Tags
Atheism, Atheist, Atheists, Belief, God, Monicks, Necessity of Atheism, Percy Bysshe Shelley, quote, Religion and Spirituality, secular
If he is infinitely good, what reason should we have to fear him?
If he is infinitely wise, why should we have doubts concerning our future?
If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?
If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?
If he is just, why fear that he will punish the creatures that he has filled with weaknesses?
If grace does everything for them, what reason would he have for recompensing them?
If he is all-powerful, how offend him, how resist him?
If he is reasonable, how can he be angry at the blind, to whom he has given the liberty of being unreasonable?
If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?
If he is inconceivable, why occupy ourselves with him?
If he has spoken, why is the universe not convinced?
If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?
— Percy Bysshe Shelley, The Necessity of Atheism
.
tylerjourneaux said:
hrm.. I wonder if I’m beginning to bore anyone not willing to think logically.. I’m not trying to antagonize you or other atheists by commenting in the way I do, but I find it hard to resist saying something reasonable as a response to such naked rhetoric.
This entire quote represents the worst kind of rhetoric, i.e., empty and distracting. Take for instance “If he is everywhere, why erect temples to him?” Isn’t it obvious that people erect temples to him as a religious instinct to set aside a place where ‘we’ encounter him rather than the other way around?
“If he knows all, why warn him of our needs and fatigue him with our prayers?” The simplest answer is that it is good for us to – Now, even if he didn’t answer prayers, and something like Deism were true, still so long as it were psychologically to our benefit, it would be good, and we would have justification enough. That said, there are good reasons to think that God desires that inter-action and answers prayers, etc.
Ok, let’s skip to the most serious: “If he is immovable, by what right do we pretend to make him change his decrees?” This was something like Aristotle’s objection to prayer, and it has been addressed recently by Pope Benedict XVI pretty brilliantly. In any case, I won’t appeal to his answer, as it is a little too sophisticated for this forum. Instead, I can just explain that God’s being metaphysically immovable doesn’t prevent prayer from being causally efficacious if God is outside of Time, seeing as at time t1 God relates to the world in such a way that he will not realize ‘X’, whereas at some other time, call it t2, God relates to the world differently such that he will realize ‘X’ not because God has changed, but because the world has changed in some relevant way insofar as God actualizing ‘X’ is concerned. In one sense, C.S. Lewis had it right when he said that prayer changes us, not God, and it is only in terms of anthropomorphic tropes that we can say ‘prayer can change God’.
Oh, and I can’t resist: “If the knowledge of a God is the most necessary, why is it not the most evident and the clearest?” it seems to me Leibniz, Bonaventure, Anselm, Augustine, etc were right – it is the most evident. Aquinas was also right that just because it is self-evident doesn’t mean it is evident to people who don’t yet have their head properly wrapped around the idea.
beverly arnold said:
You are such a condescending bullshit artist that you bemuse me by your “trying to sound sophisticated and intelligent” meaningless rhetoric. Thanks for the laugh.
Steven said:
The “t1” and “t2” argument assume a linear model of time. This is not the case.
Karl Malone Endab said:
The future will tell.
Anowanul Kabir said:
The answer to all the questions listed in the article above is: “Because He (God) is an imaginary and non-existent asshole and his followers are even bigger assholes”
Anowanul Kabir said:
@tylerjourneaux Nothing about God is evident. Bible has been proven false. Creation has been proven to be a myth and nope God didn’t create us as modern science tells us we evolved from monkeys. Even your beloved Roman Catholic church now believes in Evolution LMFAO! Also, there are more than 90000 religions and their gods in the world. If God’s knowledge was evident, there would not have been so many religions. By the way do you even realize that you yes you don’t have even a shred of evidence for the existence of this thing called God that you claim you know so much about?
But I agree…the question about building temples was a dumb one
tylerjourneaux said:
I wonder about the wisdom of answering you… Oh whatever, I’m a sucker.
