Hello from a UK Athiest

[Tehmill]

Surely truth is truth? Something is either true or it isn't? How is spiritual truth different from any other truth? These are such curious ideas.
Well...is it so? you can say the sky is blue and grass is green and you can soon prove your case, 1+1=2 but don't you think love is true? certainly hate is, we see the victims. But how do you qualify it? in deeds mebe but what if someone is totally paralyzed but they love...

So all truth is not the same
If I take LSD and see 20ft daisies and liquorice all sort cars etc. These things are as real to me as they can be. But of course these are not real.
They are just my perception of reality at the time and I choose to delude myself if claim these things were real.
Yo chose to delude yourself when you took LSD and delusion is what you got wh..hey you went soaring in the clouds, but you came down with a bump. It was just a fleeting thing. We have saints on this forum who have been saved for 30-40 years, they love the Lord now as they did all those years ago. They have gone through severe trials and storms and their faith has held fast...many answers to prayers and proofs of God' loving care they have had.

The fact is nothing tangible is demonstrable or provable about faith in god. It is just a persons choice to believe what they prefer to believe. It is not possible for you demonstrate this "higher knowledge" or great spiritual truth.... Is it?
I can preach the good news to you...the good news itself IS God's power that saves, HOW? because God Himself watches over it with a view to performing for YOU the things that are promised therein.

Are you seeking forgiveness? come to the cross where Jesus says "Father forgive them they know not what they do" make peace with God at the cross. Up to now you have not called upon Him now call upon Him, that is repentance, up to now you have not believed, now believe on Him.

God has new life to give you at the cross. You tried LSD and it dint work.

Just because it feels good, it doesn't mean it's true.
Well I have peace and great joy always in my heart since I was saved...that is what God promises, I have it IRrespective of what conditions are in my life...they too are spiritual truths...I can't PROVE it, I can only tell you and tell you that I got it at the cross....if you go there you too can recieve...then you'll know won't you.

Regards

Robert

Bless you.

 

[Tehmill]

Maybe the Isle of Wight isn't such a hotbed of right wing Christian fundamentalists?
No, I am only alwight here on TOL

Hi there TheTB, I live in Totland Bay btw, whatever you do don't refer to Jesus as "Jebus" or blaspheme. :nono:
Knight is the big cheese around here who does tolerate non-believers, grudgingly.
Al :e4e:

Only one Al....PROOF that there IS a God...jus kidding

 

[Tehmill]

I believe you if you say TB does not stand for Totland Bay

 

[GuySmiley]

Hello everyone,

I am Robert from the Isle of Wight in the UK. A small island of the south coast of England.

Welcome! We could use an Atheist from the UK around here . . .

I am an Athiest and have a keen interest in honest, rational discussion of religion,

Now I'm not joking, we really can use more of this here . . .

and why people feel the need for a god or gods.

. . . and then you get condescending. Do you see why?

I am not a particularly skilled debator so I tend not to try as I lack the literary skills to properly defend my views. However I am interested to engage in honest and open discussion on religion and religious views.

Conversation is much more enjoyable to debate anyway.

As a person who considers proof to be a reasonable requirement before I am satisfied that something exists or is correct I find the whole concept of faith to be completely alien to me.

This seems to be a theme lately. Is there some central clearinghouse for atheist talking points? People who believe in God have seen proof. Currently there's a thread about it. I imagine what is convincing to me isnt convincing to you though, but that doens't mean faith has to be blind.

 

[Stripe]

Hello everyone

Hi. :wave:

As a person who considers proof to be a reasonable requirement before I am satisfied that something exists or is correct I find the whole concept of faith to be completely alien to me.

There are people that love you. Why do you believe that love?

Do you have proof?

What was it?

 

[TheTB]

Hi Jon.

Hi Jon.

Hi Rob,

Shame your a southerner but we cant have everything

Theres a few brits on here.

Jon

Hey... Most of my family is from Bradford so I should be calling you t'suthuner!

Cheers Jon. Nice to make your aquaintance and to see a few brits here as you say.

No doubt our religious standpoint will be polar opposites, but interestingly enough I often find we are not so different. I am sure you work hard, pay taxes, love your family and obey laws just the same as me. So I am sure we can become good friends.

Best wishes

Robert.

 

[TheTB]

Love from Bob.

Love from Bob.

Hi. :wave:

There are people that love you. Why do you believe that love?

Do you have proof?

What was it?

Hi Bob,

Interesting one. Love does have an entirely plausible Dawinian explanation. To break it down and fully describe it would take several volumes and would probably not be a particularly riveting read.

