Atheism: Love it or Leave it? - Part 2

[muertevilla]

What's interesting is that right there is a referrence to how people used to sacrifice lambs for God, which in itself is kookoo.

God tested Abraham, it was a test of faith, Abraham had strong faith...

The moment that Abraham decides the command of God is more important than the life of his child, that is an immoral act. It is no different than a nazi officer who is simply 'following orders'. Oh but Hitler wasn't a diety, I guess that's the difference between Hitler being evil and God being good. If God is real and he is a diety, he is closer to an evil cosmic being of Lovecraft literature than he is to a benevolent loving God. It is a selfish God that tests people in this way, a selfish God that wonders whether or not people on Earth love him more than they love their own children. And to say, "we don't understand his ways", as someone else said, is a cop out. It's a way of basically saying "don't think about it".



There's that selfish, pouty God again, wanting people to fear him.

Why is it important to God that people have faith in him? Why should he care? He's supposed to be all powerful and yet he's constantly concerned with our opinion of him. And, what a way to try to get that faith back, by wiping out most of the world. Evil, selfish, egotistical God.

There isn't any physical evidence of the global flood, you know. Where did all that water go? The idea that God will decide that enough people aren't worshipping him so he's going to wipe out most of the planet, that bothers me. Why doesn't it bother you? You're placing faith in God at a higher importance than morality.

There it is again. The selfish, egotistical, pouty God who despite being all powerful, he is constantly worried that people aren't worshipping him enough. This is a petty, evil diety you're describing. Something from a Lovecraft novel.

This is some nutty superstition going on from the people of Egypt. Making a blood sacrifice of a lamb and splashing that blood around on their homes in the hopes that GOD WON'T KILL THEIR FIRST BORN. And you worship the diety that actually does this and consider that diety to be good?

He's not in a position to judge, he impregnated his own daughters after getting drunk.

Yeah it is totally their fault.

Lot is supposed to be the good guy in that story. You can't reconcile that when examining the story with our understanding of morality. It can't be done rationally.

Yeah that's what bothers me. That God did these things and people still consider him to be good.

I'm not trying to attack you or get at you but you have to understand, that it is clear to me that your faith requires you to do mental gymnastics to explain and rationalize immoral and selfish acts of God. You're not worshipping a good God. You mention faith a lot, an awful lot, in your explanations, and my problem with that is you can justify just about anything by saying "you just need to have faith".

God killed the first born of - "just have faith".
God commanded a man to kill - "just have faith".

It's weak morality, is what it is.

Holding yourself accountable to God is not weak morality. True Christianity and trusting the written Word is not weak. The more you read the more it makes sense. When you take things out of context and choose to focus all your attention on it to prove an opinion , morality in this case, it is easy to lose sight of the message entirely. Justification through my faith is biblical, as it is written in the book of Romans. I still hold my opinion, as a former atheist, that you deep down know you want to believe in God, otherwise, what's all the fuss about? Knowing the true peace of God, and faithfully accepting the trials he tested me with (shortly after my salvation I got cancer), has helped me minister to people that I never thought I would encounter. And I can still tell you that God IS good. I am not doing anything but receiving the gift that is God's grace (which is God doing for us what we cannot do ourselves). There are no mental gymnastics going on here. My doubt was lifted and what was dead in my life has been crucified with Christ and for the first time I am truly alive. I know how that sounds to you. Ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. I sound crazy or even brainwashed. It doesn't bother me how I sound, though. It is not easy to live life as a Christian, as far as living an earthly existence is concerned. The trials WILL come. Faith is tested. When someone says they don't understand God's ways is in fact a cop out. It is a cop out for them not pursuing him the way he wants us to pursue him. They aren't reading his Word enough. Understanding the character of God comes from reading and studying. That's the whole reason for free will, so we can choose to do everything, by faith, in his honor. Jesus trusted God completely. He is the only man that never broke any of the 10 commandments. God incarnate, humbling himself and living the life that none of us can live to take the judgment for the sins of the world completely and offering us a path into heaven. It is true that God is a selfish God. He wants us to himself. He doesn't pout, though lol. As I said before, He doesn't need you to believe in Him to exist and love you, which he does, despite you comparing Him to Hitler lol.