First, the question about building temples was only just as dumb as most of the others by my estimation – but I am amused that you make that concession at the end of your post, as though you couldn’t help yourself from thinking about it. Also, as far as what I mean by God, you seem to think that I use the term as though it designated the object of worship according to a single religious tradition, entailing that some religion were true iff God existed. Notice that that’s far from what I said. If you would like a real definition of God, see my blog post on Atheistic polytheism, or others. I define God the same way all theists, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Deistic, Jewish or other have defined him “The maximally great necessarily existing ultimate reality” – or my preferred succinct definition from Anselm of Cantebury “That than which nothing greater can be conceived.”
With that definition of God in mind, it isn’t very difficult to see that the enterprise of Natural Theology (a philosophical sub-discipline in the philosophy of religion, which aims to demonstrate by reason alone that ‘God’ exists, and that we might be able to know some of his attributes, such as incontingency) is rife with arguments demonstrating just that. From the Cosmological arguments, to Teleological arguments, to arguments from Reason, to arguments from consciousness, Modal Ontological arguments etc. Obviously these arguments still carry much weight today, and I, for one, believe that they succeed in proving the existence of God as defined above (though that doesn’t do as much as religious people sometimes pretend). As a philosopher, I find it revolting how dismissive your attitude (though you’re not alone, and I don’t hold it against you or your character) is towards clear open and critical thinking.
As to your comments about the Bible, evolution, and the Catholic Church – I suppose I don’t need to point out again that these are absolutely irrelevant to the issue. However, because I’m a sucker, I feel the need to inform you that the Catholic Church doesn’t officially endorse evolution as a dogma (since it isn’t a matter of faith or morality) but rather has argued that models of evolution are compatible with Catholic dogma and with the Bible. This was done in Pope Pius XII’s encyclical “Humani Generis”. I very much agree, but obviously Catholics can legitimately disagree on this matter. For example, Robert Sungenis is a young earth creationist, Michael Behe is a champion of Intelligent Design (although he does accept the basic evolutionary account of the origin of all species including our own) and Pope Benedict XVI has suggested a Teilhard de Chardin type model of evolution which makes him a strong theistic evolutionist; all three of them are Catholics. These disagreements are completely legitimate. Moreover, science has only demonstrated to nearly everyone’s reasonable satisfaction that evolution is true, but proof is beyond the scope of science in principle, since proofs follow deductively such that to fail to accept them is to fail to be ‘rational’ in the strict philosophical sense. However, the premises leading to the conclusion that evolution is true are empirical and not rational (not that they are irrational, they are just not strictly ‘rational’ in the way the proposition “A is not not-A” is rational).
Karl Withakay said:
tylerjourneaux,
It’s always disappointing to see the response of “you’re all so unsophisticated, you just can’t understand my sophisticated theology” which is then followed by extremely unsophisticated and simplistic “reasoning”.
“Isn’t it obvious that people erect temples to him as a religious instinct to set aside a place where ‘we’ encounter him rather than the other way around?”
No, it is not obvious. If god exists and is everywhere, then we encounter him and his glory everywhere we go. It would seem unnecessary to erect monuments to him that must necessarily pail in comparison to everything he has created. We shouldn’t need a reminder that he supposedly exists or require a special, human made place to worship him in. It seems more obvious that the temples and churches are for people who either need a reminder he supposedly exists or require some special place to feel in contact/communion with him because that feeling of connectedness/ communion is missing from god’s own creation.
“The simplest answer is that it is good for us to – Now, even if he didn’t answer prayers, and something like Deism were true, still so long as it were psychologically to our benefit, it would be good, and we would have justification enough.”
This implies that whether or not god exists or actually answers prayers, the belief that god exists and cares about us is psychologically beneficial. Please explain the difference between Santa Clause and god, and between your god verses anyone else’s god.
“That said, there are good reasons to think that God desires that inter-action and answers prayers, etc.”
