|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Hitch is dead | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I guess that I am more concerned with how churches use their resources more than with how much they have.
Also on a more philosophical note, and I know how much you love philosophy, the church is a result of human formed institutions built around a set of beliefs. The church has been a mess and sometimes more so than others. We have had leaders support despots when it suited them. It has been supportive and occasionally even been part of instigating occupational wars. It has been involved with subjugating indigenous cultures in occupied countries. Some of the leaders of been involved in all sorts of scandals including sexual abuse etc. The church has warts and lots of them Fortunately, partly because they have no choice, things are getting better. In Canada it is the church that has been more involved than any other group in supporting our indigenous people and supporting their culture and openly admitting to and apologising fro the church from past generations. I am primarily concerned with what I can control or at least influence. I can control what I do and I can influence my local church. This though is the result of human weakness and subsequent failings. It is something that is totally distinct from the veracity of the Gospel message. It may often be a bad witness to the belief in a loving God as perfectly modelled by Jesus but it says nothing about the veracity of that belief. It does nothing to dispel or confirm whether or not Jesus being resurrected is a historical fact.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: I build my house on the firm belief that Jesus embodied perfectly the nature and desires of God for humanity and our world. I build my house on the belief that God resurrected Jesus and that somehow in the end it is the precursor of what God will do for all of creation. That gives me purpose in the belief that ultimately life has meaning. My house is built on the belief that my signature is a template of how life is supposed to be lived as part of that ultimate purpose. A house built on sand? The atheistic belief is that all life is transitory, that how our lives should be lived is arbitrary and culturally driven, and that ultimately there is nothing but oblivion. Neither of us know whether our understanding of our world and why we are here is true, but I would ask just whose house it is that is built on sand. Edited by GDR, : typoHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes:
I answered that. I don't know what you want me to say.
That's all fine for you but we're not discussing you. Or me. We're discussing the wealth of religious institutions and whether any of them are following Jesus's teachings and it seems very obvious that they are not. There's nothing wrong with He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness... it's just the universal stuff of being decent that any reasonable person of any religion and none can and does agree with. You mark it with a supernatural significance that it doesn't have. If we are the result of an external intelligence then it does. If nothing but mindless processes then you are right.
Tangle writes: You have no trouble telling Christians on this forum what it is that believe and you seldom get it right.
I really wish you guys would stop telling us atheists what we believe. Tangle writes: You seem to claim absolute knowledge that life is transitory. Fine, but that is still your belief whether you like it or not. 1. Atheists don't believe that life is transitory, they know it is. We all die. All life dies. Ashes to ashes etc. Some people hope for some kind of afterlife. Atheists just assume the base case that as there was no consciousness before life, there will be none thereafter. And that's fine with us. It is what it is. We don't need the fantasy of an afterlife to get us through this life. Oblivion was ok before I was born; it'll be ok after. You like to keep telling me what I believe. I don't need belief in an afterlife to get through this one. Frankly, I don't give it a lot of consideration. Yes, I believe that there is an afterlife but my belief is about how I should lead my life serving a loving creator as embodied by Jesus.
Tangle writes: And again you are telling me what I believe and getting it all wrong.
2. We do not think that how we should live our lives is arbitrary and you'll notice that we don't go around doing random things. Apart from the kneeling down chanting embarrassing rubbish in order to placate a needy god we're remarkably similar to you. We do the same things. Weird huh? Tangle writes: I haven't created anything, and I certainly haven't built my life around my belief in an afterlife. Once again you keep telling Christians what they believe and getting it wrong. I haven't built a house GDR, I'm just living a life. I haven't created a fantasy of an afterlife and built this life here around it. That's the believers way not the atheists way.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: I’m not sure why you keep harping on about the assets of institutional churches. That is the least of the problems. Institutional churches have supported unsupportable wars, attempted to eliminate local cultures in some cases, covered up sexual abuse etc. I'd just like you to recognise that the institutions that have created your belief don't practice it themselves. Just saying that they're human creations and therefor fallible doesn't cut it. The good news is much of that is improving. One example is the Anglican church in Canada is taking responsibility for the churches part in the attempt by government to isolate and eliminate the cultures of our indigenous neighbours.
Tangle writes: What am I supposed to say? Am I supposed to do what you do and claim that I know that God exists and that His nature is perfectly embodied by Jesus? You tell us all the time what you believe, it's impossible to stop you! And you forget that I have the advantage of having believed the same stuff as you do and belonged to the same institutions.You said this in an earlier post. Tangle writes: I’m honest enough to say that it is belief. Atheists don't believe that life is transitory, they know it is. We all die. All life dies. Ashes to ashes etc. I wasn’t always a Christian. I don’t recall ever saying that I was an atheist. I simply didn’t call myself anything. I suppose I was agnostic.
