What criticisms can be made of Athiests?

[IndieHibby]

Members of the religous community, of which I am acutely aware that there are many on this site, are very used to criticisms being made of their beliefs.

I happen to believe this is fair. Consequently, if this is fair, then there should also be criticism from the religous community towards athiests. After all, the two views are diametrically opposed.

However, it dawned on me that in all the discussion of this type that I have had, it rarely, if ever, results in any criticism of the athiest position. Instead, discussion always revolves around the voracity of the religous viewpoint.

So I invite one and all to post here the criticisms that can be made of the atheist viewpoint - if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity :greengrin

Many thanks,

Stu

[Twa Cairpets]

Interesting post, Stu

The most frequent criticisms I get of my stance when I discuss my views on forums or with people are, in no particular order:

- You are closed minded, and therefore your refusal to even attempt to see the value in our belief system makes your views invalid
- Atheism is basically a belief/faith system anyway, so you are being hypocritical.
- Some of the fundamental tenets of atheist "belief", like evolution, are "still only a theory".
- Anything created needs a creator, so your argument is clearly bunk from the outset.
- If you don't have a belief, then where do you get your morals from? If there is a "moral law", there has to be a "moral law giver". If there isnt what is to stop people from basically being feral.
- Why do you want to stop people believing in something that gives them comfort, community and fellowship?

There are lots of others, but thats a starter for ten

(PS - I obviously dont accept any of the above points as being valid, but that isnt what you asked...)

[Woody1985]

What is there to criticise?

'Ohhh you stupid atheist not believing in some supernatural being that created everything with a wag of a giant lottery finger.'

Anyone who believes in some form of God are verging on deluded if you ask me. Hundreds of generations have had mythical stories passed down to them which makes children continue to beLIEve.

Yes, people can take strength from religion and help them in life. I don't knock that.

We're just a bunch of living organisms on a planet, we die, we're dead, we don't go anywhere, our spirit doesn't live on, we don't go to pearly gates or eternal hell. When you ask me to prove this, you know I can't. However, you'll find out when you croak it.

Mini rant over. :greengrin

[hibsdaft]

not believing in something you have no evidence of is a pretty orthodox, default position.

i know there are more militant pro-atheistisms around, but the above is my position and if someone was to criticise me for it i'd have to wonder about there sanity tbh. and frankly they could gtf too.

[ballengeich]

The emissions from atheists burning in hell for eternity could contribute to global warming.

[Dashing Bob S]

The main criticism of atheists is that they tend sit back in silence and let Christians, Muslims etc spout their moronic drivel unchallenged.

[Mibbes Aye]

Atheists have made ****-all contribution to the securing of public holidays. Poor show on their part :agree:

[Mibbes Aye]

Atheists have also singularly failed to establish any sort of annual festival days which allow for over-indulgent or even 'binge' eating and drinking (see Christmas, Easter Day, Shrove Tuesday etc etc and that's just your Christians!).

Another poor show on their part.

[Woody1985]

Atheists have also singularly failed to establish any sort of annual festival days which allow for over-indulgent or even 'binge' eating and drinking (see Christmas, Easter Day, Shrove Tuesday etc etc and that's just your Christians!).

Another poor show on their part.

I disagree.

I designate every weekend for these activities and am not restricted by dates. in the year.:greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't like all hymns but some are pretty decent. Never heard an atheist one yet :rolleyes:

The best Christmas carols (IMO) are all religious.

I also like a musical setting of the Mass and of the Requiem Mass (Durufle, Palestrina especially, can't ignore Mozart, Bach and Verdi either). Yer atheists just don't go there :bitchy:

Poor show etc etc

[Mibbes Aye]

I disagree.

I designate every weekend for these activities and am not restricted by dates. in the year.:greengrin

That maybe shows the kind of flexibility and spontaneity that organised religion simply can't match.

Have you thought of forming your own cult? :greengrin

[Mibbes Aye]

Architecturally (and this borders on a serious point :greengrin), religion pisses all over atheism - the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, Angkor, the Gothic cathedrals of Europe etc etc.

Deity-worshipping makes for aesthetically-pleasing construction :greengrin

[sleeping giant]

Atheists dont like being called Atheist seemingly !
They have a point ! We dont have names for folk who don't believe in Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy.

Taken from an article from Christopher Hitchens before i get pulled up:greengrin

[Woody1985]

That maybe shows the kind of flexibility and spontaneity that organised religion simply can't match.

Have you thought of forming your own cult? :greengrin

I know. I also get other benefits such as knowing that my virgin girlfriend has obviously been pumped by someone else when she ends up preggers. I can just dump her and move on, don't need to make a big story out of it. :greengrin It's crazy, I can do all sorts of stuff.

Na, think I'll just play things by day and see how they pan out. Wouldn't want to get attached to anything as I might have to formalise it, turn it into a money making machine and potentially strike fear into everyone if they are not being 'Athie' enough.

[sleeping giant]

As for a criticism of Atheists.
I would say Atheists are unscientific !

[ballengeich]

As for a criticism of Atheists.
I would say Atheists are unscientific !

What experimental evidence (subjected to peer review) do you have to back up this statement?

[sleeping giant]

What experimental evidence (subjected to peer review) do you have to back up this statement?

:faf:

None !


I maybe should have worded it a bit better.

To be scientific , you can't dismiss anything until its been proven IMO.

[ballengeich]

:faf:

None !


I maybe should have worded it a bit better.

To be scientific , you can't dismiss anything until its been proven IMO.

I'd have thought that to be scientific the last things you'd dismiss would be those which have been proven.:wink:

[sleeping giant]

I'd have thought that to be scientific the last things you'd dismiss would be those which have been proven.:wink:

I'm glad you agree :greengrin

[BroxburnHibee]

What is there to criticise?

'Ohhh you stupid atheist not believing in some supernatural being that created everything with a wag of a giant lottery finger.'

Anyone who believes in some form of God are verging on deluded if you ask me. Hundreds of generations have had mythical stories passed down to them which makes children continue to beLIEve.

Yes, people can take strength from religion and help them in life. I don't knock that.

We're just a bunch of living organisms on a planet, we die, we're dead, we don't go anywhere, our spirit doesn't live on, we don't go to pearly gates or eternal hell. When you ask me to prove this, you know I can't. However, you'll find out when you croak it.

Mini rant over. :greengrin


:hilarious

Erm.......no they won't :greengrin

[HIBERNIALEITH]

This is a really tough one!

There is a girl in my daughter's class (p3) who has never believed in Santa Clause/Tooth Fairy etc etc and my daughter now is asking all the questions which would arise from this!

Now I know she is 7 and nearly at the stage of non-believing but I also have a 1 year old and I'm sure she will spoil it for him next year if she "discovers the truth"!

What does one do?????
:bitchy:

[PeeJay]

Members of the religous community, of which I am acutely aware that there are many on this site, are very used to criticisms being made of their beliefs.

I happen to believe this is fair. Consequently, if this is fair, then there should also be criticism from the religous community towards athiests. After all, the two views are diametrically opposed.

However, it dawned on me that in all the discussion of this type that I have had, it rarely, if ever, results in any criticism of the athiest position. Instead, discussion always revolves around the voracity of the religous viewpoint.

So I invite one and all to post here the criticisms that can be made of the atheist viewpoint - if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity :greengrin

Many thanks,

Stu

There is surely only one valid criticism of the atheist: that he/she does not believe in the existence of a God? Not much to go on for all the feisty theists out there looking for reasons to be critical of "us".

Of course this atheist standpoint would be so easy to cast aside if ONLY theists could provide evidence regarding their point of view. By evidence of course I don't mean reports of recanting atheists professing there is a God after all while they are being burnt at the stake - a favourite former ploy.

Anyway, all you theists, believers, indeed those of any religious persuasion: the ball is in your court, let's see it or concede!:cool2:

[Twa Cairpets]

:faf:

None !


I maybe should have worded it a bit better.

To be scientific , you can't dismiss anything until its been proven IMO.

This is a fairly common discussion ground - if you look at it from an atheist standpoint, the concepts of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Russells Teapot are valid things to "believe" in, as they cant be disproved by those of faith.

But the scientific method doesnt do what you, I suspect, think it does. As scientific theories are developed, the aim of the peer review system, for example, is to ensure it holds some validity prior to publication. It is then available for the scientific community to test and replicate before it becomes accepted knowledge (which is probably a better way of describing it than proof, as one of the basic requirements for something to be described as scientific is for it to be at least potentially falsifiable).

Incidentally, I dont personaly belive that pure faith is something that lends itself to scientific measurement or control - how could it? Where misuse of science or ignorance (deliberate or otherwise) is used as an argument ot back up faith, then that is worthy of discussion. A classic example which had me shouting at the telly was on, of all places, Celebrity Big Brother last week.
Stephen Baldwin very forcefully said something along the lines of "I have one question for evolutionists - if evolution is true, then why are there still apes. We "evolved" from apes, but there are still apes!" The stupid was so visceral it burned.

[Woody1985]

:hilarious

Erm.......no they won't :greengrin

I know, but you get the jist. :greengrin

P.S If I croak it and end up in eternal hell for denouncing religion do you think that God could set me up a broadband connection so I can let you all know?

Oh, and another thing, how is it known God is a man?! Typical of people from 1600-2000 years ago to assume (create) that God is a man eh, how convenient. :LOL:

Sorry, I've gone off tangent completely on this thread. The non beLIEvers are meant to be criticised. :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

That they are difficult to spell?

[Peevemor]

Architecturally (and this borders on a serious point :greengrin), religion pisses all over atheism - the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, Angkor, the Gothic cathedrals of Europe etc etc.

Deity-worshipping makes for aesthetically-pleasing construction :greengrin

© HRH The Prince of Wales :yawn:

[Twa Cairpets]

Architecturally (and this borders on a serious point :greengrin), religion pisses all over atheism - the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, Angkor, the Gothic cathedrals of Europe etc etc.

Deity-worshipping makes for aesthetically-pleasing construction :greengrin

Agree with you here actually (except for the Taj Mahal, which I think was built to honour a dead wife rather than as a religious monument).

Some of the cathedrals are stunning, although the opulence of some of them and the sheer amount of resource - human, financial and material - that went into making them does make one wonder if that resource could have been utilised better for the common good (although in fairness I am judging by todays standards rather than those of the time).

[Peevemor]

Agree with you here actually

So do I, but :yawn: anyway. :greengrin

[heretoday]

Down with Atheists. Agnostics are the boys.

[ballengeich]

Architecturally (and this borders on a serious point :greengrin), religion pisses all over atheism - the Parthenon, the Hagia Sophia, the Taj Mahal, Angkor, the Gothic cathedrals of Europe etc etc.

Deity-worshipping makes for aesthetically-pleasing construction :greengrin

I would agree with this. Once basic survival needs are met there seems to be a human need to justify our existence through something outside ourselves, and this can inspire our greatest achievements. Sadly it can also bring about our worst behaviour in racial and religious intolerance.

Without a deity what reason have we for any behaviour other than advancing our own individual interests? What makes things wrong when there is no external authority imposing rules?

[Peevemor]

Down with Atheists. Agnostics are the boys.

I'm not sure about that.

[Mibbes Aye]

© HRH The Prince of Wales :yawn:

:greengrin I likes a cathedral, I does

[Twa Cairpets]

Down with Atheists. Agnostics are the boys.

Wishy washy appeasement monkeys

[Woody1985]

I would agree with this. Once basic survival needs are met there seems to be a human need to justify our existence through something outside ourselves, and this can inspire our greatest achievements. Sadly it can also bring about our worst behaviour in racial and religious intolerance.

Without a deity what reason have we for any behaviour other than advancing our own individual interests? What makes things wrong when there is no external authority imposing rules?

But there is nothing imposing external authority though IMO. Unless you want to start saying that God inflicts severe weather, disease etc etc on people as punishment unless the only punishment is in the 'afterlife'.

People who haven't harmed a fly are struck down with disease. If that is a form of punishment perhaps we have the rules wrong.

My opinion is that religion was designed to control people so they act accordingly, defining a set of rules and then telling everyone a big man in the sky will determine what happens to you if you are good or not was pretty much the perfect way to do things with no technology and just word of mouth (the myths are then perpetuated and altered each time they are told).

[LiverpoolHibs]

Thirty-four posts and no mention of Pascal's Wager, for shame...

[lapsedhibee]

Without a deity what reason have we for any behaviour other than advancing our own individual interests?


Are you saying that people who do things in the knowledge that they will please other people are really doing them to please a God; and that people who deliberately refrain from doing harm to other people are doing so because they are afraid of a God?

[marinello59]

The main criticism of atheists is that they tend sit back in silence and let Christians, Muslims etc spout their moronic drivel unchallenged.

Is that actually true given the rise of Dawkins and his ilk. For want of a better term you could call them evangelical atheists, they even come complete with alternative* kids summer camps etc.:greengrin
The tendency to dismiss deeply held religous beliefs as moronic isn't an attractive trait either.

*An alternative to fun probably.:greengrin

[Jonnyboy]

Q. What criticisms can be made of atheists?

A. Christ knows

[IndieHibby]

Thirty-four posts and no mention of Pascal's Wager, for shame...

What I would do to be a fly on the wall during a debate between Pascal and Dawkins!

I'm reading "The God Delusion" at the moment, am at the point where he basically asserts that the probablility of God existing is almost non-existent.

What do you think Pascal would make of Dawkins?

[LiverpoolHibs]

What I would do to be a fly on the wall during a debate between Pascal and Dawkins!

I'm reading "The God Delusion" at the moment, am at the point where he basically asserts that the probablility of God existing is almost non-existent.

What do you think Pascal would make of Dawkins?

Dawkins has got an anti(or counter)-wager, hasn't he?

God knows (ba-doom-tish).

[ballengeich]

Are you saying that people who do things in the knowledge that they will please other people are really doing them to please a God; and that people who deliberately refrain from doing harm to other people are doing so because they are afraid of a God?

In some cases. I think that people who believe in God are sometimes constrained in their actions by the belief that they are being watched.

[ballengeich]

But there is nothing imposing external authority though IMO. Unless you want to start saying that God inflicts severe weather, disease etc etc on people as punishment unless the only punishment is in the 'afterlife'.

People who haven't harmed a fly are struck down with disease. If that is a form of punishment perhaps we have the rules wrong.

My opinion is that religion was designed to control people so they act accordingly, defining a set of rules and then telling everyone a big man in the sky will determine what happens to you if you are good or not was pretty much the perfect way to do things with no technology and just word of mouth (the myths are then perpetuated and altered each time they are told).

I largely agree with what you're saying. Re your third paragraph, religion serves as a set of rules which help society to remain cohesive. When people do not believe in a God, we have to seek a replacement. I'm not religious, but attempt to follow a moral code which has mainly come to me from Christian ethics - what gives me a conscience in circumstances when I can get away with something if I don't believe in punishment in an afterlife?

[sleeping giant]

Slightly off topic but i quite enjoyed this....

"The cosmological argument. Versions of this argument are defended by Alexander Pruss, Timothy O'Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, and Richard Swinburne, among others. A simple formulation of this argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

This argument is logically valid, so the only question is the truth of the premises. Premise (3) is undeniable for any sincere seeker of truth, so the question comes down to (1) and (2).

Premise (1) seems quite plausible. Imagine that you're walking through the woods and come upon a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would find quite bizarre the claim that the ball just exists inexplicably. And increasing the size of the ball, even until it becomes co-extensive with the cosmos, would do nothing to eliminate the need for an explanation of its existence.

Premise (2) might at first appear controversial, but it is in fact synonymous with the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Besides, (2) is quite plausible in its own right. For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe—which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."

The kalam cosmological argument. This version of the argument has a rich Islamic heritage. Stuart Hackett, David Oderberg, Mark Nowacki, and I have defended the kalam argument. Its formulation is simple:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise (1) certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial. The idea that things can pop into being without a cause is worse than magic. Nonetheless, it's remarkable how many nontheists, under the force of the evidence for premise (2), have denied (1) rather than acquiesce in the argument's conclusion.

Atheists have traditionally denied (2) in favor of an eternal universe. But there are good reasons, both philosophical and scientific, to doubt that the universe had no beginning. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past seems absurd. If the universe never had a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. Not only is this a very paradoxical idea, but it also raises the problem: How could the present event ever arrive if an infinite number of prior events had to elapse first?Moreover, a remarkable series of discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics over the last century has breathed new life into the kalam argument. We now have fairly strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had an absolute beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. "

Copied and Pasted from a William Lang Craig transcript.

Loving the bit in bold:greengrin

[sleeping giant]

Dawkins has got an anti(or counter)-wager, hasn't he?

God knows (ba-doom-tish).

Dawkins has no tact !

I remember seeing him laughing at a Rabbi when questioning him:bitchy:

I think it was in The Blind Watchmaker !

[lapsedhibee]

In some cases. I think that people who believe in God are sometimes constrained in their actions by the belief that they are being watched.
Outside the context of a faith, that would be paranoia and treatable on the NHS.


I'm not religious, but attempt to follow a moral code which has mainly come to me from Christian ethics - what gives me a conscience in circumstances when I can get away with something if I don't believe in punishment in an afterlife?
Why would you think someone or something has 'given' you a conscience/superego/whatever? Did it need a deity capable of endowing an afterlife for your liver to develop properly? :wink:

[Woody1985]

I largely agree with what you're saying. Re your third paragraph, religion serves as a set of rules which help society to remain cohesive. When people do not believe in a God, we have to seek a replacement. I'm not religious, but attempt to follow a moral code which has mainly come to me from Christian ethics - what gives me a conscience in circumstances when I can get away with something if I don't believe in punishment in an afterlife?

Whilst I agree with this, it only applies if everyone followed the same religion or as we can see today it becomes divisive.

I agree that the foundations set can only be a good thing so that we are harmonious (as far as we can be).

I suspect that the greater being was invented to get people to follow the commandments. As you raised earlier, what other reason would people decide to judge their actions on at that time. They'd probably have just laughed if someone came along and said 'let's all be nice to each other' with no thought of retribution.

[PeeJay]

Outside the context of a faith, that would be paranoia and treatable on the NHS.


Why would you think someone or something has 'given' you a conscience/superego/whatever? Did it need a deity capable of endowing an afterlife for your liver to develop properly? :wink:



The Rabbi may have send something funny - or more likely - so stupid that a laugh was the natural release of a reasoned mind?

We have to move away from "respecting people" just because they are religious! No need for that anymore!:cool2:

[sleeping giant]

The Rabbi may have send something funny - or more likely - so stupid that a laugh was the natural release of a reasoned mind?

We have to move away from "respecting people" just because they are religious! No need for that anymore!:cool2:

I assume you meant to quote me:cool2:

The Rabbi was discussing his beliefs in an articulate manner.
I think its bad manners to laugh at someone when they are answering your question to the best of their ability.

[PeeJay]

I assume you meant to quote me:cool2:

The Rabbi was discussing his beliefs in an articulate manner.
I think its bad manners to laugh at someone when they are answering your question to the best of their ability.


I certainly was - something went wrong, sorry:confused:!

Not bad manners at all. Not enough laughing at religious people in my opinion - we should all do it much more - make them realise what nonsense they all believe!:greengrin

[sleeping giant]

I certainly was - something went wrong, sorry:confused:!

Not bad manners at all. Not enough laughing at religious people in my opinion - we should all do it much more - make them realise what nonsense they all believe!:greengrin

Have you seen it ?

Dawkins does himself no favours IMO.

As someone else has said "He is an evangelical Atheist" and just as bad as the folk he berates.

Give me Hovind anytime:greengrin

[PeeJay]

Have you seen it ?

Dawkins does himself no favours IMO.

As someone else has said "He is an evangelical Atheist" and just as bad as the folk he berates.

Give me Hovind anytime:greengrin

Nope haven't seem him laughing at that particular rabbi - here in Germany we get very little Dawkins on tv surprisingly - Church authorities here obviously do not approve of him! I must try YouTube.
I have seen him "laughing" at other religious folks though. Like I say - generally - I believe laughing at them as often as posisble is the way to go.

[Twa Cairpets]

Slightly off topic but i quite enjoyed this....

"The cosmological argument. Versions of this argument are defended by Alexander Pruss, Timothy O'Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, and Richard Swinburne, among others. A simple formulation of this argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

This argument is logically valid, so the only question is the truth of the premises. Premise (3) is undeniable for any sincere seeker of truth, so the question comes down to (1) and (2).

Premise (1) seems quite plausible. Imagine that you're walking through the woods and come upon a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would find quite bizarre the claim that the ball just exists inexplicably. And increasing the size of the ball, even until it becomes co-extensive with the cosmos, would do nothing to eliminate the need for an explanation of its existence.

Premise (2) might at first appear controversial, but it is in fact synonymous with the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Besides, (2) is quite plausible in its own right. For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe—which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."

I dont see this as being the atheist position at all - generally speaking, from what I have read, an what my own thoughts are that we (we being atheist) don't know.

Evidence suggests that the universe came into existence C.14 billion years ago. Because we dont know for sure does not mean that the default explanation is that "God did it", and in particular not the Gods currently in vogue as per the Christian, Islamic, Hindu or any other extant faith of the early 21st century.


The kalam cosmological argument. This version of the argument has a rich Islamic heritage. Stuart Hackett, David Oderberg, Mark Nowacki, and I have defended the kalam argument. Its formulation is simple:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Premise (1) certainly seems more plausibly true than its denial. The idea that things can pop into being without a cause is worse than magic.

Whereas the theist viewof the Universe "popping into being" is regarded as not being magic because it is a religious occurence? Also, although Im not familiar with the Kalam argument, the logical links of 1-2-3 above seem to be very simplistic in terms of cosmological events/ space-time etc. I dont have an answer here, but that doesnt, again, mean that it therefore has to be God.


Nonetheless, it's remarkable how many nontheists, under the force of the evidence for premise (2), have denied (1) rather than acquiesce in the argument's conclusion.

Atheists have traditionally denied (2) in favor of an eternal universe. But there are good reasons, both philosophical and scientific, to doubt that the universe had no beginning. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past seems absurd. If the universe never had a beginning, then the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. Not only is this a very paradoxical idea, but it also raises the problem: How could the present event ever arrive if an infinite number of prior events had to elapse first? Moreover, a remarkable series of discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics over the last century has breathed new life into the kalam argument. We now have fairly strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past, but had an absolute beginning about 13.7 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. "

I dont think this is true, certainly in more recent times as atheism has developed to some extent into being the opposite of creationism. Virtually everything I have read suggets that atheists buy into the idea of the big bang, and the Universe being formed from a singularity. Thinking about this age-of-the-Universe stuff, even with what I think is quite a strong science background, makes my brain hurt, but it is not convincing evidence of the existence of God.

Relating your post and the above to the OP, another criticism of atheists is that we cant explain where we/the Universe came from. Not knowing something when that something is unknown, and admitting to it, is an intellectually honest position to take. Claiming as an inviolate truth that "God did it" isn't.

[sleeping giant]

I dont see this as being the atheist position at all - generally speaking, from what I have read, an what my own thoughts are that we (we being atheist) don't know.

Evidence suggests that the universe came into existence C.14 billion years ago. Because we dont know for sure does not mean that the default explanation is that "God did it", and in particular not the Gods currently in vogue as per the Christian, Islamic, Hindu or any other extant faith of the early 21st century.



Whereas the theist viewof the Universe "popping into being" is regarded as not being magic because it is a religious occurence? Also, although Im not familiar with the Kalam argument, the logical links of 1-2-3 above seem to be very simplistic in terms of cosmological events/ space-time etc. I dont have an answer here, but that doesnt, again, mean that it therefore has to be God.



I dont think this is true, certainly in more recent times as atheism has developed to some extent into being the opposite of creationism. Virtually everything I have read suggets that atheists buy into the idea of the big bang, and the Universe being formed from a singularity. Thinking about this age-of-the-Universe stuff, even with what I think is quite a strong science background, makes my brain hurt, but it is not convincing evidence of the existence of God.

Relating your post and the above to the OP, another criticism of atheists is that we cant explain where we/the Universe came from. Not knowing something when that something is unknown, and admitting to it, is an intellectually honest position to take. Claiming as an inviolate truth that "God did it" isn't.

Good post TC.
I'm not claiming God exists , i just enjoyed reading it.

I'm not even going to attempt to counter argue that:greengrin

As an Atheist , do you not close your mind to the prospect of a creator and if so , is this not as bad as the beliefs of the religious set ?

