What age were you when you realised God didn't exist

opinion guy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So I take it that Isaac Newton, the writer of Principia Mathematica and the developer of so many massive scientific and mathematical advances such as infinitesimal calculus was not logically smart?

Just to elaborate here for those who don't know. The story of the apple falling on Newton's head and him deducing the theory of gravity is a complete fabrication. Newton claimed his theories were decoded from the Bible and spent another 20 years living as a recluse trying to decode a method for turning lead into gold from the bible, before eventually giving up and discovering women. The "father of modern science" was far from the logical person he is depicted to be in retrospect, holding an array of illogical religious and alchemist views.

Einstein was basically a pantheist (which despite what Dawkins says is not he same as being an atheist)

Scanlas The 2nd

Why isn't anyone offended that I assumed santa doesn't exist. There are lots of people who believe in santa yet no one seems to have a problem with assuming santa doesn't exist.

OutlawPete

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why isn't anyone offended that I assumed santa doesn't exist. There are lots of people who believe in santa yet no one seems to have a problem with assuming santa doesn't exist.

Only children and my cousin Simon believe in Santa.

Don't ask about Simon, sensitive issue for the family.

cucbuc

:rolleyes:Lord, grant me patience. Ah well...




:pac:

strobe

cucbuc wrote: »

From this boards microcosim its not hard to see why the world is in such turmoil.
Is it just a basic flaw in us that otherwise intelligent people cant just agree to differ when it comes to personal beliefs?

If people always just kept their mouths shut and agreed to differ when it comes to personal beliefs no progress of any kind would be made anywhere. We would be flinging poo at each other in the jungle basically.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

If people always just kept their mouths shut and agreed to differ when it comes to personal beliefs no progress of any kind would be made anywhere. We would be flinging poo at each other in the jungle basically.

What is progress in respect to what people's faith is though? What you may mean by progress is radically different to what I might mean.

Wibbs

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Why isn't anyone offended that I assumed santa doesn't exist. There are lots of people who believe in santa yet no one seems to have a problem with assuming santa doesn't exist.

Seriously? No really, are you 14, maybe 15? That's precisely the kind of logic found in mid adolescence. It really is. Banal teenage rebellion 101.

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

What is progress in respect to what people's faith is though? What you may mean by progress is radically different to what I might mean.

Lets be clear Jakkass. He said 'peoples personal beliefs'. If people had of 'agreed to differ' in relation to astronomy we would still think the Sun orbited the Earth (which was many peoples personal belief). I won't give any more examples, you see my point, I'm sure.

philologos

strobe wrote: »

Lets be clear Jakkass. He said 'peoples personal beliefs'. If people had of 'agreed to differ' in relation to astronomy we would still think the Sun orbited the Earth (which was many peoples personal belief). I won't give any more examples, you see my point, I'm sure.

Absolutely, but think about it for a second strobe.

Progress to me is seeing people come to a living faith in Jesus. Progress is seeing peoples lives changed by the Gospel.

Progress to you is seeing people reject this.

Logical Fallacy

Wibbs wrote: »

Seriously? No really, are you 14, maybe 15? That's precisely the kind of logic found in mid adolescence. It really is. Banal teenage rebellion 101.

Wibbs, AH has always been amateur hour for this kind of argument in fairness.

opinion guy

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely, but think about it for a second strobe.

Progress to me is seeing people come to a living faith in Jesus. Progress is seeing peoples lives changed by the Gospel.

Progress to you is seeing people reject this.

And what is progress to a nation ? Or a civilisation ?

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Absolutely, but think about it for a second strobe.

Progress to me is seeing people come to a living faith in Jesus. Progress is seeing peoples lives changed by the Gospel.

Progress to you is seeing people reject this.

You do me a disservice there man. Progress to me is discovering the truth, certainly not rejecting Christianity. If the truth is that Jesus was the son of God I think the only way people will come to accept that is by people talking about it. Not by people 'agreeing to differ'.

