Frequent commenter DS recently posted an interesting take on a common disagreement:
Calling atheism a "religion" is like calling not collecting stamps a "hobby."
Whether atheism is itself a religion is certainly a debatable point. But atheists and agnostics shouldn’t be too surprised that we would be confused about the issue. After all, this demographic group, which comprises 8% of the U.S. adult population, certainly acts in peculiar ways for religious skeptics. According to surveys conducted by The Barna Group:
If an atheist reads the bible, goes to church, believes in the existence of the soul, heaven, hell, life after death, teaching creationism, absolute morals, and prayer, are they considered a “heretic” by their fellow non-believers?
1
I can't speak for all atheists, but there's no religious belief involved in atheism in the conventional sense. So the term 'heretic' probably doesn't apply. If an atheist is some kind of closet theist then maybe the term 'hypocrite' would come in play. But generally speaking going or not going to church, reading or not reading the bible of Quron, etc, among atheists isn't considered a very big deal.
I've gone to church a few times in the past mostly at the request of friends or because someone I cared about asked me to for whatever reason. Once on Christmas Eve '99 with a good friend of mine in Austin who wanted to recieve communion (I think that's the term, not sure) and I was interested in what the ceremony would be like. It was kinda cool and she saved me the cracker she was given so I could see what it was like.
I've known some atheist who go to church out of boredom. For example I have a friend who teaches High School in a little bitty Texas town in the valley. He says there's nothing to do there and they let him play in the band at church, he's into music, so he goes.
Since athiest don't believe in supernatural beigns or the benefits super natural beings bestow upon their worshippers, (This is pretty much the rough definition of what an atheist is) there are no beliefs to 'betray' in that sense in which heretic is likely meant in your article and no risk incurred for doing so; at least not from the supernatural beings themselves. I suppose in some really arch conservative area like Iran it might turn out badly for the atheist if he was 'outed' to the devout followers of the faith.
2
DS How do you explain that 1 out of 2 atheists believe that heaven and hell exist? Aren't these supernatural areas that contain humans as supernatural beings? Seems to me that you can't call Christians hypocrites if half believe in a heaven and hell. Also if they believe in heaven and hell then in my opinion it takes more faith not to believe the rest of the Christian belief system.
posted on 11.11.2004 8:41 AM3
If an atheist is some kind of closet theist then maybe the term 'hypocrite' would come in play.
The term 'dim-witted' comes to mind, also.
posted on 11.11.2004 8:41 AM4
I think you're correct, Joe, in saying that atheism is a religion is a debatable question. Perhaps you've already covered this ground sufficiently, but I thought I'd offer a couple of thoughts off the top of my head.
Atheists, like everyone else, have their fundamental notions of metaphysics and epistemology. Moreover, they are confronted with many of the same questions that theists are (viz., What is truth?, What is valuable?, What are human beings?, How they should live?, and so on), and come to conclusions on those questions based on their more fundamental commitments. In that sense, I think, atheism is just as "religious" as theism, and can't be given any a priori advantage in, for example, debates over public policy. So, for example, invoking "separation of church and state" can only achieve a pretended neutrality at this level of discussion.
Is atheism a religion as is Christianity? In the bare sense, atheism doesn't have any practices and rituals, but neither does theism in the bare sense. Buddhism - or at least some varieties of it - is essentially atheistic and does have practices and rituals associated with it. So atheists can be religious from this perspective.
posted on 11.11.2004 9:22 AM5
Very confusing stuff.
Note first that the fact that some "atheists" believe in God does not mean atheism is a religion. (Nor does it mean that those people are "heretics" - we leave that kind of finger-pointing to you theists.) It simply means some people who think they're atheists are wrong. "Atheism" is very simply nothing more than . . . well, "atheism" - "no belief in a god".
But it's not surprising that some people who call themselves "atheist" would have beliefs incompatible with that label. Huge swaths of the population hold beliefs that are completely at odds with definitive or at least widely-accepted tenets of their nominal religious affiliation (or lack thereof). See more Barna data below. (In analyzing the below statistics, keep in mind that about 79% of the population self-identifies as "Christian"; beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity but are held by more than 21% of the population are thus beliefs held by at least some Christians.)
- 34% say there are some sins that God cannot forgive. (1997)
- More than half of all adults (54%) believe that if a person is generally good, or does enough good things for others during their life, they will earn a place in Heaven. (2004).
- 63% of women who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ believe that they will “go to Heaven because they confessed their sins and accepted Jesus as their savior” and only 56% of men believe the same. (2004) (Meaning some sizeable proportion of "born-again" Christians hold views other than the definitive belief for their sect.)
Christians say the darndest things:
- 12% of adults believe that the name of Noah’s wife was Joan of Arc.
And the weird stuff:
- More than two out of every five adults (44%) believe that Jesus Christ lived on earth He committed sins.(2004) Conversely, 41% of Americans believe that Jesus lived a sinless life on earth. (2001) [NB: The above two beliefs cannot both be true, but are held by approximately equal percentages of the population, including, for either one, at least a quarter of all Christians.]
- 4% believe everyone is God.
- 7% believe that God is the total realization of personal, human potential.
- 4% believe that there are many gods, each with different power and authority.
- 9% believe that God is a state of higher consciousness that a person may reach.
- 3% believe that there is no such thing as God.
- 69% believe that God is the all-powerful, all-knowing, perfect creator that rules the world today.
(Regarding that 69% who hold basically the standard monotheistic conception of God - note that just over 80% of the population belongs to one of the three Abrahamic religions, meaning that almost 1 in 7 nominal monotheists has some decidedly New-Agey, or just plain heretical, beliefs about who they're actually worshipping.)
So we're all bozos on this bus. Perhaps there needs to be some clarifying of labels and beliefs, but that says nothing about what the labels themselves, rightly applied, actually mean. "Atheism" means just what it says (essentially the belief apparently held by 3% of the population, whether or not they call themselves "atheist".)
posted on 11.11.2004 10:03 AM6
Of course, non-stamp collectors don't spend their valuable time trying to eradicate the societal influence of stamp collectors.
posted on 11.11.2004 10:08 AM7
Don't atheists by definition have a 'belief' system? They 'believe' there is no God. And since they can't 'prove' it, isn't that then a deep-seated belief?
posted on 11.11.2004 10:09 AM8
That also proves a point of mine that many people who say they are Christians are not and that many people who say they are atheists are not. I believe both of these sects need to find the truth becaues these groups are obviously searching. I think this is a testament to what Jesus said "The fields are ripe for harvest but the laborers are few."
posted on 11.11.2004 10:23 AM9
Even if you assume that the Barna data are accurate (an assumption I would not make, since teh Barna Group is clearly a pro-religion organization and did not reproduce the questions and answers so that we can evaluate their interpretation), it is only possible to reach the conclusions that you draw by wilfully misinterpreting the results as Barna reports them. Specifically, whereas you report many beliefs that are held by a certain fraction of "atheists", the Barna report to which you cite says that these beliefs are held by that fraction of "atheists and agnostics".
The term "atheist" encompasses not only people who assert there is no got, but also people who accept the possibility of the existence of a god, but have no affirmative belief or may be questioning. The term "agnostic" is typically used by people who are more open to the idea of god but are just wondering about it, but is not used by people who assert there is no god. The Barna data do not report the atheist/agnostic breakdown, but there is no question that people who call themselves agnostics would be more likely to be open to the ideas of god, afterlife, heaven and hell, etc. Since the figures as reported by Barna relate to both atheists and agnostics, it is false to assert, as you do, that half of all atheists believe in heaven and hell or life after death, and that a third of atheists have prayed to god in the last week.
posted on 11.11.2004 10:24 AM10
Kevin,
Note first that the fact that some "atheists" believe in God does not mean atheism is a religion.
Using a strict definition of religion I would have to agree. That’s why I think the term religion is much less useful than “worldview” or some other word that includes a person’s complete belief system.
(Nor does it mean that those people are "heretics" - we leave that kind of finger-pointing to you theists.)
C’mon guys, the “heretic” part was meant as a joke.
But it's not surprising that some people who call themselves "atheist" would have beliefs incompatible with that label. Huge swaths of the population hold beliefs that are completely at odds with definitive or at least widely-accepted tenets of their nominal religious affiliation (or lack thereof).
I certainly agree with you on that point.
