An Honest Question for Theists.
Offline Just bear with me, I'm trying something new here.
Answer the following questions.
Okay, lets say that for whatever reason, you begin to have doubts about your faith. Does the idea that there is no God frighten you?
Why does it frighten you?
OR
Why does it NOT frighten you?
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll tell you what frightens me.
When an atheist hero like Sam Harris can say. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be eithical to kill people for believing them" (pages 52-53 TEOF) and his book still gets promoted on sites like this one.
Excellent point. I agree with Harris on some of his arguments, but definitely not this one.
Now, on to the question. Every person should doubt concerning God, theists and atheists included. To quote Hedges, "People without doubt are frightening."
"A man can no more diminish God's glory by refusing to worship Him than a lunatic can put out the sun by scribbling the word, 'darkness' on the walls of his cell." (CS Lewis)
"A young man who wishes to remain a sound atheist cannot be too careful of his reading." (CS Lewis)
- Login to post comments
Offline Apotheon wrote:Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.
Hi Susan!
I'm going to take a chance and step in on this conversation ...
Is there really a need to back up this assertion? 
Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination.
Either way, you lose your own argument
I disagree. The point made (for theists, I suppose) was that God was the source of knowledge. Knowledge implies discernment, as there can be no justification provided without being able to discern the real from the unreal, the true from the false.
I didn't see any proof offered here to support Apotheon's assertions (as you so rightly pointed out), but I don't see the argument as self-refuting.
My 2 cents
- Login to post comments
Offline First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.
If evolution is true, that would be my back up. If we are still in the process of evolving, then in a million years the human brain will be better than it is now. Since it can be bettered, it is not perfect.
Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination.
Precisely, that is why atheism is irrational because they cannot discern whether or not atheism is an objective truth, or a figment of their imagination using the primitive brains they have.
Either way, you lose your own argument.
No, let me explain this to you. All the atheist has to go by is the chunk of meat between his ears. But, according to evolution, our current "chunks" are only one of many transitional form brains. It is not perfect. It is headed for betterment. Therefore, the atheist cannot make any objective claims to anything given this fact alone. The theist however, does not believe in evolution so our current brains are as good as they are going to get. And theism is not a product of brain chemical secretions as atheism is. Theism is REVEALED truth. We are only receptors of this knowledge, much like a radio antenna. God has the perfect brain/ mind, and that is where we derive our knowledge of His existance.
I would also argue that when we speak in purely physical/mental terms, something must be wrong with atheists because the majority of modern man, as well as all of human history was theistic. This shows that theism is the normal state of mental health. Atheists are an abnormality/ anomoly. If evolution produced theism in the brain, then all atheists are mentally ill and need to get to their nearest mental health ficility as soon as possible. Evolution skipped over them. It would be like being born with one eye or a mutated head. Atheism is a genetic abnormality, if evolution is true.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
- Login to post comments
Offline Susan wrote:First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.
If evolution is true, that would be my back up. If we are still in the process of evolving, then in a million years the human brain will be better than it is now. Since it can be bettered, it is not perfect.
Oh my goodness.
Because the human brain could get better in the future, that doesn't mean it isn't in pretty darned good shape now.
Susan wrote:Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination.Precisely, that is why atheism is irrational because they cannot discern whether or not atheism is an objective truth, or a figment of their imagination using the primitive brains they have.
Ah hem! Now you are asserting that atheists have "primitive" brains. Hey, if atheists have them, so do theists. Hence, my argument stands for discerning the difference between a god and a figment.
No, let me explain this to you. All the atheist has to go by is the chunk of meat between his ears. But, according to evolution, our current "chunks" are only one of many transitional form brains. It is not perfect. It is headed for betterment. Therefore, the atheist cannot make any objective claims to anything given this fact alone.
Again, my argument stands. See my prior statements.
The theist however, does not believe in evolution so our current brains are as good as they are going to get. And theism is not a product of brain chemical secretions as atheism is. Theism is REVEALED truth. We are only receptors of this knowledge, much like a radio antenna. God has the perfect brain/ mind, and that is where we derive our knowledge of His existance.