Way to assert without providing any support whatsoever. That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Do you have any evidence to provide other than the assorting writings of a small middle eastern tribe from several thousand years ago?
Your elaborate and mostly nonsensical paragraph on changing god’s mind without changing god’s mind isn’t even good science fiction. Perhaps you’d care to provide a link to Pope Ratzinger’s more sophisticated rationalization for us. Perhaps he can sensibly and reasonably explain why the puppy must beg for its supper in spite of its master’s perfect knowledge of its state of hunger.
So knowledge of god is self evident except for those for whom it is not evident? Brilliant! I love the sophisticate theology!
The naturalistic nature of the universe is self evident except for those for whom it is not evident.
tylerjourneaux said:
I apologize for my frustration, which leads me to charge many people of unsophisticated reasoning. Instead, I will treat your response as an intelligent sophisticated response, and respond on that assumption.
Concerning Temples, I think perhaps you would do well to pay closer attention to the psychology of religion and simply reflect on religion as a human phenomenon. Quite apart from whether God exists or not, it is sensible for a society which has developed religion to set aside a particular place designated for that purpose, just as there is good reason for setting aside places of education and so on. If building a temple is something we as a human community do to honor God, then the building isn’t really for him (except in some anthropomorphic-teleological sense) but rather the building is for us. Building a temple is in no way a testament, explicit or implicit, that the object of one’s devotion is not omnipresent.
You make an interesting point here: “It seems more obvious that the temples and churches are for people who either need a reminder he supposedly exists or require some special place to feel in contact/communion with him because that feeling of connectedness/ communion is missing from god’s own creation.”
The problem of the lack of connectedness we have with this apparently omnipresent dynamic and interactive God is a serious one – one which Christianity answers by appeal to the fall of mankind. Without something similar to this kind of theological answer, the question posed makes an excellent point.
“This implies that whether or not god exists or actually answers prayers, the belief that god exists and cares about us is psychologically beneficial. Please explain the difference between Santa Clause and god, and between your god verses anyone else’s god.”
One difference might be that ‘God’, at least as I mean the term, refers to something which no religious mythology has any monopoly on. Indeed, it seems to me that Theism in this sense is trans-religious, and it is also at times non-religious. Moreover, that’s besides the obvious, that ‘God’ is qualitatively different from any finite thing, such as Zeus, Santa Clause, a rock, or whatever other finite (or more exactly contingent) thing we might consider. However, it seems to me that you are right to say that even if God doesn’t exist it might be healthy to pray – though Clifford would adamantly disagree, and his argument deserves careful attention I think. However, my point was that if something like Aristotle’s theology is true, then even if God doesn’t answer prayers, it is still perhaps good for man to pray.
“Way to assert without providing any support whatsoever. That which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. Do you have any evidence to provide other than the assorting writings of a small middle eastern tribe from several thousand years ago?”
I was assuming familiarity with arguments in the philosophy of religion for and against prayer…. Let’s see.. let me just pull out some books here. Ok, you can check out “God is creative-Responsive Love” written by John B. Cobb and David Ray Griffin in the fourth Edition of “Philosophy of Religion: Selected Readings” Edited by Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach and David Basinger. You might also want to read Eleonore Stump’s article “Petitionary Prayer” p.353 of “Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions” Edited by Eleonore Stump and Michael J. Murray. Forgive my laziness, but I don’t have time to rehearse all of their points in a comment on somebody else’s blog where it seems unlikely to be taken seriously – if you are worth taking seriously, then I hope you will take seriously the invitation to read such arguments in the philosophy of religion. That, however, is up to you, and I’m sorry again that I did not provide a plethora of arguments for my assertion; I should not have assumed familiarity with my narrow field of interest.
“Your elaborate and mostly nonsensical paragraph on changing god’s mind without changing god’s mind isn’t even good science fiction.”
First, that seems like a very personal attack, and I’m not sure I appreciate it, but either way I take it that there’s no ‘argumentative’ value to it so I hope you’ll excuse me if I fail to answer to it.