34% say there are some sins that God cannot forgive. (1997)
Cannot is perhaps the wrong word. There are sins, however, that God will not forgive. (Mt.12:31-32)
posted on 11.11.2004 10:32 AM11
How do you know that they included Agnostics? Just because they are "more likely" to believe in heaven and hell doesn't mean they were included. You just may need to face that many so-called atheists are not atheists at all. Were they included? WE DON't KNOW. So don't assume. Just because it is possible doesn't mean that this occurred. Couldn't the opposite be right that Barna was right?
posted on 11.11.2004 10:43 AM12
An atheist walks out his or her door every morning seeing the same world as everybody else.
That they don't find any significance in the sheer complexity of this universe is the most telling point for me. They see all that the universe is, the large volume of evidence of creation, and still they say, "this was not created".
For there to be a creator there would be responsibility to that creator because the creator would be the only being capable of truly holding them accountable for their actions, good or ill.
It's an evasion of responsibility. They wish to only be responsible to themselves and to create their own reality. In effect, they wish to be their own god. But since they know in their gut there is a being greater than themselves they don't outright claim to be a god, they only claim that God the creator of this universe does not exist.
I see it as hubris.
posted on 11.11.2004 10:46 AM13
Very eliquintly said Arthor Pel. It would be great for you to make this into a poem. You are a very, very good writer. Do you write poems or other writings? You truly have a gift.
posted on 11.11.2004 10:53 AM14
Very eliquintly said Arthor Pel. It would be great for you to make this into a poem. You are a very, very good writer. Do you write poems or other writings? You truly have a gift.
posted on 11.11.2004 10:53 AM15
Jack,
Even if you assume that the Barna data are accurate (an assumption I would not make, since teh Barna Group is clearly a pro-religion organization and did not reproduce the questions and answers so that we can evaluate their interpretation),
Surely you’re not so small-minded that you would simply dismiss the data just because it was produced by people who are “pro-religion”? And the questions and answers are available to anyone who wants to pay for them (the Barna Group is, after all, a business).
Specifically, whereas you report many beliefs that are held by a certain fraction of "atheists", the Barna report to which you cite says that these beliefs are held by that fraction of "atheists and agnostics".
You have a point. I’ve changed all of the entries to read “atheist and agnostic.” The differences, though, aren’t all that significant as far as belief systems are concerned. As Bertrand Russell claimed, agnostics claim that we can’t know if there is a god while atheist claim to know that there is not. To be a true atheist requires a presumption that borders on the irrational. That's why I believe that most intelligent people who would normally claim to be atheist go with the agnostic label.
The term "atheist" encompasses not only people who assert there is no got, but also people who accept the possibility of the existence of a god, but have no affirmative belief or may be questioning. The term "agnostic" is typically used by people who are more open to the idea of god but are just wondering about it, but is not used by people who assert there is no god.
I think you are right about the first part but wrong about the second. If you don’t have an affirmative belief one way or the other or are merely questioning the concept of god then you are agnostic, not atheist.
posted on 11.11.2004 10:54 AM16
Two words: sampling error.
A few other words: you're assuming - as is Barana- that these "atheists" are not responding ironically.
Why would anyone assume that?
Also, "reading from the bible" doesn't connote a religious practice for many people.
Neither is believing in "absolute moral truth" a religious indicator.
The truth is, conservative Christians have fallen so far off the moral wagon that they really don't know what is religious and what is not, it seems, nor what the truth is from what a falsehood is, nor why there are some things you should tolerate and accept and things you should not.
At my blog (which is from a Buddhist perspective), I will be calling conservative Christians to account for their moral failings.
It is time we held up conservative Christians to moral standards that are real moral standards, and insist that if they want to use a word like "Christian," that there should be honesty, humility, and a lack of hatred, at least insofar as what Christianity preaches.
17
The biggest problem I see here is that the study doesn't differentiate between atheists and agnostics, although the distinction is very important in this context. It would be quite ironic, if not downright hypocritical, for an atheist to pray. But for an agnostic to do so? Not at all.
This again comes down to Smith's assertion (with which I agree) that agnostics can be divided into two groups: agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. It would not be all that unusual for a self-described agnostic to pray, or to believe in heaven and hell, etc. That person would be an agnostic theist, and may still have very real doubts about whether God exists, or may suspect that God exists but not have any clue whether the Christians or Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists have it right.
posted on 11.11.2004 11:14 AM18
To mumon. I love you in the Lord and have no hatred toward you but just because people who are "so-called" Christians don't act that way doesn't make all Christians fail. I think you need to account for your over-generalizations of Christians. What is there to account for?
I'll leave with this: Jesus said, "I am the way the Truth and the Life no one can come to the Father except through Me."
posted on 11.11.2004 11:22 AM19
I see it as hubris.
Funny, I read your post as hubristic. You look at the world and think x, and you're shocked - shocked! - that not everyone thinks exactly what you think.
They wish to only be responsible to themselves and to create their own reality.
That's flat-out bizarre. Presumably you meant that being responsible only to oneself (whatever that means - i assume that you meant ethical egoism) is somehow derived from not considering oneself responsible to God.
That's just weird. Either that, or you haven't noticed that we're surrounded by other people.
20
The simple dictionary definition of religion is:
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
The second half of that definition allows science and its stated absolutes, which are the arbitors of the power that creates and governs the universe, to be defined as a religion in the way that most atheists practice their reverence for science and its underlying principals and is not its holy grail, the unified theory, a quest for a secular god?
We should also remember that strickly speaking Buhddists do not believe in God or gods, but in an impersonal force enabling everything that is. While some may argue this is supernatural, it doesn't have to be in the traditional sense.
So the real question is between a personal sentient God or something else being responsible, since eternal impersonal matter and governing forces acting as a coherent system are a type of god in that they create and control all that we experience in the material and submaterial world. It is that submaterial world where the distinctions start to break down, even for them.
posted on 11.11.2004 11:26 AM21
That they don't find any significance in the sheer complexity of this universe is the most telling point for me. They see all that the universe is, the large volume of evidence of creation, and still they say, "this was not created".
Just complexity itself does not automatically indicate the existence of god. Atheists do not deny that the universe was created, they just deny that it was created by a supra natural intelligence.
For there to be a creator there would be responsibility to that creator because the creator would be the only being capable of truly holding them accountable for their actions, good or ill.
Even granting the existence of God, the above quote assumes that you know the will of God. You don't know that God is paying any attention at all to the universe he created. He could have even created it by mistake. You can't assume you know the motives of God. Unless of course you believe the Bible is the revealed word of God.
It's an evasion of responsibility. They wish to only be responsible to themselves and to create their own reality. In effect, they wish to be their own god. But since they know in their gut there is a being greater than themselves they don't outright claim to be a god, they only claim that God the creator of this universe does not exist.I see it as hubris.
In a sense, making a choice to believe the Bible is the Word of God can also be seen as hubris. It says you think you are so smart that you know what the Word of God is when you run across it.
In spite of the fact that Jesus has not appeared to you personally, handed you an autographed copy of the Bible, and said "Here read this, it's my autobiography".
So even though God does not personally confirm to you that the Bible is the Word of God, you choose to trust in your own human judgment that it is anyway. So in a real sense, you actually think you are smarter than God, as able to make that judgement. This is real hubris.
Perhaps the order of the 10 Commandments is as it is for a reason. "Thou Shalt have no other God before me", would include your own human judgment, yourself. It's a more difficult and complex commandment to follow than you might think.
posted on 11.11.2004 11:26 AM22
49erDweet:
Don't atheists by definition have a 'belief' system? They 'believe' there is no God.I don't know. Do you have a "belief system" about the Tooth Fairy, since you believe there is no Tooth Fairy? Can you conclusively prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist? posted on 11.11.2004 11:26 AM
23
To TG I'll leave you with a line from Bob Bylan: "You gotta serve somebody". Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me".
posted on 11.11.2004 11:36 AM24
To TG I'll leave you with a line from Bob Bylan: "You gotta serve somebody". Jesus said, "He who is not with me is against me".
posted on 11.11.2004 11:36 AM25
to DH:
I didn't say "Christians," I said conservative Christians. Please stop confusing the two.
It is "conservative Christians" who have to take responsibility for the increasees in poverty, the deaths in Iraq (hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), the rampant abuse of the environment, the rise in abortions (yep, they went up under Bush), and the abuses of civil liberties.
By your fruits we know you.
posted on 11.11.2004 12:37 PM26
"An atheist walks out his or her door every morning seeing the same world as everybody else. That they don't find any significance in the sheer complexity of this universe is the most telling point for me. They see all that the universe is, the large volume of evidence of creation, and still they say, "this was not created".
