Bitcoin Forum
June 18, 2019, 10:06:32 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 [410] 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion?  (Read 891445 times)
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 12:48:20 AM
Last edit: October 13, 2018, 02:59:28 AM by CoinCube
 #8181


Who cares about US laws? God is the ultimate moral guide, remember? If he says it's ok to kill people who work in the sabbath, it is and you should be following his guidelines.

Why are you so disorganized in your thinking? I thought you valued science and logic.

Ok one last time the question above was Are the 10 commandments good?

You are attempting to answer a different question. You are asking if we should execute people who break one of the 10 commandments. That's a different question which I can only assume you are obsessed with because the answer to the actual question is so obviously yes they are good.

Nevertheless since you appear to be very concerned with this particular query I will walk you step by step through the logic of how to figure it out.

#1 First you need to determine if the commandments are good. Dennis Prager videos are a good place to start on that front. Hint: The answer is yes they are.

#2 Second you need to figure out the best way for society to implement good commandments. That gets a little tricker but the answer is that it is best if they are willingly and voluntary agreed to and followed.

#3 Third once you determine rules are good and should be followed voluntarily you need to decide if the rules should be codified into law with punishments to force compliance upon those who disagree with the rules.

Here it gets very tricky. How much freedom do we extend to people who don't agree us. Clearly in the case of murder not much. We cannot extend much freedom at all to the murderer regardless of how strongly he justifies murder or society will soon crumble.

In other areas like adultery it is harder. Adultry is clearly harmful to society but should we make it a crime? The more we legislate morality via force the more we reduce the value inherent in making the right choices. When in doubt it is better to error on the side of freedom especially when the fallout for evil actions can be largely contained with consequences falling mostly on the perpetrators. Part of the learning process requires the ability to error and learn from those errors.

#4 Finally if you determine that it is necessary to legislate a rule into law you need to determine a punishment for breaking the law. This is your question. Should we execute people who work on the Sabbath.

Your question about executions is not really an honest question because it assumes the answer to steps 1-3 are all yes which I very much doubt you believe.

Nevertheless, since you are so interested in my answer it is no. I think people should voluntarily go to Church or Synagogue on the Sabbath and not work, but the consequences for not doing so largely falls on them. One way these consequences manifest is in reduced health and happiness as I outlined in the Health and Religion thread. Thus I think not working on the Sabbath should be voluntarily followed and not codified into law.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560852392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560852392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560852392
Reply with quote  #2

1560852392
Report to moderator
1560852392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560852392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560852392
Reply with quote  #2

1560852392
Report to moderator
1560852392
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560852392

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560852392
Reply with quote  #2

1560852392
Report to moderator
gembirdprivate
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 1


View Profile
October 13, 2018, 04:12:58 AM
 #8182

So I see 2 threads of why islam hates people or why people hate Islam. I dont see the point of such a mundane debate based on religion any debate for or against religion would be stupid. Either you are stupid to believe what a prophet / god / divine entity said or you are stupid enough to believe you can change the minds of the bleak minded people who follow such a prophet / god / divine entity.

But since its fun let me initiate my own brand of 'why do' topic.

WHY DO ATHEISTS (like me) HATE RELIGION ?

Seriously what has to happen in a person's life for them to seriously give up hope on the one true everlasting brand (of religion) which their ancestors have followed for generations.

Everyone has their own story even I have mine, so lets hear some of it.




Religion in this world is one.
We believe in God or do not believe, everything is simple.
We are one big religion, but we have been divided into many parts and cultures, alas
Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 717



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 01:09:02 PM
 #8183

I would NOT agree that the ten commandments are good... since you brought it up, lets talk about them:

It was just an example showing that most atheist are willing to act "good" and "moral" without any religious rules telling them to do so.

Exactly!... now you get it!

People do not need religion to be good or moral... it is 100% unnecessary

Most religious people have never even read their holy book(s)... most christians can't even name 5 of the 10 commandments...

Their religion did not make them good people... they were good people before they were duped into believing religious nonsense

People are good... religions are bad...

