Atheists Deserve Better than the ‘Good without God’ Campaign
The point of skepticism and scientific inquiry, after all, is to exalt intellectual modesty over presumption. The failure to do so was what really made the recent disclosures about fudged climate data at the University of East Anglia so scandalous. We know more and more about what we don’t know and the biggest puzzler of all remains why there’s something instead of nothing. (As the philosopher Sidney Morgenbesser once put it, “And if there was nothing? You’d still be complaining!”) Atheists proceed from evidence and falsifiability and needn’t rely on demagogic appeals to join some well-behaved in-crowd as if pledging a college fraternity.
The “Good without God” ad is also embarrassingly defensive. True, an ugly tactic of the aggressively pious is to suggest that a person cannot be moral or decent without the teachings of monotheism. But apart from pointing out the stark historical illiteracy of such an assertion, atheists need only ask why so many wicked polemicists and scientists and philosophers are even worth arguing with in the first place. Surely the hellbound on the New York Times bestseller list don’t require the kind of furious fight they’ve been given by clerics and churchgoers in recent years; they require only time. Atheism is in a strong enough starting position, in other words, that it can do without its adherents’ pathetically pleading their own benevolence. (And, allowances made for the hyperbole of Madison Avenue, just because a person is one of a million nonbelievers in New York City doesn’t mean necessarily that he is “good.”) The burden of proof is on religion to show that, as a contribution to civilization, it ennobles rather than deforms the human character. “Good without God” unintentionally concedes too much to faith by working from the reverse assumption and treating atheism as if it were the worldview with something to prove.
A more generous reading of the poster has been offered by my friend Austin Dacey, author of the excellent book The Secular Conscience: Why Religion Belongs in the Public Sphere. Blogging at Psychology Today with Michael De Dora, Jr., the executive director for the New York branch for the Center for Inquiry and the head of the New York “Good without God” campaign, Dacey concluded that the subtext “reveals a more universal message: people can be good regardless of their beliefs about God. From this perspective, the ad was not about atheism, but about the nature of morality.” But that the average straphanger may miss this subtle ecumenical relay is a failure of both the medium and the message. A million angels dance on the head of a pin, but can the evolutionary psychology of conscience be contained in a catchphrase?
The New York effort, preceded by similar ones in a host of American cities, took its cue from Britain’s wildly successful Atheist Bus Campaign. Concocted by the comedy writer Ariane Sherine, this forerunner media blitz of godlessness was fashioned in response to an obnoxious Christian ad that ran on the side of red double-deckers in London and featured a benign Biblical quote along with the URL of a website that, once clicked on, consigned all nonbelievers to perdition. “There’s probably no God,” read, somewhat fecklessly, Sherine’s proposed counter-slogan, “Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” This unimaginative commandment — Deepak Chopra for materialists — was intended to raise $8,000 for placement on London buses. But after being endorsed by Dawkins (who objected to the word “probably”), A.C. Grayling, and the British Humanist Association, it drew in over $200,000 and 800 buses carried the ad throughout Britain. A trend was inaugurated, and soon buses in Washington, D.C., started turning up with their own drive-by axioms: “Why believe in a god?” asked one ad in the Capitol over a picture of a guy in a Santa suit. “Just be good for goodness’ sake.” Silly and tautologous even without the promise of Karl Popper toting presents down a chimney.
In one way, the success of atheist advertising is encouraging. It shows that today the godless exist in record number and are easily mobilized (“We’re here, here is all there is, get used to it.”) But can’t we do without the triumphalism and mawkishness? A few years ago, Dawkins and Daniel Dennett contrived to rebrand atheists as something more — what’s the phrase? — “market-positive,” much the way “gay” had been adopted as a euphemism for homosexual. They arrived at the term “bright,” a term that implies equally that all atheists are intelligent and that all faithful are stupid. If this is so then, again, why bother arguing with one’s adversaries? Such crudity injects kitsch and self-parody into a good cause. Atheism deserves better.
Nothing excites my disdain quite as much as the imputations of atheists that their theological convictions are merely conclusions drawn from “evidence and reason:”
Oh, really? But your allies, as named above, all contend — in tones that drip with hauteur and contempt — that we who believe in God are therefore either stupid or lying. If you disagree, then you’d bloody well better make it explicit…or find yourself some new “allies.” I doubt you’ll do that, as the tone of your article suggests that you share your allies’ attitudes as well as their convictions.
No, atheists proceed from an assumption about reality: that everything there is — and let us please refrain from any Clintonian exegesis upon the meaning of “is” — is perceptible either by human senses or by forces of Nature that can be harnessed to the service of human senses. That might be correct…and it might not. But it is emphatically not “evidence,” and it serves the exercise of reason only if accepted as a premise.
In other words: Get over yourself. You’ve chosen your religion; make your peace with it, and with the divergent choices of others, as we have.
Yet the underlying presumption in most atheist-related writing is that the religious faithful are simply a bunch of “rubes”. Julia Sweeney’s “Letting Go Of God” is the latest and most popular manifestation of these attitudes, where she asserts that she likes to think of her view as “critical thinking” – implying of course that the religious must not be capable of such high-mindedness.
Watching or reading atheists extoll their virtuousness has the same ring to it as having new parents wax poetically about how seeing their baby for the first time was, well…. “life changing”. Having Hitchens or Dawkins as the mouthpiece of a movement that seems to constantly stray from the message of “we’re atheists – get over it”, to, “we’re atheists – and smarter than you” doesn’t help things.
“The worldview with something to prove.”
Huh.
I would respectfully submit that it is atheism that has to prove its worldview, precisely because it can’t answer a fundamental question: if there is no Creator, how did the universe come into being? “We don’t know, but that doesn’t matter” is not an adequate answer or rebuttal to the rational belief that there is a First Cause, an Uncaused Cause if you will.
Is it atheism or anti-theism?
“The point of skepticism and scientific inquiry, after all, is to exalt intellectual modesty over presumption.”
This is something that atheism fails at, just the same as religious fundamentalism. The only rationally defensible worldview is agnosticism, but don’t let the atheists know that they’re just as irrational as a Southern Baptist, or you’ll be in for an earful.
As an ex-atheist, I think most real believers find not only such a campaign mildly amusing, but raucously hilarious. “It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.” ~Mohandas Gandhi
The question posed reveals more than its author intended. Who is he to determine if anyone is “good”? To do so, he must use some standard of “goodness” by which to measure the million New Yorkers. That standard ironically ends up looking a lot like “G_d”.
Perhaps the author means that each of the million New Yorkers has his own definition of goodness. If everyone is free to define goodness as he sees fit, then what is the point of asking the question in the first place? Should goodness be up to the individual to determine for himself, then the answer to the question asked is: “What’s it to you?”
In the face of your disbelief, the growth of the atheist culture was both discussed and predicted in the New Testament, both by Jesus Christ and several of his disciples. My faith calls for me to pray for your soul, and for those of your belief, and so I will. God bless, and may your heart someday be opened to God’s grace.
There’s no defense like a good offense. Sloganeering is a great distraction from having to provide rational, cogent answers to, for instance, that “old puzzler,” why there’s something instead of nothing. Just as we believers in a personal God are hard put to “explain” the existence of evil and suffering, atheists can’t explain the existence of goodness or just of existence itself. Generally they avoid the argument, as if the demand for a complete atheistic metaphysics is puerile and somehow beside the point; they don’t “have” to explain anything positively since their premise is entirely negative (i.e. that there is “no God.”). But somewhere deep inside they know they’ve got a little problem with the their supposedly clear-cut, beyond rational dispute, position on the non-existence of God. Until they can present a convincing counter-explanation for reality then you can expect an ever increasing chorus of triumphalist and mawkish sloganeering. Don’t hold your breath.
May I respectfully say all this is stupid. To an atheist, nothing exists except matter, time, and randomness. Whatever is, is, and you have no standard by which to call anything either good or evil. Believe you what like, but be honest with yourself and quit trying to piggy-back on our morality. As Doug Wilson says, your worldview boils down to “shit happens.”
Like it or not your supposed “secular morality” actually derives from religious morality. It is culturally ingrained in our society.
Also I can also argue that Atheist’s stance to deny the existence of a Creator is as much “faith” as is the belief in God. Atheists ascribe to the belief that the universe and all that exists in it was all “happenstance”, the result of random chance generating sentient life. You have a better chance of winning the Power Ball or Mega Millions than of all this occurring randomly. That dear author is faith, faith in something you cannot prove or disprove, just like a Creator.
You also talk about morality, but you seem to miss God’s message, and many religious people often miss this one as well. God gave us the “rules” because we’re as a species “children”, and that is what many of the moral imperatives in religion are, rules for children who cannot yet comprehend the reason and logic behind the rules. Many of these rules are common to nearly every major religion. Take Commandments 4-10, they are socially beneficent and basically essential to a functional society. A couple examples:
4) Keeping the Sabbath – ensures that EVERYONE has a day of rest and that the wealthy/powerful cannot impose work upon the masses without rest without openly offending God and the religious power base, which in the time of its writing was not a socially wise thing to do. As a society we have gone one better and adopted as a general “standard” a 5 day work week, though many people now chose their days off or can chose to work. Peasantry, indentured servants, and slaves no longer exist as acceptable institutions in Western culture but at the time of writing they did.
5) Honor thy Mother and Father – Parents and elders as a whole are the keepers of of wisdom, and if you’re smart a valuable source of wisdom as well. They have valuable life experience that younger generations can learn from, and thus build upon. People who learn from the experience of others often do much better than those who do not and have to learn the hard way. Also humanity itself advances by “standing upon the shoulders of giants”.
Like a parent (or at least a good one) God gave humanity boundaries, He (or she, or they depending on your beliefs) is basically like the parent that tells the child “Don’t touch the stove”, we like the child don’t often understand why at the time, but when we grow older we understand why we shouldn’t touch the stove. Quite often we fail, we like the over curious child break the rules and “touch the stove”, in doing so we get burned and often burn others in the process.
God gave us the rules, and like the good parent hopes that once we “grow up” we adhere to the rules not because He said so but because we grasp the reason and logic behind the rules. Without God’s guidance in humanity’s infancy, the ingraining of certain values in human society as a whole, mankind’s inhumanity to one another would be much greater than it is. Continuing with the “parent/child” theme, just because you grow up doesn’t mean you stop loving your parent(s), thus just because humanity is growing up we shouldn’t stop loving God either.
Atheists remind me of the rebellious teenager, they deny the Creator like teenagers try to deny their parent’s rules and experience. You’re all sort of “13 going on 30″. That doesn’t mean you should slavishly follow any religion either, its pretty easy to recognize the positive aspects of most religions, and that is the beauty of America those you don’t like you don’t have to follow. You can search for the right “flavor” for you, because I freely admit I don’t believe that any religion exists that has everything 100% right.
Please excuse the typo in my comment (#10). I meant to say “Believe what you like.”
Well, I’m an atheist, and I disagree with the definition of such in the article and comments.
I agree with Francis Poretto that one’s belief in either a god or no god,are derived from basic assumptions about reality. I disagree that the atheist, or at least myself as an atheist, am also a version of a logical positivist relying only on human perception of empirical reality. Such an anthropogenic definition sets up Man as god, and I reject that.
I am an atheist because I reject an agential creator. Instead, I posit that the whole universe is a ‘mind’, a complex adaptive action of reasoning. Not human or ‘god’ reasoning but physical/biological reasoning. Any glance at the intricate outline of a crystal,the interdependence of the species in a meadow show the existence of logic or reason or Mind rather than random happenstances.
I also reject the all too common popular supposition that atheists, rejecting the notion of an authoritative god, are without morality. Such a view of morality, that it exists only because of a metaphysical parental authority rather than an intrinsic valuation of life, is something I reject.
Steve Doocy . . .atheist.
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200912110001
Atheists all seem to proclaim their intellectual superiority while standing on solid ground in good health. Bless them for they are blind men living in caves. Unaware of the incredible light just above their heads.
Not one who is alive today will understand reality until death.
There’s nothing more dogmatic than an atheist.
The circular reasoning, (circular firing squad…?) that I find amusing is the, ‘There cannot be a God because if there was, such-and-such would not exist, and because such-and-such does exist, therefore, God does not’. (The existence of Algore can be disproved using this technique however.)
Francis, nice shootin’ pardner. “IHS”
I find it interesting how atheists trumpet human reason as the basis for their belief system. Then the author uses his reason to offer up Osama bin Laden as the typical religious “fundamentalist”.
Then he uses his reason to point to the fossil record to imply that “fundementalists” would never concede that it has any importance. Well, since I am pretty sure the author would lump me in with all the “fundementalists” I must imform him that I have indeed considered the “charms” of the fossil record. What I have found is the fossil record reveals a geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. I wonder how the author’s reason explains that away.
I am willing to guess that an atheist or an agnostic feels adequately represented solely by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali in much the same the fashion I feel I am represented by that blowhard Bill Donahue as a Roman Catholic. To label all atheists and agnostics makes as much sense as me labeling all non-Roman Catholic Christians as heathens. (although I remember a funny joke…What do you call a church without a pope? A Cult).
If we continue to allow Christians to wrongly follow the faith in this country, I see little difference in allow atheists and agnostics from spouting their gibberish either. Transubstantiation people…it isn’t a hard concept. Neither is evolution, the big bang, or the potential of alien life outside of our planet. Take some time, learn a little Latin, and actually read some of the 2 thousand years of Christian thought that is ignored by far too many “christians” in this country. Seriously, Protestantism is one step above voodoo if you think about it.
You’ll be surprised by knowing that some atheists know the difference between religion and TRADITION.
You can be non-religious but still celebrate Christmas traditions, such as having Xmas trees, lights, snowmen, posadas, gift exchanges, Xmas dinners, Santa Claus, Xmas music, traditional holiday foods, card giving, etc, etc, etc. There is historical acceptance about Jesus Christ, the man, but that’s where the similarities end.
There you have it. Christmas without religion. What an enjoyable concept!
“it can’t answer a fundamental question: if there is no Creator, how did the universe come into being?”
