Forums → WEPR → Theism and Atheism
| 4668 | 1465476 |
I grew up atheist for 16 years. I had always kept an open mind towards religion, but never really felt a need to believe in it. My sister started going to a Wednesday night children's program at a church. Eventually, I was dragged into a Christmas Eve service. Scoffing, I reluctantly went, assuming that this was going to be a load of crap, but when I went, I felt something. Something that I've never felt before. I felt a sense of empowerment and a sense of calling. Jesus called upon my soul, just like he did with his disciples. he wanted me to follow him. Now, my life is being lived for Christ. He died on the cross for my sins, and the sins of everyone who believes in him. He was beaten, brutalized, struck with a whip 39 times, made to carry a cross up to the stage of his death. This I believe to be true, and I can never repay him for what he has done.
I still have my struggles with Christianity, but I've found this bit of information most useful. Religion is not comprehensible in the human mind, because we cannot comprehend the idea of a perfect and supreme being, a God, but we can believe it in our heart, and that's the idea of faith. Faith is, even though everything rides against me believing in Jesus, I still believe in him because I know that it's true in my heart. I invite my fellow Brothers and sisters of the LORD to talk about how Jesus has helped you in your life. No atheists and no insults please
- 4,668 Replies
Wait a minute.. am I mistaken, or do you take what Dante wrote as directive in christian matters, yet fail to accept the gospel of Judas as part of your religion?
For some reason you are deciding what qualities God should have.
No I'm simply following the logical conclusion of the qualities stated for God.
There is one God, and it's us who are to adapt our qualities to comply with His requirements, not the opposite.
And his qualities are contradictory and do not fit observation.
Are you not tired replying to every nitpick there is, even if it's aimed to be read by another person?
No, I'm just tired of seeing them being used as if it represented factual evidence rather then something that may or may not have even happen in the way described or if at all.
This concept has reached the status of Church dogma, so it cannot be abandoned.
I find such a view purely closed minded.
You can't directly compare ant and human, since ants are driven by community instincts, like say bees, and humans are driven by consciousness instead. Ants don't have a will to choose between life and death, we have the will and sometimes the choice, and instincts are against the choice of death. With ants, it's the instincts that force the ant to die for the benefit of the colony. Also, self-sacrifice is an action that requires will to complete, so ants are incapable of this, unless you prove they have free will.
As I said it was an extreme example. However we can find self sacrifice for the benefit of the community in virtually all social animals which we just happen to be one. Another time we see such self sacrificing behavior is in parental care were a parent will defend to the death their child or even allow themselves to nearly starve. At times it wouldn't even need to be their children just what they perceive as such.
This means you have no proof. So they don't, and it's up to you to prove they do.
As an animal capable of decision making their is no reason to think they wouldn't. I don't know enough about that species to tell where pure instinct ends and that ability to decide begins. As such I can't point to specifics.
However, if you like I can give plenty of examples of other animals demonstrating free will.
Also your attempt to intentionally misuse reasonable doubt is quite apparent.
Why is christianity safe? Atheism just means you want logic which god ill accept and he will be benevolent. OR else he does not deserve to be called god.
Okay, firstly, I was showing my old, incorrect way of thinking. But what I meant was, if Christians are right then we go to heaven when we die; if Atheists are right, then Christians and everyone else disappears when they die. It would seem that Christians are safe.
My counterpoint was that this is baloney ("bologna" :P). For all we know, Christians could end up suffering somewhere while Atheists get rewarded. If we cannot be certain of anything, then the best we can do is be genuinely good people And, if God is benevolent, that should be good enough for him.
Also "Atheism just means you want logic which god ill accept and he will be benevolent"? I thought Atheism meant no god. Like, that's what it literally means. Just saying...
Actually it stems from an evolutionary benefit as a social animal.
Consciousness is NOT physical. It is intangible. How could it have just "evolved"? There is no reason why we couldn't be creatures that stored and simulated emotion when interacting, but were not actually conscious. The fact that we are conscious reveals that there is more to us than biochemical processes, in my opinion.
Can you give an example, because I can't think of any time that we've done this.
Well, by this I mean that we have free will. I feel like my will is free. Do you feel like yours is bound? I guess that's all the evidence I can offer; but hey, the fact that I'm conscious is also something that I alone can know with certainty. Arguing human nature is a very introspective process, I suppose.
Not really other animals display a conscience as well.
I was referring to conscious beings. I have no idea whether animals are conscious. Heck, I don't even know whether YOU are conscious. I assume you are, and I suppose most mammals are, too. Although insects seem to function more as robots...