 

[muertevilla]

Lot was a good man, but he was a man none the less. We aren't perfect. God doesn't expect us to be. All we have to is accept His grace and hold yourself accountable to Him.

 

[JAK®]

Lot was a good man, but he was a man none the less. We aren't perfect. God doesn't expect us to be. All we have to is accept His grace and hold yourself accountable to Him.

That's some Grade A Stockholm Syndrome right there.

 

[muertevilla]

That's some Grade A Stockholm Syndrome right there.

t:

 

[hopefuldreamer]

It's the truth. It's the single most important thing in life. Without it, we do not exist.

Um.... I really thought your initial post was a joke, but your serious?

SERIOUSLY?

To exist within society, you need money. But you CAN exist outside of society if you want to. And many people still do. There are tribes that are completely lost in the wilderness, who have absolutely nothing to do with 'money' or even understand the concept.

And even if I were to agree with your insane notion that you can't exist without it, that doesn't make it the most important thing in life.

I mean, you can't exist without going to the toilet, but I don't see having a wee as the most important thing in life.

 

[DBryan]

Like the scientific method? The method itself was created by Christians and founded on the beliefs rooted in a Christian worldview (Google search Christianity and the Origin of Modern Science by Dr. John Millam for more on this).

And further in regards to the common ignorant (and I don't mean that as inflammatory I mean it in the literal sense of lacking knowledge on a given subject) claim that Christianity has been nothing but a proverbial thorn in the side of science, bear in mind that "Almost every major branch of modern science can be traced back to 17th and 18th century Europe. If we open virtually any textbook on science and look at the men who founded and dominated each of these fields, we find that almost all were strong Christians."
Just some examples:
-Nicholas Copernicus (Astronomy).
-Isaac Newton (Physics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope)
-Robert Boyle (Chemistry; Gas dynamics)
-Blaise Pascal (Hydrostatics; Barometer; Probability theory).
-Carolus Linneaus (Taxonomy; Biological classification system)

Are any of us supposed to be surprised, that early scientists were religious? How many people of the 17th, 18th centuries were outspoken atheists?

The argument here seems to be 'x number of scientists were Christian, therefore Christianity is scientifically sound', which is obviously a bad argument.

If you understand the scientific method then you understand a large part of it is about correcting previous knowledge.

Steven Hawking has stated that God's existence was not necessary, when it comes to explaining the origins of the Universe. Hawking points to M-theory and string theory.

Pointing to the personal beliefs of a scientist from way back when in order to validate Christianity is bad science. You can simply point to the societies and expectations of the times to explain that. Which of these scientists tested their religious beliefs against the scientific method?

Christianity does not stand up to the scientific method.

 

[Manic]

A majority of random_havoc's post was arguing against the claims that Christianity does more harm than good, not that Christianity itself is scientifically sound. I won't speak for him on whether he thinks it's scientifically sound, because I don't know his thoughts on that. Because he didn't discuss them in that post.

 

[DBryan]

What's interesting is that right there is a referrence to how people used to sacrifice lambs for God, which in itself is kookoo.



Holding yourself accountable to God is not weak morality. True Christianity and trusting the written Word is not weak.

Yes it is. When those words describe mass killings and justifying slavery, trusting that word is exactly what I would define as weak.

The more you read the more it makes sense. When you take things out of context and choose to focus all your attention on it to prove an opinion , morality in this case, it is easy to lose sight of the message entirely. Justification through my faith is biblical, as it is written in the book of Romans. I still hold my opinion, as a former atheist, that you deep down know you want to believe in God, otherwise, what's all the fuss about?

Maybe you were just a weak atheist? I know that I could never believe. As much as I would want to believe in a heaven, and how swell it would be go to there, I can't believe because it is not rational to believe. Even the Jesus story isn't original, and is predated by stories in Egyptian mythology. Horus, who was born of a virgin and when he died he was resurrected after 3 days.