Neither can any religion cope with the next step: if there is a creator, who created (when, how, where and out of what) the creator him/her/itself? (And, by the way, why only one?)
Then comes some circular or empty non-answer: either he/she/it has always existed or he/she/it created him/her/itself. And we have to accept and believe this.
But, then, why not simply eliminate the “creator” step, and answer either that, in some way, the universe or universes have always existed or that it, the universe, created itself, just came into being (as some theists think their god did)?
Besides, merely because something exists, does it has to have been “created”? If the answer’s yes, then the same question has to be necessarily applied to the “creator”, then to the “creator’s” “creator” and so on, to the infinite.
Religion’s just a useless rhetorical step in a useless argument.
Weiss, why don’t you look at the first Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion, which took place in 1940. Plus, take a look at where Mortimer Adler was coming from, as well as where Sidney Hook came from.
After all, the truly broadminded arrive at these two conclusions: There is more than the known, when it comes to the knowable. There is more than the knowable.
4. D Peterson:
I would respectfully submit that it is atheism that has to prove its worldview, precisely because it can’t answer a fundamental question: if there is no Creator, how did the universe come into being? “We don’t know, but that doesn’t matter” is not an adequate answer or rebuttal to the rational belief that there is a First Cause, an Uncaused Cause if you will.
_____________________________________________________
Well most atheist are honest enough to say they aren’t sure. Unlike the religious who are so intellectually dishonest they attribute it to a god that didn’t exist until man created it. Saying you don’t know is a more then adequate answer because it is the honest one. It is the one reached by thinking and not brainwashed rote.
Try to remember that before your false god existed it was the monotheistic hebrew god witch was hand pick as the “one god” out of a plethora of other gods at the time.
Given your logic and if your god is real what caused him? If the big bang can’t just happen neither can a uncaused god, right? If you answer that try to do it honestly. And there is far more measurable evidence that the universe came from one singular point then there is that any gods are real.
It’s always funny to see the religious deflect proof from the assertive notion that there god is real because they can’t to saying those who know there is no god having to bring proof. If they were just a little more honest with them selves they would know that prove is the onus of the ones who make the possitve claim. You say there is a god. So prove it. I say there is no god thus no proof has to be offered that something doesn’t exist.
How about a feat of honesty. Since you can’t be honest enough to prove your god is real and thing those who make the negative claim have to bring proof why don’t prove the following things don’t exist: leprechauns, unicorns, pegasi, sucubi, toothfairy, easter bunny, Santa Clause, Pheonix, Zeus, the Titans, Thor, Pan, minator, Kali, Ra, Ahura Mazda, Mithras, Xi Wang-mu, Tiamat, and Nemesis.
No one can prove that God does not exist.
If God did not exist,(He does), there would be no reason for antisocial personalities to abstain from robbery, rape, torture, murder, etc., if they believed themselves clever enough to evade the police.
If men are but chance collocations of subatomic particles,(they are not), any measure of morality is but subjective.Cannibalism of ones offspring and loving selfsacrifice for the benefit of others are virtues or evils depending only on the perspective of the individual, saint or sinner.
But, such, happily, is not the case. To do the will of God is good. To fail to do the will of God is evil. And He has lovingly revealed His will to us in His New Testament. There the message is simple. Obey our Lord, Jesus Christ and all will be well with you when you pass from this life into eternity. Fail to obey Him and all will be terribly unwell for you for all eternity.
It will not do to pretend that one cannot be sure that God exists or that His New Testament may not be true, correct and complete.
Jer.29.13 promises that we shall find God when we seek Him with all our heart. Ergo, if one has not found God, he has not sought him with all his heart. Jn.7.17 and 8.31-32 promise knowledge of God’s will; His truth, if we will to know His will and strive to live within it. Ergo, if one doesn’t know God’s will it is because he doesn’t want to know it and live within it.
Finally, if at one time Nothing existed,
then no thing could ever have come to be.
Ergo, Something has always existed.
We humans exist.
But we have not always existed; we are the effect of a cause.
Our Cause must be that Something which has always existed.
We are personally conscious, living, intelligent Beings, capable of love and selfsacrifice.
But no Effect may possess a quality not found in its Cause.
Ergo, our Cause must be a personally conscious, living, intelligent Being, capable of love and selfsacrifice.
Since our Cause is eternal and matter is not, our Cause is not material.
But, as that Something Which has always existed, our Cause must be the Creator and maintainer of all that which has not always existed. Including our infinite and incredibly complex universe.
He has revealed Himself to us in scripture. Thats another blog.
Jn.3.19-20 tells us why men will not worship Jesus Christ. And Jn.14.15 tells us why they will.
Phranc, you’ve got a few problems with your line of reasoning.
All those “gods” you named are merely mankind’s attempt at conceptualizing the Creator and His creation. Both the “good” and the “bad”. You cannot know “good” without “evil” as a contrast, early Jews struggled with this, hence the inclusion of the Devil/Lucifer/Satan. Nearly every religion has one, I say nearly because I am not versed on ALL religions that exist or have existed.
Leprechauns, Unicorns (apparently you Obama fans believe in them), and Pegasi are all basically mortal creatures, at some point a specimen would have been found. Also its highly likely that such animals were the result of fossils found by ancient people in which the bones of several animals and they attempted to explain what they found. The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus (you’ve apparently watched too many Tim Allen movies) are all know to be “traditional” creations for children, often which were some carry over of pagan traditions after European tribes converted to Christianity.
Reply to Phranc @24: An atheist who is honest enough to say that he is not sure about the existence of God is not an atheist but an agnostic. If as an agnostic he knowingly claims to be an atheist, then he is not honest.
Please cite your source for your belief in a “monotheistic hebrew god witch” who was “hand picked.”
The Christian God is by definition the first cause that no other cause proceeded, so your question starts from a flawed premise. You can claim that the big bang was the first cause but you would then have to define it as god.
As to the burden of proof, atheism challenges not only Christianity but the issue of religion around the world. It claims that institutions and belief systems which predate western civilization are false. It challenges tradition, culture, and faith. By making such a challenge, the burden of proof falls to the challenger. Unfortunately, the atheist challenger is not up to the task so they result to redicule and public preening.
Atheists are defensive and imperialistic about their doctrine because there is no such thing as an atheist. If a man does not acknowledge the true God, then he does not become atheistic. He simply puts some other god in the place of the true God. Sometimes these gods already exist and the atheist simply elevates it to a diety and sometimes the atheist simply invents a god to suit his own purposes. Gods answer the higher story questions of life – where do we come from, what is our purpose, where does evil come from, what is the nature of man, etc. An atheist is really a pagan and a polytheist. The highest god in “atheistic polytheism” is the individual atheist who has elevated his own reasoning and observations as the standard of truth. They become their own authority and decide truth and reality. Often to support his position, the individual atheist appeals to certain other gods – science, human reasoning, philosophy, etc. While their is nothing wrong with science, reason, and philosophy when held in their proper place, they were never intended to be elevated to the level of a diety.
6. The atheist is far more irrational, for a Baptist can propose a scenario, sick as it may be, that would refute his belief system- kill all the Jews, every last one of them, and Christianity will be refuted. Why? Because Christianity holds that the Jews as a race will survive until Jesus returns, and by the time He returns, they will accept Him as their Messiah and King.
One more thing- the principle of First Causation does not apply only to physics, but also to biology- life does not come from non-life. For life to come into existence, it must always originate from previously existing life, either its parent(s), or its designer. Thermodynamics dictates that the same could be said of intelligence, because the natural tendency of things is to decay and become more chaotic. An inanimate force like the Big Bang singularity or the Universe itself could not explain the origin of life.
BMoon (#7) quotes Gandhi- “It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists.” To me, that is the strangest thing about atheists. I suppose those atheists who are fighting God are not so intelligent. But sooner or later they often realize their mistake. As they say, there is no such thing as an atheist on his deathbed.
I agree that Athiests deserve a better reason to be good then just for goodness sake. They deserve more, and that is why they are lucky that YHWH sent he only Son, Jesus of Nazereth the Christ, because He so love the World. Spread the Good News! Happy Christmas!
“But, then, why not simply eliminate the “creator” step, and answer either that, in some way, the universe or universes have always existed or that it, the universe, created itself, just came into being (as some theists think their god did)?
Besides, merely because something exists, does it has to have been “created”? If the answer’s yes, then the same question has to be necessarily applied to the “creator”, then to the “creator’s” “creator” and so on, to the infinite.”
For a second there I thought you were Mormon
with the idea that everything (including G-d) always existed and always will exist. My point is that the atheists are arguing against a traditional and static form of religion. They are under the assumption that the world is filled with single minded theists. That is why I like the idea that modern atheism is simply childish rebellion against parental figures, masked as serious non-belief.
To all the “first causers” out there, I pose a simple question, “What makes you think that any of us know what the first cause was?” I certainly don’t claim to know. I simply reject the supernatural as an explanation. I find this to be a perfectly reasonable position. My is answer to what the first cause was is, “I don’t know.”
I’ve heard many a believer call atheism an arrogant stance presumably because we don’t believe in a higher power. I find that those who believe that they know what they cannot possibly know, and that their answer is that the world and everything in it was created just for us to truly be an arrogant outlook.
Another of my peeves is with those who declare that faith is required for morality. You know, the “I don’t care what you believe in as long as you believe in something,” kind of logic. Complete hog wash to that. Not to be defensive, but in answer I say that I am a model, patriotic citizen and generally considered a good guy and that’s the end of that argument.
All of that said, I am perfectly content to live in a society that is dominated believers of a benign faiths that are compatible with the ideals we all hold dear. I find the blustering by atheists, such as those that Mr. Weiss wrote about to be needlessly confrontational and generally to be in bad taste. Oh sure, now and then I hear things I don’t like from theists. So what? In a free society we all hear things we don’t like from time to time. Live with it, just like the rest of us.
Anyhoo, I enjoy Christmastime. I find that most people I meet are happier and friendlier and if it is because of their faith, I say great! To those who celebrate it, Merry Christmas and/or Happy Hanukkah!
Atheists don’t know what they are talking about!
34. Because we don’t stop at the Aquinan proofs. Aquinan proofs establish that there is a God, but they tell us nothing about Him personally. However, once we have established that there is a God, then we can assert that the being that is able to flawlessly predict the future is God. Our claim to know God is based in prophecy, not in the Aquinan proofs.
As an atheist I disagree with Mr. Weiss’s definition of an atheist and find that he, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchen, displays contempt for people who do not believe as he does.
As many of the believers in God have pointed out correctly, atheism is grounded on belief, just as every other fundamental stance that a person can take on the issue of whether the universe was created or whether it sprang into existence as a “natural” process or whether it always existed (astronomers and physicists tell us that it did have an originating moment).
Mr. Weiss’s definition of atheism as grounded on a belief in the rational is merely one out of many possible definitions of atheism. I find his definition rather scientistic, rather than scientific.
Definitions of atheism based on materialism are also too limited, as there are phenomena in the universe that are non-materialistic, and it is religion’s interest in these phenomena that keep religion alive and well in the world.
I can respect agnostics, who believe that the existence of God is unknowable, and does not interfere in our lives if he exists. I disagree with them, but respect their thought process. I can not respect atheists, who deride religion as a belief in something that does not exist, yet they THEMSELVES believe-actually think they KNOW-God does not exist. We believe in something, they believe in nothing. And before an atheist jumps up here and tells me they don’t have a belief in nothing, a belief in nothing is the mirriam-webster definition of atheism.
I also find atheism a shockingly blatant example of hubris, since in the history of man, more than 99% of people have believed in God/Gods. Do you really think you know better than 99% of the people who have ever lived on this earth?
Religion, at it’s best, strives for a better man, and meaning on this earth. How is that bad? Yes, some people have killed in the name of it, but people have killed because a toaster told them too, as well. Do we deride toasters and those who use them? I think not. I think the best argument for religion is the fact that the countries who renounce it (Soviet Union, China, Nazi germany) have killed hundreds of millions of people, far far more than religion in it’s historical inquisitions and quests ever did or could.
I also don’t find the presence of so many religions to be evidence of a lack of God. They all have-at heart-a very similar message. One highest being (God) and lesser beings(lesser gods or angels). All have rules that benefit society and the species, if not always the individual. They are all variations of the Truth. I also believe in evolution-what an amazing way for God to create! Who’s to say what a ‘day” was to God? A billion years? Why not! God invented time, after all.
“I say that I am a model, patriotic citizen and generally considered a good guy and that’s the end of that argument.”
Yes, and where does human definition of “good” come from? Yep, you got it, religion! Without it, humans would do what was immediately best for them personally, which is frequently something very bad for others. Had you not been raised immersed in religious morality, by people who had been raised immersed in religious morality, who were themselves raised…you get the idea, back for eons-you would not have this basic definition of “good” which is someone who does not harm others, steal, etc. So yes, you ARE a good guy because of religion.
Even as he trumpets his own cool rationalism, Weiss cannot stop himself from sneering.
As for the NYT ad campaign, it seems inadvertantly amusing. It sounds like they’re saying that 7 million plus New Yorkers DO believe in God. That’s kind of like bragging that 12 percent of the invitees showed up at your party.
I see your point, but all of you who say that religion is supposed to make you better have never read any of the bible. Read it and you’ll see. Maybe focus on the new testament. There is the parable of the tares in Matthew that says there were believers who did wrong and even began to choke the faith out of the believers. It obviously means those in the church. There are the people who go around doing miracles and Jesus says they did evil- he will say on the judgment day depart from me I never knew you. It’s really a stupid argument. Only if you want to ignore the words of a man who founded an argument, or even the words of the so called early catholics. That would be amazing if the catholic church said religion alone didn’t make you better wouldn’t it? And yet apparently that’s what they do. Sorry to be a little brash here, but this is no reason not to believe in Christ.
At least that’s what all those who say that the Bible was redacted imply- It’s all a lie of the cahtolic church!!!!!! of course it is, what else could it be. Jesus was just made up to make conformity to the doctrine of the catholic church sure years hundreds of years later, not only that but people would say “Lord, we listened to you preach and what not.” The Lord would turn and say I knew you not evldoers. Odd for a church to do hundreds of years later, when it can just get people to believe anything apparently. Why not just assent to belief and leave all morality out? There’s also the parable of the net when Jesus pulled all kinds of fish in and the angels through out the bad ones.
