Ask an atheist—but don't expect any straight answers!

[Guest]

Asimov

Yes, my prayers are answered. I will not comment on a child with Leukemia because I am not them.I don't pretend to know relationships in a personal vein between others and God.

But I am sure God is working in their life and all those connected with the child because I believe He created us all and listens to us all. ..

Ok, just wondering what your opinion on the whole matter is. You still haven't answered my question regarding certain hypothetical aspects, but that's ok.

I think many folks here have answered YOUR questions but it appears to me you double talk and skirt the questions posed to yoiu.

Could you possibly provide an example of my double talk and skirting questions posed to me?

I think you are just playing games now.

Really, well I'm glad you have so much insight into the mind of Asimov. Thanks for offering your ideas into your own belief. It was interesting.

[Guest]

Asimov, I'm going to answer the questions you raised with a short discourse. First of all, if you want someone to objectively prove the existence of God to you (especially on an internet forum) then you will be disappointed. Some people are simply given more evidence than others when it comes to our creator but nevertheless, anyone who continues seeking God will recieve more and more information. You might say, "Well he hasn't given me enough." My advice would be to keep seeking because if you want to know something bad enough you won't give up. If this is only a mild curiosity then forget about it becase I don't think God responds to lukewarm invitations.

When I said that God is light and is infused with every part of his creation it may sound rather esoteric but I'll explain what I mean. When I say "God is light" I mean I actually think he looks like light in his physical form. It would be akin to looking at the sun only a few meters away from you. Now imagine that light is intellegent, creative and personal. That's my impression of God from an intense study of the scriptures. Now, since light can be focused or spread out, our creator can do likewise. In one sense, his light can be focused to certain individuals who seek him. In another sense his light hits all of creation, but in different measures.

In the end, if we are in a right relationship to the light then we won't be burned by it. But if we are in a wrong relationship to that light, we'll be in a situation akin to standing a few meters away from the sun, which would not be a good idea in a human body. Now substitute the word "sun" for "son" and you have my theology.

Christians make the gospel far too complicated. Eternal life is given to those who are in a right relationship to God. What happens to those in a wrong relationship with God is anyone's guess since the bible is less clear on that. Again, I'm not interested in offering proof here because I think each person needs different kinds of proof. It's an individual thing. The kind of proof you're looking for won't be found on an internet forum I'm sad to say. But that proof is available to those who continue seeking God with a pure heart. That last part (pure heart) is important.

[Guest]

Uh, why do we need a cause for the universe?

Well... I guess for the same reason we need a cause for a watch, building, book, and painting. I mean, can you have these things without a watchmaker, builder, author, and painter? Why do we need a cause for them?

You're creating a false dichotomy here, SoaringEagle. Why is it either "first cause" or "infinite regress"?

Are there any other alternatives that aren't just educated guess-type theories?

Also, what do you think of the material I posted that dealt with your idea that the God concept comes from human imagination?

Asimov, I really want you to know that I enjoy interacting with you, all sarcasms aside!

[Guest]

Asimov

You obviously think different than I.I have answered your questions directed to me yet you say I have not. I don't try to answer hypothetical type questions.

The person I am they are to "heady" for me. I know alot of folks like to get into that, I know my husband did. I'm not wired like that.

As far as skirting questions etc. If you go back and reread different remarks on this board from others that are feeling like you are dodging answering their questions etc.( I quess maybe like you are feeling about me ?) I believed it also, not taking the time or space here to rewrite it all.

No , I don't know the "mind" of Asimov, but as a fellow human being I can make assumptions from what I am gleaning from your answers. Right or wrong, its my free will decision also. You said earlier you don't need apologies, but I do apologize anyways if I am wrong here.

I do agree with others here also, that the type of answers you seem to be looking for probubly won't come from an online board such as this. You once said earlier that God if hes there (or something like that, not verbatim)

He would know what you personally needed to hear etc. to believe in him. I agree with you on that!

I believe if you are sincere in your heart in seeking these answers regarding God ...you will get them.....enjoy! Glow

[Guest]

First of all, if you want someone to objectively prove the existence of God to you (especially on an internet forum) then you will be disappointed.

I know that.

Some people are simply given more evidence than others when it comes to our creator but nevertheless, anyone who continues seeking God will recieve more and more information.

