http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.htmlHere’s a great article from Richard Dawkins on hostility towards religion.Question: Is religion tolerable? Is religion something that must be cured in believers, or must we give them the same intellectual respect we demand?
Everyone should go see Happy Feet!
My wife and our two boys went tonight and it was great… there is a lot of world view stuff going on behind the story line… very nicely done and a lot of fun.
Be fore warned… it starts a little slow.
r4d,
Like you I hope the two side walk away with something but even if they do not it is still profitable for something…
My wife asked me the other day why I keep checking in… I told her it is like a batting cage for me… I don’t presume anyone will hitt any home runs and there are no bases to be stolen but like Karen mentioned these “virtual” conversations are good practice for the flesh and blood ones for either side of the discussion.
TO WON2HAVE
Another question…
St.Paul liked to use the analogy of running a race in reference to the Christian life and the process of salvation.
If we for sake of argument assume that the scriptures are infact inerrant and the doctrine of predestination and of course the flip side of that… “pots made for destruction per the verse quoted above” are FACT then how do you deal with that doctrine?
… let me use Paul’s race anaolgy to set this up.
There is a young boy born without legs and while he wishes with all his heart to run, it is never to be because he was born without legs. One day he falls asleep and due to his passion he has an extremely realistic dream where in he is infact running the race. He is joyous in the euphoria of the wind in his face, the cheering crowds, and the tears of peace and comfort streak down his face. Time passes and while the joy remains the boy realizes that it is not enough to just run the race but that he must do all he can to run his BEST. While continuing to run he begins to look for ways to run better. He monitors his enviroment and technique. He studies the track and continues in good pace. The troubling thing is that while the joy of running continues the increased efforts to run better have caused his observation of the track and his world to increase and these observations slowly begin to hint at an idea he recoils at… his observations are beginning to suggest that he is in fact dreaming The boy puts these new thoughts out of his mind and relishes the race and its goal. Over time the honesty of his observations can no longer be squashed and in reluctance he awakes. To add injury to insult, upon waking he is told by those with healthy legs that he never really wanted to run and that not only was the running a dream his desire to run was fake too. The boy thinking things can get no worse is then told… “not only were you not born with legs but everyone who does not run and cross the finish line will be thrown in hell.” The boy’s head begins to spin and he cries out… “but I was born this way, you even said it was the Race Maker who made me this way, why am I to be punished I wanted to run the race for Him but was given no legs.” The healthy two legged runners holler back over their shoulders as they run into the sunset… “silly boy, we told you your desire to run was never real, it could not be, how can one without legs even desire such a thing… and regardless, who are you to question the loving GOD who created you and this race. You are but a pot with no legs. You have served your purpose you and many others like you were neccessary hurdles and obstacles for those of us with legs. You served to challenge us and display the Glory of this race and He who made it.” Shaking the boy cries out “okay, but for how long must I stay in hell?” The reply is faint from the runners now far in the distance but it explodes like a bomb upon the boys ears… “FOREVER, and EVER… ETERNITY…”. The boy’s service as a legless pot made for refuse complete, the Creator of the race appears from behind and slowly wheels the boy to the edge of his eternal fire home. The boy turns and say but “Father, Father please!” The Father without pause replies “I never knew you.”
…end of analogy.
First, I have two healthy legs so there is no connection to blaming God for a personal handicap, again I am not a victim.
Second, yes there is drama in the story but how could there not be… i would consider my use of dramatic license extremely tame under the circumstance and in complete harmony with the scriptures I quoted before and other I could quote if neccessary.
So finally again, assuming the scriptures are correct how do you deal with this? Is it just… well, he God so if that’s his plan what can I do about it, I am just glad I am not you?
I have just finished reading The God Delusion, and paid special attention to Dawkin’s discussion on religion as child abuse.
The isssue is not as simplistic as I’ve painted in some of the comments on this thread. He tends to differentiate physical abuse from phychological abuse, and claims that either can be more damaging than the other depending on the circumstances.
After reading the opinion, for what it’s worth, I am personally inclined to agree with him.
HeatheNZ,
I have the book on order… the comment I saw was on a BBC news show… is his position in the book that ALL families of faith represent a degree of abuse or does he allow that a family of faith can be abuse free with regard to the subject of faith?
thaddeus,
I think the latter. The point that I took away from the argument is that it is an abuse of responsibility to teach a child what to think; it is a parents responsibility to tach a child how to think.
He reinforces the point by castigating wider society’s willingness to label small children as Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc. What we should be saying is the these are children of parents that are classified with the above labels.
The children are too young and ignorant to warrant these labels. To apply them to small kids is to restrict their world view, skew their tendancy to inquire, and to generally do the child a disservice.
In this sense I tend to concur with his opinion.
