Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Well, what Romans is saying is that if God revealed it to you, then the message got through. You are suppressing your knowledge of God. Which I think you second sentence demonstrates pretty clearly.

Well, you may be reading it wrong because of your presuppositions about the world, gods, and other people, don't you think?  Not magic book, mind you, it says silly things like that all the time.  My comment.  

I can't see the utility in suppressing something that doesn't matter to me - the existence of a god is inconsequential to my opinion of their religions.

---

I mean, that would clearly challenge my beliefs, I guess. I'm not sure how that matters here, though.

In what way?  You don't assume that the criticisms you offered for atheists wouldn't also apply to you in that event?  That you might deny the god in your living room?  Suppress clear evidence?

In fact, I posit that you have - and that your comments are clear evidence that you are suppressing the truth of zues in your living room.  Or maybe you just never met the guy.  50/50?

Oh I fully expect my criticisms to cur both ways and I'm not afraid of that. I just really don't understand what you're saying. Can you be more clear?

---

Is there any such thing as a good christian?  I don't think that a group of people who posit their own redemption through the brutal slaughter of another can be said to be good - at least not on the grounds of that shared belief.  They're probably very fine people, otherwise, I'm sure.  This is another truth that you're supressing in your life, despite having been presented with clear evidence to that effect by zues in your living room.

But I think the more interesting idea is morality comes from conscious choice and should be grounded in philosophy. Can we talk about that?

Sure.  Always good stuff.

Ok, to the first point I think I get it: you're using the tired argument that since I can't show God to you or prove His existence like I can prove the existence of my puppy, that God doesn't exist. Just like you're claiming Zues is in my living room even though you can't show him to me or prove he exists. Is that where this is going?

I do not pretend to be neutral. I have presuppositions, namely that the God of the Bible exists. And I would say you can't say anything intelligible about the world without God's existence.

You say the existence of God is inconsequential to you, yet here you are on the atheist forums attempting to suppress knowledge about God.

[Brian37]

Is there any such thing as a good christian?  I don't think that a group of people who posit their own redemption through the brutal slaughter of another can be said to be good - at least not on the grounds of that shared belief.  They're probably very fine people, otherwise, I'm sure.  This is another truth that you're suppressing in your life, despite having been presented with clear evidence to that effect by zues in your living room.

But I think the more interesting idea is morality comes from conscious choice and should be grounded in philosophy. Can we talk about that?

Sure.  Always good stuff.

Humans have and always will be tribal, so "good" is relative, not to be confused with morality or empathy.

To Hitler's rise he was "good" for Germans, but he was hardly moral in the grand scope. Same with Stalin and Saddam.

[ayost]

Is there any such thing as a good christian?  I don't think that a group of people who posit their own redemption through the brutal slaughter of another can be said to be good - at least not on the grounds of that shared belief.  They're probably very fine people, otherwise, I'm sure.  This is another truth that you're suppressing in your life, despite having been presented with clear evidence to that effect by zues in your living room.

Sure.  Always good stuff.

Humans have and always will be tribal, so "good" is relative, not to be confused with morality or empathy.

To Hitler's rise he was "good" for Germans, but he was hardly moral in the grand scope. Same with Stalin and Saddam.

Ok, what's the grand scope of morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Absolutely. A person says they don't believe in x. We're considering two propositions.

Your suggestion.
That people are suppressing the truth of x revealed to them.

Theirs
That they simply never had that truth of x revealed to them.

I wouldn't take the suggestion that you were denying the truth of zues as he sits in your living room seriously for the same reason that I don't take your suggestions about your own god seriously. That's probably not why you don't believe in zues. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - if you do in fact think that the most compelling explanation for your failure to believe in zues..is that you're suppressing that truth which was revealed to you. It's certainly not why I don't believe in your god, or why the existence of your god is inconsequential to me.

[brewer]

So the idea that "Christians don't live this way" so Christianity is untrue or unnecessary or whatever the conclusion is doesn't make sense.

1. "Christians" is a category, a group, so broad that it lacks meaning. It's like saying "white people". That's too broad of a category.
2. Does the OP know all Christians? Does he know the percentage of good to bad Christians?
3. Why choose to label Christians by the bad ones. I don't say "you know all of those murdering atheists" because Stalin was an atheist.
4. If you learned about and understood Christianity you would know the answer to this question. But you haven't so you don't.

But I think the more interesting idea is morality comes from conscious choice and should be grounded in philosophy. Can we talk about that?