I'm not talking about God as man has defined it but an intelligent creator !

[lapsedhibee]

I'm not talking about God as man has defined it but an intelligent creator !

:hmmm: 'Omniscient' not quite cutting it for you then? :wink:

[sleeping giant]

:hmmm: 'Omniscient' not quite cutting it for you then? :wink:

I find it hard to follow religious rules set out by Men who claim to have spoken to God.

I do sway toward some kind of Creator though.

[Twa Cairpets]

Good post TC.
I'm not claiming God exists , i just enjoyed reading it.

I'm not even going to attempt to counter argue that:greengrin

As an Atheist , do you not close your mind to the prospect of a creator and if so , is this not as bad as the beliefs of the religious set ?

I'm not talking about God as man has defined it but an intelligent creator !

I like to think Im not closed-minded on this - having read around a lot on this topic over the years, from both sides, and having read the bible (or at least most of it), I've weighed up the argiments and the evidence and have come down firmly on the side of atheism, by way of agnosticism.

However, one thing that I think does differentiate an atheist from a devout theist is that I am absolutely, completely and totally prepared to change my stance if evidence presents itself - a real, unambiguous miracle, God talking directly to me, that type of thing. There is no evidence I have found that could be presented to a theist that would make them change their mind.

[heretoday]

It must be great to have real faith in a deity.

Recently the parents of a child killed by a mental driver came out of court and spoke to the media of how they forgave the perpetrator and hoped she would benefit from her psychiatric treatment. They were genuine in their statements. They even referred to her by her christian name.

I find that incredible. It must be such a comfort to have such faith.

[Woody1985]

It must be great to have real faith in a deity.

Recently the parents of a child killed by a mental driver came out of court and spoke to the media of how they forgave the perpetrator and hoped she would benefit from her psychiatric treatment. They were genuine in their statements. They even referred to her by her christian name.

I find that incredible. It must be such a comfort to have such faith.

It's instances like this that demonstrate why faith can be a good thing for people.

On the flip side, why would any God want to inflict such pain and misery on people if he existed? To test people's character and/or their faith?! Balls.

[Fantic]

So I invite one and all to post here the criticisms that can be made of the atheist viewpoint - if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity :greengrin

Stu[/QUOTE]

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi

Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis

You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte


If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence. –George MacDonald


Shouldn't atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from? –G.K. Chesterton

The turning point in our lives is when we stop seeking the God we want and start seeking the God who is. -- Patrick Morle

Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.--C. S. Lewis

:greengrin

[Rory89]

If any religious types can answer the following questions directly in a way which proves their point without going off on a tangent I'll fully accept any criticism they have on atheism (clearly nobody is likely to answer these questions but you never know).

1) Do you have any evidence that God created the universe?

2) If not, would you accept that the reason you still believe this is what happened is because it's just the way you were brought up?

3) If that is the case, would you accept the fact that if your parents had brought you up a totally different religion with conflicting views to your own religion, that you would believe them still? If not, why not?

P.S religion is the root of more evil than good. Do you see people killing eachother and blowing things up in the name of other fictional characters like Santa Claus or Inspector Morse, nah of course not.

[heretoday]

It's instances like this that demonstrate why faith can be a good thing for people.

On the flip side, why would any God want to inflict such pain and misery on people if he existed? To test people's character and/or their faith?! Balls.

Well, it's balls to you and me!

But to the people I speak of it's not and they presumably have a "get-out clause" for god. I imagine it consists of Him testing them by killing their child, or something like that.

What it amounts to is a state of mind which gets you through life. That's great provided you don't enforce it on others.

Then it gets political...and folk get killed.

[Twa Cairpets]

So I invite one and all to post here the criticisms that can be made of the atheist viewpoint - if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity :greengrin

Stu

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi
It amazes me to find an intelligent person who who fights against the evidence upon evidence presented from science and history that would suggest that their God doesnt exist.


Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
Atheists express there rage against believers in deities which in their view dont exist but are responsible for so much wrong and suffering in the world.

You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte
I dont think I'm too intelligent to believe in God. I use my intelligence to decide not to.


If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence. –George MacDonald
If there dont be a God and one has spent ones life seeking him, it is no consolation to discover that you've wasted too much of your life in worship and devotion during your brief lifetime.

Shouldn't atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from? –G.K. Chesterton
Shouldnt a theist have an obligation to adequately explain why their religion, of whatever creed, actively seeks to deprive people of pleasure in a world of variety?

The turning point in our lives is when we stop seeking the God we want and start seeking the God who is. -- Patrick Morle
The turning point in our lives is when we stop seeking God and enjoy life.

Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.--C. S. Lewis
Belief in God turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, hey-ho.

[Fantic]

It amazes me to find an intelligent person who fights against something which he does not at all believe exists. --Mohandas Gandhi
It amazes me to find an intelligent person who who fights against the evidence upon evidence presented from science and history that would suggest that their God doesnt exist.


Atheists express their rage against God although in their view He does not exist. --C. S. Lewis
Atheists express there rage against believers in deities which in their view dont exist but are responsible for so much wrong and suffering in the world.

You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte
I dont think I'm too intelligent to believe in God. I use my intelligence to decide not to.


If there be a God and one has never sought him, it will be small consolation to remember that one could not get proof of his existence. –George MacDonald

If there dont be a God and one has spent ones life seeking him, it is no consolation to discover that you've wasted too much of your life in worship and devotion during your brief lifetime.

Shouldn't atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from? –G.K. Chesterton
Shouldnt a theist have an obligation to adequately explain why their religion, of whatever creed, actively seeks to deprive people of pleasure in a world of variety?

The turning point in our lives is when we stop seeking the God we want and start seeking the God who is. -- Patrick Morle
The turning point in our lives is when we stop seeking God and enjoy life.

Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning.--C. S. Lewis
Belief in God turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, hey-ho.

Ok TC. If your good - Lewis, Chesterton, Ghandi or perharps even Macdonald might meet you at the gates to discuss this a bit further with you:devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

Ok TC. If your good - Lewis, Chesterton, Ghandi or perharps even Macdonald might meet you at the gates to discuss this a bit further with you:devil:

I'd be delighted to meet them and explain to them the error of their ways :greengrin

Although I would have to raise something of a skeptical eyebrow if Ghandi and Lewis were in the same place...

[sleeping giant]

If any religious types can answer the following questions directly in a way which proves their point without going off on a tangent I'll fully accept any criticism they have on atheism (clearly nobody is likely to answer these questions but you never know).

1) Do you have any evidence that God created the universe?

2) If not, would you accept that the reason you still believe this is what happened is because it's just the way you were brought up?

3) If that is the case, would you accept the fact that if your parents had brought you up a totally different religion with conflicting views to your own religion, that you would believe them still? If not, why not?

P.S religion is the root of more evil than good. Do you see people killing eachother and blowing things up in the name of other fictional characters like Santa Claus or Inspector Morse, nah of course not.

Not religious but i'll have a bash:greengrin

1. No

2. No. My parents were not religious in the slightest. Its only in my 30's that i have started to contemplate that there is a creator.

3. Its not the case. Also i dont know if you mean believe my views or my parents.

To answer your PS , Religion is not the root of any evil. Evil Men/Women are the root of evil.
Re the fictional character bit , has there not been violent attacks in the name of that fictional idea "Man made global warming"?



Right , my turn :greengrin

I know its an old one , where did all the matter in this universe come from.
If you dont believe there was a creator do you believe it came from nothing ?

Do you believe time existed before "the big bang" ?

Apart from Gravity (very slightly) if any of the other forces of nature were adjusted a tiny tiny tiny wee bit , we wouldnt be here ! Is this just chance ?

Another very old one but one that bothers me - Did the Big Bang make a noise if there was nobody there to hear it:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Right , my turn :greengrin

I know its an old one , where did all the matter in this universe come from.
If you dont believe there was a creator do you believe it came from nothing ?

Do you believe time existed before "the big bang" ?

Apart from Gravity (very slightly) if any of the other forces of nature were adjusted a tiny tiny tiny wee bit , we wouldnt be here ! Is this just chance ?

Another very old one but one that bothers me - Did the Big Bang make a noise if there was nobody there to hear it:greengrin

1. I have no idea, and my somewhat shaky understanding of relativity suggests that matter and energy at the start of the Universe were somewhat interchangeable. Anyway, the equally old one if you go down the line of "god did it" is where did god come from? Who made him? its a circular argument that is often countered by "he has always existed outside of our understanding of space and time". I dont get how this theists can accpet this with a "well, thats all right then" but then say "where's your proof" for any scientific notion of the Universes creation.

2. Dunno - makes my brain hurt to think of it.

3. This is a bit of an old canard. If things changed dramatically, then yes, we'd all be toast. But there is strong evidence to suggest that life is resilient throughout major changes in climate and circumstance, if it is given the time to do so. Within all the dramatic differences of temperature, light, nutrient source and environment, life adapts to the circumstances it finds itself in. The planets atmosphere when life first appeared compared to how it is today is very different - it wouldnt support human life, but it did support life. Evolution is a great thing. (By the way, and on a side note, it is often said that there is no examples of speciation ever seen - I read recently that after the development of nylon, a species of bacteria was found in factories that made the stuff which existed solely on the nutrition gained from this modern, man-made fibre. If it was abruptly removed from the envirnoment it died. I think thats magic).

4. :agree: it went "bang"

[lapsedhibee]

Did the Big Bang make a noise if there was nobody there to hear it:greengrin

Nobody where? :wink:

[(((Fergus)))]

Well, it's balls to you and me!

But to the people I speak of it's not and they presumably have a "get-out clause" for god. I imagine it consists of Him testing them by killing their child, or something like that.

What it amounts to is a state of mind which gets you through life. That's great provided you don't enforce it on others.

Then it gets political...and folk get killed.

What sort of car was He driving?

[sleeping giant]

1. I have no idea, and my somewhat shaky understanding of relativity suggests that matter and energy at the start of the Universe were somewhat interchangeable. Anyway, the equally old one if you go down the line of "god did it" is where did god come from? Who made him? its a circular argument that is often countered by "he has always existed outside of our understanding of space and time". I dont get how this theists can accpet this with a "well, thats all right then" but then say "where's your proof" for any scientific notion of the Universes creation.

2. Dunno - makes my brain hurt to think of it.

3. This is a bit of an old canard. If things changed dramatically, then yes, we'd all be toast. But there is strong evidence to suggest that life is resilient throughout major changes in climate and circumstance, if it is given the time to do so. Within all the dramatic differences of temperature, light, nutrient source and environment, life adapts to the circumstances it finds itself in. The planets atmosphere when life first appeared compared to how it is today is very different - it wouldnt support human life, but it did support life. Evolution is a great thing. (By the way, and on a side note, it is often said that there is no examples of speciation ever seen - I read recently that after the development of nylon, a species of bacteria was found in factories that made the stuff which existed solely on the nutrition gained from this modern, man-made fibre. If it was abruptly removed from the envirnoment it died. I think thats magic).

4. :agree: it went "bang"



1. I have no idea where God came from ! I don't accept that it has always been there.

2. Mine too.

3. I was meaning the forces that hold Protons and Neutrons together etc

4. Not so sure ! How did the sound waves travel and what did they travel in ?:greengrin

---------- Post added at 10:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:56 PM ----------


Nobody where? :wink:



Nobody everywhere :greengrin

[egb_hibs]

How about;

- every time a regime has attempted to implement a society based on an atheist perspective - ie rethinking morality from non religious premises - it has turned into an oppressive mass murdering mess.

- atheism is only harmless when it sticks with a rip-off of the christian world view, which is manifestly fraudulent given how the 'professional atheists' have an autistic obsession with a narrow definition of 'reason'. even there, under these conditions they seem destined to self-extinguish, possibly taking europe down with them.

- most of them cannot walk the walk, and as above cling to things as made up as they claim religion to be. even the few that transcend this without going mad, which is an enormously small number if any at all, believe implicitly in all kinds of credulity defying stuff such as universes that appear spontaneously out of nothing; reason emergent spontaneously from unreason or universes that have just always been around; an effect without cause, a reaction with prior action... in short, a nature unexplained by natural processes; a 'magic universe'.

[egb_hibs]

[FONT=Arial]

Atheists express there rage against believers in deities which in their view dont exist but are responsible for so much wrong and suffering in the world.

Belief in God turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, hey-ho.This is what I had in mind above. Unless you deny what we have learned from Darwin, as many atheists do, the only marvel is that there has been less cruelty on the part of mankind.

I think point one is the wrong way around; religion - or Christianity anyway, I don't know enough about the others, and it's as sloppy to talk of 'religion' in this way as it is to talk of 'politics' or 'philosophy' as an undifferentiated blob - has been a huge, if far from perfect, brake on human cruelty.

Furthermore, you contradict yourself; if the whole universe has no meaning, then suffering inflicted by one on another is also without meaning; scarcely a reason for meaningless rage.

[SIZE=1]---------- Post added at 11:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 PM ----------


In some cases. I think that people who believe in God are sometimes constrained in their actions by the belief that they are being watched.
I find that's at it's worst when one is wiping one's arse. Highly offputting.

[Fantic]

What criticisms can be made of Athiests?



Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.



The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.



An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.

[sleeping giant]

What criticisms can be made of Athiests?



Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.



The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.



An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.


:tee hee:

[Twa Cairpets]

Wow.


How about;

- every time a regime has attempted to implement a society based on an atheist perspective - ie rethinking morality from non religious premises - it has turned into an oppressive mass murdering mess.

There has never been a society that was founded with atheism at its root. I'm assuming you're thinking of Stalin and Mao, megalomaniacal politicians,whi whilst potentially atheist, were not driven by atheism in the same way that religious states are/have been driven by their belief systems.


- atheism is only harmless when it sticks with a rip-off of the christian world view, which is manifestly fraudulent given how the 'professional atheists' have an autistic obsession with a narrow definition of 'reason'. even there, under these conditions they seem destined to self-extinguish, possibly taking europe down with them.

I've re-read this a few times, and I still dont quite get what you're getting at. I think you're saying that atheism isnt valid because it copies christianity. Elements of this are undeniably true. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc etc are human values, and are certainly not the preserve of christianity. also, western christianity has been one of many of the defining forces in the creation of our society, so some of the views have to be aligned. I certainly dont feel as if I'm going to be in any way culpable for the fall of Europe!


- most of them cannot walk the walk, and as above cling to things as made up as they claim religion to be.

Could I have a f'rinstance?


even the few that transcend this without going mad, which is an enormously small number if any at all, believe implicitly in all kinds of credulity defying stuff such as universes that appear spontaneously out of nothing; reason emergent spontaneously from unreason or universes that have just always been around; an effect without cause, a reaction with prior action... in short, a nature unexplained by natural processes; a 'magic universe'.

I dont think I'm mad, and the squadron of pink unicorns in the corner agree.

I still dont accept the argument that it is "credulity defying" to accept the formation of the universe from unclear natural origins whereas to accept that your particular version of God made it is quite acceptable and in no way stretching the bounds of credulity. also, at the very least all the comments you make are every bit as applicable to your Gods existence.

[Dinkydoo]

My opinion is that religion was designed to control people so they act accordingly, defining a set of rules and then telling everyone a big man in the sky will determine what happens to you if you are good or not was pretty much the perfect way to do things with no technology and just word of mouth (the myths are then perpetuated and altered each time they are told).


My opinion is that religion was brought in to create law and order which in turn put down the foundations of our 'civilised world' - the extent of how civilised we actually are could be debatable (sp) though! :greengrin

So yeah, I agree. To control people, get them to behave and take other peoples feelings and the potential consequences of your actions into consideration..........

Which isn't a bad thing at all, I simply find it extremely hypocritical (and pretty disgusting tbh) that people would want to kill each other over their individual 'beliefs'.

I don't see how anyone can be certain about religion and god being 'true' or 'false'. Someone once said "Doubt is an unsettling feeling but certainty is absurd." Absolutely! :top marks

Back to the OP, we used to get time off school to attend mass (I had the unfortunate experience of joining a Roman Catholic Primary School:rolleyes:)......

Atheists provide nothing at all that could be used as a skive to get out of Maths! :faf:

[Dinkydoo]

What criticisms can be made of Athiests?



Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God.
I beg to differ, I hardly ever talk about God as I'm in severe doubt whether such a thing exists. I also hardly ever hear any other Atheists talk about "God" unless prompted to do so.

The worst moment for the atheist is when he is really thankful and has nobody to thank.
How could you possibly know what that feels like? Are you an Atheist? Have you been told this by Atheists before...?

An atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
Never heard of transparent bra's? :faf:


1

[Woody1985]

My opinion is that religion was brought in to create law and order which in turn put down the foundations of our 'civilised world' - the extent of how civilised we actually are could be debatable (sp) though! :greengrin

So yeah, I agree. To control people, get them to behave and take other peoples feelings and the potential consequences of your actions into consideration..........

Which isn't a bad thing at all, I simply find it extremely hypocritical (and pretty disgusting tbh) that people would want to kill each other over their individual 'beliefs'.

I don't see how anyone can be certain about religion and god being 'true' or 'false'. Someone once said "Doubt is an unsettling feeling but certainty is absurd." Absolutely! :top marks

Back to the OP, we used to get time off school to attend mass (I had the unfortunate experience of joining a Roman Catholic Primary School:rolleyes:)......

Atheists provide nothing at all that could be used as a skive to get out of Maths! :faf:

We used to get time out to go to church once a year / term. I used to get out of both cos I used to disappear. :LOL:

And what's this signing hymns pish at school. The teachers used to give you some kind of death look if you weren't signing along. *****.

[Dinkydoo]

We used to get time out to go to church once a year / term. I used to get out of both cos I used to disappear. :LOL:

And what's this signing hymns pish at school. The teachers used to give you some kind of death look if you weren't signing along. *****.

Lucky you, we were forced to go at Primary around 5/6 times a year. It was optional at my secondary school.

Aye :faf: If looks could kill. I used to say I'm not singing because it's not my belief and they'd look at me as if I'd farted. :devil::rolleyes:

[Onceinawhile]

Slightly off topic but i quite enjoyed this....

"The cosmological argument. Versions of this argument are defended by Alexander Pruss, Timothy O'Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, and Richard Swinburne, among others. A simple formulation of this argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

Loving the bit in bold:greengrin

Why is it god?

And if we are going to talk about things being irreducably complex, then who or what created "god" surely whatever did that is more powerful than "god" and deserves our worship?

[RyeSloan]

Why is it god?

And if we are going to talk about things being irreducably complex, then who or what created "god" surely whatever did that is more powerful than "god" and deserves our worship?


I can accept God created the universe, what I can't accept is that God is anything like any of the current God's worshiped on Earth or that humans have anything like the capability of understanding what 'being' could be powerful enough to create something as vast and as complex as the universe.

I think it's just as likely that the universe was created via natural forces than it was by some super power....either way as I said none of that relates to what we would consider religion and I believe that any God's currently worshiped on Earth are man made creations so my tent is pitched in the aethiest camp and I can't see it moving any time soon!!

[GlesgaeHibby]

This is an interesting thread. I'm a bit disappointed, however, that some of the religious posters on .net who post in the Holy Ground regularly haven't replied to this thread yet.

It would certainly add to the discussion.

[RigRoars]

I can accept God created the universe, what I can't accept is that God is anything like any of the current God's worshiped on Earth or that humans have anything like the capability of understanding what 'being' could be powerful enough to create something as vast and as complex as the universe.

I think it's just as likely that the universe was created via natural forces than it was by some super power....either way as I said none of that relates to what we would consider religion and I believe that any God's currently worshiped on Earth are man made creations so my tent is pitched in the aethiest camp and I can't see it moving any time soon!!


My thoughts entirely.

Good post.

[IndieHibby]

This is an interesting thread. I'm a bit disappointed, however, that some of the religious posters on .net who post in the Holy Ground regularly haven't replied to this thread yet.

It would certainly add to the discussion.

That's exactly what I was hoping would happen when I started the thread :boo hoo:

Although, I am aware that we Atheists (does it deserve a capital?) can be a difficult bunch to talk to.

I would have hoped those from the 'other side':wink: would have had the courage of their convictions (pardon the pun) to come on and stick it to us.

So far, as I had hoped, it has remained civilised. I see no reason why religous types would shy away from the invitation.

[sleeping giant]

Why is it god?

And if we are going to talk about things being irreducably complex, then who or what created "god" surely whatever did that is more powerful than "god" and deserves our worship?

:agree:

Does it deserve our worship ?

Why would an all powerful being want us to worship it ?

---------- Post added at 11:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------


That's exactly what I was hoping would happen when I started the thread :boo hoo:

Although, I am aware that we Atheists (does it deserve a capital?) can be a difficult bunch to talk to.

I would have hoped those from the 'other side':wink: would have had the courage of their convictions (pardon the pun) to come on and stick it to us.

So far, as I had hoped, it has remained civilised. I see no reason why religous types would shy away from the invitation.

I can see plenty reasons why they would !

For a start , they would be well out numbered and would have nearly everyone on this thread quoting them and bombarding them with questions they can't possibly answer.

[Twa Cairpets]

That's exactly what I was hoping would happen when I started the thread :boo hoo:

Although, I am aware that we Atheists (does it deserve a capital?) can be a difficult bunch to talk to.

I would have hoped those from the 'other side':wink: would have had the courage of their convictions (pardon the pun) to come on and stick it to us.

So far, as I had hoped, it has remained civilised. I see no reason why religous types would shy away from the invitation.

I thought the OP was well worded because it was from a "Whats the problem with atheism" rather than "Whats the problem with religion".

The nature of these threads is that they have to move into a debate, but its still good to hear alternative views to mine.

PS - stueyn - did you get the pm?

[Fantic]

Atheism, or the claim that there is no God, is just as much a claim to know something as is theism, the claim that God does exist. Therefore, if the atheist is to prove his view, he must do more than say, "There's no evidence for God's existence." He must present positive evidence against God's existence. Yet people nowadays are more than happy to take the easy option and dismiss the idea.

For centuries the masses believed in a heaven, yet nowadays the masses believe if such a thing existed we would have found it by now.. and its a lot of crap.. Still no real answers though... So are people (in general) more intillegent than in the past? I dont think so.. In fact i would say nowadays man is pretty spoilt and ignorant.

And finally - ''when Anodos looked through the door of timeless, he brought back no message'' - Put that in your pipe and smoke it:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Atheism, or the claim that there is no God, is just as much a claim to know something as is theism, the claim that God does exist. Therefore, if the atheist is to prove his view, he must do more than say, "There's no evidence for God's existence." He must present positive evidence against God's existence. Yet people nowadays are more than happy to take the easy option and dismiss the idea.Interesting point. Atheism does not necessarily seek to disprove the existence of God. Literally translated, I understand it to mean "not believing in any Gods".

Taking your point literally, then it if it is a requirement for atheists to "prove" their stance, then it is equally required for theists of any denomination to "prove" theirs. Neither is possible, which therefore leads on to the point of evidence. Looking at evidence from both sides, and not only from science, but also from philosophy and history, I agree with the evidence pointing towards non-supernatural causes for the Universe, the creation of life and evolution. I do not think there is a requirement for an atheist to stance to be required to provide positive evidence against a God/Gods. How can I disprove the Christian God? - it is equally as impossible to disprove Zeus or Odin or Allah.


For centuries the masses believed in a heaven, yet nowadays the masses believe if such a thing existed we would have found it by now.. and its a lot of crap.. Still no real answers though... So are people (in general) more intillegent than in the past? I dont think so.. In fact i would say nowadays man is pretty spoilt and ignorant.

Maybe in the UK, but the vast majorty of the Worlds population believe in a God of some description, and I haven't come across the "if heaven exists we would have found it" argument ever being presented as a serious argument. People are generally more intelligent now than they are in the past, if only because they have increased access to knowledge and opinion than ever they have in the past - I personally think that it is the reason why atheism has been much more vocal and noticeable than in the recent past because it has the ability to disseminate a non-organised viewpoint to people who are prepared to consider the evidence.


And finally - ''when Anodos looked through the door of timeless, he brought back no message'' - Put that in your pipe and smoke it:
I'm going to take a wild stab (and I bet I'm right) that this is a CS Lewis quote. Havent the faintest of scoobies what the point is though...:greengrin

[Sergio sledge]

This is an interesting thread. I'm a bit disappointed, however, that some of the religious posters on .net who post in the Holy Ground regularly haven't replied to this thread yet.

It would certainly add to the discussion.