Please, read the book. It’s an excellent read with very interesting ideas and arguments. The reviews and critiques i have read thus far have generally been poor representations of the actual contents of the book.
heathenz,
Will do! Thanks… if that is Dawkins position then it sounds much more moderate than the sound bite I saw and is something I to would tend to agree with.
R4D
Believe me when I say that I have no illusions as to the efficacy of scientific argument when dealing with theists. I have on many occasions asserted that one cannot argue against Faith.
I have mixed feelings about debating those few Christians who frequent this blog. On the one hand you have Spanders who makes a genuine attempt at reason while, on the other, you find three believers who frustrate the dialogue with obfuscation and hyperbole. They cite scripture when it suits them but ignore scripture when it doesn?t.
When I am in a generous mood it can be entertaining to watch others of superior mind attempt debate. The lack of logic inherent in most theists, coupled with their erroneous belief that they know what logic is, astounds me and leadeth me to temptation, ie., to sarcasm. The frequent facetious nature of my posts worried me, for a moment, but I have reviewed them and after much internal questioning have concluded that I was too kind.
If someone has a propensity to make ludicrous statements, it is: a requirement of The Unfaithful to ridicule said atrocities, as well as endeavour to illuminate, for the benefit of those vicarious readers whose posteriors are not too firmly perched on the fence, the falaciousosity of their ?reason?. (subsection 4-783: article 47: Unbelievers Credo)
remy,
Where can I get a copy of the Unbelievers Credo?
r4d,
Um, er…well.. it’s…um..yea in the Library of Cogress, that’s it, The Lirary of Congress. 3rd floor aisle um..21, yea, that’s it. But I think it’s closed most of the time. It’s better to just take my word for it.
i read the article and found it kinda misleading. passion?? i wonder how many passionate people are religious and want to change someone elses mind with their beliefs just like he is suggesting he does? defending hostility towards another human being, wow, to what extent is he willing to go to defend hostility?
i find it troubling that some of the respondents here who describe themselves as atheist are arguing on the meaning of “tolerence” “respect” and proper treatment of people that have a different belief than they do.
remy
I think the Credo is actually located in Area 51 of the Lirary of Cogress. Access is sealed and heavily guarded. Con’t know how you got your hands on a copy, but you muxt be one of…THE ONES.
Ah…remy, remy, remy, REMY! (the crowd cheers and bows in adulation.)
chicagorick
I think you’llfind that the subject is not concerning respect for people, but rather respect of irratinal (dangerous) ideologies held by those people. The idea being why be defferential to irrational ideas just because they are religious ideas. An idea should live or die on its own merits.
For those with a couple of hours to spare (and broadband) there’s a youtube version of Richard Dawkins reading a few sections from TGD and then taking questions from university students.
The great thing is that many of the questioners are from Liberty University (Jerry Falwell). Dawkins wipes the floor with them, even suggesting they leave Liberty and enrol in a REAL university
There’s a link to the videos on Dawkin’s site at
http://richarddawkins.net/home
THADDEUS
Great illustration.
I reconcile the following ideas about God or God’s nature.
His nature is that of Holiness.
He chooses to create. (angels, people, etc.)
Therefore He could do whatever He wanted that does not contradict His nature. (i.e He can create, He can not lie or commit idolatry due to his nature of Holiness above all else.
Quickly the quote from St.Paul’s letter to the Romans about vessel prepared for destruction needs to be understood from the context of the greek language first. There are two “preparations” that are asserted. One by God to those of righteousness, i.e. He makes them righteous. The other is of the vessels as they prepare themselves for destruction by their unbelief. In context of course this is much easier to explain but that is a brief reconciliation of a difficult passage to exegesis in a few sentences.
So to the argument that a human could run the race with endurance. It needs to be understood that there are three Biblical ideas of the one English word salvation. For instance we can not total transfer every meaning of saved from our language to the Scriptures. This is simply a matter of ethnocentric compromise to the ancient culture and language.
I am not a scholar by any means so take this with the lenses of further self study as well.
To be Justified or declared righteous.
To be Sanctified or set apart for holiness
To be Glorified or made finally into the totally saved creation. Or completely totally redeemed from all the curses of sin.
So when we see saved, salvation, be saved, things of this type of wording we have to say: saved from what, or by what or to what.
TRUNK. What does that mean. But if i say open the trunk. It becomes more clear, but still is that the car trunk or the foot locker at the end of the bed. Elephants have trunks too, but context will show me that i do not mean to open the elephant’s trunk when i ask for the spare tire.
All this is to say that the Catholic view of salvation has a strong emphasis on Justification as a result of works, which i humble, completely disagree with in the strongest way possible.