So, because you don't believe in evolution and brains aren't going to get any better, you can tell the difference between an imaginary god whispering through that "chunk of meat" and an illusion?
Keep in mind (pun intended) that your belief does not physically cause an atheist to have a different type of brain than a theist.
"Transitional" doesn't mean what I'm guessing you think it means. My apologies if I misunderstand.
All living creatures are transitional because things can change a bit throughout generations.
Take, for instance, the Scottish Fold cat. (Yes, the cat lady in me is coming out!) The first Scottish Fold was found in 1961 (according to the article here) The folded ears are what we would scientifically call a genetic mutation because other cats don't have folded ears.
Through specific breeding guidelines (such as you cannot breed a folded eared cat to a folded eared cat, you must breed a folded eared cat to a straight eared cat with the recessive fold gene), there are now many Scottish Folds with lovely faces and gentle personalities.
That's kind of a "quick start" example of evolution.
I would also argue that when we speak in purely physical/mental terms, something must be wrong with atheists because the majority of modern man, as well as all of human history was theistic. This shows that theism is the normal state of mental health.
Ah, the argument of numbers. Just because a majority of people believe something doesn't make it true. How many years of history show that a majority held the position that slavery was just fine?
Atheists are an abnormality/ anomoly. If evolution produced theism in the brain, then all atheists are mentally ill and need to get to their nearest mental health ficility as soon as possible. Evolution skipped over them. It would be like being born with one eye or a mutated head. Atheism is a genetic abnormality, if evolution is true.
Oh come on now! Evolution produced theism in the brain? Since you don't believe the tiniest bit in evolution, I'm not even going to bother with that because now you're just being insulting when I've trying to have a civil conversation.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.
[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]
- Login to post comments
Offline If we are still in the process of evolving, then in a million years the human brain will be better than it is now. Since it can be bettered, it is not perfect.
By that notion, no birds should be capable of flight, since they all have imperfect wings.
No, let me explain this to you. All the atheist has to go by is the chunk of meat between his ears. But, according to evolution, our current "chunks" are only one of many transitional form brains. It is not perfect. It is headed for betterment.
You keep saying this, and we keep telling you that you've yet to argue the point. Being that you entire argument hinges on it, I would advise you to go about proving it before you even continue.
Therefore, the atheist cannot make any objective claims to anything given this fact alone.
Again, you need to prove the first part before you can draw any logical conclusions from it.
The theist however, does not believe in evolution so our current brains are as good as they are going to get.
A shame, really. Some of us could use a bit of improvement, I think.
I would also argue that when we speak in purely physical/mental terms, something must be wrong with atheists because the majority of modern man, as well as all of human history was theistic. This shows that theism is the normal state of mental health. Atheists are an abnormality/ anomoly. If evolution produced theism in the brain, then all atheists are mentally ill and need to get to their nearest mental health ficility as soon as possible. Evolution skipped over them. It would be like being born with one eye or a mutated head. Atheism is a genetic abnormality, if evolution is true.
First of all, atheism is not genetic. At all. Secondly, go take a psychology course. A basic one would be preferable, since you seem to have very little knowledge of the field.
- Login to post comments
Offline If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]
I guess so much for the "kill'em with kindness." Also, what is more moral? Being a good person, simply because it feels good to be good (like many atheists on these forums), or being good because you are afraid?
- Login to post comments
Offline I'll tell you what frightens me.
When an atheist hero like Sam Harris can say. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be eithical to kill people for believing them" (pages 52-53 TEOF) and his book still gets promoted on sites like this one.
Of course, practitioners of atheistic philosophies have tried things like this in the past, its just disconcerting to see it be a best seller without causing people to puke.