To be honest, if me as a Christian was looking for a criticism of Atheism as a whole, it would be the fact that Atheists don't believe in God.....:greengrin

Its hard to criticise atheism as a whole, because I don't think there is really an organised atheism in the same way there is organised religion. Also, because as has already been said, there hasn't ever been the history of people doing things in the name of atheism that there has been of people doing terrible things and using religion as an excuse. I personally wouldn't blame religion for these things, but the people who have mis-used and abuse religion for their own ends. Some people argue that atheists the likes of Stalin and Mao did terrible things, but whilst these men may have been atheists, they didn't do the things they did in the name of atheism, they did them for other aims, whereas Islamic terrorists do what they do for their religion as they see it. In this respect, I can totally see where atheists are coming from with their criticisms of religion.

Individual atheists can be criticised, for example, I feel Richard Dawkins, whilst clearly a very intelligent man, is arrogant and dismissive of people who he would class as fundamentalists, whilst he himself is verging on the fundamental evangelical atheist, often doing a lot of the things he criticises religious people for.

I guess what I'm saying is that Atheism as a whole cannot be criticised in the same way that religion as a whole can, because as I see it, atheism as a whole doesn't really exist, because it isn't really an organised belief, more a collective name for a set of people who don't believe. At the moment there isn't really a "cult" of atheism, for want of a better word.

I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to watch a movie at the same time as typing this.....:greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

To be honest, if me as a Christian was looking for a criticism of Atheism as a whole, it would be the fact that Atheists don't believe in God.....:greengrin

Its hard to criticise atheism as a whole, because I don't think there is really an organised atheism in the same way there is organised religion. Also, because as has already been said, there hasn't ever been the history of people doing things in the name of atheism that there has been of people doing terrible things and using religion as an excuse. I personally wouldn't blame religion for these things, but the people who have mis-used and abuse religion for their own ends. Some people argue that atheists the likes of Stalin and Mao did terrible things, but whilst these men may have been atheists, they didn't do the things they did in the name of atheism, they did them for other aims, whereas Islamic terrorists do what they do for their religion as they see it. In this respect, I can totally see where atheists are coming from with their criticisms of religion.

Individual atheists can be criticised, for example, I feel Richard Dawkins, whilst clearly a very intelligent man, is arrogant and dismissive of people who he would class as fundamentalists, whilst he himself is verging on the fundamental evangelical atheist, often doing a lot of the things he criticises religious people for.

I guess what I'm saying is that Atheism as a whole cannot be criticised in the same way that religion as a whole can, because as I see it, atheism as a whole doesn't really exist, because it isn't really an organised belief, more a collective name for a set of people who don't believe. At the moment there isn't really a "cult" of atheism, for want of a better word.

I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to watch a movie at the same time as typing this.....:greengrin

I think thats a damn fine post.

In the US, and to a much lesser extent in the UK,there is a movement to classify and unify atheists as "Brights". I think this is ridiculous and hugely self-indulgent, and is likely to polarise opinion. I rather like the disparate academics, bloggers, youtubers, and podcasters railing against some of the excesses of religion of all colours, and would prefer to keep it that way. What does exist, and is slowly growing, is a more definitive "Skeptical Movement", and from a purely personal view would prefer describing myself more widely as a skeptic than narrowly as an atheist.

There will be more publicly vocal people as there will be with anything of this sort. Dawkins isnt everyone cup of tea (I think his manner can be misinterpreted, but can see how he can be seen as arrogant, even though I think he's fundamentally brilliant), Christopher Hitchens is very ascerbic, PZ Myers doesnt take any prisoners, and others like Daniel Dennett, Michael Shermer and Sam Harris are all passionate. I think one of the defining differences between these guys and the more visible theists is that the one common message they all stress is not to take their words for it, but to examine the evidence and make up your mind.

[Fantic]

Taking your point literally, then it if it is a requirement for atheists to "prove" their stance, then it is equally required for theists of any denomination to "prove" theirs. Neither is possible, which therefore leads on to the point of evidence. Looking at evidence from both sides, and not only from science, but also from philosophy and history, I agree with the evidence pointing towards non-supernatural causes for the Universe, the creation of life and evolution. I do not think there is a requirement for an atheist to stance to be required to provide positive evidence against a God/Gods. How can I disprove the Christian God? - it is equally as impossible to disprove Zeus or Odin or Allah.

The point i'm trying to make is that aetheism is an easy option because most people dont look for an alternative.. People like yourself obviously have looked and have came to that conclusion.. but most come to it to quickly imo.

Maybe in the UK, but the vast majorty of the Worlds population believe in a God of some description, and I haven't come across the "if heaven exists we would have found it" argument ever being presented as a serious argument. People are generally more intelligent now than they are in the past, if only because they have increased access to knowledge and opinion than ever they have in the past - I personally think that it is the reason why atheism has been much more vocal and noticeable than in the recent past because it has the ability to disseminate a non-organised viewpoint to people who are prepared to consider the evidence.

I would say that access to knowledge and opinion is an advantage but wont really improve basic intelligence. A lot of old books demonstrate 'intelligence' as good as anything you could buy today.

I'm going to take a wild stab (and I bet I'm right) that this is a CS Lewis quote. Havent the faintest of scoobies what the point is though...:greengrin[/QUOTE]


Nope... And its just a favourite quote of mine. I do know the point of it.. but i haven't a scoobie why I put it in there either :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

Nope... And its just a favourite quote of mine. I do know the point of it.. but i haven't a scoobie why I put it in there either[/B] :greengrin

It is Lewis (http://afterall.net/quotes/521) you know.

[Fantic]

It is Lewis (http://afterall.net/quotes/521) you know.

Yes. That just dawned on me when i was through the kitchen.:wink:

Of course it was the late George Macdonald that actually said it, when he was talking to Lewis about one of his books, as he was showing him the path to heaven.. in Lewis's dream 'The Great Divorce'. So the original 'door of the timeless' and 'Anodos' were from George Macdonalds 'Phantastes':cool2:

[sleeping giant]

To be honest, if me as a Christian was looking for a criticism of Atheism as a whole, it would be the fact that Atheists don't believe in God.....:greengrin

Its hard to criticise atheism as a whole, because I don't think there is really an organised atheism in the same way there is organised religion. Also, because as has already been said, there hasn't ever been the history of people doing things in the name of atheism that there has been of people doing terrible things and using religion as an excuse. I personally wouldn't blame religion for these things, but the people who have mis-used and abuse religion for their own ends. Some people argue that atheists the likes of Stalin and Mao did terrible things, but whilst these men may have been atheists, they didn't do the things they did in the name of atheism, they did them for other aims, whereas Islamic terrorists do what they do for their religion as they see it. In this respect, I can totally see where atheists are coming from with their criticisms of religion.

Individual atheists can be criticised, for example, I feel Richard Dawkins, whilst clearly a very intelligent man, is arrogant and dismissive of people who he would class as fundamentalists, whilst he himself is verging on the fundamental evangelical atheist, often doing a lot of the things he criticises religious people for.

I guess what I'm saying is that Atheism as a whole cannot be criticised in the same way that religion as a whole can, because as I see it, atheism as a whole doesn't really exist, because it isn't really an organised belief, more a collective name for a set of people who don't believe. At the moment there isn't really a "cult" of atheism, for want of a better word.

I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to watch a movie at the same time as typing this.....:greengrin

Outstanding Sergio:thumbsup:

Agree about Dawkins completely :agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

To be honest, if me as a Christian was looking for a criticism of Atheism as a whole, it would be the fact that Atheists don't believe in God.....:greengrin

Its hard to criticise atheism as a whole, because I don't think there is really an organised atheism in the same way there is organised religion. Also, because as has already been said, there hasn't ever been the history of people doing things in the name of atheism that there has been of people doing terrible things and using religion as an excuse. I personally wouldn't blame religion for these things, but the people who have mis-used and abuse religion for their own ends. Some people argue that atheists the likes of Stalin and Mao did terrible things, but whilst these men may have been atheists, they didn't do the things they did in the name of atheism, they did them for other aims, whereas Islamic terrorists do what they do for their religion as they see it. In this respect, I can totally see where atheists are coming from with their criticisms of religion.

Individual atheists can be criticised, for example, I feel Richard Dawkins, whilst clearly a very intelligent man, is arrogant and dismissive of people who he would class as fundamentalists, whilst he himself is verging on the fundamental evangelical atheist, often doing a lot of the things he criticises religious people for.

I guess what I'm saying is that Atheism as a whole cannot be criticised in the same way that religion as a whole can, because as I see it, atheism as a whole doesn't really exist, because it isn't really an organised belief, more a collective name for a set of people who don't believe. At the moment there isn't really a "cult" of atheism, for want of a better word.

I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to watch a movie at the same time as typing this.....:greengrin

Good post, especially your definition of atheism being a collection of people that don't believe rather than an organised cult.

I would also agree with your criticisms of Dawkins. I like some of his arguments at times, although at other times he comes across as an arrogant, preachy fool. Anyone can see that religion can have a positive effect on some people, although he blindly chooses to ignore this.

[J-C]

I think this thread was covered to death on a couple of previous threads, that's why it's not getting more posts from the religious netters.

[Twa Cairpets]

Good post, especially your definition of atheism being a collection of people that don't believe rather than an organised cult.

I would also agree with your criticisms of Dawkins. I like some of his arguments at times, although at other times he comes across as an arrogant, preachy fool. Anyone can see that religion can have a positive effect on some people, although he blindly chooses to ignore this.

Im going to be slightly nit-picky here Glesgae, but that isnt strictly true. In, for example, The God Delusion and in any number of interviews Dawkins does acknowledge that people of faith do carry out acts of good and charity, but his point which is often overlooked is that he believes that non of these acts can be exclusively carried out by those of faith, and that equal acts of selflessness can be carried out by those of no faith or different, equally heartfelt, religious beliefs.

[Tinyclothes]

Religion is the One True Evil

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It served to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

Taken from 'Zeitgeist' The Movie.

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-one/

More intersting stuff.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Religion is the One True Evil

Christianity, along with all other theistic belief systems, is the fraud of the age. It served to detach the species from the natural world, and likewise, each other. It supports blind submission to authority. It reduces human responsibility to the effect that "God" controls everything, and in turn awful crimes can be justified in the name of Divine Pursuit. And most importantly, it empowers those who know the truth but use the myth to manipulate and control societies. The religious myth is the most powerful device ever created, and serves as the psychological soil upon which other myths can flourish.

Taken from 'Zeitgeist' The Movie.

Yikes, it's probably best not to use that dreadful bollocks to back up your point.

[Tinyclothes]

Yikes, it's probably best not to use that dreadful bollocks to back up your point.

Whatever you think about the film itself that passage is good for stirring up debate in a discussion like this one. And I wasn't making a point.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Whatever you think about the film itself that passage is good for stirring up debate in a discussion like this one. And I wasn't making a point.

Fair enough.

[Malthibby]

This thread has been terribly civil, & then along comes Tiny quoting from Zeitgeist:greengrin
I have never understood rational people believing in omnipotent deities, but have met them in large enough numbers to have accepted it.
Richard Dawkins has been mentioned a few times, & I would agree that he is an arrogant git, who would probably be religious if god were called Richard Dawkins. Much prefer Christopher Hutchins, who argues coherently against religion without feeling the need to wee on all believers from a great height.
But to paraphrase Woody Allen, "If god is the answer, what the hell was the question?"

[Brizo]

Atheists remind me of Jambos.They want nothing to do with Hibs but cant stop talking about us. Atheists want nothing to do with religion but cant stop talking about it :devil: Atheists need the existance of religion to affirm their status as atheist , those of religious faith need no such counter viewpoint to validate their beliefs. Which is probably why so few of a religious persuasion have bothered to get involved in the thread :wink:.

[Twa Cairpets]

Atheists remind me of Jambos.They want nothing to do with Hibs but cant stop talking about us. Atheists want nothing to do with religion but cant stop talking about it :devil: Atheists need the existance of religion to affirm their status as atheist , those of religious faith need no such counter viewpoint to validate their beliefs. Which is probably why so few of a religious persuasion have bothered to get involved in the thread :wink:.

That first bit is deeply offensive.

[CentreLine]

Members of the religous community, of which I am acutely aware that there are many on this site, are very used to criticisms being made of their beliefs.

I happen to believe this is fair. Consequently, if this is fair, then there should also be criticism from the religous community towards athiests. After all, the two views are diametrically opposed.

However, it dawned on me that in all the discussion of this type that I have had, it rarely, if ever, results in any criticism of the athiest position. Instead, discussion always revolves around the voracity of the religous viewpoint.

So I invite one and all to post here the criticisms that can be made of the atheist viewpoint - if for no other reason than to satisfy my curiousity :greengrin

Many thanks,

Stu

Personally I don't believe in criticism

[GlesgaeHibby]

Im going to be slightly nit-picky here Glesgae, but that isnt strictly true. In, for example, The God Delusion and in any number of interviews Dawkins does acknowledge that people of faith do carry out acts of good and charity, but his point which is often overlooked is that he believes that non of these acts can be exclusively carried out by those of faith, and that equal acts of selflessness can be carried out by those of no faith or different, equally heartfelt, religious beliefs.

Ok, I perhaps wasn't clear earlier. I'd agree that it doesn't take faith to carry out acts of selflessness and charity.

What I had meant was that faith can be great for some people, and that is why I do not like Dawkins stance, the stance that faith in itself is evil.

I personally do not think faith is rational, but there are certainly people out there that find faith to be a great comfort, and carry out a great deal of selfless acts due to their faith.

[egb_hibs]

Wow.



There has never been a society that was founded with atheism at its root. I'm assuming you're thinking of Stalin and Mao, megalomaniacal politicians,whi whilst potentially atheist, were not driven by atheism in the same way that religious states are/have been driven by their belief systems.I'm sorry but communism explicitly tried to create a social order based on a rationalist moral system, replacing christian morality. The great terror following the french revolution came out of an abortive effort along similar lines. nazism meanwhile, while it was a hotchpotch of ideas, mirrored the social ideas that had been recurrent in atheists circles over the preceeding century and a half; eugenics, morality based on darwinian principles and so on.




I've re-read this a few times, and I still dont quite get what you're getting at. I think you're saying that atheism isnt valid because it copies christianity. Elements of this are undeniably true. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc etc are human values, and are certainly not the preserve of christianity. also, western christianity has been one of many of the defining forces in the creation of our society, so some of the views have to be aligned. They're not 'human values'. There are no such thing as 'human values'. This is exactly what I mean when I say atheists fail to walk the walk. All to often they have the myth of humanity centre stage, even while claiming that man is just another animal. The two views are incompatible.

Just to clarify atheism infers nothing else than a view on the existence or otherwise of God. It's not the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. However, atheist religions emerge inevitably to compete with the theistic ones; it seems something humans do.

And the only relatively harmless atheist religion is the most fraudulent one; humanism - which is Christianity with the supernatural bits removed - with them removed it loses all internal consistency, and is a bit crackers really, but nevertheless relatively benign. Whenever atheists try and create philosophies for living which start afresh from rational or natural premises they become terrible.



I certainly dont feel as if I'm going to be in any way culpable for the fall of Europe!Wherever irreligion is prominent (which basically means europe) you have societies failing to regenerate themselves. as such european societies are aging with alarming rapidity and will either collapse or require to bring in so many immigrants that the culture of the continent will change. the third and most likely possibility is a descent into authoritarian government.

there are other factors that may result in this too. without any common set of coherent values, a society cannot function for long, especially under stress. without shared values society cannot self regulate and so more laws are required. we can see the start of this all around us today. in the end i suspect their is no such thing as secular liberalism - when the afterglow of the religious inheritance fades, secularism cannot supply a viable basis for values, hence liberalism must be curtailed as we need more authoritarianism to compensate.

This is actually more about irreligion than atheism, but societies with a high proportion of atheism are leading the line here.




Could I have a f'rinstance?
The myth of humanity (and such quaint but bonkers attendant notions such as 'human values'); the idea of good and bad; various fabricated notions of meaning - see camus, neitzche and others; the 'nonsense on stilts' that is the idea of rights; any number of contra-darwinian ideas inherited from christianity eg. looking after the weak, tolerating the unproductive, valuing the individual; then the biggies - free will, universalism, largescale rejection of genetic determinism and so on and on.

These things you call human values are anything but. In most human societies throughout history moral strictures were restricted to the group; people outside the tribe, nation or whatever, were not subject to the same niceties. It's through monotheism that universalism comes in. that's another thing that doesn't stand up in an atheist worldview. before religion arrives on the scene at all; ie in precivilisation, we had the most violent period in human history.



I dont think I'm mad, and the squadron of pink unicorns in the corner agree.I don't think you're mad either. it's only silly buggers like Dawkins that start labelling people as mad for including mythos within their conception of reality (while living within a completely fabricated worldview himself). He seems to have a very poor understanding of what makes people take, and a cavernous self awareness deficit.




I still dont accept the argument that it is "credulity defying" to accept the formation of the universe from unclear natural origins whereas to accept that your particular version of God made it is quite acceptable and in no way stretching the bounds of credulity. also, at the very least all the comments you make are every bit as applicable to your Gods existence.Not so; a theistic view is at least internally consistent, in positing a creating force that is not boundaried by the laws of nature. An atheist view implies that nature is all there is and but also depends on things which defy nature's laws. this isn't a case of knowledge yet to be acquired either; right now we know that we end up with some version of reality winking into being out of nothing, or of it being eternal in character (which seems less likely based on current observations). whatever we go on to learn about mechanics we can say right now, both those possibilities end up, to all intents and purposes, in the realm of 'magic'.

and that's to say nothing of the fine calibration of the universe which now requires the positing of infinite numbers of other universes to explain away the need for a designer. these other universes will remain an item of faith of course; by definition they cannot be observed - if they could be they would be part of this universe.

pull all this together; atheism ultimately rests on things as improbable and unprovable as the most far fetched religion, is not very functional as a basis for civilisation, and, off the leash, is invariably highly destructive.

as such, if i have to take a punt, I prefer to do so on something that at least has something going for it.

and i suspect atheism is something we collectively need to outgrow, if western civilisation is to have a future.

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm sorry but communism explicitly tried to create a social order based on a rationalist moral system, replacing christian morality. The great terror following the french revolution came out of an abortive effort along similar lines. nazism meanwhile, while it was a hotchpotch of ideas, mirrored the social ideas that had been recurrent in atheists circles over the preceeding century and a half; eugenics, morality based on darwinian principles and so on.

We could argue the toss all day about the first bit above, but the last bit about nazism and eugenics is an oft raised criticism of an atheist stance, and is utterly and absolutely false. Darwinism, insofar as such a thing exists, is often wilfully misinterpreted as being the "correctness" of the destruction of the weak becuase Darwin believes in the survival of the fittest. The development of the theory of evolution, building on Darwins idea, is the survival of those best suited to to adapt to their environment - fittest meaning "best fit" rather than strongest. The ideas put forward by Darwin have been developed, altered, amended, corrected and updated as new discoveries are made and is now identified as being alterations caused as a result of changes in allele frequencies in a population. Darwin couldnt have known about this because it wasnt known of at the time.

Critically, neither Darwin nor any modern biologist. evolutionary scientist (or indeed atheist) would claim that the theory of evolution has anything to say on morals. How could it? Eugenics, and the misinterpretation of science by vile political doctrines such as Nazism is as equally abhorrent to me as the misinterpretation of scripture by violent or extremists is, I am sure, to you.


They're not 'human values'. There are no such thing as 'human values'. This is exactly what I mean when I say atheists fail to walk the walk. All to often they have the myth of humanity centre stage, even while claiming that man is just another animal. The two views are incompatible.

Man is an animal. We just happen to be a very intellignet one. The existence of core human values is, surely, impossible to dismiss. People everywhere want to experience love, want to feel secure, understand (as with all animals, as it happens) have an inate understanding that you dont have sex with your family members, have an aversion to killing. These things are global, and are demonstrably true amongst peoples of every religion and no religion.


Just to clarify atheism infers nothing else than a view on the existence or otherwise of God. It's not the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. However, atheist religions emerge inevitably to compete with the theistic ones; it seems something humans do.

And the only relatively harmless atheist religion is the most fraudulent one; humanism - which is Christianity with the supernatural bits removed - with them removed it loses all internal consistency, and is a bit crackers really, but nevertheless relatively benign. Whenever atheists try and create philosophies for living which start afresh from rational or natural premises they become terrible.

No matter how much you repeat the oxymoronic construct of "an atheist religion", it doesnt make it true. Religion involves two basic things, I think. It requires its followers to worship, and to believe uncritically in doctrine/scripture. Unless you are suggesting that all atheists have some twisted undercover plan to destroy the world, their isnt a need to "create a philosophy" because the philosophies already exist.


Wherever irreligion is prominent (which basically means europe) you have societies failing to regenerate themselves. as such european societies are aging with alarming rapidity and will either collapse or require to bring in so many immigrants that the culture of the continent will change. the third and most likely possibility is a descent into authoritarian government.

Erm. so you are saying that because Western european governments are essentially secular, the population is aging? So do you not want people to live longer? Do you want people to have more children in the West? And do you really belive that the situation would be radically different of we had been living in a scripturally led continent?


there are other factors that may result in this too. without any common set of coherent values, a society cannot function for long, especially under stress. without shared values society cannot self regulate and so more laws are required. we can see the start of this all around us today. in the end i suspect their is no such thing as secular liberalism - when the afterglow of the religious inheritance fades, secularism cannot supply a viable basis for values, hence liberalism must be curtailed as we need more authoritarianism to compensate.

This is actually more about irreligion than atheism, but societies with a high proportion of atheism are leading the line here.

I dont think you have seen the obvious flaw in your argument. You say you believe that reducing "spirituality" will necessarily see a more authoritarian society develop. I see no evidence of this anywhere. But lets for a minute accept that you are right. You are advocating that it would be better to have a religious authoritarian regime rather than a secular one, because that is the alternative. I know which one i would prefer.



The myth of humanity (and such quaint but bonkers attendant notions such as 'human values'); the idea of good and bad; various fabricated notions of meaning - see camus, neitzche and others; the 'nonsense on stilts' that is the idea of rights; any number of contra-darwinian ideas inherited from christianity eg. looking after the weak, tolerating the unproductive, valuing the individual; then the biggies - free will, universalism, largescale rejection of genetic determinism and so on and on.

See above - youre basing your argument here on a fallacious understanding of "Darwinism"


These things you call human values are anything but. In most human societies throughout history moral strictures were restricted to the group; people outside the tribe, nation or whatever, were not subject to the same niceties. It's through monotheism that universalism comes in. that's another thing that doesn't stand up in an atheist worldview. before religion arrives on the scene at all; ie in precivilisation, we had the most violent period in human history.

Think about that last line. "precivilisation, we had the most violent period in human history" Did we? Really? How do you know? I also think that everyone who has died in a war over the last 2000 years would probably debate this with you.


Not so; a theistic view is at least internally consistent, in positing a creating force that is not boundaried by the laws of nature. An atheist view implies that nature is all there is and but also depends on things which defy nature's laws. this isn't a case of knowledge yet to be acquired either; right now we know that we end up with some version of reality winking into being out of nothing, or of it being eternal in character (which seems less likely based on current observations). whatever we go on to learn about mechanics we can say right now, both those possibilities end up, to all intents and purposes, in the realm of 'magic'.

People keep saying this, but it is a valid point only if the creation of the Universe out of nothing by a creator is acknowledged to be within that same realm.


and that's to say nothing of the fine calibration of the universe which now requires the positing of infinite numbers of other universes to explain away the need for a designer. these other universes will remain an item of faith of course; by definition they cannot be observed - if they could be they would be part of this universe.

No, it really, really doesnt. Astronomers and astrophysicists do not spend there life trying to disprove God. The argument of fine calibration is also irrelevant. The universe is what it is. its why there isnt life in the rest if the solar system, its why we exist in our current form. It cant be different because, as the combined laws of nature, physics, chemistry, relativity and every other science have shown, it can't be.


pull all this together; atheism ultimately rests on things as improbable and unprovable as the most far fetched religion, is not very functional as a basis for civilisation, and, off the leash, is invariably highly destructive.

as such, if i have to take a punt, I prefer to do so on something that at least has something going for it.

and i suspect atheism is something we collectively need to outgrow, if western civilisation is to have a future.