I don't actively "seek" anything but the verification of claims, and therefore the truth. Since your belief has not been objectively verified, I cannot accept what you say.

You might say, "Well he hasn't given me enough."

No I wouldn't, I don't believe God exists. That statement would imply that I believe, but not strongly enough. I don't believe.

My advice would be to keep seeking because if you want to know something bad enough you won't give up. If this is only a mild curiosity then forget about it becase I don't think God responds to lukewarm invitations.

Is 7 years of ongoing philosophical discussion lukewarm? How do you gauge lukewarm? What does that even mean? How can I "seek" something I don't believe in? Why would I seek something I don't believe in? I accept facts. The facts do not diverge into a coalescence of belief in God.

Even you admit something akin to that. It's not that people are given more evidence, it's that people who feel they NEED something like God find evidence in order to justify their feelings. Not saying that's the rule, but I have no need or desire to believe in God. Why would I, if I don't believe?

When I said that God is light and is infused with every part of his creation it may sound rather esoteric but I'll explain what I mean. When I say "God is light" I mean I actually think he looks like light in his physical form. It would be akin to looking at the sun only a few meters away from you. Now imagine that light is intellegent, creative and personal. That's my impression of God from an intense study of the scriptures. Now, since light can be focused or spread out, our creator can do likewise. In one sense, his light can be focused to certain individuals who seek him. In another sense his light hits all of creation, but in different measures.

Ok, this makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. It might be an interesting idea, but it's beyond esoteric.

In the end, if we are in a right relationship to the light then we won't be burned by it. But if we are in a wrong relationship to that light, we'll be in a situation akin to standing a few meters away from the sun, which would not be a good idea in a human body. Now substitute the word "sun" for "son" and you have my theology.

But you just said that God literally was light. If Jesus is God, then why were people not melted from being closer than a few meters from him? Honestly, I have no idea really what you are saying.

Christians make the gospel far too complicated.

And how is it simple in any way? If it is simple, then why are their 20,000 denoms? Why are their three major Abrahamic beliefs? Why are their thousands of other religions?

You would think that God would make his "Word" absolute and axiomatic. Now you might attribute that to "free will", yet I don't see people disputing gravity, or even any axioms of epistemology.

[Guest]

Well... I guess for the same reason we need a cause for a watch, building, book, and painting. I mean, can you have these things without a watchmaker, builder, author, and painter? Why do we need a cause for them?

Well, for one thing, we defined them as created things and they ARE created things.

Not only that, but you're kind of confusing cause and effect with ontological existence of the universe.

Can you demonstrate that everything needs a cause? Putting up some examples of things we view specifically within the universe and then applying them generally to the universe as a whole is kind of fallacious.

Are there any other alternatives that aren't just educated guess-type theories?

Hmmm, how about the universe does not have a cause and began to exist?

Also, what do you think of the material I posted that dealt with your idea that the God concept comes from human imagination?

I'm sorry, I'll deal with my thoughts on this now.

<snip>
"What historical or archaeological data could you advance for your position? (recognizing that 'religion'--good, bad, and ugly--already was present in earliest recorded history of civilization...there are NO evidences of development at all in the earliest written records of humanity--it is already completely full-blown and well-developed by then...so I cannot imagine how you could identify a point in time in which this 'invention' occurred)?

Ok, first of all, some comments on what he's saying here:

1. He does not really explain what is meant by full-blown and well-developed. Would you say that Christianity when it was in it's infancy was well-developed and full-blown? I mean before the gospels were written and before anybody had really heard much about Christianity? Let's compare it to today...I would say that Christianity is definitely MORE developed and full-blown than previously.

2. We have evidence, pre-written history, that cultures such as the Neanderthals had some basic religious practices. Any being that can examine it's own existence will probably come to some kind of religious idea.

"Not only can we not identify in historical sources a point of 'invention', we cannot even trace a line of development! The earliest religious practices on record are from ancient Egypt and ancient Mesopotamia. And these ancient religions have very well-developed theologies, rituals, ethical systems, and even institutions. Even the universality of the flood traditions in all ancient cultures (in which a god or gods judged the world with a flood) represents an essentially 'modern' religious outlook.