Tangle writes: Yes, my church and my beliefs are absolutely central to my life. However, my point was that if Christianity didn’t teach belief in that this life is extended beyond death, I would still have the church as central to my life. I'm sure you're not denying your believe in the afterlife and all the paraphernalia that comes with it, but you've told us enough to make it clear that the church and your beliefs are central to your life. I spent many years involved as a political volunteer with the hope that the politicians I supported and worked for would make Canada a better country for all. Frankly, it wasn’t going to make much of a difference to my life but it was something that I believed in. I believe that Jesus’ teaching if lived out would make the world a better place for all. That is not to deny that I believe that God resurrected Jesus and that Jesus perfectly embodied God’s nature, but ultimately it goes back to love of neighbour as we see in Jesus’ parables like the good Samaritan, the sheep and the goats etc. God isn’t that hard to find if you know where to look.Finding GodHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: I don’t believe in, or do my best to serve, the institutions. I do believe in,and try to serve a God of love as we see in the person of Jesus, where the Word became flesh. I'm showing you that the source of the Christian belief system is not Christian. And you seem to agree. This should give you pause for thought. You only believe what you believe because of these institutions. They created and maintain the belief systems and they're human, failed organisations. The church is always in need of reformation and in my humble opinion the church has been going through a period of reformation over the last few decades. It is far from perfect when you look at the institutional side of it but when you drill down to the local churches my experience has been that there is a tremendous number of people that are faithfully serving each other, the local community and the world.
Tangle writes: Not really. I suppose I did think about it occasionally but it wasn’t really having an impact on my life. I didn’t actively believe that there was no god so I think that I would stick with the term agnostic. I accepted basic Christianity in my mid thirties.
You were the purest form of atheist. You didn't believe in god. More importantly, you probably didn't even think about it. That's real atheism.Tangle writes: I agree. Resurrection is fundamental to Christian belief. If I didn’t believe that God resurrected Jesus then I wouldn’t consider myself a Christian. If God didn’t resurrect Jesus then it is all pointless and it would have been pointless to the first followers of Jesus. Jesus would have simply been another failed messiah. In more modern terms it would make more sense to follow Gandhi. However, Christianity does teach belief in resurrection and redemption - it's its central message isn't it? You tell us this yourself - often. Without it it would just be another social gathering. My point is that simply being a Christian is a call to vocation. It is a call to be Christ-like and take God’s gift of love to the world. If it is simply about gaining brownie points with God so that we gain access to a better life in a renewed world, then it is simply self serving and not what God calls us to. I do agree that it is difficult to separate resurrection from personal salvation. The Christian message as I believe it is about the resurrection of all things as part of the renewal of all things. My point is that right now all I can do is relate to the world as I currently know it. I’ll worry about the next life in a renewed world when I get there.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: Firstly the problems that we can see in the institutions frankly seem far removed to me. The different pastors/rectors I have had have all been really good people. The churches I have attended have all been congregations of people all struggling at following Christian principles to the best of their ability. But GDR, don't you see? It was the institutions that taught you what to believe. Without the institutions you couldn't possibly know about the Jesus myth. They created it and propagated it. Just like other belief systems do. Also, I have actually learned more about my faith through reading a wide variety of authors including atheists with many points of view, and frankly I have learned to a degree from personal experience. Christianity makes sense of my life and the world I live in, in ways that nothing else does.
Tangle writes: It doesn’t require belief in a god. We all do that - it doesn't require a god.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Tangle writes:
We have gone around on this a number of times before so I left it alone. However, I remembered reading an interview of John Polkinghorne a while back and the question was addressed to him. I thought that it would be worthwhile just to give another point of view. You can add that to the unanswerable problem of suffering and the natural source for morality in our society. For anybody else, here is the wiki page on Polkinghorne, who was one of the world’s leading physicists who then went into Anglican ministry in his late 40’s.
John Polkinghorne Here is the link to the whole interview. John Polkinghorne Interview Here is the part of the interview that is pertinent to Tangle’s comment.
quote: He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Tangle writes: I don't see why that's circular. It involves creating a world that involved bringing about creatures that were able to be involved in the creation of more life. It evolved the way it is.
Which is all the usual rationalisations that don't in anyway answer the problem. What he's saying is that the universe is the way it is because that's the way it needs to be to for it to create us - and everything else. A circular argument. Tangle writes: Not at all. It's an argument for a god that created beings, that would being given the ability to sub-consciously connect to His loving concern for the creation, and choose to care for that creation.
