The Atheist Corner

[Redzeppelin]

No, it is not being patronising.

It's the only possible response I have when I presented a definitive and demonstrably correct series of facts only to arrive back at:

There are hundreds of possible responses. Yours tend to be the more patronizing choice. You're not required to agree with my perception of your attitude.

See, I've utterly detroyed your assertion with concrete examples and you haven't changed the assertion one iota.

My friend, you brought foward some valid points; "utterly destroyed" I'm not sure I would agree with (but you're free to persist in the belief that you have done so).

If you're unable to stand corrected on such a simple matter, it is 100% plain that any attempt at any other discussion is doomed before it starts. That's why I give up discussing subjects with you. The point of no return, I think they call it.

And here it is.

Fair enough. This lasted longer than I anticipated, so I guess that's a good thing.

Honestly, Redzeppelin, without wanting to sound too patronizing, I think you should travel a bit (out of the US?). You'll meet tons of people who are atheists without even thinking about it one second; and for whom atheism is not a belief system but just a lack of belief in God. It's as simple as that!
But I suppose it's flattering that you absolutely want it to be a consistent and coherent world-view!

Now, "totally subjective" is probably true. Even though I find that choice of words slightly bizarre.

Perhaps. I suppose I'm still leaning on the idea that something we do or do not believe in has ramifications that stretch out around us. From where I'm standing, if one says "There is no such being as God (or gods)," then it seems to me that a few realities about that person's view of the world would tend to be consistent - at least in some ways - with other people who believe similarly. If you're both telling me that that is untrue, and that each atheist has a totally unique set of views regarding the origin of humanity and the world, the origins and content of morality, the make-up of human nature and the definition of what death means, then I guess I'm wrong. I assume that's what both of you are telling me (TA - you're excused from responding, having already left this discussion)?

I do not "want" atheism to be a "consistent and coherent world view." I was simply suggesting that the claim that atheism doesn't comprise some consistent belief motifs is incorrect. The simple rejection of God/gods carries with it ramifications that I think are more common than the Atheist wishes to admit. Once a term can be defined in whatever way one wishes, it becomes a meaningless term.

Thanks for the recommendation to travel; I will extend to you a totally nonpatronizing invitation to visit a few good churches - you might be surprized by what you hear and find there.

[Bitterfly]

If you're both telling me that that is untrue, and that each atheist has a totally unique set of views regarding the origin of humanity and the world, the origins and content of morality, the make-up of human nature and the definition of what death means, then I guess I'm wrong. I assume that's what both of you are telling me (TA - you're excused from responding, having already left this discussion)?

I suppose we all do, actually, have a unique set of views, insofar as any human being's ideas can be held as unique, of course. Most of my friends are atheists - not because I choose them on that criterium, but because I know far more atheists than believers - and we all have subtly differing sets of views, which spring from our educations, acquaintances, experiences...
There's no Book of atheism, you know.

I do not "want" atheism to be a "consistent and coherent world view." I was simply suggesting that the claim that atheism doesn't comprise some consistent belief motifs is incorrect. The simple rejection of God/gods carries with it ramifications that I think are more common than the Atheist wishes to admit. Once a term can be defined in whatever way one wishes, it becomes a meaningless term.

Ok, I get what you mean this time, and of course there are ramifications. But you are now speaking of "belief motifs", which I find less generalizing and more relevant than your earlier evocation of a "belief system".

Thanks for the recommendation to travel; I will extend to you a totally nonpatronizing invitation to visit a few good churches - you might be surprized by what you hear and find there.

Hee hee Actually I love churches (especially architecturally-wise, admittedly). But the last time I spoke with a pastor, a few weeks ago, it was a frustrating experience: he told me I would burn in hell for my lack of belief, and his only answer to most of my questions was "well, God is omniscient and omnipotent, and his ways are mysterious"... Obviously he wasn't of the most modern school of theology, but still... sometimes I have the impression that IS only answer for believers, beneath all the rationalisation.

