Patrick Lamb - [shares link]
Muhammad Rasheed - "If there were a God" He would judge us at the end of this finite life based on what we've allowed among each other, just like He told us in the message. The point of our lives is accountability for our actions in the Golden Rule.
An amazing lack of insight among the atheist crowd. That's what happens when you confine your thinking to what your 5 senses can prove, I guess.
Marcus Santiago - If there was a God, it's offensive that he's going to judge us (not the other way round) after the fantastically piss-poor job he's done in running the place. What about the accountability for God's actions, or lack thereof? Why allow all this suffering? War, disease, famine, AIDS, birth defects? Acts of stunning cruelty, many done in his name? If I was god, I wouldn't sit around idle while all this happened on Earth, simply saying "I'll judge you for this later, but for now I respect your free will." I guess that's what happens when you confine your thinking to ancient fairytales that got taken too seriously. I'm not the one with a lack of insight.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus Santiago wrote: "If there was a God, it's offensive that he's going to judge us (not the other way round)"
A finite, very limited being is going to judge an eternal, unlimited Being, one that established reality itself and all of its laws and rules? That does not compute. By what criterion is the finite being using to judge? The collective finite beings' members are notorious for missing the point, failing to understand simple concepts, and rejecting logic because a principle doesn't reflect their preferred socio-political stances, etc. How could such creatures possibly justify believing they have the acumen to take an omniscient/omnipotent Being to task, while oddly, ignoring everything that Being said regarding the rules upon which life is built upon? That would in fact make finite beings very good at strawman arguments, not much at judging.
Marcus wrote: "...after the fantastically piss-poor job he's done in running the place. What about the accountability for God's actions, or lack thereof?"
God keeps the system running, guiding its courses and systems in perfect harmony. His job certainly isn't to control your actions. He does His job perfectly based on the laws and rules He set in place. Our current best and brightest are still struggling to complete the missing component of the Standard Model, and are quite unequipped to hold God accountable against any checklist, especially when they consistently ignore what God said the reason He created mankind is for.
Marcus wrote: "Why allow all this suffering? [...] I'm not the one with a lack of insight."
You demonstrate the exact lack of insight I was referring to. We are finite beings in a finite realm; the clock of time is continuously ticking down to the hour of our deaths. God explained that all of this is a training ground in which you have a set amount of time to build a certain type of character, develop specific skills, and choose a particular mindset and ideology. All that you see, witness and experience along the course of this journey are the tools you need to win at life, with the most important of those tools being God's instructions to you in scripture and your Free Will. To win you must walk along the Path of God as laid out in scripture, and if we all do so, there will be no wars, AIDs, or other human-inflicted suffering. If we do so successfully we will have no need to fear the death that may come at any time from circumstances outside of our control like disease, famine, birth defects, or death by old age.
Marcus Santiago - And how do you, a finite being, know any of this? God told you so? Or you
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm more interested in why YOU don't know this, yet somehow believe you can take God to account. What are you basing these opinions upon, Marcus, if you don't know the source of my words as a theist?
Marcus Santiago - What ARE your source? Show me some proof or admit you're just blowing a lot of hot air.
Muhammad Rasheed - Everything we know about God comes from His scripture -- you don't recognize scripture in what I'm saying, yet you are very passionately opinionated about what you THINK God ought to be like, and what you THINK he ought to be doing, at odds with what He actually said.
Please explain this discrepancy.
Muhammad Rasheed - This stance of yours comes across as unjustifiably arrogant, lacking of any kind of insight on the topic, and is impossible to take seriously.
Why do you think this way?
Muhammad Rasheed - Why do you think you can completely dismiss God's message to mankind, yet also think your opinions about Him are somehow valid?
Muhammad Rasheed - I'm genuinely curious about this. Please tell me.
Marcus Santiago - Arrogant? You're the one that said, quote, "That's what happens when you confine your thinking to what your 5 senses can prove" as though it's an insult. Atheists are stupid for trusting reason, logic and proof? I take personal offense to that. I let people believe whatever they want but it makes me mad when religious people insult others for not sharing their delusions, and then have the gall to claim persecution when they're called on it.