Actually when I walk out the door I see cars, telephone polls, the stairs leading down to the cement sidewalk, the iron rail next to the stairs, the paved street, the manhole, the street lights, and weird looking tree.
Indeed, all this stuff was created, either by humans or natural processes. The tree was planted by a human. It grew from a seed. It looks weird because it was struck by lightning (a natural process).
I don't believe in god for the same reason I don't believe in leprechauns or ghosts: I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that god exists. In fact, what I have seen suggests to me that even if there were omnipotent beings out there, they would not merit worshipping.
Perhaps if my mind and body were wired in a way where it was necessary for me to pray daily and worship something in order to feel better about my life, I might make the leap of faith, as many humans do. I can imagine making the leap. I just don't feel compelled to do so and, generally speaking, I prefer not to make decisions based solely on fear of the unknown (i.e., that I might be wrong and will suffer eternal torment or something like that).
So make no mistake: there is nothing "deep seated" about my failure to believe in god. It's no more deep seated than my failure to believe in gremlins.
What is (relatively) deep seated is my belief that human beings should do everything they can to avoid making their neighbors miserable and to make every effort to resolve disagreements without hurting each other. My personal experiences and understanding of history has taught me that this approach helps to avoid the creation of wounds that do not heal.
posted on 11.11.2004 12:42 PM27
>Are atheists statistically more likely to disobey societal rules and responsibilities?...Are atheists more likely to be self-centered?
The only way to judge that is to look at atheist who grow up in a system totally outside the religious inspired social structure you atheists currently swim in.
In areas where something akin to this happend, say Cambodia under the Khemer Rouge, they abandoned most of the moral preceps known to all of us. It was almost all fang and claw. I would not point to them as examples of how you expect atheists should live. They don't call it the law of the jungle for nothing.
Can you give any examples of a totally atheistic society that produced a system of morals and a society that you would care to live in? Every social structure we currently have has a religious underpinning. Reward and punishment is fundamental both to religion and significant social structures, since it places the action of reward and punishment outside the whim of any given leader. It transcends those who must respond to it. All atheistic systems are at the mercy of those within the system who define and administrate it and from my perspective break down past the family-clan level and even there are subject to the whims of passing leadership.
posted on 11.11.2004 12:48 PM28
"To TG I'll leave you with a line from Bob Dylan: "You gotta serve somebody"."
A great song from a solid album ("Slow Train Coming"). I'm also partial to "When He Returns", which closes the record. It's good all the way through, though.
Other Christian songwriting masterpieces from Zimmy: "What Can I Do For YOu" (from "Saved") and "Every Grain of Sand" from "Shot of Love."
posted on 11.11.2004 12:49 PM29
Why should we take responsibility? More money than ever before has been given to the poor, the environment is better now than it was under Carter's administration, Bush wasn't able to make abortions illegal so it could only go up. Other than making abortions illegal what could Bush do? We spend tons of money on sex education but if students don't take to heart what is being taught how can that solve the problem? What abuse of civil liberties are there? Maybe on an individual level but not on a government level. I would say the only abuse would be the free expression of religion that has been talked about earlier in this post.
posted on 11.11.2004 1:23 PM30
Who gotta serve somebody?
I guess this just goes to show how two different people can look at the same phenomenon and come to different conclusions. I hear one of those songs like "You Gotta Serve Somebody" and I just see more evidence that nothing Dylan did after "Nashville Skyline" (with a slight exception for "Blood on the Tracks") was any good.
On a more serious note, I don't think we've gotten to a basic question, which is, what is the point of posting something like these survey results? I am reluctant to challenge someone's own characterization of their beliefs (call them religious or not, as you wish), but I have a hard time seeing how someone who believes in life after death, a soul, heaven and hell, and salvation, reads the bible, goes to church, and prays gets off calling themselves an atheist or agnostic.
What's more, what is the point? Are you trying to prove that we atheists are a minority? I grant you that, not that it matters. Religions, either the one you belong to or the ones that lots of other people belong to, make factual statements about the nature of the universe, and the truth of those statements is independent of the number of people who believe them.
For instance, let's just say that you believe that Judaism started when a god revealed himself to a man by speaking out of a bush, and that man eventually wrote a set of books that later became part of the bible. Before that happened, when your got hadn't told this guy Moses his big story, nobody knew about your god or believed in him. You would agree, though, that even though every human in existence at that time was an atheist with regard to your god, that had no effect on whether your god existed.
Similarly, there was a time when very few people, a tiny minority out of the entire population of the earth, who believed that this guy that you call Jesus was god. You wouldn't attach any particular significance to the fact that Christianity started out small and that there was a long time when most people didn't believe it, would you?
If that's the case, why does it help your argument at all to point out that in the United States there aren't that many people who deny the existence of got, and that even in the category of people who, by virtue of calling themselves atheists, would seem to deny the existence of god, many of them may have at least some of the beliefs that people who believe in god have?
By the way, I suspect you may have more in common with us atheists than you think. I suspect that, like us, you don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Shiva, Krishna, the Polynesian Turtle God, Baal, the spirits of the trees, rivers, and bison, Odin, Thor, Allah, and a whole list of other gods neither one of us has ever heard of. I submit to you that the adherents of all those other gods are just as smart as you, and just as convinced that they're right as you are.
31
DH I doubt one could be a strictly speaking atheist and have a sincere belief in heaven or hell. It would be kinda like saying you're a vegetarian but you eat lots of red meat and fish.
As Tom pointed out there is no consensus among you for what an atheist is or what an agnostic. I'd probably be an atheist agnostic meaning I strongly doubt there is any kind of anthropormorhic deity or super natural being. I don't rule it out. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Atheists tend to be strong individualists and they come in the same varieties in every way as any other broad group of people.
Joe brought up worldview and there seems to be a tacit belief among some of your that atheists such as myself hold beliefs. I really can't think of a single such belief I hold. Pretty much everything I can think of I believe for one of two reasons:
1. It makes sense
2. There is good evidence for it
And in most cases both. I can't prove beyond metaphysical certainty that other people have emotions, but it makes sense that they do and there is evidence they do based on how they act, the fact that they have the same physiology as I do, and what they say. Quantum Physics makes no intuitive sense, but it makes testable prediction so there is a great deal of evidence that it's a valid model.
To me the idea of anthropormorphic deities doesn't make any sense. In the Christian doctrine for example allegedly an omniscient omnipotent omni benevolent being created the universe and mankind. That doesn't make any sense because such a being would be perfect, and a perfect being would have no need of a change in the status quo. In that same doctrine this creature produced a hybrid offspring of himself and a human female who went on to 'die for our sins'. But immortal beings cannot die and if it wanted to forgive us for our sins it is omnipotent, there is no need for such a process and that process makes no sense rationally. Lastly there is no empirical evidence for such a being. It can allegedly make galaxies but when tested it cannot even manage to move a paper clip across a table under controlled conditions. A good chunk of sermons reinforcing the belief in this being are taken up apologizing for why it can't or will not provide any evidence for it's existence, etc.,. And one can literally trace the OT deity from earlier mythologies and legends in the middle east, so it makes sense that the latest incarnation is no more real than Baal. Thus it doesn't make sense to me and there is no evidence for it. The same is true for all the other deities in every other religion one earth. That's why I'm an atheist.
posted on 11.11.2004 1:47 PM32
Mumon says: "It is "conservative Christians" who have to take responsibility for the increasees in poverty, the deaths in Iraq (hundreds of thousands of Iraqis), the rampant abuse of the environment, the rise in abortions (yep, they went up under Bush), and the abuses of civil liberties."