Knowing the true peace of God, and faithfully accepting the trials he tested me with (shortly after my salvation I got cancer), has helped me minister to people that I never thought I would encounter. And I can still tell you that God IS good. I am not doing anything but receiving the gift that is God's grace (which is God doing for us what we cannot do ourselves).

This is the same self-serving, feel good stuff I see all the time. That "God is good", "receiving the gift of God's grace" stuff does not convince me. If God exists, he is not good. The God of the bible said that slavery is ok. That is not good.

There are no mental gymnastics going on here. My doubt was lifted and what was dead in my life has been crucified with Christ and for the first time I am truly alive. I know how that sounds to you. Ridiculous. It doesn't make sense. I sound crazy or even brainwashed. It doesn't bother me how I sound, though. It is not easy to live life as a Christian, as far as living an earthly existence is concerned. The trials WILL come. Faith is tested. When someone says they don't understand God's ways is in fact a cop out. It is a cop out for them not pursuing him the way he wants us to pursue him. They aren't reading his Word enough. Understanding the character of God comes from reading and studying. That's the whole reason for free will, so we can choose to do everything, by faith, in his honor. Jesus trusted God completely. He is the only man that never broke any of the 10 commandments. God incarnate, humbling himself and living the life that none of us can live to take the judgment for the sins of the world completely and offering us a path into heaven. It is true that God is a selfish God. He wants us to himself. He doesn't pout, though lol. As I said before, He doesn't need you to believe in Him to exist and love you, which he does, despite you comparing Him to Hitler lol.

It's like nothing I had even said earlier has registered.

"Not persuing him the way he wants us to persue him", what does that even mean?

What I gather, from God's perspective that means "read your bible, have faith, trust in the word, and don't think too hard about all the crazy stuff I said".

I know better.

There is no rational reason to believe in Christianity over other religons. Why aren't you worshipping Horus? He came before Jesus.

All of your answers are non-answers and basically amount to blind faith. Have doubts? You're not reading the bible enough, or not "reading it the way he wants you to read it". Think God's immoral? Then you're not trusting his word enough.

You can't even respond directly to the slavery passages I had previously posted.

 

[co2]

Responding to the title of the thread, no I'm as little a fan of atheist as I am of staunch deist. Because both are very closed minded concepts. Both concepts deal with absolutes that no one knows. I don't even think a good scientist should be an atheist, otherwise he is violating the premise of the scientific method...and yeah I heard what Stephen Hawking said about those that believe in God, and I think my statement applies to him too. If anyone claims they know difinitively if there is a God, regardless of being a science professor from MIT or Religious leader of a multi-million dollar organization..it is simply a claim. Bottom line, NOBODY KNOWS.
I consider myself Agnostic, because I admit that I don't know. I also consider myself a pragmatist, so..gun to my head, if forced to pick, I would say probably not. I believe in simply being a good person, trying to do right in this world because you care about people and want to leave the planet better off than it was before you arrived. And you do that by believing in the potential of here and now. And at the end of the day, THIS is the Heaven you create. If you are truly judged, then that is what you should be judged on. If you are judged on who you pay homage too, then that is a game I'm just not intersted in playing. And I think if there is a deity, he/she will understand that you simply used the reason he/she granted you to come to that very conclusion. If you are held accountable for not properly worshipping, then that is one messed up system for a benevolent deity to try to impose.
peace

 

[Bill]

Are any of us supposed to be surprised, that early scientists were religious? How many people of the 17th, 18th centuries were outspoken atheists?

The argument here seems to be 'x number of scientists were Christian, therefore Christianity is scientifically sound', which is obviously a bad argument.

If you understand the scientific method then you understand a large part of it is about correcting previous knowledge.

Steven Hawking has stated that God's existence was not necessary, when it comes to explaining the origins of the Universe. Hawking points to M-theory and string theory.

Pointing to the personal beliefs of a scientist from way back when in order to validate Christianity is bad science. You can simply point to the societies and expectations of the times to explain that. Which of these scientists tested their religious beliefs against the scientific method?

Christianity does not stand up to the scientific method.