If a scripture is proof of god, then Harry Potter novels are proof that Hogwarts is real. Scriptures (whether you're talking about the Bible, Koran or Torah) were written by humans back when we though the Earth is flat, and the proof offered that it was really authored by god is "because they said so." This is called circular logic, and is the kind of argument a child wouldn't fall for.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Arrogant?"
Yes. You have demonstrated a tendency for making definitive statements about a field of study that you don't know anything about. You don't consider that an arrogant trait?
Marcus wrote: "You're the one that said, quote, 'That's what happens when you confine your thinking to what your 5 senses can prove' as though it's an insult."
lol It would be an insult to me if someone leveled the charge of being incapable of contemplating concepts that I could not measure with my 5 senses. It would mean I was a dullard. Do you think Einstein, Feynman, et al., could've developed the Standard Model if they refused to acknowledge anything they couldn't touch, taste, hear, see, feel? Would they have been able to intelligently contemplate and explore aspects of the abstract unseen to develop the fields of science they are famous for?
btw, you don't have to type the word "quote" when you are typing, because you are actually typing actual quotes around the quote, yes? Heralding the reference with "quote" is only necessary during a verbal argument.
Marcus wrote: "Atheists are stupid for trusting reason, logic and proof?"
Atheists are stupid for pretending to trust reason, logic and proof while holding onto a narrow-minded stance that rejects anything that makes them uncomfortable.
Marcus wrote: "I take personal offense to that."
I suggest you convert to an Abrahamic religion then.
Marcus wrote: "I let people believe whatever they want but it makes me mad when religious people insult others for not sharing their delusions, and then have the gall to claim persecution when they're called on it."
Have I claimed persecution or has your limited 5 senses mindset caused you to wander off topic? Tsk.
Marcus wrote: "If a scripture is proof of god, then Harry Potter novels are proof that Hogwarts is real. Scriptures (whether you're talking about the Bible, Koran or Torah) were written by humans back when we though the Earth is flat, and the proof offered that it was really authored by god is 'because they said so.' This is called circular logic, and is the kind of argument a child wouldn't fall for."
This is a strawman since we weren't discussing the fallacy-laden "proof of God" concept, but how a finite being could qualify to judge a perfect eternal Being that creates universes from scratch while being ignorant of the content within that Being's message on earth. Let's walk that down to its logical conclusion first and then I'll take you up on the "proof of God" thing.
Marcus Santiago - Actually, it's not a strawman, it's circular logic, just as I explained it. The Bible/Koran/Torah is true, because it itself says so? That's your proof? Seriously? It's not a "definitive statement I know nothing about," it's a perfectly reasonable, logical conclusion. You can't prove there is a god no more than you can prove unicorns, fairies and vampires are real. It's not arrogant to say fire-breathing dragons are not real, because there's no good reason to believe so. That's kind of all I was saying.
And you're making a lot of assumptions here. I spent most of my life a devoted Christian. I traveled to the opposite end of the planet to serve god as a missionary working full time for a church. I studied the Bible till my brains fell out. You have seriously no idea who I am or what I've gone through in my search for God, so I'd appreciate you down to me like I'm an idiot. I respect your POV and beliefs and am trying to be civil. But I actually DO know what I'm talking about. And no offense, but I'm guessing you don't know what you're talking about, if you don't even know the difference between circular logic and a strawman fallacy.
But all that aside: I'm actually open to any new idea and will be the first to admit I was wrong, if you can provide me any real proof that god is real. Are you open to the idea that you're wrong and perhaps, just maybe, there is no god? If not, then all we're going to do is argue needlessly.
And btw, Einstein also valued proof and evidence. It's called science: no matter how crazy it is, you have to actually, you know, prove it somehow. Otherwise, it's called making shit up and insisting it's real. This is why we know unicorns aren't real, but dinosaurs were, and this is why quantum physics isn't in the same category of science as angels and demons.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Actually, it's not a strawman, it's circular logic, just as I explained it."
You're confused. What you performed was the strawman. Creating an argument based on what you think I believe, or what you think the subject is about, and then attacking it as if that is what it is.