Do you disagree?

ch750536

Wibbs wrote: »

Seriously? No really, are you 14, maybe 15? That's precisely the kind of logic found in mid adolescence. It really is. Banal teenage rebellion 101.

So clever Wibbs, so so clever.

Logical Fallacy

opinion guy wrote: »

And what is progress to a nation ? Or a civilisation ?

Normally everything right up to the point of collapse.

philologos

opinion guy wrote: »

And what is progress to a nation ? Or a civilisation ?

Where people desire to treat others as better than themselves, where people hunger to know more about Creation and apply that knowledge to it, and when people desire to be in a fulfilling relationship with their Creator.

Ultimately what is progress to an individual is what is progress to a nation if one increases the scale.

strobe: I'm impressed and I'm sorry for jumping the gun.

RussellTuring

Jakkass wrote: »

Where people desire to treat others as better than themselves, where people hunger to know more about Creation and apply that knowledge to it, and when people desire to be in a fulfilling relationship with their Creator.

Ultimately what is progress to an individual is what is progress to a nation if one increases the scale.

strobe: I'm impressed and I'm sorry for jumping the gun.

If progress requires the pursuit of further knowledge of Creation and belief in a Creator, that means that humanity never progressed before we started to believe this and additionally that any person or civilisation that still does not accept it cannot possibly progress. That's quite a claim.

philologos

RussellTuring wrote: »

If progress requires the pursuit of further knowledge of Creation and belief in a Creator, that means that humanity never progressed before we started to believe this and additionally that any person or civilisation that still does not accept it cannot possibly progress. That's quite a claim.

One can study Creation without necessarily believing there is a Creator. Hence why there are scientists who are non-believers.

However if we are looking to a clear example to desire to treat others as better than themselves I see no better example than Jesus. I only stumble inadequately after Him, but His example never fails to inspire.

I guess it's this weekend in particular that really makes one think about all this. I know I should be thinking about it every weekend, but this weekend brings a lot of the discussion about as well. I remember being in awe at the person of Jesus in the Gospels. I'd never heard anyone like Him, even if we exclude the miracles.

Progress is about more than science, it is about striving after what things should be. I guess for me it is right that we know God. I could be completely wrong, but I'm doubting it.

RussellTuring

Jakkass wrote: »

One can study Creation without necessarily believing there is a Creator. Hence why there are scientists who are non-believers.

However if we are looking to a clear example to desire to treat others as better than themselves I see no better example than Jesus. I only stumble inadequately after Him, but His example never fails to inspire.

I guess it's this weekend in particular that really makes one think about all this. I know I should be thinking about it every weekend, but this weekend brings a lot of the discussion about as well. I remember being in awe at the person of Jesus in the Gospels. I'd never heard anyone like Him, even if we exclude the miracles.

Progress is about more than science, it is about striving after what things should be. I guess for me it is right that we know God. I could be completely wrong, but I'm doubting it.

Yes but you said progress also requires a desire to strengthen one's relationship with the Creator. My point still stands.

Jesus certainly was a nice chap in many ways but was horrible in others, unless of course all of the bad stuff is just parable. There are many other nice figures in history who make no mention of eternal damnation and such.

philologos

RussellTuring wrote: »

Yes but you said progress also requires a desire to strengthen one's relationship with the Creator. My point still stands.

Jesus certainly was a nice chap in many ways but was horrible in others, unless of course all of the bad stuff is just parable. There are many other nice figures in history who make no mention of eternal damnation and such.

Progress from a Christian point of view does yes. Progress would be seeing more people come to a positive relationship with God and with His Creation.

I don't believe that Jesus was 'nice' as humans regard 'nice'. Jesus preached something more powerful than 'nice', but the very means by which humans can discover and rebuild their relationship with God. You mention eternal damnation, but all Christians understand that it doesn't have to be this way for anyone if they are just willing to accept the forgiveness that has been bought for them on the cross. It is the grace and mercy that changes everything. It's when we stop struggling against it and let Him in that everything can change. At least that's what I found.

