Faith for atheists?

[ambush80]

This was a good examination of some of the thoughts that atheists might have occasionally:

 

[Israel]

This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of reality. (Could we call it the "universe" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do indeed know...some have said) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason to it, or for its being)" on what place does man then ever stand to require/adjure (even hope for) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?

Yet...men do demand rationality...from one another. Yet, how can this be...if the whole "of everything"...has already been concluded to be without rationale?

Is (are) the question (s) not obvious?

Is what is called reason then, only of man's invention? (if so then...what particular man is forbidden the invention of his own?)

Is what is called reason...discovered? (Then its preexistence before discovery...remains)

Or, is reason given?

Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

Would He be the particular one not allowed to give... "his" reason?
If reason is only an invented thing...He is no less perfect in reason than any other. (Just not made allowance for ...by that which claims reason is only an invention)

But if reason be not invented, but discovered...or even (and particularly) only given by allowance (grace)...

I am very glad to report that any and all comparisons of all and any other man's reason...against Him, and by whatever form opposition may take...against that (One) Jesus Christ declaring Himself the way, the truth, and the life...will come up ridiculously and laughably short. What insults your reason...as He does? Your own rationality?

If it's not yet insulted perfectly...be patient.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Finding out "Jesus' reason" will make one too joyous to be bound by man's impoverished...reason.

He comes...to save.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his Messiah, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

Here's a laughter I have heard. The name men take to themselves in preference to another Name. Homo Sapiens. "Wise man". Yes, men have fallen in love with that. And it is funny to watch them kiss themselves.


Be a man.
Ecce Homo.

 

[660griz]

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?

No matter why something exists, its existence can necessitate and foster other things. There is no north/south/east/west without the earth and poles. There is no day/night without the sun. There is no reason without a brain to compute. Logic, and the accuracy of it, provides a means to survive. Some things make the wrong choices and are no longer with us.

Yet...men do demand rationality...from one another. Yet, how can this be...if the whole "of everything"...has already been concluded to be without rationale?

I see what you are doing. However, it is not an accurate comparison. You don't have to know why the universe is here. You just need to live in it.

Is what is called reason then, only of man's invention? (if so then...what particular man is forbidden the invention of his own?)

Is what is called reason...discovered? (Then its preexistence before discovery...remains)

Or, is reason given?

Man is not the only animal that reasons.

I am very glad to report that any and all comparisons of all and any other man's reason...against Him, and by whatever form opposition may take...against that (One) Jesus Christ declaring Himself the way, the truth, and the life...will come up ridiculously and laughably short. What insults your reason...as He does? Your own rationality?

There are so many things about religion that insults my reason.
I wont start a list.

He comes...to save.

Why?

Here's a laughter I have heard. The name men take to themselves in preference to another Name. Homo Sapiens. "Wise man". Yes, men have fallen in love with that. And it is funny to watch them kiss themselves.

The only ones that are not extinct. Wise, reasonable, alive.

 

[ambush80]

This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of reality. (Could we call it the "universe" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do indeed know...some have said) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason to it, or for its being)" on what place does man then ever stand to require/adjure (even hope for) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?

Yet...men do demand rationality...from one another. Yet, how can this be...if the whole "of everything"...has already been concluded to be without rationale?

Is (are) the question (s) not obvious?

Is what is called reason then, only of man's invention? (if so then...what particular man is forbidden the invention of his own?)

Is what is called reason...discovered? (Then its preexistence before discovery...remains)

Or, is reason given?

Jesus said unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the Father, but by me.

Would He be the particular one not allowed to give... "his" reason?
If reason is only an invented thing...He is no less perfect in reason than any other. (Just not made allowance for ...by that which claims reason is only an invention)

But if reason be not invented, but discovered...or even (and particularly) only given by allowance (grace)...

I am very glad to report that any and all comparisons of all and any other man's reason...against Him, and by whatever form opposition may take...against that (One) Jesus Christ declaring Himself the way, the truth, and the life...will come up ridiculously and laughably short. What insults your reason...as He does? Your own rationality?

If it's not yet insulted perfectly...be patient.
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Finding out "Jesus' reason" will make one too joyous to be bound by man's impoverished...reason.

He comes...to save.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his Messiah, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in derision.

Here's a laughter I have heard. The name men take to themselves in preference to another Name. Homo Sapiens. "Wise man". Yes, men have fallen in love with that. And it is funny to watch them kiss themselves.


Be a man.
Ecce Homo.

