Go to LETTERS, ESSAYS & SHORTS
- Add a comment
- Go to THE ULTIMATE CHALLENGE TO ATHEISTS! I WILL BE WAITING FOR YOUR ANSWER!
A bit over my head...LOL
But I wanted to stop in and thank you for visiting with me on my blogs. It means allot.
posted by
1TimeSoldier
on March 10, 2007 at 2:01 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT
Si do I. It's mutual, isn't it?
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on March 6, 2007 at 10:18 PM
| link to this | reply
Bhaskar
Yes, I read both posts you mentioned, and I enjoyed them both. Thanks for responding. I always like hearing from you and I appreciate your writings.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on March 6, 2007 at 9:35 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT
I saw the entire discussion and what I suggest is that let everyone be free to believe or not believe what thay want or do not want. The me-say-right attitude will always land one in a problem. If you see Deepananda's post of yestreday, F (G) - A Mathematical model of God,, and mine, Heirophany - A scientific Model of God, these are some evidences that scientists, as atheists are starting to wonder. But one very honest stand is that of the agnostics, who say, "I don't know". I don't know whether God exists or does not exist one way or another. I am still searching. Here Belief is not maniacal. But in my humble opinion, the journey has to start from an atheistic stand. When one finds that atheism is right, the search can be discarded right there and then. But still, if it does not satsfy, the other journey can begin, that of theism. But all said and done, one must be able to assert his declaration, that yes, I searched and did not find.
posted by
Bhaskar.ing
on March 6, 2007 at 7:51 PM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
Gomedome,
It is obvious to me now that, in order to make any headway at all with you, I must take each of the statements or thoughts in your latest comment and address each of them in turn from beginning to end. Therefore, the following:
Gomedome: "GEPRUITT - that is about what I expected and you still haven't answered the question."
Reply : Since you have given me absolutely no clue as to what part or parts of my previous
comments you mean by "that is about what I expected," I can in no way address this statement until later in the body of your post when the specifics are encountered. As far as the "and you still haven't answered the question.", I think I have answered the question. I think that you have been unwilling to accept that answer. Nevertheless; let's not quibble; just get on with it, and I will answer it again until it sinks end.
Gomedome: "If you are not an agnostic then you must have a nearly absolute degree of confidence in what you believe."
Reply : I have already told you that I am not an agnostic; I am a Believer; so can we now treat that as an established fact? However, the rest of your sentence is an unjustified assumption on your part. The degree of my belief in God does not at all have to be "nearly absolute" as you erroneously state. That degree of belief can be of any % between 50+ and 99.99. It is sufficiently above 50% for me to say that, statistically, there are many more reasons for me to believe that God does exist than to believe that He does not. If you expect me to give you an exact figure, such as 77.876, or, worse yet, to allow you to set that figure for me, then forget it; you are not authorized or justified in doing that. No one, but I, can do that. Let's just say that it falls within the legal term of being "reasonably certain," while retaining the possibility that He does not exist. My Church only requires a simple statement of a believe in God. The broad classification of Believers to which I attach myself, "Christianity," actually is very tolerant, having an extremely wide variety of individual beliefs, as indicated by so many different denominations, as you well know. My degree of belief in God is also sufficiently below 100% to insure that I can never be justly accused of being an extremist, an element within the Church which distresses me severely, as it is this extremist element in the Church, as in any other group, which gives the entire Church, or other organization, justifiably, a bad name.
Gomedome: "This is the consideration of the beliefs of atheists that I am speaking of. They are no different from you in degree of belief, yet somehow they are not trustworthy when presumably people that believe as you do and to the same degree are. Correct me if I am wrong on that one, "
Reply : Once again, you are attempting, without authorization or justification, to put words into to my own mouth which I have never spoken. Your constant assumptions are killing me! Are you trying to change my own actual beliefs, with which you seem to-date to be totally unable to cope, into those of your own choosing with which you are better able to handle? At this point, I am beginning to seriously wonder. Atheist are, in fact, as far different from me as the North is from the South! Their degree of certainty that there is no God is 100%, by definition and their own admission by themselves' choosing to be called "atheists," rather than agnostics (wherein, there is already the broadest range of beliefs imaginable, stopping short only of 100 %.) To go even further than this automatically REQUIRES the "atheist" designation. I see that conclusion as entirely inescapable. Please correct me if I am wrong. Or tell me why I am being unfairly prejudicial in evaluating it as such. If you are telling me that an atheist does not have this 100% belief that there is no God, then why, pray tell, do we even need this added classification of atheist? If he has the slightest doubt that he may be wrong, then he would fit quite well into the "agnostic" slot.