The sweeping generalisations here are stunning, but interesting, and I strongly suspect neither I nor anyone else will encourage you to change them or even question them. I don't know if youve actually sat down and read "The god Delusion", or "God is not Great" by Hitchens, but I think you would find them interesting, if only to allow you to understand exactly why Western europe is terminally doomed :wink:

[Bishop Hibee]

OK I'll bite.

One of the biggest criticisms of some atheists (there are plenty who are great) I have is their patronizing attitude that in believing in God or having faith you have some sort of comfort blanket that makes everything ok. I can assure you that faith can be a complete pain in the neck.

Christians such as Jimmy Mizen's parents felt incredible pain at their son's murder but chose a difficult path in preaching reconciliation.

This clip goes a little way to showing what being Christian means in the UK today:

www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/922575/jimmy_mizen_murder_verdict

I'd be interested to hear from atheists if they have a similar support network.

[Dashing Bob S]

To be honest, if me as a Christian was looking for a criticism of Atheism as a whole, it would be the fact that Atheists don't believe in God.....:greengrin

Its hard to criticise atheism as a whole, because I don't think there is really an organised atheism in the same way there is organised religion. Also, because as has already been said, there hasn't ever been the history of people doing things in the name of atheism that there has been of people doing terrible things and using religion as an excuse. I personally wouldn't blame religion for these things, but the people who have mis-used and abuse religion for their own ends. Some people argue that atheists the likes of Stalin and Mao did terrible things, but whilst these men may have been atheists, they didn't do the things they did in the name of atheism, they did them for other aims, whereas Islamic terrorists do what they do for their religion as they see it. In this respect, I can totally see where atheists are coming from with their criticisms of religion.

Individual atheists can be criticised, for example, I feel Richard Dawkins, whilst clearly a very intelligent man, is arrogant and dismissive of people who he would class as fundamentalists, whilst he himself is verging on the fundamental evangelical atheist, often doing a lot of the things he criticises religious people for.

I guess what I'm saying is that Atheism as a whole cannot be criticised in the same way that religion as a whole can, because as I see it, atheism as a whole doesn't really exist, because it isn't really an organised belief, more a collective name for a set of people who don't believe. At the moment there isn't really a "cult" of atheism, for want of a better word.

I hope that makes sense, I'm trying to watch a movie at the same time as typing this.....:greengrin

Excellent post. The burden of 'proof' is therefore on religious persons, as they seek to have society operate on their faith-based principles.

[Dashing Bob S]

I'm sorry but communism explicitly tried to create a social order based on a rationalist moral system, replacing christian morality. The great terror following the french revolution came out of an abortive effort along similar lines. nazism meanwhile, while it was a hotchpotch of ideas, mirrored the social ideas that had been recurrent in atheists circles over the preceeding century and a half; eugenics, morality based on darwinian principles and so on.

They're not 'human values'. There are no such thing as 'human values'. This is exactly what I mean when I say atheists fail to walk the walk. All to often they have the myth of humanity centre stage, even while claiming that man is just another animal. The two views are incompatible.

Just to clarify atheism infers nothing else than a view on the existence or otherwise of God. It's not the opposite of religion, it's the opposite of theism. However, atheist religions emerge inevitably to compete with the theistic ones; it seems something humans do.

And the only relatively harmless atheist religion is the most fraudulent one; humanism - which is Christianity with the supernatural bits removed - with them removed it loses all internal consistency, and is a bit crackers really, but nevertheless relatively benign. Whenever atheists try and create philosophies for living which start afresh from rational or natural premises they become terrible.

Wherever irreligion is prominent (which basically means europe) you have societies failing to regenerate themselves. as such european societies are aging with alarming rapidity and will either collapse or require to bring in so many immigrants that the culture of the continent will change. the third and most likely possibility is a descent into authoritarian government.

there are other factors that may result in this too. without any common set of coherent values, a society cannot function for long, especially under stress. without shared values society cannot self regulate and so more laws are required. we can see the start of this all around us today. in the end i suspect their is no such thing as secular liberalism - when the afterglow of the religious inheritance fades, secularism cannot supply a viable basis for values, hence liberalism must be curtailed as we need more authoritarianism to compensate.

This is actually more about irreligion than atheism, but societies with a high proportion of atheism are leading the line here.



The myth of humanity (and such quaint but bonkers attendant notions such as 'human values'); the idea of good and bad; various fabricated notions of meaning - see camus, neitzche and others; the 'nonsense on stilts' that is the idea of rights; any number of contra-darwinian ideas inherited from christianity eg. looking after the weak, tolerating the unproductive, valuing the individual; then the biggies - free will, universalism, largescale rejection of genetic determinism and so on and on.

These things you call human values are anything but. In most human societies throughout history moral strictures were restricted to the group; people outside the tribe, nation or whatever, were not subject to the same niceties. It's through monotheism that universalism comes in. that's another thing that doesn't stand up in an atheist worldview. before religion arrives on the scene at all; ie in precivilisation, we had the most violent period in human history.

I don't think you're mad either. it's only silly buggers like Dawkins that start labelling people as mad for including mythos within their conception of reality (while living within a completely fabricated worldview himself). He seems to have a very poor understanding of what makes people take, and a cavernous self awareness deficit.


Not so; a theistic view is at least internally consistent, in positing a creating force that is not boundaried by the laws of nature. An atheist view implies that nature is all there is and but also depends on things which defy nature's laws. this isn't a case of knowledge yet to be acquired either; right now we know that we end up with some version of reality winking into being out of nothing, or of it being eternal in character (which seems less likely based on current observations). whatever we go on to learn about mechanics we can say right now, both those possibilities end up, to all intents and purposes, in the realm of 'magic'.

and that's to say nothing of the fine calibration of the universe which now requires the positing of infinite numbers of other universes to explain away the need for a designer. these other universes will remain an item of faith of course; by definition they cannot be observed - if they could be they would be part of this universe.

pull all this together; atheism ultimately rests on things as improbable and unprovable as the most far fetched religion, is not very functional as a basis for civilisation, and, off the leash, is invariably highly destructive.

as such, if i have to take a punt, I prefer to do so on something that at least has something going for it.

and i suspect atheism is something we collectively need to outgrow, if western civilisation is to have a future.

Atheism is not the same Marxist dialectical materialism, and as has been said, is not proscriptive about the type of society it wants, nor about humanity. Some atheists might believe man is just a more intelligent animal, others might believe something akin to human beings having a more defined and unique set of qualities (what religious people might call a soul) but without having a belief in a higher, omnipotent being.

[lapsedhibee]

OK I'll bite.

One of the biggest criticisms of some atheists (there are plenty who are great) I have is their patronizing attitude that in believing in God or having faith you have some sort of comfort blanket that makes everything ok. I can assure you that faith can be a complete pain in the neck.

Christians such as Jimmy Mizen's parents felt incredible pain at their son's murder but chose a difficult path in preaching reconciliation.

This clip goes a little way to showing what being Christian means in the UK today:

www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/922575/jimmy_mizen_murder_verdict

I'd be interested to hear from atheists if they have a similar support network.

Not sure that I understand this post. You're not keen on atheists perceiving Christianity as a comfort that makes everything ok. But the clip to which you've linked shows a family thanking everyone for, and extolling the virtues of, the comfort that their messages of love and prayers (as well as practical support) have brought to the remaining members. The parents spoke very, very impressively, no doubt, but they were in a way also, at the same time, illustrating the value of Christianity as a comfort. In that very short clip they did not specifically mention reconciliation or forgiveness, though I can well imagine from their demeanour that they have talked about those things at other times.

[Twa Cairpets]

One of the biggest criticisms of some atheists (there are plenty who are great) I have is their patronizing attitude that in believing in God or having faith you have some sort of comfort blanket that makes everything ok.
Curiously, if you change remove the highlighted "a" it is an identical criticism levelled from the other side of the argument.


Christians such as Jimmy Mizen's parents felt incredible pain at their son's murder but chose a difficult path in preaching reconciliation.

This clip goes a little way to showing what being Christian means in the UK today:

www.clipsyndicate.com/video/play/922575/jimmy_mizen_murder_verdict

I'd be interested to hear from atheists if they have a similar support network.

I vaguely remember watching this at this time, and being impressed by the fundamental decency that the father portrayed. But to answer your specific question, if such a horrendous tragedy was to happen to me, I believe I have a strong and trusted enough circle of family and friends that would help me through it, without any restriction, limit or qualification. I also believe most people are the same. it seems that the Mizens had a lot of their social network tied up with their church activities, and it would be obvious therefore that church members, as their friends, would provide support.

This is slightly off topic, but one thing I have found baffling is that families of strong faith in this situation find comfort in their beliefs, will thank God for the life that was gifted, but sees no culpability by the maker for the death.

[J-C]

Getting back a little to the original post, athiest( and I'm one of them ) don't believe in a big guy with a beard sitting high in the clouds, pointing his finger and deciding who to smite etc. Why, because it is just a rediculous notion to perceive.

So tell me all you religious guys and gals out there, why did the Romans, Greeks, Ancient Egyptians and all the people living deep in jungles believe there were many gods and prayed and sacrificed to them all depending what their needs were. Surely if there was only the one deity, he would be pretty pissed off after spending all of 6 days and nights creating the Earth for these people to ignore him and believe in say Zeus, Poseidon, Ra the Sun God or the many gods of the forrest and rivers etc. Infact the Ancient Egyptians seen themselves as gods and even thought their cats were divine?

Ancient scripts like the Bible, Koran etc are fables and stories, some of which may have a smidgen of truth but by in large are meerly made up to justify the thoughts of the religious leaders of that time. If Jesus was the son of God, then why do Muslims not accept this, instead they follow the teaching of Muhammad and accept Jesus as a great teacher, not a divine son.

Many of these books only date back a few thousand years, when we all know because of science that the earth has been here millions of years, as yet there has been no explanation for the huge gap in our world teachings, or isn't it more likely that because we as a creature have only really been able to uderstand things more clearly for a short period in this time line.


Atheism has only recently become a way of looking at the world around us and ourselves because until the development of science we would never have conceived the concept of the Earth being millions of years old, Dinosaurs, Giant Sloths etc. Only since this happened has atheism became more normal, people speaking out against religion and going down the scientific route.

You don't need to go to church to be a good person, have good sound morals, teach your kids right and wrong, these things should be the norm whatever you believe in. Tell me, how many evil wicked, crackpot murderers have there been who use the " God told me to do it " explanation. Saddam Hussain, a Muslim leader in his country was a mass murderer, this is only one of many examples.

[Sergio sledge]

Getting back a little to the original post, athiest( and I'm one of them ) don't believe in a big guy with a beard sitting high in the clouds, pointing his finger and deciding who to smite etc. Why, because it is just a rediculous notion to perceive.

So tell me all you religious guys and gals out there, why did the Romans, Greeks, Ancient Egyptians and all the people living deep in jungles believe there were many gods and prayed and sacrificed to them all depending what their needs were. Surely if there was only the one deity, he would be pretty pissed off after spending all of 6 days and nights creating the Earth for these people to ignore him and believe in say Zeus, Poseidon, Ra the Sun God or the many gods of the forrest and rivers etc. Infact the Ancient Egyptians seen themselves as gods and even thought their cats were divine?

Ancient scripts like the Bible, Koran etc are fables and stories, some of which may have a smidgen of truth but by in large are meerly made up to justify the thoughts of the religious leaders of that time. If Jesus was the son of God, then why do Muslims not accept this, instead they follow the teaching of Muhammad and accept Jesus as a great teacher, not a divine son.

Many of these books only date back a few thousand years, when we all know because of science that the earth has been here millions of years, as yet there has been no explanation for the huge gap in our world teachings, or isn't it more likely that because we as a creature have only really been able to uderstand things more clearly for a short period in this time line.


Atheism has only recently become a way of looking at the world around us and ourselves because until the development of science we would never have conceived the concept of the Earth being millions of years old, Dinosaurs, Giant Sloths etc. Only since this happened has atheism became more normal, people speaking out against religion and going down the scientific route.

You don't need to go to church to be a good person, have good sound morals, teach your kids right and wrong, these things should be the norm whatever you believe in. Tell me, how many evil wicked, crackpot murderers have there been who use the " God told me to do it " explanation. Saddam Hussain, a Muslim leader in his country was a mass murderer, this is only one of many examples.

I fail to see what any of that has to do with the original post which was entitled: "What criticisms can be made of Athiests?" :wink:

To pick you up on your last point, it could be re-phrased, "Tell me, how many evil wicked, crackpot murderers have there been who haven't used the "God told me to do it " explanation." People like those who commit atrocities will use whatever explanation they can in order to try to legitimise what they are doing. I've already said in this thread that there is a long history of people doing terrible things in the name of religion, but this type of argument is becoming tiresome. It seems to be generally accepted that these things wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators hadn't been religious, but if this is generally accepted, then surely we have to look at the opposite side, and see how many "evil wicked, crackpot murderers" in the past weren't religious, and look into whether they would have done what they did if they had been religious?

By the way, in no way am I trying to, or have I ever tried to, say that you can only be a "good" person if you are religious, but that religion can be to some people a life changing, life defining thing which in some cases can lead to prevention of crimes because the persons way of life has changed.

With regards to Saddam Hussein, IIRC he was a secularist, and didn't do what he did in the name of religion. Perhaps not the best example you could have picked.....

[LiverpoolHibs]

Arguments about 'people doing bad stuff in the name of x' are pretty much meaningless unless you can properly establish that the 'doing bad stuff' is integral to the way in which the 'x' operates. If you can do that then you can move on to something else, but it's completely facile otherwise.

[lapsedhibee]

Arguments about 'people doing bad stuff in the name of x' are pretty much meaningless unless you can properly establish that the 'doing bad stuff' is integral to the way in which the 'x' operates. If you can do that then you can move on to something else, but it's completely facile otherwise.

I don't think I ever heard anyone claim that they were driven to commit a crime by algebra. :confused:

[J-C]

I fail to see what any of that has to do with the original post which was entitled: "What criticisms can be made of Athiests?" :wink:

To pick you up on your last point, it could be re-phrased, "Tell me, how many evil wicked, crackpot murderers have there been who haven't used the "God told me to do it " explanation." People like those who commit atrocities will use whatever explanation they can in order to try to legitimise what they are doing. I've already said in this thread that there is a long history of people doing terrible things in the name of religion, but this type of argument is becoming tiresome. It seems to be generally accepted that these things wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators hadn't been religious, but if this is generally accepted, then surely we have to look at the opposite side, and see how many "evil wicked, crackpot murderers" in the past weren't religious, and look into whether they would have done what they did if they had been religious?

By the way, in no way am I trying to, or have I ever tried to, say that you can only be a "good" person if you are religious, but that religion can be to some people a life changing, life defining thing which in some cases can lead to prevention of crimes because the persons way of life has changed.

With regards to Saddam Hussein, IIRC he was a secularist, and didn't do what he did in the name of religion. Perhaps not the best example you could have picked.....


The point I was trying to make was that, since the invention of the so called one true god, man has been murdering man in some way or another because his beliefs. The Holy Wars or Crusades were the "Christians" trying to suppress the Muslim faith in that area using brute force, with St Augustine in the 7th century creditted with a "just war" theory within Christianity, whereby war was justified on religious grounds. St Thomas of Aquinas elaborated on these and his writings were used by the Roman Catholic Church to regulate the actions of European countries.

Before the one God theory, men killed other men for power, greed and glory and even eirlier in our existence cavemen killed when threatened by others, not because their beliefs were different.

Religion has caused great sorry in this world and if there was a one true god then why does he allow young innicent children to die at the hands of evil people, let nasty vicious people live for a long time without pain or punishment, and watch while thousands die every day through disease and suffering.

The original post said what critisism can be made of atheists, I suggest you turn it around and say what critisism can be made of "Theists"

[Twa Cairpets]

The point I was trying to make was that, since the invention of the so called one true god, man has been murdering man in some way or another because his beliefs. The Holy Wars or Crusades were the "Christians" trying to suppress the Muslim faith in that area using brute force, with St Augustine in the 7th century creditted with a "just war" theory within Christianity, whereby war was justified on religious grounds. St Thomas of Aquinas elaborated on these and his writings were used by the Roman Catholic Church to regulate the actions of European countries.

Before the one God theory, men killed other men for power, greed and glory and even eirlier in our existence cavemen killed when threatened by others, not because their beliefs were different.

Religion has caused great sorry in this world and if there was a one true god then why does he allow young innicent children to die at the hands of evil people, let nasty vicious people live for a long time without pain or punishment, and watch while thousands die every day through disease and suffering.

The original post said what critisism can be made of atheists, I suggest you turn it around and say what critisism can be made of "Theists"

In fairness JC50, the thread is what the thread is.

I've no problem defending my thoughts on atheism based on the merits of that stance, as opposed to defining it through my opposition to religion.

[J-C]

In fairness JC50, the thread is what the thread is.

I've no problem defending my thoughts on atheism based on the merits of that stance, as opposed to defining it through my opposition to religion.


I see that but to sometimes to justify our thoughts, we have to at times express our opinions as to why we have chosen to ignore religion and therefore try to show religion for what we think it is.

[Sergio sledge]

The point I was trying to make was that, since the invention of the so called one true god, man has been murdering man in some way or another because his beliefs. The Holy Wars or Crusades were the "Christians" trying to suppress the Muslim faith in that area using brute force, with St Augustine in the 7th century creditted with a "just war" theory within Christianity, whereby war was justified on religious grounds. St Thomas of Aquinas elaborated on these and his writings were used by the Roman Catholic Church to regulate the actions of European countries.

Before the one God theory, men killed other men for power, greed and glory and even eirlier in our existence cavemen killed when threatened by others, not because their beliefs were different.

So basically since the "dawn of man," whatever way you believe that happened, people have been killing each other for a variety of different reasons? Seems to defeat the argument that religion is the root of all evil in the world if, after all, religion is fables and fairy tales made up a few thousand years ago to control man, and men were killing other men before religion was "invented."

In fact, if men have always fought and killed other men, no matter whether religion was involved or not, is religion the problem or is it man that is the problem?

IMHO, and I have no evidence to back this up but it is a hunch based on human nature, you will struggle to find any war in history where power, greed and glory weren't as big a factor in the war as supposed religious reasons.


Religion has caused great sorry in this world and if there was a one true god then why does he allow young innicent children to die at the hands of evil people, let nasty vicious people live for a long time without pain or punishment, and watch while thousands die every day through disease and suffering.

Another common argument which to be perfectly honest can trouble even the most secure of Christians.

I believe that God created the world perfect, with no pain or suffering, but he gave man free will from the very beginning, and man used that free will to chose to rebel against God. The consequence of this rebellion was that sin entered the world, causing pain, suffering and ultimately death.

I'm not going to lie to you and say I know why God allows these bad things to happen, because I don't. But I do trust God and trust that He has a plan for every person in every situation they are in.


The original post said what critisism can be made of atheists, I suggest you turn it around and say what critisism can be made of "Theists"

That's not the point of the thread though is it? :rolleyes:

[IndieHibby]

The original post said what critisism can be made of atheists, I suggest you turn it around and say what critisism can be made of "Theists"

I specifically made the OP a criticism of Atheism, as I am acutely aware that these type of discussions:
a) usually revolve around criticisms of Theists
b) can often become quite heated as a result

and I wanted to offer a platform on which Theists could, without prior prejudice, offer what they feel are the main reasons why Atheists are wrong/misguided/heading into enternal hellfire :wink:

Obviously, I have no interest in limiting where this thread goes, but did see a need to start a discussion from this viewpoint.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The point I was trying to make was that, since the invention of the so called one true god, man has been murdering man in some way or another because his beliefs. The Holy Wars or Crusades were the "Christians" trying to suppress the Muslim faith in that area using brute force, with St Augustine in the 7th century creditted with a "just war" theory within Christianity, whereby war was justified on religious grounds. St Thomas of Aquinas elaborated on these and his writings were used by the Roman Catholic Church to regulate the actions of European countries.

Before the one God theory, men killed other men for power, greed and glory and even eirlier in our existence cavemen killed when threatened by others, not because their beliefs were different.

Religion has caused great sorry in this world and if there was a one true god then why does he allow young innicent children to die at the hands of evil people, let nasty vicious people live for a long time without pain or punishment, and watch while thousands die every day through disease and suffering.

The original post said what critisism can be made of atheists, I suggest you turn it around and say what critisism can be made of "Theists"

I'm not sure much of that is true. I'm struggling to think of any conflict in which the prime motivation has been religious differences - it may provide an ideological framework in which the conflicts are articulated but rarely more than that. The Troubles and the Israel-Palestine conflict certainly have very little to do with religion despite them constantly being used to support the view of the danger of religion.

Even the Crusades are arguably much more material in motivation than they're generally held to be: the need to cement a growing alliance between the First and Second Estates (the Church and the Nobility) as a means of control against the Third Estate (the peasantry) in European society, the need to increase centralisation in order to increase production leading to the rise of the city states, opening up of new trade routes and the rise of mercantilism etc. etc.

And, as I've already said, I don't think it provides any proper critique of religion to say that people occasionally do dreadful things in its name. That doesn't really mean anything.

But anyway, Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

I'm not sure muchof that is true. I'm struggling to think of any conflict in which the prime motivation has been religious differences - it may provide an ideological framework in which the conflicts are articulated but rarely more than that. The Troubles and the Israel-Palestine conflict certainly have very little to do with religion despite them constantly being used to support the view of the danger of religion.

Even the Crusades are arguably much more material in motivation than they're generally held to be: the need to cement a growing alliance between the First and Second Estates (the Church and the Nobility) as a means of control against the Third Estate (the peasantry) in European society, the need to increase centralisation in order to increase production leading to the rise of the city states, opening up of new trade routes and the rise of mercantilism etc. etc.

And, as I've already said, I don't think it provides any proper critique of religion to say that people occasionally do dreadful things in its name. That doesn't really mean anything.

But anyway, Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet.

The Albigensian crusade and the destruction of the Cathars. Happy to help. :wink:

[J-C]

So basically since the "dawn of man," whatever way you believe that happened, people have been killing each other for a variety of different reasons? Seems to defeat the argument that religion is the root of all evil in the world if, after all, religion is fables and fairy tales made up a few thousand years ago to control man, and men were killing other men before religion was "invented."

Men killed through fear and the willingness to protect their young from other hostile men, just look at other mammals who will kill or be killed to protect their family units. As man grew more intelligent he realised he could get what he wanted through fear, religion then speang up as a way of comtrolling others with this same fear. No matter what form of religion is used, Voodoo, Muslim, Christianity, Paganism, Devil worship... fear in the almighty power is used to control others.

In fact, if men have always fought and killed other men, no matter whether religion was involved or not, is religion the problem or is it man that is the problem?

Most definately man is the problem where killing another man is concerned but throughout history religion and ethnicity has been the basis of most of man's war against man.

IMHO, and I have no evidence to back this up but it is a hunch based on human nature, you will struggle to find any war in history where power, greed and glory weren't as big a factor in the war as supposed religious reasons.

Erm... The holy Crusades in the 7th century
Troubles in the Middle East between Israel and the rest.




Another common argument which to be perfectly honest can trouble even the most secure of Christians.

I believe that God created the world perfect, with no pain or suffering, but he gave man free will from the very beginning, and man used that free will to chose to rebel against God. The consequence of this rebellion was that sin entered the world, causing pain, suffering and ultimately death.

I'm not going to lie to you and say I know why God allows these bad things to happen, because I don't. But I do trust God and trust that He has a plan for every person in every situation they are in.

What about Soddam and Gomorrah, he was happy to make a statement at that time, then all a sudden he decides, sod the lot of you, I'm leaving you to it and if you mess up then tough. Not quite what I'd expect from the great Deity, hence the reason I don't believe.



That's not the point of the thread though is it? :rolleyes:

I know it wasn't, just thought I'd turn the point of view round, with all the Theist finding fault with us Atheists, I thought I'd look at it another way, that's the point of these discussions is it not, occssionally go of in tangents. The main thing is not to let it get too personal and appreciate everyones viewpoints, I have no quams with other peoples beliefs or views, it's what makes the world a more interesting place. :greengrin
.

[J-C]

I specifically made the OP a criticism of Atheism, as I am acutely aware that these type of discussions:
a) usually revolve around criticisms of Theists
b) can often become quite heated as a result

and I wanted to offer a platform on which Theists could, without prior prejudice, offer what they feel are the main reasons why Atheists are wrong/misguided/heading into enternal hellfire :wink:

Obviously, I have no interest in limiting where this thread goes, but did see a need to start a discussion from this viewpoint.