"Without religion, good people do good things, and bad people do bad things... but it takes something like religion to make good people do bad things"
(example: flying planes into the towers on 9/11 would not have happened without religion)
IndeecV
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 13, 2018, 03:17:00 PM
 #8184

Religion is a manipulation tool. This is a way of getting people to act in the way that benefits those who interpret religious tenets.
Previously, when life was not a very valuable thing, religion kept people within the framework of fear. And the promise of eternal bliss.
I think humanity has outgrown it.
Therefore, I am against religion.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1107


View Profile
October 13, 2018, 04:01:37 PM
 #8185

The science and atheism religions are among the worst religions that we have. Why? Because in some ways they play on the logic that everyone uses. Then somebody turns the parts that are not logical (often science theory) into religious beliefs, like believing they (the theories) are true and real, when nobody knows that they are true and real.

In addition, everybody can see that big fallacy in atheism, that nobody knows that God doesn't exist, but that nature and the universe by their existence prove that God exists.

So, these two religions, science and atheism, are attempting to turn everybody from truth and reality.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 04:43:57 PM
 #8186

Religion is a manipulation tool. This is a way of getting people to act in the way that benefits those who interpret religious tenets.
Previously, when life was not a very valuable thing, religion kept people within the framework of fear. And the promise of eternal bliss.

The science and atheism religions are among the worst religions that we have. Why? Because in some ways they play on the logic that everyone uses. Then somebody turns the parts that are not logical (often science theory) into religious beliefs, like believing they (the theories) are true and real, when nobody knows that they are true and real.

Both of these statements are clearly and unfortunately all to often true. How do we resolve this juxtaposition?

I would once again draw attention to the thoughts of Kurt Gödel. Gödel left in his papers a fourteen-point outline of his beliefs.

1. The world is rational.
2. Human reason can, in principle, be developed more highly (through certain techniques).
3. There are systematic methods for the solution of all problems (also art, etc.).
4. There are other worlds and rational beings of a different and higher kind.
5. The world in which we live is not the only one in which we shall live or have lived.
6. There is incomparably more knowable a priori than is currently known.
7. The development of human thought since the Renaissance is thoroughly intelligible (durchaus einsichtige).
8. Reason in mankind will be developed in every direction.
9. Formal rights comprise a real science.
10. Materialism is false.
11. The higher beings are connected to the others by analogy, not by composition.
12. Concepts have an objective existence.
13. There is a scientific (exact) philosophy and theology, which deals with concepts of the highest abstractness; and this is also most highly fruitful for science.
14. Religions are, for the most part, bad– but religion is not.

Gödel felt the answer was applied reason. I agree with him. The following was some of his mathematical reasoning



What does all this math signify? The article below explains.

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God
https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/756870/proof-of-god-kurt-godel

Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 717



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 05:17:35 PM
Last edit: October 13, 2018, 05:43:39 PM by Moloch
 #8187

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

You can't seriously believe that can you?
Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 717



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 05:43:54 PM
 #8188

Scientists use mathematical calculations to PROVE the existence of God

You can't seriously believe that can you?

Not only that he thinks that his God created humanity in his own image.  

More sane explanation is that he created God in his own image. In his mind.  But that goes without saying.

I actually read that brief article, and it doesn't even make such a claim...

This is the closest thing they said about it, and it isn't even grammatically correct so I have zero clue what they are even attempting to say here:

But two computer scientists have used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms that the equation does indeed add up.

So, 2 guys say the equation adds up?

Can you explain what "used computers to run such complicated which they say confirms"... means?

Can you explain why your source didn't bother to proof-read their own article?

This is bullshit, not a proof... this isn't even close to how science works... try again
dippididodaday
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 441
Merit: 278


It's personal


View Profile
October 13, 2018, 07:28:04 PM
 #8189

I would once again draw attention to the thoughts of Kurt Gödel. Gödel left in his papers a fourteen-point outline of his beliefs.
...
10. Materialism is false.
...

Number 10 short and (un)sweet caught my eye.

And I have to say definitely and firmly no: Materialism is true - it is all material in layers of complexity from the tiniest imaginable to the most [cosmically] colossal imaginable.