Gomedome:"You deem a belief that God does not exist as a negative and somehow derive that those who believe this way are dishonest."
Reply : Yes, "does not" equates to my mind to a negative. Does "does not" equate to a "positive" in yours? If so, I admit to my own complete incompetence to handle this one! And "dishonest!" Who has even mentioned dishonesty at all? Certainly not I. If you have mistaken "untrustworthy" to mean "dishonest," then you have done so at your volition and error. An atheist may be as honest as "honest Abe," himself, as far I know, and I do not question that he is, indeed, just that. I only concede to having concluded that, with his own limited reasoning abilities, the atheist has concluded with 100% certainty that God does not exist, I could never trust him to make decisions for me! The atheist's belief may be as honest as anyone else's; that is not even a consideration of mine. One can be both honest and wrong, including myself.
Gomedome: "In other words," (You) " are proliferating a lie to show ..."
Reply : That's it! This sincere effort of mine to fully explain my opinion to you is approaching an end. This discussion has degenerated to slanderous terms. I am not "proliferating" anything; I am only stating my opinion for others to view, as you, yourself, often do without inhibition. Can I not do this with the same liberty as you, yourself, demand ? My opinion remains as at the beginning and is available to any reader who wishes to read it, and I am more than willing to leave it to my readers to evaluate the relative "fairness and lack of bias" I have used in reaching those conclusions. I do not care whether you like it or not. I am perfectly willing to explain myself to anyone who wishes, but it takes two to argue, and I will not be one of them. Take it or leave it. Use it or ignore it. Laugh at it and ridicule it or treasure it or trash it. But, considerately, do not change it, distort it, or misquote it in order to "adjust" it to a form you may feel more able to attack. "Extremists" can be found in all areas, including the religious one, and, no matter the group in which they are found, they are, in my opinion, a major source of the world's problems, from the religious fanatic on the street corner proclaiming that the end of the word is near and Jesus is returning, to the equally extremist atheist who says "there is no God!"
As to your very last statement, I have already answered it, but will do so one last time.
I consider an atheist to be as honest as the rest of us. I have never questioned his honesty. I am unqualified to make that judgement; nor do I have the need to. As to his extremism, he, himself has attested to this by his very choice of title. If we insist on defending the extremists among us, we can not avoid bringing "misconceptions," distrust, and discredit to the group or groups we represent. In fact, we should expect it!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on March 5, 2007 at 6:59 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - that is about what I expected and you still haven't answered the
question.
If you are not an agnostic then you must have a nearly absolute degree of confidence in what you believe. This is the consideration of the beliefs of atheists that I am speaking of. They are no different from you in degree of belief, yet somehow they are not trustworthy when presumably people that believe as you do and to the same degree are. Correct me if I am wrong on that one, if you are saying that you are as untrustworthy as atheists because your degree of certainty in your beliefs is very similar, then I apologize . . . but we both know that is not what you are saying.
You deem a belief that God does not exist as a negative and somehow derive that those who believe this way are dishonest. Yet you won't tell us how many atheists you are basing this opinion on. If you have come to such a disparaging conclusion about the 4 or 5% of our population that comprise atheism, one would hope that it is based on more than misconception, bias and propaganda. I fear that it is not based on anything but these things which would make your contention rather ludicrous and more than a bit ironic. You are using misconceptions as well as intentionally propagated self serving negative stereotypes to demonstrate that a certain group in our society is untrustworthy. In other words; proliferating a lie to show how dishonest these people you seem to know nothing about are. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
One last time . . . how many real live atheists is your opinion of their honesty based on?
posted by
gomedome
on March 3, 2007 at 12:07 PM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
My weekend activities this weekend will be quite demanding on my time, and I must start soon if I am to get it all done! I am not avoiding you (that is not my way), but I must delay answering you until Monday or Tuseday of next week before I have the time to properly address your concerns.