Ahhh.. I see. Everything is our fault, right? How, in any way, does anything in this post have even the LEAST bit to do with conservative Christians specifically? Do we control the world? Heck, we can't even WIN the abortion debate, much less PREVENT abortions in the U.S. Last I checked, Roe was still in effect. Until that gets overturned, it's the responsibility of the U.S. and state governments, not those of conservative Christians. We've been talking to whoever will listen about the scourge of abortion for 30 years! What else shall we do, dear murmon? Please, enlighten us? Because I'm fairly sure that every conservative Christian would love to know how to put a stop to the killing.
the deaths in Iraq (hundreds of thousands of Iraqis)
This is utter bunk, bud. This is a blown-out statistic created by a bunch of European doctors who have a political reason to inflate the casualty count. Truthfully, newer estimates show that there have been some 8,000 casualties in Iraq, although the number is debatable, and no one, I think, truely knows at this point how many have died. Those casualties are unfortunate, and I think we can all agree that it would have been better had they not happened at at all. However, what is worse, I ask: several thousand innocents lost in the battle for freedom, or several MILLION killed in the name of evil? The logic used by folks who think like you is utterly ridiculous in it's ignorance of the facts. Beyond that, there are times when God says that war is right. But, again, that decision was not up to me or any other conservative Christian. That was a decision made by the secular government of the United States, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Congress, and enough U.N. resolutions to wallpaper your living room. Again, I ask, what in the world does this have to do with conservative Christianity?
the rampant abuse of the environment
Again, what does this have to do with conservative Christianity? Why would you tie the environment to this group, and assign responsibility? How is this, in any way, our responsibility as a group? I would say this is the broader responsibility of Americans, or, perhaps everyone who lives on this planet. Why would you single out conservative Christians as soley responsible? Silliness, mumon.
the abuses of civil liberties
What abuses would those be, mumon? I've heard unbelievable levels of sophistry with regard to this issue. For every alleged "abuse" you can name, I can name one fewer terrorist who threatens us. For every alledged "civil liberty" that have been "trampled on," there are equally as many cases of terrorist rings that have been broken up, terror plots foiled. Do you get the point? Beyond that, again I ask, how is this the responsibility of conservative Christians? Civil liberties are created by government, and enforced by the, again, secular government in the U.S. There are no churches involved in "civil liberties" - assigning those rights, enforcing those rights, and punishing those who violate them. This is the responsibily of civil govnerment.
Again, you utterly fail to explain how any of this is the responsibility of conservative Christians.
posted on 11.11.2004 1:49 PM33
Emmaus said:
We've been talking to whoever will listen about the scourge of abortion for 30 years! What else shall we do, dear murmon? Please, enlighten us? Because I'm fairly sure that every conservative Christian would love to know how to put a stop to the killing.
Here's one thing you could do: convince the conservative Christian who's in the White House and the government he runs to stop trying to block people who want to teach kids where babies come from and how to stop it. If you really wanted fewer abortions you would be in favor of making contraception and contraception education available to kids who you know you can't prevent from having sex. By pushing abstinence-only sex education programs you are making abortions inevitable.
For an example, read this article from today's Salon about sex education in Texas, including an illustration from a textbook they're using down there that lists getting plenty of rest as one way to avoid catching sexually transmitted diseases, but doesn't list using condoms.
posted on 11.11.2004 1:56 PM34
You know what's funny about the athiest's responses in this thread? They're attacking the methodology, the statistics, and the definitions of athiests vs. agnostics. But you know what they're not doing? They're not discussing the essence of the results! We're not here to talk about dictionary definitions and about homogeny among populations! This thread is about how, in a group that claims to have no particular religious beliefs, there are literally large percentages of a sample population who say that they pray, go to church, read the bible, and want to talk about faith. The real question here is why, when these folks profess having no interest in all things "religious" do these same folks participate in clearly "religious" activities?
posted on 11.11.2004 1:57 PM35
Jack - abstinence education works. That's all I'm going to say about that.
Beyond that, contraception won't stop legal aborition. It might reduce it. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about eliminating it.
Also, I don't consider Salon a valid source. They have an obvious axe to grind. If you want to discuss scientific study, then, by all means, lets. But, I won't discuss hyperbole and sophistry by a left-wing online magazine with obvious motive to distort.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:00 PM36
Jack says: block people who want to teach kids where babies come from
The only people he's trying to "block" are schools. I would strongly disagree, as the father of a young girl, that this is where I want my children learning about "where babies come from." I think that this is something that should be taught in the home, when the parents feel its appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see sex education as a whole removed from public school curriculums.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:04 PM37
Jack,
On a more serious note, I don't think we've gotten to a basic question, which is, what is the point of posting something like these survey results?
To show that the actions of those who call themselves atheist are often at odds with their claims not to be “religious.”
I am reluctant to challenge someone's own characterization of their beliefs (call them religious or not, as you wish), but I have a hard time seeing how someone who believes in life after death, a soul, heaven and hell, and salvation, reads the bible, goes to church, and prays gets off calling themselves an atheist or agnostic.
I agree that it does tend to water down the meaning of those terms.
What's more, what is the point? Are you trying to prove that we atheists are a minority? I grant you that, not that it matters.
No, I don’t think that anyone on either side of the issue disputes the minority status of atheism.
For instance, let's just say that you believe that Judaism started when a god revealed himself to a man by speaking out of a bush, and that man eventually wrote a set of books that later became part of the bible.
Actually, Judah (where we get the term Judaism) was around long before Moses. The belief in Yahweh was carried down to Moses from Adam to Noah to Abraham to Jacob to Levi, etc.
Before that happened, when your got hadn't told this guy Moses his big story, nobody knew about your god or believed in him.
No, the belief and the story of Yahweh was carried down to Moses. People had worshipped him from the beginning of mankind.
You would agree, though, that even though every human in existence at that time was an atheist with regard to your god, that had no effect on whether your god existed.
While I wouldn’t agree that there was ever a time on earth when the whole of mankind didn’t know God, I agree that such disbelief would not affect his ontological existence.
If that's the case, why does it help your argument at all to point out that in the United States there aren't that many people who deny the existence of got, and that even in the category of people who, by virtue of calling themselves atheists, would seem to deny the existence of god, many of them may have at least some of the beliefs that people who believe in god have?
It doesn’t. But then I was making an argument, just pointing out an interesting finding.
By the way, I suspect you may have more in common with us atheists than you
think. I suspect that, like us, you don't believe in Zeus, Apollo, Athena, Shiva, Krishna, the Polynesian Turtle God, Baal, the spirits of the trees, rivers, and bison, Odin, Thor, Allah, and a whole list of other gods neither one of us has ever heard of. I submit to you that the adherents of all those other gods are just as smart as you, and just as convinced that they're right
as you are.
There is a huge difference between denying that any God exists and having a misunderstanding of what He is like. I’m not “atheistic” about a being called Baal, I just think that people who believe in him are confused in their understanding of the real God.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:05 PM38
When the study you cite says that 1 out of 2 Atheists and Agnostics believe X, does that mean that both 1 out of 2 atheists believe X and 1 out of 2 agnostics believe in X or is it a composite. And if so, if it an equal distribution of participants and are the response patterns evenly distributed?
posted on 11.11.2004 2:10 PM39
BCB,
When the study you cite says that 1 out of 2 Atheists and Agnostics believe X, does that mean that both 1 out of 2 atheists believe X and 1 out of 2 agnostics believe in X or is it a composite.
My understanding is that it’s a composite.
And if so, if it an equal distribution of participants and are the response patterns evenly distributed?
While I’m not sure, I doubt that it's an equal distribution. In fact, I doubt that such a distribution is even possible since there is no consensus on what counts as an “atheist” and what is an “agnostic.”
posted on 11.11.2004 2:22 PM40
"The real question here is why, when these folks profess having no interest in all things "religious" do these same folks participate in clearly "religious" activities?"
If you start looking at the Barna Group's statistics on what Christians believe, you would also find quite a few surprises. Apparently atheists have not cornered the market on confusing beliefs.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topics
I will point out that agnostics are quite different from atheists in many ways. They should not have been grouped together in the study.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:29 PM41
>trying to block people who want to teach kids where babies come from and how to stop it. If you really wanted fewer abortions you would be in favor of making contraception and contraception education available to kids who you know you can't prevent from having sex.
Nothing like giving up and giving in. Oh yeh, it's just sex as if the only moral component to sexual activity and the betrayal that is an integral part of it is related to religion.
Your argument is like getting everyone to wear oversize boxing gloves because it is impossible to stop kids from fighting and any effort to do so is doomed, so we might as well keep them from doing too much damage. Ha!
Fighting is wrong for kids and so is sex. People do wrong things. Facilitating that and then, if they acted even more irresponsibly and get pregnant, rewarding them with an "out" by allowing them to murder the child they created is a complete denial of responsibility.
At least abstanence admits there is responsibility for what you might do and places things in a larger than my selfish motives and desires perspective. The "education", condoms, and abortion approach denies it all.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:37 PM42
Emmaus
Maybe you should drink more coffee.
"I think that this is something that should be taught in the home, when the parents feel its appropriate. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see sex education as a whole removed from public school curriculums."
What about all the parents who never feel it's appropriate to talk about the details of the birds and bees with their children? Where are their children supposed to learn about contraception, Emmaus, if not in the public school?