Within this material structure we discover ourselves not only subjectively, but also objectively, as we are what we discover.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 10:00:13 PM
Last edit: October 13, 2018, 10:12:15 PM by CoinCube
 #8190

...
Gödel felt the answer was applied reason. I agree with him. The following was some of his mathematical reasoning


...

I think there is a typo in the provided proof.  Where it says "ess" it should say "ass".

Coincube please walk us through the notation and explain each step.  Let's go let's have some fun. Lol.

I give you 5 minutes, after that your time is up, and I'll know you are just spending time looking for some esoteric, metaphysical articles to validate your delusion.

I am going to have to decline your challenge. Sadly due to my own limitations. I have taken a lot of mathematics in my lifetime. Calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, analysis, and others were all subjects I studied and excelled at in my undergraduate days but such knowledge is rusty after 15 plus years of disuse and I never studied graduate level mathematics.

My background was sufficient to follow the mathematics of Gödel's incompleteness theory and recognize the genius there but I could not do the same with his Ontological proof. I got lost in the complexity of some of the math and I don't have the free time at present to rectify that deficiency.

I simply don't understand Kurt Gödel's ontological proof well enough to defend it. However, I know Kurt Gödel's work well enough to take any proof he presents as worthy of serious consideration. Perhaps we will be able to take that 5 minutes at some future date.

Not only that he thinks that his God created humanity in his own image.  

I am also not entirely sure of the full meaning of the statement:

Genesis 9
"for in the image of God has God made mankind."

I have speculated that this could mean more then we think it does and tied that speculation to Stephen Hawking's final paper and theory about the nature of the universe.

Stephen Hawking's final paper bursts the multiverse bubble
https://newatlas.com/stephen-hawking-final-paper-eternal-inflation/54473/

However, that is interesting musings more then anything else.

My core beliefs I have outlined in depth. I discussed them in my Argument for God

We have discussed these at length already. You disagree with my first claim because you don't believe the universe is mathematical and rational and I do. Thus we did not make much if any progress towards consensus.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 10:41:19 PM
 #8191


Hmm, my book of af_newbie says something else and I quote:

Book of Lawrence 3:14

"and the atoms were created in the supernovae, then those atoms were used to make water, then single cell bacteria, and eventually a man.
Man is a Stardust."

So how do we resolve the difference in what our books say?  What other evidence besides our books can we use?

BTW, why you don't want to talk about the steps you listed; you said that you agree with the proof, let's talk about the details, about the notation:


Don't give me an explanation by someone else, I want to talk to you about the above proof.  Explain the notation and explain the steps.
If you cannot, please don't post anything that you YOURSELF cannot explain.


Perhaps I was unclear. Gödel felt the answer (to problems of false religions) was applied reason. I agree with him. Gödel also believed in God. I also agree with him about that too as I have already defended extensively.

Finally Gödel wrote an Ontological proof of God. I don't know if I agree with that proof or not because I have not been able to spend the time necessary to really understand it. Understanding Gödel's proof of God is on my bucket list of thing to eventually do. It's not a trivial task given the math involved and the many years that have past since I last formally studied the subject.

I don't see why I should not post interesting theories and proofs of others hold just because I don't fully grasp them myself. Readers of this thread may find them interesting I certainly do.

In regards to the difference between your belief "Man was made from Stardust", and the Biblical report "Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground". You must excuse me but I fail to see much difference.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 11:29:14 PM
 #8192


You should not be posting something you don't understand because you cannot explain the proof you are posting as a proof of God.
I can post a mathematical proof that God does not exist, that nobody will on Earth will understand, including myself.  Do you see my point?

The difference between our books was:

Genesis 9
"for in the image of God has God made mankind."

Book of Lawrence 3:14

"and the atoms were created in the supernovae, then those atoms were used to make water, then single cell bacteria, and eventually a man.
Man is a Stardust."

Are you saying that you don't see the difference about how these two books/verses describe how the man was made?


Well the source does matter. You and I are not well known and respected mathematical geniuses Kurt Gödel is. We may have to just agree to disagree about the appropriateness of my highlighting his work.

Regarding a comparison of your understanding and the Biblical account you are choosing the wrong passage. If you want to talk about dust you should find the most relevant Biblical passage on the topic.