In the meantime, please accept the following for now and check here next week for a more complete answer.
No, I am not an Agnostic. My belief in the existence of an Intelligent, Extremely powerful, and Compassionate God is much greater than that. However, I can easily understand the Agnostic's position. That position is an honest and fair one.
I do not NEED to consider the degree of belief that an Athiest has. He, the Atheist, has already told me it is 100 percent; otherwise he would be an Agnostic.
No one; I repeat; no one can be THAT certain in a negative! He may have the RIGHT, but he simply does not have the ABILITY! There is something(s) he is NOT telling me, and I, therefore, consider them ALL untrustworthy. I do not have the vehicle to meet and get to know many Atheists at all, much less all of them, and all who respond to me do so by attacking rather than explaining. I must remain of my same opinion unless they can satisfactorily explain to me how I am being unfairly biased and how they can be so certain of themselves. Is that asking too much?
"See " you next week!
Gerald
posted by
GEPRUITT
on March 2, 2007 at 3:00 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - I don't see how you are making a fair assumption pertaining to
atheists and you still have not answered the question.
I don't mean to be a nuisance on this one point but I have asked you what you are basing this opinion on, or in other words; how many atheists do you know? A fair question when one is speaking in all encompassing absolute terms as you are pertaining to atheists.
You suggest that harboring a degree of doubt in one's beliefs as agnostics do is a "honorable position", you even conceed a minor degree of reservation yourself. The gist of your contempt for atheists is their degree of certainty, you assume that this certainty is absolute in all people that profess atheism but how are they any different than those who profess the same degree of certainty in a belief in God? I also do not feel it is a fair assumption to suggest that everyone of any group is absolute in their degree of belief. We cannot possibly know this.
Getting back to your concession of a minor degree of reservation, are you an agnostic? By definition you would be if harboring any reservation or doubt about the existence of God. Your concession; I will assume has a basis in the realization that we as humans cannot be certain of anything pertaining to God to an absolute degree, most intelligent and reasonable people come to this same realization. That is ultimately what I take issue with in your opinion. You are suggesting that every atheist on this planet (remember 100%) harbors a degree of certainty that is absolute that God does not exist. Your opinion does not allow them the same degree of reservation that you yourself hold, nor does your opinion view those who believe in God with the same degree of certainty as professed by atheists in the same light.
How is your opinion anything but ill conceived prejudicial bias?
posted by
gomedome
on March 2, 2007 at 7:06 AM
| link to this | reply
DAVE
Thanks, Dave, and welcome aboard! Sounds like you are in the ideal place for writing.
Good luck on the mountain!
Gerald
posted by
GEPRUITT
on March 2, 2007 at 3:02 AM
| link to this | reply
An interesting essay. I also enjoyed Gomedome's work that you cite.
I don't think I'll ever decide exactly where I sit on this continuum of thought.
I like to be persuaded by writings from along the multi-faceted line, though.
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on March 2, 2007 at 2:36 AM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
O.K., let me try again, after first telling you that I, in no way, retract what I said in the post or comment to you. What I said was and remains my opinion; maybe I have not explained it well.
There is, in my opinion, not a small difference between an Agnostic and a pure atheist. There is, on the contrary, a GIANT leap required to designate oneself an Atheist rather than an Agnostic. I simply can not conceive of anyone who can be so "absolutely certain" that he can reasonably expect any rational person to believe that he, the Atheist, is so brilliant that he has anaylsed every possible alternative in the universe or universes and has further analyzed every scenario and situation so completely without ever making an error of any kind that he can boldly claim that No, it is not the least bit possible that there can exist a God. Such a person would have to a God in his own right to have that kind of abilility! No human, even without claiming to personally know every single human, has that kind of ability!!! I will likely always be severely sceptical of anyone who claims, either by word or title, to have it. I am not ever likely to have much confidence in such a person's logical reasoning ability! He has stepped out as far as is possible, and has done so deliberately to make a statement of defiance. He can accomplish everything else, except this statement of defiance by stopping at Agnostic, which is an honorable position, but he can not stop there. He has become the Authority. I can not accept him as my Authority. I do not know how I can explain my opinion better than this.
