Because atheists (of which I am one, just to be clear) are just as capable of seeing the value of human life despite their lack of belief in the supernatural, which I thought I made clear in my comment @JeffBurton. In short, mysticism is not a prerequisite for morality.Christians are called to be more Christ-like. Atheists are called to be more ... nothing. There is no analog in atheism for the goal of living your life as Christ taught. Atheism is a nullity. That's neither good nor bad, it just is.
The claim that atheists are just as likely as Christians to value any morality at all can be generalized into this claim: Goals are irrelevant in achieving things. Let's use something other than religion and apply the same logic.
My daughter plays club soccer. She can say to herself "I am a soccer player and I wish to be just like Kaka, the great Brazilian midfielder." Or she can say to herself, "I am a kid and to me, soccer is just one of many competing activities." The choice she makes will have major ramifications in her life. If she chooses one, she will work on ball control and power shots. She will end up as a starter on the team. If she chooses the other she will be just as likely to watch SpongeBob as anything else. She will end up riding the bench this year and be kicked off the team the next.
Let's rewrite that comment with this example.
Because kids (of which I am one, just to be clear) are just as capable of playing quality soccer despite their lack of devotion to the game, which I thought I made clear in my comment @JeffBurton. In short, dedication is not a prerequisite for skill.This is clearly nonsense.
Atheists most certainly have a strong argument when it comes to repeatable scientific experimentation. They have no argument at all when it comes to morality and it's an act of wishful thinking (faith?) to suggest that they do.
41 comments:
Let's rewrite that comment with this example.
Because kids (of which I am one, just to be clear) are just as capable of playing quality soccer despite their lack of devotion to the game, which I thought I made clear in my comment @JeffBurton. In short, dedication is not a prerequisite for skill.
This is clearly nonsense.
Well, I agree with you on the last sentence...
Seriously though, I hear theists make this argument again and again and again, and it never ceases to amaze me that thinking adults can actually believe this argument. To say that being kind, loving, and just to fellow members of our species is somehow pointless and unjustified unless a supernatural deity exists is mind-boggling to me.
Hitchens summed this one up nicely, and since you seem to be a fan of his, I'll leave with this quote:
My mother’s Jewish ancestors are told that until they got to Sinai, they’d been dragging themselves around the desert under the impression that adultery, murder, theft and perjury were all fine, and got to Mount Sinai only to be told it’s not kosher after all.
That's great about Hitchen's relatives. Since all theists are equivalent all atheists are as well. Shall we discuss the guards at Kolyma?
If the atheist is right, what is the meaning of life? You are an accident. You are just a variation on a primate. A clever monkey. Your reason is suspect because it is an accident too. I mean really what is the point of your existence?
"Your reason is suspect" - true enough.
You certainly are dodging my questions a lot. I ask again, do you truly believe that morality is unjustified and pointless unless a supernatural god is behind it?
And yes, we can certainly discuss Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot and all the other tired old straw men that theists trot out as arguments against atheism. Maybe after that we can have a rousing discussion about the belt buckles of the Third Reich and Pius XII. Or maybe we can just dispatch all the mud-slinging nonsense and get down to the point:
Name for me one instance in the history of mankind where a nation which advocates evidence-based reasoning, fosters a healthy respect for scientific investigation, promotes the ideals of the Enlightenment, rejects superstition and mysticism in favor of skepticism and discussion, has gone on to commit mass atrocities in the name of said principles.
Anon,
Name for me one nation in the history of mankind that "advocates evidence-based reasoning, fosters a healthy respect for scientific investigation, promotes the ideals of the Enlightenment, [and] rejects superstition and mysticism in favor of skepticism and discussion" and did not commit mass atrocities that did not have a Judaeo-Christian cultural base. As did the Enlightenment itself.
I'm curious to see your choice[s].
And I'm not surprised to learn that the premier mass murderers in human history have now been relegated to the "tired old straw men" category. In fact, they are the most famous and powerful of all modern atheists, the antitype of Marxist type.
Anon, you need to read more Marx and Lenin. The dude threw off the shackles of superstition pretty deliberately. I'm guessing your defense of that is that Marx and Lenin weren't real atheists at all. As I understand it, that's the Hitchens defense.
Claiming a Judeo-Christian base is a pretty thin defense. I could make a similar argument like so: Since Mankind prior to 8000 BC was not Judeo-Christian, you cannot show me a single mass murderer that had a Judeo-Christian base.