1. I pointed out that we do have evidence of early invention of religion.
2. Any society that bands together has an ethical system.
3. Every major flood tradition's culture also occurs near bodies of water that are subject to flooding. Not to mention cultures propensity to borrow myths from one another.

"You realize that IF God created us with a pre-built notion of an "disembodied consciousness with virtually unlimited abilities", we would be EXPECTED to 'come up with' an idea of "god"--as a means for Him/Her/It/They to initiate personal communication with our species, so any argument that we 'learn' the concept of 'god' from culture or we externalize parental roles/powers to an abstract "Thou" will count in support of BOTH theories...

Ok....so what about the cultural development that goes from fear and respect of nature, to deifying the unexplainable forces of nature, to converging those deities into one God that controls everything, etc.

Essentially, the term God that is used is basically synonymous with "Creator" and not all cultures share the same creator ideas. I think it's a little disengenuous to have a presupposition about what your God is (for instance, Jesus) and then apply that to every culture in the world saying "SEE! These other cultures are superstitious and believed in something that created them! Wow that's a similarity!"

"Abstraction" alone, by the way, cannot disqualify the concept of 'god', since the same level of abstraction applies to a wide range of related terms that obviously 'exist'--agent, consciousness, minds, justice, love, truth, etc.

No, but then we'd have to wonder exactly how the concept of God exists. Since obviously this guy posits that God literally exists independant of the mind, as an actual being.

Asimov, I really want you to know that I enjoy interacting with you, all sarcasms aside!

Definitely, you have some interesting stuff to bring to the table and I do thoroughly enjoy discussing about anything. Even if they are just my thoughts on the subject.

[Guest]

As far as skirting questions etc. If you go back and reread different remarks on this board from others that are feeling like you are dodging answering their questions etc.( I quess maybe like you are feeling about me ?) I believed it also, not taking the time or space here to rewrite it all.

Hypotheticals help define boundaries and allow me to see exactly where you stand on a subject.

If you are not a fan of hypos, not a problem. They are only abstractions of the real world.

Some questions asked, I give my answer why I'm not answering them. It's either due to lack of information, or due to the fact that certain people have some kind of problem defining their terms BEFORE they get into discussion. Since I recognize that "common usage" is about as relevant as "common sense" in philosophy, it is extremely important to understand EXACTLY what you are talking about when waxing philosophic. If that person does not define their terms, then I do not discuss with them. It would be like we were talking past each other.

He would know what you personally needed to hear etc. to believe in him. I agree with you on that! I believe if you are sincere in your heart in seeking these answers regarding God ...you will get them.....enjoy! Glow

Again, like I said, since I don't believe in God I have no reason to seek him. I accept facts as they are and if God is a fact then when and if it is demonstrated to me I will accept it.

Some people go their entire lives and live in a state of depression over these types of questions...they end up messed up beyond belief because God does not answer them when they seek. It seems rather cruel to say "well you just weren't seeking hard enough", wouldn't you? You say you make no assumptions regarding other peoples relationship with God.

Would you discount that someone wasn't seeking hard enough, even if they were broken up inside, hollow and dejected because they wanted God but could find nothing to indicate that he existed, and found that God did not answer them or speak to them?

[Guest]

Asimov

No I wouldn't discount them and say that. I can only speak for myself, but in speaking "from" myself I will share what I believe I have learned in my life to try and help others.

I may make an observation and lean one way or another, But I leave judgments in the end to God. I have friends that are Chrisitians and some are not. I listen to both and strive for common denominators between us. But I don't like to get into combative places, including time spent with fellow Christians.

There is so much hate and confusion in the world I try very hard not to add to it.But I also try not to shy away from my basic convictions and will stand on them.

I realize even though I try very hard at it I also fail some times. But that is the point where I lay it at Gods feet to cover my mistakes and I believe He does.

Thanks for your explanation of why you like to think hypothetically. Like I said, I know others that like to also, I'm just not one of 'em. Glow

[Guest]

Hi Atheist,

For me good quality of life is killing people and that is what I consider to be good. I don't agree with your definition of quality of life. I will kill more people so that I can improve the quality of life and the quality of environment. And you can not tell me that I am wrong cause I will tell you that you are the one who is wrong.

[Guest]

Wow.
I sure hope you are trying to shock in order to make a point. Otherwise, yikes!