RussellTuring

Jakkass wrote: »

Progress from a Christian point of view does yes. Progress would be seeing more people come to a positive relationship with God and with His Creation.

Obviously. But you were asked what national or civilisational progress was. To rephrase my still unanswered question, does this mean that from a Christian point of view, no civilisation can be considered to progress, no matter how advanced they are in other ways?

I don't believe that Jesus was 'nice' as humans regard 'nice'. Jesus preached something more powerful than 'nice', but the very means by which humans can discover and rebuild their relationship with God. You mention eternal damnation, but all Christians understand that it doesn't have to be this way for anyone if they are just willing to accept the forgiveness that has been bought for them on the cross. It is the grace and mercy that changes everything. It's when we stop struggling against it and let Him in that everything can change. At least that's what I found.

Otherwise, it's eternal damnation. If somebody offered me salvation from eternal suffering on the condition that I take their extraordinary claims on faith, and they had the power to save me even if I didn't, I might be compelled to accept but that doesn't make them good at all.

philologos

RussellTuring wrote: »

Obviously. But you were asked what national or civilisational progress was. To rephrase my still unanswered question, does this mean that from a Christian point of view, no civilisation can be considered to progress, no matter how advanced they are in other ways?

Let me ask you another question: What is the ultimate goal for humanity? This question will make you think about what progress is. I personally believe the ultimate goal of mankind is to treat ones neighbour as beyond onesself, to strive to know more about Creation and to apply this knowledge to it, and to enter into a meaningful relationship with the Creator. So yes if nations truly believed in these things, and if nations committed themselves to all these things then this would produce the best nation / civilisation that has been ever known to man. The only problem is that I don't believe that this will be achieved on earth, but yet we must strive towards a better society. That's the challenge for us.

RussellTuring wrote: »

Otherwise, it's eternal damnation. If somebody offered me salvation from eternal suffering on the condition that I take their extraordinary claims on faith, and they had the power to save me even if I didn't, I might be compelled to accept but that doesn't make them good at all.

This only presumes that we don't deserve to be punished for disobeying God. Once that piece is in the puzzle things start to look a little different. Personally I recognise that I actually deserve to go to hell, but God has forgiven me and I am thankful for this and for His continued providence in my life.

opinion guy

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask you another question: What is the ultimate goal for humanity? This question will make you think about what progress is. I personally believe the ultimate goal of mankind is to treat ones neighbour as beyond onesself, to strive to know more about Creation and to apply this knowledge to it, and to enter into a meaningful relationship with the Creator. So yes if nations truly believed in these things, and if nations committed themselves to all these things then this would produce the best nation / civilisation that has been ever known to man. The only problem is that I don't believe that this will be achieved on earth, but yet we must strive towards a better society. That's the challenge for us.

What goal ? Why do you presume that there is some sort of goal for humanity ?

Sandwlch

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me ask you another question: What is the ultimate goal for humanity?

Is a false question. Why the presumption that there is a goal? Humanity simply is. We are just (slightly) smarter monkeys, as a quirk in the evolution of biological chemistry. And so far, insufficiently intelligent to explain, or even know if it is even possible for us ever to explain, the universe about us.

philologos

opinion guy wrote: »

What goal ? Why do you presume that there is some sort of goal for humanity ?

Talking about progress presupposes a goal, or an aspiration at the very most. To talk about progress is absolutely meaningless otherwise.

opinion guy

Jakkass wrote: »

Talking about progress presupposes a goal, or an aspiration at the very most. To talk about progress is absolutely meaningless otherwise.

No no no. We were talking about progress - a concept we define for ourselves. This does not mean their s some predefined goal. It especially does not mean there is some mystical pre-defined goal that you are presuming.

