Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

That's interesting. My father and I are very close. He was diagnosed with a terribly aggressive and deadly form of cancer. I didn't ask anyone to pray for him and I said no prayers. My mother, though, told me I didn't really love or care about him if I wasn't praying for his full recovery.

I find this conversation fascinating. I love it. The question for me is not why do I need believe in God, but rather when did I begin to doubt there really was this all knowing benevolent God that I used to worship. I was raised a southern baptist with all the prejudices that the religion carries. Everybody was going to he'll accept the baptist. I guess a few Methodist would slip through the pearly gates. I was taught that as long as I confessed my sins, no matter how heinous I would see Jesus. As a child this did not make sense. Why would a rapist, murderer, racist or practicing skin head receive deliverance on his dying bed by using huis last breath to say "father I believe in your son. In the name of Jesus, forgive me". Yet, someone in Cuba who is a good, decent, forgiving loving person is condemned because of their beliefs or lack thereof. It is when I began questioning. Throughout the years as I vacillated back and forth I think it finally hit me that something about religion period was a crock. I sat in church and a deacon said "the reason there is so much suffering in those other countries (Haiti, Ethiopia, Somalia, etc.) is because they are heathens. They don't have God. They don't know Jesus". The preacher agreed That was enough for me. Funny thing, in those countries the people are big believers in God. They pray incessantly. They may call God by different names, but they believe they can pray the misery away. I guess it is hard to imagine a loving god that would require a mother to choose one child over another to save from starvation. Is it free will for the child or the mother when we discuss free will.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

Also, kudos for your loss: I'm sure it was quite hurtful when that person's child died, and she wasn't as gracious as she could've been. That must've been so tough for you.

"kudos" == "deepest sympathies". Again, I hope you can get past this difficult memory.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

Also, kudos for your loss: I'm sure it was quite hurtful when that person's child died, and she wasn't as gracious as she could've been. That must've been so tough for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

If true, my guess is they wanted to let you feel like you were doing something, and that since they knew you were religious, figured that would be a nice thing for both of you. Similar to how I would tell one of my atheist friends, "We'll be thinking about you."

The fact that you seem bitter and resentful about it kind of shows more what a horrible Christian you are than anything about your acquaintance. Weird how most self-professed "Christians" so often engage in this kind of anti-proselytizing. How come you never see, for example, a Bhuddist Fred Phelps?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

Puh-leeze. You're so full of shit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't care if someone does not believe in God. But for goodness sake, when you have a major problem, or your child is very ill, please don't ask people to pray for you.

I don't know anyone that does this. I don't believe in god and I would never ask anyone to pray for me.

I know people who proclaim to be atheists and when their child was diagnosed with cancer asked that those of us "who believe in God" to pray for child's recovery and we did pray. When child died they then told us, "see, there is no God."

Anonymous wrote:We demand the truth from our spouses, our doctors, our employers, and the labels on our food. But many PPs insist there is no objective truth for morality, right and wrong. This seems to be more on volitional, rather than intellectual, grounds. No reasonable alternative for objective truth about right and wrong has been offered yet. But everyone here wants to say that at least one thing is wrong...killing an innocent child in cold blood, violent rape, cheating on a spouse...why is anything objectively, truly wrong?

Again, you haven't got an argument here. Just that you would really, really like for "truth" (which you haven't defined) to be "objective". Therefore it is. No idea what you're talking about when you say "this seems to be more volitional rather than intellectual".

Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate the truth when it convicts us. That was my problem. I chose not to accept the evidence presented to me because I did not want to have to submit to an ultimate, objective authority. That recalcitrance does not do away with the objective truth that an ultimate Authority exists.

You've presented no evidence whatsoever. Except your continued assertions that there's evidence.

More circularity: a Christian god exists because truth is objective. Truth is objective because Augustine said so. Did I mention Augustine was really smart?

You say "truth" is objective. I don't think you're clear on what "truth" is.

You argue that because truth is objective, there must be an "ultimate Authority". That doesn't follow: morality could very well be a biological imperative. It could be instinctual. Why isn't that more plausible?

You wave away evidence that morality differs from place to place and culture to culture. You say that since there's an objective reality, any deviation from that objective reality must be an "error". But you don't say why that has to be the case. Should gays be stoned? Should women be consigned to the home, and prevented from working? Which is the obejctively moral position? Who says so? The "ultimate Authority".

Okay, so I don't believe your "ultimate Authority" exists, you've given no evidence that truth is objective, all you've done is point out that "everyone here wants to say at least one thing is wrong". That is, individual humans have opinions on what is proper, and improper behavior. That hardly seems a relevatory point to make.

I think the matter of morality is a matter of how we can relate and empathize.

I think if people were better at accepting the finality of death and the fact that there is no guarantee of justice or fairness, we would not have religion. Being social creatures, we also have a hard time with the thought of being alone on our planet.

As a matter of human nature, we want to think of things as fair. We also have a hard time letting go of the people and relationships we cherish. If someone needs the idea of a higher power to work through these feelings, more power to them.

We demand the truth from our spouses, our doctors, our employers, and the labels on our food. But many PPs insist there is no objective truth for morality, right and wrong. This seems to be more on volitional, rather than intellectual, grounds. No reasonable alternative for objective truth about right and wrong has been offered yet. But everyone here wants to say that at least one thing is wrong...killing an innocent child in cold blood, violent rape, cheating on a spouse...why is anything objectively, truly wrong?

Augustine said we love the truth when it enlightens us, but hate the truth when it convicts us. That was my problem. I chose not to accept the evidence presented to me because I did not want to have to submit to an ultimate, objective authority.

That recalcitrance does not do away with the objective truth that an ultimate Authority exists.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sorry, but this last post is nonsense. The statement that skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof is neither arrogant nor humble. It just logically is.


I'm sorry, but your last sentence is begging the question: "skeptics do not believe in God because there is no proof. It just logically is.". You assume your conclusion.

"Objective" does not mean "impersonal.". It is not an attitude--you are right.


You are equating belief and feelings to knowledge.

Not at all. But first, can you define a skeptic (of objective truth regarding God and right and wrong) in a way that satisfies you without begging the question?

I am not assuming my own conclusion. You are free to provide proof of God's existence. If you do, the conclusion cannot be begged.

PP, I am sorry about the brevity of my last post. I tried texting while elliptical-ing, and my experiment failed

Presenting all of the arguments for the existence of God in this forum is pretty much impossible, and my little mind is not the best one to present them. A book on my nightstand offers 20 arguments, beginning with Aquinas' five ways, and including some that claim only strong probability, not demonstrative certainty. I will defer to greater minds.

But I have a confession to make. I started this thread because I have been struggling with doubt. And so I wanted to go back to the beginning. And for me, that starts with one question: is it wrong to rip the hearts out of living babies? Is anything actually wrong?

God has filled the earth with evidence of His existence, but not His direct presence. (Hence, the PPs' request that God just open up the skies and give His morning report). His existence is reasonable, but not obvious. That ambiguity is the space for our freedom. There is a difference between proving a preposition and accepting a preposition. I might be able to prove God exists, and that there is objective right and wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt. But you could still choose to reject those prepositions.

To fall back on C.S. Lewis (sorry if that annoys anyone):

"The Irresistable and the Indisputable are the two weapons which the very nature of [God's] scheme forbids Him to use. Merely to override a human will (as His presence in any but the faintest and most mitigated degree would certainly do) would be for Him useless. He cannot ravish. He can only woo."