Note To the Religion Advocates

[imported_luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think many religious peole didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way and have no problem with the concept of a creator. And that the debates about religon should start from this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. It seems a bit premature for the group hug.
“from THIS point” … I’m trying to grasp a starting point that consists of some people 100% convinced they are intimate with a very specific creator, some people who think there may be some nano-sized chance that there is a ‘pre-universe’, some who think it’s irrelevant if it was created or not and how, etc.

“atheists actually feel this way”. But there is no ‘atheists creed’ and some of those that have “no problem with the concept of a creator” may have a big problem with the suggestion that the likelihood of that is larger than 0.000000001^100

That seems a starting point about the size of Greenland, and starting out from there we deserve this response - txag007

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. We are now acknowledging that the concept of a creator is a reasonable belief for someone to hold. Am I correct in saying that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm. No, and No.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
From day one, my problem has always been only with those people who have specific religious beliefs along with the opinion that those beliefs are not only possible, but highly likely, even without resorting to "faith". In other words they think that a knowledge of the facts and a logical and unbiased mind, would lead someone to think their specific beliefs are probably right. Txaq007 is the worst culprit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that this is a problem and you are correct that these type of folk are wrong. I also agree with your example (sorry Txaq, but that is the way I read your posts, too.)

[ QUOTE ]
Most religious people don't have this view.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems to be the case of most of us who post here. But, I think many atheists here disagree with your assessment of believers. Indeed those atheist here that I include seem to have a problem with the many believers on the forum who do in fact fit this category. (Thus, my "bitterness" point from my other thread.)

[ QUOTE ]
"However I think it needs to pointed out to some people, that just because something might have created the universe, it does not follow that a biblical god exists, prayers are answered, life after death is possible and the belief of all or any religion are or is correct. This is true even if we decide to label whatever sequence of events might have created the universe (on or a subset thereof) God."

I think many religious people didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way and have no problem with the concept of a creator.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see this to be the case of atheists, so much as you do. I think it is because, most atheist posters on the forum disagree with you when you say:

[ QUOTE ]
And that the debates about religion should start from this point [the concept of a creator].

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think many religious peole didn't realize that atheists actually feel this way and have no problem with the concept of a creator. And that the debates about religon should start from this point

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa. It seems a bit premature for the group hug.
“from THIS point” … I’m trying to grasp a starting point that consists of some people 100% convinced they are intimate with a very specific creator, some people who think there may be some nano-sized chance that there is a ‘pre-universe’, some who think it’s irrelevant if it was created or not and how, etc.

“atheists actually feel this way”. But there is no ‘atheists creed’ and some of those that have “no problem with the concept of a creator” may have a big problem with the suggestion that the likelihood of that is larger than 0.000000001^100

That seems a starting point about the size of Greenland, and starting out from there we deserve this response - txag007

[ QUOTE ]
So let me get this straight. We are now acknowledging that the concept of a creator is a reasonable belief for someone to hold. Am I correct in saying that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm. No, and No.

[/ QUOTE ]

The leap in logic from no creator to the concept of one, seems insignificant to me compared to the leap from conceiving of a creator to a religion requiring a personal God.

In other words, I'm willing to give on the concept of a creator. What I want to know is how we arrive at concluding one personal God is more probable than any other, or none at all.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
And that the debates about religion should start from this point [the concept of a creator].

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know RJT. I for one, am absolutely willing to start from this point. Why not? The fact is, even the most respected scientists have no idea where this universe came from or how it was started. Although I think it's unlikely, I can get past the concept of a creator. What I can't get past is:

*What leads you to believe such a creator must understand (or even be aware), of what it had created?

*Why must it be a personal creator and not a disinterested one?

*Our residence is an insignifant spec in the cosmos. The equivelant to a grain of sand on all the world's beaches. What makes you believe this creator is paying any attention to us, let alone each of us individually?

Assuming you can satisfactorily answer these questions, we can start on...

*What leads you to believe your personal God is more probable than any of the others, or no personal God at all?

After I acknowledge a creator, these are the questions I have which follow. I'm sure others will have different ones.

[RJT]

Stat,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know RJT. I for one, am absolutely willing to start from this point. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because you are not (and I don’t, nor did in my mind, include you) in the category of atheists I am referring to.

RJT

p.s. Read my next post here, it talks about what you discuss.

[RJT]

I think most religious people do realize what you say in your post. I think the main problem thus far has been with atheists who say no, one cannot start from this point. They say that one can’t get to this point until one proves God exists or not (which of course is true). But, one must start from this point or not start (have) the discussion at all.