In fact, if you go this route, you're also claiming that since you have a Judeo-Christian base, then your accomplishments aren't really yours after all. Instead, it looks like you just want to wriggle out from under some pretty awful things.
As for Pope Pius XII, even if I grant you the worst things he is accused of doing, I can still use Catholic teaching to show how he was not a good Catholic and his behaviors were sinful. You cannot use atheist teachings to say the same for Nietzsche, Mao or the guads at Kolyma. That's the inherent weakness of atheism - there are no moral first principles.
The real straw man here is 'supernatural being'. True some religious people may believe in such an entity, but going back to the root of Judaism, G-d can't be named, it is beyond language, just as the word eternity can't encompass what it tries to describe. G-d is more a presence that people who believe feel, it's like thinking of eternity or where space ends, something beyond us that we can't quite fathom. Atheists should go their own limited way and stop protesting too much at something they don't want to understand and yet seemingly can't quite leave alone.
"Name for me one instance in the history of mankind where a nation which advocates evidence-based reasoning, fosters a healthy respect for scientific investigation, promotes the ideals of the Enlightenment, rejects superstition and mysticism in favor of skepticism and discussion, has gone on to commit mass atrocities in the name of said principles. "
Except for all the real examples do have have a example? Really? That is your requirement? Does such a country really exist?
PS. A reason for the stricture against naming G-d was that once you name something you are in a way making it concrete which is opposed to its meaning, also once something is concrete it can be idolised and the story of the Old Testament is of the fight against idolatry. Think of the Golden Calf, or the answer Moses received, usually translated as 'I am that I am', which if I remember rightly is Jahweh from which comes Jehovah.
And you see, once you get Jehovah you are back to an entity, that's how words work in the mind.
More outstanding comments. Thanks ligneus and buster.
Perhaps I was unclear in the point I was trying to make. What you guys seem to be implying is that mass atrocities committed by secular, or even atheistic, states are somehow directly caused by the religious disbelief of said state. I call shenanigans on this one, which is exactly why I'm not damning the principles of Catholicism because of actions taken by Church members during WW2.
As for "the most famous and powerful of all modern atheists"? Sorry. Again, you're implying that disbelief leads to crimes against humanity.
Marx and Lenin? I don't give a fig for either of them. Their words and deeds make no difference to me, because my overarching position continues to be simply this: that I have yet to find a single compelling shred of evidence for belief in the supernatural. Any of it. Chakras, chi, telekinesis, goblins, magic, fairies, miracles, angels, unicorns, astral projection, voodoo, zombies, demons, and yes, gods and goddesses. And despite what I'm sure some of you will say, I am absolutely willing to be convinced that any of these things are accurate depictions of reality. Just be prepared to make a compelling argument.
Whether you care about Marx and Lenin is totally meaningless. They were atheists whose atheism removed all limits from their behavior and allowed them to lead an atheistic movement that slaughtered about 100 million people. You cannot point at them and say they were bad atheists because atheism has no objective measure of morality.
Anon, that's quite an escalation in your list of strawmen.
Anon,
Please don't patronize me by telling me what I'm implying. Nowhere, in any part of my comment, did I say, suggest, or imply that Pol Pot and his political brethren were mass murderers because they were atheists. They were simply atheists who failed to see the value of "being kind, loving, and just". I agree there is nothing inherent in atheism to prevent that view from developing. But there is nothing inherent in atheism to encourage it, either. Because atheism, by its very definition, believes in... Nothing.
And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and suggest you are making a rather childish error when you say I "imply" that "disbelief leads to crimes against humanity". Such a position would be monumentally stupid.
For example, what if one believed in Moloch, Kronos, or Ba'al? Then one would burn children for sacrifice, as the Carthaginians did. Or if one believed in "scientific socialism", then one must, perhaps regrettably, starve children to death to achieve larger social goals. But if one believes in Jesus Christ, who said "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven", then one does not burn or starve children except at great risk to one's own soul. The children know the difference, if you do not.
See the difference? You seem to suffer from an unusually cramped notion of "believer". I'm delighted to have been of help.
But now, if I may be so bold, I respectfully request you turn from idle speculations about what may or may not exist in the white spaces between my sentences and simply respond to my query:
"Name for me one nation in the history of mankind that "advocates evidence-based reasoning, fosters a healthy respect for scientific investigation, promotes the ideals of the Enlightenment, [and] rejects superstition and mysticism in favor of skepticism and discussion" and did not commit mass atrocities that did not have a Judaeo-Christian cultural base. As did the Enlightenment itself."
