Members phkrause Posted December 17, 2014 Members Share Posted December 17, 2014 Challenging The Existence of God Christian author Graham Veale challenges the popular arguments of New Atheists in his book, New Atheism: A Survival Guide . Here are seven things atheists misunderstand about God. Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Galleries/7-Things-Atheists-Get-Wrong-About-God.aspx#ZlwIAbxaLWtHHAYc.99 Charlessr, Vitezhish and Sojourner 3 Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lauralea Posted December 17, 2014 Share Posted December 17, 2014 So true we are not intellectually capable of understanding all the complexities of God. He reveals a lot to us, but we cannot know it all as believers, and we know much less if we do not open ourselves to what His word says. Kevin H and Sojourner 2 Quote Behold what manner of love the Father hath given unto us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members phkrause Posted February 28, 2015 Author Members Share Posted February 28, 2015 3 Things Blocking Atheists From the TruthRead more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Galleries/3-Things-Blocking-Atheists-From-the-Truth.aspx#v75RxWHsyflqecCv.99 Quote phkrause By the decree enforcing the institution of the papacy in violation of the law of God, our nation will disconnect herself fully from righteousness. When Protestantism shall stretch her hand across the gulf to grasp the hand of the Roman power, when she shall reach over the abyss to clasp hands with spiritualism, when, under the influence of this threefold union, our country shall repudiate every principle of its Constitution as a Protestant and republican government, and shall make provision for the propagation of papal falsehoods and delusions, then we may know that the time has come for the marvelous working of Satan and that the end is near. {5T 451.1} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Challenging The Existence of God Christian author Graham Veale challenges the popular arguments of New Atheists in his book, New Atheism: A Survival Guide . Here are seven things atheists misunderstand about God. Read more at http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Galleries/7-Things-Atheists-Get-Wrong-About-God.aspx#ZlwIAbxaLWtHHAYc.99 The article should be labeled "7 things Christians imagine atheists believe about God". In the very least, have people provide some base reference for what you are arguing against. 1) Atheists find in science a method of understanding their surrounding reality with provable data. The human mind left to itself, lusts for understanding and reason of all it observes. So it’s normal to want to explain how the earth was formed, how mankind came to being and where do we go after we die. Veale writes, “Science cannot explain God away because…there is no incompatibility between theism and science.” Sure, and science doesn't claim that theism is incompatible with science. All it asks for is specific evidence that certain things are possible from theistic perspective... and not just "I've read it in a book that it once happened" type of evidence, but scientific evidence that consistently connects the dots without making far reaching assumptions that are not grounded in observable reality. That's where theists like this one tend to misunderstand scientific mindset, because they don't attempt to evaluate the claims of such mindset assuming that it's wrong by default. Atheists don't say that there is definitively no God. Atheism is a pending position, which is waiting for better evidence to make a positive decision on that claim. For example, we can safely say that Dragons don't exist. Can we definitively say that nowhere at all any dragons exist at all? No, we can't! But unless we are presented with some conclusive evidence for a dragon, we wouldn't be wrong thinking otherwise. That's what atheism is in a nutshell. It's an honest position from a personal perspective of an observer to abstain from a positive belief about God until more conclusive evidence is presented that conclusively rules making stories up. 2) Reason, for the Atheist, makes the need for religion unnecessary. Their world is shaped by examining evidence and drawing conclusions to solve everyday practical problems.Here’s where they get it wrong: What happens when circumstances go beyond the problem-solving ability of reason? Issues such as: death, life, sickness, spiritual encounters, miraculous cures, matters of the heart, human nature and true stories of Divine intervention. A lack of trust in God, by refusing faith, can never explain away His existence and evidence of His presence in the physical world. Again, the problem is not with those unexplained stories from the perspective of the people who observe these. The problem is with the standard against we would evaluate such stories. The best we can do in some cases is "We don't know and can't explain it". Jumping to "It therefore must be God that did it"... has nothing to do with "trusting God".... It is actually WHOLLY taking an unjustifiable assumption based on a SELF-CONSTRUCTED PREFERENCE, which then takes a label of "faith". Why would God want that type of belief, when it's so easy to deceive and manipulate people with? I'd be inclined to think that God would structure our reality in such a way in which such wouldn't be an issue. Overall, it seems like the type of thing that would allow one to believe whatever they want and claim it to be true and "above human reason". Reason is the only way we experience our reality coherently. If you want to see what human being without reason looks like, take a field trip to your local insane asylum. 