1. Protesting the Creation Museum

Comment #48338 by james_the_doubter on June 7, 2007 at 1:43 pm

T Rex ate coconuts
...Unfortunately, the coconut palm is not a herb.

Steve, if you want to use the 400 year old English translation (King James) then you need to be even more careful not to mess up the original meaning.

Modern translations of the Bible use the word "plant" not herb.

But even so, in the King James version, this verse comes in before the one you quoted:
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

So luckily, T-rex could safely eat coconuts afterall. ;-]

2. The planet hunters

Comment #48321 by james_the_doubter on June 7, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Phillip,

How do you draw me into these silly arguments? ;-] You have a gift!

So, the Bethlehem star... I haven't studied this so my reasons could be all garbage, but was the word really "star" in the Aramaic / Greek? They didn't know the difference between stars, suns, nearby planets, or comets back then did they? Or what they were composed of? The would all look pretty similar to the naked eye.

Jesus' conversation in Gethsemane... wouldn't he have just told one of the disciples about it after he woke them, and then the conversation was later created in 1st person format and written down?

I'm reading Lee Strobel's, Case for Christ, and in the first chapter during an interview with a New Testament professor it's explained that the early historians (and writers of Matthew, Mark, etc) weren't as concerned at getting Jesus' words right verbatim, but more in getting the essence of His message across. Admittedly, I don't think this helps to validate the accuracy at all... only creates further doubt.

Also, thanks for the words on the other thread, regarding family. I appreciate it.

3. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #48135 by james_the_doubter on June 6, 2007 at 6:10 pm

Thanks for the encouragement Fedler, Brian. I guess the only thing worse than "lost" is "lost and alone" so I appreciate the virtual company.

4. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #48060 by james_the_doubter on June 6, 2007 at 12:54 pm

A loving God will surely not punish honest enquiry, and if he does, who wants to worship that anyway?

I feel more lost than ever, thanks guys. ;-]

Seriously, Benway,Fire,Baeoz,Attorney,Fedler,Billy and others... you're scaring the hell out of me! The stories of honest seekers NOT finding the Truth of what I've thought of as truth my whole life is incomprehensible. It doesn't line up with "knock and the door will be opened to you, seek and you shall find". How can missionary-bible school grad-church leader-theists (myself included) "knock and the door will prove imaginary, seek and lose their faith".

I had a long conversation with my Christian wife last night. She's wired very different than myself and logic isn't one her "guiding lights". If I had to nail it down, I'd say she's a faithful pragmatic deist. I threw a few of the arguments at her that we discuss all the time on this site...little impact. She just doesn't really care. Her emotions, heart, feelings trump intellectual reasoning any day. She just doesn't operate out of that side of her brain. She's one of the most caring, loyal people I've ever known, and she loves the "help the poor, feed the hungry, love each other" philosophy of our church. I don't think she really thinks about all the deeper doctrines of Christianity... people like us (on this site) seem to be an exceedingly rare breed - with an unquenchable drive for intellectual integrity.

Anyway, her fears of me losing my faith has already brought tears to her eyes... and I'm only just expressing doubts at this point - nothing more. We have a 3 year old and a 1 year old... raising them right only adds to the dilemma. I don't even want to think how my family would react.

5. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47876 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 9:53 pm

>This is not directed at you, James, my atheist friend

You mean "my thiest friend"... see, there you go again, getting the details all wrong. ;-]

Haha...

and uh, also, what does "trundle" mean?

6. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47870 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 8:57 pm

There's a fellow in Canada, Michael Persinger, who's made a helmet with a few solenoids pointed at areas in the temporal lobes. In most people (but not Prof. Dawkins) he can induce something he calls "the sensed presence."

Yes, another poster sent me reading that "God Machine" article. I'm reading Shermer's "How We Believe" now to get more answers. Cheers.

7. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47868 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 8:48 pm

DrBenway,

Really? I've watched it a few times...sober. I guess I'm a sucker for psuedo-science. What are you a doctor of if I may ask?

Thanks for the beer site. It'd make a good gift for my dad who's a connaisseur.

8. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47850 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 5:57 pm

agnostic to god's existence, therefore all atheists. ;-)

Cheeky little bugger... had to slip that in there didn't you. ;-]

9. The planet hunters

Comment #47846 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 5:50 pm

Well, fairies? Finally, SOMEONE asked! Wait a minute...this is a trick, isn't it? ;-]

10. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47845 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 5:45 pm

just because he wanted so badly to hear it

That's what I was getting at in an earlier post.

So what people seem to be saying is that they want to see/experience something supernatural for themselves, something that only God could do... whatever that would look like. But how would that be evidence? Something supernatural couldn't be tested and repeated through the scientific method anyway. That's what's confusing me right now. Everyone wants evidence to prove God exists, etc. but wouldn't evidence of the supernatural BE supernatural evidence, in which case most Athiests would reject it because the only evidence they consider real is natural evidence. Dawkins' says in TGD, that a personal God experience is often the most powerful aspect of faith for that individual but means little to others. I agree with that. Let's say that I wanted to become an Athiest... because my head says that religion is fake, the Bible is inaccurate, etc. But how do I make sense of my "God-experience"? Briefly, here it is:

When I was 18 I was a camp counsellor at a Christian Summer Camp called Circle Square Ranch on Ontario, Canada. One night during the second week of training, the senior staff were praying for each counsellor. They were doing a symbolic gesture of anointing with oil (dabbing a bit of olive oil on your forehead). I didn't really know what it meant. I was not expecting anything to happen - I grew up in a church that taught good morals, but never really witnessed anything supernatural. I have always been a critical thinker and questioned the beliefs handed down to me more than most people. But this night something unexplainable happened. The moment the guy touched my forehead (I know this is going to sound dumb but it's the only way to explain it), a feeling like thick hot honey starting pouring down on top of my head. It was so real that I closed my eyes and was sort of in a state of shock. As the invisible "honey" piled up on my head it started to spread out and run down the side of my head on all sides at once. When the thick liquid heat ran over my eye lids I blacked out. The next thing I remember was waking up on the floor lying on my back. My friends said I just collapsed and had been on the floor unconscious for a couple of minutes. When I woke I had an overwhelming sense of God's power/love/spirit or some like that - I have a hard time nailing it down...

What do I make of that?

Several posters basically said it was manufactured, a natural process, and a product of our great "simulation software". I would be inclined to agree if I WANTED such an experience. I know that if I really focus, am desperate, etc. weird things may happen (see things/hear things)... but something so extraordinary while not expecting or wishing it???

11. The planet hunters

Comment #47842 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 5:26 pm

BAEOZ,
ya I know... this whole conversation is like talking about what size and shape fairies are... but it's amusing me - what can I say? ;-]

12. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47840 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Sort of post-modernity run rampant. Or did I miss something?

Baeoz,
I think you intend to mock, but I would say you've stated a widely held fuzzy modern philosophy which ends in agnosticism.

People can't help thinking that God isn't required to play by the rules (natural laws), even if God made them. Let's say God is the dude who invented chess. If we are all chess pieces then we can go/move/think in 4 directions and are limited to the rules of the game... and the kings, queens, knights, pawns all bicker non-stop about why God is moving "left" or stepping "back"... or who's side is God on? Lefties or Righties? The get so hung up in their stupidity,arrogance and bickering that they kill each other over their opinions.

One day, God might pick up the whole board and move on.

13. The planet hunters

Comment #47835 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 5:01 pm

If timing is irrelevant, then what was so special about the time that Jesus decided to come to Earth?

Nothing.

What if he needed to be on another planet at exactly the same time? Would that mean that there would have to be another Jesus, would there be one Jesus but spread over two planets, or would the other planet just have to make do whilst Jesus was on this one?

You answered your own questions. Yes, the other planet would make do, but simultaneous physically manifestations of Jesus isn't too hard to conceive.(no pun intended ;-) We could call it the "Binity" and 2 in 1 is easier to understand than the Trinity, right?

If Jesus "had" to meet a gruesome fate at the hands of the aliens on the other planets (just as he had to meet that fate on Earth), then what does that say about freedom of will?

It would say that they are arguing about free will just like we are.

14. The planet hunters

Comment #47832 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 4:49 pm

Philip,

okay... but I won't use that as an argument about the bible being false. Even today we talk about the corners of the earth meaning around the globe somewhere. And locally of course, maps are on a grid of some type, which are 2D and have corners.

Anyway, there's way better points in the Bible to attack.

Same as the 6000 years you brought up... the bible doesn't say that as far as I'm aware. I think that understanding is the result of a theory of trying to trace the lineage of Jesus back to Adam. It's reasonable enough that they skipped folks along the way... but still it results in creation vs. evolution, and I'm not getting into that right now. ;-]

15. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47821 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Is God the supreme psychiatrist?

I won't dare to speak for Dianelos, since everytime I try to understand him I feel myself spiraling down the rabbit hole, but most Xtians I know would say yes.

16. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47763 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Carnitine,

Did you have any undeniable "God-experiences" that you had to justify in other ways once you de-converted? This is a particularly difficult area for me to rationalize, and the "it's all in your head" thing seems trivial, yet could be the truth I suppose... just unconvincing in my case.

17. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47754 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Actually... I'll just go for it here. We've gotten off topic enough, and I feel like I know some of the posters here.

What do you think about the movies "What the Bleep Do We Know?" and "The Secret". They are pretty talked about in Can/USA.

Specifically, I was amazed by the parallels between religious prayer and the yet-unknown power of the mind to "create one's own reality" in small ways, which would appear like answer to prayer.

18. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47752 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 12:43 pm

;-] Well that was fun few days with Dianelos... I take a bit a consolation in fact that others are rubbing their sore brains trying to unravel Dianelos' philosophy of life. I was beginning to think I was just stupid.

As a complete change of subject...wait, I'll just create a new thread.

19. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47551 by james_the_doubter on June 5, 2007 at 12:04 am

roach,

let me explain (I'm a theist, yet not sophisticated)...we have MUCH to lose: family, respect, self-confidence, jobs sometimes, time, friends, positions, support networks, purpose, feelings of relationship with God, not to mention salvation, and eternal life...

and then...

someone like you questions/argues/rationalizes very well and occasionally belittles us...

and essentially asks us to be "born-again" AGAIN. (think about the fundamental reversal in world views you're asking us to consider... it's akin to being born again)

The proposition is usually too much to entertain for many, many reasons, and so you're left going to bed frustrated, and we're left going to bed examining any chinks in our lifelong-constructed armour.

20. My Road to Atheism, What Took Me So Long and The Aftermath

Comment #47546 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Carnitine,


Wow. The parallels between our lives are uncanny - major exceptions being I still have faith - more confused than ever though. I'm working through all of this currently.


Briefly, a nutshell version of my life:
* raised as an evangelical Christian (although evangelicals would call Mormonism a "cult", I know that sounds stupid in this setting...and oddly when I attended a Mormon temple with my friend in California, I had the radar set to "10", but could have been in any number of "normal" churches, the message was so similar)
* led Sunday School
* missions overseas
* Bible College
* worship leader
* worked as a youth pastor in 2 different churches (currently a Creative Director of a web firm... changed directions after I was convicted that I wasn't sufficiently passionate to work in the church)
* regarded as a pillar of faith by others (especially embarrassing given my current faith crisis)


Our mutual transitions and thought processes are close too... lack of interest in the church of our youth, intellectual hang-ups with faith that just won't leave us alone, "conversations" with our wives, etc...


I have been walking a doubtful path for the last 5-6 years, taking mental vacations from dealing with the issues periodically... and I'm back again trying to get a handle on ultimate questions. Ironically, I heard about The God Delusion book at church. The preacher used it as an example of atheistic arguments. After reading Dawkins' The God Delusion, and considering the ultimate relevance for my life, I'm faced with diverging paths: I figure I'll either make a similar choice as you have (although the idea is almost too much to bear right now) or I'll have a stronger faith than I've ever known. Even writing this outloud is as much of a confession as I've ever experienced... it's INCREDIBLY hard to FACE the music.

21. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47513 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 7:49 pm

steve99,

My Old Testament 101 prof said "6 days" in Hebrew is "6 yom". Yom can mean "day" or "age"... so 6 ages could be any length of time. I don't know much about Hebrew so I'll shut up about it.

Wow! The Pope is the antichrist! Whew! I'm glad that the Scots have solved that one! Someone should tell the Pope he's supposed to be in New Babylon. (My ancestors are Scottish - just poking fun)

22. The planet hunters

Comment #47511 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 7:35 pm

Would he have appeared on those other planets at the same time?

Timing is irrelevant.

Would he have suffered an incredibly coincidental fate on those planets too?

Yes.

Would his disciples feel happy about using 'old sparky' as the symbol to represent their religion?

Yes.

magetoo...

It should not come as a surprise that we get a lot of "those militant atheists" articles when the first stop of any research on RD looks like this

No worries, this is one of the coolest sites on the net... as friendly/genuine as them come. The "militant atheist" opinion is probably as ignorant as "militant ______" insert religion, where the token nutcases give the rest of group a bad rep. But even more likely is that people label others without doing any research at all.

23. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47502 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 6:22 pm

so many use the 'Holy Spirit' argument to justify this - basically, a feeling that came from God said 'forget that, keep on with this'. The problem is that this is virtually impossible to argue against, and it can justify almost anything.

Very true Steve... the "pick n' choose" theology is worthless. (and the source of my headaches over Dianelos' posts)

But, I've been a Christian most of my life (in my early 30's now) and I haven't observed the "Holy Spirit" interpret-what-you-want argument in action, other than some nutjobs on TV. To be honest though, I need to re-read the "slavery" part in the Bible. Thanks for the homework.

24. The planet hunters

Comment #47497 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 5:56 pm

the bible contains totally irrelevant information about the earth being flat and it being around 6000 years old

Really? I've never read that.

I've heard some Christians speculate that if there are life on other planets, then Jesus went there and died for them too. The hypothetical "are we alone" issue doesn't seem for or against God's case as far as I can see.

25. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47489 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 5:18 pm

steve99, ya I guess it must seem hypocritical. I was observing that Catholics, more than any other brand of Christianity I know, flat out add teaching, like transubstantiation (bread becomes real flesh during communion), and Mary's assumption (spiritual ascension into heaven without physically dying). It just strikes me as totally made up... 1200's they thought of X, then 1400's made up Y, then 1600's Z, etc and poof in modern times it's all valid.

I know others would say that the whole of the bible was made like that, so it's not a good argument in itself, but I'm just trying to explain what "the rest" of the Christians believe.

The Catholic "extras" are more obviously extreme than merely figuring out a correct interpretation of what some guy wrote 2000 years ago (Paul's take on slavery).

26. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47483 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 4:32 pm

This allows, for example, the Pope to change doctrine

The 100's of believers I know find this appalling. In fact Catholicism is so far away from what I understand about Christianity I hardly recognize it as Christianity. Harsh, but true. I once questioned some Catholic friends about the whole praying to saints thing - blank stares all around.

Strangely, all the additions of Catholic doctrine over the years fly in the face of the bible's warning itself of not to add anything to scriptures. I don't get it.

27. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47477 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 4:19 pm

steve99 wrote:

"You aren't making ethics objective in any way by linking them to God; all you are doing is attempting to pass responsibility for ethics to a higher power.

Uhh...I've never heard that before. Everyone I know who does believe in God also thinks God is omnibenevolent - so yes the buck would stop there. If you don't believe that God is objective truth, then you probably don't believe in God in the first place, so the objective/subject question is irrelevant.

28. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47462 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Dianelos, I was hoping you would respond to my post with something like... My overall motive for being on this site is...so an so.

I'm not being rude, truly, I think it would help me figure out the rest of your posts.

Your last comment on morality based on God is still confusing in light of your "pick and choose" definition on the nature of God. You said you didn't believe in hell or that "nonsense". ???
Who/what perfect and good God are you talking about to base our morality on?

29. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47451 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Billy, thanks for the links. I've bookmarked them for later. By the way, is that your real portrait? Do you have piercings all across your forehead?

30. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47436 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 1:51 pm

"You see, theism inherently leads to conflict."

Ah, touche. But any disagreement of any kind CAN lead to conflict... theism isn't a special case.(Yes, I know what you're going to say... I watched Dawkins' "The Root of All Evil".)

My point is, we (on this site) have the sense to use words, not weapons of mass destruction.

31. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47418 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Dianelos, you've got to be one of the most confusing people I've met. Not confused, just confusing to me. I read most of your posts on this thread... but I just don't get you. What's your motive for arguing? Atheists want to people like me to grow a brain and stop believing in fairytales, and people like me (sort of) want atheists to have faith and get "saved". But what about you?

You wrote:

I believe that what really counts is to be a good person, and belief in God is valuable only in as far as it helps one be a good person.

HUH? That's not a belief that's a hamburger chain slogan. (Wendy's - do what tastes right).

32. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47403 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Thanks Billy. Interesting article.

33. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47392 by james_the_doubter on June 4, 2007 at 11:04 am

Dr. Benway wrote:

I suspect there's a non-supernatural explanation for your experience. But you ought not take my opinion about such an important, life changing event. If you believe that your feelings were touched by God, who can contradict you? I might think such a thing improbable, but could I say impossible? No.

Never surrender sovereignty over your own truth. No group, no power ought to tread upon your right to see what you see, feel what you feel, and think what you think.

Thanks for your honesty... at least you didn't compare me to a drug addict like someone else on this site. ;-] (To that person, I forget who now, I haven't had a "hit" off God for years, so I'm not desperately hanging on to my faith as compared to a junkie)

If I was a doubter in Christianity before I found this site a few days ago, I'm even more of one now... in the sense that I have even more questions and fewer answers. Strangely, my "faith" is not weaker. This would probably confirm many atheists' views that faith is not really founded on reason. I don't know what to say about that at this point.

I picked up a book by Michael Shermer yesterday called, How We Believe: Science, Skepticism and the Search for God. In the preface he summarizes, "Of course, if the answers to these arguments are as obvious and clear-cut as both theists and atheists think, then why do such debates continue, even in the hallowed halls of theological seminaries and universities, where presumably the question of God's existence would have been resolved by now? It has not. That fact alone tells us something about the nature of the subject."

That is exactly what I was thinking after spending way too many hours on this forum Friday and Saturday. Hey, but the journey is sure fun.

34. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47073 by james_the_doubter on June 3, 2007 at 1:00 am

Logicel,
Well, I haven't experienced LSD, but my brother-in-law who is now a Christian says it's similar to a "God experience". But seriously, a smell of cologne? Anyone with a bit of imagination can conjure up a smell or taste. I think what I experienced is on a different level than smells or guessing the Ace of Spades. Again, everyone has that type of premonition or whatever. Even if you hadn't passed the card on the ground before, and walked right up to it and said, "that's the ace of spades" no one would be impressed. I've done that type of weirdness before and I've seen it done by others. It could appear supernatural, but maybe it's just an advanced natural event, that people will figure out a 100 years from now. That's what you're getting at right? That is a powerful suggestion - that things could only appear to be supernatural because we're too dumb to understand what's really happening. But in that case, atheists should be having all the same psuedo-supernatural experiences like the rest of us - you can't all be geniuses. ;-]

Dr Benway,
Yes, you're right. My anecdotal experience has little to no value to anyone else, and it's arrogant to think that someone should accept any "truth" I gather from it. That's why I asked what I, myself, should do with such an experience. It seems impossible to un-convert myself even in the face of lacking/dysfunctional evidence.

But I can't be alone here. Atheists surely can't explain every personal experience rationally...

Things like dreams or premonitions that later happened, stunning coincidences, moments of expansive, transcendent joy, feelings of the presence of God, and so on.

Do you think those things were all natural/rational/logical? I assume your are an atheist?

35. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47027 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Completely true Dairic. It's not a proof of God. I brought it up because people often try to use it as a disproof of God. I was stating that evil in the world isn't a disproof a good God, although CJ22 has stumped on it so far.

36. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47025 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 8:05 pm

eccles, come to Canada then... people in my area (British Columbia) are pretty open to all kinds of ideas. The challenge is getting people to think about anything other than which movie to watch tonight, etc.

37. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47024 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 8:01 pm

hahaha... nice one Logicel. Acutally, I was a Friday "drive-by-godder"... after spending a couple weeks reading TGD I looked up this site two days ago.

Also, the evidence I wanted to you to discuss was in Comment #46955 in this thread.

I just relayed the past 2 days of discussion to my wife for about an hour...aargh... my brain hurts. Maybe I'll watch the Root of Evil thing again, with her this time, to spin in neutral for a while. Again, I can't thank people enough on this site for the honest discussion... it's like tasting Indian food for the first time - tantalizing and spicy!

38. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #47014 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 6:27 pm

CJ22... good point. I never thought about it like that. God can't be accredited as being "good" by simultaneously giving one person free choice and taking away someone else's free choice. I've held that concept for at least ten years and you're the first person to say that in response. I don't know why I never thought of it myself and I can't think of how to refute what you're saying...

39. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47002 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Just a product of my mind? That's giving me a lot of credit... if I was that "special" I'd be in some sort of institution because of my mutant abilities. Can't help thinking of X-men here... ;-]

One of the reasons I wrote about my experience was the very fact that I did not want or expect it. How could I manufacture the experience when it took me by surprise? I think to delude myself I would have at least had to TRY delude myself in the first place. The experience validates God's existence for me because of the context: God-centered prayer, un-natural events, un-natural feeling, regaining consciousness with an un-natural awareness/sensitivity to God being right there, in and around me. If there was no supernatural, spiritual being then I would have simply wiped off the glob of oil from my forehead and carried on with my day. That's the way I see it right now, although I'm enjoying others' perspective on this... there are many good thinkers on this site, and I have spent many hours over the last couple of days getting my positions challenged! Great site!

40. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46970 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:21 pm

Hey teapot,

I laughed at the "virgin" oil reference... good one. I try not to take myself too seriously ;-]

So you're saying God needs to stay mysterious because God requires faith as a prerequisite for a relationship with him(ignore gender here please, I don't see how spirit can have gender anyway).

That's actually a really honest point, teapot, and a frustrating one for deep-thinking believers. It almost seems like God wants believers to struggle greatly with their belief. Reminds me a piece of the Bible I learned once:

"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast." Ephesians 2:8,9

I just don't know why God would make it so difficult for people to believe in him...just thinking out loud here. Especially, the more a person "thinks" the harder it is to work out the nature of God, and the truth of the Bible, the evidence of supernatural, etc. That's probably why a lot of Christians can't "logically" defend their faith, because it's so intermingled with personal emotional experiences that they don't have any reason to examine scientifically. So perhaps at some point, their brain hurts too much and they just go with their gut. Maybe the difference between believer and a non-believer is that the believer accepts things without fully understanding them based on a mixture of thought/emotion/spiritual sense, whereas a non-believer might only accept something as true after it's fully understood in their head. And since God, if there really is something that powerfully superior, could never be fully understood with our brain, some people could never believe.

41. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46964 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 12:30 pm

Comment #46945 by bouwe... great summary, thanks.

42. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46961 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 12:20 pm

At least I'm not the only one with a hurting brain.

Thanks baeoz, logicel, ridelo and others..
By the way, I'm 31... not that young, ridelo.

Logicel wrote:

Remember, there is no concrete evidence for the supernatural--use that handle as a lodestone, to anchor yourself to a bedrock of logic and rationality while doubting your faith.

I just got into this subject on the McGrath/Dawkins thread... it'd be great to hear what you have to say.

43. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46955 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 11:49 am

If jesus suddenly appeared in the clouds, me thinks it wouldn't just be atheists heading for the nearest church to get baptised. Every one of every other religious persuasion would join the stampede.

Technically, the "rapture" wouldn't help - the problem with that sort of evidence is that it's after the fact according to Christian teaching - it's already too late at that point to change your mind and be "saved".

Thanks to people that are responding to my posts...I've never had a chance to talk with people like you guys.

So what people seem to be saying is that they want to see/experience something supernatural for themselves, something that only God could do... whatever that would look like. But how would that be evidence? Something supernatural couldn't be tested and repeated through the scientific method anyway. That's what's confusing me right now. Everyone wants evidence to prove God exists, etc. but wouldn't evidence of the supernatural BE supernatural evidence, in which case most Athiests would reject it because the only evidence they consider real is natural evidence. Dawkins' says in TGD, that a personal God experience is often the most powerful aspect of faith for that individual but means little to others. I agree with that. Let's say that I wanted to become an Athiest... because my head says that religion is fake, the Bible is inaccurate, etc. But how do I make sense of my "God-experience"? Briefly, here it is:

When I was 18 I was a camp counsellor at a Christian Summer Camp called Circle Square Ranch on Ontario, Canada. One night during the second week of training, the senior staff were praying for each counsellor. They were doing a symbolic gesture of anointing with oil (dabbing a bit of olive oil on your forehead). I didn't really know what it meant. I was not expecting anything to happen - I grew up in a church that taught good morals, but never really witnessed anything supernatural. I have always been a critical thinker and questioned the beliefs handed down to me more than most people. But this night something unexplainable happened. The moment the guy touched my forehead (I know this is going to sound dumb but it's the only way to explain it), a feeling like thick hot honey starting pouring down on top of my head. It was so real that I closed my eyes and was sort of in a state of shock. As the invisible "honey" piled up on my head it started to spread out and run down the side of my head on all sides at once. When the thick liquid heat ran over my eye lids I blacked out. The next thing I remember was waking up on the floor lying on my back. My friends said I just collapsed and had been on the floor unconscious for a couple of minutes. When I woke I had an overwhelming sense of God's power/love/spirit or some like that - I have a hard time nailing it down...