Jesus never said religion would make a person better, he said knowing him would. The reason there is so much wrong is because people do not want to humble themselves before God. Agai, sorry for sounding a little ridiculous, I just can’t take the Dawkins and Hitchen of the world telling people religion must not be real, obviously the catholic church thought that religion would make a perfect society. Even if they thought that it was about a thousand years later.
39. Anonymous:
“I say that I am a model, patriotic citizen and generally considered a good guy and that’s the end of that argument.”
A common conceit among the religious set. In fact, people and societies ordered their lives well in advance of the “revealed truth” that you credit so much with human behavior. Consider the Egyptians, a society founded millennia prior to the Judeo let alone Christian faiths. Those societies established laws and norms of conduct (morals to you) that were later incorporated in to your own faith. It doesn’t take stone tablets being schlepped down a mountainside to know that a civilization would not last long if people went about murdering and stealing willy-nilly, now does it?
Same goes for personal conduct, such as simply being honest. Liars run out of people who trust them in short order, don’t they? And people, even those who lack the benefit of “revealed truth” are smart enough to realize that their private bad conduct is injurious to others and so it pays for all of us to honor the social norms even if they can get away without being caught.
Sorry, but the word “good” is not the sole property of theists, however much they would like to delude themselves. It is term that theists use in a special way when they talk among themselves, imbuing it with their own mystic definitions that others of us are under no obligation to accept.
Everybody worships something or someone, whether he realizes it or not. Everybody answers the big faith questions somehow. (And they ARE questions of faith. There is no way to know all of the “evidence”, as you must assume first that everything in existence can be comprehended by you.) That is your religion. Everyone is religious.
Just think, in Heaven there are no atheists.
Reply to momof4 @38: I have to disagree with the last paragraph of your post. The many religions out there do not all have “at heart” a similar message. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity all have distinct messages and a distinct theology (view of God). Without going into too much detail, let me just say, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam all believe that an individual can obtain enlightenment, nirvana, salvation, paradise, or whatever on their own through their actions – building up karma, 5 pillars, etc. Christianity says that no matter how good you are and/or how many good things you do, you can never make it to heaven without accepting the sacrifice of Jesus. None of the other religions have a savior who came to earth, became man, lived amongst the men, and then died so that they might have eternal life. Christianity is set apart from the other religions.
Furthermore, there cannot be different versions of the truth. It defies logic. If different “truths” controdict one another then they cannot all be true. Christianity makes claims that are exclusive to the other religions. Jesus claimed to be the way and the truth and that no one can come to the Father except through Him. He did not say that He was one of the ways or a variation of the truth. He claimed to be the Truth.
42. Look up Luke 13:1-5. It says “Do you think those people who didn’t believe were worse than anyone else? They weren’t, but unless you believe you will all likewise perish.” Harsh stuff I know. Not trying to be mean, just pointing out that probably no one in the known western world has ever read the bible.
It just said I was kipling so sorry if I post this twice.
42. MJBrutus: You need to read Luke 13:1-5 it has Jesus saying that not everyone who does not believe is a bad person, but if we do not repent we will all end up dying in our sins.
Response to MJBrutus @42: You failed to mention the fact that Eqyptians were theoists who believed in dieties who established the order for their society. They had truth they considered revealed.
As to personal conduct, check the morning paper and you will find that a growing number of people are not “smart enough to realize that their private bad conduct is injurious to others and so it pays for all of us to honor the social norms even if they can get away without being caught.” We live in an age where personal licentiousness is considered a rigt and everyone else be darned.
The word “good” might not be the sole property of theists but a universal standard of good, right and wrong, and morality belongs exclusively to theists.
48. Kipling:
Interesting responses.
WRT to the Egyptians: As you say, they did have their own religion. My point was that it predated the J-C ones, so therefore the J-C “revelations” cannot claim to have originated many of the same concepts. Furthermore, one need not have any religion to recognize the truth that to for societies to function and for individuals to coexist with each other, we must constrain our actions in some ways.
WRT today’s societal problems: Certainly many people are unable to reason for themselves that is is to their own advantage to broaden their notion of self-interest beyond their immediate desires. I don’t dispute that religion may be a positive influence in encouraging many to do so,
WRT to the word “good”: Religionists define good/evil moral/immoral in their own terms. I define it mine. Therefore it is not universal. I don’t find my definition to be “relativistic” to use a popular phrase, in that I find most of my conception of “goodness” to be applicable to everyone and in all situations. Your “universal standard” of goodness may include, for example, worship of a deity, my standard does not. I consider myself “good” even if you don’t.
If you are an atheist you are already dead, existing on borrowed time and life, enjoying the energy, fruit and freedom of those who do believe in the Living God, YHWH.
Like 2nd hander’s, you exist on the grace of The God in whom you do not believe. The good news is, as has already been announced, and this better scare every one of you atheists, that the time is near for all of you atheists to make your case for your own existence. Here are the criteria; “But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.” Since we all are born with a nature of sin I wouldn’t bet on being successful in proving your good works before The Almighty.
Now for those who do believe in YWHW and His Son Jesus, their names are already recorded in the book of life because their faith is recognized as righteousness and they do not have to prove their good works, only their faith, which is the free gift of God. Yes you atheists are in a sorry position, backed into a corner with only one way out of your certain eternity in hell; you must humble yourselves and receive the free gift of God which He has provided in His Son Jesus Christ. If only your proud minds would let you stoop so low.
the ad in question states “Good without God”
if atheists were intellectually honest they would have to admit that terms like “good” and “evil”, “right” and “wrong” have no logical meaning.
the atheist world those concepts lack any support, because without God in the equasion they don’t, without God there is no reason to be good or shun evil. So atheists are left in either a world of lies or a world of amorality where anything goes.
Mr. Michael Weiss:
The good with out god” ad is offensive and embrassing. you have some B..ls for making this statement. Here you are posting a blog on a racist, black and muslim hating sites I have seen and this site is not offensive and embrassing correct? why are writing this on your blog? most of the people who are posting on this are among least educated people in this country and they all believe in god. I am not sure what you are trying to achieve.. look here simpletons:
there is no such a thing as god….. don’t hold your breath!!
“Dawkins and Daniel Dennett contrived to rebrand atheists as something more — what’s the phrase? — “market-positive,” ”
Here’s what’s delightfully ironic about that statement: When philosophers were universally panning Dawkins, an atheist reviewer stated that his book ‘set back atheism 20 years’
oh and also, of course atheists can “do good without God” , that the basis of Kant’s Argument from Morality. If only religious people were moral, that would evidence against God.
The fact is YHWH is not the God of the philosophers. They believed in a God that was totally transcendant which God is, but they missed the point that God is mercy. If he is transcendent then he is mercy. One must look to the creation of Isreal to understand this. There is no way to figure it out with just one’s mind it must be understood in terms of God’s love for the world. Everyone says that God is transcendant so obviuosly he would do what is good, but YHWH only does good. he only resists the proud so he can do good. There is no other reason. The OT says he delights in mercy.
Israel was created by the power of God and so God used them to reveal his glory. This requires being able to be merciful, because even the OT says that Israel will go astray in Deuteronomy, before they ever were even close to going astray. God then must be totally merciful, if he does not allow any other people to come near to him because they would never follow him. Otherwise why did he not call the whole world. God then tells the people if they go astray he will punish them. The onyl conclusion is that God would obviously know he would have no problem forgiving them, how can that be if mercy is just some attribute. How mad would you be if your creation said I hate you and decided to destroy the other creations around them? Anyway, a little tortured, but the point is God does not do anything just for doing it, but based on being eternal, even according to the philosophers. If he is eternal and he says that Israel will fail then he willingly has caused their failure so he can show the world that he is good, he tortures people in other words. Israel never believed that though, they said that God was merciful because he made them to be merciful to them.
When you know that you can say God did not ever create the world for the sake of his glory but for the sake of things we can never understand. He made the world to show his love to his people and for them to be his image bearers in the world. Then we can say that God is the one who does not cause evil, but loves us enough to give us life where we can overcome evil. There’s a short thing about my theodicy.
As to whether God created the world and it can be proved, the only thing the bible says is that it will be proved when Jesus disciples love one another, based on the argument that no one loves I’d say that would have to be true. If you read the early Christian history and what the Romans say you have to say that that must be attainable. Christians can show that God is love.
As for rationalism, how can we have evolved morals if we do not understand the evils of the beasts and in fact do more than the animals if one counts hurting one’s own species? Would our minds not be able to understand all the wickedness in the world if we really have evolved brains that could understand evil. How many monkeys have been murdered by other monkeys, or how many monkey tribes have been wiped out by another. We sometimes think this is appropriate though. Often in fact. You can’t prove God, but you can show that the doctrines of the bible can be worked out in human life. Any little dog will defend you no matter how small it is just because of the fact that it is yours. Not many people will do that.
If evolution brings morals then why do guppies eat their own children and even some fish do. Evolution would have taught them they have a much better chance of survival if they did not eat their own young. That is so counter to evolving its almost impossible to understand. I do believe that the animals evolved, but not without help from God.
How do you explain the fact that everything is either asexual or one of two sexes? How on earth did the two sexes come from one when the ameobas are the must abundent creatures in the world? What’s the point? Why are there not three sexes every once in a while? Or four? Why is two so important, how are there not mutations that create a third sex that can procreate with the other two, creating a much more complex organism? How on earth did a sex evolve that survived? did the first sex survive or not? cause there’s not much chance that the first one would get the sex organs right. Is evolution that smart? How? Even Darwin said the eye is somewhat of a dissuasion from his theory. And then Darwin loved God.
I don’t believe humans evolved, but think they probably go back farther than six thousand years because the biblical type of geneologies allow for that.
50. Jeffrey::
“If you are an atheist you are already dead, existing on borrowed time and life, enjoying the energy, fruit and freedom of those who do believe”
While this silly post of yours is certainly ripe for ridicule, I’ll play it straight and simply ask what in the world you think that I have taken from you by virtue of being an atheist? Just how am I living on the “energy, fruit and freedom” of others? Oh please do enlighten me. Please let me know what I owe you and as one who pays his bills tell me just who to make the check out to.
What is the atheist definition of good, or evil, and how does an atheist determine a moral code?
If a theist defines goodness in terms of the success or failure in conforming to a religiously inspired code of conduct, and evil as that which does not conform to this yardstick, then what yardstick does an atheist use in its place? I’m of the opinion that an atheist regards goodness as a measure of what satisfies his needs, that he regards evil as that which fails to satisfy his needs, and sees morality as a sliding scale to be used to manipulate things to his own benefit.
If an atheist living in a secular society sees something he desires and kills or steals to possess it, from his POV where is the crime? He might be in violation of some civil code yes, but if he can get away with it then what’s to stop him from doing it again? A fear of getting caught and punished perhaps, certainly no inner moral constraint that I can see?
Atheism is a cop out!
I’m a great fan of the notion that “by their fruit you shall know them”; the two great atheistic societies of the last century were the Soviet empire, and Red China…..By discarding the entire spiritual side of life, atheism reduces humanity to it’s least important aspect, it’s physical and immediate existence. We become little more than bags of chemicals, easily discardable at another’s whim. To say nothing of the fact that the whole idea is just boring in the extreme.
OTOH, one of the most fascinating intellectual voyages one can make is to start reading Judeo-Christian history closely. For starters, I would suggest Paul Johnson’s History of the Jews, particularly the first several chapters, where he makes clear just how different the Judaic (and later Christian) notion of God (and His relation to man and the world) was, relative to contemporary beliefs.
Those differences have consequences, such as the huge gulf in development – arts, sciences, individual freedom, you name it – between Judeo-Christian societies and the rest of the world. Religous belief is not (as atheists seem to believe) a dressing on society – it’s the underlying structure, like the skeleton of the body. Do away with that, see how much fun it is being little more than jello
This is an interesting thread, even more so due to the mostly absent usual rancor & name-calling that seems to pervade many threads on PJM. I was raised Catholic and read the Bible cover-to-cover many times. I still have the Bible that was one of my textbooks at the Catholic college.
I think the author makes interesting comments and in general, I agree with him. As I got older, much of the Christian teachings, particularly in the Old Testament, just didn’t seem to make sense anymore. The passages calling for rape, murder, genocide, etc.
Some Christians have such hard core beliefs that they believe the Bible is the word of God. Problem is; which Bible? Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Vulgate, King James, reformed King James, etc. One may want to read the scholarly work, “Who Wrote the Bible,” by Richard Elliott Friedman as an enlightenment. One could also read the Secular Humanist Manifesto, based upon writings of ancient philosophers.
#50 Jeffrey: nothing personal, but I’m going to “pick on you.” Your beliefs are obviously strong. But then you try to apply them to others who don’t share your beliefs and find us wanting and deficient. As one example, I contend that I was not born with a nature of sin, as you describe.
#51 Shoey: I’m very much intellectually honest, and I do not agree that I live either in a world of lies or in a world of amorality. BTW, I’m a non-theist, not an atheist or agnostic. As a mature adult, I’ve come to conclude that I have no need to worship “the great sugar daddy in the sky,” or to put it more politely, some sort of superior being. But I do have a strong obligation to lead a moral life and do things that help other people.
It’s not surprising to me that works by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. have been so well received and the numbers of those who are agnostic or non-theists have increased. All that could well be a reaction to the efforts of various religious groups since the 1970s to inject their versions of religion into the everyday lives of citizens; the efforts of the so-called religious right. Just this month has seen efforts by the Catholic Church to impose its religious dogma on human reproduction onto the Senate health care reform bill. As long as these various religious groups decline to lead by example, instead trying to exercise political influence, I think the numbers of citizens moving away from organized religion will continue to grow.
26. Real Deal:
Phranc, you’ve got a few problems with your line of reasoning.
