A Joint Word Work:
The Creator,Atheists,Knowledge,Scientific & Biblical Hypocrisy
or,,,Dimitri plays atheist?
A conversation between Dimitri (mitinka) and Roy (harbin336) in which Dimitri plays the part of an atheist in order to present their views to be subjected to a rebuttal by Roy.
original thread at The Excite Boards Politics Forum:
(This is my response post to Dimitri)
~harbin: IMHO, atheists do not deny the existence of the Creator, it is the nature of the Creator that they see differently from the believers.~
Well,Dimitri,,I have to say,,every time I talk to one I invariably hear,,or see,,them say,essentially,"I don't believe in God or any gods".So to try to force a distinction like that on what they may mean as opposed to what they said,,after the fact,,is like 'vouching' for a hi risk loan.YOU are left holding the bag.
Besides,,I readily concede that there is no 'group' of any kind where all the members of the group are 'perfect' examples of all the 'good' qualities findable in that group.
Even genetics plays the numbers and averages game,,doesn't it?As in,,out of all known examples of a given thing/group of things,,there is a 'range' of attributes whch make up what is known as the attributes of those things/groups of things.Not all members have (display) all of them,,not all have (display) none of them.
Ergo,,labeling,,with out sufficient details being included,,is ineffective and inadequate for most 'serious' applications.Just like that say about food ingredient labels.
(IOW,,if that's what they mean,,then they should call themselves,,believers in Mother Nature and worship her according to the traditions she has had for millenia.It's NOT a new religion and all that has changed is how much they put on the label that they show to other people.)
~The Creator, from an atheist's view, is not God, but the material world itself.~
Which was began with a big bang for some unknown and unknowable reason after which all we know came from a bunch of dust.
(Conceptualy,,what's the difference?God said bang,,then made everything from the dust formed.They are both easily seen as being 'faith based' from our point in time from the event.)
~Believers deny Nature the creative power, while materialist atheists endow Nature with the ultimate creative power. ~
You illustrate my point regarding 'inadequate labeling' quite well with that statement.On the one hand,,you say 'believers' as opposed to 'materialistic atheists',,yet since the materialistic atheist 'believes' a thing,,they are also 'believers',,right?Just in different things from the 'group ' you labeled as 'believers',,correct?
Of course,,I do understand what you mean by it.
A 'believer' usually/on average believes an entity 'caused' nature to be able to display a creative power/process which does NOT mean the 'believer' does NOT beleive in 'nature' displaying a 'creative process' since it is the 'believers' belief that the entity they believe in is 'instigating/causing the particulars' while the general mechanics are handled by 'autonomic functions' built into the system.
As in,,"God (He Who Caused It) designed and caused to form from the debris of the 'big bang' (which was His Word,,The Logos) to be an 'autonomic system' which provided a setting for the 'particulars' that He desired.
~For a believer, Nature exists through a whim of a supernatural being; for an atheist, Nature exists according to the laws inherent in it, perpetual and immutable laws.~
Here again,,'inadequate labeling' leading to a false divergence from the concepts contained:
The believer,,in science,,seeks a cause,,yet 'science' can not answer 'why' except as a modified form of 'what' or 'how'.
The believer,,as in 'A Creator God' seeks to know 'how',,yet 'religion' can not answer 'how' except as a modified form of 'why'.
There's a famous quote about how they are each 'inadequate' with out the other.And the 'J-C teachings essentially say the same.Just using different phrases and terminology.
~For example, the denial of Darwinian evolution by the believers is the denial to the material world any power to innovate without God's interference.~
Face it,,innovate,,as you just used it infers a 'conscious' intent.Or do you mean that since 'man' is part of the material world,,it is his power to innovate' that you refered to?
And it seems more reasonable that the rejection of those naturalistic theories is due to the same,,'label confusion' bred from insufficient gleaning of 'concepts' that CREATE an atmosphere in which 'presumptuous conclusions' are 'prematurely drawn'.
ON BOTH SIDES OF THE IDEOLOGICAL FENCE.