“Perhaps you’d care to provide a link to Pope Ratzinger’s more sophisticated rationalization for us. Perhaps he can sensibly and reasonably explain why the puppy must beg for its supper in spite of its master’s perfect knowledge of its state of hunger.”
Sure, though the reason I hadn’t provided it the first time around is that I wasn’t sure where to find it again :P. However, I rolled up my sleeves and found it in a book of mine. I also found the section of the book available to read a preview of on Google books. Perhaps you’ll appreciate Benedict’s treatment more than my very succinct treatment here (though as a point in my defense, I am convinced that my reasoning there is valid and sound – even if not as clear as it would have been had I been more patient and developed more fully). http://books.google.ca/books?id=RWoj9jM2I1gC&pg=PA160&lpg=PA160&dq=Benedict+XVI+answer+to+Aristotle+on+prayer&source=bl&ots=5zukawm40n&sig=gmoU3emFHEB8rQCh6i9BrsrIrjo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=V8n8TqjMJ6bN0AGKtZXWAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Well, happy reading.
Finally,
“So knowledge of god is self evident except for those for whom it is not evident? Brilliant! I love the sophisticate theology!
The naturalistic nature of the universe is self evident except for those for whom it is not evident.”
I think you underestimate Aquinas, which is a little laughable (Come on, even if I am to take you seriously, what kind of intelligent person is that dismissive of Aquinas? – only the one who hasn’t read him). Aquinas was saying that even if a thing is self-evident, (meaning it cannot be thought without being thought to be true) doesn’t mean that it is evident to a person who cannot think it truly. One can imagine the same being true of: all the angles of the corners of the inside of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. However, a child might not recognize that, and others may not recognize it either. Only somebody who is familiar with the idea realizes that it is self-evident. If you wish to read Aquinas here, check out: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Karl Withakay said:
Concerning temples, I was mostly just replying to your ““Isn’t it obvious that people erect temples to him as a religious instinct to set aside a place where ‘we’ encounter him rather than the other way around?” comment rather than trying to support the original temples comment.
“However, it seems to me that you are right to say that even if God doesn’t exist it might be healthy to pray”
I am most emphatically NOT stating that anymore than I am saying it is beneficial for an adult to believe in and send mail to Santa Clause. I was merely stating the implications of your position, which really has nothing to do with whether or not any god actually exists.
“I was assuming familiarity with arguments in the philosophy of religion for and against prayer…”
No, you were assuming assumption that those arguments were what you were resting on for support. I was hoping you had something better to offer. We were both mistaken. You continued and thinly veiled condescension is not particularly appreciated.
The Pope’s position on prayer is no more compelling than yours, and the text linked to focuses almost entirely on defending again Aristotle’s position rather than really supporting his position per se. It seems he believes that he has refuted the Aristotelian position (which he also seems to assume is the only serious argument against his position) and that refutation proves that god can and does answer prayers.
I’m not being dismissive of Aquinas, I’m being dismissive of the idea you presented, as you presented it. Who originated that idea is of no consequence whether it was Aquinas, Einstein, etc. It is still special pleading, to which you have added argument from authority. The angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees; we know this because it has been empirically measured and observed to be true, not because it is inherently obvious. Your position essentially is still that knowledge of god is self evident for anyone for whom it is self evident (for those knowledgeable enough to recognize it, perhaps). But the whole point is that if god exists, and it’s most important and beneficial to know that, then god’s existence should be most obvious and evident to anyone for whom it is necessary and needed, not just those enlightened enough to recognize it. You have not addressed or refuted this point.
Also, I just add a point here that when discussing theology or religion with anyone, whether theist or atheist, I try to never assume any point, position, support, or reference that they themselves do not make. It is folly to assume any argument or support for such that you do not explicitly make, and it is folly for you to assume I will assume such either. The broad spectrum and lack of uniformity of positions across various people of various degrees of faith has lead me to try to avoid wasting time arguing against an assumed potion that the other side may not actually have. You seem to assume that I should assume what you feel supports your position, or that those sources are so universally and unquestionably accepted as to not need citing as support for your position, which would be folly.