Marcus Santiago - Cool story bro. But seriously, citing the Bible / Koran / Torah / whatever as proof of God's existence, is one of the defining examples of circular logic. Look it up. I mean, I don't even know why you're arguing this.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "The Bible/Koran/Torah is true, because it itself says so? That's your proof? Seriously?"
I haven't said anything about proof. You may wish to confine your argument to what your opponent is actually presenting, instead of seemingly having a conversation with someone from your past while pretending to discuss this with me.
Marcus wrote: "It's not a 'definitive statement I know nothing about,' it's a perfectly reasonable, logical conclusion."
Is this a demonstration of the logic you're supposed to uphold? So even though your belief that holding God accountable for what humans do to each other, etc., conflicts with what God said the point of mankind's existence is, you still think you are expressing knowledge of the topic? Nothing about that was logical or reasonable, Marcus.
Marcus wrote: "You can't prove there is a god no more than you can prove unicorns, fairies and vampires are real."
Who said I'm required to?
Marcus wrote: "It's not arrogant to say fire-breathing dragons are not real, because there's no good reason to believe so. That's kind of all I was saying."
That's very different from what you were actually saying, and a separate topic altogether. What you were saying was that a finite, very flawed human has grounds to judge God and hold Him accountable for the state of human affairs on earth. Is this you officially attempting to change the subject?
Marcus wrote: "And you're making a lot of assumptions here."
I'm drawing conclusions regarding your knowledge of scripture based on what you state and what you ask.
Marcus wrote: "I spent most of my life a devoted Christian."
Then why are you ignorant of scripture? Did your sect/denomination not require you to read it for yourself?
Marcus wrote: "I traveled to the opposite end of the planet to serve god as a missionary working full time for a church."
Did you pick up any bibles along the route then?
Marcus wrote: "I studied the Bible till my brains fell out."
Please, Marcus. If this is supposed to be a productive meeting in which we each learn something from the other, let us agree to only express truth.
Marcus wrote: "You have seriously no idea who I am or what I've gone through in my search for God, so I'd appreciate you down to me like I'm an idiot."
What I know for sure about you in this moment is that you lack any insight into Abrahamic religion on even the most basic level.
Marcus wrote: "I respect your POV and beliefs and am trying to be civil."
Bringing up dragons & unicorns would actually be the opposite of that. I guess that's just how you were raised.
Marcus wrote: "But I actually DO know what I'm talking about."
You're saying you were holding back?
Marcus wrote: "And no offense, but I'm guessing you don't know what you're talking about, if you don't even know the difference between circular logic and a strawman fallacy."
I was talking about you and what you were presenting, not commenting on your "proof of God" circular statement. It was not yet time to change topics.
Marcus wrote: "But all that aside: I'm actually open to any new idea and will be the first to admit I was wrong, if you can provide me any real proof that god is real. Are you open to the idea that you're wrong and perhaps, just maybe, there is no god? If not, then all we're going to do is argue needlessly."
God is real, I am not wrong. In the message He established to guide mankind, God said that 'faith' is the activating component to be on His path. A path based on winning at this terrestrial realm training ground so I may prosper in the eternal realms on the other side. His scripture is the only lynchpin between us and the spirit realms. God does not require earthly academic institutional proofs of me in order to win; He asks only that I believe, trust Him and do as He commands. For you to insist that I provide what the Author of the game Himself does not require again demonstrates your colossal lack of insight into the topic.
Marcus wrote: "And btw, Einstein also valued proof and evidence. It's called science: no matter how crazy it is, you have to actually, you know, prove it somehow."
I don't think you actually know what 'science' is.
Marcus wrote: "Otherwise, it's called making shit up and insisting it's real. This is why we know unicorns aren't real, but dinosaurs were, and this is why quantum physics isn't in the same category of science as angels and demons."
Theoretical scientists "make shit up and insist it is real" all the time. If they didn't, they would never get to the next step of their models. The difference between what they and the theist philosophers do, compared to believers in unicorns, is they use logic, and are not afraid to follow the logic trail to its conclusion even when it goes places that don't make sense to the finite being puzzling it out. It's the idiot that throws the whole thing out because it doesn't fit his narrow-minded preconceived concept of life and his personal definition version of "science."
Marcus Santiago - Okay, plainly you're nuts and have no idea what you're talking about, be it science OR religion. You can't just blabber on about whatever you think is real and call it an argument. Anyways, enjoy being deluded and condescending, it must be working out swell for you so far. Tell God I said hi and good job on the Holocaust and cancer.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "You can't just blabber on about whatever you think is real and call it an argument."
That represents everything you've said about religion in this entire thread. So I'm really supposed to believe you studied the bible when you make comments like that about the holocaust and disease?
What does "study" mean in your world?
Marcus Santiago - Believe whatever you want, yo.
You've literally not made one coherent, reasonable point all this while. Once again: give me a halfway reasonable argument for why I should think there is a god, other than "the scriptures say so". If you can't, my point is made and we're done here.
Marcus Santiago - Just pointing out: this all started because you're the one that made fun of atheists, and I called you on it. I was asking for proof your god is real. Still waiting.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Believe whatever you want, yo."
Did I give the impression that I wasn't? You have my permission to continue to believe whatever Fry and Dawkins spoonfeed you.
Marcus wrote: "You've literally not made one coherent, reasonable point all this while."
That sounds like an admittance of your own mental deficiency to me. Explain to me how a finite human is qualified to take God to task when he rejects the message of that God. I'm still interested in that question that you've been ducking.
Marcus wrote: "Once again: give me a halfway reasonable argument for why I should think there is a god, other than 'the scriptures say so.' If you can't, my point is made and we're done here."
Religion operates on faith. If having faith that God is who He claims to be is unreasonable to you, then to you be your way, and to me be mine.
Marcus wrote: "Just pointing out: this all started because you're the one that made fun of atheists, and I called you on it."
That Thomas Liebe-Kreutzner dude said something about God that made the same amount of nonsense your comments did and I addressed it. His first comment is what started it; the atheist's penchant for the strawman effigy.
Marcus wrote: "I was asking for proof your god is real. Still waiting."
Again, why are you asking for something from me that is not required by my Lord? You don't recognize this as a trait of arrogance? You're attempting to shoehorn a concept within a narrow box it was never intended to fit in. By definition you are demonstrating a narrow-mind with this request.
Marcus Santiago - MRasheed wrote: "Explain to me how a finite human is qualified to take a God to task when he rejects the message of that God."
Because there's no proof that any of it isn't stone-age fairytales made up by people to control other people, and its adherents insist on unleashing their theocracy on everyone else. There's nothing narrow-minded about asking for proof. If you can't provide it, that's fine. I get how faith works. But then don't go mocking me for respecting the scientific method and saying I've been "spoonfed" bullshit. It's incredibly condescending, and you shouldn't be surprised when you get called you on it.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marcus wrote: "Because there's no proof..."
Again, you're not addressing the point. The point is your concept of holding God accountable for His actions based on what flaws you believe are in the world, and what you think that God should directly address. If you've studied scripture the way you've claimed, why do you fail to see the problem with this view? Please explain.
Marcus wrote: "...that any of it isn't stone-age fairytales..."
Yes, you referred to my most cherished and sacred belief system this way in the beginning, and then later claimed to be "respectful." lol
Marcus wrote: "...made up by people to control other people..."
As a believer in the One God, and a subscriber to a world religion, I operate under the Free Will my Lord gifted me, and no one controls me. This is yet another demonstration that you have no idea what you are talking about on this topic. I'm left to conclude that you became a missionary so you could pick up chicks.
Marcus wrote: "...and its adherents insist on unleashing their theocracy on everyone else."
A link was posted of an atheist saying something crazy about God, another atheist amen'd it by saying something crazy to support it, and I came to challenge what was said. It's pretty clear that the anti-religionists are the ones who insisted upon unleashing their foolishness upon Facebook, not me. I only represented the response.
Marcus wrote: "There's nothing narrow-minded about asking for proof."
Not if you are asking for proof from items in which asking for proof makes sense. Asking for proof for items that are by their nature matters of faith is illogical and unreasonable.
Marcus wrote: "If you can't provide it, that's fine."
I'm not supposed to provide it. I'm supposed to believe.
Marcus wrote: "I get how faith works."
Apparently not.
Marcus wrote: "But then don't go mocking me for respecting the scientific method and saying I've been 'spoonfed' bullshit."