You're quoting out of context, here's what he actually said:
"Some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them. This may seem an extraordinary claim, but it merely enunciates an ordinary fact about the world we live. Certain beliefs place their adherents beyound the reach of very peaceful means of persuasion, while inspiring them to commit at of extraordinary violence against others. There is, in fact, no talking to some people. If they cannot be captured, and they often cannot, otherwise tolerant people may be justified in killing them in self-defense." Sam Harris - The End of Faith, p.52-53 (Emphasis added)
- Login to post comments
Offline If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]
Spumoni, you are periously close to getting a warning with this comment since this is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.
This type of post will not be tolerated in this forum a second time.
Please refer to this forum's rules and please watch your language and attitude here.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline For someone who claims rationalism you don't make much sense. Special pleading anyone?
- Login to post comments
Offline Just bear with me, I'm trying something new here.
Answer the following questions.
Okay, lets say that for whatever reason, you begin to have doubts about your faith. Does the idea that there is no God frighten you?
Why does it frighten you?
OR
Why does it NOT frighten you?
In my case, when I believe to doubt G_d's existence, I have some ridiculous experience thrown at me to up my "faith".
The thought of there being no G_d doesn't really frighten me. It may actually be a relief, since then I'd know that I must be insane, and would then be able to gain control of it. Of course, the last time I went through that train of thought, I was hit with a string of events that seemed almost to make fun of me and my attempts to rationalize it away.
Now that I come to think of it, the nonexistence of G_d wouldn't take away my primary problem of a large intertwined collection of experiences all pointing to some large, and presumably bad, future event of unknown scale which I either cause, am involved with, or effected by. Frustratingly vague and definite at the same time.
Without some sort of conscious entity behind it, it would be pretty safe for me to assume that I'm crazy, implying that said vague event will not occur, which would be good. I'd then be able to take advantage of my malfunctioning brain to study the defect, since it hasn't had negative effects on my logic.
To get more of a background on why I think this, take a look at my "Why I Believe" thread in "Atheist vs. Theist". Large claims require large amounts of evidence. My reason for posting it here is that there's a large amount of people here that are smart and actually take the time to think through posts. I'm hoping someone will be able to give me some insight into the whole situation.
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
- Login to post comments
Offline spumoni wrote:If God did not exist I would be afraid I'd turn into an elitist p***k like many atheists on these forums.[MOD EDIT - removed vulgar word per Kill 'Em With Kindness forum rules]
I guess so much for the "kill'em with kindness." Also, what is more moral? Being a good person, simply because it feels good to be good (like many atheists on these forums), or being good because you are afraid?
That's among my biggest pet peeves with the more illogical theists. Why do we need fear to keep us in line? Working for the betterment of society certainly doesn't require belief in some higher power that'll punish you for all eternity if you don't. (As a preemptive rebuttal, I'm aware that that isn't quite what Christianity teaches)
The sentence below is false.
The sentence above is true.
This sentence doesn't care.
- Login to post comments
Offline Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.
The flaw with this logic is that you assume that you do not share the same brain (in terms of evolutionary equipedness [spellcheck]) as the rest of us... which isn't the case. No matter how you cut it, you too are left with an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between your ears.
You assume that a being has bestowed upon you a great knowledge. However, since you share the same evolutionary traits as atheists, you too have an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between your ears, so maybe this knowledge isn't so perfect after all, eh?
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree with a previous posting that the emotional aspect of FEELING doubt is a very pointless pursuit, for a number of reasons: my feelings may have nothing to do with reality, my feelings of doubt may have nothing to do with whether God exists or not, my feelings of doubt may have nothing to do with God's faithfulness toward me (given that God's existence is not an issue).
So as far as the question is concerned the only way I can rationally answer the question is to restate it in proper terms, perhaps "Let's say you have reason to doubt the existence of God and therefore your faith is seen irrefutably as an irrational position. Does the idea that there is no God frighten you?
Why does it frighten you?
OR
Why does it NOT frighten you?
My answer to the old question would be that no, I would not be frightened by the idea that there is no God, for the reason that I don't care how I feel when I am considering rational issues and ideas.