All those “gods” you named are merely mankind’s attempt at conceptualizing the Creator and His creation. Both the “good” and the “bad”. You cannot know “good” without “evil” as a contrast, early Jews struggled with this, hence the inclusion of the Devil/Lucifer/Satan. Nearly every religion has one, I say nearly because I am not versed on ALL religions that exist or have existed.
Leprechauns, Unicorns (apparently you Obama fans believe in them), and Pegasi are all basically mortal creatures, at some point a specimen would have been found. Also its highly likely that such animals were the result of fossils found by ancient people in which the bones of several animals and they attempted to explain what they found. The Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus (you’ve apparently watched too many Tim Allen movies) are all know to be “traditional” creations for children, often which were some carry over of pagan traditions after European tribes converted to Christianity.
——————————————————————
So all the other gods were just failed attempts at defining your particular god. That’s just about as arrogant as you can get. But I can see how that absurd line of thinking is needed by you. Speaking of absurd thinking I guess I’m an Obama fan because I don’t believe in your fake god? Then by that line of thinking since you do believe you must like raping little boys….. See how that works? I’m not a fan of Obama but again I can see how you would so desperately need to think I am in order to justify your self. Who’s Tim Allen and what does his movies have to do with you proving those things don’t exist? Which you didn’t do. Your god is just a traditional creation too. But you can’t admit that.
—————————————————————-
27. Kipling:
Reply to Phranc @24: An atheist who is honest enough to say that he is not sure about the existence of God is not an atheist but an agnostic. If as an agnostic he knowingly claims to be an atheist, then he is not honest.
Please cite your source for your belief in a “monotheistic hebrew god witch” who was “hand picked.”
The Christian God is by definition the first cause that no other cause proceeded, so your question starts from a flawed premise. You can claim that the big bang was the first cause but you would then have to define it as god.
As to the burden of proof, atheism challenges not only Christianity but the issue of religion around the world. It claims that institutions and belief systems which predate western civilization are false. It challenges tradition, culture, and faith. By making such a challenge, the burden of proof falls to the challenger. Unfortunately, the atheist challenger is not up to the task so they result to redicule and public preening.
—————————————————————–
I know what an agnostic is thanks for that. I’m am agnostic about the origin of the big bang not god.
As for citing proof that the Israelites picked one god out of many try reading the bible. Its in there. Heston even made a movie about it. I’m just an atheist so I might be wrong but I think it’s in the book of Exodus. Something about a mountain a bush, fire, golden calf and stone tablets. Also if you take a religious history class they go over the time line.
No the christian god is not the first cause but nice try. It’s like the ID people who say that life has to be made by god because there are repeated patterns. Intelligent design is a farce too. I’m not as intelligent as you say your fake god is but I am smart enough not to put a pleasure center in a sewer or make one hole for breathing and eating leading to choking. God must be a crappy planner for being omnipotent. Or more likely god isn’t real.
And I’d like to point out the burden of proof is on the positive claim. That is how reason and logic work.
56. AtheistPope:
“What is the atheist definition of good, or evil, and how does an atheist determine a moral code?”
I define good for myself as living in a way that is consistent with my happiness and that of others. By happiness, I am not referring to short term feel-good euphoria, but of contentment and ability to earn one’s way in this world.
But let’s step back just a bit here. I am atheist simply because I have no beliefs in the supernatural. Now suppose that I am a terrible person who has no qualms about lying, cheating and stealing. Does that constitute some form of evidence of a deity in your opinion? Do you believe in your faith because without it you have no other reason to behave yourself?
Personally, I find the way many people act due to their religion to be morally wrong. Consider, for example, the boarishness of people like wicerbasket. Blathering such nonsense to those who have no interest at the drop of a hat is no way for those of differing beliefs to get along. And that is a mild example.
I see no evidence of the supernatural from such circumstances. That doesn’t mean the belief in the supernatural may not be beneficial for some, but it certainly does not do anything to make the notion of a deity any more plausible. Since I have no such beliefs I must follow where my own mind takes me.
A few people here are trying to claim an equivalence between theism and atheism – that they’re both just a faith. That’s probably true at a day-to-day operating level, but atheism does have one unique claim: evidence.
The way I see it, atheism isn’t necessarily the claim that there is no god. Atheism CAN be the claim that there is no evidence for a god, that no religion has any greater claim to truth than any other religion and that religion itself is unnecessary. Some might want to label that position “agnosticism”, but I think it’s a much stronger claim than just “I don’t know”.
Reasoned atheism does have a stronger basis than faith alone. Atheists don’t have to sign up to a position on evolution, how the universe began etc. To an atheist, that’s external to the question of the existence of god. The atheist is able to change his beliefs on those questions when new evidence becomes available. Right now evolution looks like a good bet – but exactly HOW evolution occurs (or how it got started) can be left unanswered (for now).
All people have irrational beliefs – little bugbears that they hang on to, rather than examining them, because they’re convenient or comfortable. For atheists, that’s just a quirk, a mistake, something they can and should try to work on (learning about cognitive biases can help). For religion, it’s not optional – it’s essential to the development of faith. You HAVE to take a leap without evidence.
I actually find religion interesting. I don’t know much about islam yet, but I read and listen to a fair bit about judaism and christianity and I find them both fascinating and philosophically impressive. I think (actually, I know) that religion gets way too much blame for causing violence, and I find most critiques of religion pretty childish (I think dawkins overshoots badly, but I understand where he’s coming from). On the other hand, I think it’s ridiculous to claim that there’s no morality without religion – that’s just bogus, and easy to debunk.
I most definitely don’t have it in for religion. I think can do without it, but I don’t think we ever will. Am I an atheist? Dunno. I’m still deciding. I think that makes me an agnostic.
Have fun in hell!
Just kiddin’…doesn’t matter to me what anyone else believes (unless they are trying to blow me up).
Reply to Matthew @61: I appreciate your honesty and candor but your response is a common one for the late 20th and 21st century. For almost 20 centuries Christianity and the Judeo-Christian worldview anchored the western world and answered the higher story questions of life. That changed in the 20th century and now relativism reigns supreme. As Jean Paul Sartre said, and I paraphrase, any point without a fixed reference point is meaningless. Your post is a case in point.
First, you begin by muddling the difference between atheists and agnostics when a good dictionary would have solved your dilemma.
Second, you make several positive statements and then provide no supporting evidence. 1. Atheism has a unique claim – evidence. Yet you provide no evidence to prove or even support the atheist position. 2. Reasoned atheism has a stronger basis than faith. Here again you produce no evidence. Your only statement in support of the contention is that atheism means you do not have to reach an answer to the higher story questions of life. Most would consider such a position to be a weak basis rather than a strong one. 3. The claim that there is no morality with religion is bogus and easily debunked. Yet, once again you choose not to debunk it.
Third, you seem to claim a moral and intellectual superiority by not deciding. However, the lack of a decision is a decision in these matters.
Response to MJBrutus @49:
What exactly are the concepts that the Jews acquired from the Egyptians?
Universal standards of morality exist whether or not you or any one else recognize their existence. The concept that morality is relative did not become mainstream until the 20th century. Just a little over one hundred years ago, people who denied universal standards were deemed by the authorities to be crazy and a potential menace to society. How times have changed.
An atheist has no moral standard other than what he does in his own eyes. To claim that atheists can have a moral standard relavent to society is to be intellectually dishonest. Where does this atheistic standard come from? What gives it authority? Atheists who claim a moral standard are simply borrowing the intellectual product of theists.
Response to Phranc @59:
Your opening paragraph @24 clearly demonstrated that you did not know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
As for the “monotheistic hebrew god witch” who was “hand picked” by the Jews, I have yet to run across that in Scripture or in any of Heston’s movie. Perhaps you would be so kind as to cite chapter and verse for me.
As to the burden of proof it is quite clear that you have none and instead resort to insult. As for my proof, I offer the Scriptures and human history. Those who have eyes to see and ears to hear will understand. Those who do not will not no matter what the sign. If you are truly interested, then I would be happy to walk through the Scriptures with you.
I was raised Catholic and then I started having doubts. First the Catholicism went. Then the Christianity (i.e. the belief that Jesus Christ was the Son of God) went. Then the whole thing just fell apart. I don’t really spend much thought on why I no longer believe. I don’t feel superior to believers, but I am puzzled by them. One more thing: now that I’m no longer scared of going to hell, I really watch what I think, do, and say. If I don’t, who will? Also, people could get hurt.
“biggest puzzler of all”??
“… Copleston replied. ‘Why something rather than nothing, that is the question.’
As we have seen this last question is epistemologically absurd. If one drops the context of existence, one abandons the possibility of explanation. The question ‘Why?’ demands a causal explanation, and the concept of causality presupposes something that acts as a causal agent…
The contingency argument thus shares the fallacy common to all cosmological arguments; it ignores the context, the conceptual framework, from which the concepts of ‘explanation’ and ‘causality’ derive their meaning. These concepts have no meaning if removed from the context of existence, and the theist’s demand for a cause or explanation of the universe reduces to nonsense.”
–George H. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God
(highly recommended)
There are a number of such points and arguments atheists need to study to avoid giving theists too much credit.
MJBrutus: I have no idea what you are talking about, I actually thought I was trying to explain something to you so you would understand a little better and maybe we could get along a little better, but I guess since you saw it differently you must see different things in what I am saying. Why is that ridiculous anyway, I was trying to give an answer to the question of God in the midst of a world where you cannot understand him. Can you explain where the sexes came from I highly doubt it, yet you will go around saying obviously the scientists know there must be an answer. Maybe the thing about the dog was a little far, but name one instance where animals try to wipe out there own race for the sake of their own pleasures. You’ll find the same kind of logic reading all kinds of people.
I do not know what else might be nonsense, you just get mad at the mention of anything that might mean anything about God. You probably did not understand what I was talking about which I understand, You really need to understand the bible to understand it. How does that not relate to whether or not God exists, I guess you just don’t want to hear anything about it. I guess its morally wrong to talk about God hope that works well in figuring who God is and then coming to an informed decision.
MJBrutus: I probably have to put that theodicy means how to reconcile God with suffering so that you can understand why I was writing. Otherwise I really have no idea what you are talking about unless you are talking about my other post which I actually apologized in for being a little ridiculous.
If I were walking through a vast, empty wasteland and suddenly came upon a beautiful garden with amazing, complex creatures and plant life I would assume the presence of a gardener.
If you think about something like the human eye, it is an amazing, enormously complex organ. Even with all of our technology we cannot replicate it and we are intelligent beings. To think that the all life on earth could spontaneously come to be from nothing is hard to believe. A squashed fly stays dead, in fact it dries up and blows away.
Speaking as an atheist, I tend to regard fools like Dawkins with contempt.
This is interesting. The author states that Atheists don’t have to prove that they can be good without God. The religious have are the ones that have to prove the religion makes man good. That would be a fair postion, except religion, at least Christianity, makes no such claim.
Christianity states that no one is good, period. You have sinned, and as such you will be judged and punished. No one has not sinned. You have lied, or cheated, or stolen, or have lusted in your heart, or have disrespected your parents, you’ve sinned. Now, some people, atheists included will say “Sure, people have all done little sins, but in general they’re good”. And by man standards they’re right. But Christians believe that we will be judged by God’s standards, not mans. And like any good judge, God will punish us for our crimes. The Good News that Christians like to talk about is that Jesus will speak for us during our judgement. He has paid the price for our sins, so that we don’t have to.
So, sure Atheists can be good by our standards. Christians agree with that. But that may not be good enough.
Yes,
Atheist’s can maintain the morality established previously by
2000+ plus years of Christian-Judeo society. We all generally agree
on what is right and what is very wrong. Telling people to have fun
in hell, should be on that list “Christians”. I don’t believe “Jesus” would send someone to hell for mere disbelief. The bible
may say that, says a lot crazy stuff. Sending someone to eternal
damnation for disbelief sounds like something a person would do. God shouldn’t take things so personally, if he is not a person and/or “bigger” than the rest of us.
I wonder what the author’s perspective is on Israel.
Kipling:
“First, you begin by muddling the difference between atheists and agnostics when a good dictionary would have solved your dilemma”
I don’t think I muddled them at all. What you probably disagree with is how I decide whether I belong to one of the other category. At this moment, somebody who believes that there is no reason to believe in god might belong to either group, depending on your own particular bias. It’s currently popular (in some circles) to argue that atheism is a truth claim that can’t be proved, and is therefore a form of faith. I don’t think it’s necessary to claim any such thing – it’s sufficient to argue that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of god, and therefore no reason to believe (or to take belief seriously). I don’t believe that’s agnosticism, and many won’t let me call that atheism. So I have to choose another word – I call it reasoned atheism. If you have a better word for it, lets hear it.
“Second, you make several positive statements and then provide no supporting evidence. 1. Atheism has a unique claim – evidence. Yet you provide no evidence to prove or even support the atheist position”
According to my definition, I don’t have to provide any evidence. I just have to point out that there is no objective evidence to support religion. The evidence that does exist is basically made-up or subjectively based on feelings – and that sort of “evidence” doesn’t support any one religion over any other. Using that level of proof, the flying spaghetti monster is just as valid as the god of the old testament. When you have some objective, repeatable evidence that demonstrates the existence of god, them I’ll accept that claim. Until then, I think I’m justified in not accepting it.
“2. Reasoned atheism has a stronger basis than faith. Here again you produce no evidence”
Actually I think I was providing an argument for that. Reasoned atheism doesn’t have to accept anything that can’t be proved. I think that’s a pretty sound basis, when compared with a system which REQUIRES that you accept things that can’t be proved.
“Your only statement in support of the contention is that atheism means you do not have to reach an answer to the higher story questions of life”
Reason means not being forced to jump to false conclusions. If you genuinely don’t know how or why something came about, that’s fine. You don’t have to conclude that god did it. Not knowing means just that – you don’t know. Pretending that you do know is ridiculous.
“Most would consider such a position to be a weak basis rather than a strong one”
Some would recognize it as an acceptance of reality.
“The claim that there is no morality with religion is bogus and easily debunked”
I didn’t say that – I said that morality didn’t need religion.