The nice thing about having you around, Emmaus, is that, as far as I can tell, you embody *perfectly* the sort of head-in-the-sand hear-only-what-you-want-to-hear righteous judgmental fact-denying ill-informed shortsighted Christian (dare I say it) that Karl Rove adores. You are IT, man. You do exist and when Joe Carter asks "Who Is the Christian Right?" he need look no further than you. Congratulations, I guess.
"The real question here is why, when these folks profess having no interest in all things "religious" do these same folks participate in clearly "religious" activities?"
Emmaus, can you show me where a group purporting to represent all of of this country's atheists ever said that "atheists have no interest in things 'religious'?
Of course you can't. So enough with the strawman.
How many times do I have to point out that I'm extremely interested in "things religious" before you feign shock over the heterogeneity of self-proclaimed atheist lifestyles?
I also enjoy the feelings of awe and quietude that I experience when I step into a beautiful church (there's a lot of really nice ones in France which I assume you'll never see) or when I watch a movie by Carl Dreyer or Robert Bresson.
What does that say about my atheism? Am I a "weak" atheist because I don't scribble profanity on the sides of church's or because I don't want to make religion illegal? Of course not.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:43 PM43
William writes
"Fighting is wrong for kids and so is sex."
Since when, William? What is a "kid" exactly and since when is sex "wrong" for "kids"?
More specifically, on what date in history did sex become "wrong" for this group of humans you define as "kids"?
Feel free to recognize and admit your hypocricy at any time, William. That way you prevent me from wasting my time pointing out to you. If you get a kick out of wasting people's time, then you should ask yourself whether that's the sort of enjoyment that Christ approves of.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:49 PM44
"If an atheist reads the bible, goes to church, believes in the existence of the soul, heaven, hell, life after death, teaching creationism, absolute morals, and prayer, are they considered a “heretic” by their fellow non-believers?"
Joe, I don't know any atheists like this. None. Looked up a Bible verse in the last week? Maybe. One must be culturally literate, no? As for the rest of it, these folks aren't atheists. Not everyone who self-identifies as an atheist is one. I'm sure you feel this way about Christians as well.
"Of course, non-stamp collectors don't spend their valuable time trying to eradicate the societal influence of stamp collectors."
Last time I checked, Rick, stamp collectors weren't trying to impose their views on everyone else. You just let me know if the bastards start.
"It's an evasion of responsibility. They wish to only be responsible to themselves and to create their own reality. In effect, they wish to be their own god. But since they know in their gut there is a being greater than themselves they don't outright claim to be a god, they only claim that God the creator of this universe does not exist.
I see it as hubris."
You know what real hubris is, Athor? A theist assuming he knows the mind of an atheist.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:54 PM45
More baloney from William:
"Your argument is like getting everyone to wear oversize boxing gloves because it is impossible to stop kids from fighting and any effort to do so is doomed, so we might as well keep them from doing too much damage. "
No it's not. It's like saying that fighting is likely to give you a bloody nose so if you don't want to get a bloody nose, don't fight. But if you do fight, wear overize boxing gloves, and recognize that you still might get a bloody nose or a concussion, which is something you desperately want to avoid until you are fully prepared to accept the consequences which, I can assure you, you are not.
Is it really so hard to write an accurate analogy, William?
Please show me an example of one school that encourages kids to have sex, conceive of an unwanted baby, and abort it. Just one.
Until you do that, William, you've got nothing but your own hung up views on sex to deal with. Go rent a movie.
posted on 11.11.2004 2:56 PM46
To Rob Ryan; read Romans 1 you will see that all people know there is a God. It is a matter of what they will do with that knowledge. Reject it or accept it.
posted on 11.11.2004 3:39 PM47
Last time I checked, Rick, stamp collectors weren't trying to impose their views on everyone else. You just let me know if the bastards start. Hehe, good comment.
DH it's kinda silly to claim atheists or non christians 'really' believe in God because it says so in the bible.
posted on 11.11.2004 3:49 PM48
I'm not saying they "believe" in God. I'm just letting you know how many ex-atheists have come to know Christ. They see the Creation and realize the fact that the odds for all of this to come into existance are far beyond the possibilities of chance. Romans 1:20-23 "20: Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22: Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23: and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling MORTAL MAN" or birds or animals or reptiles."
29: "They were filled with all manner of wickedness..." one being 30: "...haters of God..." atheists.
49
DH the point is your trying to shore up one unsubstantiated claim by using another unsubstantiated claim from the same text of unsubstantiated claims...this is known as circular reaosning. It's not necessarily wrong in it's conclusion but structurally it's an invalid method of getting solid conclusions.
Look, you want some advice on who to make your religoin more plausible to atheists like me? I think you might get past a lot of the inherent paradoxes in the classical idea of God as a perfect being if you'd allow God the capacity to make mistakes. Free Will has been a dicey issue in theistic philosophy for centuries. If God knows everything that will happen to a certainty, and if you indeed have free will, then it's possible for you to cause the omniscient being to have a false belief about the future.
That's a conundrum which has occupied the minds of generations of religious scholars and there is no neat solution to it. Either God knows what you will do and configured your personality and circumstances in such a way as to make His knowledge of your future actions 100% perfect, or he does not know for sure what you're going to do which eliminates total omniscience.
You could easily get around that and avoid convoluted apologetics-which in the end don't make a damn bit of sense-simply by leaving the possibility that God gave up some of his omniscience in order to allow humans Free Will. You would also remove the problems related to this paradox such as 'why did God not see Satan's rebellion coming" or 'why did God let Satan into the Garden of Eden if he knew what was going to happen' and so on.
I don't want to give anyone the idea that I or other might jump on board once you do that, but it would remove a big chunck of the 'this doesn't make any damn sense' objection a lot of us have.
50
DS: If God knows everything that will happen to a certainty, and if you indeed have free will, then it's possible for you to cause the omniscient being to have a false belief about the future.
I don't want to be simply contrarian, DS, but, I disagree with your reasoning here. Just because one has free will does not mean that God cannot know what you'll do with that free will. If God is omniscient (and He is), he already knows how you'll choose when you make a choice or decision. That doesn't preclude you from making the choice, and thereby negating God's omniscience. It just means that God will know what you'll do.
Let's frame that argument in scientific terms. If you are a third dimensional being (which you are), and there is a fourth dimensional being watching you, he'll know what you did in the past, and what you'll do in the future, based upon the facts of 4th dimensional space-time. Your decision on which way you go doesn't change the beings ability to see which way you went, and which way you're going to go, since he can see your future. In other words, to him, you've already made the choice, regardless of what choice you actually make in the third dimension.
posted on 11.11.2004 4:19 PM51
If God is omniscient (and He is), he already knows how you'll choose when you make a choice or decision.
If you have no ability to force God into a situation in which he has a false belief then you have no free will. If you do have that ability then God can be wrong, this is true regardless if that permutation ever actually occurs. It's simple, it's basic...it's been around since the dark ages.
Look I could care less about the Free Will thing. It's been done to death centuries ago and the aplogetics for it frankly suck imo they're so ridiculously bad.
I'm saying if you want to appeal to folks such as myself who see the idea of a perfect being incompatable with the world we observe then you might consider allowing God the capacity to make a mistake here and there.
Otherwise you end up with a being who purposely set mankind up to fail and who purposely created old age, death, or ebola as examples knowing full well the horror and pain it would produce who is perfectly loving and who could have done all of it another way which didn't hurt anyone because it can do anything.
This is obvioulsy from any rational perspective a load of crap. It's designed to reconcile the real world we observe with the mythological inconsistentcies in your faith-and lest someone think I'm picking on Christians the same is true of most religions.
Such a creatures, if they existed, would be considered the most dangerous murdering psycho in the universe. Now I don't know if such creatures exist or not but they certainly aren't detectable using our own senses or high precision instruments that go far beyond our senses.
These entities if they do exist so far have exactly the same properties as entities which do not exist at all. as it makes no sense and cannot be tested, it is imo opinion futile to propose as a real solution to anything. I recognize that religion providea real benefits regardless if these super natural creatures exist or not, but not everyone can simply turn beliefs in thigns which make no sense and which have no evidence on and off at will. I can't. I didn't make a concious decision to be an atheist. The rleigion just doesn't make any sense and their is no evidence for it, the only way I could pass as a thiest is if I was faking.
53
William:
The only way to judge that is to look at atheist who grow up in a system totally outside the religious inspired social structure you atheists currently swim in.Umm, no, why would that be the case? And much of our social structure is not "religious inspired." You need to be careful with your reasoning, too, because you could be making the implication that people who discover religion later in life will never have the moral foundation of people who were brought up in religion. I'm not sure that's where you want to go.
