david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) (03/15/84)
[=<{!(*)!}>=]
Tim Stoehr writes:
> I agree, one cannot prove the non-existence of God, nor can one prove
> the non-existence of dragons, witches, vampires, tooth-fairies or
> Santa Claus. Would you consider me a logical person if I believed
> that all of the above existed? The real question is then "Why should
> anyone believe in the existence of God any more than in the existence
> of Santa Claus[e]?" The only reason I can think of is the fact that
> one's parents (and others) are more persistent in TELLING one that God
> exists than in telling one that Santa Claus exists, despite all
> evidence pointing to the non-existence of both.
I'll bite. If, indeed, the only reason anyone believes in God is that others
are persistent in telling them God exists, I would think that Christianity
would have died out a long time ago. Many people are stupid, but not that
stupid. They usually require *some* shred of evidence besides a lot of
verbiage; else, we have no way to account for those devout atheists who, after
serious study, become Christians. What do you suppose convinced them?
I am interested in hearing "all evidence pointing to the non-existence" of
God. And, let's move this discussion to net.religion. You will find support
for your discussion there, as well as some armchair Christian apologeticians.
-- David Norris :-)
-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!davidjonw@azure.UUCP (Jonathan White) (03/16/84)
Tim Stoehr writes: > I agree, one cannot prove the non-existence of God, nor can one prove > the non-existence of dragons, witches, vampires, tooth-fairies or > Santa Claus. Would you consider me a logical person if I believed > that all of the above existed? The real question is then "Why should > anyone believe in the existence of God any more than in the existence > of Santa Claus[e]?" The only reason I can think of is the fact that > one's parents (and others) are more persistent in TELLING one that God > exists than in telling one that Santa Claus exists, despite all > evidence pointing to the non-existence of both. David Norris responds: I'll bite. If, indeed, the only reason anyone believes in God is that others are persistent in telling them God exists, I would think that Christianity would have died out a long time ago. Many people are stupid, but not that stupid. They usually require *some* shred of evidence besides a lot of verbiage; else, we have no way to account for those devout atheists who, after serious study, become Christians. What do you suppose convinced them? Okay, David, I'll bite. Just what shred of evidence do you have to offer us that the Judeo-Christian God exists? (By "evidence," I mean something better than "because it says so in the Bible" or "He has changed my life." If your standards of proof are that loose, then I can prove to you that Santa Claus exists!) And how do you account for all devout Christians who become atheists or agnostics? Jon White [decvax|ucbvax]!tektronix!tekmdp!azure!jonw
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (03/17/84)
What about all the people who believed in God and don't now, such as myself, what convinced them? In the 25+ years that I have lived, I have witnessed absolutely nothing that pointed to the existence of God. That, in itself, is rather convincing to me. Granted I've never seen a black hole either, but there is evidence that they exist. Where is the evidence that God exists? Don't tell me that "2,000 years ago there was..." The details of what went on 2,000 years ago nobody knows, noone can say that if Jesus existed, that he lied, or not, about being the son of God. Let's examine something that we know more about, again, I point to the total lack of real, current evidence, of any kind. And I don't care if on sunday morning I can turn on the TV and listen to people say they've "talked to God", etc. Christianity has survived as a philosophy, it does not depend on the existence of God. How does one explain that a single Creator exists, while many other religions on this planet are inconsistent with this, many older than Christianity. The American Indians had many different beliefs in many different gods, before the good Christians decided to wipe out the filthy godless heathens. Many cultures have invented gods to explain the existence of the mountains and the animals etc. And God created the Earth and life on it?, how is this attitude different from the ancient false belief that the sun is a flaming chariot? Both are just simplistic explanations for what someone couldn't explain. What makes a belief in God different than someone believing the earth is giant turtle walking around the sun? Why did many Christians violently reject the theory of evolution, even when we know that evolution happens, if by no more that survival of the fittest? Man was created in God's image and God created the universe, right? What a conceited notion, that we are the favored species in the universe, or at least close to it. People are no more special than any other animal, except he has the ability to obliterate the rest, and himself as well.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (03/19/84)
> I'll bite. If, indeed, the only reason anyone believes in God is that others > are persistent in telling them God exists, I would think that Christianity > would have died out a long time ago. Many people are stupid, but not that > stupid. They usually require *some* shred of evidence besides a lot of > verbiage;else, we have no way to account for those devout atheists who, after > serious study, become Christians. What do you suppose convinced them? About that "shred of evidence" you describe, David... [DAMN!!! I'm *so* tempted to say "Where's the beef?" here, but my religion forbids it :-] -- TEST
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (03/21/84)
I think we should also point out that to accept any faith that is believed by a majority of people, we should all become Moslem. It is NOT the case that people are not gullible enough to believe a religion if that religion promises them things which they desire. A belief in a super-being who loves me and watches out for me and then promises life after death is very tempting, especially if one can use the flimsiest of excuses to prop up that belief. Darrell Plank BTL-IH
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/22/84)