3) Here is one of the most popular questions for those who seek to usurp the theist argument, “If there is a God worthy of worship, why does He allow suffering?” Here’s where they get it wrong: Human beings are free-will, moral acting agents on the earth…not robots. God gives man the gift of choice and choosing to make the right decision is of more value to God than forcing the behavior…He’s after the rightness of heart. What does a gift of choice have to do with the problem of human suffering? How does it resolve it at all? Let's say you observe a rapist about to rape a 7 year old. What would you do? Do you go "Well, I don't want to limit his choices, so I'll just stand here, watch and cry, and then have him face the justice later... and child may learn some touch lessons of forgiveness". I doubt anyone would. Free will doesn't resolve this problem at all 4)Atheists depend on the laws of nature in science to explain the different events and particles within the universe. Here’s where they get it wrong: Science is unable to explain why those laws to govern exist in the first place. God, through Intelligent Design, gives this answer by providing that the universe was created, planned and ordered by a rational agent --Himself. This is the type of logic that has young people leaving the church by the packs once they get familiar with basic philosophy of science, and the caricature of which is presented in the statement above. a) Atheists don't depend on the laws of nature in science to explain different events and particles in the universe. It's gross misunderstanding what Atheism is. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in Gods. It doesn't prohibit Atheists from believing anything else, or force them to explain anything else as an alternative. Many do, but they don't rely on something for their "atheism". Atheism is a position of lack of belief based on lack of evidence people find valid. Again, what would it take for you to believe that pixies are real? Would a fairy tale about pixies do? How about a claim that pixies are responsible for something that science can't explain? Would that do? How about a statement like - pixies, through the apples they create give us an answer, but providing us with the color that the apples hold - red, yellow and green... the same as pixies! Laws of nature are our consistent observation of nature. If we assume law-giver, then it creates some problematic paradoxes. For example, where did God get these laws? If that's the only best possible Universe out of all of the other possibilities, then it means God is subject to the law requiring him to set these laws, thus law is self-actuating. If these are arbitrary, then the design aspect of it goes out of the window. In short, this both misrepresents what Atheism is, and basic modal logic and how it works. 5) Atheists have a difficult time explaining human morality and suggest that this is an offspring of evolution.The idea that all humans can agree on certain issues of right and wrong suggest a higher, common law written in our conscience. There are certain things we innately know are inhumane. Here’s where they get it wrong: Atheism would relegate this to an unexpected consequence of human evolution; however evolution cannot explain morality and the consistency of human agreement on common issues of right and wrong. Again, this both misrepresents the atheistic views on the subject, and the reality of the subject. Atheism doesn't hang on the need to explain morality thinking that if they don't explain it it therefore means it came from God. Its called argument from ignorance fallacy. It's like saying that because one doesn't have an answer, then the unsubstantiated answer that other person provides is automatically valid. a) Christian morality is not a morality. Morality is a matter of "why" and not a matter of "what". Christian reasons for "why" would be "Because God said so". Because someone says something is not a reason to judge as a morally better. Evaluating comparative consequences of either action is where the basis for morality resides. Whether God says it, or uncle Ben says it .... is irrelevant. What matters is the consequences that such action would lead to. When we talk about our morals evolved, we don't merely talk about the evolutionary biology. We talk about evolution of morality in general. We went through all sorts of stages of immoral, which in the past considered moral... slavery, aggressive conquest, racism, etc. Eventually we arrived with the set of morals that we have today, which all of us more or less agree on. c) There is no absolute consistency of human agreement on morality. We still debate abortion, capital punishment, war crimes, police force use, and copyright... and anything and everything to do with morality. Bible doesn't really help us to resolve the complex moral issues that we face today. Morality evolves with our understanding and our environment. 6) The theory of evolution says that human life is unintended, consequential, sporadic and a by-product of an unloving universe. Here’s where they get it wrong: All humans are wired for love, belonging and a deep sense of purpose which shows a higher-intentionality beyond what we see in evolution. We are relational beings that can enter into relationship with a relational God, because we are made in His image. Again, I'm not sure how much misrepresentation this author can pack in a single piece... but it's only a wonder why the religion is on decline worldwide given "facts" like these a) Evolution as a theory has nothing to say about "intention" or origin of life. Likewise, the question of love is an emotional appeal in this case that's manipulative and dishonest when it comes to the reality of the subject matter. Saying that "God loves you" is quite inconsequential when it comes to demonstrating the evidence for the existence. Love as an appeal can be used for all sorts of terrible and manipulative stuff. Likewise, it has little to do with Atheism at all, which again, centers around the lack of evidence for the positive claim. If God is loving, would he stand and watch a little girl being raped and ruined for life? Would you as a loving parent? If your child was raped, what would "I had to let the rapist have a choice in the matter" be justification enough for lack of action? How about "He will eventually get what he deserved, and my child will inherit my wealth"? How does that sound as a justification? It's not that simple. 7) Atheists see Christianity as an academic pursuit or intellectual exercise by those who refuse to accept scientific data as doctrine. The underlying blasphemy for Atheists is the Christian belief that humanity is flawed and in need of a Savior. Again, this is gross misrepresentation of the issue. Atheism is not anymore an academic pursuit than not believing that pixies exist is an academic pursuit. One doesn't need to be a PHD to observe that. The issue is with evidence presented. A claim is simply not enough. A possible false correlation is not enough (I healed fast, therefore God). What is enough? Well, for different people the scale of enough may be different, but God would know what's enough for each... and that's the point. If God really would want people to know that He exists, there wouldn't be this conversation today. I don't have to prove to my child that I exist. I'm there in a real way, and not sending him letters that uncle Bob recorded third hand, or stage some events that get him out of trouble once in a while. It's not unreasonable to put one's belief of Christian God (or any God) on hold, until better evidence shows up than the Bible or some claims of miracles that tend to happen when you are not there. There are good reasons to be skeptical, and there's no need to make up nonsense to misrepresent what Atheism really is - a form of "belief on hold". It's not an outright denial. It's simply observing the fact that certain ways of discovery and knowing work better than other. It's also a recognition that virtually all scams work on bases of demand of suspending reason, and work solely based on trust. It certainly doesn't make religion a scam, but many religions were and are, and pleading "but mine is really true this time" exception doesn't work very well if the demands are exactly the same - believe first, and then re-interpret reality as "evidence" as a result of such belief. In short... shame on the author. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sojourner Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Atheists don't say that there is definitively no God. Atheism is a pending position, which is waiting for better evidence to make a positive decision on that claim. For example, we can safely say that Dragons don't exist. Can we definitively say that nowhere at all any dragons exist at all? No, we can't! But unless we are presented with some conclusive evidence for a dragon, we wouldn't be wrong thinking otherwise. That's what atheism is in a nutshell. It's an honest position from a personal perspective of an observer to abstain from a positive belief about God until more conclusive evidence is presented that conclusively rules making stories up. You sound confused between Atheism and being an Agnostic? Atheism openly tells people there is no god, Agnostics take a position of neither believing nor disbelieving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fccool Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 You sound confused between Atheism and being an Agnostic? Atheism openly tells people there is no god, Agnostics take a position of neither believing nor disbelieving. You seem to be confusing two different issues here. Knowledge is not the same as belief. Those two are related, but not the same. Agnostic is a claim about certain knowledge. Atheism, or theism are claims about belief. See here: http://nargaque.com/2014/03/27/atheist-or-agnostic-a-confusion-of-terms/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.