I respect the scientific method more than you, as I recognize its inherent limitations and use it as the tool it was designed for on the items that are relevant to it. To insist that items that were never designed to conform to materialistic methods of study be thrown away because they can't be shoehorned into that box is a stance that deserves to be mocked. And please don't equate Fry's and Dawkin's foolishness with the scientific method.
Marcus wrote: "It's incredibly condescending, and you shouldn't be surprised when you get called you on it."
lol Marcus, please continue to "call me out' from your odd viewpoint. In addition to this, please address the other points I've asked of you.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - If He's real, he's petty and cruel.
Muhammad Rasheed - I guess that would be true if the concept of God was divorced from His message and there was no afterlife.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Perhaps. He cares about silliness like not using his name in vain, however, which is pretty petty.
Muhammad Rasheed - For me, it would be hard to consider something that the Creator of all life & reality cares about to be petty, no matter how it may seem compared to my mere human concerns. If the Being that developed and implemented mathematics from scratch has a problem with something, maybe I need to adjust MY thinking if I initially don't think it is serious.
I think it is unreasonable that my opinion of the matter would automatically be THE opinion of the matter. Why would my opinion trump God's? He said it's important, but I said it's petty? That's not very logical to me. As I think about it, this may be a case demonstrating the inherent problem with using an anthropomorphic image to represent God. It tends to make people see Him as a peer, I think. God is NOT our peer. He is not just some guy sayin' stuff.
Muhammad Rasheed - He's the Lord of the universe, and Master of the Day of Judgment. He is GOD, the Supreme Creator. His Word is not to be taken lightly.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Well, I can see your reasoning, because you believe that he exists and is omnipotent. From that stand point, of course it would seem arrogant to question anything he says.
I see it from the point of view of believing he's a convenient creation of scared, small humans who knew little of the nature of the world, and needed comfort. From there, parents and religious leaders had little trouble inculcating that story, using fear of after life repercussions.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - I'd have far more respect for a deity who was confident enough in himself to think that questioning him was positive and to be encouraged. All powers should be questioned.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marc wrote: "From that stand point, of course it would seem arrogant to question anything he says."
‘Questioning’ is one thing, Marc. Describing something an Eternal Being that knows everything without limits says as ‘petty’ based on a mere finite human’s perspective, demonstrates an arrogance that is FAR above your pay grade.
Marc wrote: "I see it from the point of view of believing he's a convenient creation of scared, small humans who knew little of the nature of the world, and needed comfort.”
I’ve encountered that viewpoint about religion before. It reminds me of the fact that God said in His scripture that He created the universe at a finite point in the distant past. Atheist scientists, who assumed religion was a fiction invented by your ‘scared, small humans’ figured that was automatically a lie, and theorized that the universe never had a beginning and was eternal. Today, the Big Bang Theory supports the created universe concept of religion, which means God was right while the atheists were wrong. Obviously the “convenient creation of scared, small humans” theory is the fiction since it is unsupported by the facts.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - What facts?
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Science never claims that today's hypotheses are tomorrow's truths. Answers are built over time as we discover more and more.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Questioning god's pettiness is only above my pay grade if he exists.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marc wrote: "What facts?"
1.) The atheist eternal universe model is a failed model
2.) Big Bang theory is the prevailing model of the universe's origins that support what religion said about the universe's origins
3.) Religion/God wasn't created by 'scared, small humans' but is exactly what it proclaims itself to be.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - What atheist eternal universe model?
Muhammad Rasheed - Marc wrote: "Science never claims that today's hypotheses are tomorrow's truths. Answers are built over time as we discover more and more."
Religion provided the Truth upfront, while science's efforts to collect data are finding that the data supports the truth of religion. That's why God said to believe. Give the omniscient Supreme Creator the benefit of the doubt that He knows what He's talking about.
Muhammad Rasheed - Marc wrote: "What atheist eternal universe model?"
It was the atheist scientists that assumed religion's claims of a universe that had a beginning was wrong, so they theorized the model of an eternal universe that always existed.
Marc Keelan-Bishop - Which atheist scientists?