For you to say “I was assuming familiarity with arguments in the philosophy of religion for and against prayer…” leads me to suspect that you have not discussed or argued theology with people of differing positions from yourself much or that you are just not very good at it. In the context of our discussion, I only care about other people’s positions if you explicitly cite them as your support for your positions. I don’t intend to waste time burning straw men or tilting at wind mills on purpose.
By the way, since it seems you’ve departed from discussing a Christian/Judeo-Christian god to discussing a more deistic (and supposedly logically derived) belief in god, I have to ask, why the use of masculine personal pronouns? I used masculine personal pronouns because that is what you were using, and it reflects the masculine bias of the male dominated religions of the world. Why continue to use language that perpetuates the misogynist concept that a god must necessarily be masculine if you’re arguing for some logically derived belief in a god rather than some scripture derived belief? Is your god logically revealed to be masculine?
tylerjourneaux said:
Right, in reverse order then. First, I take it that masculine pronouns when applied to God are, first of all, a convenient standard, and second theologically justified. I think that if one believes that Masculinity and Femininity (as distinct from maleness or femaleness) exist really in the world, and express a kind of cosmic complimentarity, then human bodies being male or female are just tokens of that reality. Moreover, if one is trinitarian, one can see God as not just trans-sexual, but super-sexual, since masculinity and femininity are rooted in him. Finally, I am adamant about masculine pronouns because according to this view of cosmic sexuality, God relative to creation is always masculine, and creation feminine – thus all mankind, male or female, is always called by feminine pronouns in the Bible when they relate to God. One could alternatively say that people projected notions of gender on to creation, so that one could say that calling the moon or sea feminine, or saying ‘mother nature’ instead of father nature, was just a psychological consequence of socially constructed categories, but I am no longer inclined to this view after hearing arguments which compelled me towards a more classical option.
I apologize again for not having provided arguments from the beginning. To be honest, I never intended to dedicate so much time on somebody else’s blog to begin with, therefore I was just making the comment in passing… It seems I keep getting sucked in. 😛 Moreover, notice that I didn’t say that it was beyond question that prayer can be efficacious, but only that there were good arguments for it.
As to how seriously I engage people on issues of theology or philosophy, I don’t think I need to look very far for some credentials here, and I wouldn’t mind doing the same with you. You are most free to come to my blog and I’m sure we can have all kinds of disagreements which I would be more inclined to take seriously.
Concerning self-evidence of God: notice that I didn’t refute your point, but accepted it, and then provided a reasonable answer to it by appealing to a doctrine of the fall. This, at least, is how Christianity answers this question. If you see some way in which this doesn’t resolve the issue, then please do share it.
You say: “No, you were assuming assumption that those arguments were what you were resting on for support.”
I must admit, I have stared at this sentence for a while, but I just don’t know what you mean. Perhaps you can clarify? If I can take a guess, maybe you meant that I was assuming that it could be assumed that these arguments provided backing for my statement? That would be fair, but I should probably be more careful about the way I last responded: I should have said that my assumption was that people were familiar with these arguments or else could, without considerable difficulty, become familiar with them if they had bothered to look for them. However, again, I’ve apologized for this passing remark which wasn’t careful on my part – I should have either given sources, or else not said anything, and I certainly should not have assumed familiarity with these arguments I had in mind, as most people, especially on blogs such as this, haven’t a clue, and that’s fair enough. Also;
“Your continued and thinly veiled condescension is not particularly appreciated.”