That passage is the following:

Genesis 2
"Then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground"

So let's compare this to your:

Book of Lawrence 3:14
"Man is a Stardust."

The Biblical account seems more accurate. It implies the dust had formed into ground first and mankind was formed from that ground. This is in line with current scientific understanding.

Scientists believe that we may have had our beginnings in CLAY
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2488467/Scientists-believe-beginnings-CLAY.html
Quote

All life on Earth may have come from clay according to new scientific research - just as the Bible, Koran and even Greek mythology have been suggesting for thousands of years.

The latest theory is that clay - which is at its most basic, a combination of minerals in the ground - acts as a breeding laboratory for tiny molecules and chemicals which it 'absorbs like a sponge'.

The process takes billions of years, during which the chemicals react to each other to form proteins, DNA and, eventually, living cells, scientists told the journal Scientific Reports.

Biological Engineers from Cornell University's department for Nanoscale Science in New York state believe clay 'might have been the birthplace of life on Earth'.

Hope this helps clarify things for you.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 13, 2018, 11:59:19 PM
 #8193


As compared to what?  Your dream?  Life originated in liquid water.

You are just trolling me.  You cannot be that stupid.

If you want to discuss the origin of life and how a man was created you have to use evidence other than what the Bible says.

Bible requires faith.  Faith is not a reliable way to discover the truth.


Yes life probably originated in clay submerged in water. Probably near volcanic deep sea vents though we don't really know for sure.

I also agree the Bible is not the best place to look for a detailed and systematic approach to understanding the origins of life. That's not its purpose. Scientific understanding is a far better tool for that.

I disagree with the notion that the Bible and scientific understanding are mutually exclusive or contradictory. I understand how many reach that conclusion from an very literal interpretation of the text. I feel much of the Bible is best understood as truth through analogy and metaphor.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 14, 2018, 12:44:51 AM
 #8194


Finally, we can agree on something.  

Bible metaphors get you straight into metaphysics and philosophy.  There is no science in the Bible because the scientific revolution started much, much later after the Bible (or Quran) were written.  The two are mutually exclusive.  I hope you understand that much.

If you want to play with the philosophy of the scriptures, you have to give the same attention to the Quran, Talmud, Vedas, Puranas, Popol Vuh, Avesta, and many others.


Not mutually exclusive complimentary. Different tools for different jobs both necessary.

I agree that a full understanding of truth requires one to evaluate the truth claim of everyone who declares they have it as well as the development of some organized framework to evaluate each contender.

This is where the metaphysics you don't care for very much comes in handy.

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 14, 2018, 05:42:22 AM
Last edit: October 14, 2018, 04:06:45 PM by CoinCube
 #8195


To me, all these ancient scriptures have no value.  They were written by people who knew less than a 12-year-old knows today.
...

Scientific knowledge is cumulative, scriptures are not.


Isaac Asimov was a great writer but his vision of the future was a pathetic and bleak one. In his vision millennia pass yet humanity grows not one iota wiser. We even stop advancing scientifically and technologically forcing the robots we happened to create along the way to silently take control and tend to us as one would a herd of cows.

It's very hard to explain the value of the a priori to someone who has adopted your worldview af_newbie. It's not really a question of science or fact but of interpretation.

Its related to how one voluntarily chooses to perceive and interpret the world. A flavor if you will that drives ultimate potential.

I will draw your attention to the work of CS Lewis another famous author and someone who left his childhood Christian faith to spend many years as a determined atheist. The article below is quite long but this it is a difficult topic to address with brevity.

Seeing Things Properly: Vision, Imagination and Reason in C.S. Lewis's Apologetics
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/seeing-things-properly-vision-imagination-and-reason-in-cs-lewis/10094742
Quote from: Alister McGrath
Few would now dispute that C.S. Lewis is one of the greatest Christian apologists of the twentieth century. So what is his approach to apologetics, and why has it been so successful?

Many Christian apologists have assimilated Lewis to their own way of thinking, presenting him in thoroughly modernist terms as an advocate of rationalist defences of faith. Yet to get the most out of reading Lewis, we need to approach him on his own terms. Here, I want to explore Lewis's distinctive understanding of the rationality of faith, which emphasises the reasonableness of Christianity without imprisoning it within an impersonal and austere rationalism.