Being made righteous is glorification which does not happen until death of a believer. We are talking about Sanctification in the process of becoming set apart in our living and think and believing.
Justification is, the point in time, when a person truly trust that Jesus did pay what they owed to God, in His substitutionary death on the cross.
I really hope this is not convoluted so that it belabors the point. A person can not be saved by intellegece or wit. Nor could they then lose it that way…though a person could very well have true faith and walk away from it though whatever means, a person could have not been a believer to begin with as well. I will not say a person could know for sure either way about, someone else. But if you know that you did trust Christ them you are sealed til the day of redemption whether you believe it now or not. It really is Grace that saves people not works and so works do not them keep that salvation in tact.
sorry so long
Wordiness is my Hallmark so please to apologize make me all the more uncomfortable in my own verbose nature!!
I understand the “Golden Chain” of salvation and I am a student of Greek but you can not simply say that the Greek suggests that…
“He makes them righteous. The other is of the vessels as they prepare themselves for destruction by their unbelief”
The quote above from your response is simply not the case in this text or numerous others that speak to predestination. It clearly state it is HE who does the forming HE is the potter. You become that which you hate most if you choose to change the WORD OF GOD one dot or tittle… HE is the potter, that is why they ask “why did you make me so” Paul does not challenge their reason for asking but rather aserts they have not right to ask… why do they not have the right? Well, because the are creations. Yea, I was left a little hollow with that answer too!
Holiness? If holiness means bing able to create heartache and conscious beings that will suffer forever in the very same Hell created by this creator than you have a capability of accepting more than I.
Suffering forever as opposed to worshipping and following Manson or any other deprived consciousness… I choose suffering. Of course I know it all to be fantasy.
Again, my original question… How can you deal with this text on its face… and if you are not a Greek scholar then take a break… go study it and then come back and answer. I have and the answer was not pretty.
won2hve,
Alos to say you “reconcile” is one thing but to do so in a way that any reasonable third party would agree that you have reasonable reconciled the nature of God is a very different thing.
The scriptures layout the nature of God yet this nature is self contradictory (examples are easly referenced if you like).
Is it not also painfully obvious how hollow it is to give me the assurance that if it was genuine then I am sealed for all eternity when you are talking to the guy h=who is saying it was genuine but that I would not cross the street to shake the hand of the God described in the scriptures?
Why am I assured? Because you say so? Because someone else said so? What evidence? what basis?
You may take by bluntness about God to be an indication that I truely never loved or believed but you would be conceited and wrong in that assumption.
While I still await how you reconcile a your loving God to a Paul’s Gof that creates spiritual cripples I would also ask…
Do you feel your position deserves the respect afforded any argument of reason (regardless of the topic)? In other words do you see your position defensible by reason or purley one of faith?
Thad,
First what are some inconsistencies in God’s nature. And i do not understand what the this means
“Alos to say you “reconcile” is one thing but to do so in a way that any reasonable third party would agree that you have reasonable reconciled the nature of God is a very different thing.”
2)Yes i think there is rational logic in the way God saves people. But there is absolutely and element of faith to it as well. I do not know if there is a mutual exclusivity or anything, probably not.
Last, all i am saying is that if you really believed at one time and entered a relationship with God, he still has you though you may not care for Him.
As to the first response you suggest the golden chain. I take it this from the reformed position of interpretation regarding hearing and believing and being justified from Romans 8 or somewhere in there?
I think Scripture clearly states over and over that to be declared righteous or justified, meaning seen by God as paid for – it’s a legal term used in accounting – the person must simply place their trust for eternal life in Jesus alone. I mean it is simple to say and hard to understand.
Also Paul asserts that a person shouldn’t ask not because it is invalid or because it is whatever, merely because there is a difference in God and Man. Psalms say your ways are higher than mine. Also who can know the depths of God they are unsearchable. So you may ask whatever you wish of God. You may either not like the answer or get no answer that jives with your limitations of knowable things.
Holiness means set apart.
Satan chose to leave heaven by his attempt to be like the most high. Therefore we made in the image of God and having the nature of Adam, who fell, are finite destined to wrath beings. We are not put in Hell we are all as humans in a default position of Wrath and Hell. No one is going to Heaven from the jump, who has knowledge of God and denies Him. Babies are probably a little different in that you have to be able to believe. So i think, as David thought of his child, that we will see them in eternity.
That is the long and short of a lot of different aspects of belief and salvation.
Changing scripture is not what interpretation on the basis of context is all about. Context is who writes, when, where and what the situation is that is affecting the writing. So that is just a poor use of scripture to back up a point. It’s kind of pandering to the obvious.
Great thoughts Thad. I think they are all “aswerable” maybe not agreeable but for sure understandable.