I can understand where you were coming from but as soon as the arguments from Theists started the Atheists would have to answer them back and hey presto the religious debate kicks off again. As long as it stays a debate and doesn't get too heated leave it be and see where it takes us. As they used to say on the old BT ad, it's good to talk.

[IndieHibby]

I can understand where you were coming from but as soon as the arguments from Theists started the Atheists would have to answer them back and hey presto the religious debate kicks off again. As long as it stays a debate and doesn't get too heated leave it be and see where it takes us. As they used to say on the old BT ad, it's good to talk.

Fair do's

[LiverpoolHibs]

The Albigensian crusade and the destruction of the Cathars. Happy to help. :wink:

Hmmm. You may well be right, but I think, again, a convincing argument could be made that it wasn't so much the Cathars 'heresy' that motivated the response as much as the danger of a mass movement of common people operating outside of the structure and control of both Church and State, it was a completely revolutionary change in social and economic relations. Bearing in mind that they were quite explicitly societally dissident (especially in terms of gender which would have been an enormous worry to the Church/State alliance) as well as religiously so. Also any attack on Church hierarchies in the period was essentially an attack on the political status quo as it was the clergy that maintained distinctions within society, cemented economic blocs around themselves etc. I also think I'm right in saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that they refused to pay tithes and/or taxes to the Church/State. There's also the fairly significant North/South tension in France at the time and the need to reassert the power of the crown in that area. Maybe I'm pushing this, I dunno.

Sort of similar to the threat that the Quakers were seen to pose in the seventeenth century, I suppose.

N.B. At no point today did I think I'd end up debating Catharism and the Albigensian Crusade. I blame the rain at the cricket.

[Twa Cairpets]

Hmmm. You may well be right, but I think, again, a convincing argument could be made that it wasn't so much the Cathars 'heresy' that motivated the response as much as the danger of a mass movement of common people operating outside of the structure and control of both Church and State, it was a completely revolutionary change in social and economic relations. Bearing in mind that they were quite explicitly societally dissident (especially in terms of gender which would have been an enormous worry to the Church/State alliance) as well as religiously so. Also any attack on Church hierarchies in the period was essentially an attack on the political status quo as it was the clergy that maintained distinctions within society, cemented economic blocs around themselves etc. I also think I'm right in saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that they refused to pay tithes and/or taxes to the Church/State. There's also the fairly significant North/South tension in France at the time and the need to reassert the power of the crown in that area. Maybe I'm pushing this, I dunno.

Sort of similar to the threat that the Quakers were seen to pose in the seventeenth century, I suppose.

N.B. At no point today did I think I'd end up debating Catharism and the Albigensian Crusade. I blame the rain at the cricket.

:faf: Nor I, but you are clutching at straws. At its basis was religious fear and intolerance particularly from Pope Innocent III.

But your basic point is fair. Almost all wars have a mish-mash of reasons behind them, and religion has played its fair share in many.

[Sergio sledge]

Most definately man is the problem where killing another man is concerned but throughout history religion and ethnicity has been the basis of most of man's war against man.

I don't think religion has been the basis, more a vehicle for going to war, LiverpoolHibs already articulated it better than I ever could when he said:


it may provide an ideological framework in which the conflicts are articulated but rarely more than that


Erm... The holy Crusades in the 7th century
Troubles in the Middle East between Israel and the rest.

Again, LiverpoolHibs has already explained both of those, and I would tend to agree with his assessment that the crusades whilst having a religious element to them, were as much about economics and politics as religion.


What about Soddam and Gomorrah, he was happy to make a statement at that time, then all a sudden he decides, sod the lot of you, I'm leaving you to it and if you mess up then tough. Not quite what I'd expect from the great Deity, hence the reason I don't believe.

Nope, He sent His Son into the world to take the punishment for our sins so that we might be saved.


I know it wasn't, just thought I'd turn the point of view round, with all the Theist finding fault with us Atheists, I thought I'd look at it another way, that's the point of these discussions is it not, occssionally go of in tangents. The main thing is not to let it get too personal and appreciate everyones viewpoints, I have no quams with other peoples beliefs or views, it's what makes the world a more interesting place.

Fair enough :aok:

[J-C]

I don't think religion has been the basis, more a vehicle for going to war, LiverpoolHibs already articulated it better than I ever could when he said:





Again, LiverpoolHibs has already explained both of those, and I would tend to agree with his assessment that the crusades whilst having a religious element to them, were as much about economics and politics as religion.



Nope, He sent His Son into the world to take the punishment for our sins so that we might be saved.

That's only if you believe Jesus Christ was the son of God, therein lies one of the problems. :greengrin


Fair enough :aok:


.

[--------]

The Albigensian crusade and the destruction of the Cathars. Happy to help. :wink:


Hmmm. You may well be right, but I think, again, a convincing argument could be made that it wasn't so much the Cathars 'heresy' that motivated the response as much as the danger of a mass movement of common people operating outside of the structure and control of both Church and State, it was a completely revolutionary change in social and economic relations. Bearing in mind that they were quite explicitly societally dissident (especially in terms of gender which would have been an enormous worry to the Church/State alliance) as well as religiously so. Also any attack on Church hierarchies in the period was essentially an attack on the political status quo as it was the clergy that maintained distinctions within society, cemented economic blocs around themselves etc. I also think I'm right in saying, correct me if I'm wrong, that they refused to pay tithes and/or taxes to the Church/State. There's also the fairly significant North/South tension in France at the time and the need to reassert the power of the crown in that area. Maybe I'm pushing this, I dunno.

Sort of similar to the threat that the Quakers were seen to pose in the seventeenth century, I suppose.

N.B. At no point today did I think I'd end up debating Catharism and the Albigensian Crusade. I blame the rain at the cricket.


:faf: Nor I, but you are clutching at straws. At its basis was religious fear and intolerance particularly from Pope Innocent III.

But your basic point is fair. Almost all wars have a mish-mash of reasons behind them, and religion has played its fair share in many.


And the desire of the French Crown to extend its power into the Languedoc and to break the power of the County of Toulouse?

And the Plantagenets' willingness to get involved in a fight wherever there was a nice profit to be made. De Monfort built himself a nice wee kingdom out of the Crusade.

And the tendency of the Cathars to be from the more prosperous land-holding and merchant classes - and the willingness of the Roman Church to defend its own material wealth and position on Provencal society by killing those who were threatening it. And Innocent's worry wasn't so much religious as political - preserving, restoring or re-inforcing the political power and position of the Papacy was a prime motivation for all the Crusades.

The Albigensian Crusade had roots in a far more complex situation than simple religious disagreement or the intolerance of Innocent III. (IMHO.)

[ancienthibby]

.

When He touches YOUR life (get ready for it!), then you will know that He lives!!

[Twa Cairpets]

And the desire of the French Crown to extend its power into the Languedoc and to break the power of the County of Toulouse?

And the Plantagenets' willingness to get involved in a fight wherever there was a nice profit to be made. De Monfort built himself a nice wee kingdom out of the Crusade.

And the tendency of the Cathars to be from the more prosperous land-holding and merchant classes - and the willingness of the Roman Church to defend its own material wealth and position on Provencal society by killing those who were threatening it. And Innocent's worry wasn't so much religious as political - preserving, restoring or re-inforcing the political power and position of the Papacy was a prime motivation for all the Crusades.

The Albigensian Crusade had roots in a far more complex situation than simple religious disagreement or the intolerance of Innocent III. (IMHO.)

But if the Cathars hadnt been seen as a threat to the strength and authority of Rome, then the crusade(s) would not have occurred. Sure, there were other, much more temporal reasons involved as well, but religion, or at the very least the threat to the authority of the religious status quo, was the catalyst and cause.

[Twa Cairpets]

When He touches YOUR life (get ready for it!), then you will know that He lives!!

Actually ancienthibby, if that was to happen to me, I would instantly convert and become the worlds greatest proselytizing evangelist for the Lord. I am entrely open for that to happen, as to me it would be incontovertible evidence of his existence. If God exists, (and therefore presumably knows this to be true), I'm ready. I'm not trying to test him (which is the usual answer to this) - if he speaks to other people, then why doesnt he speak to me if I am willing to hear Him?

[--------]

But if the Cathars hadnt been seen as a threat to the strength and authority of Rome, then the crusade(s) would not have occurred. Sure, there were other, much more temporal reasons involved as well, but religion, or at the very least the threat to the authority of the religious status quo, was the catalyst and cause.

Yup. That's a pretty fair assessment.

My understanding is that there were a whole lot of things bubbling away in Provence and the Languedoc for years before the Crusade was called. These were all causing huge stresses in the society of the Languedoc, but those stresses might well have been subsumed, or they might have worked themsleves out to a different (and much more positive) outcome, if it hadn't been for the intervention of Innocent III. Once he had called the crusade, and once de Montfort was let loose, of course, there was hell to pay.

But you won't get an argument from me about the culpability of the papacy in the Albigensian Crusade, mate....

What was it Arnold Amaury was supposed to have said before Beziers? Someone asked him how they could tell the faithful from the heretics? "Kill them all - God will know his own...."?

[Bishop Hibee]

Not sure that I understand this post. You're not keen on atheists perceiving Christianity as a comfort that makes everything ok. But the clip to which you've linked shows a family thanking everyone for, and extolling the virtues of, the comfort that their messages of love and prayers (as well as practical support) have brought to the remaining members. The parents spoke very, very impressively, no doubt, but they were in a way also, at the same time, illustrating the value of Christianity as a comfort. In that very short clip they did not specifically mention reconciliation or forgiveness, though I can well imagine from their demeanour that they have talked about those things at other times.

It's more the patronizing tone some atheists take. They insinuate that believers are somehow weaker than non-believers because they need, as atheists see it, an imaginary figure to see them through troubled times without which they can't cope on there own. I would prefer to use the word "strength" or "support" rather than "comfort" which to me has more infantile connotations.

I also can't be bothered with the lazy arguments of some atheists that organised religion has never done society any good. UK society is based on Judeo-Christian ethics for goodness sake.

[nonshinyfinish]

Thirty-four posts and no mention of Pascal's Wager, for shame...

What if you bet on the wrong God? Should have stuck to triangles IMO...


Shouldn't atheist have an equal obligation to explain pleasure in a world of randomness. Where does pleasure come from? –G.K. Chesterton

That is quite spectacularly stupid.


Gott ist tot! Gott bleibt tot! Und wir haben ihn getötet. :wink:

Amen, brother.

[J-C]

When He touches YOUR life (get ready for it!), then you will know that He lives!!


I won't hold my breathe Ancient one, I have always had an open mind to all these matters and like others I will accept his being if and when I have uncontroversial proof of his existence.

Bishop, I don't think any of the athiests posting on this thread have came over as patronising, as I see it a good logical debate has been taking place with both sides putting forward their viewpoints. I personally have no quams with whatever religious persuasion any poster may have, that's their perogative. Remember just because we don't believe in an almighty creator, doesn't mean to say we are not at times weak and feel the need for some support, just that we will get that support from other means and not from having a belief in a great deity.

[Twa Cairpets]

It's more the patronizing tone some atheists take. They insinuate that believers are somehow weaker than non-believers because they need, as atheists see it, an imaginary figure to see them through troubled times without which they can't cope on there own. I would prefer to use the word "strength" or "support" rather than "comfort" which to me has more infantile connotations.

I also can't be bothered with the lazy arguments of some atheists that organised religion has never done society any good. UK society is based on Judeo-Christian ethics for goodness sake.

I think your first point is untrue. To state that religion is to bblame for some bad things is not the same as saying that it has never done any good. I certainly wouldnt claim that it hasnt, and I would agree that it would be a lazy argument if it was one that was ever advanced.

I would take issue with your second point though. UK society is based on the sum total of our history, of which christianity of various flavours has played an important part. But it isn't based on these principles (which have been a movable feast in any case). We dont accept slavery or the burning of witches, for example, both of which have been perfectly acceptable (and indeed ethical) parts of christianity in the past. Society and christianity outgrew these, and we have a society based (largely) on what what people now regard as ethical.

[NAE NOOKIE]

I have never seen a religious person argue their case with any more venom or zeal with which I have seen an athiest argue theirs.

Religion is like dynamite.
Its not dynamites fault if a terrorist straps 10 sticks to himself and blows up innocent women and kids in a market any more than its to dynamites credit if someone uses it to clear a rock fall and rescue 100 trapped miners. Dynamite is what it is, its only the person using it who determines what the outcome of that use will be, good or bad.

I have never read the Quran ( sorry about the spelling if wrong ) or the teachings of Bhudda. I have read the new testament and in there Jesus says that the greatest commandment is that you love one another.

That one statement negates a lot of the eye for an eye stuff in the old testament, as do a lot of his other statements E.G. " turn the other cheek", the trouble is that for there own ends it has been useful throughout history for zealots to ignore this fact in order to further their cause. Hence the dynamite analogy.

For the exsistance of God?

If there is no purpose to the universe, then whats the bloody point ?

And finally .... What did the big bang, big bang into ? Even nothing is something. Nothing has to exsist or we couldn't have it. In fact there is no experiment I know of which can prove the exsistance of nothing. We only know nothing exsists because there is nothing there and the fact that we know nothing is there because we cant see it, touch it or smell it.

If you told someone that nothing doesnt exsist they would look at you as if you were mental and yet just like God you cant see it, feel it, or touch it.

[ballengeich]

But anyway, Gott ist tot!

Nietzsche ist tot. I saw this on a toilet wall once, signed by Gott.

[lapsedhibee]

In fact there is no experiment I know of which can prove the exsistance of nothing.

The boy Otto von Guericke would be a bit disappointed that his proof of the existence of vacuum hasn't filtered down from the 17th C to .net. :wink:

[Twa Cairpets]

If there is no purpose to the universe, then whats the bloody point ?


To enjoy yourself thoroughly whilst you enjoy your brief spark of existence, and to leave positive memories for those around you when you've gone.

That'll do for me.

[J-C]

I have never seen a religious person argue their case with any more venom or zeal with which I have seen an athiest argue theirs.

Religion is like dynamite.
Its not dynamites fault if a terrorist straps 10 sticks to himself and blows up innocent women and kids in a market any more than its to dynamites credit if someone uses it to clear a rock fall and rescue 100 trapped miners. Dynamite is what it is, its only the person using it who determines what the outcome of that use will be, good or bad.

I have never read the Quran ( sorry about the spelling if wrong ) or the teachings of Bhudda. I have read the new testament and in there Jesus says that the greatest commandment is that you love one another.

That one statement negates a lot of the eye for an eye stuff in the old testament, as do a lot of his other statements E.G. " turn the other cheek", the trouble is that for there own ends it has been useful throughout history for zealots to ignore this fact in order to further their cause. Hence the dynamite analogy.

Jesus was brought up Jewish and therefore educated in their ways, eye for an eye etc. If he was the Son of God and God was meant to have led the Jews out of Egypt into the holy land, why did he then start preaching all this new stuff about turning the other cheek. Remember it was his own people that turned their backs on him and allowed him to be killed on the cross.
For the exsistance of God?

If there is no purpose to the universe, then whats the bloody point ?

Does there have to be a purpose.

And finally .... What did the big bang, big bang into ? Even nothing is something. Nothing has to exsist or we couldn't have it. In fact there is no experiment I know of which can prove the exsistance of nothing. We only know nothing exsists because there is nothing there and the fact that we know nothing is there because we cant see it, touch it or smell it.

The scriptures states God created the heavens and earth in 6 days and rested on the 7th, it says nothing of a big bang again proof of a big bang is there, still waiting for proof of God.

If you told someone that nothing doesnt exsist they would look at you as if you were mental and yet just like God you cant see it, feel it, or touch it.
.

[Dinkydoo]

Couple of things to throw into the mix:


How did God create the Earth in 6 days if before our existence there wasn't such a 'thing' as time? as we all must know shirley that time is only an illusion, a misinterpretation if you will, of our perception of the earth orbiting the sun.

Quote from Bovril:

"Jesus says that the greatest commandment is that you love one another.

That one statement negates a lot of the eye for an eye stuff in the old testament, as do a lot of his other statements E.G. " turn the other cheek" the trouble is that for there own ends it has been useful throughout history for zealots to ignore this fact in order to further their cause. Hence the dynamite analogy"

But if this one statement negates (lets face it), quite a proportion of the Old Testemant, whats to say that in another thousand years time another testament will be 'found' that by sheer coincidence seems to have been written appropriately for the people at that time, that again negates a lot of the stuff in the New Testament.

I agree with the principle behind Christianity, we should live out our lives with morals and be nice to one and other etc etc. but what seems apparent to me is that the Old Testament was written for a more primative society and the New Testament for a more civilised one - whats to say that any of it actually did happen? and that it's only purpose is really to keep crime down, give people support when they are feeling weak and make money?

[ancienthibby]

.

The 'proof of God' that you are looking for is to be found in the person of the Lord Jesus, the Creator God become fully human and, as Scripture says, Immanuel - God with us!

Refers to post no 144 - something wrong with the system here in the home!

[Twa Cairpets]

The 'proof of God' that you are looking for is to be found in the person of the Lord Jesus, the Creator God become fully human and, as Scripture says, Immanuel - God with us!

Refers to post no 144 - something wrong with the system here in the home!

Bearing in mind that this isnt an anti-theist, anti-believer thread ancient, this posts takes us down a very dark road we've been before regarding, amongst other things, the definition of proof and evidence.

I'd be interested in your comments to #134 though.

[ancienthibby]

Bearing in mind that this isnt an anti-theist, anti-believer thread ancient, this posts takes us down a very dark road we've been before regarding, amongst other things, the definition of proof and evidence.

I'd be interested in your comments to #134 though.

TC,

I certainly don't post with the intention of making any diversions down dark roads, but I respect your concern!

Maybe I am wrong, but I understood that R Dawkins actually did recognise the existence of the historical Jesus - and you will recall from our previous conversations that I am a real believer in understanding the Creator God through a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus, as much as through the Creation.

We all know and accept that these threads can take side roads and blind alleys from time to time, but it's my own view that you cannot have an adequate discussion about the Creator by excluding the Jesus of history. You don't get one without the other!

I should have responded to 134 when I first read it (so apologies), but I was overtaken by time - my response would in the first instance be thus:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

My second response would be to offer one of my favourite verses of Scripture about Elijah:

1 Kings 19:11-15 (New International Version)


11 The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by."
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
14 He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too."
15 The LORD said to him, "Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram.


I believe that God speaks to us in a whole variety of ways and that little snippet is used just by way of saying that it may well be a very gentle whisper that He will use for you. If, as you courageously say in post 134 you are open to hear His voice, then you should be sure that He will make sure that you hear it.


Best,
AH

[Woody1985]

Sounds like a volcano erupting. :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

The boy Otto von Guericke would be a bit disappointed that his proof of the existence of vacuum hasn't filtered down from the 17th C to .net. :wink:

Knew I would be on a sticky wicket with that one. Took a stab that there wouldn't be such a thing. Just goes to show I should take a gander into Google before I post. :grr:

Anyway I'm off to have a look at how he did it. :greengrin

[IndieHibby]

TC,

I certainly don't post with the intention of making any diversions down dark roads, but I respect your concern!

Maybe I am wrong, but I understood that R Dawkins actually did recognise the existence of the historical Jesus - and you will recall from our previous conversations that I am a real believer in understanding the Creator God through a personal knowledge of the Lord Jesus, as much as through the Creation.

We all know and accept that these threads can take side roads and blind alleys from time to time, but it's my own view that you cannot have an adequate discussion about the Creator by excluding the Jesus of history. You don't get one without the other!

I should have responded to 134 when I first read it (so apologies), but I was overtaken by time - my response would in the first instance be thus:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

My second response would be to offer one of my favourite verses of Scripture about Elijah:

1 Kings 19:11-15 (New International Version)


11 The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by."
Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave.
Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"
14 He replied, "I have been very zealous for the LORD God Almighty. The Israelites have rejected your covenant, broken down your altars, and put your prophets to death with the sword. I am the only one left, and now they are trying to kill me too."
15 The LORD said to him, "Go back the way you came, and go to the Desert of Damascus. When you get there, anoint Hazael king over Aram.


I believe that God speaks to us in a whole variety of ways and that little snippet is used just by way of saying that it may well be a very gentle whisper that He will use for you. If, as you courageously say in post 134 you are open to hear His voice, then you should be sure that He will make sure that you hear it.


Best,
AH

Am I right in concluding that 'proof' of His existence depends first of all on your willingness to believe He exists and second of all on your willingness to use the slightest 'evidence' as reason to believe He has communicated with you?

Can you see, that from an objective point of view, this is almost certainly indicative of someone who wants to believe in God, as opposed to a plausible means by which it happens?

I don't mean this in any way to be derogatory or pejorative, it is my honest response to your post. :thumbsup:

[ancienthibby]

Am I right in concluding that 'proof' of His existence depends first of all on your willingness to believe He exists and second of all on your willingness to use the slightest 'evidence' as reason to believe He has communicated with you?

Can you see, that from an objective point of view, this is almost certainly indicative of someone who wants to believe in God, as opposed to a plausible means by which it happens?

I don't mean this in any way to be derogatory or pejorative, it is my honest response to your post. :thumbsup:

Personally, I have never considered I needed a 'willingness' to believe. I absolutely believe that the historical evidence is there for the Jesus who walked this good earth.

On the other hand, I can understand others who may/will not make take an additional step and believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God, the Creator.

I have no difficulty with other people not taking that 'extra' step but, as I posted before, I am fully of the belief that God seeks to call one and all. Whether each individual person 'hears that call' is another matter.

[IndieHibby]

Personally, I have never considered I needed a 'willingness' to believe. I absolutely believe that the historical evidence is there for the Jesus who walked this good earth.

On the other hand, I can understand others who may/will not make take an additional step and believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God, the Creator.

I have no difficulty with other people not taking that 'extra' step but, as I posted before, I am fully of the belief that God seeks to call one and all. Whether each individual person 'hears that call' is another matter.

I think you have avoided the question (do you, or don't you need to be willing to hear him in order to hear him?)
FWIW, Jesus undoubtedly lived, as did many people who probably thought they were also the Son of God. To rely purely on his testimony that this is the case, however, is..........what faith is all about, I guess.

[--------]

The boy Otto von Guericke would be a bit disappointed that his proof of the existence of vacuum hasn't filtered down from the 17th C to .net. :wink:



Confusion here.

Philosophically one cannot prove a negative - for example, one cannot prove the non-existence of unicorns, because somewhere in the universe there may be a place where unicorns exist, a place humans haven't yet found or arrived at. So the idea od proving logically or scientifically that God doesn't exist is a non-starter, in the same way that one can't prove logically or scientifically that he does.

A vacuum isn't 'nothing'. It's something that exists within the same time-space continuum in which I exist. Otherwise, the vaccuum flask I have to provide me with hot coffee on my wlaks with my dog along by the loch wouldn't exist either.

Like ancient, I firmly believe in the existence of God, and I believe that I know him through the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ - the 'historical' Jesus of Nazareth.

But that conviction doesn't rest on a rational, materialistic 'proof' - in my judgment there is sufficient historical evidence to support my conviction, and that historical evidence is supported by my experience since I was converted to the Christian faith, and by the experience of people I know whose judgment and honesty I trust.

In the end of the day, I suppose I have to stand with Job when he says, "I know that my Redeemer lives, and that He shall stand at the last upon the earth, and in my flesh I shall see God." And that is fundamental to my world-view, and I try (mostly very unsuccessfully) to live my life in accordance with it.

And I fully understand that some people might well find this hysterically funny, but there isn't a lot I can do about that. :devil:

[Twa Cairpets]

Actually, at the risk of going away at a wee tangent again, I think the historical evidence for jesus is pretty flimsy, if you look for contemporary references and exclude the bible.

[lapsedhibee]

A vacuum isn't 'nothing'. It's something that exists within the same time-space continuum in which I exist.

Aye, but "something that exists" with absolutely nothing in it might as well be called "nothing" (because it's fewer words). No denying your flask exists likes - whether your space-time continuum exists anywhere outside the minds of a worldwide community of scientists and that, is another, er, matter. :wink:

[Fantic]

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe: Peter Kreeft

[Twa Cairpets]

Someone once said that if you sat a million monkeys at a million typewriters for a million years, one of them would eventually type out all of Hamlet by chance. But when we find the text of Hamlet, we don't wonder whether it came from chance and monkeys. Why then does the atheist use that incredibly improbable explanation for the universe? Clearly, because it is his only chance of remaining an atheist. At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe: Peter Kreeft

One of the common arguments made againt atheism and atheists is the one you outline above. However, it is also (and somewhat unfortunately) a dishonest argument, and one which discredits the theists stance. No-one who has the first idea of what atheism is suggests that the universe came into existence by "chance", whatever "chance" actually means in this context. (I'm assuming the monkeys element is an attempt at a subtle dig at evolution, but we'll leave that well alone).