Reply to Tim Stoehr: First, I think your title overstates the case. A lack of evidence (as you perceive it) in favor of something is not positive evidence against it. And, as so many opponents of Christianity do, you're imprisoning yourself by insisting that God be demonstrable solely to the rational mind; you're also trying (and failing) to imprison God, who (again) deals with the whole person, not just the rational mind. (Jesus Himself refused to do signs and wonders on demand for the cynical Pharisees; He made a remark which implied that the only sign they'd get would be His resurrection.) > What about all the people who believed in God and don't now, such as > myself, what convinced them? Presumably you never actually came to KNOW God. My guess is that you grew up in a church "having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof", as the Apostle Paul put it. You thus saw no evidence of what Christ can really do in a life (particularly not in your own), or in a group of lives coming together. > In the 25+ years that I have lived, I have witnessed absolutely nothing > that pointed to the existence of God. That, in itself, is rather > convincing to me. Granted I've never seen a black hole either, but > there is evidence that they exist. Where is the evidence that God > exists? Don't tell me that "2,000 years ago there was..." The details > of what went on 2,000 years ago nobody knows, noone can say that if > Jesus existed, that he lied, or not, about being the son of God. Let's > examine something that we know more about, again, I point to the total > lack of real, current evidence, of any kind. And I don't care if on > sunday morning I can turn on the TV and listen to people say they've > "talked to God", etc. Christians do fall down on the job. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love for one another." It is obvious that this is not true of ALL who claim to be Christians. Still, you have not been looking in the right places for evidence; and (as I said before) you are only hurting yourself by limiting the evidence you'll examine. I have known groups of very loving and caring Christians, with a quality about them quite different from any camaraderie that may arise among any non-Christians I've seen. And why shouldn't I tell you that 2000 years ago a Man who claimed to be the Son of God (and performed quite a few miracles--for those who really needed them--thereby lending credence to His claim) was raised from the dead with no human intervention, and was seen alive by many people who had seen Him die, quite dead? Don't say that you don't believe something that was written 2000 years ago. Do you believe the histories of, say, the Roman Empire that were written at that time period? You believe every historical fact on authority, because someone whom you perceive as reliable has told you so. In many (not all) cases, there is some physical evidence backing up the historical record. There is evidence of many types, including physical, backing up the Biblical record. Again I recommend the books "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" and "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict", by Josh McDowell. And finally, why not believe those who say that they have talked with God, or been miraculously healed by Him (such an incident was even broadcast on "That's Incredible" a few months back), or (as in my case) experienced considerable psychological healing because He has unstintingly loved me? Try it; you'll like it. Or rather, try Him; you'll love Him. "Taste and see that the Lord is good." > Christianity has survived as a philosophy, it does not depend on the > existence of God. This does indeed sound as though you grew up in a liberal church, preaching a philosophy rather than the Good News that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." But true Christianity--a true relationship with God, such as I and millions of others have experienced--obviously depends on having someone to relate to. This has gotten rather long, so I'll reply to at least some of the rest later on. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/22/84)
Reply to Darrell Plank (ihnp4!ihopa!dap): > I think we should also point out that to accept any faith that is believed > by a majority of people, we should all become Moslem. It is NOT the case > that people are not gullible enough to believe a religion if that religion > promises them things which they desire. A belief in a super-being who > loves me and watches out for me and then promises life after death is very > tempting, especially if one can use the flimsiest of excuses to prop up > that belief. I don't remember anyone arguing that one should go with the majority. That's not the argument to use for any belief, Christianity, Islam, or anything else. In fact, true Christians (those who actually have come into relationship with God) may be quite a minority, Falwell's pontifications notwithstanding. Fortunately, I for one don't feel that the reasons I believe are flimsy excuses. I have been helped and loved so much that I cannot do anything but believe. It's a very tempting belief, you say, and yet you don't embrace it? Why, pray tell, is the opposite belief (that there is no God, no life after death-- or before it for that matter, no hope, no love) more tempting?? The only reason I can think of is that you don't want to commit yourself, make yourself vulnerable, to Someone who asks you to give yourself totally to Him, and not keep yourself for yourself. This is unfortunate for you. "He that saves his life will lose it; but he who loses his life for My sake will find it." I have begun (only begun) to know the truth of this in my own life. -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
dap@ihopa.UUCP (afsd) (03/26/84)
Jeff Sargent asks "Why is the belief in atheism more tempting that belief in God?". First of all, I am not an atheist. I am an agnostic. Second, I think your question gets to the heart of where a lot of Christian beliefs come from. The only answer you could discover also revealed much: "You must be too afraid to accept God's love.". You seem to phrase everything in terms of what I WANT to believe or am AFRAID to believe. This is completely irrelevant. I make decisions on what seems to be correct or incorrect. Agnosticism seems to me more reasonable, and this is why it is more "tempting". The fact that you weren't able to even think of this answer seems to me to perhaps reveal your attitude toward religious beliefs. Namely, one doesn't use common sense to come to a religious belief, instead one should believe anything which makes oneself happier. This is similar to sticking your head in the sand. If I don't like a belief, I'll look elsewhere to find a belief which I DO like, whether it makes sense or not. You also make a point of saying that since the mind is only a minor part of Christianity, we shouldn't use it when coming up with religious belief. My mind is the ONLY thing I can use to distinguish one religious belief from another. I could SAY I believed in the Christian God, but it just wouldn't be true if that God made no sense to me. Some people may be able to put their minds on idle while thinking about God but I cannot. Darrell Plank BTL-IH
gds@mit-eddie.UUCP (Greg Skinner) (03/26/84)
<have mercy upon me, oh great wombat line-eater>
azure!jonw:
Okay, David, I'll bite. Just what shred of evidence do you have to
offer us that the Judeo-Christian God exists? (By "evidence," I
mean something better than "because it says so in the Bible" or "He
has changed my life." If your standards of proof are that loose,
then I can prove to you that Santa Claus exists!) And how do you
account for all devout Christians who become atheists or agnostics?