No matter why something exists, its existence can necessitate and foster other things. There is no north/south/east/west without the earth and poles. There is no day/night without the sun. There is no reason without a brain to compute. Logic, and the accuracy of it, provides a means to survive. Some things make the wrong choices and are no longer with us.


I see what you are doing. However, it is not an accurate comparison. You don't have to know why the universe is here. You just need to live in it.


Man is not the only animal that reasons.


There are so many things about religion that insults my reason.
I wont start a list.

Why?

The only ones that are not extinct. Wise, reasonable, alive.

Good job answering Isreal's post.

To this part in particular:

"This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of reality. (Could we call it the "universe" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do indeed know...some have said) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason to it, or for its being)" on what place does man then ever stand to require/adjure (even hope for) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?"

I would add that this seems to be an old version of the new argument "How can man claim to use logic if the Universe is illogical?" Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson also use a version of this and say that Atheists like Sam Harris use logic and reason but try to disclaim the source of all logic and reason. The answer to Shapiro and Peterson is "The God of squares has four sides"

Logic and reason spring from the observation of the Physical properties of nature and the application of that knowledge to survival. We can trace the roots of abstract thoughts like philosophy, imagination and religion to lower kinds of thought. We can see the roots of it in other primates. We developed complicated and ingenious minds capable of deep analysis and imagination that resulted in superstitious and fanciful ideas. I challenge someone to show that ideas of modern deities didn't develop from prior animistic god(s)/goddesses. Eventually, God was refined to be a more powerful version of us. Logic and reason exist because we exist. Without us there's no math and no God. The principles exist and they would still drive the mechanical processes of the Universe. Photosynthesis would still happen in plant cells and quasars would still operate in predictable ways but without a consciousness to observe and describe them they are undefined. There's no "story" of them with out someone to read it. The same with God.

Our consciousness arose as a natural product of a complex mind and then we invented God. Then in an odd twist we imagined that God gave us consciousness. It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides". It's the other way around. Saying logic and reason can't exist without God is like saying gravity can't exist without God.

 

[WaltL1]

Good job answering Isreal's post.

To this part in particular:

"This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of reality. (Could we call it the "universe" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do indeed know...some have said) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason to it, or for its being)" on what place does man then ever stand to require/adjure (even hope for) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?"

I would add that this seems to be an old version of the new argument "How can man claim to use logic if the Universe is illogical?" Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson also use a version of this and say that Atheists like Sam Harris use logic and reason but try to disclaim the source of all logic and reason. The answer to Shapiro and Peterson is "The God of squares has four sides"

Logic and reason spring from the observation of the Physical properties of nature and the application of that knowledge to survival. We can trace the roots of abstract thoughts like philosophy, imagination and religion to lower kinds of thought. We can see the roots of it in other primates. We developed complicated and ingenious minds capable of deep analysis and imagination that resulted in superstitious and fanciful ideas. I challenge someone to show that ideas of modern deities didn't develop from prior animistic god(s)/goddesses. Eventually, God was refined to be a more powerful version of us. Logic and reason exist because we exist. Without us there's no math and no God. The principles exist and they would still drive the mechanical processes of the Universe. Photosynthesis would still happen in plant cells and quasars would still operate in predictable ways but without a consciousness to observe and describe them they are undefined. There's no "story" of them with out someone to read it. The same with God.

Our consciousness arose as a natural product of a complex mind and then we invented God. Then in an odd twist we imagined that God gave us consciousness. It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides". It's the other way around. Saying logic and reason can't exist without God is like saying gravity can't exist without God.

It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides". It's the other way around.

Exactly.

 

[Israel]

Not it at all.

But this comes closest:

It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides". It's the other way around.

 

[hummerpoo]

Good job answering Isreal's post.

To this part in particular:

"This question comes to mind regarding a certain stance/worldview/proposition of reality. (Could we call it the "universe" view? to some form of absolute to include "the everything"?)

"If", as some might say (as I do indeed know...some have said) "the universe is all of indifference, all of non- reason (having no reason to it, or for its being)" on what place does man then ever stand to require/adjure (even hope for) reason of another man?

If the universe is, of itself, without reason, what form then "of man" is most consistent to it? Can any man then say "that man is being unreasonable" with any consistency to himself...if he has already posited that "all is without reason"? How could a man claim "exasperation"...unless he is looking for (what is to him, reasonable) in the very place he has already held "it does not exist"...(in, to, or from...the universe)?"