~If we are endosed with our "inalienable" rights by some God, thet how come, these rights are "inalienable", when the same God who gave us these rights, may change his/her/its mind next minute and take those rights away?~
According to the 'material' which informs us about the inalienable rights,,That God is equally as trustable regarding 'keeping His Word/Being Unchanging' as He is with 'handling the final arbitration of truth/dispensing justice' in reference to His 'endowements' being honored and respected by all around.
(Yeshua likend heaven to an estate whose Owner left his servants in charge of while he went to a far place for a time,,,well,,you know that one,,after his collection agents/emissaries/messengers were beaten,then his SON was killed,,he came back and found the servants disrespecting and violating the 'endowments' of other servants.)
~People always learn aboud 'God's intentions through the teachings of various iundividuals recognized as prophets; for example, suppose here comes a prophet, who says, that according to the latest God's instruction, people are not created equal, but some people, say, while skinned Americans, are created as especially God-chosen ones, better people, to carry God's will, while others were not created in a similarly superb way.~
Well,,you again use vague definitions regarding which system,,but speaking as a follower of the J-C system.The final 'prophet/voice of authority' on Earth was Yesua,,as it was foretold by previous to him prophets,,think the above parable/illustration' and the phrase,,'it is finished'.That closed the book on 'high prophets' and 'only Hebrews allowed',the rest was handled by Yeshua himself through the 'holy spirit' which delievered information to Yeshuas 'disciplined ones' which reinforced the idea of non exclusion of other than Hebrew.
~What God gives, God takes away, therefore any right that comes from God is not inalienable in principle!~
If that is accurate,,then no right stemming from an unconscious force such as 'Nature' is inalienable either.
After all,,nature gave the city of New Orleans by endowing men with the ability to build levies and dikes,,and then the inherent nature of man which was endowed by nature upon him,,caused man to ignore 'maintenece and upkeep' and so nature took New Orleans away.
~For an atheist and materialist, however, the rights that come from Nature and Nature's laws, are indeed inalienable, because Nature does not have free will and cannot change its mind.~
But it can and does change it's actions,,doesn't it?
According to science,,as it has been shown over the years,,there is an accepted exception to every rule.Except one,,entropy/decay/death.(God negates that)
And it's easily proven that in life,,according to nature,,it's all a matter of 'kill or be killed' in order to insure 'species survival'.Nature dictating that 'the most prolific breeder,,most efficient beater' gets the gold ring.
So,,the rights that come from natures law is only and simply,,survival,,if you can keep from being made dead.As in,,once born,,your only 'inalienable right' is dying.
God gives that 'concept' the heave ho.Just like science when it says energy can not be destroyed,,it can only change form,,if it's NOT overcome by entropy.
So,,transfiguration/changing is a concept illustrated by both 'ideologies' as the cancelling of entropy/death.
(I am not going into how the physical body seems to be simply a field generator developing a matrix for a 'standing wave' which will exist even when the 'field generator' ceases to function.And yeah,,the terminology is sorely lacking to actually discuss it with out a lot of preliminary groundwork being laid)
~Notice that the authors of the Declaration of Independence wisely did not say that it was GOD that endowed people with inaliebable rights; they used much more flexible word, CREATOR, which means, someone or something that made humankind to come to existence.~
Which is what the phrase 'He Who Caused It' means.They knew that and so did the vast majority of the folks accepting the 'document' as valid and valuable.
In other words,,the differences in the common usage of words in that era as opposed to ours are immense,,and very pertinent to this topic of discussion.
How people use word/label definitions change over the course of time.So,,to hold their usage of a label to our contemporary usage often leads to 'confusion and miscommunication' regarding these topics.
As any ethical student of history will tell you,,one must keep 'temporal/cultural' aspects firmly in mind when attempting to deduce meanings of words and phrases used in the languages containing the concepts and ideas under investigation.
~For a believer, this is God, a supernatural being that acts on its free will; for a non-believer, this is Nature, the world around us that operates according to its inherent, immutable, permanent, and objectively existing laws.~
The attributes you attribute to nature do not apply as they were once thought to,,according to science,,as pointed out above.(examine:quantum physics)
Simply put,,science can only discuss what it has discovered,,it is simply and only based in observation.It will only accept investigation of that which is accepted as a reasonable line of research/investigation by the 'acadaemic elite'.
