As this thread has drifted from the subject matter that is was based on and is becoming rather irritating (partially because of me, I must admit), I am leaving it. Goodbye.
As this thread has drifted from the subject matter that is was based on and is becoming rather irritating (partially because of me, I must admit), I am leaving it. Goodbye.
[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by Dante Wodehouse
No point. If you had any interest in finding out facts, you'd be doing so instead of spinning fallacies all over a literature discussion board.
Go to work, get married, have some kids, pay your taxes, pay your bills, watch your tv, follow fashion, act normal, obey the law and repeat after me: "I am free."
Anon
Does anyone know what made C.S. Lewis become a christian after being an Atheist?
This thread is about atheism, not evolution. Your "facts" prove nothing beyond the reality that science has found some clues and thinks that it has a good shot at interpreting them into the answer it wants to arrive at. In that way, science is no different than religion - in that it begins with its conclusion (Naturalism) and makes the "facts" fit its plan - just like Christians begin with God and do likewise. Welcom to the presuppositional club - some of acknowledge we're members - others of us pretend we're not.
On September 19, 1931, Lewis went for an evening walk at Magdalen College with JRR Tolkien and Hugo Dyson. They were discussing their shared interest in mythology and what gave myths their truth. Tolkien argued that the truth of myth is the degree to which it reflects the story of Jesus. Then Tolkien went on to argue for the truthfulness of Christianity. About two weeks later, Lewis converted to Christianity. That's a really truncated version - it's much more complicated than that and I believe Lewis fully lays out his experience in Surprised by Joy.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Ok in an attempt to get things somewhat back on track I'll answer the original Q.
What do atheists believe in?
Seeing as atheism is a position of only one shared belief, I will answer from a personal standpoint.
1) I do not believe in a benevolent creator/god/supreme being. Looking around at the world I can see no evidence of it - I may be inclined however to think that if there is a creator he/she/it is disinterested and/or incompetent.
2) I believe that humans have the power themselves to do great acts of kindness and huge amounts of evil, and that we are capable of affecting real change ourselves without the need for a god to do it for us.
3) I believe in the "no harm" philosophy, so long as what you do does not adversely affect any unwilling participant I have no real issue with it. Of course with the condition about creating laws/regulations for children and others not able to make the decision on a concious level for themselves with regards to whether they wish to participate or not.
4) I do not believe in marriage, I have never seen the need for a piece of paper or the idea that people somehow love each other more or are less likely to split up if they get married (of course this is influenced by my childhood experiences)
5) I believe in taking responsibility for your own actions - to me pre-destination/fate seems like a huge cop-out, if I work hard enough life will be good.
6) I believe people should believe in whatever works for them without attempts from people to make them see "the light" as it is percieved by the converter. It doesnt matter to me whether people believe in nothing, god, Y-W-H, Allah, Buddah, the tooth fairy or Santa if it works for you go with it. Just dont expect everyone to agree with you.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
And I thank you kindly for doing so.
I understand the first statement and the second; I do not understand the third and would benefit from some elaboration.
I agree with the first statement, though I question your use of the word "evil" - if God (and by extension, Satan) do not exist, how does "evil" come into play? Without a Creator to establish an objective morality of good/evil, how can we define anything as "evil"?
If the second statement is true, then why are so many people in this world unhappy, addicted, dissatisfied? Why aren't we "self-actualized"?
But what is our assessment of "harm" based upon - observation? Can observation truly give us the full measure of the value of an action or behavior? Is anything really OK if both parties are consenting and nobody else is harmed? If I want to die, and I hire someone to kill me, since we're both consenting, are our actions to carry this plan out OK?
The paper is a symbol, like the ring. It shows the level of committment. We have a "piece of paper" for marriage just like we do any other contract - it makes the contract more binding, beyond "OK - I'm tired of you now and I don't particularly feel like investing the time and effort it would take to grow in this relationship so I'm just going to bail out now."
I fully agree with the first and second statement. The third is impossible.
"Whatever works" for some people is immoral, selfish and destructive.
What if I knew with 100% certainty that the stock market would crash in one week and you had thousands of dollars invested. Would you consider my pleas to you to sell off your stock as unreasonable? What if I knew with 100% certainty that a tsunami was heading toward your seacoast town - would my pleas for you to evacuate seem unreasonable? What if I knew the way to become a millionaire and could share that secret with you - would you be annoyed by my trying to do so? Try to understand that Christians believe with 100% certainty that God will eventually execute judgment; as such, we don't want anybody left out of the great rewards that God has in store for everybody (EVERYBODY) who chooses to accept His gift of Salvation. Why wouldn't we be insistent?
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
"Any other contract"? Don't you think there's something of a difference between a life-long monogamous commitment and 'any other contract'? Mortgage, employee agrement, sale of real estate, renter's agreement, decision to enter into a pact of mutual support and friendship with the one person you love more than anybody else in the world. One of these things is not like the others.
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
Yes - there is a difference - a huge difference - but I levelled the marriage certificate to the generic term "contract" in order to emphasize its symbolic value in a way that pointed out the need for commitment within the marriage. In fact, my use of contract is actually intended to be ironic in that we take other, far less important areas of our life much more seriously, creating contracts to emphasize our willingness to keep our word - but marriage (the most significant relationship of your life) we treat as if it does not deserve the same seriousness, the same consideration. All this without even me bringing up the spiritual considerations inherent in creating a life-long relationship (it will suffice to quote from Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (2:24).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Oh, yeah. Irony. I knew that. Umm, me too, I was being ironic. Yeah, that's it.
One could, I suppose, take the opposite view and say that demanding something so crass as a written contract for something so important as a marriage degrades the institution, but I believe we've strayed into the realm of personal interpretation. *Goes off and hides in the "to each his own" corner.*
What is the use of a violent kind of delightfulness if there is no pleasure in not getting tired of it.
- Gertrude Stein
A washerwoman with her basket; a rook; a red-hot poker; th purples and grey-greens of flowers: some common feeling which held the whole together.
- Virginia Woolf
You're correct on both counts. I think the state "demands" the "contract" because marriage is a socially recognized relationship (in terms of legality and such); for most couples it functions as a symbol. (The more crass - but I suppose practical in some situations - document is the "pre-nup.") I don't imagine it would hold much power in an ugly argument to pull out the marriage certificate and wave it at one's partner and say "Hey - we'ver got a contract here!" Either way, it functions as a tangible reminder that the relationship is an agreement not to be taken on whim or "feeling" (just as I cannot refuse to pay my mortgage on such things).
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Rereading that I probably should have limited it to "or" what I mean by that goes to my progression to atheism from good little boy with perfect sunday school attendance record to unsure agnostic fearing lightning and thunderbolts to committed non-believer.
I used to believe in a benevolent creator, but as I grew older I began to notice all the problems in the world (not man-made here) this led to the belief that either god is benevolent but incompetent with regards to addressing this indiscriminate pain & suffering or is capable of preventing it but is disinterested in doing so. This then progressed to my current belief that there is no God.
We have discussed this previously (need for "divine authority" for law/moral code etc) I disagree that it is needed, however I fully understand that you think it is - one of those agree to disagree things I think.
Because as a society we have not yet come to the full realisation that things work better if we try and work together instead of pulling against each other (cant really go too far into reason here due to forum rules on political discussion)
By harm I mean causes a negative impact or undue mental/physical/emotional suffering. If you know a better way to assess this than observation I am willing to listen, but until we have mind reading equipment I think observation is the best way yes.
With regards to the agreement to terminate life, I may be slightly opposed to the idea of payment being offered in this respect (but that is a personal thing). However if you were of sound mental health and came to this decision that for you life was meaningless or intense pain (as in the case of medical euthanasia) I would respect your decision....I may not agree with it but I would not passjudgement on you for it.
As I said this is really influenced by my childhood, I realise for a lot of people marriage adds extra significance to the relationship. For me however it seems pointless....