I remain curious.
Call them by whatever name you want, point at them whatever finger your want. I have no reason or desire to invoke them or defend them, because their atrocities are wholly orthogonal to my position, which has been and continues to be a disbelief in the supernatural for reasons of insufficient evidence. And once again, I stand open to a convincing argument to the contrary.
I remain curious.
I have yet to find a single compelling shred of evidence for belief in the supernatural. Any of it. Chakras, chi, telekinesis, goblins, magic, fairies, miracles, angels, unicorns, astral projection, voodoo, zombies, demons, and yes, gods and goddesses.
I wasn't going to write any more on the subject but this is just silly, do you suppose I believe in any of those things? You have failed to even try to understand what I've been trying to say, you just keep coming back with this rubbish and think you've made a point.
It's argument by mockery. The Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy are favorites.
OK, but I think the mockery rebounds to his more serious argument. I've tried to explain that 'supernatural being' is not an argument, I don't believe in such either so it might as well be lumped in with the Easter Bunny for all the validity he might claim for it. It's still a straw man argument.
I have more to say but it's already past my bedtime which why what I've written here isn't as well said as it might be.
ligneus, I agree with you that it damages his argument. It's just an insult. He could just easily have typed "You're a moron!" and meant the same thing. It's transparent self-important superiority badly masked as cleverness. "Oooh, look, I compared their God to the Easter Bunny! Tee hee hee!" It's like an 8-year-old obviously tricking you into saying potty words.
Not exactly worthy of the great atheists of the past like Nietzsche.
Because atheism, by its very definition, believes in... Nothing.
No. Atheism is not a statement of belief. It is a rejection of the theist claim that a supernatural deity exists.
But if one believes in Jesus Christ... then one does not burn or starve children except at great risk to one's own soul.
Yeah, your religion certainly has a lot to say about how children are to be treated!
Genesis 22:1-2
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Or how about the Tenth Plague of Egypt. Or Psalm 137. Deuteronomy 21:18-21. Exodus 21:17. How do you explain passages such as these? Are such things truly the word of God?
"advocates evidence-based reasoning, fosters a healthy respect for scientific investigation, promotes the ideals of the Enlightenment, [and] rejects superstition and mysticism in favor of skepticism and discussion"
It was a rhetorical question without an answer. That's the whole point. You guys keep talking about crimes against humanity and lack of belief in God in the same breath. SA said it best. Such a position would be monumentally stupid. I have yet to encounter a single disbeliever who is not a staunch advocate of every principle I stated above. If you guys aren't trying to draw some tenuous thread between atheism and mass murder, then why do these monsters of history keep coming up?
Here's another question. If my lack of belief is so obviously wrong, so absurdly ignorant, then why are we even having a debate? Why hasn't anyone provided irrefutable evidence that the Christian God of Abraham exists? If I were in here defending my disbelief in gravity, you would simply throw Newton's Law and General Relativity in my face and be done with it. So provide me with your evidence that God exists and be done with it.
The fact that anything exists at all.
:-)
So because you cannot conceive of any other possible way that the universe could come into existence, you are concluding that the only logical explanation is that it was willed into existence by the Christian God of the Bible?
Furthermore, by what criteria are you able to conclusively prove that the Christian account for the existence of the universe is the correct one? How do you know that one of the countless other creation stories in human history is not actually the correct one?
Anon,
Taking your penultimate point first: i.e., "It was a rhetorical question without an answer."
Incorrect. Your question has an answer: neither you, nor I, can name one.
My question has an answer, too: none. Nothing "rhetorical" about it. Else you would have named one, I presume, rather than blathering around in a futile attempt to change the subject and finally grasping the "rhetorical question" straw.
Moreover, I propose that there are none because the Judaeo-Christian tradition has provided the only fertile soil for such political and philosophical developments. Unless, of course you think it must be something unique to Caucasians of European descent. Or can "provide evidence" of some other cause.
Unfortunately, I can't be of assistance with your Biblical scholarship. It is, as was noted about Dawkins' The God Delusion, like "Imagin[ing] someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the British Book of Birds..." In fact, I'm sure you feel the same way about those folks who assemble lists of blatantly, disgustingly racist quotes from Darwin and Huxley and use them as as leverage to discredit evolutionary theory. We can both agree such efforts are undignified. I hope.
Now, to your last point: I submit God's Laws, The Ten Commandments. Do you deny the empirical social disorder and injustice that ensues when people feel free to worship politicians, celebrities, and material goods, and feel free to murder, steal, lie, perjure themselves, seduce other people's spouses, and are consumed with greed and envy?
Speaking as a scientist, if I had to choose between living in a world having either God's Laws or Newton's Laws, but not both, I would rather live in a world where the Ten Commandments are believed and followed and Newton's Laws remain undiscovered.
And before you huff and puff that "Atheists could have come up with that." allow me to point out that, empirically, they didn't.
Anon, it just works for me and that's a pretty good reason right there. Furthermore, Catholic morality works far, far better than atheist morality. I'm sorry that you're still arguing that point, but it just is. I socialize with a lot of scientists and I socialize with a lot of devout Catholics and using what I know about statistics and probability, I feel very confident in making that statement. That's not a knock on the scientists, but a characteristic of those who are devout.
As for the other descriptions of creation, Catholic teaching has no position on science at all since it is outside the realm of living like Christ. After the fall of Rome, the primary patron of scientific inquiry in the world was the Church. You see, we rejoice when scientists uncover genetics, physics, the makeup of the atom and string theory. It's a wonderful thing to unwrap the presents God laid out for us.
In the end, religion is still based on faith. My original conundrum was this: why do scientists deny faith? For me there is no conflict. Agnostics I can understand, but atheism is a bit too much for me as a scientist. There is still too much unexplained, unrepeatable and unmeasurable for me to categorically state, "There is no God." That in itself would require faith which destroys the whole foundation of basing your decisions on science.
I still believe there's something else at work here that drives many of these people to atheism, something much more human and natural than cold, impersonal logic. I can find some possible reasons in pride, vanity and lust. Again, as ligneus or someone else noted here, Huxley expressly stated that a big benefit of atheism was the rejection of sexual morality.
That takes us back to the little boy who was shot 22 times. Go read the story and look for the quotes from his father. You won't find any. Given the environment where the kid was living, it's a good bet that the dude had his orgasm and bailed out. Suffer the children indeed.
Secular, you can come back any time, baby. If I'd known this was your sweet spot, I'd have been writing vapid posts on this topic just to read your comments.
:-)
We can both agree such efforts are undignified. I hope.
Yep. I think this might be the first thing we've agreed to yet.
I submit God's Laws, The Ten Commandments.
The Ten Commandments. That's your evidence that the Christian God of the Bible exists? The Ten Commandments which, despite appearing twice in the Old Testament (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), explicitly advocates slavery in each instance? Never mind the glaring omissions which you would think an all-knowing, all-loving God would have thought to put in there. Things like, oh, just off the top of my head:
11. Thou shalt not rape
12. Thou shalt not torture
13. Thou shalt not enslave
14. Thou shalt honor thy daughters and thy sons
15. Thou shalt treat neither man nor woman as inferior
Why advocate such a small subset of Mosaic Law? The Old Testament is riddled with hundreds of barbaric thou-shalts. Why just the ten? And what does it say about those ten when they're surrounded by book after book of genocide, murder, slavery, stoning, and subjugation?
If these words of God are so vitally necessary for a human society to function, how do you explain the low crime rates of nations that are predominantly secular or atheistic?
Furthermore, Catholic morality works far, far better than atheist morality.
Atheism as a position makes no claims with regards to morality. It is, quite simply, a rejection of the theist claim that a god exists.
In the end, religion is still based on faith.
I couldn't agree more. But I see nothing virtuous about faith, because what you're telling me is that there are claims that you're willing to accept as true, despite the fact that you can't support those claims with any kind of real evidence.
There is still too much unexplained, unrepeatable and unmeasurable for me to categorically state, "There is no God."
Again, I completely agree. But I have never once asserted that there is no God, and would never make such a claim. My position has been and continues to be that I am unconvinced that the Christian God of the Bible (or any god for that matter) actually exists.
I still believe there's something else at work here that drives many of these people to atheism, something much more human and natural than cold, impersonal logic...pride, vanity and lust...rejection of sexual morality.
I think this will be the third time I've made this point here, but here goes anyway. Despite your notions to the contrary, there are quite a good many people in this world who are atheists because they are unconvinced that God actually exists. Implying that there is some underlying motive of vile debauchery is simply dishonest.
We can both agree such efforts are undignified. I hope.
Yep. I think this might be the first thing we've agreed to yet.
I submit God's Laws, The Ten Commandments.
The Ten Commandments. That's your evidence that the Christian God of the Bible exists? The Ten Commandments which, despite appearing twice in the Old Testament (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), explicitly advocates slavery in each instance? Never mind the glaring omissions which you would think an all-knowing, all-loving God would have thought to put in there. Things like, oh, just off the top of my head:
11. Thou shalt not rape
12. Thou shalt not torture
13. Thou shalt not enslave
14. Thou shalt honor thy daughters and thy sons
15. Thou shalt treat neither man nor woman as inferior
Why advocate such a small subset of Mosaic Law? The Old Testament is riddled with hundreds of barbaric thou-shalts. Why just the ten? And what does it say about those ten when they're surrounded by book after book of genocide, murder, slavery, stoning, and subjugation?
If these words of God are so vitally necessary for a human society to function, how do you explain the low crime rates of nations that are predominantly secular or atheistic?
Furthermore, Catholic morality works far, far better than atheist morality.
Atheism as a position makes no claims with regards to morality. It is, quite simply, a rejection of the theist claim that a god exists.
In the end, religion is still based on faith.
I couldn't agree more. But I see nothing virtuous about faith, because what you're telling me is that there are claims that you're willing to accept as true, despite the fact that you can't support those claims with any kind of real evidence.
There is still too much unexplained, unrepeatable and unmeasurable for me to categorically state, "There is no God."
Again, I completely agree. But I have never once asserted that there is no God, and would never make such a claim. My position has been and continues to be that I am unconvinced that the Christian God of the Bible (or any god for that matter) actually exists.
I still believe there's something else at work here that drives many of these people to atheism, something much more human and natural than cold, impersonal logic...pride, vanity and lust...rejection of sexual morality.
I think this will be the third time I've made this point here, but here goes anyway. Despite your notions to the contrary, there are quite a good many people in this world who are atheists because they are unconvinced that God actually exists. Implying that there is some underlying motive of vile debauchery is simply dishonest.
We can both agree such efforts are undignified. I hope.
Yep. I think this might be the first thing we've agreed to yet.
I submit God's Laws, The Ten Commandments.
The Ten Commandments. That's your evidence that the Christian God of the Bible exists? The Ten Commandments which, despite appearing twice in the Old Testament (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5), explicitly advocates slavery in each instance? Never mind the glaring omissions which you would think an all-knowing, all-loving God would have thought to put in there. Things like, oh, just off the top of my head:
11. Thou shalt not rape
12. Thou shalt not torture
13. Thou shalt not enslave
14. Thou shalt honor thy daughters and thy sons
15. Thou shalt treat neither man nor woman as inferior
Why advocate such a small subset of Mosaic Law? The Old Testament is riddled with hundreds of barbaric thou-shalts. Why just the ten? And what does it say about those ten when they're surrounded by book after book of genocide, murder, slavery, stoning, and subjugation?
If these words of God are so vitally necessary for a human society to function, how do you explain the low crime rates of nations that are predominantly secular or atheistic?
Furthermore, Catholic morality works far, far better than atheist morality.
Atheism as a position makes no claims with regards to morality. It is, quite simply, a rejection of the theist claim that a god exists.
In the end, religion is still based on faith.
I couldn't agree more. But I see nothing virtuous about faith, because what you're telling me is that there are claims that you're willing to accept as true, despite the fact that you can't support those claims with any kind of real evidence.
There is still too much unexplained, unrepeatable and unmeasurable for me to categorically state, "There is no God."
Again, I completely agree. But I have never once asserted that there is no God, and would never make such a claim. My position has been and continues to be that I am unconvinced that the Christian God of the Bible (or any god for that matter) actually exists.
I still believe there's something else at work here that drives many of these people to atheism, something much more human and natural than cold, impersonal logic...pride, vanity and lust...rejection of sexual morality.
I think this will be the third time I've made this point here, but here goes anyway. Despite your notions to the contrary, there are quite a good many people in this world who are atheists because they are unconvinced that God actually exists. Implying that there is some underlying motive of vile debauchery is simply dishonest.
Anon,
As Ronald Reagan said, "there you go again", reading my mind. "[Implying] there is some underlying motive of vile debauchery", indeed. Son, you have an active imagination. I don't think Christopher Hitchens is a "vile debaucherer".
And I am not trying to convince you of anything.
You ask me questions, I answer. I ask you questions, you avoid them, and I needle you about it.
You quote and cite Scripture out of context. I point out, correctly, that you know nothing of theology (and probably copied those quotes and citations out of a book written by someone else who knows nothing about theology).
You ask what evidence convinces me. I tell you.
That constitutes "trying to convince you"? Be serious.
Look, I know from my own journey in life that absolutely no one can "convince" you that God exists. No one. So you're safe. Relax.
Allow me to explain by using your example of Newton's Laws. No one has ever seen gravity. No one has ever tasted, touched, smelled, or heard gravity. When we think of "gravity", we are usually thinking of gravity's effects. Gravity, per se, remains one of the greatest mysteries in physics.
For thousands of years, some of the most brilliant human beings who ever lived were looking right at the effects of this mystery we call gravity: Euclid, Archimedes, and Aristotle failed to see the connection. Galileo began to get a handle on it, and Newton formalized it.
It is perfectly possible to disbelieve in gravity in a way it is not possible to disbelieve in, say, trees. Although some very intelligent philosophers manage even to do that.
But if you were determined to disbelieve in gravity, nothing could convince you. Gravity is so subtle, it took thousands of years for human beings to figure it out. There are some folks who still don't believe human beings landed on the Moon.
So, when you say, "provide me with your evidence that God exists", I must follow up with a question: what, in your mind, would constitute confirmatory evidence? Otherwise, you're simply playing the Go Get A Rock game. Every rock the other player gets, you can simply say, "Wrong rock. Get me another one."
Personally speaking, no one could "convince" me with "evidence" that God existed and that Jesus Christ was His Son. For the vast majority of my life. And no one can "convince" you.
I'm just trying to help you think more clearly about the question, because I believe the answer you finally choose, in the end, will have eternal, and very real, consequences.
Anon,
Look, I’m sorry if you think I’m trying to “convince” you. I am not trying to convince you of anything.
Because I know from my own journey in life that absolutely no one can "convince" you that God exists. No one. So you're safe. Relax!
Allow me to explain by using your example of Newton's Laws. No one has ever seen gravity. No one has ever tasted, touched, smelled, or heard gravity. When we think of "gravity", we are usually thinking of gravity's effects. Gravity, per se, remains one of the greatest mysteries in physics. For thousands of years, some of the most brilliant human beings who ever lived were looking right at the effects of this mystery we call gravity and totally missed it.
It is perfectly possible to disbelieve in gravity in a way it is not possible to disbelieve in, say, trees. Although some very intelligent philosophers manage even to do that.
But if you were determined to disbelieve in gravity, nothing could convince you. Gravity is so subtle it took thousands of years for human beings to figure it out.
Personally speaking, no one could "convince" me with "evidence" that God existed and that Jesus Christ was His Son. For the vast majority of my life.
No, I had to convince myself. Based on effects of God's existence and love that were right in front of my face. Effects that I failed to connect together. So no one can "convince" you.
I'm just trying to help you think more clearly about the question, because I believe the answer you finally choose, in the end, will have eternal, and very real, consequences.
Anon, as Secular said, there is plenty of evidence right in front of you in various forms, evidence that has convinced plenty of sophisticated, intelligent, scientific people. What I've learned from your argument is that you lack the humility to consider the possibility that people more intelligent, more educated and wiser than you have chosen Christianity and therefore, there may well be something to it.
As for "proof", you've chosen to live in a self-imposed box of science. I would suggest that science can explain everything that is repeatable and measurable. You want proof that is repeatable and measurable. Therefore, any proof you're given will be explainable by science. However, you're making a logical mistake here. "I can explain everything that is repeatable and measurable" does not convert to "Everything is repeatable and measurable." That's the inherent flaw in the science-based atheism logic. You believe this, but you have no proof and in fact, you have to discard data points from those who claim to have experienced such things, discarding them from nothing more than your faith that everything can be explained through science.
I fail to see the difference between our levels of faith. Using faith as a part of your argument is like being pregnant, it's a binary choice. Any amount is sufficient to be faith-based. You can't be "a little bit faith-based."
Honestly, I've not been following yor thread of logic on morality since you seem to have first claimed that atheists are just as moral as Christians and have now dropped that assertion. That's probably a good idea since there's no way, either from a micro level where you examine mechanisms to a macro level where you examine statistical patterns, that you can hope to win that argument.
Whoops, sorry for the dupes. Comment submission was acting up, so feel free to prune the repeats. Now…
@Secular Apostate, Part 1:
As Ronald Reagan said…Son, you have an active imagination…"vile debaucherer"
First of all, this response was directed at K T Cat and his continued insistence that there is some ulterior motive at work when people say they don't believe that God exists. And I'm not sure how Hitchens got pulled into this one.
You quote and cite Scripture out of context.
Out of context??? Seriously? The Bible is riddled with passages that justify slavery. Don't you think an all-knowing, all-loving God would have foreseen all the death and suffering that slavery would cause in the following centuries, and said something to stop it? And in exactly which context is the owning of a human being by another human being acceptable?
(and probably copied those quotes and citations out of a book written by someone else who knows nothing about theology)
Wrong again. You know where I got them? The King James Bible. They're right there, you can read it for yourself. And I'm just curious, do you or do you not agree that the human condition would have been much better off all these years if God had bothered to condemn rape, torture, slavery, child abuse, and misogyny right up front?
Oh, and how do you explain the low crime rates of nations that are predominantly secular or atheistic?
…absolutely no one can "convince" you that God exists.
Not even close. Problem is, nobody has ever tried to convince me with anything other than some variation of, "I just know that God exists", "You just have to have faith", "The Bible says…", or "I can't conceive of an answer to X, therefore, God".
It is perfectly possible to disbelieve in gravity in a way it is not possible to disbelieve in, say, trees.
I disagree. Despite the fact that gravitation might be more difficult to understand than the fact that trees exist, if someone were trying to disbelieve gravity, all it would take is a more learned individual to bust out the math and the physics, which is just as conclusive as being able to examine a tree with your five senses. I have never seen anything remotely analogous to said math, physics, or senses when it comes to the existence of God.
Whoops, sorry for the dupes. Comment submission was acting up, so feel free to prune the repeats. Now…
@Secular Apostate, Part 1:
As Ronald Reagan said…Son, you have an active imagination…"vile debaucherer"
First of all, this response was directed at K T Cat and his continued insistence that there is some ulterior motive at work when people say they don't believe that God exists. And I'm not sure how Hitchens got pulled into this one.
You quote and cite Scripture out of context.
Out of context??? Seriously? The Bible is riddled with passages that justify slavery. Don't you think an all-knowing, all-loving God would have foreseen all the death and suffering that slavery would cause in the following centuries, and said something to stop it? And in exactly which context is the owning of a human being by another human being acceptable?
(and probably copied those quotes and citations out of a book written by someone else who knows nothing about theology)
Wrong again. You know where I got them? The King James Bible. They're right there, you can read it for yourself. And I'm just curious, do you or do you not agree that the human condition would have been much better off all these years if God had bothered to condemn rape, torture, slavery, child abuse, and misogyny right up front?
Oh, and how do you explain the low crime rates of nations that are predominantly secular or atheistic?
…absolutely no one can "convince" you that God exists.
Not even close. Problem is, nobody has ever tried to convince me with anything other than some variation of, "I just know that God exists", "You just have to have faith", "The Bible says…", or "I can't conceive of an answer to X, therefore, God".
@Secular Apostate, Part 2:
It is perfectly possible to disbelieve in gravity in a way it is not possible to disbelieve in, say, trees.
I disagree. Despite the fact that gravitation might be more difficult to understand than the fact that trees exist, if someone were trying to disbelieve gravity, all it would take is a more learned individual to bust out the math and the physics, which is just as conclusive as being able to examine a tree with your five senses. I have never seen anything remotely analogous to said math, physics, or senses when it comes to the existence of God.
What, in your mind, would constitute confirmatory evidence?
Well, in broad terms, any evidence that is observable, independently verifiable, and points directly to the Christian God of the Bible. For fun, some hypothetical examples might be:
- Any confirmed instance of a violation of natural law (i.e. miracle)
- Any observable, verifiable evidence that our thoughts, feelings, knowledge, etc. are somehow able to transcend death. In other words, evidence that there is something that makes up our personality other than electrochemical activity in the brain.
- A medically confirmed resurrection of the dead. Hell, I'd even settle for a medically confirmed instance of spontaneous limb regeneration.
- The stars in the heavens simultaneously winking out the KJV in morse code
(I realize that some of these don't necessarily point towards the Christian God of Abraham, but they could certainly be considered a step in that direction)
Personally speaking, no one could "convince" me with "evidence" that God existed and that Jesus Christ was His Son.