Your man Kreeft takes a position that no-one has, and ridicules it as an argument for atheism. Classic straw-man.

His dig at the mental wellbeing of atheists is curious from a man who believes in the literal existence of Angels, demons, demonic possession and such like (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/angels.htm). Hmmm

[nonshinyfinish]

Aye, but "something that exists" with absolutely nothing in it might as well be called "nothing" (because it's fewer words). No denying your flask exists likes - whether your space-time continuum exists anywhere outside the minds of a worldwide community of scientists and that, is another, er, matter. :wink:

Otto von Guericke's vacuum contained more than 'absolutely nothing', just like everybody else's vacuums since. What we call a vacuum is just a reduction in pressure - there is always some gas pressure left. A true, 0 mbar vacuum is a theoretical concept.

This has nothing to do with proving a negative. The non-existence of God cannot be proven, any more than the non-existence of Brian Kerr can be proven.

But that's not a reason to go to war, demonise gay people, or compromise the sexual health of millions based on the interpretation of Brian Kerr's Holy Scriptures. :wink:

[Fantic]

One of the common arguments made againt atheism and atheists is the one you outline above. However, it is also (and somewhat unfortunately) a dishonest argument, and one which discredits the theists stance. No-one who has the first idea of what atheism is suggests that the universe came into existence by "chance", whatever "chance" actually means in this context. (I'm assuming the monkeys element is an attempt at a subtle dig at evolution, but we'll leave that well alone).

Your man Kreeft takes a position that no-one has, and ridicules it as an argument for atheism. Classic straw-man.

His dig at the mental wellbeing of atheists is curious from a man who believes in the literal existence of Angels, demons, demonic possession and such like (http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/angels.htm). Hmmm

So aethiesm is a disbelief in any type of God and also a disbelief that the universe came into existence by 'chance'. Is aethiesm just a disbelief in everything that isnt absolutely 100% 'proven' ?

Or put it like this-

''One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing''

[nonshinyfinish]

''One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing''

That sounds more like empiricism than atheism.

[Dashing Bob S]

I find it contemptuous that people quote passages from the bible as 'proof' of anything. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. L Ron Hubbard is by far a more valid historical religious figure.

[nonshinyfinish]

There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed.

Is this the case?

I'm no historian, but I was under the impression that it was pretty much settled that Jesus existed, and it was just the superpowers or lack thereof that divided opinion... :dunno:

[lapsedhibee]

Otto von Guericke's vacuum contained more than 'absolutely nothing', just like everybody else's vacuums since. What we call a vacuum is just a reduction in pressure - there is always some gas pressure left. A true, 0 mbar vacuum is a theoretical concept.

Indeed. Bovril's point was, if I read him aright, that we agree that 'nothing' exists without having any direct evidence (eg sense experience) for it. By extension, we should not rule out the possibility of a higher power just because there is no direct evidence for that (eg, repeatable miracles recorded in respectable peer-reviewed journals). For these purposes, it's probably not crucial what fraction of a mbar is currently achievable.

Am agreeing with Bovril, I think, in that no interesting arguments about the existence of higher powers are based on empirical evidence, such as what the boy Jesus did or did not do. The interesting arguments are all highly theoretical/logical/philosophical. Like science itself, in a way.

Why are there never any threads on .net about the existence of the square root of minus one? :grr:

[nonshinyfinish]

Indeed. Bovril's point was, if I read him aright, that we agree that 'nothing' exists without having any direct evidence (eg sense experience) for it. By extension, we should not rule out the possibility of a higher power just because there is no direct evidence for that (eg, repeatable miracles recorded in respectable peer-reviewed journals). For these purposes, it's probably not crucial what fraction of a mbar is currently achievable.

Am agreeing with Bovril, I think, in that no interesting arguments about the existence of higher powers are based on empirical evidence, such as what the boy Jesus did or did not do. The interesting arguments are all highly theoretical/logical/philosophical. Like science itself, in a way.

Why are there never any threads on .net about the existence of the square root of minus one? :grr:

Direct evidence, no. But then it's difficult to trap 'nothing' in a flask. I think our belief in the concept of nothing comes from solid science...science tells us that in an 'almost vacuum' there are a few molecules of gas and f*** all else, so in the massive spaces between those molecules there is nothing. Indirect evidence, yes, but far more compelling than any indirect evidence for one of these 'god' creatures, IMO.

EDIT: And regarding √-1, it exists, just have faith brother!

[(((Fergus)))]

I think you have avoided the question (do you, or don't you need to be willing to hear him in order to hear him?)
FWIW, Jesus undoubtedly lived, as did many people who probably thought they were also the Son of God. To rely purely on his testimony that this is the case, however, is..........what faith is all about, I guess.

Don't know about other people, but my personal experience is that the less I look for a Creator, the less evidence I see, whereas the more I look for a Creator, the more evidence I see. I have no 'scientific' way of differentiating which of these two ways is best other than my own subjective opinion of which makes my life better. Both have their attractions otherwise everyone would choose the same way.

[Mon Dieu4]

Don't know about other people, but my personal experience is that the less I look for a Creator, the less evidence I see, whereas the more I look for a Creator, the more evidence I see. I have no 'scientific' way of differentiating which of these two ways is best other than my own subjective opinion of which makes my life better. Both have their attractions otherwise everyone would choose the same way.

Where is Apostle when you need him :faf:

[(((Fergus)))]

Where is Apostle when you need him :faf:

Awa an bile yer heid:faf:

[hibsbollah]

Awa an bile yer heid:faf:

I'm getting all nostalgic:greengrin
:hijack:

[(((Fergus)))]

I'm getting all nostalgic:greengrin
:hijack:

Think of the carnage he would cause on here :greengrin

[Dinkydoo]

But that's not a reason to go to war, demonise gay people, or compromise the sexual health of millions based on the interpretation of Brian Kerr's Holy Scriptures. :wink:


:top marksAbsolutely!

[Mon Dieu4]

Think of the carnage he would cause on here :greengrin

I'm sure I still have his email address about somewhere :devil:

[ancienthibby]

I find it contemptuous that people quote passages from the bible as 'proof' of anything. There is no historical evidence that Jesus existed. L Ron Hubbard is by far a more valid historical religious figure.

Yet, quite clearly other atheist writers on this blog do believe in the historical Jesus!!

The OP for one has made that clear and, in an earlier post, I noted that the pre-eminent leader of modern atheistic rationality - Richard Dawkins - himself affirms the 'historical' Jesus and - believe it or not, has even been seen wearing a T-shirt carrying the slogan 'Jesus for Atheists'!!:greengrin

[SlickShoes]

I dont believe that anything exists beyond death or that anyone created anything.

When something good happens in my life it is usually caused by me, if not me then someone i know. Other people do good things too which may in turn make you happy.

I wouldnt bother giving anyone a lecture on why i dont believe in anything unless they were going on at me about how great there own god is and why i should believe in him/her/it.

The biggest factor in anyones life is themself, if they need to believe in something else to make there life better then fair enough.

[J-C]

Yet, quite clearly other atheist writers on this blog do believe in the historical Jesus!!

The OP for one has made that clear and, in an earlier post, I noted that the pre-eminent leader of modern atheistic rationality - Richard Dawkins - himself affirms the 'historical' Jesus and - believe it or not, has even been seen wearing a T-shirt carrying the slogan 'Jesus for Atheists'!!:greengrin


Don't think there's anything wrong in believing in someone called Jesus, just that we don't believe he was the son of God, due to the fact we don't believe in God.

[lapsedhibee]

Don't think there's anything wrong in believing in someone called Jesus, just that we don't believe he was the son of God, due to the fact we don't believe in God.

Nah, he wasn't called Jesus. English wasn't discovered till much later. Fact.

[ancienthibby]

Don't think there's anything wrong in believing in someone called Jesus, just that we don't believe he was the son of God, due to the fact we don't believe in God.

That is of course completely your choice, but even the most notorious atheist (Antony Flew) now believes in the existence of a Divine Being - the Creator God!!

In his book - 'There is A God' he is quite emphatic about of the existence of the 'historical' Jesus. He quotes a dialogue he had with the Bishop N. T. Wright to this effect, quoting Wright: 'But In Jesus' case, the evidence all points firmly back to the existence of this great figure from around the 20s to the 30s of the first century. And the evidence fits so well with with what we know of the Judaism of this period (......) that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I dont know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus (my emboldening added).

[hibsbollah]

I really enjoyed the History of Christianity series on BBC4, now being repeated and on iplayer. Might interest some on this thread.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nrtr8/A_History_of_Christianity_The_First_Christianity/

[Twa Cairpets]

That is of course completely your choice, but even the most notorious atheist (Antony Flew) now believes in the existence of a Divine Being - the Creator God!!

In his book - 'There is A God' he is quite emphatic about of the existence of the 'historical' Jesus. He quotes a dialogue he had with the Bishop N. T. Wright to this effect, quoting Wright: 'But In Jesus' case, the evidence all points firmly back to the existence of this great figure from around the 20s to the 30s of the first century. And the evidence fits so well with with what we know of the Judaism of this period (......) that I think there are hardly any historians today, in fact I dont know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus (my emboldening added).

Scouting around even the most religious sites who quote references, there is strong evidence of Christians existing in the period (usually post 100AD)following Jesus's supposed time on the planet, but surprisingly little direct evidence for him himself. The records that exist from the day, which are, I understand, relatively good, just don't support anything that is claimed within the Bible. The New Testament itself, when reporting events as historical fact is hugely contradictory in many areas - the nativity story for example - depending on which gospel you read, contains major important descriptive historical differences.

Antony Flew? Well, have a read of this (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html)

Dawkins and atheists for Jesus? Here is where that has come from - its from a longer piece on the evolution of "super niceness". Link here (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20), extract cut and paste below

"...I am no memetic engineer, and I have very little idea how to increase the numbers of the super nice and spread their memes through the meme pool. The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan. 'Atheists for Jesus' would grace a T-shirt. There is no strong reason to choose Jesus as icon, rather than some other role model from the ranks of the super nice such as Mahatma Gandhi (not the odiously self-righteous Mother Teresa, heavens no). I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time. And perhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might be just what is needed to kick start the meme of super niceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment?"

[HibsMax]

I didn't read every post in this thread so I maybe repeating others.

First of all, Atheists are people who do not believe in God. Nothing wrong with that. It's the Antitheists who are the real "problem" since these people take a stance against people who DO believe in God. There's a big difference.

I was watching the Athiesm Tapes and the first episode is a discussion with Colin McGinn. He's an atheist and he says he wishes there was a God. I am sure that some religious people might have a tough time getting their head around that. An atheist who wishes there was a God. It sounds like a contradiction.

Right now I categorise myself as an athiest but like others have said, I'll change my mind if the right evidence is presented to me and I'll be the judge of how worthy that evidence is.

As for moral codes - I don't believe we behave in a certain manner because we have to because of some almighty being. I believe in treating people the same way as I want to be treated myself. Why does there have to be a God just because:
1. I don't want someone to kill me,
2. therefor I don't want someone to kill me.

That just makes sense to me.

What criticisms can be made of atheists. I don't believe there are any since an athiest is just someone who hasn't seen enough to convince them that a God exists and for whatever reason they cannot and will not rely purely on blind faith. And why should they?

I think there is a common misconception that people who are atheists are so by choice and that they don't want to believe in a God. But I don't think that's fair. How many people choose religion compared to the number of people who say religion chose them?

[NAE NOOKIE]

Tell ya what:

Anybody who still labours under the idea that fitba' fans are all thickies should have a look at this thread. Its making my head hurt and I like to think I am reasonably intelligent ( spelling notwithstanding )

:confused:

[Twa Cairpets]

Don't know about other people, but my personal experience is that the less I look for a Creator, the less evidence I see, whereas the more I look for a Creator, the more evidence I see. I have no 'scientific' way of differentiating which of these two ways is best other than my own subjective opinion of which makes my life better. Both have their attractions otherwise everyone would choose the same way.

Evidence is a hugely interesting word in this context.

For example, I like going hillwalking, and and some of the views I've had from mountain tops have been so upliftingly magnificent its been hard (even for my embittered Godless soul) to see them and not offer up a wee prayer of thanks. But then an hour later I'll have to walk around an ugly, swampy peat bog and my utterances might still invoke the almighty but usually in a different tone.

As you say, you can't measure these things scientififcally because they aren't scientific subjects. It also means that they arent evidence.

It is a common anti-atheist argument that the beauty of nature is evidence for and proof of God. Well, sunsets are beautiful, the creation of life is incredible, and the wonders of nature are amazing. Sadly, nature also includes anthrax spores, earthquakes and mosquitos. Any subjective view of such "evidence" cannot therefore be valid on any meaningful level.

[ancienthibby]

Scouting around even the most religious sites who quote references, there is strong evidence of Christians existing in the period (usually post 100AD)following Jesus's supposed time on the planet, but surprisingly little direct evidence for him himself. The records that exist from the day, which are, I understand, relatively good, just don't support anything that is claimed within the Bible. The New Testament itself, when reporting events as historical fact is hugely contradictory in many areas - the nativity story for example - depending on which gospel you read, contains major important descriptive historical differences.

Antony Flew? Well, have a read of this (http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html)

Dawkins and atheists for Jesus? Here is where that has come from - its from a longer piece on the evolution of "super niceness". Link here (http://richarddawkins.net/articles/20), extract cut and paste below

"...I am no memetic engineer, and I have very little idea how to increase the numbers of the super nice and spread their memes through the meme pool. The best I can offer is what I hope may be a catchy slogan. 'Atheists for Jesus' would grace a T-shirt. There is no strong reason to choose Jesus as icon, rather than some other role model from the ranks of the super nice such as Mahatma Gandhi (not the odiously self-righteous Mother Teresa, heavens no). I think we owe Jesus the honour of separating his genuinely original and radical ethics from the supernatural nonsense which he inevitably espoused as a man of his time. And perhaps the oxymoronic impact of 'Atheists for Jesus' might be just what is needed to kick start the meme of super niceness in a post-Christian society. If we play our cards right - could we lead society away from the nether regions of its Darwinian origins into kinder and more compassionate uplands of post-singularity enlightenment?"

The link you provide for Flew needs to be challenged (though I guess you could have posters others of that ilk) as it does not represent Flew's position, or the confirmation of his 'conversion' which he has stated in a number of forums over the years.

First, the book 'There Is A God' has always been offered by Flew as being fully represented of his position, despite the derision from atheists. On page 1, he states clearly, 'As the title says, I now believe there is a God'.

Second, in the book Flew also states that he first spoke about his 'conversion' from atheism to deism at a forum in 2004 in New York in a debate with the estimable Professor John Haldane of St. Andrews, writing ' To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now believed in the existence of a God'! (p74).

Third, in other media (e.g. BBC debate with Joan Bakewell) Flew fully confirms his 'conversion' as outlined in 'There Is A God'. Here's another link:

I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: “My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking.”

(taken from bethinking.org)

Fourth, as the following link hopefully shows (I had trouble with the pdf) Flew writes that he answered every letter addressed to him and then goes on to challenge Dawkins and The God Delusion.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0M5K_JZ3e8IJ:www.bethinking.org.uk/science-christianity/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion.pdf+antony+flew&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiZEAb3hdO6-aoBzk6EHyE_x6IJPGINAgyrNNBP6J6q0jGEyXO71D1nVuL7kfG FS96vENN-YddtW6nz0pVXZB2HJRRzv1qH0l4n1cPoMB1-Qy8CqNuDhTterHnYzy8pe-MDUGQr&sig=AHIEtbTgIEsEjr3NxehbIyChKj_JhNyWTA

There can be no doubt that Flew has been on a journey away from atheism and towards deism over number of years and he has not wavered despite the outpouring of disparaging from atheists!

[IndieHibby]

Yet, quite clearly other atheist writers on this blog do believe in the historical Jesus!!

The OP for one has made that clear and, in an earlier post, I noted that the pre-eminent leader of modern atheistic rationality - Richard Dawkins - himself affirms the 'historical' Jesus and - believe it or not, has even been seen wearing a T-shirt carrying the slogan 'Jesus for Atheists'!!:greengrin

Je.....! (nearly blasphemed there, sorry.)

I do not believe in 'Jesus'. I said he probably existed. Just like lots of people who would walk around professing to be **insert ridiculous unprovable theory here** at the time. Jesus is just lucky as his notion is the one that got picked up on. IMO.

Kindly stop crowing at my expense :wink:

[ancienthibby]

Je.....! (nearly blasphemed there, sorry.)

I do not believe in 'Jesus'. I said he probably existed. Just like lots of people who would walk around professing to be **insert ridiculous unprovable theory here** at the time. Jesus is just lucky as his notion is the one that got picked up on. IMO.

Kindly stop crowing at my expense :wink:

Apologies for any misrepresentation!!:greengrin

I am glad you started the thread and how it has progressed!:agree:

[IndieHibby]

Apologies for any misrepresentation!!:greengrin

I am glad you started the thread and how it has progressed!:agree:

Accepted. I'm glad you've enjoyed the thread :agree:

[Twa Cairpets]

The link you provide for Flew needs to be challenged (though I guess you could have posters others of that ilk) as it does not represent Flew's position, or the confirmation of his 'conversion' which he has stated in a number of forums over the years.

First, the book 'There Is A God' has always been offered by Flew as being fully represented of his position, despite the derision from atheists. On page 1, he states clearly, 'As the title says, I now believe there is a God'.

Second, in the book Flew also states that he first spoke about his 'conversion' from atheism to deism at a forum in 2004 in New York in a debate with the estimable Professor John Haldane of St. Andrews, writing ' To the surprise of all concerned, I announced at the start that I now believed in the existence of a God'! (p74).

Third, in other media (e.g. BBC debate with Joan Bakewell) Flew fully confirms his 'conversion' as outlined in 'There Is A God'. Here's another link:

I have rebutted these criticisms in the following statement: “My name is on the book and it represents exactly my opinions. I would not have a book issued in my name that I do not 100 per cent agree with. I needed someone to do the actual writing because I’m 84 and that was Roy Varghese’s role. The idea that someone manipulated me because I’m old is exactly wrong. I may be old but it is hard to manipulate me. That is my book and it represents my thinking.”

(taken from bethinking.org)

Fourth, as the following link hopefully shows (I had trouble with the pdf) Flew writes that he answered every letter addressed to him and then goes on to challenge Dawkins and The God Delusion.

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:0M5K_JZ3e8IJ:www.bethinking.org.uk/science-christianity/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the-god-delusion.pdf+antony+flew&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiZEAb3hdO6-aoBzk6EHyE_x6IJPGINAgyrNNBP6J6q0jGEyXO71D1nVuL7kfG FS96vENN-YddtW6nz0pVXZB2HJRRzv1qH0l4n1cPoMB1-Qy8CqNuDhTterHnYzy8pe-MDUGQr&sig=AHIEtbTgIEsEjr3NxehbIyChKj_JhNyWTA

There can be no doubt that Flew has been on a journey away from atheism and towards deism over number of years and he has not wavered despite the outpouring of disparaging from atheists!

Ultimately, whether Frew was misrepresented, whether Dawkins is considered arrogant and abrasive, if Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are seen as nutjob loonies or Christopher Hitchins is viewed as a bullying extremist, who the people are is largely irrelevant. What they say, however, is important. All these guys, along with many other authors, bloggers and indeed the people on this thread put forward opinions that are strongly argued and based on a conviction that they are right.

The fundamental difference between the religious (of all varieties) and the non-believer is that the charismatic leadership and the consistent message that is repeated to the faithful brooks no question as to it's validity. It is truth.

A criticism made of atheists is that their position can change, and that is an inherent weakness in the argument. I view it as a strength. While not all atheists are skeptics, there are very clear similarities between a questioning, skeptical approach to the cause of life, to the formation of the Earth, and indeed to morality and an atheist viewpoint.

The most public and visible atheists will, to a man or woman, stress that their readers shouldn't take their word for it, but to look it up and research their ideas for themselves. This is the antithesis of the religious standpoint.

[Tinyclothes]

There are no facts. Only perceptions.

[J-C]

What I's like to know is why do al Theist see it as an oppertunity to attempt to convert Athiest at every corner. Why can't they just accept that we don't agree with their viewpoints on Earth/God/Jesus etc etc.

This doesn't mean we are bad people with immoral lives needing saved at every chance. The fact that we have grown as a race of people, gathering knowledge as we go along, lends more and more of us to question the Bible and the scriptures.

[Twa Cairpets]

What I's like to know is why do al Theist see it as an oppertunity to attempt to convert Athiest at every corner. Why can't they just accept that we don't agree with their viewpoints on Earth/God/Jesus etc etc.

This doesn't mean we are bad people with immoral lives needing saved at every chance. The fact that we have grown as a race of people, gathering knowledge as we go along, lends more and more of us to question the Bible and the scriptures.

Do you think this is true? I dont think it is very common unless you put yourself in a position to be evangelised to. If anything (and I don't quite believe I'm typing this), it tends to be more the other way around, although I dont think this is common either.

I don't like having religious sensibilities and ritual imposed at national levels such as remembrance, or having it in any way having a role in legislation or any secular activity, but I dont necessarily think this is an attempt to convert people, certainly as far as christianity is concerned

[(((Fergus)))]

Evidence is a hugely interesting word in this context.

For example, I like going hillwalking, and and some of the views I've had from mountain tops have been so upliftingly magnificent its been hard (even for my embittered Godless soul) to see them and not offer up a wee prayer of thanks. But then an hour later I'll have to walk around an ugly, swampy peat bog and my utterances might still invoke the almighty but usually in a different tone.

As you say, you can't measure these things scientififcally because they aren't scientific subjects. It also means that they arent evidence.

It is a common anti-atheist argument that the beauty of nature is evidence for and proof of God. Well, sunsets are beautiful, the creation of life is incredible, and the wonders of nature are amazing. Sadly, nature also includes anthrax spores, earthquakes and mosquitos. Any subjective view of such "evidence" cannot therefore be valid on any meaningful level.

'Evidence' of this kind is by definition 100% valid on a personal level which is the only level that is meaningful when it comes to belief in a Creator, i.e., no one can truly believe in anything based on secondhand information IMO.

As for the apparently 'unGodly' things in the world, perhaps we are simply not seeing the Godliness in them. The peat bog, for example, is an unpleasant inconvenience or a convenient source of fuel for man and nutrition for other creatures. The 'goodness' or 'badness' of something is entirely dependent on our individual perception of it. Arsenic, for example, can be used to kill a person or to cure them. Is arsenic Godly or unGodly? I'd say we each have the freedom to decide.

[Fantic]

Do you think this is true? I dont think it is very common unless you put yourself in a position to be evangelised to. If anything (and I don't quite believe I'm typing this), it tends to be more the other way around, although I dont think this is common either.

I don't like having religious sensibilities and ritual imposed at national levels such as remembrance, or having it in any way having a role in legislation or any secular activity, but I dont necessarily think this is an attempt to convert people, certainly as far as christianity is concerned

:agree:

[J-C]

You're better read than me TC, as such put into words slightly better than me when it comes to dicussing these difficult subjects.

Convert was probably a strong term, preach would be a better one.:)

[ancienthibby]

Ultimately, whether Frew was misrepresented, whether Dawkins is considered arrogant and abrasive, if Kent Hovind and Ken Ham are seen as nutjob loonies or Christopher Hitchins is viewed as a bullying extremist, who the people are is largely irrelevant. What they say, however, is important. All these guys, along with many other authors, bloggers and indeed the people on this thread put forward opinions that are strongly argued and based on a conviction that they are right.

The fundamental difference between the religious (of all varieties) and the non-believer is that the charismatic leadership and the consistent message that is repeated to the faithful brooks no question as to it's validity. It is truth.

A criticism made of atheists is that their position can change, and that is an inherent weakness in the argument. I view it as a strength. While not all atheists are skeptics, there are very clear similarities between a questioning, skeptical approach to the cause of life, to the formation of the Earth, and indeed to morality and an atheist viewpoint.

The most public and visible atheists will, to a man or woman, stress that their readers shouldn't take their word for it, but to look it up and research their ideas for themselves. This is the antithesis of the religious standpoint.

