Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

First of all, feel like I came in hot when I was here before. Not my original intention, but the head butting got the best of me. So sorry about that, but for that reason I disengaged. I'm also hoping we can avoid the insults and condescending, harsh language so we can have a conversation. If cutting wittiness is your m.o. that's cool, I will just try to read through it as not personal, haha.

OK, so I have been thinking about what you said here, about suppressing the knowledge of Zeus. Which is an interesting counterpoint. At first I was like "This is dumb, we all know Zeus and snake gods don't exist. That's not even an honest critique." And then I thought well what if Grand Nudger was actually a religious person he was earnestly told me I am denying the knowledge of Zeus. What would I say then? So this frustrated me for a while. Then I thought what if he wasn't a person just trying to punk me on a forum. What if he was a Muslim and he told me I was suppressing the knowledge of Allah. So that's how I thought about it. 

And I think that it still represents the same suppression of truth, but from a very different position. So I went back to Romans 1 starting with verse 18 and thought it out in that context. Now, I know you're denying that you're suppressing any truth, I get that, and not to be insulting, but I believe what the Bible says about us before I believe what we say about us. I believe the Bible because it's true and I am convinced that the evidence supports it's truth. I also believe the evidence shows that we lie about ourselves. I say all of this just for context, so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't say that to edge you on and I'd like to set aside debate on the Bible being true in an effort to focus on suppression, though they are closely tied together. So in that context:

In the spirit of your condescending rejection..I suppose I can only condescendingly reject the notion that you believe magic book before you believe what people say about themselves.  You don't really believe that - you're just suppressing...something or other.

The truth that is being suppressed: since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen (meaning the Christian God).

By whom?  Not by me.  Not by you.  You've never seen that, you're just suppressing....something...

You got me sidetracked on the type of evidence. We are not talking about the evidence of God showing up in your living room, or a miracle, or anything supernatural. That is not the truth that is being suppressed. The truth that is being suppressed is knowing that God exists through creation. Does that answer every question about God? No. I'm not saying that.

Atheist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by denying that God even exists.
Theist: Sees God's eternal power and divine nature in creation, but suppresses that knowledge by creating another god that closely resembles but isn't the true God.

That theist could believe in Allah, Zeus, carved snake gods, you name it, the deity doesn't matter. The believer in Zeus or snake gods is just one step "closer" I guess you could say, in that they at least understand a god exists and the respect that eternal power and divine nature, even if that respect is perverted (Romans addresses that in the following verses). The believer in Allah is one step closer from them, knowing that there is only one God and maybe some other basic info. The atheist is one step "further away" in that lacks that initial respect for a creating being. Also, I really don't like the further away/closer analogy, just FYI.

But my response would be mostly the same, and that's to try to do an internal critique of whatever worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects the experience of reality. To which I can imagine you jumping up and down screaming "Christianity doesn't reflect reality!!!" Hahahaha. Fair enough. I'm laughing as I type that. But unless we can have an honest conversation we can't hash these things out. I think I can defend the consistency of Christianity (not individual Christians) and show that it reflects the actual experience of life. And you can call it "my version of Christianity", I'm fine with that. The reason I chose Reformed theology over, say, Catholic theology is because Reformed theology was consistent and reflected my experience in reality more than Catholicism. We can do an internal critique of any theology and see if it's good theology. I'm convinced Reformed theology is the most sound.

To you, the evidence for Zeus is of the same nature as the evidence for the God of the Bible. I think if we're being honest, you'd have a hard time defending that in a public debate. I think the evidence for the truth of the Bible and Jesus is orders of magnitude better than Zeus or carved snake gods. It's grounded in history and people. First. I think we have to want to actually know the truth no matter where it takes us, not just win debates or punk out people on forums.

So if you want to actually defend the existence of Zeus, that's fine, we can explore that worldview.

Why would you think I'd have a hard time comparing one mythology to another in the public sphere?  

At any rate, the point wasn't that I could defend the existence of zues..but that you couldn't...and now..haven't, managed to defend your ridiculous and disingenuous assertion about suppression..which I now maintain you don't hold at all..because why not?  Goose and gander.  

You talk about an honest conversation, but there's no possibility of having one if you can't simply accept that some of us have never seen gods ass, and have no need to suppress gods ass if we did see it.  Consider this.  It wouldn't matter to me if zues or the jewish god or the christian god, or ganesh.... appeared in my living room.  Nothing about my life changes in the absence or presence of any gods.  I'd think, well shit, look at that, and then continue along with my day and my life exactly as before.  The claim we're disagreeing with doesn't amount to much more than your (and the authors) inability to understand why and that other people do not believe..and, for at least some, why the status of this belief yay or nay is so unimportant.  To you, whether or not the god you believe in exists may be of utmost importance..and that's to be expected as a believer - but it doesn't matter to me whether the god you believe in, or any god, exists.

Now, however, you're tying that belief and that gods existence to a demonstrably false claim in a magic book.  Do you think that's wise?  Is that the behavior of a person who respects or values the god, or god  belief?

I know you think atheism doesn't have a worldview, fair enough, we could also explore your personal worldview and see if it has consistency and reflects your experience in reality. Maybe you want to do neither, that's also fine, haha.

Will it be me telling you what my worldview is, and you telling me I just can't believe whatever I told you?  

FWIW, I think that the excerpt provides clarity on a good question that early cultists asked.  What about people who don't believe?  Magic book says alot about that group of people, much of it directly at odds with the notion that you're flogging now.  Magic book tells us, for example..that all those who love and seek him will find him.  That implies another group who doesn't..and won't.  That no one who knows him keeps on sinning, and that those who do..don't.  That whoever knows god listens to these shamans...but that whomever does not know god...won't.  You can see how all of this may have been concerning to people, and especially with respect to the beginning of a religion where some members of a family may be christian while loved and valued others are not.  What is god going to do about them, why don't they believe what I believe?  Do these people who've never seen and don't know god end up in the pit?  Does any of that fit with the image of god then forming as a benevolent force rather than a tribal ally?  Whether real or imagined, these are questions and concerns that people..and yes, even christian people, have had with the character of the god described in these myths.

Ok, did you think this response to you I just typed was condescending? Because I tried to be as neutral with my language as I could be and still hold to and explain my position. Is all you heard condescension?