I don’t know if it’s just me, but I have very little patience for xian biblical based meanderings such as recently posted by won2have.
I find myself reading the first few points and then drifting off in to “blah, blah, blah” land.
won2have,
To identify inconsistencies in god’s (Yahweh’s) nature, you first have to define the nature of the beast (so to speak). From my experience xian’s are unable/unwilling to do so, stating as reasons things like “our puny human brains”, “unknowable”, “blessed mystery”, “different manifestations”, etc, etc. This has always struck me as odd since they also claim to have a personal relationship with that self same god.
How is it possible to have a relationship with an entity you can’t see, hear, smell, touch, taste, or even comprehend?
It seems more likely to me that it’s all make believe.
won2have,
Your first line asked… “what are some inconsistencies in Gods nature.”
There are many but to keep things breif an focused let take one at a time, after you clear up one we can move to another, and vice versa for me (this will be fun)…
Bible states:
- God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow… he is unchanging
Bible also states…
- Men have changed God’s mind in numerous places and in fact the very doctrine of prayer could be said to encourage the idea that prayer can change God. There is the C.S Lewis view that prayer changes us not God so for this argument I will throw out prayer and stick only to the texts that say quote… God changed
Two discriptions of his nature that contridict… your serve
won2have
What does that mean, exactly, “he still has you” ?
So god still has satan too?
Well, once you’re dead, you’re pretty free from all curses, including the one about dying. Death is god. Well. I’ll be….
karen
I’m not sure about others, but my internal image on reading that line was one of a kidnapper teasing his victim with a taste of freedom, but never quite letting the captive free.
Or perhaps something akin to the Stockholm syndrome…
HeatheNZ
It conjured up for me a writhing-hands motion, with the sound of someone chortling, “Bwwa-ha-ha-HA-ha-HA-HA!!!
But I want to know what w2h’s take on it is.
Karen,
Very nice point about Satan! He was once sinless. Alos what about the sin of blaspheming the spirit ( I can get chapter and verse but it is stated it is the UNFORGIVABLE SIN”
My statements qualify for the unforgivable so how does he still HAVE me.
w2h… I sincerley would like to know your take on the last several responses including the 1st of many contradictions I shared.
Thaddeus
Yes, I have gone on record as blaspheming the spirit, so I can/may be counted as one of the unforgivable.
I also renounced my baptism, burned a bible ritualistically and remain a morally decent person without the god-compass.
Just trying to touch all the bases.
Yes, I would say HE does not HAVE you any more unless of course HE is okay with dismissing one of HIS verses but of course by my record that would not be a first
hi karen, i would like to briefly interject: i am interested in a feeling i get from you and perhaps many other atheist in the way that you say you have “blasphemed” – you say it like it is a badge of honor, as if there is a special status that you have gained from the very fact that you have blasphemed about an entity that you argue is ficticious. why does it sound like you take pride in this?
chicagorick
I think I can quite handily answer this. Theists (in this case xians) delight in trying to save heathens. They come in and tell us that all we have to do is … blah, blah, blah … Jesus will forgive us whatever we have done and grant us eternal life blah, blah, blah.
It is with some degree of satisfaction that we are able to inform them that according to their vile little book (of which they are usually fairly ignorant), a blasphemy against that rather silly little holy ghost is a sin from which there is no forgiveness.
Reference Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10 and contradicted in Acts 13:39
Hence they should stop trying to save us … please!
hello heatheNZ: thanks for your answer to this question. i think you are getting at something that i want to ask you as well. when you say “vile” and “rather silly holy ghost” you go to an interesting extent to use this language. why are you interested in belittling, and using hostility to argue your personal opinion and point of view? i ask this question of christians as well.
i think you may be in a very interesting group if you have been called a “blasphemer” as in the new testament, jesus of nazareth was also accused of the same thing.
chicagorick,
I use the word ‘vile’ to describe the bible because it accurately describes many of the stories and deeds found therein. Obviously there are many ‘good’ messages in there too, but describing it this way is just as accurate as calling it the ‘good’ book, and offers someone the opportunity to ask ‘why’.
I used the term “silly little holy ghost” because I think that use is probably sufficient to be classed as blasphemy again the spooky one. Merely reinforcing the point that xians need not bother to try to save me. I am, according to their vile little book, beyond redemption.
Hope that helps explain
chicagorick,
It is not a badge of honor with me just a statement of reality. I used to be an apologist for christianity. I state it to show it is one of many contridiction… one minute the Bible says ALL sins come under His blood the other minute there is an exception they forgot to mention earlier.
I would gladly abstain from any language you find offensive if you would agree to explain in a reasonable fashion how I can make sense of these contridictions.