Morality grows out of human interaction and memory. We have to get along to survive – we HAVE to belong to a group. What that means is that we need to sign up to codes of conduct that allow us to serve our own interests while conforming to the reasonable expectations of others. The golden rule is downright essential to peaceful and prosperous coexistence. And group that didn’t realize that would be short-lived. As we grow, we learn how to interact with others using cues handed down to us (often arbitrary), and a fair bit of intuitive game theory and experience. Different cultures come up with different rules about things like sex, but they all have the same thing in common – maintaining the successful operation of society. Successful morality evolves over time. For example, once upon a time, it was accepted (in western culture) that a woman’s place is in the home – one would challenge that assumption at one’s own peril. Nowadays we see that as backward and ridiculous. Kids learn the rules, offenders get punished. That’s how morality is formed. I see no good reason why religion should impose itself on a perfectly good system.
“Third, you seem to claim a moral and intellectual superiority by not deciding. However, the lack of a decision is a decision in these matters”
Not at all. How/why did the universe begin? I have no way of knowing that. At this point in time, nobody knows that. There’s no reason to feel compelled to take a position.
Atheists contend that their beliefs are grounded in science. Ah, science – that deceptive bitch. Watched TV lately? Quantum Mechanics live and in living color. Unknown less than a hundred years ago.
Currently the consensus amongst cosmologists is that the universe is more than 90% “dark matter” or “dark energy” – there is a bit of confusion. This stuff is tres mysterieux. Axions? WIMPS? Unicorns? All they know is that it has mass but doesn’t interact with baryonic matter. (Baryonic is rocks and stuff).
I think it is a reasonable assumption. based on our “science”, that it might be rather simple – like maybe two particles analogous to protons and electrons. Our world, and its chemistry, is determined by the behavior of these two particles. If the origin and evolution of life is assumed to be the product of random combinations of two particles then it is not a stretch to assume that dark matter might also harbor life and beings. Like ten times as much. Ghosts anyone?
The arguments of the atheists are grounded not in science but rather in scientism.
If you really want to know what an atheist looks like, here’s your sign . . .
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/rachel-maddow-catches-ric_n_388624.html
Now THAT is some good atheisim at work . . . he’s gonna have some ‘spalinin’ to doooooooo
Why do people follow these freaks and charlatans?
Toss the proselytizing christofascists and radical Muslims together in a contained area. The problem will take care of itself cheaply, efficiently, and best of all thoroughly!
Belief is for animals.
“…. then it is not a stretch to assume that dark matter might also harbor life and beings”
Yes, it is a stretch. You don’t “assume” outcomes. When we have some sort of evidence of a life form made of dark matter (imagining that dark matter even exists – I have no idea, myself) then there’s your case made. Assuming it at the outset is bonkers, and a bad straw-man argument to boot.
“Watched TV lately? Quantum Mechanics live and in living color. Unknown less than a hundred years ago”
So what? That’s just how things are. Atheists don’t ground their world view on subatomic interactions. There are plenty of things we know we don’t know right now – that’s not really a problem.
Do atheists really deserve better than the “Good without God” campaign? Why would atheists “deserve” anything? If there’s no karma, no divine judgment or no other form of moral equalization that functions according to some verifiable material mechanics, then whatever happens to atheists just happens to them. This makes me wonder how atheists would respond to the Holocaust had they been its main target. Would they say, “Hey, stuff happens,” or as I like to say, “bad things happen to good people for no good reason,” or would they be lawyering up and shaking targets down like the race pimps do? Thank God I’ll never have to see someone playing the atheist card without feeling well within my rights to laugh at him.
The idea that one can be good without God is not just a reflection of different foundational beliefs, it is an error of logic. Without God the concept of morality has no meaning, since all actions must be counted as equally valid. No God means that there is no objective reality which can support a standard by which one’s choices can be measured and valued as better or worse. Each person is there own standard, and therefore whatever that person chooses necessarily meets that person’s standard, even if only temporarily.
The humanists obsession with the concept of good is revealing. The concept of good is a necessary condition of personality function. Without such a notion one can’t justify preferring any given action over its alternatives. We can’t function without some notion that our actions are somehow objectively preferable. A true humanist could not function, because there would be no way to make choices. Responding to physical needs does not answer this question, since it raises the issue of whether responding to such needs is worth it. The humanists idea of good is a God concept, since it is only possible if God exists. The fact that the idea of good is so prevalent that even humanists can’t or won’t deny it, is evidence of God.
God always was so that must mean that infinity goes both ways.
MJBrutus and Kilpling: Egyptians were religious. So were the civilizations before them, hence “and they were raised by people who were raised in a religious environment on and on for eons”. Literally, since man became man. (I’m not sure why I popped up as anonymous on that post) And you can, actually, have various versions of the truth when no one knows exactly what the truth is. Ever play Telephone? same basic message, everyone gets a slightly different version. No one is 100% right on it, but I think most religions are “close enough” so to speak. I am christian, but not fool enough to think we’ll be the only people in heaven. The bible did not arrive from heaven via fax, after all, it was written by man.
And good point-religious people don’t think we’re the only good ones. We do think we’re all bad. Because we are.
These articles are boring and the whole discussion is pointless. There is a fundamental disconnect. One assumes the spritual proposition can be argued logically. Quite a lot of religious people, and all of the atheists attempt to do so. I just take the position that one simply can’t. There is what is logical and rational. The opposite of these things is what is illogical and irrational. But the spritual seems to be another thing entirely. The spritual speakes to us from beyond logic. It may be that all we need is to be open to it. I just encourage everyone to live fully. Honestly and earnestly seek to study the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible.
Someone needs to start an ad campaign stating the simple fact about atheism: “An atheist believes that if he can defraud you and get away with it, nothing bad happens in the end.’
The ‘Golden Rule’ can be played as a great con game up until the break point where you call in all your favours (acquiring real gains and values) in exchange for one final, pre-retirement round of promises and empty credits. Then skip off to some nice tropical country and dissipate your accumulated loot. Atheism has no way to establish that this sort of ‘win’ is morally wrong.
I heard an atheist explain that he just got out of 3yrs in the county jail for having beaten his pregnant girlfriend with blow to her abdomen, causing her to miscarry. He said it was a logical choice – 3yrs in jail beats 18 years of child support. So, atheism cannot dissuade crime: if one believes the punishment is endurable, then the ‘crime’ is an available choice of action.
People need to remember that this is the way atheism works. The scientific standards that an atheist requires as ‘proof’ of the existence of God also fail to ‘prove’ any value or goodness inherent in community or the value or purpose of any human life. To make-pretend otherwise is a logical contradiction.
Lastly, it is of note that very few atheists I have met are consistent and universal enough in their disbelief to also reject and mock Eastern religious beliefs, astrology, ‘karma,’ animism, or geomancy (‘feng shui’) with equal level of vitriol they reserve for Christianity.
65. Kipling:
Response to Phranc @59:
Your opening paragraph @24 clearly demonstrated that you did not know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic.
——————————————————————
No it doesn’t. The I don’t know part is in response to the origin of the big bang. So yes I am agnostic as to what caused the big bang. But I can see why you need it to mean something other then what it does. It’s ok though I don’t expect the intellectual fortitude from you. Like why you keep saying god witch. I didn’t say that so you create the strawman to knock it down and feel like you accomplished something. As for proof of going from poli to monotheism I can’t help you. I told you where to look. If you don’t know your bible and your religions history its because you either don’t want to know or you aren’t as well versed as you think you are. But again I can understand it. It’s hard to accept the truth when it goes against decades of carefully placed brainwashing.
85. Salamanca:
Someone needs to start an ad campaign stating the simple fact about atheism: “An atheist believes that if he can defraud you and get away with it, nothing bad happens in the end.’
——————————————————————
I’m an atheist and I don’t think that so it isn’t a fact. But you keep fooling yourself into thinking that. Maybe one day you will understand what a fact is.
what can’t be argued logically is the exsistance or need for the concepts of “right” and “wrong”. If there is no God then humans indidvidually are the highest form present, which means that we “invent” right and wrong on an on-going basis, which means that we each individually can make it whatever we want. If that were true civilization would never have been born, civilization is born in adherence to a moral code that is beyond the individual.
lack of belief in a Supreme Enitity is the death of civilization.
Oh dear, the depth of nonsense contained in the majority of these comments is astonishing.
It should be self-evident to the faithful that the subject of your faith and worship, by your own assertion, is transcendent and thus immune to mere human logic. Why then would the faithful employ, ahem, ‘logic’ in their discourse on matters of faith?
And, of course, the notion that morality and ‘the good’ cannot be defined without appeal to God or gods is self-evidently false. To wit, ‘the good’ is that which promotes one’s flourishing and a moral code is a set of principles that guides one’s actions to promote ‘the good’, i.e., one’s own flourishing. How hard was that? Further, it’s written right there in the Declaration of Independence, i.e., right to the pursuit of happiness.
This crazy notion that atheism, literally ‘without theism’, i.e., without belief in God, is itself a religion is just plain silly. Would those that promote this notion consider that *not* collecting stamps is a hobby?
Having said that, ‘atheists’ that claim that God (or gods) don’t exist are making a claim about the universe they have no standing to make. The statement “I lack belief in God” can be justified but the statement “God doesn’t exist” cannot.
On a more subtle note, even the statement “I lack belief in God” implies that one accepts the concept of God as a valid (coherent) concept. That “God” refers to a valid concept is questionable. Anyone care to take that one on?
As I read these post on atheism I have but to agree with the writer in the Bible that wrote “It is a fool that says there is no God” also I must agree with another who wrote in the Bible “that the fear of God is the begining of wisdom” I cand see it here, those that say there is noto me seem to be as dumb as a tack and have nothing of vaule to sa on the question. I the battle of spiritual warfare they are unarmed
So why, WHY are atheists trying to get people to join their religion?
That’s called evangelization.
Yet another reason Atheism is a religion, they’re doing what the religions are doing: trying to spread their faith.
It takes more faith to be an atheist, you must believe that nothing created everything
91. BK:
So why, WHY are atheists trying to get people to join their religion?
That’s called evangelization.
Yet another reason Atheism is a religion, they’re doing what the religions are doing: trying to spread their faith.
It takes more faith to be an atheist, you must believe that nothing created everything
——————————————————————
You just got every point wrong. Congratulations. You must be proud to be so ignorant.
Here is an attempt to take the wind out of the sails of the bus ads, and like the idea of an all powerful intelligent creator, I’m not buying it. The theist pond is drying up, nothing short of a luddite jihad will stop it.
Can anyone deny that the rapid decline in morality in America, began with kicking religion out of schools? Whenever a society decides to get rid of religion, something else takes it’s place, usually with really bad results.
The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he has consistently refused to debate the best of the best when it comes to Christian apologetics. Dr. James R. White recently put it very succinctly:
“Dawkins’ published works have been juvenile in their philosophical, historical, and biblical errors, yet, being a ‘scientist’ overshadows all of that, of course. Hence, he will not debate the very people who would be able to expose his numerous errors.”
Is this the kind of guy atheists want to admire as their open, objective leader; someone who refuses to debate ultimate issues with his opponents merely because he is so damned sure that nothing exists outside of his relatively puny resources and senses?
94. genomega:
Can anyone deny that the rapid decline in morality in America, began with kicking religion out of schools? Whenever a society decides to get rid of religion, something else takes it’s place, usually with really bad results.
___________________________________________________________________
I can and it’s easy since morals and religion are not one in the same. A moral man can have no religion and a religious man can be immoral. Nothing took the place of religion when I shed the shackles of generational brainwashing.
——————————————————————
95. Pilgrimsarbour:
The problem with Richard Dawkins is that he has consistently refused to debate the best of the best when it comes to Christian apologetics. Dr. James R. White recently put it very succinctly:
“Dawkins’ published works have been juvenile in their philosophical, historical, and biblical errors, yet, being a ’scientist’ overshadows all of that, of course. Hence, he will not debate the very people who would be able to expose his numerous errors.”
Is this the kind of guy atheists want to admire as their open, objective leader; someone who refuses to debate ultimate issues with his opponents merely because he is so damned sure that nothing exists outside of his relatively puny resources and senses?
__________________________________________________________________
When was Dawkins elected leader of the atheists? Unlike religions that need a hierarchy to keep the masses in check atheism has no command structure. Atheists are individuals no a solidified group.
After 66 years of living, I’ve come to the conclusion we “know” very little. That being said, my belief in God and Jesus as my savior is a decision I’ve made for myself and I find great comfort therein. I have no desire to defend that decision. My prayer is you…all of you…will come to know the comfort and peace of mind I’ve found in Jesus Christ. It’s a decision you make that your soul has to live or die with.
“Some things have to be believed to be seen.” — Ralph Hodgson
A claim that keeps getting repeated here is that atheism means there’s no right or wrong, that there’s no objective way to measure one’s actions.
Ok, then. So can someone here please explain how religion provides this yardstick, in practice? We’ve got the 10 commandments (or 6, if you take out the self-promotion), but they’re basically self-evident requirements of living in a group – you could summarize those with the golden rule and “don’t rock the boat”. And I don’t see how those give you a universal way to know if you’re doing the right thing at any give time.
And the promise of reward or punishment doesn’t really help either. So you’ve got your reason to be good, that’s fine (I have my own reasons, not related to fear of being fried). But how does that actually help you measure a particular act?
There’s a lot of talk about this supposed centrality of religion – but less explanation of how it works. How does being religious give one a way to know if their actions are good or bad?
96. Phranc:
>I can and it’s easy since morals and religion are not one in the same.
>A moral man can have no religion and a religious man can be immoral.
Morality is a system of judgment, while ethics are behavior guidelines. Small wonder fundies and the mentally feeble gravitate toward the former.