My answer to the NEW question would be that no, I would not be frightened by the idea that there is no God, for the reason that I don't care how I feel when I am considering rational issues and ideas.
If it could be proved that God does not exist, and not simply refuting the evidence od God's existence, then I would drop my faith in God and Christ like a hot potato.
But you might insist, how would I FEEL about that? I might feel all sorts of things: for the most part I'd miss going to church because I like the comaraderie, I'd feel angry for believing a lie, I'd feel relieved for knowing the truth, and since at that point all we would have is knowledge I would feel compelled to pursue knowledge for the sake of survival.
I would become a die-hard atheist. But until such a time as irrefutable evidence becomes known, then the most I could hope to ascribe to in this scenario would be agnosticism, which I have concluded is the more reasonable of the two positions, given that there is no human way to come to the knowledge of all things unless one thinks as time as eternal which doesn't help because you never reach the end of time therefore you never reach the end of knowledge.
And the economy of agnosticism must account for the possibility of evidence to swing in one direction or the other. I am personally convinced of the evidence for the existence of God, and some are not. Fair enough.
Thank you for raising this question, because it has shown me the importance of understanding the position of many who have abandoned faith in God based on feelings and/or the perceptions.
This may be more than you asked for, but it is what it is.
- Login to post comments
Offline Thank you, DBoone, for getting the thread back on track.
Is there anyone else that would like to take a stab at the questions in the OP?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Login to post comments
Offline Thank you, DBoone, for getting the thread back on track.
Is there anyone else that would like to take a stab at the questions in the OP?
STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB STAB
(Well ... it is KILL them with kindness ...)
- Login to post comments
Offline There is one set of fears that I have noticed in a lot of wavering theists.
Its not so much a fear of death or a fear of spiritual void in their lives. The predominant fear seems to be much more practical and dare I say it prideful. Its the fear of humiliation, the fear of having to go back on what one has said, of eating ones own word, of having to admit that you where spectacularly wrong about it all.
The more they have debated and evangelised the greater this fear actually is. In my opinion this is the very purpose of evangelising. It is not to actually win over "new souls" it is to install an absolute terror of humiliation in the person evangelising. If one has argued passionatly and loudly spread the word for countless hours how great would the fear of humilation be if one where to then reject everything one had previously said? That would be a very very hard thing to do.This fear is something I have seen in many theists.
- Login to post comments
Offline There is one set of fears that I have noticed in a lot of wavering theists.
Its not so much a fear of death or a fear of spiritual void in their lives. The predominant fear seems to be much more practical and dare I say it prideful. Its the fear of humiliation, the fear of having to go back on what one has said, of eating ones own word, of having to admit that you where spectacularly wrong about it all.
The more they have debated and evangelised the greater this fear actually is. In my opinion this is the very purpose of evangelising. It is not to actually win over "new souls" it is to install an absolute terror of humiliation in the person evangelising. If one has argued passionatly and loudly spread the word for countless hours how great would the fear of humilation be if one where to then reject everything one had previously said? That would be a very very hard thing to do.This fear is something I have seen in many theists.
I think you make a very good point in your post, but I would argue that it's not just a "one way street.
The fact is that many posters on BOTH "sides of the aisle" enjoy posting bold statements about Heaven - or Hell - is Jesus real or is He a Myth - etc when, in fact, they really don't know. They have an opinion and that's all they have.
In some instances, the opinion is shared by educated people, and sometimes the poster - whether he be a theist or an atheist - will provide links to this other educated person, for example, as if the link to his name / work suddenly makes the opinion a fact.
Here's a FACT - unless somebody has actually died and "visited" Heaven / Hell during their "death" and then came back to life and could prove that they visited Heaven / Hell, then NONE of us know SQUAT about this subject.
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between somebody whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody that ulness they repent and start believing in the Bible - literally - they're going to burn in Hell and the other person whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody who leads a decent and moral life, but who happens to have faith and believe in the message that Jesus left us 2,000 years ago somehow suffers from some kind of a "mind disorder".