I think for my last statement it really depends on what you consider required for life to be "good" I dont really need much, I live a pretty simple life so long as I have a roof over my head and I am not constantly worrying about how to pay my bills I am perfectly content. I believe I can achieve this with hard work.
And as such would go against the "no harm" belief I stated earlier. The belief itself is ok, the acting on it would not be.
You can tell me once, but if I choose to reject your advice then that is my decision to make. If you repeatedly tell me your secret to being rich then yes I would get pretty annoyed.
I dont think there are many people who have not been exposed to the main ideas of religions at somepoint throughout their lives, I have made my choice I will accept any consequences they hold in store for me.
There once was a scotsman named Drew
Who put too much wine in his stew
He felt a bit drunk
And fell off his bunk
And landed smack into his shoe ~(C) Ms Niamh Anne King
I kind of figured that you were speaking of the issue of pain and suffering here on earth. That is troubling, but God has His reasons for permitting it (just as a parent has reasons for permitting a child to experience a certain amount of failure and suffering). Granted - I'm not going to sit here and say that suffering is a good and necessary thing - but God has granted us freewill; He can't just grant freewill to those of us who want to do things His way (i.e. be loving, compassionate, fair, etc) because that means only certain people have freedom to act. I'll stop there, because that's a different discussion. I will say, though, that making the suffering issue a reason for discounting the existence of God requires us to believe that God is ignorant of our sufferings and indifferent - He is neither.
True.
OK - but my point would be that human nature is so flawed and self-interested that Christians believe that only through serving God do we begin to understand the servant-nature required to create good societies that "work together."
Your point is well taken; but I think that observable harm is often only the tip of the iceberg - that by the time you see it, already a significant amount of harm has occurred at levels apparent only at emotional and spiritual levels. "Harm" is also somewhat subjective: how do we qualify what "harm" is and its effects? Isn't that related to a moral framework?
But can we be sure of the "sound mind" thing? Why can't I just end my life if I want to? Why must it have the qualifiers of "meaningless" or experiencing "intense pain"? And why wouldn't you agree with my decision? Aren't you - at that point - rendering a sort of judgment as to the moral value of my choice?
Perhaps; but decreasing the importance of the level of commitment required will do little to repair this suffering institution.
I spoke with a bit of extremity and with considerable obscurity in terms of making my points clear. Christianity believes that a life lived without God may be gratifying, but not satisfying; C.S. Lewis pointed out that - since God created humans - humans were designed to "run" on God; any other substitute would be unfulfilling.
Point taken; but as Christ pointed out in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5-7), the motivation precedes the action - and the motivation is where the sin begins.
Fair enough (but, if judgment arrived and you faced eternal loss of heaven and eternal life, would you think kindly on he who gave up so easily in trying to avert such an outcome?)
Fair enough. I'm only trying to explain some of the intensity of Christian evangelizing - we really really believe that heaven is real and we'd like everybody there.
"I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." - C.S. Lewis
Well, you assume He has reasons for permitting suffering. Because, say, leaving hundreds of thousands dead and homeless from a tsunami seems like just the sort of thing that a benevolent God would stop if He could, or cared to.
But oddly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a universe in which God takes care of us and one in which there's no God.
Interesting.
I have no doubt that there is a god.I believe that God permitts suffering because of the fact that we screwed up so many times. Note the fact that God only let the suffering start after the first time humans sinned. Plus there are people who gain Christ through suffering. I personally would not be a Christian if it were not for having to have open heart surgery at the age of 14, I was in the hospital for over three months because the doctors made a mistake. I had to relearn how to walk. My parents were told I would die in less than a week. You know that saying about how you never forget how to ride a bike? Well my best friend had to reteach me. I never saw something miraculous but for some reason I just knew. I will never regret going to have the surgery, instead I praise that I have. I know there are many people who suffer more than myself, but there are also many who suffer less. After suffering comes compation, which is the only godly persona in suffering. God doesn't want us to suffer, he never has wanted to hurt us, he wants to help us through the suffering we get from the world. Suffering comes from the world not from God.
Posting Permissions
