Question for the Atheists.

[_mentalgymnast]

That's what I do have a hard time wrapping my mind around. The church part, yeah. But to come to the point where you lose all belief in God? I can respect that, but I honestly don't get why a person would become such an absolutest when it comes to disbelief in God. Agnosticism I get. Atheism I don't.

But to each his or her own.

My sympathies are with you in regards to some of the hard family issues you've had to deal with. At times life does suck, big time. But OTOH, life is also a beautiful thing.

Regards,
MG

That's because you misuse the term "atheists." That is what posters tried to explain to you earlier on this thread.

To be a theist or deist means that you have faith that God exists. It does not mean you have absolute knowledge that God exists.

Likewise, to be an atheist means that you have no faith that God exists. It does not mean you have absolute knowledge that God does not exist.

There is a very small subset of atheists who claim to KNOW God does not exist, as there is a very small subset of theists who claim to KNOW God exists. This subset is called "strong atheists." I've conversed with many atheists over the years on the internet, and only recall meeting one strong atheists. The other atheists on the board took issue with his absolutist stance.

Atheism simply refers to lack of belief. It does not refer to absolute knowledge. When I'm being technical, I refer to myself as an agnostic atheist. Agnosticism is a term that refers to the accessibility of knowledge. I do not believe any human being can know, one way or the other, whether a godbeing exists. That godbeing, by definition, is outside our recognition. Even if a being appeared to someone and claimed to be a god, we would have no way of knowing whether or not that claim was accurate. We would have to have godlike knowledge ourselves to ascertain the accuracy of that claim. Otherwise, it could be an alien who possesses superior technology using that technology to pretend to be god.

So the agnostic part means I do not believe anyone can know whether or not a godbeing exists. The atheist part means that I do not have any faith that a godbeing exists.

In short, you have created your own confusion by insisting on using the term "atheist" in a way that most atheists don't accept. In the way you're using the term, most of us would be termed agnostics. But that's not the way atheists normally use the term, at least atheists who've read anything on the subject.

OK. I think I get it now.

Thanks,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

My follow-up questions are:

1. If you have not (yet) decided/chosen, are you inclined to belief or disbelief?
2. On what basis might you decide/choose, assuming you eventually do so?
3. How do you manage to suspend your decision mechanism?
4. Do you expect that you will eventually decide/choose?

My inclination towards choosing to believe in any of the eastern deities would be based upon their godly nature, their being, and their attributes. This would be an important factor to me in regards to whether I would further pursue knowledge regarding them. That's why I asked you you clarify or state what these are thought/taught to be. You apparently are somewhat ignorant in regards being able to help me out here.

Not knowing enough in regards to the answers regarding their nature, their being, their attributes, I am at a disadvantage in trying to answer your question.

In order to make a logical choice I would've course need to expend the necessary time and effort to learn and assimilate information in regards to the nature, being, and attributes of the eastern deities.

I suppose that there really isn't a necessity to suspend my decision making mechanism in regards to choosing to believe in eastern deities because they are really not on my radar. I may at some point in time eventually decide or make a choice to believe or disbelieve in eastern deities. At this point I am rather neutral on the subject.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

Here's more food for thought: If we were created in God's image, then just who is "we?" Homo sapiens sapiens? Does "we" include homo sapiens neanderthalensis, which was just recently proven beyond all doubt to be the same species as us, since we & they mated occasionally and produced fertile offspring? Does "we" include homo heidelbergensis, the species from which both homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens neanderthalensis descended? Does "we" include homo erectus, the precursor to homo heidelbergensis, who nevertheless looked extremely similar to us and thus are also in "God's image?" How about their own ancestors, homo habilis? Or their ancestors, homo ergaster? Just how far back do we go before we leave "God's image?" Australopithecus robustus? Australopithecus afarensis?

Ergo, no matter what date you roll the dice and arbitrarily decree that everything after that qualifies as what "God created," the fact of the matter is that a mere one year earlier there were populations that looked extremely similar (if not exactly similar) to the beings living during the date you randomly chose.

Take a while to digest all that.

Evolutionary theory doesn't discount a creator. Just as there are many, many types of flora and fauna upon the earth, why would we not expect the same when it comes to biological organisms? Why would we not expect over a period of time the same to be true with hominids?

The fact is, you and your immediate ancestors have the capability to understand and implement the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Isn't that all that really matters?

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

You're being terribly inconsistent. You started off this thread saying that the only method of determining truth we have is our five senses. Now you're telling me I'm responsible to figure out how god is providing me evidence through some other means.

Through natural means that is true. We have the five senses. We can obtain information...truth...through these filters of sensory information. Whether there is truth to be received by some other means beyond the five senses is an individual quest/search. You are responsible for whether you pursue this path or not. There may be nothing there to be had...but only you can determine that. This is simply all I'm saying.