I came to appreciate this distinctive approach when researching my recent biography of Lewis. For reasons I do not understand, the importance of Lewis's extensive use of visual images as metaphors of truth has been largely overlooked. For Lewis, truth is about seeing things rightly, grasping their deep interconnection. Truth is something that we see, rather than something we express primarily in logical or conceptual terms.

The basic idea is found in Dante's Paradiso (XXIII, 55-6), where the great Florentine poet and theologian expresses the idea that Christianity provides a vision of things - something wonderful that can be seen, yet proves resistant to verbal expression:

From that moment onwards my power of sight exceeded

That of speech, which fails at such a vision.

Hints of such an approach are also found in the writings of G.K. Chesterton, whom Lewis admired considerably. For Chesterton, a good theory allows us to see things properly: "We put on the theory, like a magic hat, and history becomes translucent like a house of glass." Thus, for Chesterton, a good theory is to be judged by the amount of illumination it offers, and its capacity to accommodate what we see in the world around us and experience within us: "With this idea once inside our heads, a million things become transparent as if a lamp were lit behind them." In the same way, Chesterton argued, Christianity validates itself by its ability to make sense of our observations of the world: "The phenomenon does not prove religion, but religion explains the phenomenon."

For Lewis, the Christian faith offers us a means of seeing things properly - as they really are, despite their outward appearances. Christianity provides an intellectually capacious and imaginatively satisfying way of seeing things, and grasping their interconnectedness, even if we find it difficult to express this in words. Lewis's affirmation of the reasonableness of the Christian faith rests on his own quite distinct way of seeing the rationality of the created order, and its ultimate grounding in God. Using a powerful visual image, Lewis invites us to see God as both the ground of the rationality of the world, and the one who enables us to grasp that rationality: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen, not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else." Lewis invites us to see Christianity as offering us a standpoint from which we may survey things, and grasp their intrinsic coherence. We see how things connect together.

Lewis consistently uses a remarkably wide range of visual metaphors - such as sun, light, blindness and shadows - to help us understand the nature of a true understanding of things. This has two important outcomes. First, it means that Lewis sees reason and imagination as existing in a collaborative, not competitive, relationship. Second, it leads Lewis to make extensive use of analogies in his apologetics, to enable us to see things in a new way.

For example, Lewis's famous apologetic for the doctrine of the Trinity in Mere Christianity suggests that our difficulties with this notion arise primarily because we fail to see it properly. If we see it another way - as, for instance, an inhabitant of a two-dimensional world might try to grasp and describe the structure of a three-dimensional reality - then we begin to grasp its intrinsic rationality.

Lewis's apologetics thus often takes the form of a visual imperative: "Try seeing it this way!" Lewis rightly realized that many people frame their accounts of things analogically, using a process that Hilaire Belloc called parallelism: the "illustration of some unperceived truth by its exact consonance with the reflection of a truth already known and perceived." Lewis does not try to prove the existence of God on a priori grounds. Rather, Lewis invites us to see how what we observe in the world around us and experience within us fits the Christian way of seeing things. Lewis's genius as an apologist lay in his ability to show how a Christian "viewpoint" (or, to borrow a term from Plato, a synoptikon) was able to offer a more satisfactory explanation of common human experience than its rivals - especially the atheism he himself had once espoused.

Throughout his apologetic writings, such as Mere Christianity, Lewis appeals to shared human experience and observation. How do we make sense of what we experience within us, or observe outside us? Lewis's apologetic approach is thus to demonstrate how an observation or experience fits, naturally and plausibly, within a Christian way of looking at things. Take his "argument from desire." This is not really an argument at all. It is more about observing and affirming the fit between a theory and observation. It is like trying on a hat or shirt for size, and looking at yourself in a mirror. How well does it fit? How many of our observations of the world can a theory accommodate, and how persuasively? It is basically about seeing how our experiences of desire fit a Christian framework.

