Posted on 05/04/2014 12:34:25 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Legendary conservative columnist George Will says he is an atheist. […]
“I’m an amiable, low voltage atheist,” Will explained. “I deeply respect religions and religious people. The great religions reflect something constant and noble in the human character, defensible and admirable yearnings.”
“I am just not persuaded. That’s all,” he added. …
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
I have read both, and the jealous, angry, mercurial, vengeful God of the Old Testament most certainly has the same traits as the Muslim God.
Your ignorance is no skin off my back. Eternity is a long time, and I can only suggest that you really search what must be the ultimate truth that is the obvious conclusion of time and space actually being the same property, and other things that quantum mechanics has shown. Our science is now just catching up to…..wait for it….the Bible.
If you have any real interest, you can Google any number of folks with deep science backgrounds. You could start with Sir Isaac Newton, read Einstein, and look up Chuck Missler.
The God of Islam allows lying to non-muslims. This is quite different. After all, the Old Testament God forbids killing, but he bade the Jews to kill the Canaanites. He forbade adultery but taking female slaves was allowed. You have to look at who the rules apply to. In both of them.
Your definition of the well being of humanity is different from anyone else’s definition. So it’s necessarily subjective. Your opinion against theirs.
And people's definition of God, and what He wants, gives rise to just as many different opinions. That's why we have so many different religions, and within religions, so many denominations, and within denominations, disagreements. I've seen devout Freepers right here get into scalding arguments about What God Wants.
So for providing an objective and immovable line in the sand, He's no more reliable than any other human-declared absolute.
I guess "eternity is a long time" means that you're referring to me burning in hell for trillions of years if I don't share your highly subjective, faith based conclusions.
Cute, but it's not an argument, nor is it evidence.
Einstein is an interesting recommendation. Makes me wonder if you ever read him. When asked if he believed in God:
I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.
Does the Bible teach that God does not "[concern] Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind"?
That is not theism in any sense of the word, at least for people who have an understanding of the terms and the vernacular.
I can provide a lot, but don’t be infantile and pretend that this question, considered the greatest question of all time by some of the greatest minds of all time, can be addressed in an internet forum.
Your absurd request that I do so shows that you are the unserious one here. Go ahead, stay atheist. If I’m right, you are in trouble. If you’re right, I’ve lost nothing. And that is logic you cannot deny.
I'm not asking you to write a thesis about quantum mechanics, I just asked for one piece of evidence that summarizes quantum mechanics proving the Bible.
Yes, this is a question that has perplexed the world's greatest minds. That's why I'm not claiming to know all the answers...you are.
God either is, or isn’t.
I choose is. Your mileage may vary.
Again, you are asking infantile questions…there is on one piece of evidence that “summarizes” - but there are many buidling blocks of evidence.
One piece would be that we now know time is not a constant. Highly calibrated clocks run at measurably different speeds on mountain tops as opposed to valleys. When you add that to the swirl of distant galaxies - which is counter to what secular physicists would predict, it lends itself to a being that operates outside of the dimensions that hold men prisoner.
As Einstein said, the idea that there is a difference between the past, present and future is a stubbornly persistent illusion.
I wouldn’t say these two “summarize” anything, but they are major building blocks that remove science from a secular big bang creation and instead undergird the Divine Creator theory.
...the ultimate truth that is the obvious conclusion of time and space actually being the same property, and other things that quantum mechanics has shown. Our science is now just catching up to…..wait for it….the Bible.
I re-read your posts #182 and #160, and you seem to be confusing quantum mechanics with general relativity.
Leaving your ignorance of the physical sciences aside, none of your assertions would in any way prove a theistic creator. Re-read Einstein's quote; Spinoza's God is not theism, and at this point you can be forgiven for not knowing the difference between quantum mechanics and general relativity, but not for continuing to confuse deism and theism.
It seems that people feel that they need the Creator for pedagogical reasons, like Santa Claus or the Boogey Man. But do reasonable, rational people really need a celestial dictator to tell them right from wrong?
So you didn’t read the Bible (nor the Koran), then; just admit it. Instead, you read the propaganda of others. Nothing mercurial about the God of the Old Testament whatsoever, who gave Israel and Judah multiple warnings and multiple chances to stop their idolatry and child sacrifices.
There is also another chief difference between the God of the Bible and Allah: the former specifically claims the title “Father” whereas the latter is adamant about not having any children.
Metaphysical and supernatural are not too far away from one another. Consider the interconvertibility of matter and energy just for starters.
I metaphysical to describe what is actually there, from an evidentiary point of view.
For a religious person, I can see how they would be the same, since God provably exists in their minds.
I use the term to describe the world as we understand it minus wishful thinking.
I metaphysical = I use the term metaphysical (head slap)
“The way I see it, why does one need to appeal to the supernatural when there are real world metaphysical reasons for acting in a moral way?”
What are the “real world metaphysical reasons for acting in a moral way”?
You omitted my qualifier, which said no one should have a problem with another person's belief "as long as it doesn’t break your leg or pick your pocket."
Militant Islam and Marxism do both.
I've seen the "beliefs have consequences" line parroted about quite a lot lately ("Again, purely naturalistic beliefs have consequences", "...but again, there are consequences to those beliefs...")
I guess it's the new talking point for religious apologetics, but let's be very clear, 'beliefs' about reality don't affect the 'facts' of reality.
You 'believing' something doesn't make it so.
They're innumerable. One of the most important would be that hurting other people and causing suffering violates my conscience, and makes it more likely that those things will be visited on myself, my family, and my country.
A guy told me the other day that he could think of no reason to tell me not to murder someone without appealing to the supernatural. Maybe you're of the same mind as he.
“One of the most important would be that hurting other people and causing suffering violates my conscience”
Mine too.
But what makes you or me the arbiter?
What if hurting others and causing suffering does not violate another’s conscious?
I agree. It is simply knowing what the right course is to live in a community. I don't want you to steal from me so I won't steal from you. I don't need to be threatened with eternal pain.
We are the arbiters because morality is a system for homo sapiens to live with each other.
Societies based on rape, murder, torture, and slavery do not last and eventually fail, as do those who base their lives on such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.