I apologize, I have been condescending in part, and this is probably thanks to my frustration with people who cannot take good arguments seriously. Perhaps this will be one of the last times I post on this blog – I’m tired of encountering rude and arrogant interlocutors who are constantly dismissive of me, as though my intelligence were significantly inferior to theirs. I put a lot of work into my positions philosophically and theologically, and I treat comments, such as the one we’re currently commenting on in this thread, as serious statements which deserve attention. I apologize to you if I have seemed condescending to you – though there can be no excuse for this behavior, do you think perhaps you might have made my time easier if you were not so dismissive? That’s just a thought, and NOT a criticism of you. I hope in future that if you decide to respond again, and continue conversation with me, the tone of it might be more cordial.
If Benedict’s treatment wasn’t found to be convincing, then that’s interesting to me, I should perhaps re-read him and then ask you for your careful criticisms, so that I can think about it, and perhaps it would make good inspiration for a future blog-post of mine. However, I do think he’s right that Aristotle’s objection is a great candidate for the most serious objection to the efficacy of prayer in the history of philosophy.
Concerning the Temple remark, that’s fair enough.
Concerning prayer if God did not exist – I should have said:
“However, it seems to me that you are right to say that even if God doesn’t exist it might be healthy to pray – according to the logic of my position.”
Oh, finally, I simply cannot let this one go as a point of philosophy – that a triangle’s angles add up to 180 degrees is not something known by empirical observation, or even if it is it isn’t the kind of thing which requires empirical observation. Man can come to know this once they understand adequately what a triangle is by rational intuition, in just the same way that they can realize that a triangle has three angles. In this debate between Empiricists (like Hume) and Rationalists (like Leibniz) I side with the rationalists; I think some things are discoverable by the human mind through intuition, and they do not ‘arise’ from experience alone, or experience in the strictest sense. However, I’d have to explain Rationalism to you to make that make sense – Are you well read at all on this controversy, or have you ever spent time studying the Rationalist philosophers (Malebranche, Anne Conway, Leibniz, Spinoza, Descartes, Henry More, etc)?
Poly Atheist (@polyatheist) said:
tylerjourneaux,
You are a condescending wanker.
Either prove YOUR god exists, or stop pretending you have something that is unavailable to those who don’t share your deluded wish thinking.
tylerjourneaux said:
Thank you, that’s helpful. 😛
Karl Withakay said:
“Concerning self-evidence of God: notice that I didn’t refute your point, but accepted it, and then provided a reasonable answer to it by appealing to a doctrine of the fall. This, at least, is how Christianity answers this question. If you see some way in which this doesn’t resolve the issue, then please do share it.”
Wow, are you seriously invoking the biblical account of the fall at the same time you have been arguing a logically derived deistic belief in a god? Is that actually your position (the fall is why god’s existence is no longer self evident to all humans), or are you just throwing it out without actually claiming it as your position, because it’s not really clear.
“and I certainly should not have assumed familiarity with these arguments I had in mind, as most people, especially on blogs such as this, haven’t a clue, and that’s fair enough.”
You almost seemed to grasp my point earlier in that paragraph and then apparently missed it entirely. Even if you knew your audience was fully familiar with those arguments, why should they assume you are claiming those particular arguments for support when you didn’t reference them? I’ve heard numerous people make very much the same statements as you have, and many of them have claimed completely different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) support for their positions.
“I apologize, I have been condescending in part, and this is probably thanks to my frustration with people who cannot take good arguments seriously.”
That’s the most disingenuous apology I’ve heard in a long time. You didn’t even wait until the next sentence to continue the condescension for which you were purporting to apologize for, a condescension that reeks in nearly every paragraph you wrote.
“I apologize to you if I have seemed condescending to you – though there can be no excuse for this behavior, do you think perhaps you might have made my time easier if you were not so dismissive? ”
Again, couldn’t you at least wait until the next sentence before you show your insincerity? You should have ended with a full stop period after “behavior”.
In response to your question, I seriously doubt it. You don’t seem to be able or willing to not show the obvious contempt you hold for those you appear to consider your intellectual inferiors. I could respond with the same degree of veiled contempt and arrogance as you have, or I could just continue to be what you consider dismissive and advise you to make a compelling, well reasoned and supported argument that isn’t so easily dismissed.