I suppose the short answer (and probably inadequate one) is that I receive proof everyday through the actions of my beloved ones. I love my wife and children and I show this by working hard to provide for them, nurturing them, helping them to learn and grow by experiencing new things and expanding their educations, caring for them when they are ill etc.. They reciprocate by showing me affection, hugs, kisses, smiles, when I have been away, caring for me when I am ill etc. We place trust in each other to care for each other in all the ways we can. All such things and many others are reminders (I would say satisfactory proof) that we have very strong affections for each other. and that strong affection might be called love.

So the evidence of this love is reminded me every day through the behaviours and actions of those that I love and love me.

I don't see anything mysterious about this.

but a good thought and thanks for raising the question.

Best wishes
Robert.

 

[TheTB]

. . . and then you get condescending. Do you see why?.

No I don't??? Do please explain? It is a genuine intrigue on my part that I really do not understand why people feel the need to believe in the supernatural when understanding the real world is actually so much more interesting.

This seems to be a theme lately. Is there some central clearinghouse for atheist talking points? People who believe in God have seen proof. Currently there's a thread about it. I imagine what is convincing to me isnt convincing to you though, but that doens't mean faith has to be blind.

I imagine there maybe but I wouldn't know where to find it.
I am interested to learn what would constitute proof in this regard. Surely the faith is belief in spite of the lack of proof? Once you introduce proof, then faith is no longer required.

Would Abraham's 'faith' have been anywhere as significant if he knew god was going to send an angel to stop the dagger entering his beloved Isaac's heart? Of course not. If Abraham had been confident God was going to stop it happening, he would not have had to have felt even the least bit of concern about killing his son. So what would have been the point of the test?

For me proof of anything needs to be demonstrable otherwise it is not proof. I must admit though, being a very skeptical person, I honestly don't know what would constitute proof in my view.

Thank you for your welcoming post.

Best wishes

Robert.

 

[TheTB]

Totland Bay!

Totland Bay!

I believe you if you say TB does not stand for Totland Bay

TB does not stand for Totland Bay.

Good enough?

 

[TheTB]

Hi Alwight

Hi Alwight

Maybe the Isle of Wight isn't such a hotbed of right wing Christian fundamentalists?
No, I am only alwight here on TOL

Hi there TheTB, I live in Totland Bay btw, whatever you do don't refer to Jesus as "Jebus" or blaspheme. :nono:
Knight is the big cheese around here who does tolerate non-believers, grudgingly.
Al :e4e:

Hi there Alwight,

Oh dear. Two Athiests on the island. Maybe there is a god after all!

Knight is a wise man I think to tollerate non-believers, even if grudgingly. It is important to understand others points of view and to explore your own beliefs. Sometimes this does involve challenging them. If you still have unshaken faith at the end of the challenge then your faith is sound, maybe even stronger.

I am sure Ill see you around.

Best wishes

Robert

 

[Silent Hunter]

Comparing God to fairies is going to get you into trouble here on TOL. My advice is avoid it. Christians don't believe in fairies either.

There's a very good reason you're not a mod IK . . . you'd actually have banned him for that when no offense was meant or given.

 

[GuySmiley]

No I don't??? Do please explain? It is a genuine intrigue on my part that I really do not understand why people feel the need to believe in the supernatural when understanding the real world is actually so much more interesting.

Saying that people "need" to believe in the supernatural is condescending. It assumes some weakness on the part of believers. I have a tree in my front yard. I don't "need" to believe in it, I simply recognize it is real. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but even in this reply you suggest believers don't also understand the "real" world.

For the purpose of rational discussion, why not give believers the benefit of the doubt and consider that they've become convinced of God's existence because of something they've experienced in life and its not due to some defect in thinking. So drop the "need" and "real world" language from the discussion.

 

[Stripe]

Hi Bob

:AMR:

Interesting one. Love does have an entirely plausible Dawinian explanation. To break it down and fully describe it would take several volumes and would probably not be a particularly riveting read.

Really? You think love is the result of random mutations and natural selection? I think it's the result of our everyday choices...

I suppose the short answer (and probably inadequate one) is that I receive proof everyday through the actions of my beloved ones.

...but you don't think those are good enough. lain:

I love my wife and children

That's good. :up:

and I show this by working hard to provide for them, nurturing them, helping them to learn and grow by experiencing new things and expanding their educations, caring for them when they are ill etc.. They reciprocate by showing me affection, hugs, kisses, smiles, when I have been away, caring for me when I am ill etc. We place trust in each other to care for each other in all the ways we can. All such things and many others are reminders (I would say satisfactory proof) that we have very strong affections for each other. and that strong affection might be called love.

"Satisfactory" proof? Is there a non-satisfactory sort of proof?

Let me ask you this. How many instances of one of these behaviours or what set of requirements do you think would determine love in an undeniable way? If your hard work is the proof of your love, how many days do you have to work before it is proved? If one day you did not work hard would your love be disproved? Do you think it is possible for someone to work hard and this not be proof of love?