From my perspective, upon their deaths, I hope both groups end up together in some kind of "limbo" or purgatory where they can debate and spout their nonsense for all eternity.
- Login to post comments
Offline evil religion wrote:There is one set of fears that I have noticed in a lot of wavering theists.
Its not so much a fear of death or a fear of spiritual void in their lives. The predominant fear seems to be much more practical and dare I say it prideful. Its the fear of humiliation, the fear of having to go back on what one has said, of eating ones own word, of having to admit that you where spectacularly wrong about it all.
The more they have debated and evangelised the greater this fear actually is. In my opinion this is the very purpose of evangelising. It is not to actually win over "new souls" it is to install an absolute terror of humiliation in the person evangelising. If one has argued passionatly and loudly spread the word for countless hours how great would the fear of humilation be if one where to then reject everything one had previously said? That would be a very very hard thing to do.This fear is something I have seen in many theists.
I think you make a very good point in your post, but I would argue that it's not just a "one way street.
The fact is that many posters on BOTH "sides of the aisle" enjoy posting bold statements about Heaven - or Hell - is Jesus real or is He a Myth - etc when, in fact, they really don't know. They have an opinion and that's all they have.
Opinion is all any of has have about most things. The trick in determining between "good" opinnions (beleifs) and "bad" ones is whether one can justify ones opinions. I can justify all my opinions on God. I have yet to see a theist do the same.
In some instances, the opinion is shared by educated people, and sometimes the poster - whether he be a theist or an atheist - will provide links to this other educated person, for example, as if the link to his name / work suddenly makes the opinion a fact.
It could do. But in most cases the opinion would simply have some justfication behind it. The term "fact" should only really apply when it is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the weight of justfication is great enough for any reasonable person to say "yes this is a fact".
Here's a FACT - unless somebody has actually died and "visited" Heaven / Hell during their "death" and then came back to life and could prove that they visited Heaven / Hell, then NONE of us know SQUAT about this subject.
No this is an opinion. It is not a fact. I know plenty about the likelyhood of heaven and hell .All we know of phsyics and science tells us that such places simply do not exist hence my opinion on the matter is justfied. The theist position is not justfied in any way.
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between somebody whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody that ulness they repent and start believing in the Bible - literally - they're going to burn in Hell and the other person whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody who leads a decent and moral life, but who happens to have faith and believe in the message that Jesus left us 2,000 years ago somehow suffers from some kind of a "mind disorder".From my perspective, upon their deaths, I hope both groups end up together in some kind of "limbo" or purgatory where they can debate and spout their nonsense for all eternity.
I hope that we all go to heaven and we all live in eternal bliss. I hope that we carry on after we die. I hope that I will again get to see my friends and loved ones who have died. I really do hope this.
But "hope" does not make it any more true. All the facts about the world would indicate that such hopes are completely unfounded. Hence I don't worry myself about wishing for the impossible its a waste of time.
- Login to post comments
Offline Opinion is all any of has have about most things. The trick in determining between "good" opinnions (beleifs) and "bad" ones is whether one can justify ones opinions. I can justify all my opinions on God. I have yet to see a theist do the same.
If you've yet to see a theist do the same, then you've not "seen" the right theists.
In some instances, the opinion is shared by educated people, and sometimes the poster - whether he be a theist or an atheist - will provide links to this other educated person, for example, as if the link to his name / work suddenly makes the opinion a fact.
It could do. But in most cases the opinion would simply have some justfication behind it. The term "fact" should only really apply when it is beyond reasonable doubt i.e. the weight of justfication is great enough for any reasonable person to say "yes this is a fact".
Here's a FACT - unless somebody has actually died and "visited" Heaven / Hell during their "death" and then came back to life and could prove that they visited Heaven / Hell, then NONE of us know SQUAT about this subject.