OK I do not know much about this, but here goes. Religion is not the basis for right or wrong it is the basis of life in God. Life in God is far superior to life without him because one is brought into his presence. If one believes heaven must be superior to life on earth then life with God must be superior to life without him. So people can become more human when they recognize God and serve him. There is no reason to say that Athiests cannot be good, but they cannot bring about the life of God. Here’s something for you look up times square church on the internet along with teen challenge. They will tell you of all kinds of siutations of getting people off of drugs. That is where the real life of God is not in morals. They are actually 80-85% effective in getting people off of drugs by teaching them to pray and be filled with the Holy SPirit. Read the Cross and the Switchblade by David Wilkerson. He will go to meetings and there will be people who say that there is no cure for drugs right after he says we have a cure for drugs. People just need to know the truth. His organization teen challenge is all over the world. It is effective.
As to morals without God the problem is not morals without God it is morals become harder to give a reference point because of human nature. For instance Communism says that people in general have value because there is no God, because of that they believe many people were expendable, the lifted themselves up like at the tower of Babel. That is what is so errant with man’s life. He thinks he should be allowed to benefit all society for the sake of his pleasures. That does not lead to good though, somtimes it does, but that is no way to make a world. People should not be afraid of punishment though that is not bad, they should realize that true life is in God. Not to be mean, but the true problem of this debate seems to be that churches so often forget the gospel so no one knows what it is. We are to live impeccabel lives, which I confess I am failing miserably at, and at the same time the credit goes to God because our lives our found in him. Though many people fail we cannot look to them but to the words of the Bible, and how can we find truth within ourselves unless we use faith. Faith is what brings out what is really real in our lives, if one wants to follow Bultmann in a way, not that I agree with him at all. Some of you athiests might know who he is though.
Point is people are made to live for God and fill that hole with all kinds of other things if we do not have him. That is why the cross desires faith. We must give our lives to the creator.
I would read Romans if you really want to know, Paul is a much better expositor of such things. The point of the book is that people have an inclination to elevate themselves above others. There are those who do evil to others and not only know that it is wrong, and do them themselves, but approve of those who do them. There are those who judge one another, which is the same elevation of one’s own life above our fellow human being and so forget that it is wrong to do evil. That is what Jesus is talking about when he says judge not lest ye be judged. He also says that if our eye is evil our heart will be full of darkness, but if it is not it will be full of light, he says what a person stores up in his heart will come out in his life, whether good or evil. If one really wanted to know about religion, I would recommend the ones who came up with the ideas.
Paul in Romans does not say that Judaism is evil, but in its fight with people of the cross it is elevating its own righteousness and not God’s. People can think whatever they want about that, but he is saying Pagans who repent of their sins should not be kept from it. He is saying that the Jews seemed (at that time) to be acting just like all the other people in the world. Christ asks of us humility to submit to him and realize we are no better than anyone else, and must come to God, because of this we live like others are better than ourselves, not like everything is for our own good, or that everything is for the good of society. Nto saying that athiests are bad people.
Response to Phranc @86: Please read your original post @24. You will find the words “god witch” in the second paragraph. As to the idea of choosing one god out of many gods, Scripture is clear that the one God chose Abraham out of many people to build a nation. There is no Biblical account of Abraham or Moses choosing one god out of many. If I have missed it, please enlighten me.
Why the ridicule and personal attacks? If you can support your position then please do so.
95@Pilgrimsarbour
What’s the naturalist definition of “biblical errors”? Fables aren’t rooted in reality so they morph. In fact, they’re the epitome of error itself.
89@Alfred Centauri
>Having said that, ‘atheists’ that claim that God (or gods) don’t exist are
>making a claim about the universe they have no standing to make. The
>statement “I lack belief in God” can be justified but the statement “God
>doesn’t exist” cannot.
Atheism is disbelief. You are talking about positivism, not atheism.
>On a more subtle note, even the statement “I lack belief in God” implies
>that one accepts the concept of God as a valid (coherent) concept. That
>“God” refers to a valid concept is questionable. Anyone care to take that
>one on?
Here is a classic case of dualism employed by a fundie. A mechanism which he hopes will spring the existence of his imaginary superbeing from the abyss of nothingness. FAIL
Why is religion the basis of morality? Wrong question. The question is what beliefs lead to a better, happier life for all. Real world tests here. The door is wide open. Don’t like Christianity? Lots of places where you don’t have to put up with it. I’ve been to a few. No thanks.
101. Kipling:
Response to Phranc @86: Please read your original post @24. You will find the words “god witch” in the second paragraph. As to the idea of choosing one god out of many gods, Scripture is clear that the one God chose Abraham out of many people to build a nation. There is no Biblical account of Abraham or Moses choosing one god out of many. If I have missed it, please enlighten me.
Why the ridicule and personal attacks? If you can support your position then please do so.
_____________________________________________________________
Yeah that was a typo. Should have been ‘which’ but any one with a modicum of reading comprehension would have known that by way of context. Maybe that’s the part of the brain you decided to fill with your imaginary super friend. Seriously why would they pick a witch to be a god? Witches aren’t gods. They weren’t worshiped like gods. They did worship gods like Baal, Asherah, El, and Yahweh.
I’ll this out for but you still wont get it. When Moses lead the Israelites out of Egypt they were still a polytheistic group. After talking to the burning bush ( what a stupid concept only a gullible tool would believe)Moses went back down and his people were doing what? Having a party and praying to a cow idol. Moses got all pissy and dropped the tablets then giving his followers the 10 commandments. Do you need me to list what one makes the formally polytheistic Isrealites into monotheistic or did you forget what those are like you forgot what the story was? Just in case you do its the “no other gods but me” one. This is why the bible makes the other gods the polytheistic hebrews believed in the enemies. Look up Ahab. I bet deep down inside there is a part of you that just shrivels up and gets sad that you are being schooled in your religion by some one who knows your god is bullshite, you religion is a scam and your preacher is a professional liar.
And the ridicule is because you deserve it. Only little kids have imaginary friends. But its not all your fault the brainwashing you have been under is hard to break. I don’t have any problem defending my position. I’ve done quite well. It is you who will never be able to prove your imaginary friend exists anywhere other then the minds of those suckers who still have faith in supernatural sky gods.
I really do not want to say anything else, but I feel like I have to. The fact that the Israelites were worshipping a calf just means they reverted back to it. That’s actually what biblical history says all throughout it. If they did they same thing avter Moses then how can that situation relate specifically to moses.
Actually what happened was the hebrews took one God and made him Lord of all and completely changed him from anything else that was before. Read Albright’s Yahweh and the God’s of Canaan. They were not just taking a god and worshipping him they were reworking every religious principle that was before. El was the chief god of the canaanite gods, There were other gods that were supposed to have fought with a river dragon or something, I can’t remember exactly, and they brought peace to the world. Behemoth and Leviathan from Job are like the creatures in those creation myths.
Mosaic religion is actually all about Yahweh. I may be wrong, but I think the real debate is about Abraham’s use of the gods, but Albright who is one of the best Biblical Archaeologists of the last century says there is no reason to believe that he did not believe solely in one God. That is because other laws go back to that time, such as the laws of adoptive children in the area which fit perfectly with the customs in the book of Genesis. Also the laws of inheritance having to do with Isaac are the same. Why would it not preserve also that he believed in one God? Archaeology is actually proving that no matter if one is liberal or conservative the Bible preserves a whole lot of true history. How would they have applied the laws of Abraham otherwise? They had no knowledge of such things when the Bible we retain was written.
104. Roy Lofquist:
Why is religion the basis of morality? Wrong question. The question is what beliefs lead to a better, happier life for all. Real world tests here. The door is wide open. Don’t like Christianity? Lots of places where you don’t have to put up with it. I’ve been to a few. No thanks.
——————————————————————-
Yeah I’ve been to a few christian nations that I wouldn’t want to live in. Pretty much ever South American country I’ve been to. Some Buddhists nations were just splendid. What was you point?
kochevnik wrote: “Atheism is disbelief.”
As I wrote, Atheism is literally “without theism, without belief in God”. And no, I’m not talking about positivism.
kochevnik also wrote: “Here is a classic case of dualism employed by a fundie. A mechanism which he hopes will spring the existence of his imaginary superbeing from the abyss of nothingness”
Odd, given my obvious lack of belief in gods, your “fundie” labeling seems quite silly. And no, I don’t hope to spring into existence an imaginary superbeing by simply observing that the concept of God lacks coherence.
Perhaps you should consider retaking those classes on reading comprehension? Just a thought…
the one about Abraham’s laws isn’t in the Yahweh book it’s in S. H. Horn’s article, “Recent Illumination of the Old Testament”, in Christianity Today. David Noel Freedman is the editor of the Liberal Anchor Bible dictionaries. He says that Albright and one o fhis more outspoken colleagues were right concerning the history of the patriarchs. Not their liberal counterparts. Archaelogy is bringing this to bear.
I have not studied any of this stuff in class, just so you know. You can go read up for yourselves though.
Notice how the self-proclaimed bible experts completely dodge the article topic and poster discussion. They see the comment box as an invitation to rant about their fantasies and delusions. Toss them in solitary confinement and they would probably keep right at it.
108@Alfred Centauri
>>kochevnik wrote: “Atheism is disbelief.”
>As I wrote, Atheism is literally “without theism, without belief in God”.
disbelief: noun: a rejection of belief
So you have no point. A waste of cyberspace.
>And no, I’m not talking about positivism.
Actually, that’s exactly what you are talking about. FAIL
>Odd, given my obvious lack of belief in gods, your “fundie” labeling
>seems quite silly. And no, I don’t hope to spring into existence an
>imaginary superbeing by simply observing that the concept of God lacks
>coherence.
Odd, your penchant for dualism pinpoints you as a closet fundie. You claim to disavow their conclusions, yet you employ their methodology of deceptions and tricks.
I have never been a churchgoer. I was once an atheist, but have been agnostic for years. Believers leave me in peace. While I am not a believer, I recognize that the influence of religion has been positive. The philosophical foundations of the scientific revolution beginning in the 15th century were Christian: God ordered the world in a rational manner. Find God’s order in the world.
As an agnostic, my POV is that belief AND nonbelief in a Supreme Being are beyond logic. The atheists who claim they can logically prove there isn’t a Supreme Being are smoking crack.
Campaigns for atheism remind me of what went on in the Soviet Union.
Response to Phranc @105: You may want to read the Book of Exodus over again as you seem to be confused about the chronology of events. Moses encountered the Burning Bush in Exodus ch. 3 while living with his wife’s family in Midian. God speaking through the bush told Moses to go back into Egypt and to lead the Hebrews out of that land and into Canaan. The incident with the golden calf occured in Exodus ch. 32 after Moses had already led the Hebrews out of Eqypt and while Moses spoke with the Lord on Mt. Sinai.
No one has argued that the ancient Hebrews did not sometimes worship others dieties. Your contention in your original post – corrected now for bad grammar and spelling – was that someone “handpicked” Yahweh from the other gods in existence at the time. You do not elaborate on who did the handpicking but one can speculate that you may have meant Moses, Abraham, or simply the ancient Hebrews in general. According to the account in Scripture, neither Moses, Abraham, or the Hebrews in general chose Yahweh. He chose them. Rather than someone handpicking one god and becoming monotheistic, the one true God chose a people a forbade them to worship false gods. Unfortunately the Hebrews often fell into idolatry and Yahweh punished them for it.
In the Old Testament, Yahweh decimated the false gods of the Egyptians, the Canaanites, and even the false gods sometimes worshipped by the Hebrews. The plagues upon Eqypt were each an attack on an Eqyptian diety. The drought in Elijah’s day belittled Baal, pagan god of the fertility. Countless other examples abound.
Rather than descend into the 3rd grade sandbox with you, let me just make a few observations. You are responsible for your own writing and editing. You are responsible for how and what you communicate to others. Take some responsiblity for your own error and man up. As to be schooled, I don’t think so.
All superstitionists are a joke. No further effort required.
Response to Matthew @75: You and others are quite right to point out that reason and logic cannot lead us to a complete knowledge of God. A man working in his own power and with his own reasoning and logic cannot work his way to God or even begin to comprehend God. Paul made the same argument when he referred to the things of God as a mystery that God had to reveal to man. Scripture is the revelation of God from God to mankind. Scripture reveals to us what we can know about God.
Any understanding about the Christian God begins and ends with Scripture and thus the centrality of Scripture to the Christian life. The Protestant Reformation and the Protestant Reformers – Luther, Calvin, Knox, etc. – hammered this point constantly. Within the bounds of Scripture one can reason but if human reason goes beyond the bounds of Scripture then reason is in error. Otherwise, we elevate the reasoning of limited and flawed individuals over divine revelation.
Human reasoning and human science are extremely limited. There are certain questions that reason and science cannot answer. Human philosophy changes about every other generation. It began in the 1600s with the rationalist pursuit of natural law and it ended in the 20th century with the death of philosophy in nihilism and its belief that humans can know nothing. Now we live in a world where philosophy – the search for truth and knowledge – has died and given birth to relativism, existentialism, and new age polytheism. Human reasoning as a substitute for divine revelation has failed us.
Likewise, science can only take us so far and has failed to answer the basic questions of life. It does not speak to origins – it has plenty of theories but no proof as the theories are essentially unproveable. Science cannot speak to the source of morals, the value of life, the purpose of man, or the origins of evil. Science is not meant to answer the higher story questions of life.
As to proving the existence of the Christian God, I can only offer up His revelation and His message. Those who have ears to hear will hear and those who have eyes to see will see. Those who do not will continue to stumble around in the darkness of human reasoning.
kochevnik, if we “self-proclaimed Bible experts” were into fantasies and delusions, we’d clearly be atheists. To say the least, your belief system (yes, it is one) is not subject to the scientific method. It cannot be proven in a laboratory (or in any larger environment/system). You cannot prove that God does not exist. Hence another reason why atheism is FUBAR, full of Epic Fail.
“Superstitionists”? As usual, atheists are inventing their own terminology to try to cope with their inner delusions.
‘Twas said long ago, “the fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no God’.” Still truly axiomatic.
Response to Matthew @98: I can only speak here of Christianity but to answer your question Scripture provides the yardstick by which one can determine good and bad. Scripture speaks to all areas of human life with authority, clarity, and sufficiency. It covers all aspects of human nature and relationships. The problem is often taking the time and the study needed to understand it.