“I hope in future that if you decide to respond again, and continue conversation with me, the tone of it might be more cordial.”
Well, you’re really not doing anything to help foster that. Though you don’t seem to think so, I think I’ve been quite cordial, at least until this comment, and frankly, I’m still being fairly civil.
tylerjourneaux said:
Concerning the fall, it is indeed my position. However, that’s a position I couldn’t claim to prove in the same way I would claim to be able to prove the existence of God. Notice that while a deist maintains views which are irreligious, their view of God is minimally what a religious theist means by suggesting that ‘God’ exists. Religious people may mean more by ‘God’ but they don’t mean any less, and they don’t mean anything different.
Atheism isn’t the same as a denial of religion, Atheism is generally the commitment to the proposition “God does not exist”. That’s what the post we’re commenting on is about, I take it. Moreover, for somebody to say that atheism is necessary, they must mean that there are problems with Theism which are indissoluble. One problem might be how God doesn’t seem to be evident to people who haven’t reflected on it very much, or even sometimes not evident to those who seem to have reflected on it a lot. I provided a logically possible answer simply as a way to demonstrate that an answer is not only possible, but is a live option offered by a formal religion. Whether one thinks it is plausible or not is sort of besides the point for the argument though – the argument merely shows that a solution is not only possible, but also not very difficult.
“Even if you knew your audience was fully familiar with those arguments, why should they assume you are claiming those particular arguments for support when you didn’t reference them? I’ve heard numerous people make very much the same statements as you have, and many of them have claimed completely different (and sometimes mutually exclusive) support for their positions.”
I wasn’t claiming those particular arguments – I was appealing to the existence of such-like arguments which aren’t hard to find. In fact, I only looked those few up in my library once you had asked me for some. Perhaps there are some arguments against the proposition that prayer can be efficacious – you are most welcome to provide me those for me to consider as well. Or else, maybe you would care to take issue with any single point I’ve made thus far and we can deal with just that one (one at a time). This is, of course, up to you.
Finally, and more importantly, you say: “That’s the most disingenuous apology I’ve heard in a long time.”
Ignoring the fact that you then go on to present the most personal attack I have received in a long time, I am not quite sure what to say – I know things can often be lost in translation online, and maybe it would be better if I could speak with you face to face, but for whatever it is worth the apology was sincere. I do feel sorry for any condescension, and I am currently trying to take you seriously, and prepared to field any arguments or points that you may want to present me. I am confident that I can manage to demonstrate, if given the opportunity, that the points I am making are good points, good arguments, and worthy of serious attention. Moreover, I am convinced, and I hope you agree, that the rhetorical tone of the posts, such as the one we’re commenting on, isn’t helpful or intelligent.
nedmyers said:
Tylerjourneaux,
I just wanted to say that I greatly appreciated your posts. If (I should probably say when) I ever have any theological questions, I fully intend to ask your opinion. Thank you for taking the time and effort to post and control your temper/pride.
Loquebuscas said:
I see that Monicks loves the “Not True Scotsman” auegmrnt as much as I do. Wonderful cartoon–thank you!
Konrad said:
Hi. I just want to say that atheists are people with some serious lack of love. If anyone loves and is loved in return and feels that he is loved by someone, i think he does not ask such silly ‘atheist’ questions… He does not need to ask them. There is always something deeper. And these questions are so childish. I’m not going to dispute with them. I only know that there is a certain time for everyone to be aware of God’s love. If not today, maybe tomorrow… Let’s pray for all atheists. God is so great that they are loved very much by Him, they just don’t realise it, usually hidding behind such questions.
hoverfrog said:
Oh yes pray for us. Go somewhere quiet and mutter to the sky god. We’ll carry on without you while you do that. Nothing shows compassion like not doing anything.
Lamar said:
What a stupid Article.
First of all, all of the assumptions aren’t true – starting with the word “He”….
