Zone1 I've been an atheist for 60 years and have never once been tempted to believe in any god

[Donald H]

What song do you refer to?

The main issue (for me) is with what is included and what isn't, and who made those decisions. I think the process is corruptible, so I look at The Bible with some pause.

Putting that aside though, there is also the question of how to interpret the words. I've thought for a long time that literal interpretations of The Bible (for example when it comes to creation) are not compatible with science, from evolution to cosmology. So, when The Bible is quoted, the text and the interpretation are both 'in question' for me. This is especially true when I consider how ungodly many Christians can be, how giddy and ready they seem to be to tell others they will burn in hell, how this has been repeatedly twisted to control and extract profits from people. A super important example involves Martin Luther and the question of indulgences.

I think the main trait of a Christian is a love for Jesus and His message, which I have always thought to be one centered on empathy and love for others, 'love thy neighbor as thyself', so I call myself a Christian. Before finding genuine faith in God, I thought a lot about (I still do) the role and purpose of animal and human suffering in the world, and it was in this line of thinking that I eventually managed to find genuine faith that God exists.

In this thread I feel I can relate to both sides a lot, and I think ideally the believers should try to encourage and be understanding of a respectful critique or question from a nonbeliever, since it often stems from a good place. But we are all so ready to get defensive, I think we end up talking past each other most of the time.

Let's all stop talking past each other and face up to the contradiction.

 

[Insaneworld]

All thinking Christians have to be trying. Our 'Ding' comes the closest to making a serious effort!

We can identify others who are making it into a personal cause, when they erupt with anger and profanity toward anybody who dares raise the question.

I meant, in like an academic sense. I agree that we should all try, but Teilhard was a priest and paleontologist, we are just posters on a forum.

 

[Insaneworld]

Let's all stop talking past each other and face up to the contradiction.

What is 'the' contradiction in your view?

 

[Mashmont]

When I was 10 years old, we had a dog named Silver. A sealyham - sort of a largish Westie. He had been struck by a car when I was much younger and that had left him blind in one eye. We adapted. He adapted. But whenever he entered an unfamiliar space (the furniture moved, for instance) he would collide with things. I felt bad for him. Like most children my age I believed what I was told was the truth by my parents and the church they took me to. So I prayed as fervently and selflessly as I could manage that God would restore his vision. But, as would happen in any bad movie, his poor vision led Silver to wandering out in front of another car where he suffered another concussion which left him completely blind. Now all dogs go to heaven because all dogs are innocent. Every non-human form of life is innocent of the many sins the Bible spells out. Initially, I was angry. How could God cause my innocent dog to suffer, regardless of his motive or intent? The standard "mysterious ways" line didn't help at all. What did help was the realization that the best explanation was not that god was mysterious or unknowable, but that he simply wasn't there. The existence of the god described by the Bible and by our preacher and the believers I would talk with was simply not possible; not only because it violated all the laws of nature but because absolutely no evidence I could find supported the idea. Every thing I could learn about the world and how it worked refuted the idea of a caring, personal god who had created miraculous humans and a miraculous Earth to be their home and was everpresent, watching over us and, on proper supplication, violating the laws that he himself had set in place - if he felt like it.

As the years went by I simply became more and more convinced that there is a great deal about the working of the universe we do not yet know, but the basics - the principal of uniformitarianism, holds, everywhere and everywhen. Nothing is supernatural. No will directs or inspires the stream of events taking place over the passage of time. Only physics.

What signs or signals should I have caught that might have lured me back to my childhood faith? And how might my life have been different had I done so? I have lots of friends and I'm pretty sure most of them think I'm a nice guy. I buy fully and heartily into the Golden Rule. I believe it to be the sole basis of human civilization. How do you think my complete lack of divine faith hurt me? Will your god throw into a lake of fire because I led a good life but failed to do him obeisance? That is, of course, precisely what scriptures tells us. Why would ANY of you believe, much less WORSHIP such a god? He seems a monster. Would anyone care to correct me?

I feel bad that you almost certainly didn't have the great life you could have had. But it's not too late to start having that life.

 

[Donald H]

I meant, in like an academic sense. I agree that we should all try, but Teilhardt was a priest and paleontologist, we are just posters on a forum.

Just start with the fact that creation and evolution can't be the truth together and then turn it into an academic debate.
You may want to see the forum's best effort to do that in Ding's writing.

 

[Insaneworld]

Just start with the fact that creation and evolution can't be the truth together and then turn it into an academic debate.
You may want to see the forum's best effort to do that in Ding's writing.

What does 'creation' mean to you? It's clear what 'evolution' means more or less, but not 'creation'.

For instance, you can take the position that God designed physics such that life could emerge from the natural randomness of the Universe. This would be a kind of 'creation' of everything, including life, AND would include physics and evolution as pieces of said creation.