In areas where something akin to this happend, say Cambodia under the Khemer Rouge, they abandoned most of the moral preceps known to all of us.Selective anecdotes don't really make your case. If you'd like to, I could point out all kinds of pointless slaughters that have historically been carried out in the name of religion, but what would it prove? That people -- religious or not -- have a propensity to kill each other, sometimes in large numbers. It doesn't tell you much about the relative merits unless one clearly has a much better history than another.
Can you give any examples of a totally atheistic society that produced a system of morals and a society that you would care to live in?Honestly, I can't give you an example of a totally atheistic society at all, but then, I've never called for a totally atheistic society. Just a society that is neutral -- neither friendly nor hostile -- toward religion. In that way, its citizens can participate in religious practices, or not, as they see fit.
And while we're at it, can you give me an example of a large religious society that lacks a violent past?
dh:
Other than making abortions illegal what could Bush do?Well, for starters, he could stop rolling back the very environmental protections that made the current environment cleaner than Carter's (by the way, I'm not sure that's true -- can you back it up?).
Emmaus:
You know what's funny about the athiest's responses in this thread? They're attacking the methodology, the statistics, and the definitions of athiests vs. agnostics. But you know what they're not doing? They're not discussing the essence of the results!Actually, Kevin T. Keith addressed it very early. The nutshell version: people are dumb, have inconsistent beliefs, and often believe weird things that aren't in keeping with their claimed religious outlooks. No group -- not atheists, not agnostics, not Christians, not Buddhists -- has a monopoly on this.
abstinence education works. That's all I'm going to say about that.It's nice you can say that. Too bad the facts mostly disagree. At best, it seems to be completely ineffective.
Beyond that, contraception won't stop legal aborition. It might reduce it. But, that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about eliminating it.#1: So you're taking an all-or-nothing approach? If you can't eliminate it completely, it's not worth doing everything you can to reduce it?
#2: You can never eliminate it. Ever. All you can do is make it illegal, but that would barely even affect the numbers.
#3: It's nice that you can see the world in black-and-white terms, but to many of the rest of us, even those of us who might be uncomfortable with abortion, the idea of early term abortions is a lot easier to swallow than dumpster babies and coathanger abortions.
As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather see sex education as a whole removed from public school curriculums.Until you get the majority of people to agree with you about this, tough luck. :) In the meantime, you can always remove your daughter from public school and put them into private or parochial school, or even home-school her. That's your right.
Joe:
To show that the actions of those who call themselves atheist are often at odds with their claims not to be “religious.”Unfortunately, you haven't presented enough information to show this.
No, the belief and the story of Yahweh was carried down to Moses.True, but Christian tradition holds that it was Moses who first committed the oral traditions to paper/papyrus/stone/whatever, in what is now known as the Pentateuch. Which leads to the famous "And then I died" joke. posted on 11.11.2004 4:50 PM
54
It's sometimes worthwhile to season the abstract discussion with the concrete:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6450861/
FALLUJAH, Iraq - Fighting in Fallujah has created a humanitarian disaster in which innocent people are dying because medical help can’t reach them, aid workers in Iraq said on Wednesday.
In one case, a pregnant woman and her child died in a refugee camp west of the city after the mother unexpectedly aborted and no doctors were on hand, Firdoos al-Ubadi, an official from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society, told Reuters.
In another case, a young boy died from a snake bite that would normally have been easily treatable, she said.
“From a humanitarian point of view it’s a disaster, there’s no other way to describe it. And if we don’t do something about it soon, it’s going to spread to other cities,” she said.
posted on 11.11.2004 4:51 PM55
I will lovingly answer regarding this "free will" issue. I care about you so with care I will answer. -- We are in a different dimension than God so therefore we do not nor will not, until we get to heaven, understand what eternity, omnisence or omnipotents is. God could have created us like the angels who currently and in the future have no free will. If He did then that would be like treating the human race like robots. God cared about you so much and wanted a closer relationship to you that he wanted you to have the ability to choose Him or reject Him. "Before you were in your mothers womb I knew you". God also knew who will accept Him and who will reject Him and He knew this before the foundation of the world. So he has never left any of his omniscence or omnipotents, "at the table". God also gives us free will to sin but at the same time gave us a way through Jesus to have forgiveness as part of His free will plan (mentioned earlier with the angel relationship). Jesus also was fully God but also fully man, died and rose again as a perfect sacrifice for sin which entered as a result of first Satan and then Adam and Eve sinning. Paul mentions that "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." Satan also was in His plan as part of free will to try to influence us, within our dimension, to sin and to not choose a relationship with God. Paul mentioned in his letters," To work out your salvation with fear and trembling". Jesus said,"I have not given you a Spirit of fear but of power and of love and a sound mind." Satan is the author of that fear and he is used as part of the "working out your salvation with fear and trembling". I hope this helps. It might not answer all of your questions but hopefully you will have somewhat of an idea to begin from.
posted on 11.11.2004 4:51 PM56
How come these threads never stay on topic?
When I was an agnostic, I dabbled in the spiritual for the same reason I dabbled in art or music; I was intensely curious.
People who completely reject the possiblity of anything spiritual aren't necesesarily evil or intellectually committed to a point a view, they are more likely just indifferent to the possibility of of the existence of anything they don't see with their own eyes.
They are probably equally agnostic about gravity.
posted on 11.11.2004 4:56 PM57
Joe:
There is a huge difference between denying that any God exists and having a misunderstanding of what He is like.But by what right do you even assume that there is just one God, or that He is a "He?"
William:
Nothing like giving up and giving in.What's your alternative, then? And what's more important to you, reducing and/or eliminating abortions, or maintaining what you perceive as the moral high ground while abortions skyrocket? (Yes, I realize that by itself is a false dilemma, but until I hear the "better idea," that's what we're left with.) It's well-established that abstinence-only education is ineffective, and it's well-established that making abortion illegal does not significantly affect the rate at which women seek -- and obtain -- abortions.
It should also be pointed out that the evidence suggests that following comprehensive sex education (not just the "abstinence-only" kind), kids are more likely to wait before engaging in sexual activity. Less sex, fewer pregnancies, fewer abortions. What's not to like?
dh:
To Rob Ryan; read Romans 1 you will see that all people know there is a God.Paraphrased: "The Bible is true! Don't believe me? Read the Bible, it says so!" Somehow that's not terribly convincing. posted on 11.11.2004 4:56 PM
58
DS - and on further reading, it seems that what you're saying is that you reject Christianity because it doesn't make any sense to you. To that, I would say that you haven't, then, given it a real chance. If you outright reject something because it seems foolish or contradictory to you, well then, you'd be putting down the scientific method that you hold dear. If that were the case in the science world, things like quantum mechanics would have never been "discovered." After all, the laws of quantum mechanics go completely against what you can see, or feel, describe, experience, or, sometimes, what you *think* should happen. The laws of quantum mechanics seem to contradict things like statics and dynamics, Newton's laws, etc. In other words, the normal laws of physics. However, I don't doubt that you believe that they are real. You find, after some study, that quantum mechanics, although contradictary to our everyday experiences as humans, actually do exist. But, you have to look, learn, and understand why first.
The same argument can be applied to the supernatural, and specifically to Christianity. Look, I was you not too long ago... a skeptic, an unbeliever. But, when I started investigating Christianity, something unexpected happened.. I became a believer, just like millions of others before me. But, the first step to even understanding where anyone on this site, or any other Christian site for that matter, is to first understand our Christianity. I just don't think, it seems, that you've ever given it a *real* chance. It's easy to reject Chrisitianity outright with claims of fairy tales and contradictions. But, when you give it a real chance, seeking out people who can answer your questions, and then giving them a real chance to explain without prejudgement, then you might be surprised at how much sense it actually makes.
posted on 11.11.2004 4:59 PM59
Emm your argument doesn't make any sense. In your theology not only does God 'know' what you're going to do, he configured eveything about your personality and circumstances, every atom, every electron, he not only knows what you're going to do, he's solely responsible for what you're going to do because he l knows everything and can do anything and nothing can happen he does not engineer into the fabric of reality. Therefore you cannot be held responsible if yuo follow this preordaine dpath and to be held accountable for it would be rather psychotic if the punishment is eternal torture.
It's like programming a 'bug' to add numbers and stating you know exactly what it will do but then saying it can do 'whatever it wants' and oh by the way if it doesn't do what I know it will do including disobey me which I programmed it to do in the first place and which I know it will do and which I won't intervene to stop even though I could ... I'm going to torture it for...eternity.