You and others in the discussion have often stated that the teachings of Scripture on morality, especially the golden rule, are simply a matter of course and are accepted by most men. However, that is simply not the case. Without a fixed reference point, all subsequent points are meaningless. When the authority of divine revelation is removed then all becomes relative. Atrocities are often committed in the name of the greater good as defined by the majority or by the people in power. For examples, please see the French Revolution, nazism, communism, genocide, ethnic purity, etc.
It is also true that morality becomes relative over time with the constant reference to a fixed standard. Homosexuality is a good example. Over one hundred years ago, or even 40 years ago, socity considered homosexuality as a deviant behavior and as a sin. Now, not so much. Why the change? Because the standard of behavior has been removed and all has become relative.
Hell is the ultimate punishment for those who reject the Lordship of Christ. However, it is not the primary reason people are told to follow God. People are to follow God because He is worthy of worship and devotion. They are to follow God because He created man and man is not complete without God. The best deterent to sin is not hell but the fact that sin has its consequences. The worse way God can punish man is to let him live in his sin and reap the natural consequences of it. (See Romans 1)
89. Alfred Centauri:
“It should be self-evident to the faithful that the subject of your faith and worship, by your own assertion, is transcendent and thus immune to mere human logic. Why then would the faithful employ, ahem, ‘logic’ in their discourse on matters of faith?”
Oh dear, the depth of nonsense and ignorance contained in this comment is astonishing.
Do you deny the singular greatness of the works of Christian thinkers like St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, et al., who based their authority to seek a greater understanding of God in part on human reason and sustained it? Are you attempting to lump all religious faith into the Muslim concept of transcendentalism? You apparently missed Pope Benedict’s response to such efforts and the scandal it caused. Yet even atheists have no excuse for mistaking their heads with suppositories.
For a long time I’ve wondered and thought and read and listened and observed and prayerfully inquired about why God chose faith as his vehicle for human agency, why he set the standard and measures of faith in morality and law, and why his revelations are so sparse and so invariably centered on a singular narrative. These inquiries rely in part on human reason but also the belief that the answers I seek can be found by human reason and enjoy its authority.
Authority. That’s really what you atheist types are keen to undermine, isn’t it – the authority of human reason with regard to certain of its past, present and future products? After all, unless all religious beliefs and the human endeavors they motivate are rounded up and corralled inside a barrier of false claims concerning the nature of God, the physical universe and human reason, then atheists are no better than the flip side of a coin they say has no value, not so?
In truth, atheism has nothing to do with God or religion. Instead, it’s a project to understand the universe in purely autistic terms according to its purely material inputs. What I find so amusing and disturbing, i.e. grotesque, about this project is its slavish devotion to physical determinism even though it’s clear that this inevitably leads to the suppression of human freedom and dignity, two requisites of which are free will and individual accountability. Therefore, I’ll oppose the atheist project to my death, and proudly do so. Why not join me on the side of the right, Alfred Centauri?
119@Lavaux
You are saying that consistency and reason “inevitably leads to the suppression of human freedom and dignity.”
You obviously can say anything, given you discipline doesn’t require proof or consistency. You have had hundreds of millennia to prove your assertions. Now man is crawling out of the dark ages using his wit and brains, instead of yielding his empowerment to child-molesting closet homosexuals dawning crosses. The only “human endeavors” religion motivates are serfdom and fascism. You’re an intellectual taffy always ready for the next power grab. The third leg of the great whore intertwined with monarchy and the military.
Fortunately more and more people are tired of your feudalism.
116. John Lodge:
>kochevnik, if we “self-proclaimed Bible experts” were into fantasies and
>delusions, we’d clearly be atheists.
No, you would be yourselves.
>To say the least, your belief system (yes, it is one) is not subject to
>the scientific method.
Belief is not the preview of science or disbelief. Look up the definition of nonbeliever. Only an alcoholic could predicate that an empty bottle means there must be still nearby with which to fill it. What is your poison? You’re not even talking about religion, I bet. Can’t be religion: the rush is too shallow. How do you get your fix? Massive smack addict grade FAIL
>It cannot be proven in a laboratory (or in any larger environment/system).
>You cannot prove that God does not exist. Hence another reason why atheism
>is FUBAR, full of Epic Fail.
You can’t prove a negative. Go to the back of the class.
@kochevnik
Closet fundie? Deceptions and tricks? ‘fail’ in all caps or even (gasp) *bold* print?!?
Is it even possible to rebut such a devastating intellectual fusillade?
@Lavaux:
“…who based their authority to seek a greater understanding of God *in part* on human reason and sustained it?”
Well, there’s the problem, isn’t it? The *in part*. Reason + revelation = nonsense.
…
“That’s really what you atheist types are keen to undermine, isn’t it – the authority of human reason with regard to certain of its past, present and future products?”
On the contrary, I hold that reason is one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values, and one’s only guide to action.
…
“Instead, [atheism is] a project to understand the universe”
Atheism isn’t a project at all. What *is* the project to understand the universe without appeal to non-explainable in principle beings and/or events? And isn’t it *that* you are claiming to oppose until your death?
121. kochevnick: “You are saying that consistency and reason ‘inevitably leads to the suppression of human freedom and dignity.’”
Actually, I wrote: “What I find so amusing and disturbing, i.e. grotesque, about this project is its slavish devotion to physical determinism even though it’s clear that this inevitably leads to the suppression of human freedom and dignity, two requisites of which are free will and individual accountability.”
Do you have a response to what I wrote, or shall we change the terms of my argument to yours so that I make your argument for you? I’m guessing it would go something like this: “Consistency and reason are synonymous with atheism for reasons you religious people can’t comprehend because you’re all fascist serfs who somehow stopped evolving in the middle ages.”
Am I close? BTW, you’re doing your cause no good by demonstrating your inability to reason consistently if at all.
124@Lavuax
To most mere mortals “physical determinism” is physics and math. This implies that reason “inevitably leads to the suppression of human freedom and dignity, two requisites of which are free will and individual accountability.”
Please prove otherwise.
113. Kipling:
Response to Phranc @105: You may want to read the Book of Exodus over again as you seem to be confused about the chronology of events. Moses encountered the Burning Bush in Exodus ch. 3 while living with his wife’s family in Midian. God speaking through the bush told Moses to go back into Egypt and to lead the Hebrews out of that land and into Canaan. The incident with the golden calf occured in Exodus ch. 32 after Moses had already led the Hebrews out of Eqypt and while Moses spoke with the Lord on Mt. Sinai.
——————————————————————
Did I say the bush came after the cow? I believe I even said it was Exodus. But if you feel a need to correct me when I wasn’t wrong I understand. It’s what grown people who still have imaginary friends have to do when sane people tell them their imaginary friend isn’t real. You will do what ever it takes to hold on to your supernatural bullshite god in the face or truth.
By the way Egypt is spelled with a g not a q.
And the ancient hebrews didn’t sometimes worship other gods they did all the time. That’s how polytheism works. Until Exodus they were polytheistic. I told you what point they became monotheistic but you either ignored it or didn’t understand. Again it’s ok you need to do things like that. And god didn’t destroy other gods. Because some one said earlier that the other gods were just failed attempts of giving character to the christian god. So god would have been killing him self. No, what happened is the bible excuses mass killings in the name of god. Now I understand you don’t want to continue and I don’t really blame you. So you go ahead and whimper away in the light of the fact your god is a farce and you can’t defend it’s existence in any way. I wouldn’t want you to break free of the brainwashing you are so thoroughly beholden to. Enjoy your willful ignorance as you cling to your imaginary friend.
116. John Lodge:
kochevnik, if we “self-proclaimed Bible experts” were into fantasies and delusions, we’d clearly be atheists. To say the least, your belief system (yes, it is one) is not subject to the scientific method. It cannot be proven in a laboratory (or in any larger environment/system). You cannot prove that God does not exist. Hence another reason why atheism is FUBAR, full of Epic Fail.
——————————————————————-
The only epic fail here is that line of thinking. But that’s what christians have to do to desperately grasp onto their false god. The lack of belief is not a belief system it is the absence of one. But you have to be dishonest about that to make you self feel good. You are right that a negative can not be proven but until the positive is proven the negative is the base. So prove your god is real. You can’t because it isn’t. But I’m sure you will think up some other intellectually void reason to make your self better for believing in imaginary friends.
John Lodge said: “You cannot prove that God does not exist.”
But that’s trivial isn’t it? And it doesn’t take much thought to see that it is thus meaningless.
Are there not an infinity of conjectures that fundamentally contradict each other and yet cannot, by their nature, be proven false?
If, by the trivial observation that these conjectures cannot be proven false, we conclude that they are then true, don’t we have a contradiction?
Further, isn’t it obvious that you *really* don’t want to admit such an ‘argument’ in the first place? Do you not see that it cuts both ways, i.e., that *you* cannot *prove* that other’s gods don’t exist?
It seems to me that where this is inexorably leading is your final admission that you just take your god’s word for it, i.e., it is a matter of faith, not reason.
123. Alfred Centauri: “Well, there’s the problem, isn’t it? The *in part*. Reason + revelation = nonsense.”
You’d best check the logic of your formula. Reason dictates that even a broken clock will be right twice a day, not so? What you atheists should learn before you become a laughing stock is that the faithful can reason too.
“On the contrary, I hold that reason is one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values, and one’s only guide to action.”
If I’m not mistaken, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all posited God. I paid good money to study them, given as how a firm grounding in the thought of one’s civilization comprises the foundation of a worthwhile education. Are you saying that I was robbed, or that the American university is hopelessly theocratic?
“Atheism isn’t a project at all. What *is* the project to understand the universe without appeal to non-explainable in principle beings and/or events? And isn’t it *that* you are claiming to oppose until your death?”
Atheism’s not a project? Really? Then riddle me this, Alfred Centauri: Why is the Alpha and Omega of atheism the physical universe rather than the transcendental goods? Or put differently, why does the “Piss Cross” fail to inspire like the Sistine Chapel?
Kipling wrote: “When the authority of divine revelation is removed then all becomes relative.”
But that’s demonstrably false – there *is* an absolute objective standard of ‘the good’ *without* appeal to divine revelation – one’s own life*.
What’s more, it is precisely *when* the ‘authority’ of divine revelation is *added* that relativism (and war) ensues.
Is there an *objective* authority on divine revelation? If so, why are there competing ‘divine’ revelations? Evidently, what constitutes authoritative divine revelation is culture relative.
…
“Atrocities are often committed in the name of the greater *god* as defined by the majority or by the people in power”. There, fixed it for you.
*”The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life, or: that which is required for man’s survival qua man.
Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.”
Lavaux wrote: “What you atheists should learn before you become a laughing stock is that the faithful can reason too.”
What’s laughable is your evident presumption that I or any other atheist holds that the faithful can’t reason. I’m *certain* that the faithful can reason and in fact *must* reason in order to survive because _reason is man’s basic means of survival_. That’s an inescapable fact of reality.
But it is precisely that fact of reality that implies the faithful can’t consistently practice their faith.
…
“Are you saying that I was robbed…”
Since all of that seems like a plea for some type of validation that I can’t give, I’ll just leave it alone.
…
“Or put differently, why does the “Piss Cross” fail to inspire like the Sistine Chapel?”
You diminish only yourself when you presume too much, over generalize and let your emotions show through.
Further, you are arguing from false premises about atheism and atheists and this particular atheist (I actually prefer ignostic – look it up…)
You’ve made it abundantly clear that you consider yourself a person of learning but you demonstrate very little understanding of Objectivism, the philosophy I follow and advocate for.
So, before making a – how’d you say it? – laughing stock of yourself, find out what Objectivism *is* before offering up irrelevant “Piss Cross[Christ?]” questions.
Inspiration? I’ll take these words any day:
“In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst.
In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title.
Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads.
Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all.
Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach.
Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.”
Response to Phranc @126: Please keep up with what you said in previous posts, it becomes rather tiresome to remind you each time and thus uphold, at least partially, your end of the dialogue. Is your intention to twist your own words for meaning because you have no standard of honest debate? Or, are you simply attempting to flood the dialogue with as much non-sense, mis-direction, and hatred as possible so that honest posters will abandon the dialogue?
The problem with your chronology is that you have the Burning Bush and the Golden Calf occuring at the same time and in the same place. Exodus is quite clear that the two did not occur at the same time or in the same place.
You have also neglected to mention the Book of Genesis which comes before Exodus. The Hebrews Moses led out of Egypt (thanks for the correction) traced their ancestory and theology back to Abraham who the Jews consider the father of their faith. Abraham predates Moses. From the account in Genesis we know that God first called Abraham to reject polytheism and worship the only true God. Moses simply participated in the codification of monotheism.
Besides, as I have explained in several posts, my point of contention is not that the Jews became monotheists but with your statement that they “handpicked” a diety. As I said before, the Scripture makes it clear that the diety chose them.
What someone else said about the other gods in Egypt and Canaan has little bearing upon what I have said. Nor is their contention about the other gods supported by the Biblical account.
Since your last paragraph descend into gibberish and 3rd grade insults, I’ll choose to ignore it rather than try to make a cohesive argument out of the ramblings of a very bitter person. I do however question why you get so worked up over something you consider to be non-existence. My guess is that you are not a true atheist at all. Instead you are someone who knows there is a God and that revelation scares you because, if there is a God, then He has authority and a claim upon your life. You refuse to acknowledge that authority so you claim there is no god as an excuse for your refusal. However, we both know the truth and that makes you mad, angry, and bitter.
I’ll be here to the end. No whimpering or skulking away here. I am confident on what I believe.
Response to Alfred Centauri @130: The problem with your argument is that you are taking something that is entirely relative – “one’s own life” – and trying to make that an objective standard. How can something that is so subjective and unique to the individual become a universal standard?
If we descend to the survial of the fittest and define what is good by what it means to survive, then we are back in Nazi Germany and the bloodbath of the 20th century. Mankind has never proven himself able to govern himself effectively nor to determine the common good.
