That alone assures that your method is invalid.

5. Assume that in my posts, the term "theist" is equivalent to "Christian."

 

[SoundMaster]

the gap is in your argument.

the difference:

what came before a supposedly omnipotent immortal being? who can say, if any, the conclusion as you say would be that they always existed and always shall.

what came before a supposedly occurring event? why, simply, the event or lack thereof before it. unless you're saying that either God is an event or the "big bang" is a deity.

For the record, I'm not even attempting to state what may have existed before the big bang. My reference to it in the last post was simply used as an example as to what the 'god of the gaps' argument helps perpetuate.
Since I've not seen, read, heard or experienced any evidence which has lead me to draw a logical conclusion concerning the 'pre-bang' era (if one even existed at all), I simply choose the path off wisdom and say "I don't know".

The point is this: there are trillions of questions to which humanity has no answers. And we may never arrive at said answers. However, that does not give us license to simply 'fill in the blanks' or 'connect the dots' with pseudo-explanations that make us feel all warm and bubbly inside.

 

[RookParliament]

Christianity can be saved, but only if it gives up its lower attributes, which descend almost exclusively from Jewish misinterpretations of Greek thought (neo-Platonic, like neo-Conservative).

Examples.

 

[Disciple of the Watch]

A question: do you who are theists see yourself worshiping a God with personality or a creational energy, force....?

 

[JColtrane]

Erm, that's not an either/or question.

 

[Kenneth R.]

there are trillions of questions to which humanity has no answers. And we may never arrive at said answers. However, that does not give us license to simply 'fill in the blanks' or 'connect the dots' with pseudo-explanations that make us feel all warm and bubbly inside.

to this i would agree...

 

[Lies and Perfidy]

Iridium, too lazy to log onto own account: Then why perpetuate theology as a potential answer for questions? That is precisely what you are doing when you state that "God did this" or "God did that" as an answer to a question for which there is little to no positive evidence.

 

[Disciple of the Watch]

Erm, that's not an either/or question.

Sorry, wrong formulation..

What i really wanted to say that I don`t see why do you have the need to bow and worship somebody? If you say that God (supreme being with personality) created us, do you think that he created us just for worhiping? If so God is one huge ego-tripper...

 

[anonymousnick2001]

If so God is one huge ego-tripper...

That's humanizing Him a bit, don't you think?