Muhammad Rasheed - Stephen Hawking said that it was generally assumed in the scientific community that the universe was unchanging in time. He said that "many scientists were still unhappy with the universe having a beginning because it seemed to imply that physics broke down. One would have to invoke an outside agency, which for convenience, one can call God, to determine how the universe began."
The Origin of the Universe by Stephen Hawking
Remo Williams - So what does Stephen Hawking say about more recent scientific theories, say this side of 1920?
Muhammad Rasheed - He said that the singularity that represents the beginning of the universe continues to be a major problem for atheistic scientists, who refuse to accept the "outside agency" implication as a truth. Concepts such as string theory and a "multiverse" were developed as attempts to get around it, but they ultimately lead directly back to that same problem for those as well. Modern scientists are currently devoting all energy towards attempts to develop the missing components of the Standard Model in a way that does NOT involve that outside agency component. Even when the math fits and it lines up logically, they backup and start anew because of the disturbing questions raised inherent in the concept (example: the "flatness problem").
This mindset of the modern scientist -- the tendency to not follow the logical conclusion of these types of theories because they refuse to accept where the threads lead -- is the reason theoretical physics has been stagnant in the last several decades, and no further progress has been made on The Standard Model. Einstein was notably disturbed by the idea of a finite universe that had a beginning, such a thing turning out counter to his predictions, but he never stopped working on his theories just because it revealed things that personally bothered him. When Big Bang Theory turned out to be well-supported by the facts it made him pause and become very thoughtful about it. Even vocal atheist Richard Feynman became subdued over the findings, and although he never said he believed there was a God, he certainly stopped making definitive statements regarding whether God was real or not. The data after-all did NOT state that there was no God, and in fact, the more they learned the more disturbing questions were raised. But they never stopped pursuing those questions, no matter where they led, and tellingly, it led towards them making GREAT scientific progress in physics in a very short period of time. Modern scientists immediately stop work when those kinds of questions are raised, back up and start over from scratch, assuming those questions mean the data is in error "because, of course, there CAN'T be an outside agency at work!" Hence their stagnation and why none of them have matched the achievements of the super scientists from the 20th century: Because they are afraid of Truth.
Dee Anne Moore - I realize that I have not participated in the details of this thread but I do have questions for those who subscribe to a belief in a Abrahamic deity.... Question...If there is an Alpha and an Omega...i.e., beginning and ending.. what will the deity plan to do at the end? Retire...? If so, where? What would happen to the universe? Are there other universes with other deities that oversee them? What would be the purpose a deity would make a universe and then fill it with imperfect beings? Not having a comprehensive blueprint as do believers, it gets a bit confusing trying to fit the pieces together... they do not seem to all belong to the same puzzle..'
Muhammad Rasheed - You are asking a question of the unseen, the answers of which God will not reveal to us while we are on this world, counting down the seconds towards the inevitable omega event. You must wait.
Dee Anne Moore - Mu, I too have ponderings....the idea that a 'big bang' is the beginning, what is it the beginning of? Science does not claim to explain how or why the material came into being that exploded out when a big bang occurred. That would imply beginnings and endings, and that would lend itself to many more questions...
Muhammad Rasheed - That's how you know it is from God, Dee. Inquiry into His majesty always creates more and more questions still.
Dee Anne Moore - Why is a deity relegated to a specific gender? "He"...??
Muhammad Rasheed - God is genderless; above such things. Using the capitalized pronoun is a limitation inherent within a fundamentally patriarchal language and no more.
Dee Anne Moore - In Genesis, there is a passage that says the fruit of the tree shall be the meat...(paraphrased) so why then wouldn't all believers be vegetarians..?
Muhammad Rasheed - Why would you assume the most literal meaning of the verse is the correct one when it fails to line up to logic? The human species isn't designed to be vegetarians. We are omnivores.
Dee Anne Moore - Well, if logic were the cornerstone of assessing the veracity of the bible, one would come away with little acceptance of any part of the writings
Muhammad Rasheed - I don't find that to be true. Sacred scripture is very logical, unless one is predisposed to disbelief.
Muhammad Rasheed - The more I learn within different disciplines, the more logical it becomes as a Big Picture view widens.
Muhammad Rasheed - But that's me.
No comments:
Post a Comment