Lewis thus argues that we experience desires that no experience in this world seems able to satisfy. And when we see these experiences through the lens of the Christian faith, we realize that this sort of experience is exactly what we would expect. Christianity tells us that that this is not our true home, and that we were created for heaven. How does that framework help us see these experiences? For Lewis, the answer was clear: "If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

Lewis's appeal here is not so much to cold rationalism, as to intuition and imagination. It is not a deductive argument, but an imaginative dynamic of discovery. Lewis invites his audience to see their experiences through a set of Christian spectacles, and to notice how these bring what might otherwise seem to be fuzzy or blurred into sharp focus. A pattern is thereby seen for the first time. For Lewis, the ability of the Christian faith to accommodate such things, naturally and easily, is an indicator of its truth.

The same approach is found in Lewis's "argument from morality." This is sometimes portrayed in ridiculously simplistic terms - for example, "experiencing a sense of moral obligation proves there is a God." Lewis did not say this, and he certainly did not think this. As with the "argument from desire," his argument is rather that the common human experience of a sense of moral obligation is easily and naturally accommodated within a Christian framework. The Christian lens brings things into focus. It enlightens the landscape of reality, allowing us to see how God, desire and morality are all held together within a greater scheme of things.

Lewis helps us to appreciate that apologetics need not take the form of deductive argument. It can be presented as an invitation to step into the Christian way of seeing things, and explore how things look when seen from its standpoint: "Try seeing things this way!" If worldviews or metanarratives can be compared to lenses, which of them brings things into sharpest focus? This is not an irrational retreat from reason. Rather, it is about grasping a deeper order of things which is more easily accessed by the imagination than by reason. Yet once seen, its intrinsic rationality can be appreciated.

Lewis's explicit appeal to reason thus involves an implicit appeal to the imagination. Perhaps this helps us understand why Lewis appeals to both modern and postmodern people. Lewis gives us a synoptikon which bridges the great divide between modernity and postmodernity, insisting that each outlook has its strengths because it is part of a greater whole. Their weaknesses arise when they pretend to offer the full picture, when they really offer only part of the whole. Once the "big picture" is seen, they are both seen in their proper light.

Lewis enriches our vision of apologetics, allowing us to affirm that Christianity makes sense, without limiting it to the "glib and shallow" rationalism that he himself once knew as an atheist. Reason and imagination are woven together, using a rich concept of truth which emphasizes how we come to see things properly, and grasp their inner coherence. Truth, beauty and goodness all have their part to play in Lewis's apologetics.

Such an "imaginative apologetics" allows us to affirm the reasonableness of faith, while at the same time displaying its power to captivate the imagination. The Christian churches need to ensure that their preaching, witness and worship express this same rich vision of reality, and lead others to wonder how they can go "further up and further in" to the landscape of faith.

Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University. He is the author of two substantial studies of Lewis: C.S. Lewis - A Life: Eccentric Genius, Reluctant Prophet and The Intellectual World of C.S. 
Theology

Indictus
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 14, 2018, 05:53:37 PM
 #8196


As I noted above saying humanity was created in the image of God may have a more nuanced meaning then is commonly appreciated.
Nevertheless I do accept the existence of the creator as a starting point. Here is why this is the most reasonable place to start.

An Argument for God



You did not just put your own message from another thread as a reliable source did you?....I think you just tried to do that.....It's like asking why is this pen blue, and you give me a piece of paper written on it "This pen is blue because I said so". Your source of information and the building argument for it is flawed on so many levels that I am not even sure where to start... you are way into deep to be pulled out .....I wish you well  Smiley
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1037



View Profile
October 14, 2018, 06:13:20 PM
Last edit: October 15, 2018, 05:30:55 AM by CoinCube
 #8197

You did not just put your own message from another thread as a reliable source did you?....I think you just tried to do that.....It's like asking why is this pen blue, and you give me a piece of paper written on it "This pen is blue because I said so". Your source of information and the building argument for it is flawed on so many levels that I am not even sure where to start... you are way into deep to be pulled out .....I wish you well  Smiley

Sigh I grow so weary of rabid atheist who cannot seem to string a coherent thought together.

Some atheist I respect. I disagree with af_newbie utterly and on just about everything that matters but I respect his intellect and the logic of his thoughts. You not so much.

Let me simplify this for you.

You stated:

it's (Gods) existence is accepted by you as a starting point.