132. Kipling:
Response to Phranc @126: Please keep up with what you said in previous posts, it becomes rather tiresome to remind you each time and thus uphold, at least partially, your end of the dialogue. Is your intention to twist your own words for meaning because you have no standard of honest debate? Or, are you simply attempting to flood the dialogue with as much non-sense, mis-direction, and hatred as possible so that honest posters will abandon the dialogue?
The problem with your chronology is that you have the Burning Bush and the Golden Calf occuring at the same time and in the same place. Exodus is quite clear that the two did not occur at the same time or in the same place.
—————————————————————-
Quote where I said it all happened at the same time and in the same place? I said it happened in the same story in the same book.
Any way your god is a farce your religion a scam and you r preacher a professional liar. Grow up and stop acting like a little kid with imaginary friends. I know its hard. You have been brainwashed for so long you simply don’t know how to think for your self. If you are insulted by the truth thats just a symptom of the weak mind who would rather be willfully ignorant then understand the truth. I get worked by stupid christians because they force their crap religion on the rest of us. I’m sure you won’t be smart or honest enough admit or understand that. There is no god. So no god has authority on my life. It must be nice to just be able shirk off personal responsibility to some fake god. But if thats what you need to do so you can avoid reality its ok. Again you are brainwashed and don’t really know any better. Just remember you are just as pathetic for believing in lie of god as those who believe in the lie of man made global warming. When you are honest enough to accept that you will begin to get a clue. But you don’t want to. You are happy in your safe little world of imaginary friends and super powers. It’s always sad to see other wise intelligent people fall victim to the scams of religion.
Kipling wrote: “…taking something that is entirely relative – “one’s own life” – and trying to make that an *objective* standard. How can something that is so subjective and unique to the individual become a *universal* standard?”
I’m not sure if the switch was intentional or not but do note that objective standard and universal standard are not equivalent.
One’s own life *is* an objective standard of value. Life is what makes values and valuing possible. With one’s life as the standard of value, one can, in principle and in practice, objectively determine the good – that which promotes one’s own life (one’s own happiness, one’s own flourishing) and the evil – that which opposes it.
This objective standard is universalizable in the sense that each of us has an objective standard of value – our own lives – and it necessarily follows that each of us must be free to act on our own behalf to further our own lives.
Let that sink in for a minute before beginning your response.
The result that each of us must be *free* (free from force, free from coercion) to act on our own behalf to further our own lives certainly doesn’t give rise to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia or American slavery or Bernie Madoffs or even survival of the fittest (in that furthering one’s own life often involves voluntarily furthering the lives of others).
Of course, given the nature of this forum, I’ve only outlined the basic idea. If you’re at all interested in a scholarly rigorous treatment, I suggest “Viable Values: A study of life as the root and reward of morality” by Tara Smith.
I realize people think the Bible has many htings about genocide and it does, but that does not mean it is a homogeneous book. My opinion you probably would not understand so I won’t say it. The point is you cannot use the parts of it that are for such things to say that God wants those things in the earth so obviously it must be wrong. You can say that God would not do that, but apparently none of the prophets took the Mosaic tradition as meaning anything like that so I don’t know what you might think about that.
Amos 9:7 clearly says that God is Lord over all the earth and protects everyone. He brought the Philistines up from kapphtor along with the cushites just as he brought the Israelites out of Egypt. This would have been in the seventh century. Jonah obviously preached to the ninevites even though they were Israel’s enemy. Elisha did not have the arameans desetroyed when they were captured by the cupernatural power of God, but let them see that power and let them go.
Ezekiel 32 says that everyone who spread terror in the earth will go down to the pit in shame. It also says that ezekiel should weep and pray for them. It often says weep and pray over moab and other areas.
Lamentations says that God does not approve of anyone oppressing anyone. Nor does he willingly afflict anyone. It says to deny a man his rights before the Most High is not hidden from him.
The Psalms say this. Psalm 76 specifically says that God protects the poor in all the world. Obviously there are the prophecies of bringing peace to all people.
Then one looks at the history of David’s reign. People like to say that David just wanted to conquer and was a most horrible person. That’s funny, he apparently conquered the two smallest states in the world which probably brought an economic bounty of crap. If one looks at Moab and Edom one will see that they together are about a quarter of the size of Israel together. The other wars were fought against an old enemy called the ammonites who had fought Israel just a few years before. They then blatantly insulted David’s ambassadors and brought troops against Israel, knowing that he would attack since they probably were going to. I do not know how else one would read it. Earlier, according to one historian I read, David had peacefully brought in the Philistines, conquering one city. He earlier conquered Jebus which became Jerusalem, and did not put anyone to death, but apparently they accepted YHWH. That can be seen because of Araunah the Jebusite at the time of the plague when he gave david his field for the building of the temple. The Jebusites were canaanites and were supposed to be killed. Apparently Araunah was not even a slave. There was also a Biblical injunction to destroy Tyre and Sidon, and I guess all of Phoenicia, coming from Joshua. Yet David has an alliance with Tyre. Hiram king of Tyre makes the temple for Solomon. Why would the people who put the final form of the Bible together put that in there, if it was a big deal why was it not left out of other editions, since we know that there were fuller editions of the Bible circulating until finally they settled on the Masoretic text?
The conquering of Damascus comes because of self defense in the war against Ammon. The Arameans had fought to ruin Israel along with Ammon. If David wanted to conquer everyone why did he leave the bigger of the countries which was Ammon and even want peace with it. In fact, the Bible says that David was extremely mad that they did not accept his offer of peace meaning he expected them to attack. Why wouldn’t he, they already had done that in the time of Saul. It’s pretty stupid anything else.
finally those who wrote the whole thing after the exile, apparently saw fit to say that God does not think worship of himself has anything to do with violence. Israel had just become a great country after the time of David, but God tells him he cannot build the temple because he has shed much blood. Solomon builds the temple and is a man of peace. This is what proclaims God’s glory in the world because at the end of I Chronicles David says the temple must be glorious so all the people’s of the world will see it. God gave Solomon wisdom because of his glory and this is what Sheba sees as the thing that is most wonderful. God’s glory is in the peace that God gave Israel through God’s wisdom.
People say that Solomon was an oppressor, so just in case I’ll answer that. What the Bible says makes mroe sense than anything else. It does included the fact of the forced labor of the Israelites when the Northern tribes revolt, but still this still was not permanent. ISrael had all kinds of money during this time, even the farmers fields were overflowing with produce because of the iron tools they were then using. silver was as common as stones in Jerusalem. So I guess Solomon did oppress a little, but it was temporary and still only four months out of the year. There were other people among the people who the Israelites had not killed in the genocides that were forced laborers all the time.
The people of Israel did not care much about keeping their empire because they obviously did not fight to keep it, but instead they split the country into two. Those in Judah did not go try to bring the country back together, but instead, after going out to war went back home because a prophet said it was from the Lord.
It’s not all about violence.
Also, there was an inscription found that said the Moabites sacrifice seven or eight thousand people of an Israelite town to chemosh their God somewhere in the eight century. So there was some crazy crap going on back then. I don’t remember what town it was, but I think it was the hwole thing.
Response to Phranc @134: I quote from your post at 105: “After talking to the burning bush ( what a stupid concept only a gullible tool would believe)Moses went back down and his people were doing what? Having a party and praying to a cow idol.” If by after you mean several months to years later, then you might have a point. However, the tense used seem to indicate immediate action or at least in a short timeframe.
As for the insults, they did not bother me the first time you used them.
It is clear that our discussion has reached an impasse. When you have something fresh to contribute, please look me up.
As a strong believer in atheism, my faith in atheism has begun to waver a little bit in the last few years. That doesn’t mean that i will believe in god! Never! I will spend my whole life disproving it exists. After that we will work on disproving pink unicorns too.
Response to Alfred Centauri @135: Thanks for the reading suggestion.
How can I objectively view something I am so deeply involved in as my own life?
How can lessons drawn objectively from individual experience then be universalized?
If history has proven anything, it is that man is a fallen and depraved creation. Evil exists and it exists (although not exclusively) in the heart of mankind. As long as that is true then man can rationalize all sorts of evil as contributing to the common good or at least to what promotes my own life.
What if I, based upon my own understanding of my life, decide that it will promote my own life to kill some of my fellow men?
134@Phranc
Kipling is locked in a self-referential celestial dictatorship. The prospect of reaching beyond the event horizon of his miniverse sends chills down his spine. It would show everything in his world as relative instead of absolute. No more absolute evil. “Evil” being his silly cardboard construct to begin with, haphazardly applied. No more justification for his empire’s fascism.
Interesting clip if you have five minutes:
http://media.slangtv.com/_Christopher-Hitchens-Interview-Hitchens-on-religion/video/459480/72042.html
Response to kochevnik @141: Where to begin in deconstructing your non-sense?
First, true Christianity is not self-referential. The reference point for Christianity is beyond the individual, beyond mankind, and even beyond creation. Atheism is actually self-referential because they acknowldge no authority beyond themselves and their own reasoning.
Second, “miniverse”? Is it not atheists who claim that this life is all their is so eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. Sounds like you have the miniverse to me.
Third, and in this you are correct, without the acknowledgement of the divine then all things do become relative.
Fourth, “evil …[as] silly cardboard construct … haphazardly applied.” How else would you define genocide, rape, slavery, murder, etc but as evil? I would also like to point out that these evils predate me so how can they be my own “silly cardboard construct.”
Hitchens and other atheists often depict God and religion as evil. Is it only a silly cardboard construct of their own imagination as well?
You atheists are just as silly as the theists. Here’s what you believe:
In the beginning there was no beginning. There was nothing. And nothing happened because nothing was. Then *POOF* for no reason at all, nothing became something, and then EXPLODED with more force and energy than anyone in all of this “something” has never been able to observe or conceive of since then. And it became a universe based on six physical constants, which, by incredible luck, were precisely tuned to ensure stability.
Quite good so far for nothing.
Then, this ‘new something’ condensed into molecules which had no minds of their own but which could self assemble into complex living organisms, ‘little self replicating protein clusters’. Conscious life coming out of unconscious non-life! Order from disorder in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.
And then these mindless protein clusters continued to join up and eventually assembled themselves into dinosaurs.
And eventually people.
Whose identities are just the quirky byproduct of chemical reactions in their brains.
And THAT, is as much farfetched nuttery as any theist could ever weave.
We’s all gots religion.
StevenB;
It’s not surprising to me that works by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. have been so well received and the numbers of those who are agnostic or non-theists have increased
The numbers of unaffiliated have increased, not the hard numbers of atheists/agnostics. These are people who have free form spiritual beliefs or some sort of belief in a metaphysical reality but do not affiliate with any church. The percent of american atheists is at or less than 5% in every poll I’ve seen.
Statistically, the less religious and irreligious have fewer or no children. For all the atheist tooting of Darwin’s horn, atheism is an evolutionary dead end. It will go the way of the Shakers. See http://www.physorg.com/news5877.html
as a muslim I think we are the most peace loving people out there!!! and anyone who disagrees with us we will then treat them as infidels!!! it says so in the Koran! no deying it!!!
Jews however beleive that they are the chosen people and their mesiah came I think it was 5 years ago. remmebr Rabbi Schneerson!!! things are still f….up!!!
Vatican encourages child molestation in order to save celibacy!!!!
what a great god we have!!!!!
Look here simpletons: there is no god… and noone is showing up any time soon….
143. Toady:
In the beginning there was no beginning. There was nothing. And nothing happened because nothing was. Then *POOF* for no reason at all, nothing became something,
As A christer you have the obvious prediliction to believe in nothing. That’s rather odd for someone residing ina a celestial dictatorship, no? You have all the multiverses and you are the right hand of your invisible, omnipotent superfriend, and yet you are obsessed with nothing. Small wonder, because like your gawd there is no nothing. As a christer you confuse EVERYTHING with nothing. You see the perfect balance of the infinite electromagnetic waves as zero. You see the tiny islands of standing waves called matter and perceive that as everything!
Since christers confuse everything with nothing, let me take the liberty of correcting your terms: In the beginning there was everything. I take it that your gawd took everything and made nothing out of it. That describes religion much more accurately.
God breathed life into us. Of dust we came and to dust we will return unless we chose the Breath of Life that God has given us, a gift that we may choose to return to dust.
It’s the secret life of dust that we have been privileged to witness.
147@Lynn
>God breathed life into us.
Funny, I thought that was my parents. Thanks for setting me straight. Does your omnipotent superbeing have any spare planets I can rule over and terrorize? What incantations or sacrifices does he demand in return for giving me an edge? Sparring with dumb red-staters isn’t giving me a fix.
Kipling @140, the questions you ask are good as are Objectivism’s answers to them but the space here is short so I will again refer you to the first book where, in the last chapter “Principle Egoism: The Only Way to Live”, the author introduces Objectivist ethics.
Since you asked such good questions, I will also recommend a 2nd book from the same author: “Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist” (review here: http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=8123).
In the 2nd book, she presents and argues the case that a rational morality, reasoned from the facts of reality, with our own lives as the standard of value, leads inexorably to a principled code of behavior with 7 primary virtues. The fact is, it is not in our rational self-interest to *initiate* force against others.
The Wikipedia article on Objectivism isn’t too bad and doesn’t cost anything so consider perusing it for an introduction to Objectivist ethics.
Toady wrote: “You atheists are just as silly as the theists. Here’s what you believe: In the beginning there was no beginning. There was nothing.”
No, that’s not what I believe and I’m an atheist so evidently, you’re mistaken (or is it “silly”?).
Existence exists.
@149
fix typo:
…in the last chapter “Principled Egoism: The Only Way to Live”, the author introduces Objectivist ethics.
fix link:
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=8123
149@Alfred Centauri
Ayn Rand was a crazy whore. She would have been fun to know, though.
Why try to ruin Christmas for so many? American is a Christian country and freedom of speech or not – it’s an outrage to blatantly try to ruin the holiday spirit for millions of people. These terrible people are proselytizing – isn’t that what they’re against? Look at this! http://tictacdo.com/ttd/Become-an-Atheist – step by step instructions on how to reject Jesus. What a crying shame… targeting our youth directly.
The people behind this and those who support it will certainly rot in hell. There time will come too.