And the follow up questions too, aren’t based on assumptions that aren’t true.
So therefore the aruguments are ridiculously uninformed and based on positions that aren’t factual or accurate.
Percy should have stuck to writing poetry about abandoning his pregnant wife and child to run off with the 16-year-old Mary Godwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_Bysshe_Shelley) a decision which of course he must have based on reason.
Lamar said:
One more thing – the first and foremost aspect of God is Love. He’s completely left that out, what a stupid man, sounds like someone who’d abandon his pregnant wife for a 16 year old.
Beast said:
If the first and foremost aspect of God is Love, why is the bible so full of hate, vengeance and controlling rules? This is assuming that the bible is in fact inspired by God or so it is written. Also the bible says man was made in God’s image then says man is sinful and evil and must be saved. Either this doesn’t say much for God or someone has been writing fish stories.
hoverfrog said:
So far none of the theists who have come here have even attempted to answer the questions that Shelley posed. instead they offer a blanket dismissal of him as a questioner and ad hominem attacks against his person and against atheism. These are all reasonable questions. Why won’t believers answer them?
Konrad said:
Hey. I am sorry for my first comment here, it might have been too offensive for someone.
“Why won’t believers answer them?” – you ask…
Please let me try to say sth else. Maybe I should answer them… Forgive me that now. I have 1:14 a.m. in my country 😉
That kind of tricky questions are mostly prompted by the bad one guy who we all are familiar with. Satan is the one who always want to lie and confuse. What else he can do, he was rejected by God. Let’s imagine such situation: You were thrown off from your happy family, only you, everyone else stays in the beautiful house, your mother, father, siblings. And the only thing you can do is to watch them through the window. You see all the love there, you see they play with each other, laugh, and then father kisses your brothers and sisters before they go sleep. It’s impossible for you to be in their place. Outside is cold, windy and every minute there is very painful. This is how satan feels every moment of his existance. He is outside of the God’s love and can only mix up human thoughts. He can only watch and being disgusted by this love, he is deadly jealous but he can’t do anything now. He has chosen already.
You may say that this is a good fairytale. Ok. But please look at these case seriously. If you see God in real values, if you live with the God’s will, you believe that nothing bad will happen to you. You are sure that His love for you is so great that He even let’s you hurt yourself if you want that, because He gave you free will, and cannot change His word. I also believe that He will not give us suffering, that we can not bear.
Hoverfrog, this God doesn’t always care about the temples, rules, sins, powers, etc. He want’s you to be happy. If you are happy not believing in Him, the only thing He says to you is ‘OK’. But He never stops to search you, to try to give you true love. He is not coming into your life as a thief. You will not be ‘raped’ by his rules or point of view. This God can be only sad that you don’t want to believe in Him. That’s all.
And back to these questions of Shelley. If someone gives such questions, he is in serious doubt. For me it is like shouting ‘help me, I don’t know what to do with my life, I am sick and lonely, where are you stupid God?, why didn’t you help me, where are you…?’ and it seems that no one hears this person.
BUT God always hear. He wants you to say to Him: God, help me!
If you will not try, you will never know if it would be worth doing so.
Forgive me my english – this is a second language. First is Polish.
And ofcourse that I will pray for you. Why not. (even you think this is stupid muttering to the sky and that my message has too many Christian icing-sugar)
Bye.
Freedem said:
What concerns me is the need to thrash the straw dogs of God and Literalness as all of religion when there are many religions with no god, and still more that do not insist that their teachings are an encyclopedia of objective reality.
Most honest religions (or the honest groups opposed to the frauds claiming their religions) speak of human’s relationship to each other and relation/respect for the natural world. Tied up as a single idea, scientific methods have little to offer, and none before recent history.
There are indeed con men and fundamentalists who are ignorant and thoughtless in their insistence on a shallow and barren magical reality, but joining them in agreement in defining religion in such an ignorant way, with the single exception of disagreement over accuracy of misinterpretation.