 

[Donald H]

What is 'the' contradiction in your view?

Are we starting from zero?

Darwinian evolution is accepted by the CC, alongside creation of man.

I'm asking for somebody to make that work.

Are you going to make an effort?

 

[Insaneworld]

Are we starting from zero?

Darwinian evolution is accepted by the CC, alongside creation of man.

I'm asking for somebody to make that work.

Are you going to make an effort?

The process of gaining my faith has involved so much of my own effort in this task. It's been fairly personal so far though, and I don't know enough about the orthodox Christian faith to try to do this in a way more relevant way to the church or orthodox Christians, like perhaps you mean with the user Ding.

 

[Donald H]

What does 'creation' mean to you? It's clear what 'evolution' means more or less, but not 'creation'.

It's not for an atheist to even try to offer an answer. I think that all bibles provide the answer. 'all'? There may be an exception?

For instance, you can take the position that God designed physics such that life could emerge from the natural randomness of the Universe. This would be a kind of 'creation' of everything, including life, AND would include physics and evolution as pieces of said creation.

You can invent an explanation of what creation means, but doesn't it have to be consistent with your bibles?

I think that modern Christianity finds that the bibles have become an albatross hanging around Christian necks.

 

[ding]

and sometimes leads to extinction of a species without evolving.

Which hasn't happened yet and therefore is a poor extrapolation of the existing data.

 

[ding]

That is likely the most popular theory.

And until you can provide another one that explains the observations of the empirical evidence that exists, is the only one you have.

 

[Donald H]

Which hasn't happened yet and therefore is a poor extrapolation of the existing data.

Such an obvious mistake, that it has to be intended as a lie!

 

[ding]

Good with me so far.

That's because it's really hard to argue against facts.

It's his assumption only but where did he get the idea of a Christ to begin with? Where did anybody get the idea? There's no indication of divine intervention influencing his thought processes.

I would suggest that he was indoctrinated into believing the supernatural at childhood. He picked his Christ out of a hat and he paid no mind to the contradictions between creation and evolution, without offering an excuse.

From the 24,000 written manuscripts detailing his 3 1/2 year ministry, his crucifixion and his resurrection.

But please feel free to provide your opinion of the next anthropological leap that life will make.

 

[Donald H]

And until you can provide another one that explains the observations of the empirical evidence that exists, is the only one you have.

I've provided you the courtesy of reading and answering all of your posts.

That courtesy is going to be withdrawn if your posts become too numerous to answer respectfully.

 

[ding]

Such an obvious mistake, that it has to be intended as a lie!

Do you usually ignore data and trends because it makes you uncomfortable? I don't.

 

[ding]

I've provided you the courtesy of reading and answering all of your posts.

That courtesy is going to be withdrawn if your posts become too numerous to answer respectfully.

I am literally responding to your posts. So not sure exactly what you are asking me to do? Not respond to YOUR posts?

 

[ding]

Were humans created or did we evolve? Let's tear down one or the other together. We can't just continue to live the lies!

Or at least, I'm not going to!

How was that not explained in the post you responded to? What part of that post did you not understand?

 

[Insaneworld]

It's not for an atheist to even try to offer an answer. I think that all bibles provide the answer. 'all'? There may be an exception?

Sure it is, in this context it is more than appropriate. I am looking to understand your perspective first, to then try to persuade. For us to not 'talk past each other', you should describe the concept of 'creation' that you are so certain is incompatible with evolution. It may well be, I dunno, it depends on what it is. This is why I had to massage the meaning of 'creation' as I did for myself, to make it make sense from my own perspective, since I am interested in God and Truth, not the Christian faith or The Bible necessarily.

You can invent an explanation of what creation means, but doesn't it have to be consistent with your bibles?

Not for me. Like I said, I've taken a very personal approach to spirituality and religion. Despite this, I follow Jesus and His message, so I consider myself a Christian. I don't take literal interpretations of The Bible, and I see it mostly as a human creation that contains divine inspiration.

This is why interpretation is so important to me, and why I wish to know how you understand creation, because your conception or understanding of it may well be incompatible with science, but it isn't the only concept of creation that is possible.

 

[Donald H]

That's because it's really hard to argue against facts.

From the 24,000 written manuscripts detailing his 3 1/2 year ministry, his crucifixion and his resurrection.

all contradicted by the fact that Darwinian evolution makes all religious beliefs out of manuscripts or the bibles, impossible.

But please feel free to provide your opinion of the next anthropological leap that life will make.

I think that the human experiment brought about by evolution is due to end soon.

What is soon?

 

[Donald H]

How was that not explained in the post you responded to? What part of that post did you not understand?

Maybe one out of our audience can answer to what is impossible to understand. That is the contradiction.