First it's an argument for a deistic, non-interventionist, fire-and-forget god which is not what you or he believes. Tangle writes: You could do better I suppose. Yes there is suffering and a lot of people and other creatures endure it. But, there is also joy and hope for most of us, likely including yourself. Second, despite his protestations it shows a limited god, a lessor god that is unable to create the end product that he desires without making and remaking imperfect versions of it for billions of years. So maybe God does have limitations. It appears to me that life at all, let alone sentient life able to make moral decisions is a pretty mean accomplishment. It is enough for me. And, although you clearly disagree, we can wait and see what comes next.
Tangle writes: Every living thing eh. Personally I'm not feeling the torture.
Third, it creates an hugely immoral god that builds an enormous experiment which tortures and kills every living thing for billions of years before this perfection can arrive - and knows the suffering that it creates but does it anyway. Tangle writes: And you know that how? The Garden of Eden is a metaphorical location and heaven is simply God's dimension. Also the goal of ultimately getting to heaven is the Platonic beliefs that crept into Christianity early on. The Biblical view is that this world will be renewed and that somehow God's heavenly, and our earthly dimension in some manner. In the meantime I'll let go deal with that stuff and get on as best I can with my life now in this universe/dimension. Fourth, he's really dumb. I mean seriously stupid. Depending on which version of Christianity you have chosen to believe, none of this vile experimentation is necessary. God is capable of creating places where none of this suffering happens or is necessary - the Garden of Eden and Heaven. And the GoE is redundant; heaven is seemingly fine and his end goal - none of this experimentation is actually necessary is it?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Phat writes: Belief in what though. I contend that there is no rational argument to support the belief that we exist only as a result in mindless processes evolving form an endless stream of mindless processes all resulting in life as we know it. Because there is no rational argument apart from belief. IMHO it is more rational to believe that there is an intelligent agency responsible for our existence. To get from deism to theism is another discussion. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: The obvious inadequacy is that the evolutionary process requires a process to get it started, which required a process etc, all by mindless chance. The most parsimonious answer is that an intelligent agency is behind it all regardless of how it was accomplished. It is the most parsimonious explanation, with no obvious inadequacies. That makes it the most rational explanation. And your desperate rationalisations suggest that you know that.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
PaulK writes: And that is how you rationalize your way around an endless non-evidenced stream of processes to arrive at our present world. That’s a nice example of rationalisation. Any explanatory chain has to eventually run out, so that’s a problem for any view. And since there is no clear need for intelligence, assuming unintelligent causes is the parsimonious view We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.
PaulK writes: Sure it's a problem. Of course the theistic view is that God is not restricted to our one dimension of time and is eternal. also note that intelligence is one of the things that cries out for explanation so assuming it without explanation actually is a problem) Of course I don't know that nut IMHO it makes a great deal more sense to believe that than it does to believe that sentient life could have arisen from mindless chemicals without even asking where those chemicals came from.
PaulK writes: OK, but then that is the case for both of us. You are simply assuming that we are the result of mindlessness and claiming that no intelligent agency is necessary. That’s the sort of nonsense answer I’d expect from Faith. Parsimony is about throwing out unnecessary assumptions, not making massive assumptions you happen to like.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
Tangle writes: Yes, there is suffering and lots of it. I have acknowledged that suffering is the biggest problem that Christians have to face. We can reject God on that grounds and easily justify it. However, I chosen to accept that suffering is a part of this world and that God suffers along with us. Jesus suffered on the cross. God gets it. Yes, every living thing that there has ever been and will ever be suffers and dies. You are not an exception. Maybe you'll get lucky and get hit by a bus rather than die slowly in pain like my brother-in-law, but you will die. So far, you've had the best life available to modern humans - being born in a wealthy Western country with access to education, work, justice and health systems. You tell us that you spend a lot of time you helping the suffering, making life better for those not so lucky. Please don't pretend that suffering doesn't exist. I keep reminding you, is not about you or me. On that basis I simply assume on faith that this is how it has to be and do my best to respond to the call to live out the life as seen in my signature.
Tangle writes: As you have said before, except I don't know what it has to do with monotheism.
That's the understatement of the year. It also removes god's omnipotence. Oops, there goes a cornerstone of monotheism. Tangle writes: Yes, it is all belief. It isn't something we can examine in a test tube or with a telescope, Your interpretation of the biblical view is simply one of several. It's another belief. But you all admit to an afterlife. Are you telling me that the afterlife will contain suffering and death? Edited by GDR, : typoHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
PaulK writes: OK. Let's make it easy. Just outline the process that was responsible for the process of evolution. Maybe when you've done that start thinking about the process that started that process.