I would add that this seems to be an old version of the new argument "How can man claim to use logic if the Universe is illogical?" Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson also use a version of this and say that Atheists like Sam Harris use logic and reason but try to disclaim the source of all logic and reason. The answer to Shapiro and Peterson is "The God of squares has four sides"

Logic and reason spring from the observation of the Physical properties of nature and the application of that knowledge to survival. We can trace the roots of abstract thoughts like philosophy, imagination and religion to lower kinds of thought. We can see the roots of it in other primates. We developed complicated and ingenious minds capable of deep analysis and imagination that resulted in superstitious and fanciful ideas. I challenge someone to show that ideas of modern deities didn't develop from prior animistic god(s)/goddesses. Eventually, God was refined to be a more powerful version of us. Logic and reason exist because we exist. Without us there's no math and no God. The principles exist and they would still drive the mechanical processes of the Universe. Photosynthesis would still happen in plant cells and quasars would still operate in predictable ways but without a consciousness to observe and describe them they are undefined. There's no "story" of them with out someone to read it. The same with God.

Our consciousness arose as a natural product of a complex mind and then we invented God. Then in an odd twist we imagined that God gave us consciousness. It's like saying "We have four sides because God has four sides". It's the other way around. Saying logic and reason can't exist without God is like saying gravity can't exist without God.

Saying logic and reason can't exist without God is like saying gravity can't exist without God.

Exactly.

 

[ambush80]

Exactly.

Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God. At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will, in fact, subvert your belief. It's based on a feeling. Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.

 

[ambush80]

Not it at all.

But this comes closest:

Did I misunderstand your point because I'm stupid or because you were unclear and otherwise difficult to understand? Is what you were trying to express so complicated that though your language was a simple as it could be I still didn't quite grasp what you were trying to say?

 

[atlashunter]

Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God. At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will subvert your belief. It's based on a feeling. Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.

How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?

 

[ambush80]

How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?

I was just thinking about that this morning. What's the sell? Forgiveness of sin and everlasting life. Snake oil of the highest.

 

[ambush80]

What if the reward was "You get to hang out with Jesus for 15 minutes after you die and then you become nothing"? Is that enough cheese?

 

[660griz]

How many would believe if not for the promise of eternal life?

Or the threat of eternal punishment.

It really mostly comes down to who your parents are and geography.

A real God could overcome those obstacles.

I think it boils down to we knowing we are going to die. Some need more. Please let there be more!
Ooo, a piece of candy.
Everyone wants to go to heaven but, no one wants to die to get there.

 

[Israel]

Did I misunderstand your point because I'm stupid or because you were unclear and otherwise difficult to understand? Is what you were trying to express so complicated that though your language was a simple as it could be I still didn't quite grasp what you were trying to say?

Not hard at all. Not complicated at all.

 

[hummerpoo]

Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God. At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will, in fact, subvert your belief. It's based on a feeling. Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.

That was deep?

 

[ambush80]

That was deep?

It was a start on my part. Your turn. Explain how what I said is false and then tell me why.

 

[hummerpoo]

Lets do a deep analysis of why you believe in God. At it's core it isn't based on science or philosophical argument and no science will, in fact, subvert your belief. It's based on a feeling. Believers should really come to grips with that and own it.

It was a start on my part. Your turn. Explain how what I said is false and then tell me why.

First back to your #4; if I look at it as though you are directing it to me, you are, for the most part, telling me that God has no arms or ears, I agree. So what's your point. Mine is that you fallaciously expand that to God in the image of man, which is, as you say, "the other way around". IOW you seem to argue that anthropomorphism is real. (I like the further break down to include anthropopathism and anthropopraxism, but they are seldom used).

I do not accept infinite regression.

 

[ambush80]

Not hard at all. Not complicated at all.

Then what is it?

 

[ambush80]

First back to your #4; if I look at it as though you are directing it to me, you are, for the most part, telling me that God has no arms or ears, I agree. So what's your point. Mine is that you fallaciously expand that to God in the image of man, which is, as you say, "the other way around". IOW you seem to argue that anthropomorphism is real. (I like the further break down to include anthropopathism and anthropopraxism, but they are seldom used).

I do not accept infinite regression.

I had to look up anthropopathism and anthropopraxism but it seems that they apply. I was not in fact saying that God has no arms or ears. I'm not sure where you got that. After we evolved our ideas of god(s) beyond animism they curiously started being more like people, only amped up.

What do you mean you don't accept infinite regression?

 

[atlashunter]

What if the reward was "You get to hang out with Jesus for 15 minutes after you die and then you become nothing"? Is that enough cheese?

If that was the deal we never would have heard of Jesus Christ.