I'd love to see you prove the existence of Santa Claus. :-)
(just couldn't resist!)
--
Be ye moby,
for I am moby.
Greg-bo, Prince of Eternia
{decvax!genrad, eagle!mit-vax, ihnp4}!mit-eddie!gdsaeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (03/27/84)
I'm crossing this topic into net.religion (note double group), and I also switched the topic back from "Go" to "God", not being acquainted with the game of "Go".... I'll try (probably very clumsily) to respond to some of the comments from the second-level agnostic, Erik E. Fair: > What is the Christian reason for living? > What is the point? > What is the meaning of Life? > (more to the point, "Whadda ya got, that I don' got?") A very approximate quote from C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity": The whole purpose of being a Christian is to become a little Christ -- nothing else. That sums up the whole thing. To become like Christ involves everything else: becoming a loving and giving person, having confidence enabling you to be vulnerable (psychologically and physically; Jesus did both), having the wisdom to see people's needs and the desire to meet them. (Note from that last that the idea of Christianity is not to get you to obey a bunch of commands and rules; rather, as your relationship with Christ becomes closer, fuller, and more intimate, you will gradually grow into the sort of person who wants to behave in a loving, Christlike manner--your whole nature changes. I freely admit that this change hasn't gone very far in me yet; but some change has occurred.) The point is that, wherever you are, you are Christ's ambassador; or I've even heard it said, you may be the only Christ that someone sees. God chooses to let us do this loving instead of doing it Himself because He wants to give us that opportunity to become like Him. (I will defuse one possible objection: For all Christians to become like Christ does NOT mean that they are all to become identical. It is obvious to any observer, Christian or not, that different people have different gifts and talents. The Bible also speaks along the same lines; it calls the whole group of believers "the body of Christ", pointing out that a body wouldn't be much good if it were all eyes, ears, hands, or anything else, but that diversity is necessary and beneficial.) What is the meaning of Life, eh? No philosopher I, but a short summation might be: Life is equivalent to Love -- love in the sense of unselfish giving and concern, love in the sense of I Corinthians 13. (This idea was actually inspired by a quote from a very loving non-Christian, Leo Buscaglia [some of his quotes have popped up in net.philosophy recently], who said that the only word big enough to contain LOVE would be LIFE.) -- -- Jeff Sargent {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|harpo|seismo|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq Have you hugged your junk mail today?
rcd@opus.UUCP (03/30/84)
<> Here we go round the logic tree... > A lack of evidence..in favor of something is not positive evidence against it But what ever happened to the null hypothesis and all that? A lack of evidence certainly isn't a counterargument...but without evidence why should one believe something? I cannot disprove an assertion that leprechauns exist. I don't need to, nor should I need to explain such rational behavior, but... > And, as so many opponents of Christianity do, you're imprisoning yourself by > insisting that God be demonstrable solely to the rational mind;... If the word "solely" were removed from this fragment, I think that you'd have a good statement. I'd like to insist that God be demonstrable EVEN to the rational mind. What the hell does "demonstrable" mean, anyway? If you discard the rational you can probably accept God on faith and bag the "demonstrable" part altogether. > ...God, who...deals with the whole person, not just the rational mind... Still dancing around the issue. We nonbelievers can handle most of the "whole person" but we'd really like to see God deal with the rational mind. >> What about all the people who believed in God and don't now, such as >> myself, what convinced them? > > Presumably you never actually came to KNOW God... A cheap attack...which begs the question anyway. It's only a slight restatement, and not a distortion, to phrase this argument as "if you once believed in God but now don't, you probably never did." In other words, you don't really know about God unless you believe in God. Not logical, but it effectively shuts off further discussion. -- {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd