Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
GreyDeSilvisanctis
Recognized Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:15 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: The Pearl of the Orient
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#1

Post by GreyDeSilvisanctis » Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:48 am

I noticed that most of the other threads are for debating. So here I shall ask the atheists:

How do you live your lives without God (or gods)?
What do you hold of most value that without it, you'd rather be dead?
What about your basis for morality (which is very much rooted in the two previous questions)?

Of course if you are not an atheist or atheist-agnostic, you can ask questions and make remarks but that's all!
Note that this is for friendly discussion. No condescending and ad hominem remarks to and for both theism and atheism (e.g. you're delusional, believe (don't believe) in god or die, (a)theists are stupid and etc.)!

I'm curious as to what your answers may be. So far I've only received the perspective of the theistic side.


~Grey :)

On a side note, this could help me build a character in my novel. A nacho-loving atheist or something. Your help is much appreciated. :ebiggrin:
"ג Magna opera Domini, ד exquirenda omnibus, qui cupiunt ea." - Ps. 111:2 [NVV]

"Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth 'thrown in': aim at Earth and you will get neither." - C.S. Lewis

Thadeyus
Established Member
Posts: 223
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 12:45 am
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#2

Post by Thadeyus » Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:46 am

Hello. :)

Here are some of my quick, pretty much of the top of my head replies to your question (As I've said before I place my self on the Atheist end of a sliding Agnostic scale)

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote: 1)How do you live your lives without God (or gods)?
Quite easily, to be honest.
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:2)What do you hold of most value that without it, you'd rather be dead?
What do I hold of most value? Well,lost of things. A quick summary might be 'Life, liberty, good health.'
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:3)What about your basis for morality (which is very much rooted in the two previous questions)?
Well...no. My basis for morality would be that which I've seen/learned/developed from my interactions and experiences with fellow people with which I've lived and interacted with over the years. 'Input from society as a whole' would perchance be a summing up.


Hope those answers helped a little. It is late where I am, having just popped in to look through the forums before heading off to bed.
Wishing you and yours and all those perusing the forums the very best.

Lunalle
Established Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#3

Post by Lunalle » Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:23 pm

GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:I noticed that most of the other threads are for debating. So here I shall ask the atheists:
Hey Grey! I think it's awesome you have questions, and seem to be pretty open minded! I'm happy to answer them as best I can.
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:How do you live your lives without God (or gods)?
Well, that strikes me as an odd question. Ultimately, we're still human, like any human who believes in God (or gods). We breathe the same way, we have feelings of hunger, so we eat. The physical processes are the exact same. This question is vague, and could mean a lot of things. If my answer is insufficient for you, please clarify, and I will do my best to give you a better answer.
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:What do you hold of most value that without it, you'd rather be dead?
Wow! That's extreme, what would I rather be dead than live without? Off the top of my head, I'd say my freedom within society. If I was locked in solitary confinement for the rest of my life, I'd rather be dead. Sometimes it feels torturous to just have myself and my mind. If I was locked in solitary confinement for the rest of my life, I'd be unable to make any sort of change in this world, so what would be the point in being in it?
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:What about your basis for morality (which is very much rooted in the two previous questions)?
Not sure I agree that my basis of morality is rooted in the previous two questions, but it's a great question! Ethics (moral principles, and the study of them), is extremely important to me. I spend a lot of my time on this topic. It is a big topic, and I'm always ready and willing to discuss it at length.

Before I talk about my (or any) basis for morality, it is important that we all understand the difference between moral impulses, and morals. For example, I have a moral impulse (I "feel"), that trying to disprove a religion is wrong. However, I have adopted the moral that trying to disprove a religion is right, on the basis that I feel they are dangerous, and defend ignorance. (That is not meant to offend, I'm just talking about MY morals, as asked).

Medical science has shown us that moral impulses come from a part of our brain, and can be manipulated or changed through manipulation of the tissue of the brain. We (most of us, anyway!) are physically born with the capacity to have moral impulses, which are then imposed on us by our parents, school, friends, society etc. as we gain experiences while living our lives.

However, we (again, most of us) also have higher functioning brains, and we can decide on our ethics (moral code), whether or not they agree with our moral impulses.

With all that out of the way, here's my personal answer on my moral code (not sure if you're interested in my moral impulses, I'm not sure they matter much).