However, if all we get in return is an “easy button” escape then surely you can understand how one might begin to no longer “turn the other cheek” I have not debated with you before… want to give it a try then I would welcome it but please understand that there are things worse than using belittling language and “cute” names… propogating ideas that are baseless in reason and then encouraging those ideas to be acted out in the real world is much worse. The reality is that is what Christianity does, that is what I used to do… I am the Paul of the athiest (that would have made a better handle than “thaddeus”)… anyway if you want to narrow the scope and debate and go at one inconsistancey at a time then let go. You could take a swing at the one I posted earlier to won2have and have yet to recieve a reply on.
And do please excuse us from time to time… we have a little fun with each other and welcome you to do the same.
chicagorick,
Also… as to your last line in response to heathenz…
I am familiar with the instance I am just confused about what you meant by your quote… is your position He ACTUALLY did blaspheme like karen did above, or are you saying heathenz and karen are in a class with Christ?
Just when I was getting the whole trinity thing you go and add two more to the mix… I am never going to be able to keep up
That was me having fun… and using blockquotes successfully.
chicagorick
Sorry, I was away from the ‘puter when your question came up, but HZ and thad did a pretty swell job of answering for me.
There is no pride involved. No more than say, singing “Grandma got run over by a reindeer”. And if you could hear me sing, you’d know there’s no pride involved. There’s just no club to get kicked out of with the reindeer song either. My grandma wouldn’t mind, if she were alive; neither Santa nor the reindeer mind. It’s just that big old powerful god that gets so upset if you call his silly little holy ghost names. It begs for ridicule.
As HZ said, theists want to save us.
As thad said, theists won’t-or can’t – explain the contradictions we put forth about their mighty entity and his holy manual. Almighty gawd can’t even get his own story straight.
It’s no badge of honor.
It’s just downright hard not to laugh at the contradictory piece of work sometimes.
Karen,
You mentioned one of the turning points for me… I realized one day that I would bring the full force of reason to bear on every subject but FAITH… sure, I used reason in my apologetics up to a point (i have always loved logic and debate) and then i would have to hit the “easy button”.
This was not the Staples easy button. No if you turned it over it read on the bottom…
“Hit this when you reach a seeming contradiction but have peace brother for this this is not a contradiction just a difficulty there is an answer it is just too big for your mind, His ways are not your ways”
I realized that the only thing missing but implied in this inscription was “abracadabra”.
Here was a document that I was allowing to play outside the rules of every other document in my life. I would never accept a news article with som amny factual and clerical contractions, much less a thesis paper in which the doctrinal issues turned upon themselves in so many places.
Talk about belittling… i have just as much pride as the next guy and this was not easy. Laugh, yea sure I laugh I have got to at times.
Obviously I am not sharing this JUST for karens sake although dear you would be audience enough, but rather I share in hopes this will encourage an actual reply on ONE, just ONE of the contridictions I have requested good natured debate on.
Anyone would switch banks in a second if the bank statement they sent could not keep the numbers straight and had policies that contridicted printed on the back in small letters…. YET so many of us continue to make deposits at such a BANK everyday.
thaddeus: i do not say that she is blasphemined, nor that jesus of nazareth did either – i am saying just that they have all been called blasphemers. in fact, i think by that term being used, it seems that heathenz and karen are saying that they are in the same class as christ, by definition.
let me explain a little more of what i am trying to pinpoint. i have argued with several christians and have read several atheists argue with christians, and i have often found christians to be hostile towards atheist at a certain point in the argument. it has been explained to me that christians become defensive when they are loosing an argument and they tend to call people names (like some scientists being called alcoholics, homosexuals, etc), use words like evil, and discusting, etc just as atheists seem to use on this blog towards christians. they seem to redicule atheists and those that argue for that position, just as much as some here do. it is just an interesting observation and thought i would just ask.
ew: contradictions in the bible. i cant help you much there as i do not know enough, but i think thomas aquanis answered this question. he is the theologin. i can speculate that perhaps someone may say that the language in the bible tends to be more poetry than scientific arguments and not accurate literally. in poetry, contradictions are allowable, as there is artistic freedom, but then again i am just speculating as i know nothing of god’s nature. it does seem to contradict.
I am very familiar with Aquinas but exactly how did his argument satisfy your mind? And maybe this is a mute question for you because you choose NOT to bring reason to bear on the subject… and that is your choice but by necessity you then must define your position as just an unreasonable belief, for you have not found any REASON to hold out to another as to why it is true or PROBABLY true.
Poetry and artistic works invite one to bring feelings to a subject they do not pretend to be the WORD OF GOD and as such they do not demand ABSOLUTE positions and ABSOLUTE ACTIONS from those who come to appreciate them. The Bible does demand such absolutes.