It doesn't make any sense. That's why you have such extensive convoluted apologetics in theistioc faiths which demand perfection in the head deity.
Now you did ignore my comment which started this which was you could get rid of a lot of the jaw flapping nonsese which atheist find so ridiculous simply by allowing God the capacity to make mistakes.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:00 PM60
Emmaus:
Just because one has free will does not mean that God cannot know what you'll do with that free will. If God is omniscient (and He is), he already knows how you'll choose when you make a choice or decision. That doesn't preclude you from making the choice, and thereby negating God's omniscience. It just means that God will know what you'll do.Sorry, but that's a circular argument, and I don't buy it. If God "knows" that I'm going to have roast beef for dinner tonight, then I must have roast beef tonight, because to not do so would be to prove him wrong. Any illusion of free will I may experience is exactly that -- an illusion.
I should point out that philosophers -- atheist, Christian, and otherwise -- have struggled with the free will problem for centuries, and still haven't come up with a decent answer. Your dismissive hand-wave isn't going to make the problem go away.
I should point out an alternative way of looking at things: Joe likes to point out that "God is omnipotent" doesn't mean that He can do anything; it means that He can do anything that is logically possible. Therefore, you avoid the "can He create something so heavy even He cannot lift it problem." It's similar to the irresistable force / immovable object problem. They simply cannot both logically exist; the existence of one precludes the existence of the other.
Tying this all back together, the only way it's logically possible for God to know, with 100% certainty, what I will "choose" to have for dinner tonight is if there is no other possible option. As long as there is free will, there is uncertainty. As long as there is certainty, there is no free will, at least not in that context.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:01 PM61
Jack writes
"They are probably equally agnostic about gravity."
You mean the invisible sucking force generated by the deity Geofunkstar, who lives (in billions of separate but indivisible parts) in the center of every solid object in the universe?
I've no doubt Geofunkstar exists. Do you? If so, why? Can you prove he doesn't exist? I didn't think so.
Fyi, Geofunkstar really hates people who don't worship him. Don't make that mistake.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:03 PM62
You are correct TG but that is because we are in a different dimension than God. There are parelle dimensions. Gods dimension and our dimension. Within our dimension we have the free will but within God's dimension He is all knowing. Don't you get how much God loves you? God CREATED free will.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:07 PM63
TY Tom I was having trouble articulating that point and Mrs DarkSyde was demanding pork chops and mashe potatos as I tried to respond. You'd think god would have tipped me off AHEAD of time that she would want this for dinner so that I could be prepared :)
posted on 11.11.2004 5:09 PM64
TG: As long as there is certainty, there is no free will, at least not in that context.
I would disagree, first of all, that this is circular logic. But, that's for another time. The fact that God knows what you'll do does not preclude your ability to choose what you'll do. It just means that God knows what you'll do. I think that you're simply convoluting the argument with philosophical overlays to try and make a point, ignoring the essence of the argument. Simply, it is just that by my performing some action does not mean that God is controlling my actions. It simply means that God knows what it is that I will decide before I decide it. That doesn't change my will, because, after all, it is my decision. It just means that God will know my decision before I do. If it were as you put it, then God would *prevent* me from making a decision, which is not what I'm arguing at all.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:11 PM65
DS: Now you did ignore my comment which started this which was you could get rid of a lot of the jaw flapping nonsese which atheist find so ridiculous simply by allowing God the capacity to make mistakes.
Actually, I didn't mean to ignore your argument. It's just that it is irrelevant, in light of the argument I was trying to make.
Beyond that, I will never say that God is errent, because it would go completely against what I believe. It's like me asking you to admit that the scientific method is wrong.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:14 PM66
yes Emm it does preclude it. If God is responisble for everything that happens, i.e. omnipotent and omniscient, then he's responsible for the 'choices' I make. If I have free will then God is not 100% responsible for the choices I make and therfore he is not in 100% control of at least one aspect of the universe meaning he is no longer omnipotent.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:14 PM67
DS: I would discuss your post further, but, tg beat you to the punch, so, I think that what I posted to him also applies to your argument.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:16 PM68
DS Just because God allowed sin into the world doesn't mean that God is imperfect. It was part of His plan. You still don't get it because your bug analogy was God treating humans like robots. He didn't. He wants a relationship with us based on our free will choice. Change the bug analogy you used with us choosing Him and you will see how incredibly God loves you.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:17 PM69
Dh is some ethereal creature out there wants humans to believe it loves us all then then all it has to do is appear, be a visible part of the universe, stick around and get to know us and earn our trust. Instead your religion is chock full of folks who ponder and talk until they're tuckered trying to explain why this creature refuses to make itself known in any ampiircal way and instead chooses to behave exactly like a legend cooked up thousands of years ago by ignorant nomadic goat herders.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:20 PM70
DS: If God is responisble for everything that happens, i.e. omnipotent and omniscient
Who said anything about Him being "responsible" for anything? The way that omnipotent is defined has nothing to do with responsibility or control. It has to do with power. God is omnipotent because He has the ability to do anything, not because He is controling everything that happens. He can control everything that happens, but, that doesn't mean that He does. He gave us free will, which means that we call the shots in our lives. We have the choice to turn our lives over to God, and that's a big part of my belief system. But, that doesn't mean that God inherently controls us.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:21 PM71
The way that omnipotent is defined has nothing to do with responsibility or control.
Look Emm I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You're not making any sense and I think you're just pulling stuff out of your ass at this point. I'll read your last response and after that if you want to argue the age old dillema of free will I'll be happy to direct you to some websites run by philosophers where you can do so.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:24 PM72
DS: explain why this creature refuses to make itself known in any ampiircal way
DS, my man.. the signs are everywhere. It could be that you're just not looking or seeing them because you don't want to see them. God IS everywhere. All you have to do is to *see*.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:24 PM73
Look, DS. If you're going to have an "I'm gonna pack up my toys and leave" kind of atitude, then, you're really defeating the entire point. My argument is quite clear. And, yes, those words are not in the definition of omnipotent. Look, don't be a Larry:
Main Entry: 1om·nip·o·tent
Pronunciation: -t&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin omnipotent-, omnipotens, from omni- + potent-, potens potent
1 often capitalized : ALMIGHTY 1
2 : having virtually unlimited authority or influence
3 obsolete : ARRANT
- om·nip·o·tent·ly adverb
Note: Nothing about responsibility
posted on 11.11.2004 5:26 PM74
Emmaus shoots from the hip
"I will never say that God is errent, because it would go completely against what I believe. It's like me asking you to admit that the scientific method is wrong."
No, Emmaus, it's not like that at all. There is nothing I could admit that would go "completely against what I believe" in the sense that you use the term "believe."
You won't admit that God is errant because you have been told (by who?) that "true" Christians must believe in His perfection or else they'll be kicked out of the club (i.e., sent to hell as a blasphemer or whatever). You have no evidence to suggest that God is inerrant. You just believe it because that is what your preacher told you is what you must believe (please correct me if the teaching is found instead in your holy book).
Contrast: every one of my beliefs is subject to challenge. Just show me the evidence. I've changed my mind before lots of times. I'm still me. The world is still the world. Life will go on and I have no reason to believe my existence will be better or worse after I die. I will simply have ceased to be alive.
posted on 11.11.2004 5:30 PM75
DS: You're not making any sense and I think you're just pulling stuff out of your ass at this point
What, exactly, in my argument is made-up and what doesn't make any sense? I said, basically, that if God *wants* control, He has it. But, he chooses not to.. i.e. free will. What is unclear about that?
posted on 11.11.2004 5:30 PM76
Emm I just don't find the concepts here that hard to understand, they're very olod and well worn in the annals of philosohpy, and I think you're arguing against some fairly solid age old philosohpical concepts which frankly I don't find that interesting.
I said initially that if you allowed God the capacity to make mistakes you'd solve a lot of dilemmas that have gone unsolved since theism began. that might help make yuor religion more flexible and more plausible to atheists who object to paradoxes within it.
The free will argument is not one I started, it was merely an exmaple I chose to illustrate the kind of problems you would solve in one fail swoop if you allowed God the ability to be wrong from time to time. I'm sorry fi you thought I wanteds to argue free will, I don't, although perhaps others on the forum do. Direct your comments to them and you might gain more satisfaction ok?