What is interesting is that all of these men were around during or after the Enlightenment, when European theologians doubted the literal truth of the Bible and looked upon it more as an historical document considering religion to be antithetical to reason. They were in line with what was becoming the general consensus that the Bible had no explanatory powers where science was concerned. It wasn't like they were bucking the system or fighting the good fight. I'd be more impressed if there had been this type of thinking a couple of hundred years previously. They were great thinkers in spite of their religion, not because of it.

 

[WildcatNC]

"read your bible, have faith, trust in the word, and don't think too hard about all the crazy stuff I said".

Hahaha. Thats the gist of it alright.

 

[chaseter]

It's the gist of a part of a religion. I think too many people in here are confusing faith with religion. You can have faith and not be religious.

 

[redhawk23]

And faith can be in many things other than a deity.

 

[Franklin Richards]

The Sun and Joe Pesci.

 

[chaseter]

And faith can be in many things other than a deity.

It certainly can be. However, religion should not discount faith. Religion is made by man and therefore fallible. Finding faults in religion does not discount faith. I have faith that there is something bigger than us and I call that being God. Because the Bible says to not eat oysters and to punish unruly slaves does not make my faith invalid.

Look at the people in here trying to discount religion. Is that what atheism is?

 

[Franklin Richards]

No. That's what atheists have become because of our masters.

 

[chaseter]

Or...maybe that proves why we have religion. Man naturally feels the need to come together to share beliefs and that is what atheism has evolved into, a religion against religion...an anti-religion.

 

[Franklin Richards]

You can call it truth. If you like.

 

[Dr.]

Responding to the title of the thread, no I'm as little a fan of atheist as I am of staunch deist. Because both are very closed minded concepts. Both concepts deal with absolutes that no one knows. I don't even think a good scientist should be an atheist, otherwise he is violating the premise of the scientific method...and yeah I heard what Stephen Hawking said about those that believe in God, and I think my statement applies to him too. If anyone claims they know definitively if there is a God, regardless of being a science professor from MIT or Religious leader of a multi-million dollar organization..it is simply a claim. Bottom line, NOBODY KNOWS.
I consider myself Agnostic, because I admit that I don't know.

But in conversations/debates like these, it’s important to set out a common frame of reference and to utilize potentially ambiguous terms with clarity and consistency. So, yes, we can’t really know that god doesn’t exist. But there are some philosophical traditions that say we can never really know anything – absolute truths (Truths) will always be beyond our grasp. Am I real or an illusion? Maybe the Earth really is the center of the Universe and the evidence that says otherwise is just wrong. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is about as solid as anything we think we know. But who’s to say that an obscure disproof won’t be revealed tomorrow?

So when you say we can’t know that god does/doesn’t exist, are you arguing a philosophical point? And if you’re arguing against someone who has a more pragmatic, empiricist perspective, then you’re both talking past each other – speaking different languages.

This is a reasonably good check for a common frame of reference (on the topic): can we stipulate, at all, that some things don’t exist? For example, leprechauns. If the answer is no – the non-existence of leprechauns cannot be known – then we’re pretty firmly in a philosophical/epistemological debate. And at the very least, it’s useful for both sides to understand that. But if the answer is yes – we stipulate that leprechauns (and some other things) don’t exist – then it’s entirely reasonable to discuss the evidentiary criteria by which we can know that leprechauns (and other things) don’t exists but can’t know that god exists.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

This is a reasonably good check for a common frame of reference (on the topic): can we stipulate, at all, that some things don’t exist? For example, leprechauns. If the answer is no – the non-existence of leprechauns cannot be known – then we’re pretty firmly in a philosophical/epistemological debate. And at the very least, it’s useful for both sides to understand that. But if the answer is yes – we stipulate that leprechauns (and some other things) don’t exist – then it’s entirely reasonable to discuss the evidentiary criteria by which we can know that leprechauns (and other things) don’t exists but can’t know that god exists.

I have been trying to find the right way to explain why I feel believing there is no God is more justified than believing there is. Because I hate it when people on the religious side of this debate get all conveniently philosophical on the subject of what can be known for certain, in order to make those who care about science and Truth doubt themselves.