[Redzeppelin]

But the last time I spoke with a pastor, a few weeks ago, it was a frustrating experience: he told me I would burn in hell for my lack of belief, and his only answer to most of my questions was "well, God is omniscient and omnipotent, and his ways are mysterious"... Obviously he wasn't of the most modern school of theology, but still... sometimes I have the impression that IS only answer for believers, beneath all the rationalisation.

People don't "burn" for not believing in God so much as they do for the persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's attempts to convict the individual of his/her need of God. Hell is a chosen destination. I like the way one pastor put it: "You will have to climb over Jesus Christ to get into hell - he is that determined to stop you" (although neither he nor God will override your human free will). God will do everything in His power (short of violating your free will and violating the justice inherent in His character) to stop humans from making that terrible choice. Hell isn't a sentence - it is a granting of an individual's wish to rule his/her own life, rather than lay it at the feet of Him who created everything and best knows how our lives should be conducted.

And, I'm not sure I believe that hell is composed of fire and other tortures; being separated from the source of all Good in the universe should be painful enough.

The guy who spoke to you blew it. That's not how you show someone their need of God. Sorry you had to experience that.

[Jozanny]

That is, I believe, more in touch with an original intent of the thread, and raises some potentially interesting questions. See, I may have nothing against the belief of others and their right to conduct the matters of their private life in accordance with that belief, but I do oppose:

1) The fact that certain amount of money off the taxes we all pay in many officially secular countries is given to religious institutions (which does not mean only the religion of the majority).
If secularity is supposed to function on separation of Church and State, in which State shall not go against Church in sense of prohibiting its activities, but also not favour any religious institution, in sense of aiding it (esp. financially!), is this not violating it? Should not religious institutions be financially suppported strictly by their adherents?
Share your views on how this functions in your country.

2) The fact that, financially, religious institutions are again in some officially secular countries being given priviledges regarding taxes on property and being exempted from those. Again, financial favouring of religious institutions.

3) The fact that many officially secular countries teach Religious Education in public schools, in sense that RE is not a neutral teaching of world religions, but teaching the religion of the majority (or minority, if they organise it for themselves) for the religious majority, from the religious perspective, involving religious practice in those classes (prayers, for example), and religious symbols displayed in those classrooms (cross on the wall, for example).
Should not that kind of RE, even if it is often technically elective, be removed from public schools?

4) The fact that in some officially secular countries which teach RE as described in the point above the presence in those classes is nearly mandatory, or that those classes are intentionally put in the midst of the school day, which creates problem for young children who in some cases do not have guidance, supervision and organised activity instead of RE during that time? Speaking from my own personal example, whilst living in Croatia. The situation there is still the same. Which means that many parents who otherwise would not want their children to attend RE, still send their kids to RE because they fear that their children will be discriminated against by their colleagues on the grounds of religion (and/or nation, remember that I am speaking for Croatia, the territory of ex-Yu), because they worry something will happen to them (in case of young children) since they are not supervised during that time and may as well leave school, etc.

So yeah, officially, RE is not mandatory; but people are well 'blackmailed' to send their children to attend it (so you have 99% of kids who attend it, only half of whom are from religious families; in my class I was the only one who did not attend it). And I am pretty sure this happens in other countries as well, here in Italy it is not drastically different either.

5) The fact that teachers of that kind of RE in some secular countries are paid not by their religious institution, but by Ministry of Education, which is again financed by money from mine and everyone else's taxes.
Sorry, it is not alright that I finance them with my money.

6) The fact that religious symbols are still widely presented in some public schools in officially secular countries. You know, the picture of Pope, crucefices, that kind of things. (And it is not the case in which religious symbol is artistic heritage or part of the architecture of the building.) Seen with my own eyes, in three countries. Public schools, I repeat. Secular countries, I repeat. Cannot emphasise that enough.

7) The fact that in many secular countries there is open identification of nationality and religion (e.g. Italian=Catholic, in Croatia that is even worse, just two examples), in public speeches people make (I personally heard a speech as a child on some non-religious occassion, it went like this: "So I welcome you, as Italian and as Catholic..." ), public associations (press, etc), and so on.

8) The fact that many secular countries' laws are under the influence of religious viewpoint of a majority on certain issues (e.g. abortion, assisted suicide, you know, the usual set of controverse ethical dilemmas).
Take a look at this way. If somebody is religious and her religion forbids her to abort, fine, but why should her religion forbid me to abort, based on their teachings I do not even believe in? Just an example - I certainly do not want this to turn into thread on any of the ethical issues in specific. But that is the logic behind - the logic is "G-d is against that", ergo it must be forbidden by the law. If the logic were "It is a medical consensus that aborting at any point is a murder of a person", I would not have nearly as much problem about it as I would have if the logic were of religious nature. And many ethical dilemmas in our society, especially regarding bioethics, are exactly of religious nature, where religion has more to say than professionals in the field.

What do you think about it? What is the extent to which religious majority has the right to influence everyday life of religious minorities or atheists in officially secular countries?
(Jozanny, I hope this is more to a point, feel free to move it into different directions if you had principally something else in mind. )

I bring up most of aa's post again because it is relevant to my desire for social observation over and above the strident apologia for Christianity, which is the card Red and his adversaries keep playing, to score points more than to engage in reasonable debate, I suspect, which is why I am ignoring most of it.

aa brings up social contructs relevant to both Europe and America, and one that the US certainly doesn't solve through its separation doctrine--though I'd argue that it solves it culturally through turning materialism into a modern form of Christianity.

In addition to aa's acknowledged web which still exists between state and established orthodoxy, does the rise of the modern atheist as cultural critic simply lead to more polarization, or is something else occurring?

[The Atheist]

In addition to aa's acknowledged web which still exists between state and established orthodoxy, does the rise of the modern atheist as cultural critic simply lead to more polarization, or is something else occurring?

Good question!

I would expect secular humanism and christianity to be almost blood-brothers, but I find that moderate christians are far more likely to empathise with a YEC fundy than a secular humanist. That encourages me to think that the polarisation will only get worse and that we might eb actively encourgaing it.

There's a dangerous element in play in the creation of the divide between atheists and theists; that the atheist side is dominated by intellectuals. Intellectuals always attract antis for no other reason than their intellectuality. When the main voices of anti-theism are Dawkins, Dennett, Attenborough and other 20th century intellectuals, I think there's a genuine chance of turning people the wrong way. The same thing has happened with pseudoscience and alt medicine - as they have become more scientifically improbable, the number of people subscribing to various forms of them has increased.

In NZ, Australia, and I think UK, the only churches growing are the YEC/fundy ones. These churches ought to have died out with Galileo, yet they are the ones picking up new members.

Is it a case of "any publicity is good publicity" meaning that intellectuals standing up and rubbishing religion is actually driving the growth of the worst type of christianity?

That'd be rather ironic.

[mangueken]

I've been reading this thread here and there and I agree, Jozanny, with your last post. It provides a much more interesting debate to stick on the topic you originally raised. There is definitely a contradiction between supposedly secular public institutions and religious ones. I recently read an article (that I will have to search for and post later if anyone is interested) from Scientific American about a study of bio types that seem to favor religious / conservative or liberal / atheist views.
Ironic that there may be a natural cause to these views. You might also want to check out this link about another study related to evolution and belief : http://scienceblogs.com/gnxp/2008/10...nt=channellink

I look forward to participating more in the thread if it sticks to the lines you set out. And I'll leave a question that I have been thinking over recently that will hopefully spark something you're interested in.
Why do religious people, in general, feel it is safe to attack biology and evolution, specifically, and not physics? Could it be that you actually have to understand scientific concepts and an immense amount math to even know what to argue against?

[The Atheist]

Why do religious people, in general, feel it is safe to attack biology and evolution, specifically, and not physics? Could it be that you actually have to understand scientific concepts and an immense amount math to even know what to argue against?