I've notice in your posts over that you make a lot of astonishing presumptions in the formation of your world view. It might benefit you to think upon that and ask yourself what your presumptions are and are they valid.

Sandwlch

Jakkass wrote: »

Talking about progress presupposes a goal, or an aspiration at the very most. To talk about progress is absolutely meaningless otherwise.

Not really. A pinball makes progress down the table. But it starts out with no predefined goal. It only reacts as it impacts the pins and bumpers and is sent on a new direction. Humanity is a more complex variation of the same syndrome but a more complex entity than a steel ball and reacting in far more complicated ways with the world it encounters than the easily calculated laws of motion.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Talking about progress presupposes a goal, or an aspiration at the very most. To talk about progress is absolutely meaningless otherwise.

Tell me how in the strive for more knowledge about how we came to where we are today presupposes a benevolent creator?

You can't come up with the conclusion and work backwards.

You start with a hypothesis and work forwards towards a theory. The idea of any God is not even a hypothesis at best as there is no evidence to support it. So you're never going to make progress are you?

philologos

opinion guy wrote: »

No no no. We were talking about progress - a concept we define for ourselves. This does not mean their s some predefined goal. It especially does not mean there is some mystical pre-defined goal that you are presuming.

I don't think ultimate progress is defined by anyone. I don't think that morality, ethics, or anything else is ultimately defined by anyone. It doesn't make any sense to presume this, and it simply doesn't work in practice.

opinion guy wrote: »

I've notice in your posts over that you make a lot of astonishing presumptions in the formation of your world view. It might benefit you to think upon that and ask yourself what your presumptions are and are they valid.

I spent several months working out my convictions before I became to believe 4 years ago (was agnostic), I went through them pretty systematically. The assumptions that I find in atheists and agnostics are at the very least equivalent to those of believers.

I have examined my faith thoroughly and I continue to do so. That's probably why I've learned so much about my faith. Why the heck do you think I post here or the Atheists & Agnostics forum if I am scared of bringing my faith under scrutiny?

Indeed, I think it is safe to say that perhaps it might also be beneficial for many non-believers to challenge their own assumptions. Or is that only something that believers need to do? :pac:

Sandwlch wrote: »

Not really. A pinball makes progress down the table. But it starts out with no predefined goal. It only reacts as it impacts the pins and bumpers and is sent on a new direction. Humanity is a more complex variation of the same syndrome but a more complex entity than a steel ball and reacting in far more complicated ways with the world it encounters than the easily calculated laws of motion.

And the movement is your definition of progress in the pinball if you are to take that understanding of progress. There is still a definition involved in how you understand progress. Why can't I understand progress as something that would keep the pinball stable for the longest period of time?

Sandwlch

Jakkass wrote: »

Why can't I understand progress as something that would keep the pinball stable for the longest period of time?

You may understand it as you wish. But to engage in sane discussion you kinda need to understand it as the rest of the world does:

prog·ress (prgrs, -rs, prgrs) n.
1. Movement, as toward a goal; advance.
2. Development or growth: students who show progress.
3. Steady improvement, as of a society or civilization: a believer in human progress. See Synonyms at development.
4. A ceremonial journey made by a sovereign through his or her realm.

opinion guy

Jakkass wrote: »

I spent several months working out my convictions before I became to believe 4 years ago (was agnostic), I went through them pretty systematically. The assumptions that I find in atheists and agnostics are at the very least equivalent to those of believers.

You need to examine them some more. Several months is nothing for this stuff. For what its worth I don't think you are even aware of many of your assumptions.

I have examined my faith thoroughly and I continue to do so. That's probably why I've learned so much about my faith. Why the heck do you think I post here or the Atheists & Agnostics forum if I am scared of bringing my faith under scrutiny?

Indeed, I think it is safe to say that perhaps it might also be beneficial for many non-believers to challenge their own assumptions. Or is that only something that believers need to do? :pac:

Did I say you were scared ? No. Another assumption:rolleyes: