gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Being an atheist, I check in here once in a while to see how the other half is doing. Seems like an awful lot of sectarian battles going on among the flock. Not that atheists don't have their fair share of bickering over who believes less than whoever. Personally I see the writings in the Bible as an attempt by the Ancients to understand human behavior without the benefit of our current understandings of science, psychology, sociology, and the human brain in general. I can plug in the words "human consciousness" for God and the Bible makes a lot more sense to me. Every few generations our understanding of the real world catches up with our ability to fantasize and one more cherished belief bites the dust. But we still keep those ancient myths close at hand because they're founded in our intuitive and instinctual behaviors. After all, we are still just very smart animals.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

...except for miracles that happen when faith is involved. Perhaps science will continue its progression of explaining the "how" of physics and cosmology... so far, science has not been so good at scratching the surface of "why".

...and as far as sectarian battles among the flock....Jesus forknew this and prayed we would be united.

The bible narrative seems to pretty well explain what we see today....think I will go with it...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

"Why" is just part of the mystery, one of the great unknowns that our brain dwells on until we bore deeper and lay to rest another of the "why's". Dwelling on the "why" places order in the chaos and uncertainty of reality.

The Bible did a decent job of explaining human behavior for the humans who were around back in the day. Now it's a bit behind, but if that's your guide, that's fine. Not that I'm giving it my blessing, it's just that to each his own.

taffthetooth Loc: U.K

In what way is it "a bit behind" if you don't mind me asking?

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

First, I don't buy the argument that the Bible is a living document, applicable for all time. Second, thanks to advances in neuroscience, psychology, and sociology to name a few, our understanding of human behavior has been advanced mightily over the past 2000 years. The ancients pointed to a divine being to answer the many mysteries of life. Those mysteries have been revealed through science and will continue to be revealed. In a broader sense, the concept of God is simply how our brains have dealt with the conflict between the apparent continuum of reality, our experience of a beginning (birth) and an end (death), and our own mortality.

Floyd Loc: Misplaced Texan in Florence, Alabama

With all of the so-called "advances" made by science, the world still has the same problems mankind dealt with during "Bible times". Mankind still deals with lust, hate, stealing, hunger, pain, selfishness, death, desire for power - none of these have been resolved by science! Also, the God mentioned by the ancients was and is so far beyond man's imagination, both then and now. Who would invent a perfect being that speaks things into existence, knows what is happening in man's heart, has His own set of rules that He strongly suggests man follow for his benefit now and in the future following death, and whose suggestions for living are as germane today as when promulgated (the Bible). At the very least, intelligent design is apparent throughout our world today unless one is so enamored with the lies and half-truths "science" has fostered on society to stroke scientists' egos. I can name several if necessary.

Floyd Loc: Misplaced Texan in Florence, Alabama

With all of the so-called "advances" made by science, the world still has the same problems mankind dealt with during "Bible times". Mankind still deals with lust, hate, stealing, hunger, pain, selfishness, death, desire for power - none of these have been resolved by science! Also, the God mentioned by the ancients was and is so far beyond man's imagination, both then and now. Who would invent a perfect being that speaks things into existence, knows what is happening in man's heart, has His own set of rules that He strongly suggests man follow for his benefit now and in the future following death, and whose suggestions for living are as germane today as when promulgated (the Bible). At the very least, intelligent design is apparent throughout our world today unless one is so enamored with the lies and half-truths "science" has fostered on society to stroke scientists' egos. I can name several if necessary.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Ah yes, intelligent design rears its ugly head as the be all and end all of arguments against science. Science doesn't purport to create a perfect world. That's for the faithful to aspire to after death. I've always wondered with whose lips God speaks, how God can be a "being", but then it's not surprising considering that humans only had their own image to describe such a thing. Humans are so vain that they think everything, including themselves, had to be designed. It is difficult to contemplate that the chaotic and random forces of nature over vast billions of years of time were capable of producing anything at all, let alone all the beauty and mystery that we see and experience. When I hear that voice in my head, I know that it's my voice. The ancients did't figure that out back in the day.