Why, no. By the time Jesus spoke the word "sin" He used meant only what is now named "mortal sin", for which the punishment is Hell or "outer darkness, there men will weep and gnash their teeth" , if the person did not repent his wrongdoings. A mortal sin consists of intent, knowing that the deed is a sin (which means this action goes contrary to God's Ten Commandments) and the sinful action that's free enough to be a personal choice. Most of the times the intent is lacking or the choice is not so free, if so, the sin stops being mortal and won't lead to eternal punishment, but it still requires repentance to avoid temporary punishment (the Purgatory).
That's what the Catholic church says. But I read in the New Testament where Jesus pretty-much flat-out says that those who do not believe in him will suffer forever. That doesn't seem right, to me.
It would make sense for humans, God has some other merits to judge a particular person at the point of his death. I have heard of a story...
I feel that our God has given us a conscience to match his own. He also gave us free will to defy that conscience, because otherwise we'd be empty, unconscious robots. And sorry but I find it perfectly that your story is just that--a story. And one that does not line up with the ideas of a benevolent God, to boot.
Yep, and since you believe that there is a God, you might also believe that you, and every other human, has a soul. I'd like to talk with you personally somewhere, but I don't think I will be able to reach Canada, or you reach me here. I have found out that writing over Internet does not transfer emotions of the one who writes, even if he uses some assuring words, enough for the addressee to acknowledge them correctly.
Haha, yes. Maybe PMing.
I believe very strongly in a soul. I'm a fervent dualist-- we can't be conscious without an ephemeral soul. I even think animals might have souls.. most pets certainly act as if they do
[quote]Don't see why they wouldn't.
This means you have no proof. So they don't, and it's up to you to prove they do.[/quote]
Actually, I'd say that's where you're wrong. If you use the argument of animals not having a soul so that we can slaughter and have dominion over them, then it's you who has to prove they're soulless. This parallels my abortion beliefs: those who want abortions legal need to prove that the baby shows no signs of consciousness before the act is committed. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to do the killing.
I'll talk later, this post is running too long.
My counterpoint was that this is baloney ("bologna" :P). For all we know, Christians could end up suffering somewhere while Atheists get rewarded. If we cannot be certain of anything, then the best we can do is be genuinely good people And, if God is benevolent, that should be good enough for him.
Yes that is a possibility, though the equation is even more complex then this as we would also have to add in every religion and denomination there in. We would also have to consider a possibility no one thought of, which then gives us near infinite odds to deal with.
my abortion beliefs: those who want abortions legal need to prove that the baby shows no signs of consciousness before the act is committed.
I will have to look into it but I think this was done, at least for the stages of development in which abortion normally takes place.
Just a quick glance.
The brain starts to develop around week 4 most abortions are preformed withing the first 10-12 weeks.
So in a majority of abortions this is what's being aborted.
Anyway I hope this doesn't turn the topic on abortion.
Anecdote:
I will have to look into it but I think this was done, at least for the stages of development in which abortion normally takes place.
Just a quick glance.
The brain starts to develop around week 4 most abortions are preformed withing the first 10-12 weeks.
Wait, so are you for or against? I have read that babies in the womb have brainwaves at SIX WEEKS. By your statistics, that means that many abortions take place well beyond that point
/Anecdote. I'll allow you to reply, I'm not about to shut down someone after I've had the last word, but I won't post any more on this topic. At least, not here. You're right, we shouldn't derail.
Yes that is a possibility, though the equation is even more complex then this as we would also have to add in every religion and denomination there in. We would also have to consider a possibility no one thought of, which then gives us near infinite odds to deal with.
Eh, those amount to nothing. Just more guesses. That's like saying that, having a black box whose contents no one knows, everyone's belief as to what's in it must be considered.
How about just starting by saying that anything's possible, then going off of intuition from there. Here's basically my entire reasoning on the matter, plainly laid out:
1) We exist. If not, then it's pointless anyway :P
2) I am conscious. I don't know for sure about anyone else, but I know that I cannot be fooled into being conscious (that would require a conscious being to fool! :P), and I feel conscious, therefore I AM conscious
3) My consciousness has free will. This comes from my own feelings... I feel that my will is free.
4) The universe is governed by rules. Strict, set rules that cannot change and will always hold constant.
5) Based on 3) & 4), my consciousness must stem from outside of the universe, as it is not hemmed in by any rules. It must be ephemeral
6) If I assume we all share consciousnesses of a similar nature, then they most-likely all stem from the same ephemeral entity
7) If this ephemeral entity exists, it surely must be conscious, being the embodiment of consciousness
8) This entity is God.
That's the concrete stuff. This could extend as:
9) This God is eternal (we must assume continuity in the absence of some destroying effect), and therefore we are as well.