I don't see where that is hogwash.

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

Evolutionary theory doesn't discount a creator. Just as there are many, many types of flora and fauna upon the earth, why would we not expect the same when it comes to biological organisms? Why would we not expect over a period of time the same to be true with hominids?

The fact is, you and your immediate ancestors have the capability to understand and implement the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Isn't that all that really matters?

Regards,
MG

This does not answer the "in God's image" question. I believe you went as far to say that were we to find intelligent life on another planet you would expect it to be 'in God image". How do you explain intelligent life here on this earth that was not in his image? Did God's image also evolve?

[_mentalgymnast]

Now please, my questions.

What is it about all 'powerfulness' that is supposed to make God more believable than Santa Claus or even more believable than another God?

If I'm shopping around for a God that makes sense, I'm looking for one who has:

1. Created man in his own image.
2. Developed an overall plan for mankind that makes sense to me.
3. Revealed himself periodically throughout mankind's history and been fairly consistent in what he's
teaching us in regards to our purpose in being on earth.

The Judeo-Christian God(head) does pretty well overall.

Why choose one God over another? I assume you believe in the Christian God and do not believe in any other. Why?

For the basic reasons I've just stated.

Why is belief in God as our creator more likely than belief in a natural (without divine intervention) evolution of man or even the chance that some alien race seeded our planet with organic matter millions of years ago?

I think a person could easily go either way on this. I choose to go with a creator/god that is responsible for human beings on earth. I look at the Book of Mormon, Bible, and other scriptures (and modern prophets) as being reliable witnesses of the Judeo-Christian God(head).

OTOH, I can see why you would choose/think otherwise based upon information which is readily available to you.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

How do you explain intelligent life here on this earth that was not in his image?

There are many kingdoms of biological and plant life that have been created within their own sphere/niche to fulfill their own measure of creation.

We as human beings, being sentient and self aware, have the wherewithal to understand and implement the gospel of Jesus Christ (or any/some other operational system or plan) in our lives. I'm not aware of any other members of the animal or plant kingdoms that are able to do so.

Regards,
MG

[_mentalgymnast]

...the Mormon understanding of God's image (which is erroneous) ...

It would be more accurate to use a conditional statement/phrase here rather than stating a matter of fact? Unless you know for fact that mankind was not created in the image and likeness of God.

From my understanding, that is the way Mormons look at it.

Regards,
MG

[_Fionn]

Here's a link to a general overview of the Hindu gods. You will likely want to read the short descriptions of Brahma, Krishna and Vishnu as these are the "high" triumvirate of the pantheon.

http://www.sanatansociety.org/hindu_god ... desses.htm

[_malkie]

My follow-up questions are:

1. If you have not (yet) decided/chosen, are you inclined to belief or disbelief?
2. On what basis might you decide/choose, assuming you eventually do so?
3. How do you manage to suspend your decision mechanism?
4. Do you expect that you will eventually decide/choose?

My inclination towards choosing to believe in any of the eastern deities would be based upon their godly nature, their being, and their attributes. This would be an important factor to me in regards to whether I would further pursue knowledge regarding them. That's why I asked you you clarify or state what these are thought/taught to be. You apparently are somewhat ignorant in regards being able to help me out here.

Not knowing enough in regards to the answers regarding their nature, their being, their attributes, I am at a disadvantage in trying to answer your question.

In order to make a logical choice I would've course need to expend the necessary time and effort to learn and assimilate information in regards to the nature, being, and attributes of the eastern deities.

I suppose that there really isn't a necessity to suspend my decision making mechanism in regards to choosing to believe in eastern deities because they are really not on my radar. I may at some point in time eventually decide or make a choice to believe or disbelieve in eastern deities. At this point I am rather neutral on the subject.

Regards,
MG

Sorry I wasn't able to help you out - I have no sources other than those that you have (google etc). [by the way, not that I think it really matters, but when I said I didn't know much about the eastern deities I was answering a question you asked someone else.]

I think that your position must be a bit unusual for a believing LDS. Does your belief in the god the LDS worship not exclude belief in the eastern deities? Would it not exclude belief in any other god?

I also have to say that I find your neutrality a bit puzzling from an intellectual PoV as well: I find it difficult NOT to have an opinion - I do not believe that Brahma etc are gods in the sense of their being beings with supernatural creative and destructive powers, and are worthy of worship by humans.

[This has triggered a thought that I hope to be able to flesh out a bit later - the BBQ is about to start calling.]

Anyway, I remember having expressed a similar puzzlement when Wade said that he was strictly neutral about a certain course of action taken by NAMI a couple of months ago: he had no opinion at all on the rightness or wrongness of the action.