Floyd Loc: Misplaced Texan in Florence, Alabama

Your argument makes no sense. First "vast billions of years" is based on nothing but man's supposition. Carbon dating has been found by scientists, according to Time magazine (about 15+ years ago), to have all kinds of holes when held to strict scientific method rather than man's supposition. This comes from asking, "How is the world old" instead of asking "How old is the world?" More and more evidence is being found that supports Biblical statements. I find it most difficult to believe, regardless of the amount of time involved, that a little green worn decides to build itself a house, then to turn into a thick green liquid, then into something entirely different that has wings, eats entirely different kinds of foods and now flies. When a person honestly seeks more of these types of situations, there are hundreds, indicating intelligent design and, if that same person reads beyond the narrow scope of those of like minded narrow thinkers, he will find many scientists accepting the idea of intelligent design.
Also none of your argument addresses the commonality of the same problems besetting mankind as those of earliest times - which the Bible addresses -and which scientists have tried to answer but have failed since those problems still exist.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Granted, carbon dating is good for maybe 40,000, but you do realize that there are these things called atoms and they have known decay rates and that's but one more of the many data points used to measure geologic time. And then there's the problem with distant galaxies and the speed of light and the pseudo-science claim that long ago light traveled slower than it does today. And then the claim that man can't know what happened millennia ago because we weren't there to measure it. And then there's the claim that the earth is only 10,000 years old, give or take. Or that the Biblical Flood pushed all the earth's strata around and this can be proven because some scientist at Livermore used a super computer to model such a thing and therefor somehow it proves that it really happened. I just wish you guys could accept the idea that faith is faith and reality is reality and never the twain shall meet.

taffthetooth Loc: U.K

Not a good argument. You also need to understand that the "Christian" faith, is faith based on evidence, not blind faith which I believe you are hinting at. Also, the Bible is all about reality, as you put it!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Neil DeGrasse-Tyson says science would love to discover proof for the existence of God. It would open up a whole new field of study. I believe he is right. God exists for the people who believe he exists and that's where it ends.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

The Bible more or less says you will never be able to prove scientifically His existence.

He reveals Himself to those who will open their hearts and minds to those that earnestly seek Him. If you disbelieve the possibility of His existence, then you are not looking for Him by definition.

I came to belief at age 36. I am not a scientist but have 3/4 Physics degree and an Engn degree. The scientific method (hypothesis/test/try to reject etc) cannot be used to determine the existence of being and personality outside of time and space (the created world).

So, here we are :-)

...my inital post response alluded to miracles ...
These are the "God-incidences" that occur in every believers early experience where "God shows up personally". Each (co)incidence can be explained away naturally....added up, it is much harder to deny....I wont go into it but my personal testimony and that of others becomes "evidence that demands a verdict".

I would challenge that if you grant a simple agnostic position of "possibility of existence" and then ask with an open heart and an honest motive ("if you are real, I will follow you")..you may be suprised ....

I was.

It took me 3 yrs and exhaustive research in apologetics (and yes, the works of some very intelligent atheists including Dawkins, Hitchens and their debates with Christian apologists)...in addition to the Vedantha, Qu'oran and works of the Buddha to conclude that the Christian position was possible...

And the rest is history.....or more accurately, eternity :-)

Blessings to you!

...and I still like photography !
(Need to drop that in there or the moderators will delete this thread very soon...

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I appreciate your clarification but I have no agnostic position of doubt. I understand the concept of adults doing a search for enlightenment but I resent the fact that children are brought into the fold before they have enough maturity and understanding to deal with such a thing as faith. They need to be left alone until they can make the search for themselves if that's what they want to do. Neither Hitchens nor Dawkins did much for me. I see them as priests of atheism, if there ever could be such a thing. They preach too much. I'm more in tune with the writings of Joseph Campbell in his The Power of Myth. The human brain seems to be hard wired for fantasies.

An Evangelical aquintance pushed a book at me once. I think it was called the Proof for God. I quit after a couple chapters. It was just a circuitous argument that always came around at the end to declare that it was so because God says. I recall a passage from Campbell's book about his dialogue with a Catholic priest. The priest invited him into a discussion or debate about faith. He told him that if it was debatable, there wouldn't be any need for faith, and that's the way I look at it too. You either have it or you don't but in either case, neither the believer nor the atheist is better than the other.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

..It is yet still debated, as are most things.... The problem with the debate is that the presuppositions we bring to the debate preclude the ability for a true exchange.

If we have a preconception that God is not possible on the one hand, and God is unknowable except via faith on the other, then the debate ends quickly (or rages endlessly).

The Christian beggar has found the banquet and is unlikely to be reasoned out of his experience (which will include personal miracles as yet unexplainable by science...and unlikely to... as they defy the known laws of the universe).

The atheist has determined that the material world is all that IS and is explainable chemically, via quantum and wave theory etc.

The atheist "believes by faith" that science will eventually explain everything...and holds onto non-negateable hypotheses with a tenacious faith that would make the martyrs blush.

I think it reasonable to believe in a Creator with the evidence available. I think the Atheist position is quite defendable from a materialist presupposition.

..and so here we are :-)