10) We can assume that this God is generally good, for we are generally good, and we stem from Him (and the alternative, an evil God, leaves us pretty much screwed anyway :P)
THEREFORE:
11) The best we can do is what our conscience tells us is right. We should be good and wholesome and helpful to others, because it's what is right. And, from the previous statements, it is what God would want (but mostly because it's right :P)
Quod Erat Demonstrandum :P
This God is eternal (we must assume continuity in the absence of some destroying effect), and therefore we are as well.
It is eternal but it can also change.
Wait, so are you for or against?
It's quite the misconception that being pro choice equates to pro abortion.
Eh, those amount to nothing. Just more guesses. That's like saying that, having a black box whose contents no one knows, everyone's belief as to what's in it must be considered.
If we are going to include one persons baseless belief then it's reasonable to include them all.
How about just starting by saying that anything's possible, then going off of intuition from there.
While anything may be possible that doesn't make anything probable. We can far better make determinations based on observation rather then intuition.
Excuse me for not getting into your break down of beliefs right now. I'm not feeling well today.
It is eternal but it can also change.
True. Expand on the implications, if you would, please, because atm I can't see what you're trying to say.
And I feel that my statement-- "we must assume continuity in the absence of some destroying effect" --needed more explanation. I mean that things tend to continue to exist, unless an external action causes that they cease to exist. There are no foreseeable actions that would terminate such an ethereal entity's existence, therefore we can assume he is eternal.
(PS: Every time I used the word "ephemeral", please read it as "ethereal" :P Vocab mix-up)
Excuse me for not getting into your break down of beliefs right now. I'm not feeling well today.
That's alright. I have to go, at the moment, anyway. I hope you will visit them in future, though, and I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say
True. Expand on the implications, if you would, please, because atm I can't see what you're trying to say.
What I was saying was that everything that happens is built upon the things that happened before it. Therefore it is reasonable to say that things might change.
Also if you think of it like energy. Energy is eternal, it cannot be created or destroyed but it can be converted (changed).
I don't think that the picture should change anything. Although the brain is developing the baby doesn't understand anything. It's conroling the body but the baby doesn't even know it exists until it's about 1 years old.
http://www.kenhunpijn.nl/frames/9.pdf
This is more about the use of morphine but it does have an interesting point on fetal development in regard to consciousness.
The fetus can mount a stress response as shown by increases in noradrenaline from 18 weeks of gestation onwards,[25] Ã-endorphin from 18 weeks of gestation,[16],[17] and cortisol from 20 weeks of gestation.[16],[26] Another indicator for the fetal stress response has been found in the redistribution of blood flow in the human fetus in response to stimuli.[16] The consciousness to experience pain might be associated with cerebral cortex activity. The suggested minimum gestation for this consciousness to be present is still under debate, and varies from six[27] to 26 weeks of gestation,[23] although it is also believed that consciousness develops at the moment of birth.[28]
Also I wanted to make a particular point on the source 27 saying it occurs at 6 weeks.
Rawlinson P. Commission of Inquiry into Fetal Sentience. Christian Action Research and Education. 1996;Available at: www.rcog.org.uk.
This would seem to indicate that even if the 6 weeks is accurate the fetus is unable to register stress until around 18 weeks.
3) My consciousness has free will. This comes from my own feelings... I feel that my will is free.
This seems like a very subjective way of determining this. There are a number of ways you can take this standpoint that are far more rational.
4) The universe is governed by rules. Strict, set rules that cannot change and will always hold constant.
Which rule exactly prevents free will?
5) Based on 3) & 4), my consciousness must stem from outside of the universe, as it is not hemmed in by any rules. It must be ephemeral
This hasn't been determined yet by your previous points, you've simply asserted this based on your own desires.
6) If I assume we all share consciousnesses of a similar nature, then they most-likely all stem from the same ephemeral entity
Even if we accept everything up til now as accurate there still is nothing here that would lead us to the assumption that this source is an entity of some sort. I won't bother to break this down any further as the reasoning has failed up to this point and the rest is dependent on this point being true.
Though I have to wonder why biochemical changes can effect things like our conscience and our will if such things are not determined by such mechanisms.
Though I have to wonder why biochemical changes can effect things like our conscience and our will if such things are not determined by such mechanisms.
That is the great question, isn't it? Well, I honestly don't know. I know that our consciousnesses are linked to biochemical processes, no doubt; the question is "to what extent?". I think that certain "id"-like emotions, namely pleasure and rage, derive from chemical processes, whereas complex emotions (happiness, sadness, etc.) are spawned from our consciousnesses and can then manifest themselves chemically.
