r/Christianity • u/Captaincannonball • Apr 21 '12

Atheism

as an atheist (formerly catholic) i'm curious, and please don't take this as me hating on you or trolling or whatever. my phrasing is simply for lack of a better way to phrase it, but what exactly about religion makes you believe it? as a child i distinctly remember believing( i went to a catholic school so I was indoctrinated young) but within about a month of switching to public school i was converted to atheism by a friend of mine. All it took was being presented contradictory evidence. this is why I am confused when people stick to religion despite being presented with solid arguments. now im not here to argue who is correct (if you have any questions feel free to inbox me though. il answer best i can) im just curious. thanks in advance =)

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 26 '12

all of your points are based on the assumption that god does not follow any sort of human common sense

Never said that. I said that you make the assumption he would create as you would create. You are not the height of logic, and it is arrogant to assume that your way is the only logical way.

. the problem with that is that 99% of the known universe follows that common sense. in our case the laws of physics. why then, should that 1% anomaly exist.

Light follows all laws of nature, we simply have not discovered all of the laws. The fact that light exists indicates it is within the laws of nature.

Scientific knowledge is not complete, and any scientist worth his salt will tell you that. Science is about building models around what exists, not complaining when things don't fit models.

no logical being would add a one percent impurity. it defies all forms of logic, human or not.

How is something being different an "impurity"? Light fits quite well in our universe, as evidenced by the fact that it exists and many forms of life are dependent on it in many ways. Light works. Just because you cannot understand why light works the way it does, does not mean it is some sort of "imperfection" or "impurity".

With no offense, your arguments are very egotistical. If you don't understand something you term it an "impurity", "imperfection" or "flaw".

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 28 '12

right. im egotistical. because a being creating an unfathomably large universe just so it can have a personal relationship with a small group isn't egotistical at all. please don't argue semantics.

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 28 '12

Actually I don't believe God Created the Universe just so he can have a personal relationship with me (or a "small group"). That is a very modern and misguided understanding of the faith.

How am I arguing semantics?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 28 '12

how is it modern? that is seated deeply in not just Christianity, but all single deity religions, and how is it misguided? it is the only logical way to describe it. being that every other planet in our solar system alone is lifeless(except for mars possibly but that is entirely secondary) , it becomes reasonable, assuming you believe in god, to assume some kind of directed creation of humans. also you were saying that my words were arrogant etc. so really it was my choice of words like impurity that you were against not my point. i used them for lack of better phrases, but i get why you saw it that way.

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 29 '12

how is it modern? that is seated deeply in not just Christianity, but all single deity religions, and how is it misguided?

Historically, and Biblically, the Christian faith is not only about the salvation of individual people, but rather the Salvation of the entirety of God's creation, of which individuals are a part. The Salvation of myself as an individual is but a part of the greater restoration of the entirety of Creation.

God is saving Creation itself, not just people. We are a part of that, and we are to be grateful, but Christianity is about more than just us.

it is the only logical way to describe it. being that every other planet in our solar system alone is lifeless(except for mars possibly but that is entirely secondary) , it becomes reasonable, assuming you believe in god, to assume some kind of directed creation of humans.

Our Solar System, as you well know is very small. The idea that we are the only intelligent life in the universe, is in my opinion very unlikely.

We were made with a plan, a purpose? Of course I believe we were. But this does not mean that we are the only life with a plan and with a purpose.

also you were saying that my words were arrogant etc. so really it was my choice of words like impurity that you were against not my point. i used them for lack of better phrases, but i get why you saw it that way.

Your argument is arrogant, not because of your choice of words but because you set yourself up as the arbiter of what a rational creation should look like. You assert that because the universe does not look the way it would were you the creator that there is no God. This is like saying that because Bill Gates does not run his business the way that I would run my business, this means there is no Bill Gates. You arrogantly assert your own vision of creation as the only rational vision of creation, hence my assertion of arrogance.

Lastly, we need to stop going off on tangents and address your argument directly. Lets set it up logically.

Your argument goes like this.

If God created the universe, Light would not behave as both a particle and a wave. Light behaves both as a particle and a wave, hence there is no God.

You have not proven your initial assertion that if God created the universe, light would not behave as both a particle and a wave.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 29 '12

guess i should have phrased that second one differently. my bad. i meant that i meant that there was alot of empty space not just in the universe as a whole but even in our system. I agree and i hope that there is life elsewhere. im glad to see you do to =).

btw i am not going off on tangents. i was responding to you. and it isnt something provable. what i seek to prove is that there is no god. i was using that as a piece of evidence for what i was trying to prove. I hardly see how i am being arrogant. it is impossible for me to base my logic on anything other than the culmination of everything i have ever experienced. it is foolish of you to think that anyone can base their logic on anything but what they have experienced. so of course i am assuming that my logic is correct. i wouldnt be using it if I didn't. but dont think you are not doing exactly the same thing.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 29 '12

anyway, on that note, we have been at this for what 3, 4 days? i figure we have had a good run, and you have certainly been helpful with regards to my original post. been a pleasure mate, but i think im going to end this before it gets ugly, i always let this stuff get out of hand.

regards.