To say the Bible is poetry or literature would be fine… but being a Christian and being a lover of literature are two VERY different things. One can call themselves anything they like… I can say I am a Democrat but if in fact I vote Republican, speak Republican, and hold Republican views then, regardless of what I choose to call myself I am a Republican. All that to say, if you or anyone says they are a Christian then they are aligning themselves with a DOCUMENT-THE BIBLE and that document is very clear that to be a Christian is to claim the entire book to be inspired, absolute, and without flaw. I am not building a STRAW MAN here this is just simply what the book says in plain unpoetical terms (I can quote chapter/verse if you like). So to be a Christian you can not view the book as an open ended piece of art to which you can subscribe your unique personal beliefs and still claim the title CHRISTIAN…you can of course, but you can not and be true to the REAL definition.
If the Christian definition of the nature of God is admittedly contradictory how can you choose to shape your life and recommend it to shape the life of others? Why not take the contradictory nature of Santa Claus as your world view… or better yet, come up with a view of GOD that is NOT contradictory and is of your own making?
See, I share your aversion for name calling but I am required to acknowledge something for what it is if I want to live honestly and with intellectual integrity. If you wish to have the area of FAITH in your life as a “NO REASON ZONE” then that is fine but it is what it is… unreasonable. Why would I encourage you to reconsider? Well, I think it is VERY DANGEROUS to tell our kids, to tell our society that it is acceptable to have UNREASONED positions that ultimately work themselves out into actions and thus effect/HURT other people. If we accept unreasoned positions then we open the door to the unreasonable belief that white men are better then black men. We then are in no position to suggest that are unreasonableness in one area is okay while another who holds the unreasonable belief that women should not be allowed to vote is an idea that is wrong.
In other words, rather we like it or not the responsibility is there… we lead by example, we are not an island, if we accept that there are areas where one can just choose to be unreasonable then with that comes all the possible unreasonable ideas of the world.
Am I suggesting a Board of Reason that censors ideas… of course not, freedom of thought and speech is a necessary evil at times but at all times a necessity! I am only suggesting that to each is given a measure of reason… reason demands fairness, you wish for reason from others and thus should treat them as you choose to be treated.
Unreasoned ideas may allow for the magical and the enrapture of childish wonder at an idea that seems magical and wonderful but that comes with a heavy price… unreasonableness can then be adopted in fair play by everyone else. Drugs can bring wonderful moments of euphoria but they too come with a VERY HIGH PRICE.
What price are you prepared to pay?
by what reason do you not believe in god? there are several reasons to belive in this being, just as there is several reason not to belive in this being. reason can lead you to either conslusion. you have to make a leap of faith to conclude either. is reason the only thing that got you to not believe in god? if it is not, then you are – as you say – “very dangerous”.
in regards to my beliefs, i am neither a christian or an atheist. when i say that the bible may be a work of poetry, what i am saying is that i am speculating how something may be true to someone rather than not true which is just calming your anxiety about your lack of understanding of contradictions. when you write some of the stuff you write like “reason demands fairness” – which book do you get that from?
it is interesting to me how an atheist uses “evil” and “treat them as you wish to be treated” in their atheistic argument.
as i read through this blog, i am finding that those x christians writing here have been disalusioned by religion and are being unreasonable when arguing their points. they begin to take the christian “to the stake.”
and by the way, god and santa clause are two very different things, when you bring hyperbole into the argument you do not take your argument seriously.
and by the way: i still have not heard a reasonable argument for why atheists are so hostile toward christians.
In response to your first question above…
One, I do not believe in the Christian God as defined in the Bible becuase that document is contradictory to any rational observer, thus it would not be reasonable to claim that the definitions of the God there are correct and absolute. Please, understand I have not yet said I do not believe in a god.
Secondly, is there a god of somekind out there? Possibly… athiest simply say it is highly unprobable. It’s late and maybe tomorrow I can list a quick list of reasons why I think it most probable that it is not, but you might want to check out Richard Dawkins’ new book as it summarizes these ideas nicely.
Before books there were realities so you do not need a book to quote to make a valid statement. Reason is fair and demands fairness becasue it is a process of weighing known facts and trying to be balanced and fair to OBJECTIVE realities… some use reason and still fall short of fairness but the idea/concept is that when you or any human sets down and commits themselves to looking at objective facts and trying to draw conclusions from them they are naturally being fair. The converse of this is making decisions on slefish personal beliefs without any OBJECTIVE facts or reasons to substantiate your position.