[quote] 3) My consciousness has free will. This comes from my own feelings... I feel that my will is free.
This seems like a very subjective way of determining this. There are a number of ways you can take this standpoint that are far more rational.[/quote]
I see your point. Well, there's more to my belief here than just what I wrote. Part of it is that I don't think I could be conscious without free will, but most people with whom I argue generally have trouble understanding my reasoning here.
[quote] 4) The universe is governed by rules. Strict, set rules that cannot change and will always hold constant.
Which rule exactly prevents free will?[/quote]
Umm... cause and effect. Basically, if everything in the Universe is governed by laws, including our thought-processes, then everything is already set and predetermined, as the universe will follow only one logical application of rules to determine what happens. This would mean that we have no control over our actions, and thus have no free will.
[quote] 5) Based on 3) & 4), my consciousness must stem from outside of the universe, as it is not hemmed in by any rules. It must be [ethereal]
This hasn't been determined yet by your previous points, you've simply asserted this based on your own desires.[/quote]
I think it has. If I have a consciousness, and if free will prevents that consciousness from being a fabrication of the Universe, then the consciousness must come from somewhere other than the Universe. That seems straightforward to me, if 3) and 4) are true.
[quote] 6) If I assume we all share consciousnesses of a similar nature, then they most-likely all stem from the same ephemeral entity
Even if we accept everything up til now as accurate there still is nothing here that would lead us to the assumption that this source is an entity of some sort.[/quote]
I agree, this part is a little shaky. I guess I think that it makes most sense that something from outside the Universe made us, perhaps for his/her/its enjoyment
And I still feel my logic up to this point, arguing for an ethereal soul, sounded solid
Also "Atheism just means you want logic which god ill accept and he will be benevolent"? I thought Atheism meant no god. Like, that's what it literally means. Just saying...
Hypothetically. If god existed and was benevolent then he would understand our need for logic. If he was not benevolent the he does not deserve to be called god.
Consciousness is NOT physical. It is intangible. How could it have just "evolved"? There is no reason why we couldn't be creatures that stored and simulated emotion when interacting, but were not actually conscious. The fact that we are conscious reveals that there is more to us than biochemical processes, in my opinion.
Most animals are conscious. Their brains just aren't developed enough to think stuff more complicated than run, hide, fight, eat most of the time. We just have better brains.
I was referring to conscious beings. I have no idea whether animals are conscious. Heck, I don't even know whether YOU are conscious. I assume you are, and I suppose most mammals are, too. Although insects seem to function more as robots...
That is just that they are programmed to protect the nest/hive above all else and can't break free of that.
Actually, I'd say that's where you're wrong. If you use the argument of animals not having a soul so that we can slaughter and have dominion over them, then it's you who has to prove they're soulless. This parallels my abortion beliefs: those who want abortions legal need to prove that the baby shows no signs of consciousness before the act is committed. The burden of proof is on the one who wants to do the killing.
Its brain has not developed. There is scientific evidence for this but people just say "god says embryos have souls. And I think that people can make themselves have an abortion but letting a doctor do it is much safer and anyway, who are you to make a woman carry a baby she doesn't want for 9 months and give birth to it.
1) We exist. If not, then it's pointless anyway :P
2) I am conscious. I don't know for sure about anyone else, but I know that I cannot be fooled into being conscious (that would require a conscious being to fool! :P), and I feel conscious, therefore I AM conscious
3) My consciousness has free will. This comes from my own feelings... I feel that my will is free.
4) The universe is governed by rules. Strict, set rules that cannot change and will always hold constant.
5) Based on 3) & 4), my consciousness must stem from outside of the universe, as it is not hemmed in by any rules. It must be ephemeral
6) If I assume we all share consciousnesses of a similar nature, then they most-likely all stem from the same ephemeral entity
7) If this ephemeral entity exists, it surely must be conscious, being the embodiment of consciousness
8) This entity is God.
That's the concrete stuff. This could extend as:
9) This God is eternal (we must assume continuity in the absence of some destroying effect), and therefore we are as well.
10) We can assume that this God is generally good, for we are generally good, and we stem from Him (and the alternative, an evil God, leaves us pretty much screwed anyway :P)
THEREFORE:
11) The best we can do is what our conscience tells us is right. We should be good and wholesome and helpful to others, because it's what is right. And, from the previous statements, it is what God would want (but mostly because it's right :P)
You mess up on 5. Consciousness is electrical impulses that require no force to let them exist. And on 10 and 11 people are not generally good they are only good fi they are brought up to be good and no one brought up god. And I take it that you support al qaeda on 11.
You must be logged in to post a reply!