Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

thejeff wrote:

..

Atheism is a sad side-effect of man over-estimating our own importance.

It's not coincidence that religious folks claim their God made us in his image. Or, as Voltaire said, we have certainly returned the favor.

I'd suggest the Judeo-Xian religions are very much an example of people over-estimating their importance.

None of you have explained why your claim to God's ID is any stronger than Zeus, Apollo or Raven.

thejeff wrote:

DietBacon wrote:

Religion doesn't really say that the universe came from a singularity, it was simply "put there"...

"Religion" doesn't say anything. Religion is invented by man.

God, on the other hand, is very real. Religion is simply man's attempt to explain God.

Atheism is a sad side-effect of man over-estimating our own importance.

Religion significantly overestimates man's own importance. For a long time religion told us the universe revolved around earth. Many religions still assert that man has dominion over earth and everything here.

Religion is a way to control people by using supernatural threats and rewards instead of logic and reason. Atheists simply seek the truth and aren't satisfied with the religious gods created by man.

Wtfunny wrote:

thejeff wrote:

..

Atheism is a sad side-effect of man over-estimating our own importance.

It's not coincidence that religious folks claim their God made us in his image. Or, as Voltaire said, we have certainly returned the favor.

I'd suggest the Judeo-Xian religions are very much an example of people over-estimating their importance.

None of you have explained why your claim to God's ID is any stronger than Zeus, Apollo or Raven.

I have always felt that claiming you were created in god's image is the ultimate conceit. In fact, being an atheist is actually accepting that you're nothing special in the grand scheme of things. And have you ever noticed how smug people who think they are "saved" are? Not to mention someone who calls himself thejeff.

Ana Theist wrote:

What I'm really trying to do is to get both believers and non- away from the assumption that if A) there was a supernatural "creator" some thousands or millions or billions of years ago, then B) there must be a supernatural being (oh, and the same one) that can affect us NOW. There's no logical step from A to B; it's pure assumption.

Bingo. I know a ton of people, most of them atheists, who need to get that message.

thejeff wrote:

Interesting point.

Your post illustrates a common human shortcoming: our inability to comprehend infinity. Your river analogy, if you make it big enough, will be just like "infinity", right?

No. There is virtually no comparison between "a really long time ago" and "has always existed". We simply cannot comprehend "forever".

More to the point: I do not understand why many atheists readily accept that the "universe has always existed", but they scoff at the idea that "God has always existed".

My point with the river analogy was that very complex results can come from simple inputs, which might lead to the mistaken impression that a thing was designed.

It is fine to say that God has always existed -- then again, maybe there was another universe and a group of people designed Him; there's absolutely no way to know about this unless you talked to the Guy -- but I'm not scoffing at the idea that God has always existed. I'm questioning the need for there to have been a God for there to have been existence. If existence could happen without a God, then we don't need to assume there is a God. Is there any reason to believe that existence had to have been created by something? I feel like this is something we tell ourselves because the alternative, a meaningless, uncaring universe, isn't very nice to think about.

If God made us in his image, why did we look like crude Apes for so long?

Why did the concept of God have to evolve and not get fully developed until several thousand years ago?

Shouldn't He have showed up earlier?

I appreciate all this dialogue, I really do! I was an agnostic theist for years and years after college. I searched and searched and searched for an answer. Read most everything (except the Bible). Then, I had a "personal experience" that has all but proven (yes, "proven") God's (more like the Trinity's) existence.

That is to say the evidence is good enough for me.

This was about five years ago. I've read the Bible which I now believe. I've humbled myself and do my best to follow Jesus' example, and have even gone so far as living a bare minimum existence. However, life has not "improved." So where do I go from here? Sometimes I wish I was atheist again.

What about AFTER you find Him? wrote:

Then, I had a "personal experience" that has all but proven (yes, "proven") God's (more like the Trinity's) existence.

That is to say the evidence is good enough for me.

This was about five years ago. .

Can u please share that personal experience? I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wants to learn about it.

Rojo

Ps. In terms of your life improving, what does that have to do with believing? I would think the certainty of a higher power would be very reassuring and enough.

When I'm down to visit Dave someday, we can go out and discuss face-to-face. I'd like to keep it amongst the safety of friends and acquaintances for now Rojo. Then you/we can question all we want. Thanks for understanding.