I hadn't noticed that. I've spoken to any number of christians who try to claim the universe is an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ignorance of any branch of science doesn't seem to slow the flow.

Great link, too, thanks.

I like this:

The main reason why people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive.

[mangueken]

I hadn't noticed that. I've spoken to any number of christians who try to claim the universe is an exception to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Ignorance of any branch of science doesn't seem to slow the flow. :

Yeah, but there is, by far, a more consistent attack on evolution. biologist are accused of things like shoddy scientific methods and being a cause for moral degeneration in a way that geologists, physicists and other sciences are not.
I find that most of the creationist arguments against evolution, no matter how "scientifically" they dress it up has much more to do with the implications of the mechanism of natural selection. It takes the specialness or "chosen" status away. I think for religious people that is the most disturbing thing. If I am not special than what reason do I exist?
Even though biologists use the same scientific method as other sciences the results of most others don't have such apparent philosophic or existentialist meaning in people's lives. Other sciences just don't lend themselves to these types of questions which can easily be translated into politics in our society.

I've started reading the book, Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism. I'm still in the beginning but it covers a lot of the history of the creationists ideas and thinkers as well as answering specific attacks from the ID / creation side.

[The Atheist]

Yeah, but there is, by far, a more consistent attack on evolution.

Must be a US thing. YECs are a bit thicker on the ground there than elsewhere.

I think for religious people that is the most disturbing thing. If I am not special than what reason do I exist?

More importantly, only bible literalists dispute evolution anyway. The RCC and all mainstream churches accept that evolution occurred, so there's no trouble to their faith. Literalist religions insist that evolution is wrong, so they must make up arguments against it because if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong.

[Redzeppelin]

I bring up most of aa's post again because it is relevant to my desire for social observation over and above the strident apologia for Christianity, which is the card Red and his adversaries keep playing, to score points more than to engage in reasonable debate, I suspect, which is why I am ignoring most of it.

Oh please. Any apologetics that showed up here are a result of comments directed at me that required me to offer up some clarification.

I'm not sure the last time I participated in a thread where the initiating poster wanted to complain so much that the thread wasn't going to his/her liking. As I said earlier: you don't own this thread; you don't get to dictate its contents; you do not get to suggest where you think posters should go; and, you don't get to "preside" over the postings and then render your judgment as to who is really here to "debate" and who's here to "score points." How condescending of you. If you wish to have such authority and control, go start your own bulletin board debate site and have at it. Lit Net is already owned and run by someone else who is not you.

Question: why am I and my "adversaries" (uh, that would be you and Atheist, I guess) "playing" the same "cards"? Does that mean that you're merely trying to "score points" too? Shame on you for accusing me of what you (at least by your words) are doing as well!

[DapperDrake]

Nice there's nothing like a little heated debate.

I'm at work now but i'll be sure to come back and join in when I get home

[DapperDrake]

People don't "burn" for not believing in God so much as they do for the persistent rejection of the Holy Spirit's attempts to convict the individual of his/her need of God. Hell is a chosen destination. I like the way one pastor put it: "You will have to climb over Jesus Christ to get into hell - he is that determined to stop you" (although neither he nor God will override your human free will). God will do everything in His power (short of violating your free will and violating the justice inherent in His character) to stop humans from making that terrible choice. Hell isn't a sentence - it is a granting of an individual's wish to rule his/her own life, rather than lay it at the feet of Him who created everything and best knows how our lives should be conducted.

This isn't what my pastor told me when I was a church goer, the impression that I got was that ultimately God already knows who is saved and who isn't and basically won't do anything to try and reach those who aren't saved.
I'm sure I've not done what my pastor said justice but that's the sum of it. He's an evangelist btw but a pretty smart guy, he just finished his second degree and his theology library is impressive.

More importantly, only bible literalists dispute evolution anyway. The RCC and all mainstream churches accept that evolution occurred, so there's no trouble to their faith. Literalist religions insist that evolution is wrong, so they must make up arguments against it because if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong.

Well perhaps some churches take this view, the spread of approaches and beliefs is actually quite broad in Christianity. Of course each faction insists that they are right and that the others are all wrong To be honest I've not found a Christian who actually wants to express an opinion on evolution and its ramifications (if any) for the Christian faith.
My point is its not really as simple as bible literalists and non-literalists. Most recognise that the bible is not a literal document, full of metaphor and allegory, and at best gives (in a direct sense) only a vague and obscure picture of God and Christ. Few will actually say that though, most "handle" the issues by simply avoiding them and having faith.
Also, is it your assertion that " if one part of the bible's wrong, it's all wrong." because that's not logical, or were you just echoing the beliefs of fundamental bible literalists?

I should say that I live in the UK, I've never met an overt bible literalist and I have in the past been members of evangelical churches, the largest of which had over 400 members and 4 pastors. For most Christians I've met theology and theological debate are almost taboo, you simply have faith or you don't. So arguments against literalist christian faith is pretty much irrelevant to Christianity in the UK (in my experiance).

Why do religious people, in general, feel it is safe to attack biology and evolution, specifically, and not physics? Could it be that you actually have to understand scientific concepts and an immense amount math to even know what to argue against?

Well, I am not ignorant of science, my A-levels were Physics, Maths, and biology. I've also had a fair amount of experiance of the levels of scientific understanding of your average Christian (having been a Christian myself for a few years), so i'm possibly reasonably qualified to venture an opinion here.

Firstly, and this is a generalisation, Christians don't know much about science - at all, that is my experiance, I have asked plenty of Christians their opinions about scientific issues and to even bring up such issues usually gets you a slightly stung look and they pull back, if you probe their scientific knowlege its actually virtually not existant. I found this pretty frustrating you can imagine, an ex-athiest scientifically educated new Christain is going to want to discuss a lot of scientific and phiosophical issues

Why attack biology and not other areas of science? well its simply that to the general non-scientific public, of which Christians are a part, physics is a vague unknown which has no bearing on real life (not true but thats the perception) so it's harmless and irrelevant to the religion of your average Christian.
Biology is something we can all grasp though (mostly badly in my experiance) but we all see nature documentaries and medical documentaries and dramas - biology is much more a part of the public domain, and its more interesting because it's relevance to "us" (Joe public) is immediately apparent.
Also of course biology makes the most stunning and interesting claims and does so with the weakest of proofs (compared to math and physics), the theory of evolution is an obvious extention of our observation of nature but despite our growing understanding of genetics and the vast circumstancial evidence we sill can't really prove that it works. Plenty of room for peope who are largly ignorant of science to (rather foolishly) try and argue against it because it might, from a certain point of view, contradict something they believe in.

don't forget though it used to be the other way around it was physics that was being attacked, Galileo for example - but that was when physics was still theorising about things that were readily graspable by the layman and that had obvious impact on the theology of the day.

[Redzeppelin]

This isn't what my pastor told me when I was a church goer, the impression that I got was that ultimately God already knows who is saved and who isn't and basically won't do anything to try and reach those who aren't saved.
I'm sure I've not done what my pastor said justice but that's the sum of it. He's an evangelist btw but a pretty smart guy, he just finished his second degree and his theology library is impressive.

That's Calvinism and Calvinism is in direct conflict with the Bible. Paul says numerous times in the NT that we are to "choose" who we wish to serve; that we must make a "choice" to follow God. If such things have already been decided, the Bible is lying.

A close reading of the NT will tell us that God made the ultimate sacrifice - his Son Jesus Christ - to allow us all the ability to be saved and to be in heaven. Period. The crucifixion provides a blank check to anybody who wishes to accept the gift by accepting Jesus Christ as their savior. That kind of sacrifice does not need to come from a God who has already decided who is to be saved and who is not.

I don't care how big the guy's library is - he's flat out wrong and he will be held accountable someday for the wrong way he has portrayed God and the gospel.

[DapperDrake]

yeah, but God already knows who is going to cash the cheque.

I remember a bit better what my pastor was saying now, it was something along the lines of there being people who just simply weren't destined to cash that cheque (continuing the metaphore) and that even if those people want to there is nothing they can do about it - they can go through the motions of trying to believe, going to church, accepting Jesus etc.. but that in their heart they simply aren't capable of accepting the gift. He was basing it on some part of the bible but I don't remember well enough to give detail.

I can see where he was coming from, its not as simple as cashing a cheque after all. you have to actually genuinely believe right? just saying that you accept and believe isn't enough. So there must be people who want to believe and go through the motions but can't actually really believe. To be honest I thought that was pretty harsh, after all, why would God create people who he know couldn't be saved?

I found that pretty striking which is probably why its stuck with me, after all If correct it surely means that many church goers are not "real" Christians who are saved. Which is frankly at once bizarre, scary and plausible.

Edit: I just looked up Calvinism and that sounds pretty much like it, though my pastor never said the word Calvinism.

[teleios]

That's Calvinism and Calvinism is in direct conflict with the Bible. Paul says numerous times in the NT that we are to "choose" who we wish to serve; that we must make a "choice" to follow God. If such things have already been decided, the Bible is lying.

Just wanted to point out that not just Paul, but also Jesus talks about how we need to choose who we serve and some of the choices we have to make in life. I'm in complete agreement with you here.

yeah, but God already knows who is going to cash the cheque.

It'd be hard to have an omniscient God without Him knowing that as well (unless you hold that the future doesn't exist yet - which I don't agree with).

So... correct.

I remember a bit better what my pastor was saying now, it was something along the lines of there being people who just simply weren't destined to cash that cheque (continuing the metaphore) and that even if those people want to there is nothing they can do about it - they can go through the motions of trying to believe, going to church, accepting Jesus etc.. but that in their heart they simply aren't capable of accepting the gift. He was basing it on some part of the bible but I don't remember well enough to give detail.

There are people that God knows will not cash the check. Calling it destiny would be a misnomer; think of it another way. The government sends out $500 rebate checks to everyone in the country. Some people cash it. Some people dump it onto their desk and wait too long to cash it, rendering it void. Other people are just too lazy to cash it or don't really understand the value of money, so they don't even bother trying to cash it.

If someone truly tries to accept the gift, they will be able to. Period.

God knows who makes what choice. Just because He has that knowledge, doesn't mean He made you make the choice. Oh, the joy of being an eternal omniscient being! Personally, I'd be scared if I could understand God perfectly, and am glad little conundrums like this come up.

Your Pastor was undoubtedly quoting from Ephesians or Romans, taking it out of context with the rest of the bible.

I can see where he was coming from, its not as simple as cashing a cheque after all. you have to actually genuinely believe right? just saying that you accept and believe isn't enough. So there must be people who want to believe and go through the motions but can't actually really believe. To be honest I thought that was pretty harsh, after all, why would God create people who he know couldn't be saved?

Not so much that they can't, but that they don't really want to. Regarding your last statement, you will have a Calvinist answer it by quoting from Romans, saying God made some 'vessels' for honor, and some for dishonor, to show His glory. I agree wholeheartedly with you though.

I found that pretty striking which is probably why its stuck with me, after all If correct it surely means that many church goers are not "real" Christians who are saved. Which is frankly at once bizarre, scary and plausible.

I think we will be surprised by the number of non-church-goers we will see in heaven, as well as by the number of church-goers absent. (I'm not saying church isn't an important part of Christianity though!)

Edit: I just looked up Calvinism and that sounds pretty much like it, though my pastor never said the word Calvinism.

They like the word 'Reformed' nowadays. There are some among the Christian crowd that 'see red' when they hear the word calvinist, much like communism and the soviets back in Nixon's day.

As a final note, I have nothing against Calvinists, I merely disagree with some of their doctrine. One of my best friends is a Calvinist, and is always a source of many entertaining (and revealing) debates.