What do I make of that?

44. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46863 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:53 am

Thanks, ridelo.

Baeoz,

Yes, I see. I think it's just a mix up with the words "belief" and "faith". No problem.

On another note, I've never seen the contradiction of a good God, and evil in the world. Maybe, I haven't thought it through far enough, but if we have free will, we can choose to do evil things, and a loving God wouldn't squash our choice, because that's not a "good" thing to do.

About the 3 in 1 Trinity... I've always thought about it like an egg.... there's a shell, the egg white, and the yolk. All egg, but different parts.

45. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46851 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 1:01 am

(could someone tell me how to quote instead of cut/paste, please?)

bouwe, you said:
"When you choose to set yourself apart and insist on being defined as "agnostic" it immediately gives rise to the misunderstanding that atheism is a 'belief' or that atheists "claim to prove" that god doesn't exist."

I am new to these discussions, so excuse my ignorance here, but I just read The God Delusion, and I would say that Dawkins has a very strong belief, and does set out to prove that god doesn't exist.

46. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46850 by james_the_doubter on June 2, 2007 at 12:48 am

Good point. Of course the natural world is our common denominator, although that doesn't mean that it ends there.

I guess it's like in the movie, "Matrix", where everyone shares the programmed world, but there is another reality as well, which is the matrix. In my meaning, the matrix would be the spiritual realm.

Also, another general question... if believers need to be open to the idea that faith is wrong and there is no god, unbelievers need to be open to the idea that faith is true and there is a god. Right? The case in question I suppose is sufficient evidence to support one's belief. Out of curiosity, what would that evidence look like to persuade an Athiest to become a Christian?

47. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46832 by james_the_doubter on June 1, 2007 at 10:02 pm

Yup, yup, yup... I found myself agreeing with almost all of that.

To quote:
"The studies - of which there are now many - indicate that a tendency to religiosity is genetically determined; if one twin is very religious the other nearly always is too, no matter how they were brought up. For believers, such studies should raise a confronting question: why would an all-loving God create some of his people without the capacity for believing in him, and then, according to scriptures, send them to eternal hellfire for not believing in him?"

As a Christian, I have been quietly wondering the same thing for years.

48. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46828 by james_the_doubter on June 1, 2007 at 9:42 pm

Miri,
I've never thought of it quite like that, but it seems like people try to interpret the "evidence" from a perspective of whatever side they're on. What side they're on seems a product of their personality + upbringing. This is the foggy conclusion that I've come up with based on what I see.
If a person feels a strong need to understand everything with their brain then they lean towards a agnostic or atheistic stance... others only feel happily balanced with faith in their lives. I guess I'm somewhere inbetween. I don't know why really smart and educated people have a tendency to abandon faith - I remember a section of "God Delusion" talking about this - is it that their need to understand everything leaves no room for something above understanding? Maybe smart/very educated people don't like faith, because they are used to everything fitting in a box that's logical... and supernatural stuff isn't by definition totally understandable. I wonder if that's why it's so hard to explain parts of the Christian worldview - it's like an ant trying to describe the ways of a bird.
I also wondering if modern Christianity and Atheism has got it wrong. If one camp was really true and the evidence was so obviously in favour of one or the other, then we would all be either an atheist or a Christian. Since we're all over the map, what does that say about both sides? That we're both wrong?

49. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46806 by james_the_doubter on June 1, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Hi all,

I'm probably one of the only Christians on this board, but it's great to dig in to this stuff...

I have just read "The God Delusion" over the past couple of weeks, and have been really impressed by Dawkins' arguments. I stumbled upon the interview between Dawkins and McGrath this morning and watched in with great fascination.
Even with my natural bias, McGrath seemed at a loss when faced with Dawkins' points. I felt uncomfortable for McGrath, because I could see he was having trouble expressing a real coherent answer.

I'm in my early 30's, college educated, but more or less average in other ways, so I'm not a great debater or anything, and I'm sure many of you can argue circles around me, but still I can't seem to give up my "faith". I've had serious doubts of all kinds for most of my life, but I have a gut feeling that there is something supernatural out there - based on my own subjective experiences as a Christian. I don't know what to believe these days, but I know I'm more honestly open than most of the Christians I know. That's a start I guess. Question everyting, right?