There used to be a fellow at the office. We all called him "crazie Charlie," partly because he seldom saw things the same as the rest of us and was always, to put it kindly, quite the fundamentalist, often obnoxiously so, and partly because he was a perpetual prankster. It is in this sense that I use the word "crazie." As "Oh, try not to take it personnaly; it's only "crazie Charlie" again." We never thought he was actually crazy as in "insane." I may refer to "that crazie Atheist" in that sense, but I will never (I am not qualified to do that) call anyone crazy in the sense of being insane!
I have told the truth, be it adequate or still dissapointing. I can do no better. I will remain the same, until I change, which is entirey possible!
After thought:
As humans, there is only so far that we can go without losing our creditability! The Atheist has crossed over this barrier, straight into the "Twilight Zone." The best that I can yield to that Atheist is his absolute right to his opinion, and I do. It is still his opinion, just as subject to being wrong as my or any other's opinion!
Gerald
posted by
GEPRUITT
on March 2, 2007 at 2:24 AM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - thank you for taking the time to answer but I'm a little
dissapointed in reading some of your response.
Your second paragraph in its entirety for example: "Therefore, I believe that ALL pure atheists with such unyielding arrogance ............................................considered one of the "crazies" (I did not, and will never call them "crazy.")"
I asked a question that you did not come close to answering. What are you basing this all inclusive opinion of atheists on? How many atheists could you possibly know in life? Keep in mind that you have generalized to the point of saying 100%.
posted by
gomedome
on March 1, 2007 at 8:59 PM
| link to this | reply
GOMEDOME
Gomedome,
First of all, I must confess to perhaps a bit of "over-dramatization" on the selection of a title for this post! However, what is the purpose of writing if no one is ever interested enough to read what you have written? In addition, I did not expect that this post would be so much of a challenge to reasonable-minded and "balanced" adults, such as I have found you, yourself, to be from your many writings. I DID, however, expect it to be a significant challenge to atheists, since, by their own definition, they have ventured so far out on the God/NoGod limb as to admit absolutely NO possibility of the existence of a God or Gods, and are, ln my way of thinking, fully entitled to the classification of most extreme among the extreme! NO one can be THAT sure of anything; not even of the "Law of Gravity!" Not even I claim such a degree of certainty in my very real belief in the existence of an extremely powerful (if not Omnipotent) God. There is, I admit, at least a possibility that such a God does not exist. However, I do have so many more reasons to Believe than to Not-Believe that I have a very high confidence level that am correct in this belief!
Therefore, I believe that ALL pure atheists with such unyielding arrogance and ABSOLUTE certainty, as described, on this most crucial of issues are unbalanced, un-realistic, and, yes, even dangerous! They are extremists in the extreme, and are unwilling to accept anything or anyone in power over them! They are even more extreme than the most extreme among Christians and other Believers! While I readily admit, there are many extremists among Christians (I could identify many on this very site), they are, none-the-less, the exception, rather than the rule, while the above-described pure atheists are the RULE rather than the exception, accounting for essentially a 100 % of them! Just look at the responses from self-described atheists, to this post! This, then, is my basis for saying that, percentage-wise, there are far more atheists who should be considered one of the "crazies" (I did not, and will never call them "crazy.")
Lastly, I said little, if anything at all, about the NATURE of this God or Gods in this post, choosing, rather to leave this deliberately vague. (I do, however, believe that I know much about what that nature must be!) Obviously, He must be extremely powerful, does not intervene in the affairs of men and women, is extremely "smart,"tolerant, etc, etc, all of which can be deduced from "the way things are." I was concerned more in this post the "basics."
I do appreciate so much your comments! As usual, your comments and questions were well- stated and honest. One can not ever expect, or dream of, more! I have tried extra hard to do the same for you by answering in kind. I hope your questions have been answered satisfactorily. If not, please let me know, and I will try again.
Respectfully,
Gerald
posted by
GEPRUITT
on March 1, 2007 at 8:31 PM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT - this is hardly a challenge and certainly not the "ultimate"
There are two things that I take issue with in this post. When you say that percentage wise there are more atheists that are crazy than as found in any other group, just what are you basing this on? Even an opinion should be based on something real.
Within your argument which basically contends; that the creation of all that we know to exist must have been added to a void by some being and specifically a being you refer to as God, you can only come to this conclusion by priori bias. The argument itself however is fairly solid from what we know to be true. A propigating event or even the intervention by a "superior" being (superior in knowledge to humans) or race of beings, may well have created space and all that exists within it but where the argument fails is when you attempt to tell us who this being is. Doing so is the introduction of an abstract and unrelated concept.
posted by
gomedome
on March 1, 2007 at 8:07 AM
| link to this | reply
Justi
Thank you very much for your comments! Two of them, in particular, struck resonant chords in me:
1) "Some very nice and intelligent people are atheists." I certainly do not disagree with this statement. In fact, I strongly do AGREE with you! Ignoring this fact would be a grievous and obviously unfair mistake! However, ignoring the fact that every atheist is, by his/her own definition, an extremist would be no less a mistake! They proudly wear this designation as a "badge of honor," it seems to me, and, of course, we Believers are expected to admit that we are the cause of their (un)belief!
"One need not be a genius to get wisdom!" No truer words have ever been spoken, in my opinion! In the words of my grandfather, "Unless I miss my judgement, entrance into "Gloryland" ain't gonna be determined by no "cotton-picking" written exam!"
What does it all matter, anyway? All of us are no doubt wrong about something! What does matter is the status of our heart. If are heart is as it should be, we will accept "the truth" when presented. We will all be dead soon enough. That is soon enough for me! In the meantime, can we not be content enough to state our opinion and let it go as that?
Again, thanks for your valued opinion!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 28, 2007 at 2:50 PM
| link to this | reply
Gepruitt
Going on the premise that the Holy Bible is true and I am sure it is. There is but a short time until all this will be a visible fact. During the Tribulation they will have 7 1/2 years to figure out exactly what they will do with the earth. This is truly sad. Some very nice and intelligent people are atheists. One need not be a genius to get wisdom. God says ask and he will give abundantly. I didn't know what was available until I was born again. Good post.
posted by
Justi
on February 28, 2007 at 9:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel70
Thanks for your comments! At least you made some effort to reply in a semi-decent manner! Thanks!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 28, 2007 at 7:10 AM
| link to this | reply
CRIMSON & ARIALA
I take full credit for the crap in my blog! I have not blamed the iternet; nor should you.
Any substantive response (either by you or Ariala) to the contents of my post is noticeable only by its absence. I expected more, but, then maybe I should not have. Oh well, such is life! Now, isn't it?
Ariala,
I generally use all caps (and bold type) for those of us older people who may not be able to read smaller print as well as formerly. Sorry it offended you.
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 28, 2007 at 6:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Dude
It's amazing what crap you can find on the internet. Where did you download that lot from...
posted by
Antipodean
on February 28, 2007 at 5:44 AM
| link to this | reply
Your capitalization throughout is VERY distracting...
posted by
Ariala
on February 28, 2007 at 5:40 AM
| link to this | reply
GEPRUITT
Really! Such a raft of dogmatic assertions posing as fact!
What, was mathematics hanging there in space, just waiting for some sentient creature to come along and discover it? Nonsense, Sir!
Given time, and the incentive to discover how things work, one could easily devise a system with rules completely contrary to our existing system. Provided there were such unalterable rules or laws, then the system would work perfectly.
Who knows if this is the only universe? Maybe an infinite number of universes, of infinite size has always existed ; infinite in time and space. Neither you, nor I nor anyone elses can be dogmatic about in the yeas and nays of this proposition.
Blimey, Gepruitt, no wonder so many of us atheists ( especially those who like me think, well maybe there is a God, maybe not, I just don't believe that there is ) have it in for you believers!
You are so dogmatically certain where there can be no certainty, for given time, most or all of today's scientific " facts" will be amended or disproved.
posted by
ariel70
on February 28, 2007 at 5:38 AM
| link to this | reply
CORBIN
YES, INDEEDY!
posted by
GEPRUITT
on February 28, 2007 at 5:14 AM
| link to this | reply
And such a tolerant lot....
posted by
Corbin_Dallas
on February 28, 2007 at 4:53 AM
| link to this | reply