Allow me to quickly cut to the chase before we lose focus. You said that you are "a person who considers proof to be a reasonable requirement before I am satisfied that something exists or is correct" and "I find the whole concept of faith to be completely alien to me." But, contrary to this declaration, it seems you are prepared to believe that the love within your family is real regardless of there only being something called "satisfactory" proof for it.

So the evidence of this love is reminded me every day through the behaviours and actions of those that I love and love me. I don't see anything mysterious about this.

I do see something mysterious. Apparently a man could work hard, nurture, help, educate, take care of health problems and show affection and this is "satisfactory proof" for you that he loves.

Could a complete stranger do all this stuff and you'd be convinced he was also expressing love? For how long would he have to do these things in order for you to be convinced? If he slipped up once, would that be proof that he didn't love?

As you may realise, these are all rhetorical questions.

I firmly believe there is only one piece of evidence you could collect that would ever prove or disprove love. And regardless of finding that evidence, what you always require is faith.

 

[Stripe]

Saying that people "need" to believe in the supernatural is condescending. It assumes some weakness on the part of believers. I have a tree in my front yard. I don't "need" to believe in it, I simply recognize it is real. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but even in this reply you suggest believers don't also understand the "real" world.

For the purpose of rational discussion, why not give believers the benefit of the doubt and consider that they've become convinced of God's existence because of something they've experienced in life and its not due to some defect in thinking. So drop the "need" and "real world" language from the discussion.

Atheists need to believe there is no supernatural.

 

[Angel4Truth]

There's a very good reason you're not a mod IK . . . you'd actually have banned him for that when no offense was meant or given.

Would you be offended if your Father was called a fairy?

 

[IMJerusha]

Hello everyone,

I am Robert from the Isle of Wight in the UK. A small island of the south coast of England.

I am an Athiest and have a keen interest in honest, rational discussion of religion, and why people feel the need for a god or gods.

I am not a particularly skilled debator so I tend not to try as I lack the literary skills to properly defend my views. However I am interested to engage in honest and open discussion on religion and religious views.

As a person who considers proof to be a reasonable requirement before I am satisfied that something exists or is correct I find the whole concept of faith to be completely alien to me.

I will endeavour to abide by the rules of the forums and would delight in engaging with anyone who feels they would like to discuss their beliefs with someone who may challenge them.

Thanks for having me on board.

Robert.

Hello Robert, welcome to TOL!
Have you always been an atheist? Forgive me, I suppose I should read the whole thread carefully but I've been distracted by this incredibly delicious corn on the cob and hamburger so I only skimmed it.

 

[xAvarice]

Welcome new Atheist. When you truely want proof of God, you will get all you can handle.

A better question is, if you got proof, and just didnt like God, or His ways, would it change you at all?

I'm still waiting, don't queue me.

 

[IMJerusha]

I'm still waiting, don't queue me.

Whatcha waitin for?...proof? Forget that, dude!...won't happen.

 

[Dena]

Hello Robert, Welcome to TOL.

 

[TheTB]

OK so we are heading straight in the deep end

The argument that you have presented is very much based on the twin philosophies of naturalism and rationalism. Which create the basis of modern science and underpin a 'modern' world view.

However they are very limited and I don't think relevant when considering questions about the spiritual.
.

I am not sure they are limited. I can't think of a single thing that can't be rationalised?

Naturalism suggests only things that we can measure and quantity are true..

This seems entirely reasonable to me. If it can't be rationalised or measured then the chances are it probably isn't there.

Rationalism suggests that only things we can rationalise and logically deduce are true..

Same as above really.

However as a complete view of all truth I believe these philosophies are fatally flawed.

As they limit truth by the limitations of our ability to observe and measure and how we can logically deduce..

Maybe, but if you can't measure something or its effect on its surroundings, it probably is not there.

As we know that as humans we cannot measure all of reality and we our minds and limited and we cannot rationalise all things. So to limit truth to our ability would seem somewhat limited..

But what do you mean by this? If it exists it can be measured.

Was electricity not true till we discovered the voltmeter?.

Not sure of yourpoint here, but clearly electricity existed before the voltmeter of course.

Was Newtonian physics true until Einstein developed his theory?.

Newtonian physics was indeed an excellent approximation to observable reality. It only really breaks down in extremely strong gravitational fields. But is/was still accurate enough to enable mankind to put a man on the moon. Einsteins relativity superceded Newton and has been proved time and time again. Although it is noteworthy to mention at this point that newtons never really worked where mercury was concerned. This fact was conveniently ignored for a long time because everything else seemed to work and fit so well. This is of course the nature of science, first you hypothesise, then you test, and test, and test.

I am not arguing against these philosophies are useless, they have there place in science, but to try and understand all of reality with such limited tools seems foolish to me.

Again, not sure what you mean by limited?

I would assert that if something exists we should be able to measure it. If not then it is probably not there.

Thanks

Robert.