Before you jump on the 'you're just christian bashing' band wagon maybe you should walk a mile in atheist shoes. I doubt you can imagine what it's like to be the 10% living in a 90% society. We get it from both the good and bad christians.

#4, you think we're not well educated on christianity? Don't look now but your ignorance of atheists and agnostics is showing.

I live in a prominently christian area. Most are OK but often unthinking and behave like everyone is a christian and are often offensive without knowing it. Enough of the others become offensive as soon as they know I'm atheist but stupidly believe that they are trying to 'save' me.

Most of the christians I know have a false sense of superiority and entitlement when it comes to atheists. I think you probably fit into this group.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ok, to the first point I think I get it: you're using the tired argument that since I can't show God to you or prove His existence like I can prove the existence of my puppy, that God doesn't exist. Just like you're claiming Zues is in my living room even though you can't show him to me or prove he exists. Is that where this is going?

-not even in that direction.  Just like suppressing revealed knowledge of a god is both not what accounts for my atheism and is inconsequential to my opinion of your religion - the existence of a god is incosequential to whether or not your claims about people and why they do or don't do x are either true or compelling. As I said before, assume that god exists, and accept that some of us have never met the guy. Just like you've never met zues and nothing more than that is required to explain why you don't believe in zues.

I do not pretend to be neutral. I have presuppositions, namely that the God of the Bible exists. And I would say you can't say anything intelligible about the world without God's existence.

You say the existence of God is inconsequential to you, yet here you are on the atheist forums attempting to suppress knowledge about God.

Here again, you may misunderstand other people in ways that ought to be easy to clear up by reference to yourself.  Is that what you're doing here?

[ayost]

Absolutely.  A person says they don't believe in x.  We're considering two propositions.  

Your suggestion.
That people are suppressing the truth of x revealed to them.

Theirs
That they simply never had that truth of x revealed to them.

I wouldn't take the suggestion that you were denying the truth of zues as he sits in your living room seriously for the same reason that I don't take your suggestions about your own god seriously.  That's probably not why you don't believe in zues.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - if you do in fact think that the most compelling explanation for your failure to believe in zues..is that you're suppressing that truth which was revealed to you.  It's certainly not why I don't believe in your god, or why the existence of your god is inconsequential to me.

Ok, is your argument based on the premise that there is zero evidence for either Zeus or God, that they are equally fabricated, and that no satisfactory evidence could be presented because they are equally imaginary and unprovable?

---

Ok, to the first point I think I get it: you're using the tired argument that since I can't show God to you or prove His existence like I can prove the existence of my puppy, that God doesn't exist. Just like you're claiming Zues is in my living room even though you can't show him to me or prove he exists. Is that where this is going?

-not even in that direction.  Just like suppressing revealed knowledge of a god is both not what accounts for my atheism and is inconsequential to my opinion of your religion - the existence of a god is incosequential to whether or not your claims about people and why they do or don't do x are either true or compelling.  As I said before, assume that god exists, and accept that some of us have never met the guy.  Just like you've never met zues and nothing more than that is required to explain why you don't believe in zues.

I do not pretend to be neutral. I have presuppositions, namely that the God of the Bible exists. And I would say you can't say anything intelligible about the world without God's existence.

You say the existence of God is inconsequential to you, yet here you are on the atheist forums attempting to suppress knowledge about God.

Here again, you may misunderstand other people in ways that ought to be easy to clear up by reference to yourself.  Is that what you're doing here?

I'm sorry, man. i want to understand you, I just don't understand what you're saying.

---

Absolutely.  A person says they don't believe in x.  We're considering two propositions.  

Your suggestion.
That people are suppressing the truth of x revealed to them.

Theirs
That they simply never had that truth of x revealed to them.

I wouldn't take the suggestion that you were denying the truth of zues as he sits in your living room seriously for the same reason that I don't take your suggestions about your own god seriously.  That's probably not why you don't believe in zues.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - if you do in fact think that the most compelling explanation for your failure to believe in zues..is that you're suppressing that truth which was revealed to you.  It's certainly not why I don't believe in your god, or why the existence of your god is inconsequential to me.

Ok, is your argument based on the premise that there is zero evidence for either Zeus or God, that they are equally fabricated, and that no satisfactory evidence could be presented because they are equally imaginary and unprovable?