No this is an opinion. It is not a fact. I know plenty about the likelyhood of heaven and hell .All we know of phsyics and science tells us that such places simply do not exist hence my opinion on the matter is justfied. The theist position is not justfied in any way.
Science and physics deal with the "natural" world - "Heaven and Hell" don't reside in the "natural" world . These "regions" are beyond their jurisdiction.
A phyicist could no more scientifically "prove or disprove" the existence of Heaven than a dentist could measure the weight of pride - or the density of anger - or the length of hate.
They're out of their field.
Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between somebody whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody that ulness they repent and start believing in the Bible - literally - they're going to burn in Hell and the other person whose sole purpose in life is to convince everybody who leads a decent and moral life, but who happens to have faith and believe in the message that Jesus left us 2,000 years ago somehow suffers from some kind of a "mind disorder".
From my perspective, upon their deaths, I hope both groups end up together in some kind of "limbo" or purgatory where they can debate and spout their nonsense for all eternity.
I hope that we all go to heaven and we all live in eternal bliss. I hope that we carry on after we die. I hope that I will again get to see my friends and loved ones who have died. I really do hope this.
But "hope" does not make it any more true. All the facts about the world would indicate that such hopes are completely unfounded. Hence I don't worry myself about wishing for the impossible its a waste of time.
I agree with you - hoping for something doesn't make it true, but sometimes...Hell, I hoped for many, many years to see the Red Sox win the World Series in my lifetime.
Sometimes hope is rewarded..!!
- Login to post comments
I have to say, I laughed rather heartily at the phrase "fully evolved."
Yeah, there is no such thing as "fully evolved." That's the faulty assumption
Well first of all, actually it is science, and it doesn't need my opinion to support it. Spend an hour with the FAQs on talkorigins.com if you don't believe me.
Secondly this argument is in the form of a fallacy called a dicto simpliciter. In effect this argument is saying that, because an opinion *might* be wrong, it *must* be wrong (and, by extension, all opinions are necessarily wrong). Give me a break.
For the complete logical positivist argument on why logic/reason works, go read Todangst's essay in the FAQs on this site. It's not my field, but I can tell you that the argument is valid.
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
This should probably go in a different thread.
If it's the amount of genes, the common potato has us beaten by far. I tend to look at it from a programming perspective. With the potato plant you have a big program that does something fairly simple. With us you have a tight, well debugged (thank you evolution!) program that is capable of writing programs. I love it when metaphors come full circle like that.
Works for "fully evolved human," in that what your refferring to is not one of its ancestors.
Vestat, on an evolutionary scale, our brains are nothing but a transitional form brain. Transitioning to something better. Therefore, since our brains are currently imperfect, the belief in atheism must also be imperfect. This does not create a problem for the theist because 1. we don't accept evolution and 2. God, not our brains, is the source of our theism.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
1. There is no such thing as a "transitional" organ. It's a misnomer. Just because something is always changing and improving does not indicate a faultiness to begin with. For example, if X evolves into Y, then it is not at all a necessary conclusion that X was faulty, nor is it a necessary conclusion that Y is faulty because it will later evolve into Z. Were X faulty, it would not have evolved into anything at all. It would have simply disappeared.
2. There is no such thing as a perfect brain. Perfection does not exist in reality. Perfect isn't really even, as far as I am aware, a coherent term.
3. Not all theists reject evolution. Stop saying we do.
4. If evolution is wrong, then God must also be the source for atheism (along with all forms of theism), since everything must come from him.
If evolution is true, then our current state of humanity is nothing but a transitional form in evolutionary development. Are you suggesting that the rest of your body is in transition except your brain? On what basis do you derive that conclusion? Since, as you state, there is no such thing as a perfect brain, then logically our current brains are imperfect. My whole argument has been that if evolution is true, then atheism is the product of an imperfect brain, and everyone is agreed that our brains are imperfect. Second, you don't even have any right commenting, thinking and arguing against my argument because according to your own notion, the brain is imperfect. Since it is imperfect, on what basis do you even trust your thoughts?