P.S. Your postscript is true especially the deeper I grow in my faith. Yet, somehow "knowing" is not "enough." Is that greed? Where the concept of happiness ties in is of great interest at present. Elisabeth Elliot's "A Path Through Suffering" is my next read. That said, I believe there is much more to all of this than I presently see.

Will do someday wrote:

When I'm down to visit Dave someday, we can go out and discuss face-to-face. I'd like to keep it amongst the safety of friends and acquaintances for now Rojo. Then you/we can question all we want. Thanks for understanding.

P.S. Your postscript is true especially the deeper I grow in my faith. Yet, somehow "knowing" is not "enough." Is that greed? Where the concept of happiness ties in is of great interest at present. Elisabeth Elliot's "A Path Through Suffering" is my next read. That said, I believe there is much more to all of this than I presently see.

In other words, you're insane.

What's your definition of "insanity?" Someone who experienced something you have not experienced? Are we simply resorting to name calling to end the discussion? Do you choose to share everything in your life on a message board? In fact, your insult is exactly why I'm not encouraged to share on LRC.

Arguing that someone knows something that is ultimately (and by definition) unknowable is a littl bit insane .... by virtually any metric.

There's no "certainty" here at all, regardless of what the persons experience may have been.

People who believe, very passionately, unwaveringly, don't "know" - and it doesn't matter how vehemently they tell you otherwise, they still don't "know".

rojo wrote:

I would think the certainty of a higher power would be very reassuring and enough.

Certainty can indeed be very comforting. However, certainty is not necessarily *knowing* or *reality*.

A simple, silly example: more than 20% of adult Americans believe the Sun moves around Earth, rather than that Earth rotates--"because you can set on yer porch on a clear day and *watch* the Sun move!" They believe it; most of them believe it with certainty; and most of them would say, "I don't just believe it, I KNOW it!"

But, as the man said: You cain't KNOW what ain't SO. You can believe something with sincerity--with *certainty*--but that doesn't necessarily make the thing you believe real. (Twenty-plus percent of Americans are dead wrong about the Sun.)

Moreover, "If ya can't SHOW it [at least theoretically], ya can't KNOW it." And since the whole point of faith--in fact, its definition--is belief in something that can't be shown/proved, it's important to distinguish belief-with-certainty from knowing. The two sometimes overlap, and sometimes don't.

Will do someday wrote:

What's your definition of "insanity?" Someone who experienced something you have not experienced? Are we simply resorting to name calling to end the discussion? Do you choose to share everything in your life on a message board? In fact, your insult is exactly why I'm not encouraged to share on LRC.

Why would your experience be more or less reliable than anyone than that of anyone else? Do you believe Joseph Smith that Jesus directed him to a new revelation? Do you believe that Gabriel dictated the Qur'an to Mohammed? They both swore up and down that those things happened to them. Paul probably believed that Jesus came to him in a vision, but looking back on his description, he probably had a seizure, and if he had lived today, that's how his vision would have been diagnosed.

What about AFTER you find Him? wrote:

I appreciate all this dialogue, I really do! I was an agnostic theist for years and years after college. I searched and searched and searched for an answer. Read most everything (except the Bible). Then, I had a "personal experience" that has all but proven (yes, "proven") God's (more like the Trinity's) existence.

That is to say the evidence is good enough for me.

This was about five years ago. I've read the Bible which I now believe. I've humbled myself and do my best to follow Jesus' example, and have even gone so far as living a bare minimum existence. However, life has not "improved.

" So where do I go from here? Sometimes I wish I was atheist again.

Why would your life improve? If anything the Bible should have taught you that God likes to jerk people around and play both ends against the middle.

Thank you for these examples. I do NOT think my experience is more reliable than these examples or that of martyrs or saints. In fact, I do understand these people would be diagnosed with, at the very least, a psychological disorder in today's day and age. So maybe I am "insane." It doesn't take away from what happened.

Will do someday wrote:

Thank you for these examples. I do NOT think my experience is more reliable than these examples or that of martyrs or saints. In fact, I do understand these people would be diagnosed with, at the very least, a psychological disorder in today's day and age. So maybe I am "insane." It doesn't take away from what happened.

As long as a voice doesn't command that you kill your children(and have you obey) it's OK to be your kind of crazy.

"Dear God;

Please be the right one.

Thank you, Angela"

Thanks [stated with uncomfortable and slight laughter]. I'll end clicking on this thread right there as that's as good of place to stop as any.