The theistic definition of "love," regardless of what atheists confuse with narcissism, is the willingness to do anything for the one you love. Now, for any person, place, thing, or event, doing anything, even sacrificing one's life in the name of "love," is a stupid thing. Atheists know that it is stupid to do anything for any reason if it doesn't benefit them. Theists also know that it's stupid not to have a reason, which is why they have a good one.
The bible tells the following:
"25
There was a scholar of the law who stood up to test him and said, 'Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?'
26
Jesus said to him, 'What is written in the law? How do you read it?'
27
He said in reply, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your being, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.'
28
He replied to him, 'You have answered correctly; do this and you will live'."
(NAB Luke 10:25-28)
Since we owe our existence to a higher power of any kind, (either the atheists' god "Random," "Aliens who created life," or another) a phenomenon that controls our very existence, whether or not we can prove it's existence, we MUST do everything we possibly can. To love doesn't mean we have to like. As a Christian I have to love--to be willing to give my life for--everyone. It doesn't mean that I have to like what I'm doing. If my heart is in the right, I should feel solemn joy at doing God's work. I owe Him AT LEAST that.
There is much more to life than simply doing what you like. What point is there to do what one wants? That's narcissistic atheism at it's core, even if you SAY your a theist! If you believe you should do things for your own benefit, you are saying that YOU ARE GREATER THAN GOD. There's a major problem with many of the religions when they teach financial prosperity being the key to Heaven.
_______________________________________________________________
On an interesting note, a few days ago, I got a message from an RHP user, who apparently reads these forums. It quotes as such:
"cool
If you have not moved before this message you have 777 moves."
Uh... what the... I asked myself, "Why would someone send a message telling me that three identical characters associated with winning at slot machines equalled my move count?" IT WASN'T RANDOM!!! Now, to be honest, I had absolutely NO intention of coordintang my move count with Vegas high rollers. That doesn't mean that it was random.
One could argue that there was no way to predict it. They'd be absolutely right. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is that in order for something to be random, according to the dictionary, every possibility must be the same. Nature's laws of physics are biased. NEVER have they allowed something out of possibility. Except in miracles, if one believes in them, and even they can be explained by highly unlikely (still, not necessarilly random) fluctuations in Quantum Theory probability. But if one can believe in the universe being random, one can believe in miracles. Or vice versa. Except that the latter presumes that there is a God, that there is hope.
Science works because of known natural laws that are conveniently stable when they need to be. And conveniently unstable when they need to be. Such as when miracles occur.
As long as atheists attribute creation to a seemingly "random" event, they will never be able to prove their origin, for every origin has an origin, except for that which never had one. The finite, no matter how hard you try to prove it wrong, will always only be explained by the infinite. Such as an infinite loop of finite origins. But that theory, that the univers always existed, "holds no water," since science shows that the universe had a beginning, the BIG BANG.
Two things have to exist for something to be scientific: 1. A logical theory. 2. No proof to the contrary. Theism contains both. Atheism is a far-fetched attempt to be different. In the equation, it has the latter, but lacks the former. Saying that atheism is logical--that the world was created by a random event--is like saying someone's god is, "an invisible pink unicorn that lives on the far side of Jupiter and has no interaction with the world," as our "LOL-gical" atheistic friend previously uttered in this thread. Both statements can never be proved. Nor logically concluded.
Pascal's Wager operates under the theory that atheists are logical. That cold, calculating, godless heathens would realize the illogic of their anti-thoughts. Atheists are absolutely right that the wager over simplifies faith. It does. But it was never intended to be a faith. You never see "The United Church of Pascal's Wager." The whole point of it is to get you thinking, and, if you refuse to think, who are we to try and enforce any theology upon you? If you refuse to do anything, there ain't nut'in' we can do. You're on your own. You and the other 'x' humans mislead by the slight errors of their fathers, which, in effect, snowballed, as it always does, as history shows.
Consider this line of reason:
Atheists, and theists, may find it illogical that a deity rips immortallity from an entire race, simply because the female ate fruit off a tree. "What's wrong with people making mistakes?" people may ask. Simply, this: According to the Bible, the ONLY historical reference we have for the beginning of time--these people were granted with certain gifts, in particular: control of the passions by reason. (Notice how animals don't make any big deal about an act of biology?) These people had no former influences from society, which previously did not exist. They had one command. That's it. Not to eat the fruit of a certain tree.
Logically, the tree may have been poisoned. A 'deity' could have 'told' them this through their observance of certain animals dying after consuming the fruit. (a 'sign'😉 I could be comepletely wrong on this point, but it's worth putting forth a logical theory that is allowed by the book of Genesis.
It was more than a command that had no reason. It had reason, in addition to any physical damage that could occur. It had psychological reason behind it. A test of faith; of trust--blind trust. That's it. It shouldn't be too hard, considering previously non-existant examples.
Sin is a violation of trust. Psychologically, concerning ourselves and those encountering us; physically, concerning certain 'mind-over-matter' loopholes where we cave in; theologically, (if you believe it or not) with a voilation of trust between us and our Existence, our God, to whom we must "love with all our..." you know the rest.
But, back to the logical theory...
The male was responsible for his counterpart, and vice versa. He failed by allowing her to fail. She did the physical crime, but HE comitted the omission. A simple pychological and physical disobedience was all it took. The human race snowballed into chaos over many years. Then the world's slate was wiped clean, so to speak, with the Great Flood. Even the (as atheists refer to them) "primitive" authors of genesis could see the effects of the "Great Flood." Even these "primitive" authors, through the course of history, NEVER contradicted themselves. Don't you find that a bit, "random," or Devinely Inspired.
...Anyway, the slate was wiped clean. Man's days were numbered less than 120 years. Then, another sin. This one more evil.
"18
The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.)
19
These three were the sons of Noah, and from them the whole earth was peopled.
20
Now Noah, a man of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard.
21
When he drank some of the wine, he became drunk and lay naked inside his tent.
22
Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and he told his two brothers outside about it.
23
Shem and Japheth, however, took a robe, and holding it on their backs, they walked backward and covered their father's nakedness; since their faces were turned the other way, they did not see their father's nakedness.
24
When Noah woke up from his drunkenness and learned what his youngest son had done to him,
25
he said: 'Cursed be Caanan! The lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.'
26
He also said: 'Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem! Let Canaan be his slave'."
(NAB Genesis 9:18-26)
Perhaps some of you don't realize this, but there's a reason why Canaan only now comes into the story. He came into the world in the middle of this quote. Ham (the father of Canaan) seeing his "father's nakedness" in the tent, means that... well... Canaan was the son of his grandma. His father, Ham, was Canaan's mother's son. You connect the dots.
The snowball theory gets worse, so I'll cut it here, let you do some work for yourself, and call it, from now on, the 'dirty snowball' effect. I didn't make this up, it's written in the Bible.
_______________________________________________________________
Oh, and kudos to brobluto for playing "Devil's advocate."
To answer the early question of: isn't there a religion that preaches of an all-benevolent deity who says that no matter what you do your predestined for eternity? Yes. It's called Lutheranism. It's flawed, but don't take my word for it. It's not as if you ever do. Lutherans believe that whatever you do, your either predestined for eternal life, or the eternal flame, and there's nothing you can do about it. But doesn't that contradict the first quote in the posting? I'd tell you of a religion who's teachings are foolproof, but you'd have to ask, and even then, what good would it do you if I did your work? 🙂
Atheists, I want to see if your smart enough to start building altars for your 'gods' of 'Random' and '...
24 Apr '08 23:33
Priorities
Back to Top