A few rejoinders to the points you make.

First, in your first para, I could substitute theist names and your final sentence could remain completely unchanged. I would add, though, that some of the language used by atheist posters on this thread could well do with prior moderation!:greengrin

Second, charismatic leadership is largely the prerogative of certain religious groups in the US particularly, and I am very happy to distance myself from all the nonsense that can be spouted by some of these sects. For example, I have in mind the Jim/Tammy Bakker fiasco and I would be the first to say that type of religious sheniganins only serves to bring the Gospel into disrepute. As I will post below, there are a huge and mean HUGE number of Christian preachers in the US and this country who will completely distance themselves from that type of religion.

Third, over the last 20 years and more, I have been privileged to sit under the teaching of completely gifted humble preachers and teachers, drawn from all parts of our own country and the US. These teachers/preachers are what I would call 'expositors' of God's word and there is no compunction, no proslytizing in their faithful teaching of God's word. These 'expositors' are drawn from all over the country and a number of different demonitations - their faithful teachings are readily online!!

Fourth, I think your final paragraph's point is quite wrong. The faithful 'expositors of God's' word do not use sledgehammers to break a nut!! What they do is adhere to the Gospel and re-iterate the invitation of the Lord to accept His offer of eternal life. It is a completely personal invitation/matter as I have tried to post earlier, and each individual must make that decision for himself/herself. God seeks individual relationships with His children and each child of His is made that personal invitation, whether they become open to it or not!!

[HibeeEmma]

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This is the criticism of atheists for me. Atheists however do not believe in anything and although many are quick to say they are atheists, many believe life came from something superior to this earth.

[Twa Cairpets]

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This is the criticism of atheists for me.

What is the criticism here Emma? - I'm not seeing it.


Atheists however do not believe in anything and although many are quick to say they are atheists, many believe life came from something superior to this earth.

That would make them theists - not necessarily christians, but certainly not atheists.

[Twa Cairpets]

Selective responses...



... charismatic leadership is largely the prerogative of certain religious groups in the US particularly, and I am very happy to distance myself from all the nonsense that can be spouted by some of these sects. For example, I have in mind the Jim/Tammy Bakker fiasco and I would be the first to say that type of religious sheniganins only serves to bring the Gospel into disrepute. As I will post below, there are a huge and mean HUGE number of Christian preachers in the US and this country who will completely distance themselves from that type of religion.

The US is clearly more extreme in its faith. "Charismatic" was maybe not the best word to explain what I was meaning. For those who attend worship, it is hard to disagree with the preaching of the minister/preach/imam/rabbi as their position of authority is in a (largely) non-questioning setting.



Third, over the last 20 years and more, I have been privileged to sit under the teaching of completely gifted humble preachers and teachers, drawn from all parts of our own country and the US. These teachers/preachers are what I would call 'expositors' of God's word and there is no compunction, no proslytizing in their faithful teaching of God's word. These 'expositors' are drawn from all over the country and a number of different demonitations - their faithful teachings are readily online!!

Go on then, give us a link :greengrin


Fourth, I think your final paragraph's point is quite wrong. The faithful 'expositors of God's' word do not use sledgehammers to break a nut!! What they do is adhere to the Gospel and re-iterate the invitation of the Lord to accept His offer of eternal life. It is a completely personal invitation/matter as I have tried to post earlier, and each individual must make that decision for himself/herself. God seeks individual relationships with His children and each child of His is made that personal invitation, whether they become open to it or not!!

Maybe so, but your "faithful expositors" dont accept any questioning of their stance, which was the point I was trying to make.

[ancienthibby]

Selective responses...



The US is clearly more extreme in its faith. "Charismatic" was maybe not the best word to explain what I was meaning. For those who attend worship, it is hard to disagree with the preaching of the minister/preach/imam/rabbi as their position of authority is in a (largely) non-questioning setting.




Go on then, give us a link :greengrin




Maybe so, but your "faithful expositors" dont accept any questioning of their stance, which was the point I was trying to make.

Here you go then!

http://www.ericalexander.co.uk/

Enjoy!!:agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

This is the criticism of atheists for me. Atheists however do not believe in anything and although many are quick to say they are atheists, many believe life came from something superior to this earth.

I fail to see this as criticism.

I also fail to see why a God that loves us would need to send his son to die a horrific death upon a cross to save us, when he could save us without the barbaric death of his son.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------


What I's like to know is why do al Theist see it as an oppertunity to attempt to convert Athiest at every corner. Why can't they just accept that we don't agree with their viewpoints on Earth/God/Jesus etc etc.

This doesn't mean we are bad people with immoral lives needing saved at every chance. The fact that we have grown as a race of people, gathering knowledge as we go along, lends more and more of us to question the Bible and the scriptures.

It's part of their religious texts. Christians clearly believe in the word of God and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, and as such they see it as helping us by spreading the message of Christ.

[--------]

There are no facts. Only perceptions.



There's one fact that you, and I, and everyone else on this board will have to come to terms with sooner or later.

Mortality.

[J-C]

I fail to see this as criticism.

I also fail to see why a God that loves us would need to send his son to die a horrific death upon a cross to save us, when he could save us without the barbaric death of his son.

---------- Post added at 09:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------



It's part of their religious texts. Christians clearly believe in the word of God and that the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ, and as such they see it as helping us by spreading the message of Christ.


I've said it many times, that I can uderstand everyones beliefs and accept that they are important in their every day life. I can also see that they will at some point try to convert us non believers to their beliefs but the bit I don't get is why?.......Why do you feel it necessary to attempt to convert everyone who doesn't believe to Jesus's teachings ?

I have met many other people from other religions who have never tried to preach their teachings to me, infact very seldom do they even ask or talk about what religious persuasion I am.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I've said it many times, that I can uderstand everyones beliefs and accept that they are important in their every day life. I can also see that they will at some point try to convert us non believers to their beliefs but the bit I don't get is why?.......Why do you feel it necessary to attempt to convert everyone who doesn't believe to Jesus's teachings ?

I have met many other people from other religions who have never tried to preach their teachings to me, infact very seldom do they even ask or talk about what religious persuasion I am.

The gospel and teachings of Jesus are known as the good news. Christians want to spread this "good news" that we can not perish, but have everlasting life through Jesus.

If I was convinced that Jesus was our saviour, and that we can get eternal life through him I'm pretty sure I'd want to tell everyone about it, to help them get saved.

[J-C]

The gospel and teachings of Jesus are known as the good news. Christians want to spread this "good news" that we can not perish, but have everlasting life through Jesus.

If I was convinced that Jesus was our saviour, and that we can get eternal life through him I'm pretty sure I'd want to tell everyone about it, to help them get saved.


But why????

What makes you think you are entitled to preach his teachings to me and spread his word. Do you also do this this with every other person no matter what their religious persuasion, if so I can see where this can cause problems with others.

We don't want this rammed down our throats, we know all about Christianity and all the other religions but choose not to believe, that is our perogative.


As I've said, I have never had Islam, Buddhism, Judaism etc rammed down my throat when conversing with people of these persuasions, why?

[Twa Cairpets]

But why????

What makes you think you are entitled to preach his teachings to me and spread his word. Do you also do this this with every other person no matter what their religious persuasion, if so I can see where this can cause problems with others.

We don't want this rammed down our throats, we know all about Christianity and all the other religions but choose not to believe, that is our perogative.


As I've said, I have never had Islam, Buddhism, Judaism etc rammed down my throat when conversing with people of these persuasions, why?

I dont think Glesgae is a Christian (apologies if Im wrong), but the point he makes is a good one JC50. If you do truly believe, and your life is filled with what you believe to be a divine spirit driving you and guiding you in all your actions, you see evangelising as your absolute duty.

What entitiles them to do this, in their mind, is that it a requirement passed to them by God, and there needs to be no other reason why. I have in my extended family a very, very devout christian - a respected theologian, preacher and writer on evangelism - and know this is his view. (He is also one of the most odius, smug, cringeworthy and arrogant individuals I have ever known, but that is me being guilty of an ad hominem attack myself).

Where, for the want of a better description "evangelising" atheists fall down - and I include myself in this - is that our arguments cannot come from what the other side see as being such an authoratative source. Belief in the Divine v Studied rationality? There is usually only one winner there. There is an implied criticism of believers as being fundamentally stupid in believing what they believe, which makes active atheists seem arrogant a la Dawkins or PZ Myers. As it is a societal taboo to challenge anyones personal belief in this area (although not in any other contentious areas such as politics or stance on abortion), the ability to enter reasoned debate is limited. The religious will quote scripture from a holy book, the atheist will look to science and evidence, and round we go again.

The benefit of threads such as this is that it should make everyone think and challenge their own stances. I'm looking forward (honestly) to listening to ancients "expositors" link, and I've downloaded an iTunesU podcast on the historicity of the Bible (oh yes, I'm a party animal). I hope some of the believers on the thread take the opportunity to actually read Dawkins or Hitchens.

[(((Fergus)))]

I dont think Glesgae is a Christian (apologies if Im wrong), but the point he makes is a good one JC50. If you do truly believe, and your life is filled with what you believe to be a divine spirit driving you and guiding you in all your actions, you see evangelising as your absolute duty.

What entitiles them to do this, in their mind, is that it a requirement passed to them by God, and there needs to be no other reason why. I have in my extended family a very, very devout christian - a respected theologian, preacher and writer on evangelism - and know this is his view. (He is also one of the most odius, smug, cringeworthy and arrogant individuals I have ever known, but that is me being guilty of an ad hominem attack myself).

Where, for the want of a better description "evangelising" atheists fall down - and I include myself in this - is that our arguments cannot come from what the other side see as being such an authoratative source. Belief in the Divine v Studied rationality? There is usually only one winner there. There is an implied criticism of believers as being fundamentally stupid in believing what they believe, which makes active atheists seem arrogant a la Dawkins or PZ Myers. As it is a societal taboo to challenge anyones personal belief in this area (although not in any other contentious areas such as politics or stance on abortion), the ability to enter reasoned debate is limited. The religious will quote scripture from a holy book, the atheist will look to science and evidence, and round we go again.

The benefit of threads such as this is that it should make everyone think and challenge their own stances. I'm looking forward (honestly) to listening to ancients "expositors" link, and I've downloaded an iTunesU podcast on the historicity of the Bible (oh yes, I'm a party animal). I hope some of the believers on the thread take the opportunity to actually read Dawkins or Hitchens.

Interesting post TC but my heart sank with the last sentence. The reason I look to 'spiritual' sources - rational ones, ideally - is that I am looking for some meaning and focus in life. Maybe I have missed the point but whenever I've listened to Dawkins and the (alcoholic) Hitchens, the message I heard was - and I'm paraphrasing here - 'there is no meaning to life, just go and have fun'. Now, I've tried that philosophy for many years and ultimately it wasn't fun anymore. Surely they must be offering more than that? If so, can you summarise it for me because I can't bring myself to trawl through any more of their stuff.

[Twa Cairpets]

Interesting post TC but my heart sank with the last sentence. The reason I look to 'spiritual' sources - rational ones, ideally - is that I am looking for some meaning and focus in life. Maybe I have missed the point but whenever I've listened to Dawkins and the (alcoholic) Hitchens, the message I heard was - and I'm paraphrasing here - 'there is no meaning to life, just go and have fun'. Now, I've tried that philosophy for many years and ultimately it wasn't fun anymore. Surely they must be offering more than that? If so, can you summarise it for me because I can't bring myself to trawl through any more of their stuff.

Its a bit like trying to summarise the bible into "be nice to each other and say your prayers and you'll go to heaven", but ok.

Religion of any type is a man made construct, which requires adherents to unquestioningly accept the current vogue of morality as interpreted from increasingly irrelevant ancient scripture. The risk of not adhering is one of an eternity in hell, although equally the rules by which heaven can be entered have been a movable feast based on the mood of the time.

The people you mention (or any other well-known atheist) do not claim there is no meaning to life, just that life can be full of meaning and purpose and humanity and humility and joy without recourse to belief in a deity.

There are traits of human behaviour that are common across all races and shades of religion. Equally, the rules governing nature are common across the world, as are the rules governing the way matter interacts (or science,as its known)An individuals belief system will, clearly, be based almost exculsively on when and where they are born, meaning that religious belief is anything but Universal in both broad terms and detail.

Finally, if holy books are taken as being literal truths (which is a key component to belief) then they have some serious difficulties in combating scientific ideas developed and proven as we have evolved as a species (such as evolution and astonomy), and moral ideas that were ok in the bronze age but somewhat less so now (such as the acceptability of slavery, the role of women in society, homosexuality, etc).

Still, don't take my word for it, read them for yourself - Hitchens is a lot more accesible than Dawkins, by the way, but both are good, and (in Dawkins' case particularly) better on the page that in sound.

[(((Fergus)))]

Its a bit like trying to summarise the bible into "be nice to each other and say your prayers and you'll go to heaven", but ok.

Religion of any type is a man made construct, which requires adherents to unquestioningly accept the current vogue of morality as interpreted from increasingly irrelevant ancient scripture. The risk of not adhering is one of an eternity in hell, although equally the rules by which heaven can be entered have been a movable feast based on the mood of the time.

The people you mention (or any other well-known atheist) do not claim there is no meaning to life, just that life can be full of meaning and purpose and humanity and humility and joy without recourse to belief in a deity.

There are traits of human behaviour that are common across all races and shades of religion. Equally, the rules governing nature are common across the world, as are the rules governing the way matter interacts (or science,as its known)An individuals belief system will, clearly, be based almost exculsively on when and where they are born, meaning that religious belief is anything but Universal in both broad terms and detail.

Finally, if holy books are taken as being literal truths (which is a key component to belief) then they have some serious difficulties in combating scientific ideas developed and proven as we have evolved as a species (such as evolution and astonomy), and moral ideas that were ok in the bronze age but somewhat less so now (such as the acceptability of slavery, the role of women in society, homosexuality, etc).

Still, don't take my word for it, read them for yourself - Hitchens is a lot more accesible than Dawkins, by the way, but both are good, and (in Dawkins' case particularly) better on the page that in sound.

You touch on some interesting points but what I want is a 'meaning of life'.

You say, and I agree entirely, that the universe is governed by fixed laws, e.g., boiling point of water under conditions x,y and z. Every mineral has its laws, every plant has its laws, every animal has its laws; none of them can deviate from them. Only human beings have the ability to choose their own laws (albeit our body is 100% subject to general universal laws).

The purpose of religion/spiritual philosophies is to establish what the fixed human laws actually are and provide a practical basis for people to (re)discover them and therefore live life 'as it was intended', i.e., in accordance with the instruction manual. (Some are obviously better at this than others and some are better in some areas than others.) What I want to know from Dawkins, Hitchens etc. is what their instruction manual for people is?

[IndieHibby]

iTunesU podcast on the historicity of the Bible

What's it called? - i'd be very intrested in listening to that :thumbsup:

[Twa Cairpets]

What's it called? - i'd be very intrested in listening to that :thumbsup:

Do a search for "Historical Jesus" in the iTunes store - its from Stanford University - a bit dry, and not great sound quality, but quite interesting.

[Twa Cairpets]

You touch on some interesting points but what I want is a 'meaning of life'.

You say, and I agree entirely, that the universe is governed by fixed laws, e.g., boiling point of water under conditions x,y and z. Every mineral has its laws, every plant has its laws, every animal has its laws; none of them can deviate from them. Only human beings have the ability to choose their own laws (albeit our body is 100% subject to general universal laws).

The purpose of religion/spiritual philosophies is to establish what the fixed human laws actually are and provide a practical basis for people to (re)discover them and therefore live life 'as it was intended', i.e., in accordance with the instruction manual. (Some are obviously better at this than others and some are better in some areas than others.) What I want to know from Dawkins, Hitchens etc. is what their instruction manual for people is?

There aren't any fixed laws, in so far as they are all a function of their time and setting. Certain basic evolutionary traits such as avoidance of incest would be and are in place across all religions without the need for a religious or secular law to be in place. These are essentially hard-wired taboos.

In terms of the "fixedness" of religiously driven law, one of the major arguments against christianity and islam, is that the holy books were written in a time when, for example, slavery was acceptable, when the subservient nature of women was taken as read (and underwritten by the "old" wedding vows). The truth of the words can't be challenged, so unless you live a very literal interpretation of the bible (as some try to do), you are somewhere along the line breaking the code/direction/law of God.

Elements of the bible are great, the Qu'ran I'm sure has lots of great stuff too, as will any other religious text both as literature and as an example of good morals, but an instruction manual? No, I dont see it.

If you believe as I do that they are entirely human constructs, I feel at total liberty to ignore the any supernatural element of what they say. As an instruction manual, I would feel impelled to surely to follow it all if I believed its divine provenance, including all the stuff about burnt offerings, stoning of adulterers, and not suffering a witch to live.

You ask what Dawkins or Hitchens instruction manual would be? I'm guessing they would answer "I dont have one, I know good from evil, I know right from wrong, I know caring from selfish"

At a very basic level, people point to the Ten Commandments at least as being the true moral guidebook for living. but if you look at the detail, nos 1-4 are about method of worship. The others - all of them I would suggest - are more universally shared human values, that are largely applicable across all religions. Its worth reading through them again and you'll see what I mean.

Bottom line for me Fergus is that you don't need a book full of contradictions and a mix of both repugnant and positive morality to be a guide through life. Embrace it for what it is, live it to the full, and pass on knowing you've left a good mark on the people you've loved and who love you.


1.You shall have no other gods before Me.
2.You shall not make yourself any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down yourself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy to thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3.You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that takes his name in vain.

4.Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall thou labor, and do all your work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger that is within your gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: therefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

5.Honor your father and your mother: that your days may be long upon the land which the LORD your God gives you.

6.You shall not murder.

7.You shall not commit adultery.

8.You shall not steal.

9.You shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10.You shall not covet your neighbor's house, you shall not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor's.

[Speedway]

How are Athiests able to definitively discredit religious beliefs at the same time as not knowing the source of creation for our race?

[Twa Cairpets]

How are Athiests able to definitively discredit religious beliefs at the same time as not knowing the source of creation for our race?

First, religious belief is not solely about human creation, but to try to answer that question without going through a whole evolution debate again.

Every branch of science points definitively and corroboratively to evolution being correct. If divine versions of creation are correct, then everything we know about science is fundamentally are irrevocably wrong. I dont believe this is the case, and it is good enough evidence for me.

Your question is interesting though because while atheists are asked for ever increasing levels of proof for their position - every time a transitional fossil is found, for example, the cry goes up about the need to discover another two - the sole piece of evidence offered by the religious is faith based on holy writing, and thats it. Thats all there has ever been, and its seen as being enough. What I "believe" is demonstrably true in Pakistan, India, China and Africa. What the religious believe is not.

I dont know how the universe started. I dont know the exact instant or method by which sentient life first developed. but what I do know is that not everyone who has a devout religious belief can be correct, which at the very least discredits all but one of these beliefs by force of sheer logic.

[lapsedhibee]

which at the very least discredits all but one of these beliefs by force of sheer logic.

(Unless the current conception of correct logic is faulty :wink:)

[Fantic]

i've said this before but...there is a common morality throughout humanity.

Humans all over the earth have always known that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really change that. But then...they do not always behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature and they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

There is a difference between this morality and belief about facts. For example- three hundred years ago people were burning witches. The reason we do not execute witches nowadays is that we don't believe there are any. If we did — if we thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and were using these powers to kill their neighbours etc, we would all agree that they should be executed! There's no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact.

Everyone knows about this moral law and everyone breaks it (to different degrees). The human race is haunted by this desire to do what is right. There must be something or someone behind this basic law?

[Twa Cairpets]

i've said this before but...there is a common morality throughout humanity.

Humans all over the earth have always known that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really change that. But then...they do not always behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature and they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

There is a difference between this morality and belief about facts. For example- three hundred years ago people were burning witches. The reason we do not execute witches nowadays is that we don't believe there are any. If we did — if we thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and were using these powers to kill their neighbours etc, we would all agree that they should be executed! There's no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact.

Everyone knows about this moral law and everyone breaks it (to different degrees). The human race is haunted by this desire to do what is right. There must be something or someone behind this basic law?

But the Bible does. Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

This is a problem. If you believe the Bible, you must believe in witches because the bible says they exist. I agree that they don't.

[Fantic]

But the Bible does. Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

This is a problem. If you believe the Bible, you must believe in witches because the bible says they exist. I agree that they don't.

This has been used to justify the murder of many old, single or vulnerable women who werent witches.

See above on matter of fact.

[Twa Cairpets]

This has been used to justify the murder of many old, single or vulnerable women who werent witches.
And precisely none who were witches, because theyre not real, nor ever have been.


See above on matter of fact.

In biblical terms, the fact is that they exist. This fact cannot be changed in the light of any evidence to the contrary, because the bible is infallible.

"Facts" are odd things in the bible - the value of pi, for example (2Corinthians 4:2) is given described as 3 - a good approximation, but absolutely completely and verifiably wrong. Not a fact. But it must be a fact because the Bible is infallible.

The instant that rationalisation of these errors is attempted, then human interpretation of what the bible really means come in and instantly deprives it of any divine authority.

[Fantic]

And precisely none who were witches, because theyre not real, nor ever have been.

In biblical terms, the fact is that they exist. This fact cannot be changed in the light of any evidence to the contrary, because the bible is infallible.


Then again....

In versions of the Bible in the original languages pre-King James it translates more closely to "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Poisoning was a huge problem at the time. King James was a believer in the occult. The play Macbeth was written specifically for him by Shakespeare based on James's interests.
In the King James version, the word was translated inadvertantly (or perharps purposefuly) to "witch".

see above on matter of fact :dunno:

[IndieHibby]

Is it not also true that the myth of the immaculate conception was also a translation error from the old hebrew word for 'maiden' into the latin(?) for 'virgin'?

[Twa Cairpets]

Then again....

In versions of the Bible in the original languages pre-King James it translates more closely to "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live". Poisoning was a huge problem at the time. King James was a believer in the occult. The play Macbeth was written specifically for him by Shakespeare based on James's interests.
In the King James version, the word was translated inadvertantly (or perharps purposefuly) to "witch".

see above on matter of fact :dunno:

There is some belief that this is true, but it is by no means seen as certain this is the case. If it is, it does kind of prove my point that if it is incorrectly interpreted, it automatically ceases to be divine.

I've had a look again at your "matter of fact" post.

"...There is a difference between this morality and belief about facts. For example- three hundred years ago people were burning witches. The reason we do not execute witches nowadays is that we don't believe there are any. If we did — if we thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and were using these powers to kill their neighbours etc, we would all agree that they should be executed! There's no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact."

I think I completely disagree with this. The question is a difference of morals, not a difference of fact. There either are/were or aren't/weren't witches. This is the "fact" element - the element that doesnt change. It is the morality of the actions - driven by religion - that varies.

[Speedway]

I dont know how the universe started. I dont know the exact instant or method by which sentient life first developed. but what I do know is that not everyone who has a devout religious belief can be correct, which at the very least discredits all but one of these beliefs by force of sheer logic.

I agree but as mankind is in a constant state of education and 'revelation', then credence should be given to lapsed Hibees quote below.


(Unless the current conception of correct logic is faulty :wink:)

However, all we can go on to form our opinions is the extent of our current knowledge.


But the Bible does. Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

This is a problem. If you believe the Bible, you must believe in witches because the bible says they exist. I agree that they don't.

However, translated correctly or not, many prescribed Old Testament behaviours was superceded in attitude and required behaviours by New Testament fulfillment of Mosaic Law were they not?


And precisely none who were witches, because theyre not real, nor ever have been.



In biblical terms, the fact is that they exist. This fact cannot be changed in the light of any evidence to the contrary, because the bible is infallible.

"Facts" are odd things in the bible - the value of pi, for example (2Corinthians 4:2) is given described as 3 - a good approximation, but absolutely completely and verifiably wrong. Not a fact. But it must be a fact because the Bible is infallible.

The instant that rationalisation of these errors is attempted, then human interpretation of what the bible really means come in and instantly deprives it of any divine authority.

Who claims infallibility for the Bible?

[GlesgaeHibby]

I dont think Glesgae is a Christian (apologies if Im wrong), but the point he makes is a good one JC50. If you do truly believe, and your life is filled with what you believe to be a divine spirit driving you and guiding you in all your actions, you see evangelising as your absolute duty.