And I replied that you are correct I do accept Gods existence as a starting point.

I do accept the existence of the creator as a starting point.

Then I linked to my prior arguments on why this assumption is reasonable.

An Argument for God

I hope this exercise in basic reading comprehension has proven useful for you.

pozmu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 504


(っ◔◡◔)っ🍪


View Profile
October 14, 2018, 10:04:45 PM
 #8198

I would NOT agree that the ten commandments are good... since you brought it up, lets talk about them:

It was just an example showing that most atheist are willing to act "good" and "moral" without any religious rules telling them to do so.

Exactly!... now you get it!

People do not need religion to be good or moral... it is 100% unnecessary

Most religious people have never even read their holy book(s)... most christians can't even name 5 of the 10 commandments...

Their religion did not make them good people... they were good people before they were duped into believing religious nonsense

People are good... religions are bad...

"Without religion, good people do good things, and bad people do bad things... but it takes something like religion to make good people do bad things"
(example: flying planes into the towers on 9/11 would not have happened without religion)

I agree with you, but in some regions religion is needed, e.g. in Africa, there are tribes killing each other, if you Christianise them they'll form a new Christian tribe and they'll kill less. I think it would be difficult to get into their head without using religion.
I don't really get why these tribes fight, it may be because of their different religions  Grin

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2030
Merit: 1107


View Profile
November 01, 2018, 01:36:58 PM
 #8199


As compared to what?  Your dream?  Life originated in liquid water.

You are just trolling me.  You cannot be that stupid.

If you want to discuss the origin of life and how a man was created you have to use evidence other than what the Bible says.

Bible requires faith.  Faith is not a reliable way to discover the truth.


LOL! You don't even realize how stupid that is, do you?... that anybody would think he can figure out what happened hundreds of thousands or millions of years in the past. Let me show you how stupid it is.

Today, right now, we have hundreds of thousands or millions of smart mathematicians trying to figure out where the Forex, the stock market, the derivatives market, the nations, elections, and thousands of other things are going in life. What do they use to do their calculations? Statistics from literally yesterday, on back through the well-documented history of the last hundred years.

What are the results of all their calculations from the well-documented statistics history? Good guesses. Why guesses? Because they all flub it good, on a regular basis. They all get it wrong here and there.

And you think that some self-styled scientists can take a look at some vague history that they think relates to hundreds of thousands or millions of years ago, and determine how life originated back then? You think that they are way smarter than the mathematicians who are using accurate statistics from the last hundred years - statistics that are right close to today - but still caqn't figure out what is going on today? LOL! You can't even understand how stupid that sounds, can you?

If you had any brains at all, you would be scientifically checking into why the Bible is a solid, eye witness record, of things that happened in the past, and how it is the Word of God given to people by God, so some of them can be saved.

Cool

Don't be afraid to donate Bitcoin >>> 1JDJotyxZLFF8akGCxHeqMkD4YrrTmEAwz !
Moloch
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 798
Merit: 717



View Profile
November 01, 2018, 01:48:19 PM
 #8200

As compared to what?  Your dream?  Life originated in liquid water.

You are just trolling me.  You cannot be that stupid.

If you want to discuss the origin of life and how a man was created you have to use evidence other than what the Bible says.

Bible requires faith.  Faith is not a reliable way to discover the truth.

LOL! You don't even realize how stupid that is, do you?... that anybody would think he can figure out what happened hundreds of thousands or millions of years in the past. Let me show you how stupid it is.

People would probably like you more and read your posts if you didn't start every post with a personal insult

Today, right now, we have hundreds of thousands or millions of smart mathematicians trying to figure out where the Forex, the stock market, the derivatives market, the nations, elections, and thousands of other things are going in life.

You can't compare studying the history of the universe to predicting the future of the stock market, etc... that's not a proper analogy, and nobody is going to be stupid enough to believe that makes sense

If you had any brains at all, you would be scientifically checking into why the Bible is a solid, eye witness record, of things that happened in the past

Please stop beginning and ending your posts with insults... try to use facts and evidence to convince people you are right... insulting someone only proves you are angry and wrong
Pages: « 1 ... 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 [410] 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!