This causes an easily corrupted atmosphere/environment as regards the intrusion of personal and political agendas/considerations which quite often adversely affect the course of such 'deviant' lines of reasoning as concerns those things people can't see with their own eyes or hear with their own ears.
Two cases in point:
Galileo & Tesla
Both of their theories were met with contempt and derisive rejection,,one by the religious based acadaemic elite and the other by the 'scientific' acadaemic elite.
Both were later hailed as geniuses and true scientists by BOTH groups.
~Harbin, you say that the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, are found in the Bible in the form of the Jesus' instruction "treat others the way you yurself want to be treated", and I agree (it is in line with my personal views, too).~
Cool,,but just so you know,,my personal views,,uninfluenced by my 'religious beliefs' say,,do to others as you wish,,if they can't stop you,,or you can keep them from finding out.
(remember?,,over 20 years ago,,,I was a baaaaad boy.I was a callous criminal in many ways and did what I wanted as long as I could hide it or simply get away with it.Although,,thanks to that 'spark' from God in me,,I never was able to get myself to be nearly as bad as I wanted to be.Yeah,,I was one of those miserable creatures,,a 'good' guy trying to be a 'bad' guy.)
~However this principle does not need God to be valid, and is indeed the founding principle of secular humanistic morality, from which all other principles flow.~
In function,,if not form,,it does require a belief in something of a 'higher authority' than the physical since to follow/adhere to those morals,,one must have impetous beyond the 'physical'.Man,,who has intelligence,will and curiosity in abundance tends to worry a way out or around those things which 'prohibit' his desires from being fulfilled.
As in,,if a 'human' becomes convinced he can 'get away' with it through 'force' or 'deception',,they will most likely attempt it.
Ergo,,for most,,the idea of an 'authority' above humans systems is what tends to inhibit antisocial/rights violating activities being enacted.
Mans consequences are often seen as escapable,,Gods isn't.
Hence the belief in the afterlife being a 'commonly unacceptable' as rational idea by those who wish to promote their own ideologies over the ideologies of others regarding who has 'final authority'.
The one,,religious,,actually prohibits activity,,,you can't hide from 'God',the other (mans authority) can only discourage at best through retribution/punishment/vengeance since it's power only comes 'after the discovery' of the crime.And crimes can be successfully hidden from humans.
~I must add that this principle is constantly violated by the religious people, who feel as if they have a license from their "Creator" to do unto those of other faiths things they would never to to themselves of their fellow believers.~
Well..is that any different from the 'family of nature' doing things to other family members they alledgedly,,in public,,say,,they wouldn't want done to or wouldn't do to their own?
Like research on animals and humans.Culling out undesirable members.Poisoning the environment.Using their own kind for spare parts.Allowing their own kind to suffer inexcoriably from malnutrition,pests,diseases and violence.
What's the difference?Your assertion and my examples constitute evidence for a case against,,those who act deceptively and dishonestly,,contrary to their 'stated ideologies' and most likely instigated out of a belief that they could get away with it since they either advocate no God,,think they can hide from men or are able to act with impunity through might/force/violence.
Those folks are the ones most 'sincere' rational' believers of either ideology tend to reject and oppose when discovered.
As in,,those types are criminals in both systems.
Ergo,,they are our real enemy.Not those intellectually persuing truth who may be on different parts of the same path we are on for all we know.
Those kinds are the kinds are considered the ancient enemies of the J-C religion.
~For example, kill them (Deuteronomy 13).~
What?Isn't the shepherd allowed to cull his flocks of 'hard-headed,untrainable' attributes?Do you call the breeder a murderer due to 'eliminating undesirable characteristics' in his blood line?
And all that came to an end with the words spoken from atop a wooden instrument of Roman capital punishment,,'It is finished'.
Like this response is.
With all due respect to all on this planet,
The DANG-DInGIE American
aka,, The Evil White Man
roy harbin is roy l.harbin aka,,the dang-dingie american aka,,the evil white man