It’s not a rationalisation. I don’t accept your decree that there has to be an infinite regress. That’s just your invention. GDR writes: We have no way of knowing whether there is a need for an intelligent agent or not. Tangle claims that the process is the agency. That is a belief. WE can study the evolutionary process all we want but all that is going to give us is the latest process that got us to where we are. We don't know whether an intelligent agent was required or not.PaulK writes: ...then assuming that there is no intelligent agency involved isn't a rational position either. In either case we look at what we know and come to a subjective conclusion. I have subjectively concluded that sentient life evolving through a series of mindless chemical processes is far less likely than there being an intelligent agency responsible for all of the processes. I know that Tangle would say that only gets us to deism. It is a different discussion to get to theism from deism.
Then assuming that there is an intelligent agent involved is not a rational position. PaulK writes: But the issue is how do we get sentient life from the mindless fundamental particles from the big bang. That is without even asking where those particles were before the BB. Did that all happen with or without intelligent agency?
Yes you handwave away the problems of your assumption with another problematic assumption. But it doesn’t address the issue. So that’s just another example of irrationality. PaulK writes: That just isn't correct. Your position requires a series of processes each requiring a cause. I take the parsimonious position that there is only one cause which is that there is an intelligent agency responsible for the whole shebang. Well no. Since we don’t know of any need the parsimonious position is to assume that there isn’t one. So again you fail to understand parsimony.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Tangle writes: As I have provided you with reasons that your belief is in error. And, if you want to say that you have no belief then how about settling on your belief that I am wrong.
And I'm providing you with reasons why the belief is an error. Tangle writes: Well I do believe that in the next life our world won't be subject to time in one direction as we know it, and as a result death and decay aren't a factor. I don't believe that there will be suffering as we know it, but I do believe that the lives that we are living now will have an impact on how we live in the next life. I tend to think of it in the ways that your favourite philosopher C S Lewis wrote about it in The Great Divorce and in some ways even more so in The Last Battle. I do believe that we won't be subjected to a theological quiz to make sure we got our theology right. But you skipped answering whether there is suffering and death in the afterlife?He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
PaulK writes: It’s not.
That’s just changing the subject.PaulK writes: How am I limiting the possibilities for youi. I am simply asking the question of what is the process that kicked the evolutionary process off. You simply evade the question.
So let’s deal with the original point. You don’t get to artificially limit the possibilities available to me.PaulK writes: Just why is it disgusting. It seems that pretty much everyone here is allowed to make ad hominem against theists but heaven forbid the holy grail of atheism be questioned.
And to accuse me of rationalisation because I refuse to accept your diktat is pretty disgusting.PaulK writes: In other words you can’t answer the question . And to answer your question I think the idea that there is a process responsible for the process of evolution is daft.Here is a quote from the 2nd edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. From Darwin Online quote:Darwin’s answer to the question was the parsimonious answer. There was a creator. You however deny that there is even a question. GDR writes: In either case we look at what we know and come to a subjective conclusion. I have subjectively concluded that sentient life evolving through a series of mindless chemical processes is far less likely than there being an intelligent agency responsible for all of the processes. I know that Tangle would say that only gets us to deism. It is a different discussion to get to theism from deism.PaulK writes: We exist which is what we firmly know. Why is that? You seem to believe that the mindless particles that existed after the BB have just somehow come together and formed chemicals that combined into incredibly complex basic cellular life and then into sentient beings all by good fortune, and then call that rational.
However, my position is more rational which is the point of discussion. Your opinion lacks any firm basis.PaulK writes: Just read my last sentence. We have mindless particles ending up in sentient life. What clearer sign do you need? As I’ve said before, it is like looking at a car and then finding out that it was built on an assembly line and then declaring that the assembly line just assembled itself.
In the absence of any solid reason to think otherwise the ratio nal answer is yes. And in fact we do know quite a bit about these things and nowhere do we see any clear sign of intelligent agency. PaulK writes: The evidence is that there has been an evolutionary process. What process is responsible for it? As you don’t know, you simply evade the question.
So you say, but I don’t assume any processes without evidence. The idea that I believe in an infinite chain of additional processes is simply something you made up.GDR writes: I take the parsimonious position that there is only one cause which is that there is an intelligent agency responsible for the whole shebang.PaulK writes: No. You seem to make the assumptions that evolution on its own got us from what existed after the time of the BB to sentient life without requiring additional processes in between. That just isn’t rational nor evidenced. It requires agency. Mindless agency requires a separate agency every step of the way meaning multiple agencies. Intelligent agency parsimoniously requires only one agency. That isn’t parsimonious at all. My actual position is the parsimonious one because it avoids all the unnecessary assumptions of yours.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024