As to hostility… Atheist are rarely hostile toward Theist… however you are correct that often times Atheist and Christians clash. I have said hostility in the sense of name calling and being rude is not productive, so you will not find me arguing for it. As to why… I suppose because it becomes frustrating very quickly when Christians want to wear the CLOAK OF REASON yet refuse to deal with any of the contradctions in their source document (THE BIBLE). Again you asked why, I am answering but not saying it is right… I am just saying I too have become very upset with someone when they want to demand respect for thier argument yet their arguement is baseless. THe competition of ideas is a meritocracy not every idea is equal in value and correctness to another… thus it really tweaks an Atheist off when a Chrsitian says this is reasonable in spite of obvious and often admitted contradictions.
You miss the point on the god / santa claus thing. Again, is there a god is a different question from is there a christian god… and most of your questions and statements have been in relation to the christians world view of a god. The santa claus story is self contradictory and obviously false on its face once the rational mind looks at it, yet as children we beleive because we just want to believe. In the same way the Christians defining document… the bible is contradictory on its face and yet like children some continue to believe just cause they WANT to believe. The analogy is valid and profitable in relating christianity and a false belief.
thaddeus: thank you very much for anwering my question. as to your statement, atheists are rarely hostile towards christians, i would tend to disagree – have you read some of the stuff on here?
there are SOME christians that come to the table with very hypicritical and often very self-absorbed arguments. there are also atheist that do the same. i am just calling people on it when i see it regardless of whether they are theists or atheists. calling people names and making fun of what people hold of high esteem is not the best way to argue a case. why do we need to discuss the bible as a vile book, when all we have to say is that we disagree with that message because there are contridictory statements contained therein?
i have not read dawsons book, but i understand that his argument covers the question of evolution and creationism. the complexity of the question of god however is more complex. but i will look for it nonetheless as he seems to be of high esteem to some atheists.
thank you again for your answer.
chicagorick,
You seem upset that I’d describe the bible as a vile book. I challenge you to describe it any other way. There is so much murder, genocide, cruelty, and abomination contained therein that I think the adjective is warranted. Especially as the xian adherents somehow manage to construe it as a good book, and are wont to describe it so.
I can be conclude that these people are ignorant of the offensive sections, or choose to concentrate only on those that are more suited to our more modern moralistic sensibilities.
i think it certainly discribes a lot of what you mentioned, there is genocide, cruelty, sex, sodomy, etc. if it is repulsive and offensive to you then ban it from the library or dont read it, act on your beliefs, but i did not think you such a prude.
It is a book that unfortunately impacts my life, and the lives of those around me. I’m strongly against banning books – any books even had I the poser to do so, and I abjure the idea of willful ignorance.
What I object to is not the contents of the book, but the mischaracterization of the tome by society in general and xianity in particular. I consider it a responsibility of any judicious individual to try to put the record straight – and dispel the myth of the bible as “the good book”.
chicagorick,
Why Oh why does it surprise so many when they encounter hostility and ridicule on this blog when it is painfully obvious that that this is an atheist blog; NoGodBlog.
Atheists are confronted daily by ubiquitous religious references. It is most often necessary to ignore these annoying superstitions for the sake of harmony at work or in public. When one finds a forum of like-minded individuals it seems only natural to vent.
As to ridicule I quote Jefferson which coincidentally is reprinted in Richard Dawkins, which I Strongly suggest you read.
As to the book being vile , I too cannot see how it could be described as anything else. Read Bishop Spong.
i agree that many people, in particular christians have
mischaracterized the bible, and i belive bishop spong’s argument follows this line.
i would agree as well that many people mischaracterize the origin of the species and extrapolate a lot of information that is not in it.
i have never refered to the bible as the good book, but if i find someone who calls it that i would be happy to ask them and get back to you about why they call it that.
chicagorick,
WWOOOAAA, I never said atheist are rarely hostile toward christians… READ CAREFULLY… I said Atheist and Theist are rarely hoistile… you misunderstand the terms if by thiest you assume ALL theist are Christians. There are many people that hold that their is a supreme being but do not hold out that the Bible has any authority to describe that God… it is those that atheist usually have a good natured debate with.
Now ask me to be good natured with a CHRISTIAN THEIST and this at times can be a more daunting task.
The book does demand vile things in the name of God and as such can not run from its own reputation if someone calls it vile.
MOST IMPORTANT… there is a big difference between be a Theist and a Christian… I am no longer either.
As to Richard Dawkins… I do not hold him in high esteem; however, the ideas he shares I do greatly appreciate and hold in esteem because they are reasonable. This is no slight on Dawkins I just quit holding men in esteem a long time ago.
Here is w2h’s take on at least this inconsistency -
1st – i believe that it is correct to state that some things are unknowable or unsearchable. I also believe if God is God then He may and is like this to some extent. ex: I have no idea how He could actually exist in all place and times at the same… time whatever that may mean. Having a personal relationship with an “enormous being” is a weird concept i definitely agree. (p.s.- if this starts to get all blah, blah, blah then stop reading and take a smoke break or something like that. That who line of thought was merely to the “ex-xtians” b/c i believe they are not possible according to scripture.)