I do not have a solid moral code. I frequently find myself questioning, and attempting to refine it. Generally speaking, I try to be a nice, caring person, and keep an open mind. I believe everyone has the right to live there own life as they please, so long as it is not detrimental to others (where that line is, seems to be a never ending debate).
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:I'm curious as to what your answers may be. So far I've only received the perspective of the theistic side.
~Grey :)
Hopefully this helped provide some insight. Feel free to ask any other questions, or for clarification/expansion on my answers!

Cheers!
GreyDeSilvisanctis wrote:On a side note, this could help me build a character in my novel. A nacho-loving atheist or something. Your help is much appreciated. :ebiggrin:
Awesome! I hope it does. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions for your character!
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').

Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist! :)

GreyDeSilvisanctis
Recognized Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:15 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: The Pearl of the Orient
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#4

Post by GreyDeSilvisanctis » Tue Sep 17, 2013 4:33 am

Thadeyus wrote: Quite easily, to be honest.
Sorry for posing that vague first question. LOL
Here's a few more:
How do you define God?
What were the steps you took to come to the conclusion that the Being does not exist or that the evidence points that such a Being does not exist?
Does that mean that you disbelieve in the supernatural? Or would you say that supernatural things are just natural things that we have yet to explain?

As for your answers, thanks for sharing them!
Thadeyus wrote:What do I hold of most value? Well,lost of things. A quick summary might be 'Life, liberty, good health.'
I see. I guess you could also add that it's similar to most other people then.
Thadeyus wrote:Well...no. My basis for morality would be that which I've seen/learned/developed from my interactions and experiences with fellow people with which I've lived and interacted with over the years. 'Input from society as a whole' would perchance be a summing up.
I take the "no" to mean that you disagree with my side comment. Wouldn't you say though that this question is still related to what you would most value or if not, just ordinarily value? I mean you still value those moral beliefs, right?
Thadeyus wrote: Hope those answers helped a little. It is late where I am, having just popped in to look through the forums before heading off to bed.
Wishing you and yours and all those perusing the forums the very best.
Thanks again for your time, Thadeyus! :)
"ג Magna opera Domini, ד exquirenda omnibus, qui cupiunt ea." - Ps. 111:2 [NVV]

"Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth 'thrown in': aim at Earth and you will get neither." - C.S. Lewis

GreyDeSilvisanctis
Recognized Member
Posts: 70
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2012 6:15 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: The Pearl of the Orient
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#5

Post by GreyDeSilvisanctis » Tue Sep 17, 2013 5:04 am

Lunalle wrote: Hey Grey! I think it's awesome you have questions, and seem to be pretty open minded! I'm happy to answer them as best I can.
Thank you for the comment! I'm glad that you gave time for my questions. :)
I also hope that some of the readers who see this will be able to understand your positions and beliefs more clearly.
Lunalle wrote: Well, that strikes me as an odd question. Ultimately, we're still human, like any human who believes in God (or gods). We breathe the same way, we have feelings of hunger, so we eat. The physical processes are the exact same. This question is vague, and could mean a lot of things. If my answer is insufficient for you, please clarify, and I will do my best to give you a better answer.
Yeah, I did give a rather vague question. Sorry 'bout that. I have more questions down below though.
Thanks for answering this anyway. :D
Lunalle wrote: Wow! That's extreme, what would I rather be dead than live without? Off the top of my head, I'd say my freedom within society. If I was locked in solitary confinement for the rest of my life, I'd rather be dead. Sometimes it feels torturous to just have myself and my mind. If I was locked in solitary confinement for the rest of my life, I'd be unable to make any sort of change in this world, so what would be the point in being in it?
Interesting. I believe that no one can live alone as well. However, the point you made was that you can't live without doing anything significant in this world, correct?
This question was written in relation to the first one so I guess you could say that this was essentially what I was asking to begin with.
Lunalle wrote: Not sure I agree that my basis of morality is rooted in the previous two questions, but it's a great question! Ethics (moral principles, and the study of them), is extremely important to me. I spend a lot of my time on this topic. It is a big topic, and I'm always ready and willing to discuss it at length.

Before I talk about my (or any) basis for morality, it is important that we all understand the difference between moral impulses, and morals. For example, I have a moral impulse (I "feel"), that trying to disprove a religion is wrong. However, I have adopted the moral that trying to disprove a religion is right, on the basis that I feel they are dangerous, and defend ignorance. (That is not meant to offend, I'm just talking about MY morals, as asked).
No offense taken, I'm sure. It was a legit question.
Lunalle wrote:Medical science has shown us that moral impulses come from a part of our brain, and can be manipulated or changed through manipulation of the tissue of the brain. We (most of us, anyway!) are physically born with the capacity to have moral impulses, which are then imposed on us by our parents, school, friends, society etc. as we gain experiences while living our lives.
However, we (again, most of us) also have higher functioning brains, and we can decide on our ethics (moral code), whether or not they agree with our moral impulses.
Do you mean to say that when we're born, we've got our moral impulses already? Which is then compounded by our environment?
As I understand this is a psycho-social sort of explanation of morality and then you differentiate between the code and the impulses.
Lunalle wrote:With all that out of the way, here's my personal answer on my moral code (not sure if you're interested in my moral impulses, I'm not sure they matter much).

I do not have a solid moral code. I frequently find myself questioning, and attempting to refine it. Generally speaking, I try to be a nice, caring person, and keep an open mind. I believe everyone has the right to live there own life as they please, so long as it is not detrimental to others (where that line is, seems to be a never ending debate).
I think that we all try and search for morality whether it be objective or not; there is still that search. One could posit an evolutionary argument on the existence of this search as well but I digress.
Would you agree with the Golden Rule? I know that it's a silly question but a question nonetheless. :lol:
Lunalle wrote: Hopefully this helped provide some insight. Feel free to ask any other questions, or for clarification/expansion on my answers!

Cheers!
Yes, indeed!
Here are some additional questions that I also gave Thadeyus:

How do you define God?
What were the steps you took to come to the conclusion that the Being does not exist or that the evidence points that such a Being does not exist?
Does that mean that you disbelieve in the supernatural? Or would you say that supernatural things are just natural things that we have yet to explain?
Lunalle wrote: Awesome! I hope it does. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions for your character!
Thank you for the offer! I will do so when I've the time. :D

Cheers to you as well!

~Grey :)
"ג Magna opera Domini, ד exquirenda omnibus, qui cupiunt ea." - Ps. 111:2 [NVV]

"Aim at Heaven and you will get Earth 'thrown in': aim at Earth and you will get neither." - C.S. Lewis

Lunalle
Established Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#6

Post by Lunalle » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:22 am

Thank you for the comment! I'm glad that you gave time for my questions. :)
I also hope that some of the readers who see this will be able to understand your positions and beliefs more clearly.
No problem. I've got lots of free time right now. I'm all for learning, and questioning is a big part of that. Sure, it would be nice if people understood my positions and beliefs. I'm trying to strike a balance between expressing my beliefs, and not terribly offending everyone. Its tough to do sometimes.
Yeah, I did give a rather vague question. Sorry 'bout that. I have more questions down below though.
Thanks for answering this anyway. :D
Hey, no worries! I'm sure we've all asked vague questions. Fire away!
Interesting. I believe that no one can live alone as well. However, the point you made was that you can't live without doing anything significant in this world, correct?
Well, your statement is much stronger than mine. I'm not sure I can agree with it as written. At the end of my life, I may have failed to have made a significant impact, but I'm not going to kill myself, because I believe I'm not making a significant impact. I hope that makes sense. I believe I would kill myself, if I didn't believe it was possible for me to attempt to make a significant impact. Say, for example, I wouldn't want to be kept alive if I was "a vegetable." Another example would be if I had no way to communicate. Say I had no arms or legs, and I was blind, deaf, and mute. I believe nothingness (death) is preferable to either of those states. Hopefully that helps clarify.
No offense taken, I'm sure. It was a legit question.
Oh good! I felt bad writing that, but I couldn't think of a better example where my morals disagree with my moral instincts.
Do you mean to say that when we're born, we've got our moral impulses already? Which is then compounded by our environment?
As I understand this is a psycho-social sort of explanation of morality and then you differentiate between the code and the impulses.
To some degree, yes, excepting brain damage, or "abnormal" physical development of the brain. I wouldn't say we have ALL of our moral impulses at birth (they can be changed), but we certainly have some. Yes, your environment is one of the factors that may change your moral impulses. Our morality (encompassing both morals and moral impulses), is in part psycho-social. I would argue it is more than that, but that is a big part of it. The main point I was trying to make is that our morals (what we believe is good or bad), does not necessarily have to align with our moral impulses (what we feel is good or bad). This is a really important point, and applies to more than just morals.
I think that we all try and search for morality whether it be objective or not; there is still that search. One could posit an evolutionary argument on the existence of this search as well but I digress.
Yes, one could, and I do.
Would you agree with the Golden Rule? I know that it's a silly question but a question nonetheless. :lol:
The "Golden Rule": Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you. (Please let me know if you disagree that this is the "Golden Rule".)

Hold on here, I am offended that you "know" its a silly question. This is not a silly question! This is a very important, if not the most important question a person can ask another person. If you had said that to me in person, I'd start cursing and chewing you out. This is also not a light question to ask. Unfortunately, it is usually viewed as such, but you are asking about what I think is a good way to treat people. That gives me pause to think. I do not agree with the golden rule at all. In fact, I think it is a terrible "rule"! Let me give you some examples why.

1. Consider the case of masochism (the tendency to derive sexual gratification from one’s own pain or humiliation). According to the golden rule, the masochist is morally right in inflicting pain or humiliation on another, because they derive sexual gratification from having pain or humiliation inflicted on them. Do I agree with that? Not in the slightest.

You don't even have to go to such extremes.

2. According to the golden rule, if someone enjoys a certain sexual act performed on them, they should perform that act on others. Again, I don't agree at all.

It doesn't even need to be sexual.

3. According to the golden rule, if someone wanted someone else to kill them (they want to die, but don't want to kill themselves), they are morally right to kill everyone they see. I object to this stronger than I object to the claim that God exists. I'd go so far as to say I militantly oppose this.

It doesn't even need to be non sexual and extreme, and it doesn't make sense.

4. According to the golden rule, if someone wanted to be taught, they should teach other people.

5. According to the golden rule, if someone wanted other people to give them more of something, they should give away what they want more of (This argument is not about morality, but just shows the logical absurdity of the claim. Some people do apply the golden rule outside of the issue of morality, though. I was taught that giving money to the poor would cause me to have more money.)

The golden rule (uck, I hate that phrase), is a very old, very basic, and very foolish ethic.
Yes, indeed!
Here are some additional questions that I also gave Thadeyus:
Yay! More questions! (That is a sincere statement, not sarcastic.) Ask away!
How do you define God?
I don't. I don't believe God exists, so I don't define it. However, I will give you the answer to a question that is close to yours, and hopefully that will suffice.

Q: How would you define a god, which you could be convinced to believe, exists?
A: Some sort of matter and force outside of our universe. Not a being, not an intelligence, but some sort of matter (or even antimatter, or some other something found outside our universe) and force (the capability of change in the "something", not necessarily force as we know it).
What were the steps you took to come to the conclusion that the Being does not exist or that the evidence points that such a Being does not exist?
Oh wow, really?! The antitheist gets to preach? Awesome! Out of respect, I'll try to keep the majority of my antitheistic views out of it. I'm not sure I can honestly answer the question without saying some things that most theists would find insulting, but I'll try.

I'll answer the second part of your question first, because it is a lot easier. Scientifically, no evidence is required to point to such a being not existing, and, as you would expect, there is no scientifically accepted evidence of such a claim. Since neither side has any scientifically accepted evidence, the best we can do is apply Occam's razor to the situation. For those that are unfamiliar: "It states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected." I want to be perfectly clear that this (Occam's razor) is NOT scientific evidence. It is my belief, that the only position on the question of God's existence, which is not wrong, is that of "I'm not capable of knowing". A strong argument could be made for the position of "I don't know", but that is just a position of ignorance. I'm fine with being ignorant on a lot of topics (and I don't make claims about them), but the question of the existence of God is not one of them.

On to the first part of the question! I'll rephrase it a bit, just to emphasize how much my position has changed. How did I go from a hardcore fundamentalist Christian prayer warrior, who is an eye witness to miracles (yes, I still claim that), spoke in tongues, and prophesied, to someone opposed to the very belief of God's existence? It took considerable time, thinking, learning, changing my methodology for determining truth claims, and (then) re-evaluating claims. I like to say.... never mind what I like to say. The point is that it takes keeping an open mind, and a lot of little steps. Reversing a belief that you hold strongly, is an extremely difficult thing to do. Religion for me was much more than a belief, which made it even harder.

The first step, was coming to the realization that science (as we know it today) and God are opposed. Yes, I know this is an often debated topic, and people have differing views on the topic. However, I can only find one valid argument, which I won't state, unless specifically asked, that they are not opposed (Note that the validity of an argument, is not the correctness of an argument.) However, I could find a really convincing argument that God and science are opposed. I'm being vague here, and probably fallacious, because I'm trying to minimize hurt feelings.

After suffering from inner turmoil for a couple of years, I finally came to believe that I would rather be miserable than wrong. I picked science over God. I was very ignorant to the methods of science, and so I was miserable, for quite a few more years. However, as I learned more about scientific methods, I became more and more comfortable with the choice I had made.

As I began to replace my religious model of determining truth, with my scientific one, people kept trying convince me to "come back to God." The more my model changed, the more I disliked my religion. Eventually, I came to see just how bad it really was, so now I fight against it. I thought I was fighting for the "underdog" before, but now that I've been on both sides, I assure you, this (antitheistic) side is much harder to convert people to.

So that's the polite version of my "antitheistic testimony". Thank you very much for asking! Sharing this has greatly improved my day.
Does that mean that you disbelieve in the supernatural? Or would you say that supernatural things are just natural things that we have yet to explain?
Oy! Supernatural is a "bad" word! :) I think a lot of things that are called supernatural, really aren't. I don't know what YOU mean by the term, so its tough to answer the question. If you mean that sometimes things happen that we expect not to happen, and we cannot explain them scientifically, then I believe that. Science does not, and probably never will, have ALL the answers. Personally, I call those miraculous events. I'll give you an example.

My father was hit by a steel beam, and his neck was broken in three places. The doctors told him he would most likely be paralyzed from the neck down, and would never walk again. My father replied "God is going to heal me in 3 days, and I will walk out of this hospital." 3 days later, there was no sign of any trauma (never mind the spine broken in 3 places) ever occurring, and my father walked out of the hospital. This is well documented in his medical files, with x-rays, doctors reports, etc. No one (except my father, of course) has ever offered a hypothesis of how this happened, never mind any evidence to support their claim. He still walks (among other things), to this day. I don't know if you believe this to be a supernatural event, I think the word is muddied so badly it shouldn't be used. I believe this kind of thing does happen, and I call them "miraculous events". I hope this answers your question sufficiently. if not, as always, try asking it a different way, and I'll try to provide a better answer.

Cheers, and thanks again for asking me to share!
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').

Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist! :)

User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 129 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#7

Post by 1over137 » Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:00 pm

What doctors were saying on healing of your father's neck?
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart

Lunalle
Established Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#8

Post by Lunalle » Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:08 pm

1over137 wrote:What doctors were saying on healing of your father's neck?
The doctors offered no explanation as to how it happened. They were shocked and awed. They said they didn't understand how it was possible.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').

Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist! :)

Danieltwotwenty
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2879
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:01 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Aussie Land
Has liked: 37 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#9

Post by Danieltwotwenty » Wed Sep 18, 2013 11:14 pm

Lunalle wrote: I picked science over God.
Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

To me science is the study of creation, from evolution to quantum mechanics.
1Tim1:15-17
Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners of whom I am the worst. But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his immense patience as an example for those who would believe in him and receive eternal life. Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory for ever and ever.Amen.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3560
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Has liked: 227 times
Been liked: 106 times
Contact:

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#10

Post by neo-x » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:19 am

Danieltwotwenty wrote:
Lunalle wrote: I picked science over God.
Why do you think they are mutually exclusive?

To me science is the study of creation, from evolution to quantum mechanics.
Same here, I have nothing contrary to science.
It would be a blessing if they missed the cairns and got lost on the way back. Or if
the Thing on the ice got them tonight.

I could only turn and stare in horror at the chief surgeon.
Death by starvation is a terrible thing, Goodsir, continued Stanley.
And with that we went below to the flame-flickering Darkness of the lower deck
and to a cold almost the equal of the Dante-esque Ninth Circle Arctic Night
without.


//johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5197
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 129 times
Been liked: 284 times

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#11

Post by 1over137 » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:39 am

Lunalle wrote:
1over137 wrote:What doctors were saying on healing of your father's neck?
The doctors offered no explanation as to how it happened. They were shocked and awed. They said they didn't understand how it was possible.
Have you yourself researched this?