You've pretty much just nailed how I feel on the subject.

And from now on, if someone asks me how I can say I KNOW that God doesn't exist, I will tell them that:

I know Santa doesn't exist. I know Leprachauns don't exist. And I know God doesn't exist.

All three cannot be proven, nor technically disproven.

 

[redhawk23]

We seek social integration, and our beliefs are a deeply personal aspect that we use define our relations to each other. Most atheists are not integrated into a structure "atheist religion"

 

[random_havoc]

A majority of random_havoc's post was arguing against the claims that Christianity does more harm than good, not that Christianity itself is scientifically sound. I won't speak for him on whether he thinks it's scientifically sound, because I don't know his thoughts on that. Because he didn't discuss them in that post.

Thank you.

To rephrase part of the point I was making in regards to referencing the founding of the scientific method itself along with the various scientific fields: Contrary to the common claim of atheists, science as we know it was founded within and flourished within Christian a Christian worldview and mindset. Not to mention that many many well regarded scientists are Christians.
This all flies in the face of the implied notion that embracing Christianity means a collapse of rational thought and scientific exploration.

 

[Godzilla2000]

I just thought I'd speak my piece here. I am not an atheist, I do believe in God, Jesus, etc. etc. though it's been years since I've associated myself with any organized church, let's just say that I had a very bad experience as a child with the Catholic Church, which always seems to focus on the negatives more than the positives. I couldn't live life constantly knowing that everything I do is considered evil, despite believing in all the religious tenants and so forth. That and I have a few theories on God and everything which any Catholic might think blasphemous. Needless to say I'd be excommunicated within an inch of my life. That said I do not mind that some people don't believe in a religion as that is what choice they choose to make with their lives. But I am not fond of atheists that bully those, like me who do believe in a faith. I mean it's not like I'm doing anything violently wrong by just believing in a higher power, right? I'm not forcing my beliefs on anyone if they do not choose to believe them. I welcome atheist friends with the same love, support and compassion as religious friends just so long as they accept that I have different views as well.

 

[random_havoc]

What is interesting is that all of these men were around during or after the Enlightenment, when European theologians doubted the literal truth of the Bible and looked upon it more as an historical document considering religion to be antithetical to reason. They were in line with what was becoming the general consensus that the Bible had no explanatory powers where science was concerned. It wasn't like they were bucking the system or fighting the good fight. I'd be more impressed if there had been this type of thinking a couple of hundred years previously. They were great thinkers in spite of their religion, not because of it.

4 main thoughts in response:

1) Clearly you missed that the first scientist I listed was Copernicus who was outside of "the age of enlightenment" by a couple hundred years
2) A major part of my point was that the scientific method itself as we know it was historically founded on aspects of the Christian worldview. Again I recommend, as I did above, googling Christianity and the Origin of Modern Science by Dr. John Millam. I think you'll find the full paper online.
3) The term "age of enlightenment" itself has come to be looked upon unfavorably by a number of academics in the same way that the term "the dark ages" has gone into disuse. Both were labels that have been found to be far too generalizing to the point of inaccuracy.
4) Your statement that "They were great thinkers in spite of their religion, not because of it" reveals that you inferring what you want to see onto the evidence. Just as the many Christian scientists nowadays would consider such a statement about them to be inaccurate and offensive so, likely, would all of the pillars of science mentioned above find it offensive. There is simply no evidence whatsoever that their beliefs were IN ANY WAY a hindrance to their scientific pursuits despite your unfounded assertion. Might I also point out that Einstein also, widely considered one of the greatest scientific minds of the 20th century, stated this:


"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."

— Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein, Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97



Granted, Einstein was not a Christian, however he was also quite adamant that he was not an atheist and that it was specifically because of the orderliness that he observed in the cosmos (which fits in with what I mentioned above about the Christian worldview leading to the scientific method because of the underlying assumption that a God of order - as the Bible says He is - created a universe/creation of orderliness which can be observed and then thus understood and predicted)

 

[redhawk23]

Leaving now for the National Atheist Party meetup and picnic in Chicago tomorrow.!