What entitiles them to do this, in their mind, is that it a requirement passed to them by God, and there needs to be no other reason why. I have in my extended family a very, very devout christian - a respected theologian, preacher and writer on evangelism - and know this is his view. (He is also one of the most odius, smug, cringeworthy and arrogant individuals I have ever known, but that is me being guilty of an ad hominem attack myself).

Where, for the want of a better description "evangelising" atheists fall down - and I include myself in this - is that our arguments cannot come from what the other side see as being such an authoratative source. Belief in the Divine v Studied rationality? There is usually only one winner there. There is an implied criticism of believers as being fundamentally stupid in believing what they believe, which makes active atheists seem arrogant a la Dawkins or PZ Myers. As it is a societal taboo to challenge anyones personal belief in this area (although not in any other contentious areas such as politics or stance on abortion), the ability to enter reasoned debate is limited. The religious will quote scripture from a holy book, the atheist will look to science and evidence, and round we go again.

The benefit of threads such as this is that it should make everyone think and challenge their own stances. I'm looking forward (honestly) to listening to ancients "expositors" link, and I've downloaded an iTunesU podcast on the historicity of the Bible (oh yes, I'm a party animal). I hope some of the believers on the thread take the opportunity to actually read Dawkins or Hitchens.

:agree: Pretty much sums it up.

If I was 100% convinced Jesus was real and through him we could all have eternal life, I'm pretty sure I'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Having read the Bible, and spent the past 4 and a half years at uni studying a science and examining evidence amassed over centuries I cannot accept the Bible as the infallible word of a creator God.

[Fantic]

There is some belief that this is true, but it is by no means seen as certain this is the case. If it is, it does kind of prove my point that if it is incorrectly interpreted, it automatically ceases to be divine.

I've had a look again at your "matter of fact" post.

"...There is a difference between this morality and belief about facts. For example- three hundred years ago people were burning witches. The reason we do not execute witches nowadays is that we don't believe there are any. If we did — if we thought that there were people going around who had sold themselves to the devil and were using these powers to kill their neighbours etc, we would all agree that they should be executed! There's no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact."

I think I completely disagree with this. The question is a difference of morals, not a difference of fact. There either are/were or aren't/weren't witches. This is the "fact" element - the element that doesnt change. It is the morality of the actions - driven by religion - that varies.

No its not. Nowadays if we think there are people going around killing other people we agree they should be dealt with. Back then, people (wrongly) thought that witches were doing this and so dealt with them. The moral law hasn't changed. I agree the 'element' hasn't changed.The matter of fact has changed..

[Twa Cairpets]

Who claims infallibility for the Bible?

I'll try to answer your question in the context of the thread. If atheists can be criticised for not following the teachigs of the bible, to have it suggested that the book is a kind of pick'n'mix on morals - which is what it would be if it is not seen as infallible - is, frankly, a bit rich. "Ah well that bit's allegorical", or "we've developed since then, and what it really means is..." isn't really on.

It is the difficulty that Ive mentioned before that short of a second coming, biblical teaching can't change from what it was when it was written. If its mistranslated, then get your leaders to translate it properly! If it's left to an individual to interpret the immutable and ageless moral laws allegedly contained within, then it strikes me that the chance of misinterpreting is very, very high.

[Twa Cairpets]

No its not. Nowadays if we think there are people going around killing other people we agree they should be dealt with. Back then, people (wrongly) thought that witches were doing this and so dealt with them. The moral law hasn't changed. I agree the 'element' hasn't changed.The matter of fact has changed..

Ok, lets look at some other areas then.

Notwithstanding the "let him without sin cast the first stone bit" in John (as an aside, I've often wondered why that only apparently applies to adulterers and not other crimes of moral turpitude), the morality of remarriage has changed dramatically. Remarrying is quite clearly described as an act of adultery in Matthew, Mark and Luke and described unequivocally in Deuteronomy and Leviticus as an act punishable by death, but outwith of the Catholic church, it is not really seen as a sin now at all, is it?

Lets be quite clear. Jesus himself said in the Gospel of Mark
10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

As a moral stance you can disgaree or agree with the rights and wrongs of marriage/divorce/remarriage/adultery, but that is not the point. But if you are a christian who wants to remarry,then you are breaking commandment no.7, no question.

My point is that in Western society, the complete acceptability of remarrying amongst both christians and non-believers is widespread. Our moral view of this has changed from the time of biblical writing. Either we're wrong, or the biblical view is outdated, and therefore not valid as a moral compass in this area at least.

[ancienthibby]

Its a bit like trying to summarise the bible into "be nice to each other and say your prayers and you'll go to heaven", but ok.

Religion of any type is a man made construct, which requires adherents to unquestioningly accept the current vogue of morality as interpreted from increasingly irrelevant ancient scripture. The risk of not adhering is one of an eternity in hell, although equally the rules by which heaven can be entered have been a movable feast based on the mood of the time.

The people you mention (or any other well-known atheist) do not claim there is no meaning to life, just that life can be full of meaning and purpose and humanity and humility and joy without recourse to belief in a deity.

There are traits of human behaviour that are common across all races and shades of religion. Equally, the rules governing nature are common across the world, as are the rules governing the way matter interacts (or science,as its known)An individuals belief system will, clearly, be based almost exculsively on when and where they are born, meaning that religious belief is anything but Universal in both broad terms and detail.

Finally, if holy books are taken as being literal truths (which is a key component to belief) then they have some serious difficulties in combating scientific ideas developed and proven as we have evolved as a species (such as evolution and astonomy), and moral ideas that were ok in the bronze age but somewhat less so now (such as the acceptability of slavery, the role of women in society, homosexuality, etc).

Still, don't take my word for it, read them for yourself - Hitchens is a lot more accesible than Dawkins, by the way, but both are good, and (in Dawkins' case particularly) better on the page that in sound.

If I may say, TC, that's an atheistic distortion that's not representative of your usual quality posts!!

You must deal with the Lord of the Cross, and the Crucificxation!

[ancienthibby]

:agree: Pretty much sums it up.

If I was 100% convinced Jesus was real and through him we could all have eternal life, I'm pretty sure I'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Having read the Bible, and spent the past 4 and a half years at uni studying a science and examining evidence amassed over centuries I cannot accept the Bible as the infallible word of a creator God.

Big issue here, GH, in that the Christian religion would not exist if it needed 100% conviction!!

The Christian faith that has grown from a few hundred people following Jesus' death to a worldwide movement of more than 1.5 billion people worldwide, would not exist today if it was all based on evidence.

Your missing ingredient is faith.

That's the kernel of Christian belief!

[ancienthibby]

But the Bible does. Exodus 22:18 - "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

This is a problem. If you believe the Bible, you must believe in witches because the bible says they exist. I agree that they don't.

You're walking into troubled territory here, TC, since there are huge dangers in taking one verse from the Bible and not paying due attention to the rest!

You cannot deal with the Old Testament (OT) unless you are prepared to include the New Testament (NT) as well ( and this is made clear in Genesis 3.16).

The Lord Jesus has said in the NT that he is the fulfillment of the OT law, and that it is not set aside in Him, but made complete in Him.

Therefore, His forgiveness is available to all, provided sinners (i.e. all mankind) accept His substitutionary death on the Cross.

[IndieHibby]

You're walking into troubled territory here, TC, since there are huge dangers in taking one verse from the Bible and not paying due attention to the rest!

You cannot deal with the Old Testament (OT) unless you are prepared to include the New Testament (NT) as well ( and this is made clear in Genesis 3.16).

The Lord Jesus has said in the NT that he is the fulfillment of the OT law, and that it is not set aside in Him, but made complete in Him.

Therefore, His forgiveness is available to all, provided sinners (i.e. all mankind) accept His substitutionary death on the Cross.

Genuine question... What does this mean? What do we have to 'accept' and who/what did his death 'substitute'?

Thanks

[Twa Cairpets]

If I may say, TC, that's an atheistic distortion that's not representative of your usual quality posts!!

You must deal with the Lord of the Cross, and the Crucificxation!

Harsh ancient - read it in context. I was asked:

"...I've listened to Dawkins and the (alcoholic) Hitchens, the message I heard was - and I'm paraphrasing here - 'there is no meaning to life, just go and have fun'. Now, I've tried that philosophy for many years and ultimately it wasn't fun anymore. Surely they must be offering more than that? If so, can you summarise it for me because I can't bring myself to trawl through any more of their stuff. "

and I answered

"Its a bit like trying to summarise the bible into "be nice to each other and say your prayers and you'll go to heaven", but ok.",

so Im agreeing with you as long as you agree that the atheist stance is more complex than "we dont believe in God ya boo sucks"

[ancienthibby]

Harsh ancient - read it in context. I was asked:

"...I've listened to Dawkins and the (alcoholic) Hitchens, the message I heard was - and I'm paraphrasing here - 'there is no meaning to life, just go and have fun'. Now, I've tried that philosophy for many years and ultimately it wasn't fun anymore. Surely they must be offering more than that? If so, can you summarise it for me because I can't bring myself to trawl through any more of their stuff. "

and I answered

"Its a bit like trying to summarise the bible into "be nice to each other and say your prayers and you'll go to heaven", but ok.",

so Im agreeing with you as long as you agree that the atheist stance is more complex than "we dont believe in God ya boo sucks"

You've got a bit of work to do then TC, since there have been so many atheist posters on here ridiculing Christian believers because the atheistic view is that God is an 'old grey man in the sky with a long beard'.

For a Christian believer, 'God ya boo sucks' just adds to this unfortunate and unhelpful caricature!

[Fantic]

Ok, lets look at some other areas then.

Notwithstanding the "let him without sin cast the first stone bit" in John (as an aside, I've often wondered why that only apparently applies to adulterers and not other crimes of moral turpitude), the morality of remarriage has changed dramatically. Remarrying is quite clearly described as an act of adultery in Matthew, Mark and Luke and described unequivocally in Deuteronomy and Leviticus as an act punishable by death, but outwith of the Catholic church, it is not really seen as a sin now at all, is it?

Lets be quite clear. Jesus himself said in the Gospel of Mark
10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

As a moral stance you can disgaree or agree with the rights and wrongs of marriage/divorce/remarriage/adultery, but that is not the point. But if you are a christian who wants to remarry,then you are breaking commandment no.7, no question.

My point is that in Western society, the complete acceptability of remarrying amongst both christians and non-believers is widespread. Our moral view of this has changed from the time of biblical writing. Either we're wrong, or the biblical view is outdated, and therefore not valid as a moral compass in this area at least.


When any (normal decent person) commits adultery do they think they're doing the right thing?.. No... They know what they are doing is wrong. They know the Law of Nature and they break it.

When any (normal decent person) enters into a marriage and makes a public solemn promise to stick to their partner til death, then breaks that promise, is that right... No... It may be unavoidable but that doesn't make it right and most people won't take it lightly. I don't think there is 'complete acceptability' in remarrying. I would say that the majority of people take it more seriously than that. See Moral Law and breaking it etc.

Edit: This thread was meant for critiscisms towards aethiests, but as always its turned the other way about.

[Woody1985]

I've been flippant on here but don't want that to distort others arguments. I think that all religion is ridiculous, not just Christianity.

If we planted on this planet (:tee hee:) right now with all of the knowledge we have and some guy started going on about being the son of some mystical God they'd be laughed at.

In the past when humans naturally looked for a reason for us being here a story that we were planted here fitted the times perfectly.

[Twa Cairpets]

When any (normal decent person) commits adultery do they think they're doing the right thing?.. No... They know what they are doing is wrong. They know the Law of Nature and they break it.

When any (normal decent person) enters into a marriage and makes a public solemn promise to stick to their partner til death, then breaks that promise, is that right... No... It may be unavoidable but that doesn't make it right and most people won't take it lightly. I don't think there is 'complete acceptability' in remarrying. I would say that the majority of people take it more seriously than that. See Moral Law and breaking it etc.

This isnt about adultery. Its about remarrying which is biblically defined - in the New Testament - as adultery. It makes no comment about the circumstance of divorce, and makes no comment about who is to blame for the divorce.

So your "normal decent person" marries someone who runs off with someone else, and gets a divorce. The wronged NDP has never been unfaithful, has done nothing wrong, but according to Jesus theyve broken one of the Commandments if they remarry?

Or Mrs NDP divorces after a partner becomes abusive. So theyre not allowed to remarry without knowing it is a sin?

Dont you think that is, well, just appalling?

[Fantic]

This isnt about adultery. Its about remarrying which is biblically defined - in the New Testament - as adultery. It makes no comment about the circumstance of divorce, and makes no comment about who is to blame for the divorce.

So your "normal decent person" marries someone who runs off with someone else, and gets a divorce. The wronged NDP has never been unfaithful, has done nothing wrong, but according to Jesus theyve broken one of the Commandments if they remarry?

Or Mrs NDP divorces after a partner becomes abusive. So theyre not allowed to remarry without knowing it is a sin?

Dont you think that is, well, just appalling?

But its the person that 'runs off' or the 'abusive man' that's appaling. The NDP is left in an unavoidable situation. Marriage nulled for them. They entered into a lie.

[Woody1985]

But its the person that 'runs off' or the 'abusive man' that's appaling. The NDP is left in an unavoidable situation. Marriage nulled for them. They entered into a lie.

I find that comment astounding.

[Twa Cairpets]

But its the person that 'runs off' or the 'abusive man' that's appaling. The NDP is left in an unavoidable situation. Marriage nulled for them. They entered into a lie.

Sorry mate - thats your interpretation - its not what the bible says.

[ancienthibby]

Ok, lets look at some other areas then.

Notwithstanding the "let him without sin cast the first stone bit" in John (as an aside, I've often wondered why that only apparently applies to adulterers and not other crimes of moral turpitude), the morality of remarriage has changed dramatically. Remarrying is quite clearly described as an act of adultery in Matthew, Mark and Luke and described unequivocally in Deuteronomy and Leviticus as an act punishable by death, but outwith of the Catholic church, it is not really seen as a sin now at all, is it?

Lets be quite clear. Jesus himself said in the Gospel of Mark
10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
10:12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

As a moral stance you can disgaree or agree with the rights and wrongs of marriage/divorce/remarriage/adultery, but that is not the point. But if you are a christian who wants to remarry,then you are breaking commandment no.7, no question.

My point is that in Western society, the complete acceptability of remarrying amongst both christians and non-believers is widespread. Our moral view of this has changed from the time of biblical writing. Either we're wrong, or the biblical view is outdated, and therefore not valid as a moral compass in this area at least.

Indeed he did!

But we need to be very careful with isolating passages of Scripture and then attempting to make absolute positions out of that.

We always need to place everything in the entirety of Scripture so, that in this case, we defer to the grace and mercy of God who offers forgiveness to all sinners. Human beings will never avoid sinning at all and every point in their lives. Scripture is very clear about this.

But what it is also clear about is that 'commandment-breakers' have forgiveness and redemption available to them through the Lord Jesus. In this instance, you might benefit from reading John 4 1-26 - the famous 'Meeting at the Well' - and note what Jesus says. The woman in question has had five husbands, which Jesus knows all about, but he is willing to offer her full forgiveness if she would but ask!!

Indeed, elsewhere, Jesus quite often says, 'Go and sin no more' in the full knowledge that fallible human beings will go on sinning and sinning and sinning, but the key point is that it is an exhortation to follow His teachings as much as imperfect human beings can.

But Scripture also speaks quite frequently to the imperfect current state of man but that Eternity will bring 'perfection' - and therein lies the hope for all believers!!:agree:

[IndieHibby]

Indeed he did!

But we need to be very careful with isolating passages of Scripture and then attempting to make absolute positions out of that.

We always need to place everything in the entirety of Scripture so, that in this case, we defer to the grace and mercy of God who offers forgiveness to all sinners. Human beings will never avoid sinning at all and every point in their lives. Scripture is very clear about this.

But what it is also clear about is that 'commandment-breakers' have forgiveness and redemption available to them through the Lord Jesus. In this instance, you might benefit from reading John 4 1-26 - the famous 'Meeting at the Well' - and note what Jesus says. The woman in question has had five husbands, which Jesus knows all about, but he is willing to offer her full forgiveness if she would but ask!!

Indeed, elsewhere, Jesus quite often says, 'Go and sin no more' in the full knowledge that fallible human beings will go on sinning and sinning and sinning, but the key point is that it is an exhortation to follow His teachings as much as imperfect human beings can.

But Scripture also speaks quite frequently to the imperfect current state of man but that Eternity will bring 'perfection' - and therein lies the hope for all believers!!:agree:

So.......you can commit adultery because if you ask Jesus for forgiveness he will grant it to you?

Why bother saying 'you shouldn't do it' in the first place?

P.S. How come you didn't answer my previous question?

[Twa Cairpets]

Indeed he did!

But we need to be very careful with isolating passages of Scripture and then attempting to make absolute positions out of that.

We always need to place everything in the entirety of Scripture so, that in this case, we defer to the grace and mercy of God who offers forgiveness to all sinners. Human beings will never avoid sinning at all and every point in their lives. Scripture is very clear about this.

But what it is also clear about is that 'commandment-breakers' have forgiveness and redemption available to them through the Lord Jesus. In this instance, you might benefit from reading John 4 1-26 - the famous 'Meeting at the Well' - and note what Jesus says. The woman in question has had five husbands, which Jesus knows all about, but he is willing to offer her full forgiveness if she would but ask!!

Indeed, elsewhere, Jesus quite often says, 'Go and sin no more' in the full knowledge that fallible human beings will go on sinning and sinning and sinning, but the key point is that it is an exhortation to follow His teachings as much as imperfect human beings can.

But Scripture also speaks quite frequently to the imperfect current state of man but that Eternity will bring 'perfection' - and therein lies the hope for all believers!!:agree:

Stueyn makes a good point above. i'd be interested in seeing your response to it and his ealrier one, becasue that has always flummoxed me too.

But as to your point, there is of course the unforgiveable sin, which has always struck me as somewhat, well, petty.

LUKE 12:10, "And everyone that says a word against the Son of Man, that will be forgiven; But he that blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.
MARK 3:29, "Whoever blasphemes against The Holy Spirit will never have forgiveness, but is guilty of everlasting sin."
MATTHEW 12: 31-32 "Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come".

Now by this standard, I'm in a bad way when my clogs are popped.

[ancienthibby]

So.......you can commit adultery because if you ask Jesus for forgiveness he will grant it to you?

Why bother saying 'you shouldn't do it' in the first place?

P.S. How come you didn't answer my previous question?

I will go back and answer your earlier question, Stu - time on the PC at 'the home' is often limited:greengrin

Regarding your point of substance, I have no doubt that the grace of God knows no bounds - that's what we are clearly taught!

As a contrast, if your house was about to be repossessed and you had failed to respond to six notices to this effect and you were in a desperate state in a taxi going to the Sherriff Courts and it was 11.59 against the 12.00 deadline and you were a mile away, you might just think to yourself 'I wish I had accepted the offer when it was first made'!!

Scripture says your eternal life is worth much, much more than that!

[Mon Dieu4]

So.......you can commit adultery because if you ask Jesus for forgiveness he will grant it to you?

Why bother saying 'you shouldn't do it' in the first place?

P.S. How come you didn't answer my previous question?

That has always been one point Ive wondered about, could I in theory live my life like a complete & utter erky & do whatever I like, then when I was about to die (on the basis I knew when its coming & not sudden) repent on my death bed & everything is forgiven?

[ancienthibby]

Genuine question... What does this mean? What do we have to 'accept' and who/what did his death 'substitute'?

Thanks

To try and answer this question (and more and more this thread needs the input of our resident Hibs.net pastor, currently residing in deepest darkest North Lanarkshire or ano:devil:)

The Scriptures are very clear that the death of the Lord Jesus on the Cross was an act of substitution as an act of God-given mercy whereby His life was offered/taken instead of ours (sinners). He gave up His life so that you and I could have life, both in this life and in the Thereafter.

That is his unchanging invitation - you can accept/reject.

[lapsedhibee]

The Scriptures are very clear that the death of the Lord Jesus on the Cross was an act of substitution as an act of God-given mercy whereby His life was offered/taken instead of ours (sinners). He gave up His life so that you and I could have life, both in this life and in the Thereafter.


Another genuine question, if I may. Is this similar to, or different from, ritually sacrificing an animal to guarantee a good crop?

[Twa Cairpets]

To try and answer this question (and more and more this thread needs the input of our resident Hibs.net pastor, currently residing in deepest darkest North Lanarkshire or ano:devil:)

The Scriptures are very clear that the death of the Lord Jesus on the Cross was an act of substitution as an act of God-given mercy whereby His life was offered/taken instead of ours (sinners). He gave up His life so that you and I could have life, both in this life and in the Thereafter.

That is his unchanging invitation - you can accept/reject.

I realise this is meandering somewhat off topic here, but why did/does this have to be the case? i'm with stueyn here - I dont understand it.

[IndieHibby]

To try and answer this question (and more and more this thread needs the input of our resident Hibs.net pastor, currently residing in deepest darkest North Lanarkshire or ano:devil:)

The Scriptures are very clear that the death of the Lord Jesus on the Cross was an act of substitution as an act of God-given mercy whereby His life was offered/taken instead of ours (sinners). He gave up His life so that you and I could have life, both in this life and in the Thereafter.

That is his unchanging invitation - you can accept/reject.

1. So, the 'substitution' was a kind of 'His life for ours' thing?

So God was the provider of the threat of punishment and the means by which to avoid the punishment?

Am I missing the point when I say that seems contradictory? (that God is both the executioner and the provider of the sacrifice?)

2. This guy Jesus, basically said that 'I will die so you lot can live', which allowed us to have an afterlife. Which is fine if you believe that. But how does it enable us to have a life now (something you assert)?

P.S. Thanks for clearing up the substitution thing

[IndieHibby]

It seems clear that Atheists don't have too much problem challenging (politely) the assertions of the Theists (even if it takes a bit of time to first of all establish what these assertions are!:wink:)

I think the big question we Atheists really need to answer, is less to do with the factual/logical voracity of the various scriptures, and much more about why there are so many Theists.

I suspect it may be to do with childrens inability to have their own sceptical position before they are exposed to this enticing mythology... :duck:

[J-C]

It seems clear that Atheists don't have too much problem challenging (politely) the assertions of the Theists (even if it takes a bit of time to first of all establish what these assertions are!:wink:)

I think the big question we Atheists really need to answer, is less to do with the factual/logical voracity of the various scriptures, and much more about why there are so many Theists.

I suspect it may be to do with childrens inability to have their own sceptical position before they are exposed to this enticing mythology... :duck:


True, children shouldn't be allowed to be exposed to religion( whatever one you believe in ) until they have the brains to understand and therfore comprehend what religion is. I went to sunday school and was brought up a Christian but not until I became older and questioned religion with facts and not myth and fables did I then become an Athiest.
A perfect scenario is my daughter, I didn't expose her to religion when she was young and allowed her to learn about it herself through her education and other media, she has chosen to be an athiest like myself because she's a realist and understands that religion is false.

[Speedway]

I'll try to answer your question in the context of the thread. If atheists can be criticised for not following the teachigs of the bible, to have it suggested that the book is a kind of pick'n'mix on morals - which is what it would be if it is not seen as infallible - is, frankly, a bit rich. "Ah well that bit's allegorical", or "we've developed since then, and what it really means is..." isn't really on.

It is the difficulty that Ive mentioned before that short of a second coming, biblical teaching can't change from what it was when it was written. If its mistranslated, then get your leaders to translate it properly! If it's left to an individual to interpret the immutable and ageless moral laws allegedly contained within, then it strikes me that the chance of misinterpreting is very, very high.

Who are my leaders?


With regard to misinterpretation, are you aware of roughly how many versions of the bible are currently in print? Or indeed how many books once in there now aren't? Or again how many times Biblical texts have been deliberately changed?

Mistranslation is not a possibily, it's a proven certainty.

[Twa Cairpets]

Who are my leaders?

If you are catholic, ultimately the Pope, if other denominations, then your local priest/minister/preacher/imam/rabbi, up through their structural hierarchy.


With regard to misinterpretation, are you aware of roughly how many versions of the bible are currently in print? Or indeed how many books once in there now aren't? Or again how many times Biblical texts have been deliberately changed?

Mistranslation is not a possibily, it's a proven certainty.

And so you very concisely prove my point.

Absolute faith is being put into the human interpetation of one of countless variations of an regularly edited, mistranslated collection of disparate and often contradictory books originallywritten decades and centuries after the events they claim to record, at a time when oral tradition was the main record keeper.

Dont you find that just a little bit worrying?