77
DS - You raised the issue of free will to try and further your own arguments. You say "fairly solid age old philosohpical concepts" - I say, so what? A bunch of Bertrand Russell wanna-be's get together in a smoke-filled coffee house to debate free will, and I'm just going to believe what they say, lock, stock, and barrel, over the allmighty? Look, it ain't gonna happen. Now, if you want to shy away from an argument about free will, fine, so be it. But, if you don't want to debate the issues that you yourself raise, then, I'd think about it more in the future before you type it. I'm not too keen on people insulting my God, and then running. If you want to do so, then be you'd better be prepared for the consequences of doing so.
Now, I'm willing to keep this a civil conversation, and I'm willing to take it out to its logical conclusion. However, I'm also not too keen on cowards and others who run at the first sign of trouble. Are you going to do so?
posted on 11.11.2004 5:39 PM78
No I raised the free will issue as an example of a problem that has plagued religious scholars for years and which is easily solved if you grant God the ability to make mistakes. There are many other issues that are also easily solved if you allow that God does not know everything. I stated rather clearly I didn't want to argue about Free Will but that I wa susi8ng is as an example of the kind of thing that such a dispensation would solve .. I even said in the beginning and along the way several times and I quote from one of my own posts early on above:
"Look I could care less about the Free Will thing. It's been done to death centuries ago and the aplogetics for it frankly suck imo they're so ridiculously bad.
I'm saying if you want to appeal to folks such as myself who see the idea of a perfect being incompatable with the world we observe then you might consider allowing God the capacity to make a mistake here and there.
So there you go.
Emm I think you're probably better off on a personal level believing sincerely in a God that cares about humans. It reduces anxiety and provides comfort when nothing else will-outside of being drugged to the point of retardation and coma. But not everyone gets to choose to abandon their critical thinking skills and pay no heed to glaring contradictions in a given faith. I didn't make a conscious decision to be an atheist. I never thought Gods were real from the moment I can remember first thinking about it. It seemed from my earliest memories, even as a four year old child, to be along the lines of a pleasant fiction like Santa Claus.
It makes no sense to insist that God has a master plan for the universe, that he is the sole architect of the universe, that his plan cannot be changed for it is perfect, that he knows everything that will happen, that he cannot be wrong,ever, that he could change what is going to happen if he chose to, and that he designed every aspect of the universe and there can be no varience from his intended future history ... but that he's not responsible for it. That. Does. Not. Make. Any. Sense.
And what the hell is the point of such a cosmogony anyway? If the devil is absolutely destined to be defeated and there is zero possibility that God will fail, if God holds all the cards and has the super duper trump secret powers to do whatever he wants, what the hell is the point of the universe?
In this context the 'struggle' between good and evil is nothing but an illusion. The devil might as well pack up and go home because he has as much chance of winning as the South has of winning the civil war in Gone With the Wind
God might as well take his toy soldiers out of the sandbox and go home as well, the universe might as well end, now, for there is no point in acting out a prearranged cosmic pissing contest between rival deities with humans as unwilling autonomic dronelike pawns used as chips with which to keep score in which the future outcome is absolutely 100% assured. At least there is no point in doing so from the vantage point of what's in the interests of humans ... I suppose, maybe, perhaps, it might be for some reason entertaining to the deities involved. Kinda like watching a good movie more than once even though you know the end.
What you end up with if you insist on inerrancy and total absolute knowledge and ability to do anything in a master creator deity is the possibility that our fate is in the hands of inhuman creatures with bizarre motives completely removed from human reasoning and in direct conflict with our best interests; that is not comforting to me Emm.
Furthermore those humans who would blindly facillitate this charade of reality and complete involuntary control of our day to day activities at the most intimate detail no matter how horrid the conditions therein are about as worthy of respect as Nazi Collaborators.
So it doesn't make much sense ... unless you grant that God is capable of making mistakes. That the future struggle and who will win is not assured, that God might loose.
Then you have a legitimate conflict between good and evil where we humans can make a difference and wher we have a big stake in the outcome.
Anyway, for me or most atheists to really believe this stuff is happening we'd like some kind of solid evidence. Not the face of Mary in a watermelon. Not vacuus platitudes like "Look at the trees! Aren't they beautiful? That's proof of the Christian YVWH!" ... Testable solid evidence that there really is a supernatural creator, a head supernatural creator, not a clever alien or a clever human who pretends to be the real deal. We'd want to make sure that the supernatural creature, even if it was produced, was really who it says it is and not a faker using some powers we don't understand to pose as something it is not.
posted on 11.11.2004 6:14 PM79
Why so confrontational, Emmaus? You should try Sanka Brand decaffeinated coffee.
posted on 11.11.2004 6:42 PM80
Emmaus:
I think that you're simply convoluting the argument with philosophical overlays to try and make a point, ignoring the essence of the argument.No, I'm really not. Put yourself in that position. What is the only way you could conceivably know with absolute certainty the outcome of some future event? The only way that's even possible is if there the known outcome is the only possible outcome. Why is this difficult for you to understand? Anyway, as I said, this is an issue that philosophers have been fighting with for centuries, and I don't expect two schleps like you and me to be able to sort it all out. :)
A bunch of Bertrand Russell wanna-be's get together in a smoke-filled coffee house to debate free will, and I'm just going to believe what they say, lock, stock, and barrel, over the allmighty?I didn't realize Calvinists were "Bertrand Russell wanna-be's." posted on 11.11.2004 7:00 PM
81
Emm point being; we don't have to exhaustively review the last millenia of convoluted apologetics on Free Will or many other facets of contradiction in which no clear consensus has ever emerged if you simply allow God the capacity to make mistakes. You do that and we don't have to argue about this stuff ever again. I'm not saying you should do that, I'm saying if you do that all these tortured apologetics cease to be necessary and you might find your religion more credible in the eyes of some atheists.
If God can be surprised, then there is no conflict with Satan getting the drop on him. If God cannot see the future with 100% clarity, then it's not his fault if Satan sneaks into the Garden of Eden to tempt man into Original Sin. By allowing God that simple ability to err you elminate all these problems and many more. Yes you might open up a whole new can of worms in some theological sense, I really don't know and I haven'thtought that through. I figured perhaps some others might have some productive thoughts on the consequences of allowing God the capacity to make errors. But you at least get rid of the mind numbing futile double talk that has persisted in religious philosophy since before the Black Plague.
They say there is no good deed that goes unpunished Emm. I make what I see as a good natured helpful suggestion about a possible way to make your faith more appealing by making it more plausible to folks like me, and you get all caught up in an age old philosophical issue that has no clear solution apparently thinking I was trying to start a fight about it. I wasn't. The thoughts of atheists on specific issue issues was the thread topic and it has evolved into atheism in general and why some is don't think your religion makes sense.
A comment I said played a central role in kicking the original post off. So I thought maybe some folks might actually care what an atheist like me thought about your religion in terms of making it more palatable to us on this thread. I was offering a potential solution; not starting a fight.
82
Here are some questions I'd like someone to answer (bonus points for Biblical support):
Can God be disappointed?
Can God feel pity?
Can God be happy?
Can God be proud?
Can God be needy?
Can God be merciful?
Can God be angry?
Can God be surprised?
posted on 11.11.2004 7:29 PM83
DS
Jumping in here to help my buddy Em, I would say that the omniscience of God would indicate that he knows all possible outcomes of all possible choices we can make.
But I admit that I cannot resolve the issue of the Soveriegnty of God and the free will of man. This has divided entire denominations.
But neither can you resolve the statistical and mathimatical impossiblity of even one amino acid forming by chance.
It is my observation that there is no evidence that you would accept to prove the existance of God. Even if he appeared before you, you would still have the choice to worship him or not.
The Pharisees were presented with undeniable proof that Jesus had raised a man from the dead. Many, many people were eyewitnesses of this event and they could not deny it. However, they also would not affirm it either, even though Lazarus was walking around. What was their solution? Destroy the evidence.
So I submit that there is no evidence that I could offer you. God did come to this earth and revealed himself to mankind so we could see him and touch him. Many still did not believe.
I do, and it's not based on fairy tales but on the number one selling book in the world, ever since printing began.
P.S. A movie about Jesus'life is also the most watched film of all time. To date this film has been viewed 5.2 BILLION times.
I do not base my beliefs on fairy tales, majic mittens, or other little examples you, TG, LL, JPE and others love to thrown out.
Our entire western civilization does not divide all of history from the life of a Majical Mitten. Nor does a huge proportion of Western Civilization celebrate the birth, death and resurrection of Majical Mittens.
I base my Faith on historical verifiable facts.
posted on 11.11.2004 8:19 PM