I do not think it is inconsistent that God could be knowable and able to relate to humans however. That seems to say that anything vastly advanced and “unsearchable” is beyond our minds to every degree. I say galaxies are way beyond me and so are black holes, but not to Steven hawking, or others who study it and see how it is all possible. No, God is not a black hole, before you ever start in that direction.
So to comprehend God is to have a love or desire for Him, to believe that the Bible is true and use that perspective to enlighten your outlook on life or the world or people. It is like love or art. I can not see, taste, hear, smell or touch love. It is a feeling that has emotional knitting to the soul. So does the way music makes a person sway and reminisce or worship or whatever it does to a person.
And by worship i mean the way any person throws themselves so fully into the music that they are some how internally transformed for a bit. All music to different people has this effect on some level.
So i hope it is at least viable that the comprehending of God by people who believe Him to be comprehended to some degree is plausible. It may be circular but that should not invalidate that there is merit if the scriptures are true and evidence certain characteristics and natures of who God shows himself, especially towards humans. I guess i believe that if God reveals himself to a person he reveals himself as true and on that persons plane, if you will. I mean that a 6 year old does not “see” as you or i would or do. So God is capable them of many ways or avenues of being seen by us.
To Karen, Heathen, Thaddeus, et al:
I am not trying to save anyone, just so we are clear i am trying to be honest as to why i or possibly some other Christians believe, or have reason to believe.
Blaspheming the HS, that is really not all that big a deal…well i mean it is, but…Lets just look at it.
Matthew 12:31
“For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 12:32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven. But whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”
The part is not greater than the whole. Matthew taken in context first is one of four first hand accounts of Jesus late life. And by first hand i mean a disciple, apostle or first generation disciple. Matthew wrote primarily to show the Jews the kingly nature of Jesus as Messiah. So his audience is important. Then this particular passage is linked to the early segment of 12 which is about a kingdom divided not standing. Therefore i take this to be mostly directed towards Christians-Jews and Jews of that day. Not solely but primarily. I say this b/c Jesus cam first to the Jews. He offered them their messiah and kingdom and they rejected Him. So then he states in Matthew that he is turning to the Gentiles and in Revelation the phrase “until the fullness of the Gentiles” is used to show the way he is coming back to the Jews through the Gentiles, basically. So to Blaspheme the HS was to not as a Jew identify with Jesus as the Messiah. It would thus be unforgivable b/c He claims to be the “one who is to come and testify” or “the counselor” the one left who will bear witness to the message and revelation of the truth of what Jesus as the Christ taught.
There could very well be some direct application to the idea that a person today can reject the HS and thus “commit the unpardonable sin” But it really means that they are still “in” sin so there is nothing that is really worse about it. To die having had the available knowledge of Jesus as Christ to the Jew and Savior to the Gentile is unpardonable in that there is no more chance after death to believe it to be true.
I think this is the best i can do with this is a short space. I hope this helps clarify some.
Sorry it has taken so long to post back i was sick over the weekend. God must be mad at me! jk.
To Thad and others Re: “He still has you” & Satan
“God Still has you”. This refers to the impossibility, by nature of God, of someone who has truly become a believer to discontinue. And i do not mean to discontinue acting and believing, i mean to discontinue as a redeemed child – this is what grace is supposed to evidence. By the nature of the “Saver” not the “savee” God saves. So in God’s immutable nature he will not lie. He is bound to what He binds Himself. Again possibly seen as circular, but still no less reasonable in terms of God as the object of salvation. God will not and would not let a person “go”. Or else it would not be referred to as eternal life, it be called 5 years life or something to that affect. Ultimately the result is a person enters God’s kingdom even having lived a sub-par life according to God, which will be everyone in relationship to the potential of living perfect.
Satan is not a human. He was a created angel with choice. So i think that biblically angels have a choice as to whether they will choose to worship God in heaven even now. Lucifer the angel became arrogant, i believe b/c, God’s power had not been displayed in a more full form. So he had a brief idea of the worship God received as awesome and worthwhile to chase after himself. So in all his attempts to be like the Most High he receives what is due anything that does not worship God fully. I know this is prideful of God some would say. But, if God is God it is imperative that he be worshiped else he is not God. If something else should receive worship then that be god. But He is already, so…you can hopefully see this logic give a few presuppositions.
So Satan falls and is cast out. (Notice Satan’s decision and God’s judgment even on His created angels.) God is omnipresent, thus he is in the presence of everything at all times, even Satan. There begins a study of Revelation and end times where the presence of God is removed from parts of the “somewhere”.
please tell me if i left anything out or if the logic seems wrong.