---

-not even in that direction.  Just like suppressing revealed knowledge of a god is both not what accounts for my atheism and is inconsequential to my opinion of your religion - the existence of a god is incosequential to whether or not your claims about people and why they do or don't do x are either true or compelling.  As I said before, assume that god exists, and accept that some of us have never met the guy.  Just like you've never met zues and nothing more than that is required to explain why you don't believe in zues.

Here again, you may misunderstand other people in ways that ought to be easy to clear up by reference to yourself.  Is that what you're doing here?

I'm sorry, man. i want to understand you, I just don't understand what you're saying.

Wait, I think I do get it. I'm not telling you that, the Bible tells us that you are suppressing your knowledge of God, so it's truth. It takes different forms, but you are. We all know God exists.

[arewethereyet]

Absolutely.  A person says they don't believe in x.  We're considering two propositions.  

Your suggestion.
That people are suppressing the truth of x revealed to them.

Theirs
That they simply never had that truth of x revealed to them.

I wouldn't take the suggestion that you were denying the truth of zues as he sits in your living room seriously for the same reason that I don't take your suggestions about your own god seriously.  That's probably not why you don't believe in zues.  Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - if you do in fact think that the most compelling explanation for your failure to believe in zues..is that you're suppressing that truth which was revealed to you.  It's certainly not why I don't believe in your god, or why the existence of your god is inconsequential to me.

Ok, is your argument based on the premise that there is zero evidence for either Zeus or God, that they are equally fabricated, and that no satisfactory evidence could be presented because they are equally imaginary and unprovable?

---

-not even in that direction.  Just like suppressing revealed knowledge of a god is both not what accounts for my atheism and is inconsequential to my opinion of your religion - the existence of a god is incosequential to whether or not your claims about people and why they do or don't do x are either true or compelling.  As I said before, assume that god exists, and accept that some of us have never met the guy.  Just like you've never met zues and nothing more than that is required to explain why you don't believe in zues.

Here again, you may misunderstand other people in ways that ought to be easy to clear up by reference to yourself.  Is that what you're doing here?

I'm sorry, man. i want to understand you, I just don't understand what you're saying.

---

Ok, is your argument based on the premise that there is zero evidence for either Zeus or God, that they are equally fabricated, and that no satisfactory evidence could be presented because they are equally imaginary and unprovable?

---

I'm sorry, man. i want to understand you, I just don't understand what you're saying.

Wait, I think I do get it. I'm not telling you that, the Bible tells us that you are suppressing your knowledge of God, so it's truth. It takes different forms, but you are. We all know God exists.

We - as in the voices in your head?

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, that sounds like a problem for magic book, on the one hand - seeing as how it's not true...and more than a little bit like a demonstration of reasserting preexisting biases and prejudices - which is what you accuse others of.

I think you can understand me just fine, about this and zues in your living room. Are you here to suppress knowledge of god? Why assume that's why I'm here, or that's what I'm doing...as though finding me here would certify the other belief, already wrong on it's own merits?

[ayost]

So the idea that "Christians don't live this way" so Christianity is untrue or unnecessary or whatever the conclusion is doesn't make sense.

1. "Christians" is a category, a group, so broad that it lacks meaning. It's like saying "white people". That's too broad of a category.
2. Does the OP know all Christians? Does he know the percentage of good to bad Christians?
3. Why choose to label Christians by the bad ones. I don't say "you know all of those murdering atheists" because Stalin was an atheist.
4. If you learned about and understood Christianity you would know the answer to this question. But you haven't so you don't.

But I think the more interesting idea is morality comes from conscious choice and should be grounded in philosophy. Can we talk about that?

Before you jump on the 'you're just christian bashing' band wagon maybe you should walk a mile in atheist shoes. I doubt you can imagine what it's like to be the 10% living in a 90% society. We get it from both the good and bad christians.

#4, you think we're not well educated on christianity? Don't look now but your ignorance of atheists and agnostics is showing.

I live in a prominently christian area. Most are OK but often unthinking and behave like everyone is a christian and are often offensive without knowing it. Enough of the others become offensive as soon as they know I'm atheist but stupidly believe that they are trying to 'save' me.

Most of the christians I know have a false sense of superiority and entitlement when it comes to atheists. I think you probably fit into this group.

Honestly, I haven't met a garden variety atheist that can accurately articulate a Christian position. There are some apostate Christian scholars that can, but most lay people can't.

Most atheists I meet are aggressive and insulting, but I don't lump you with them.

Which brings me to the the question why would you throw me an insult about superiority and entitlement? I have only been kind. lol