Your posts start with the premise that a God is possible, possibly/probably not at creator God and probably not a creator God who is interested in us - and proceeds from that point.

It hadn’t occurred to me until recently that most atheists don’t understand that most believers realize this. If (since?) this is the case, I thought it might be helpful to explain how it works for us (for me at any rate.)

The starting point is God/no God, then creator God or not, then personal creator God or not. From there believers say something like “there is a chance” or “it seems to me there must be a creator God“ or “ I don‘t know for sure, but I choose that there is a creator God“. From here we try to see if we can know God and if so how do we do that? We answer by stating: The primary way is through the main text - the Bible.

So, we view the things as: Since we decide to go with creator God, then can this God been known? If God can be known then how? The only way so far that we can see is to look to the Bible. From here it becomes a matter of interpreting the Bible (whether relying on one‘s Religion for its interpretation or scholars or self, etc) .

If the Bible can hold true if there is a personal creator God, then one can take a Leap of Faith.

Basically, for me it can hold true and thus said leap of Faith.

The following is important, I think, since here-in lies a big misconception: it is not a matter of - there is evidence in the Bible and therefore Faith. Rather, that there is no exculpatory evidence in the Bible regarding a personal God. (That is, of course, depending on how one interprets the Bible.) Indeed, (perhaps, because believers see no exculpatory evidence) believers find that the Bible, once they read and iterpret it, to be the way to Faith in a personal creator God. They then take the leap.

[ QUOTE ]
Stat,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know RJT. I for one, am absolutely willing to start from this point. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because you are not (and I don’t, nor did in my mind, include you) in the category of atheists I am referring to.

RJT

p.s. Read my next post here, it talks about what you discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always assumed that as a possibility. And like LeStat, I would like some believer to make a case how such a possibility leads to your personal god.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stat,

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know RJT. I for one, am absolutely willing to start from this point. Why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is because you are not (and I don’t, nor did in my mind, include you) in the category of atheists I am referring to.

RJT

p.s. Read my next post here, it talks about what you discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have always assumed that as a possibility. And like LeStat, I would like some believer to make a case how such a possibility leads to your personal god.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is good to know, kid. Especially, because I had you in my mind as one who I thought might fit the category. I apologize for that assumption.

I think my post above makes that case. If you disagree, then we can begin a , hopefully friendly, debate.

[ QUOTE ]
That is good to know, kid. Especially, because I had you in my mind as one who I thought might fit the category.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure why since I've even used in examples to theists that for all they and I know, we could be a 4th-dimensional kid's science project. I've stated repeatedly that we don't -- and maybe can't -- know what started the universe from the big bang. The thing is, most atheists agree with this, but it is the theist group who claims to be able to "look beyond" the big bang, and this is where the atheist crowd usually knocks them silly (or sillier).

[ QUOTE ]
I think most religious people do realize what you say in your post. I think the main problem thus far has been with atheists who say no, one cannot start from this point. They say that one can’t get to this point until one proves God exists or not (which of course is true). But, one must start from this point or not start (have) the discussion at all.

Your posts start with the premise that a God is possible, possibly/probably not at creator God and probably not a creator God who is interested in us - and proceeds from that point.

It hadn’t occurred to me until recently that most atheists don’t understand that most believers realize this. If (since?) this is the case, I thought it might be helpful to explain how it works for us (for me at any rate.)

The starting point is God/no God, then creator God or not, then personal creator God or not. From there believers say something like “there is a chance” or “it seems to me there must be a creator God“ or “ I don‘t know for sure, but I choose that there is a creator God“. From here we try to see if we can know God and if so how do we do that? We answer by stating: The primary way is through the main text - the Bible.

So, we view the things as: Since we decide to go with creator God, then can this God been known? If God can be known then how? The only way so far that we can see is to look to the Bible. From here it becomes a matter of interpreting the Bible (whether relying on one‘s Religion for its interpretation or scholars or self, etc) .

If the Bible can hold true if there is a personal creator God, then one can take a Leap of Faith.

Basically, for me it can hold true and thus said leap of Faith.

The following is important, I think, since here-in lies a big misconception: it is not a matter of - there is evidence in the Bible and therefore Faith. Rather, that there is no exculpatory evidence in the Bible regarding a personal God. (That is, of course, depending on how one interprets the Bible.) Indeed, (perhaps, because believers see no exculpatory evidence) believers find that the Bible, once they read and iterpret it, to be the way to Faith in a personal creator God. They then take the leap.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, but that says a whole lot of nothing. Might as well take the leap and believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as your personal god using the exact same argument you laid out above.