Fallacy of false analogy because 1. X is not identicle to Y. The evolutionary hypothesis is that our current brains are inferior to the brains we will one day have. But your analogy places X and Y on equal footing. That is why its is a false analogy. Second, everything you have said is nothing but the reasoning from an imperfect brain. I still wonder why evolutionists even trust their thoughts. Imperfect brains produce imperfect reasoning. This presents no problem for the theist because 1. we reject evolution and 2. God is the source our our reasoning and He has perfect mind.
That's like an ameba saying there's no such thing as humans. Have you observed that there is no such thing as a perfect brain? Or is that merely your underlying presupposition? How can an imperfect brain possibly know anything about the nature of anything?
Atheism, like darkness, is nothing but an absence of God and light. God does not produce atheism anymore then light produces darkness.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
Transition does not mean "not fully functional." A model-T Ford is not "imperfect" just because the 2007 Mustang kicks its ass in just about every way.
No. If perfection does not exist, then "imperfect" is a meaningless term.
Again, "imperfect" is a meaningless term. Also, you've yet to demonstrate that an "imperfect" or "improveable" brain cannot reason properly.
No it doesn't. If Y replaces X, it is (very likely) only because Y is superior to X. They are not on equal footing any more than the aforementioned Model-T and 2007 Mustang.
The italicized portion is an assertion that you've yet to argue for. What proof have you that "imperfect" brains produce "imperfect" reasoning?
Again, stop lumping all theists together. We don't all reject evolution.
Again, you've yet to show that "perfect" and "imperfect" are even coherent terms. Something that isn't coherent cannot exist in objective reality.
If your god is a light, and he's supposed to be omnipresent, then atheism shouldn't exist at all. There should be no "darkness" if the light is everywhere.
You are pre-supposing perfection as a goal, when evolution does not have any goal except the survival of that which it works upon. Therefore your premise is unsavably flawed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Imprefect brains produce imperfect knowledge. This presents no problem for me because God is the source of my knowledge and He has perfect mind, wisdom and knowledge. But the atheist is left with only an imperfect transitional state chunk of meat between his ears.
The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator -- Louis Pasteur
It must be the result of my imperfect brain that I question why a perfect brain impowered by a perfect God would be introducing the soil of discrimination rather than reducing the fertility of it.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
An assertion you've yet to support with argument.
First, you assert we have imperfect brains, but provide nothing to back up the argument.
Second, if humans have imperfect transitional chunk of meat brains, a human would be unable to discern the difference between a god and a figment of their own imagination.
Either way, you lose your own argument.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
I'll tell you what frightens me.
When an atheist hero like Sam Harris can say. "Some propositions are so dangerous that it may be eithical to kill people for believing them" (pages 52-53 TEOF) and his book still gets promoted on sites like this one.
Of course, practitioners of atheistic philosophies have tried things like this in the past, its just disconcerting to see it be a best seller without causing people to puke.
People who believe in God--may not all agree what God is. 10 people may say they believe in God--but they all may have a different definition/explanation of what God is. Therefore, on the surface it seems they are in some sort of agreement--but depending on their beliefs about God--there may actually be spaces of disagreement between each of these 10 as there are between any one of them and an atheist.
So, I'd like to pose the question: IF you belive in God--how would you define that God? And if you DON'T believe in God--how would you define what it is you don't believe in.
Perhaps, some who do believe in God also wouldn't believe in the God as defined by some atheists.
Be well & happy,
Barrie
Indeed, which becomes quite annoying when certain theists try to use this appearance of great numbers in order to justify pushing their ridiculous political agendas.
My God is a fruit smoothie.
How on earth do you define what you don't believe in? I think it's safe to say that there is not just one God that atheists don't believe in. They happen to not believe in all of them, or so I've been led to believe.
Well, if they define God as non-existent, then it would be rather hard to believe in, no? On the other hand, I have met a person who believes in a non-existent Goddess. I must say I admire him greatly.