Posted on 03/30/2007 6:20:58 PM PDT by buccaneer81
Yep!
What does that even mean? What is the point of living for any creature? Why does there have to be a point? It's sort of a self-involved notion-- that there has to be some great meaning to our lives. If you can't find some happiness in life, that's unfortunate. Certainly, there are people who have almost their entire lives spent without happiness because of the luck of the draw. There are many things in my life that make life enjoyable. There is beauty in many things. I appreciate that. I appreciate my family. I laugh at funny TV shows and movies and jokes. I treat people nicely and they usually reciprocate. I don't feel empty inside at all. I live a full life.
I am an atheist, on my more optimist days, perhaps an agnostic. I couldn't care less what other people believe so long as they don't try to convince me that their beliefs are The Truth. I really, really get embarassed by and for atheists who evangelize and mock believers.
"Her prayers weren't answered. "
That is only if you presume to know whether G-d has decided the only possible answer to a prayer is yes.
Do you mean "there is a point BUT why does there have to be one?"
Or
Do you mean "one can safely assume there is no point to living?"
Some religious people use their religion to justify attacking, controlling or subjugating others. The current batch of Islamists for example. The new atheists consider this as disruptive.
Simple really. It's not an attack on someone's god, it's an attack on the actions some use their faith to justify.
Excellent point. Science itself is neutral and therefore one cannot make moral decisions utilizing it alone.
"I don't have a God complex. That's silly. It makes as much sense to say I have a Tooth Fairy complex. God has a God complex. He thinks he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent and omniscient, despite the evidence to the contrary. I don't seek to disprove God like I don't seek to disprove Santa Claus. Neither have any relevance to me one way or the other."
You are showing your philosophical nudity with these comparisons between divine beings and Santa Claus.
Santa Claus (actually based on a real person with no inherent divine qualities) and the tooth fairy (no idea where that one came from) are not proposed as divine, unlike Christ, Hindu gods or animist supernaturals.
Such comparisons are just silly and designed to weed out only the most lightweight theist intellectuals from the discussion.
"I merely stated that belief that life exists is not logically dependent on a belief that God exists."
The DOI says that we are endowed by our creator with life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If you don't believe in a creator, then you don't agree with the DOI.
Fine. Defend God's decision to tell Jessica no (or perhaps he answered with a "maybe"). I have no idea why you'd want to do that, but help yourself.
It also doesn't explain why God has never answered the prayer of an amputee to rebuild a limb, when he has been given credit for healing cancer and whatnot.
As far as those verses, you must think God is some type of Genie where you rub on some type of magic lamp you whatever you wish for it appears. That's not the way it works and thats not what those verses mean.
Fine, what prayers are answered and why didn't Jessica get her prayers answered-- or any amputee's prayer for a repaired limb?
To whatever extent there is a point to my life, it's to appreciate the good things that happen in my life and around me and to be nice to others.
I happen to think that based on your responses you certainly believe in God but are quite angry with him. For what reason I cannot say.
I'm at a loss, though, to explain why you are so hung up on notions of prayer. Are you suggesting that because God did not save Jessica Lunsford, he does not answer prayers? I suppose it follows that because God did not answer one particular prayer that He does not exist?
The reason I say you, like many atheists, have a God complex is because you can't comprehend this situation. On the surface, to you the Lunsford case was a case of God's indifference to the plight of a young girl. This case has had ramifications well beyond the Lunsfords and that sick pervert. What if that spurs change in the legal system? What if child predators are taken more seriously (Couey was a repeat offender)? What if that spurs change elsewhere? What if this change results in future lives saved? You can't know God's will - this would require you to be God.
If you know the Bible (and you somewhat seem to) you would recall that Jesus himself prayed to be saved. The point in all of this is things that might seem to be nothing but evil can ultimately lead to better things.
Why should amputees' prayers be immediately answered? What if I pray for the suffering of people I don't like? What if I pray for a wad of cash to arrive in the mail today? What if I pray to get rid of my warts? It's a small and simple problem - why can't God just fix it?
Fine, substitute Zeus, Ra, Zoraster, Mithra, Vishnu, whatever. You think belief in those entities is ridiculous, I'm sure.
And if you should be buried alive in a sack, what would the point of your existence be?
Now that you mention the 21st century... that brings to mind how the most murderous regimes/ideology that ever existed on the planet, Communism, was responsible for over 100 MILLION humans being killed. ATHEISM was it's official state religion.
The point I'm trying to make here is this: the claim that evidence is the sine qua non of reality has at its heart a very large assumption: that sensory evidence (e.g. the "photons of light" in your example) actually exist and bear some relation to an external reality. In other words there is no way to demonstrate from evidence that sensory "evidence" means anything. For all you or I know, everything we see, hear etc. could all simply be part of a dream, or a hallucination, or some computer simulation. as far as the physical brain is concerned, signal = signal; the brain cells don't care if the signals they are receiving have their origin in some concrete external reality or not. of course, you and I believe that the things we experience via our senses ('evidence") correspond to Real things in the Real world, but we have no way of demonstrating that to be true. We believe in the Real World, but belief is an act of faith. Experience is a subjective process, since it relies on our subjective senses. Therefore, even the "objective" scientific method is ultimately a faith-based system of thought.
So what can one know? We can only know that which we apprehend without recourse to the subjective (and uncertain) physical senses. We do not need eyes to visualize something in our "mind's eye"; we no not need ears to hear ourselves think. Logically, therefore, only those things we apprehend directly can be known to be real. We do not "feel" ourselves to be living; we are ourselves. Placed in a sensory deprivation tank, a man might come to doubt the existence of the sensible world, but he will never doubt his own existence. Therefore, the only thing we can know with 100% certainty is that we ourselves exist. Cogito ergo sum — I think, therefore I am.
The scientific method might seem to be a foolproof way to absolute certainty — but rest assured, it only seems that way. At the heart of the scientific method lies an axiom very much unprovable — that the evidence of our senses corresponds to an external reality in some meaningful way. It may be easy to believe that statement, but by the very "rules" of the scientific method itself, its truth is not demonstrable from evidence, and therefore it is very much an article of faith.
Sorry. I really am not at all mad at God. And I don't believe he exists. I think the character of God in the Bible leaves a lot to be desired. I don't admire that character. I don't admire Voldemort or the Wicked Stepmother, either. How can I be mad at something that doesn't actually do anything, ever, and never has.
I'm at a loss, though, to explain why you are so hung up on notions of prayer. Are you suggesting that because God did not save Jessica Lunsford, he does not answer prayers? I suppose it follows that because God did not answer one particular prayer that He does not exist?
You don't appreciate the importance of prayer in the Christian religion, then. There's really no evidence that God answers prayers. He has never been credited with the impossible. No believer has ever had God do the impossible. The problem is that nothing is impossible to God, based on his resume. Without God answering prayers, which is easy enough to establish because he doesn't do it in any consistent way and his requirements to answer those prayers vary wildly, you basically are left with believing in God so you can go to a magical place after you die. It's just a fairy tale. It's not that God didn't answer one prayer in particular.
The reason I say you, like many atheists, have a God complex is because you can't comprehend this situation. On the surface, to you the Lunsford case was a case of God's indifference to the plight of a young girl. This case has had ramifications well beyond the Lunsfords and that sick pervert. What if that spurs change in the legal system? What if child predators are taken more seriously (Couey was a repeat offender)? What if that spurs change elsewhere? What if this change results in future lives saved? You can't know God's will - this would require you to be God.
Wow. That does blow my mind. Not in the way you hope, I guess. Seriously, you think that God needed Jessica to be tortured so that the legal system changes? The supreme being of all the universe who can do anything and everything and knows anything and everything couldn't accomplish his goal of changing the legal system (or whatever other justification-- I'm not limiting you) without Jessica being kidnapped, raped, and buried alive? That's the craziest "ends justifies the means" statement ever, don't you think? If God was a person who was found to have been in a position to stop this from happening, we'd put him in prison. We wouldn't worship him.
If you know the Bible (and you somewhat seem to) you would recall that Jesus himself prayed to be saved. The point in all of this is things that might seem to be nothing but evil can ultimately lead to better things.
According to the story, Jesus was created for the purpose of being a human sacrifice. Since he is viewed as God's son and was alive as a spirit before being made into man (he was there when God tossed Satan out of heaven-- which was before Adam was created), it's considered okay that he was sacrificed by God. He knew from Day 1 that that was his mission. That doesn't apply to Jessica. And besides, if it did, I'd be more inclined to view Jessica as worth worshiping than Jesus/God because Jessica suffered more than Jesus did.
Why should amputees' prayers be immediately answered?
Never answered. Never.
What if I pray for the suffering of people I don't like? What if I pray for a wad of cash to arrive in the mail today? What if I pray to get rid of my warts? It's a small and simple problem - why can't God just fix it?
I have seen Christians credit God for answering their prayer for things like the removal of a wart. Anyway, I understand that God isn't a genie. Genies at least give you 3 wishes. God doesn't give you any answered prayers, even though most all Christians think he does.
The most troubling thing about Jessica's story is that there was a moment in that trash bag when she had an epiphany-- that God doesn't exist, that she is alone in the universe, that he doesn't answer prayers, even though she had been as good of a Christian as a 9 year old can be. She would have been happy to have had a genie, I assure you.
The state religion of communist regimes was total obedience to the central government.
The amount of good that I did, how nice I was to people, what others thought of me as a person, a citizen, a neighbor, a father, a husband.
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.