So what did convince you? I say this with all sincerity and candor. I would genuinely like to know, and assure you it will not be met with a snarky retort.
I believe the answer you finally choose, in the end, will have eternal, and very real, consequences.
This is something that continually disturbs me about the Christian faith, because what it implies is that God is perfectly willing to take someone, who applies their intellect and reasoning in an honest and diligent manner,
and yet comes up with the wrong answer to The Big Question, and condemn them to eternal pain and torture for being incorrect.
@K T Cat:
What I've learned from your argument is that you lack the humility to consider the possibility that people more intelligent, more educated and wiser than you have chosen Christianity and therefore, there may well be something to it.
For someone who has never even met me, you sure claim to know an awful lot about what I think and why. You are incorrect on this point. Aside from the fact that accepting Christianity just because some really smart people have done it is a terrible justification for believing, I, in fact, do not think that there "may be something to it", because regardless of how intelligent those people might be in other aspect of their lives, they have yet to remotely convince me that their claims of God's existence are true.
You've chosen to live in a self-imposed box of science.
Box? Hardly. Scientific investigation is the most powerful method the human race has come up with for separating truth from falsehood. If you're saying that you have conclusive knowledge of some other aspect of reality which lies outside the reach of scientific investigation, you need to get that typed up and published ASAP, because that's Nobel Prize material.
"Everything is repeatable and measurable."
If a given phenomenon manifests itself in reality, it can be observed and eventually understood through scientific inquiry. You seem to keep hinting that there is some unobservable otherness beyond the bounds of nature which obviously exists, merely because lots of people believe that it does.
You have to discard data points from those who claim to have experienced such things...
Data points??? Of what?? If these things in question manifest themselves in nature in any way, then they are by definition observable and testable. I don't know how you can possibly claim that a phenomenon can in any way affect reality if that phenomenon cannot be observed or measured.
You seem to have first claimed that atheists are just as moral as Christians and have now dropped that assertion.
By no means. In fact, I'll assert it again. Because what you're implying is that there is some mystical source of morality which I, as an atheist, am somehow incapable of accessing. If you're going to assert that morality can only come from God, you need to prove that a god exists, prove that that god is the Christian God of the Bible, and then prove that said God is the only possible explanation for human morality. I'll save you the trouble, because you and I both know that you cannot prove the existence of God.
Morality doesn't come from God. It comes from us. Human beings. We long ago discovered that there are behaviors and actions which are simply incompatible with a functioning human society. And as human society changes, guess what, so do human morals. That's why we no longer stone homosexuals and adulterers (at least in the civilized world), why we punish those who commit rape and slavery and genocide are wrong, et cetera, et cetera. And, sorry to break it to you, but belief in God has absolutely no bearing on one's ability to function in society as an upstanding, moral citizen.
Anon,
re: "Out of context???": Yes, out of context. The Descent of Man is riddled with quotes that reflect the racism and eugenics of the day. Convenient, but lazy scholarship. I'm embarrassed for you.
re: "Wrong again.": I know where they originally came from (thanks for the tip, though). But parrots can quote Scripture.
re: "low crime rates": What countries, specifically? Cuba? North Korea? I hear they have very low crime rates.
re: "nobody has ever tried to convince me" Why is it a problem that no one ever tried to convince you on your terms? It's not about you. Really! If you knew anything about Judaeo-Christian theology, you would know that.
re: "I disagree": OK.
re: "what evidence": You want magic, go to Vegas. "[B]ehold, the LORD passed by [Elijah], and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice." It's the still, small voice you need to hear.
re: what convinced you?": Long story. But it wasn't magic.
re: "God is perfectly willing": If you break the law, and go to jail, do you blame the judge?
The Descent of Man doesn't have supposedly divine origins. The Bible does. Your perfect Word of God explicitly supports slavery, subjugation of women, genocide, stoning of homosexuals, stoning of adulterers, and a whole laundry list of Bronze Age barbarisms. There is no proper context for such things. They were wrong back then, and they're wrong now.
I've had my fill of you guys. You clearly have no problem supporting blood-soaked myths on the basis of zero evidence, and apparently endorse eternal punishment for incorrect thoughts. It's obvious that no amount of rational discussion is going to change that.
I cannot despair though, because if there is one thing that history has proven, it's that disgusting, backwards ideologies such as yours are destined to be cast down and forgotten as sure as the night follows the day.
Peace out. It's been thoroughly depressing.
Post a Comment