To me you seems to really pick anti-god position. You say there are things we know not how to explain yet but in future you believe we will. Is this your position, right?
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart

Lunalle
Established Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#12

Post by Lunalle » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:56 am

1over137 wrote:Have you yourself researched this?
No, I have not. I'm not very interested in medical science. I think it is a great thing, and extremely helpful, but it isn't a personal interest, so I don't spend much time on it.
1over137 wrote:To me you seems to really pick anti-god position. You say there are things we know not how to explain yet but in future you believe we will. Is this your position, right?
Personally, I do pick the anti-god position. In this example, the reason is because if everyone believes God did it, then we have no good reason to further investigate the occurrence(s). My father will never know what actually happened, because he is closed minded and believes it was "God and faith". Even if the doctors are still trying to figure it out (doubtful), and at some point they do (even more doubtful), my father would not believe them.

You're very close to my position. :) It is that there are things we do not know how to explain yet, HOPEFULLY in the future, we will be able to. We should keep trying until we can, and reject ANY (God or otherwise) answer not based on evidence, which causes us to stop investigating.

So I pick the anti-magic, anti-devil, anti-prayer, anti-(anything you can come up with, except a scientific theory) position, just as strongly as the anti-god one.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').

Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist! :)

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#13

Post by B. W. » Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:12 am

Lunalle wrote:
1over137 wrote:Have you yourself researched this?
No, I have not. I'm not very interested in medical science. I think it is a great thing, and extremely helpful, but it isn't a personal interest, so I don't spend much time on it.
1over137 wrote:To me you seems to really pick anti-god position. You say there are things we know not how to explain yet but in future you believe we will. Is this your position, right?
Personally, I do pick the anti-god position. In this example, the reason is because if everyone believes God did it, then we have no good reason to further investigate the occurrence(s). My father will never know what actually happened, because he is closed minded and believes it was "God and faith". Even if the doctors are still trying to figure it out (doubtful), and at some point they do (even more doubtful), my father would not believe them.

You're very close to my position. :) It is that there are things we do not know how to explain yet, HOPEFULLY in the future, we will be able to. We should keep trying until we can, and reject ANY (God or otherwise) answer not based on evidence, which causes us to stop investigating.

So I pick the anti-magic, anti-devil, anti-prayer, anti-(anything you can come up with, except a scientific theory) position, just as strongly as the anti-god one.
So Lunalle - do you hate your father?

Rather see him remain crippled to prove that there is no god?
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

Lunalle
Established Member
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:10 am
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#14

Post by Lunalle » Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:38 am

B. W. wrote: So Lunalle - do you hate your father? Rather see him remain crippled to prove that there is no god?
Nah, I don't hate him. I don't like him much, but I don't hate him. I don't really understand your question. If you're asking me to choose between a reality where my father is healthy and there is a god, or a reality where my father is crippled but there is no god, it would depend on which god. I'm going to assume you mean the Christian God, an if so, I'd pick the second choice. But why stop there? If I get to dictate whether God is real or not, he's not. I'd even spend eternity in hell if it meant I got to dictate that.

EDIT: This may make me look like an **edited by moderator**, but think about it. If I get to take every unsaved person out of hell, and stop anymore from going, that's worth more than anything happening to 1 person.
Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god').

Are you an atheist or a theist? If you're a theist, move a little closer to the truth, and become an atheist! :)

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Out of the Debate (Interviewing Non-belief)

#15

Post by B. W. » Thu Sep 19, 2013 8:08 am

Lunalle wrote:
B. W. wrote: So Lunalle - do you hate your father? Rather see him remain crippled to prove that there is no god?
Nah, I don't hate him. I don't like him much, but I don't hate him. I don't really understand your question. If you're asking me to choose between a reality where my father is healthy and there is a god, or a reality where my father is crippled but there is no god, it would depend on which god. I'm going to assume you mean the Christian God, an if so, I'd pick the second choice. But why stop there? If I get to dictate whether God is real or not, he's not. I'd even spend eternity in hell if it meant I got to dictate that.

EDIT: This may make me look like an **edited by moderator**, but think about it. If I get to take every unsaved person out of hell, and stop anymore from going, that's worth more than anything happening to 1 person.
Jesus did so, paying a heavy price to do so for all, but many like yourself still refuse to believe...

Go look on your Polling Thread to read what I mean by the word believe...
-
-
-

PS Also note - not sure why the double post - maybe due to new batteries in the wireless mouse... sorry about that folks!
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

Post Reply