Atheism is irrational

[Gilbert_Keith]

rivertim

Its a pity that a man who believes in God will only do the right thing, or not do the wrong thing, because he is afraid for his immortal soul. Why can’t he do it just because it is the right thing to do as a reasoning and thinking human person with experience and knowledge to guide him?

He does do it because it’s the right thing to do. He also does it because he does not want to destroy his immortal soul, just as a man will eat the right food not just because it is the right food, but also because he is afraid the wrong food will destroy his body. The notion that Christians do not do things for the right reason is patently absurd. Actions have consequences, a principle that atheists seem oblivious to when they calculate the fate of their immortal souls, just because they believe they have no immortal soul.

An atheist does not need to think twice because he has no fear of the supernatural and acts as a human should act - by using reason applied to every individual situation as it occurs.

Criminals, as a rule, also have no fear of supernatural reprisal … but they don’t use “reason applied to every individual situation as it occurs.” Go into any prison and watch how many prisoners go to chapel.

Very few indeed.

 

[Suat]

Criminals, as a rule, also have no fear of supernatural reprisal … but they don’t use “reason applied to every individual situation as it occurs.” Go into any prison and watch how many prisoners go to chapel.

Very few indeed.

I think that you are using a very broad definition of atheism here. People can be religious without going to chapel, just as they can believe in God without believing in your specific one. By chance, do you know the religious affiliations of prisoners in general? I do not, but I suspect it will be approximately the same as the population they tend to come from.

 

[Mirdath]

You must stop asking ridiculous questions if you intend to engage me any further. A man who believes in God but is tempted to great evil just **might **think twice if someone pleads with him to consider the fate of his immortal soul. An atheist has no need to think twice because he thinks he has no immortal soul.

If you can’t show that someone’s intended actions are evil without an appeal to the immortal soul, you can’t show that they’re objectively evil, period. You can only say they’re evil according to Christianity (or another religion that believes in the existence of the immortal soul). Would you try to dissuade one of the 9/11 hijackers by appealing to the fate of his soul? He’d laugh in your face; according to his beliefs, such actions ensure his place in heaven!

If the fear of eternal torment is the only thing keeping someone from committing atrocities, there’s clearly something very wrong with that person.

Read more history.

Physician, heal thyself. I read plenty.

“If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?” The answer is apparent to anyone with common sense, and the prisons are full of the proof."

The prisons full of people subscribing to various religions, you mean?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Mirdath

If you can’t show that someone’s intended actions are evil without an appeal to the immortal soul, you can’t show that they’re objectively evil, period.

You can do both. You can show that certain intended actions are objectively evil and at the same time warn that such actions have consequences for the immortal soul. The atheist has only to worry about the sheriff, who may or may not catch him. The theist has to worry about the sheriff, but also about God, who he knows will surely catch him in the act even if the sheriff doesn’t. This is why Franklin’s remark about what the world would be like without religion is so full of common sense.

The prisons full of people subscribing to various religions, you mean?

No, the prisons full of men who never go to chapel. Religious affiliation has nothing to do with being religious. Hitler could call himself a Catholic while plotting the demise of Christianity (not to mention Judaism). A person can call himself a Democrat or a Republican without every casting a ballot (I’ve known quite a few over the years). A con man can call himself a licensed physician without going to medical school. Liars abound, and there are plenty of liars in prison. It’s mostly because of their lies that they are in prison, lies they have told others and lies they have told themselves. The liars are the one who name their religious affiliation but never go to chapel and never pray … as if God does not exist … in other words, they are practical atheists (a=without, theos=god).

If you don’t believe this, ask the chaplain at your nearest prison what percent of the total prison population show up for religious services.

Would you try to dissuade one of the 9/11 hijackers by appealing to the fate of his soul?

This is the usual retort of atheists, to take the most extreme case of religious fanaticism and make of it an argument against religious morality. As Franklin implied, we do not have a perfect world with religion. What then would it be like without religion?

Unfortunately, the Russians found out under the atheist Joseph Stalin … an unmitigated living hell far and away more abominable than any 9/11 hijacker could have invented.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

People can be religious without going to chapel…

But prisoners go to chapel to join their prayers with the prayers of others. If they do not go to chapel, how likely is it that they pray at all? And if they do not pray, they cannot be religious.

I never take religious affiliation as a sign of true religiosity. The devil always wears a halo in public. Why shouldn’t he, since he is an inveterate liar?

 

[Suat]

But prisoners go to chapel to join their prayers with the prayers of others. If they do not go to chapel, how likely is it that they pray at all? And if they do not pray, they cannot be religious.

I never take religious affiliation as a sign of true religiosity. The devil always wears a halo in public. Why shouldn’t he, since he is an inveterate liar?

Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.true

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

Unfortunately for you, the source you just cited, Antony Flew, is no longer an atheist. Having admitted himself wrong on that score, he might be as wrong on any other score, including whether no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

In any case, the words of Jesus in Matthew 25 are a sufficient proof that you can **call **yourself a Christian without being one.

 

[Suat]

Unfortunately for you, the source you just cited, Antony Flew, is no longer an atheist. Having admitted himself wrong on that score, he might be as wrong on any other score, including whether no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.

Apparently I was too subtle. What I linked to stands regardless of Flew’s current religious beliefs. Christian has a very broad definition as one who beliefs in Jesus as the Christ and tries to follow his moral beliefs and teachings. Those beliefs and teachings have a basis in the Bible and are open to interpretation (whether personal or through an institution). If I remember correctly, Mirdath has given you some names of famous cases involving those who profess themselves to be Christians. Yet you persist on either ignoring the posts or redefining Christian in order to claim that they are not true Christians. This is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

We also know that Christians are not perfect and do sin. What is to stop those sins from being illegal as well as immoral?

In any case, the words of Jesus in Matthew 25 are a sufficient proof that you can **call **yourself a Christian without being one.

Of course you can call yourself a Christian without being one. Where do we draw the line though? Is believing that Jesus was Christ enough to qualify one as Christian? Or are you only Christian if you believe exactly as Gilbert Keith does?

You seem to be leaning towards the latter, restricting the definition of Christian to those who lead the life that you define as Christian, regardless of their beliefs on the matter. If they believe themselves to be Christians, why should I accept your definition of Christian over theirs? How do I even know that you are a Christian? By some definitions, you do not qualify.

 

[ribozyme]

Of course you can call yourself a Christian without being one. Where do we draw the line though? Is believing that Jesus was Christ enough to qualify one as Christian? Or are you only Christian if you believe exactly as Gilbert Keith does?

Are you talking about Luboš Motl as he counts himself as a “Christian atheist”.

Much like Fallaci, I count myself as a Christian atheist.

 

[Mirdath]

"Montalban:

Are you making this as a statement of belief? If so, how is it that we have ‘free will’ without reference to a greater power? It is my belief that we have free will because of an all powerful god. For instance, if we believed in a Hindu god, one created after the universe this would mean that he’s not all powerful, being subject to the universe which came before him.

Sorry I missed this post skimming through the thread

I say humans have free will because I cannot see any greater powers interfering with our ability to choose. An interesting idea on the subject is ‘free won’t’: any time one has to make a decision, the mind automatically comes up with a list of best possible options with what’s immediately perceived as ‘best’ at the top – but unlike animals, we can choose plan B, C, D, or whatever, since we may have different goals and motives beyond simple self-preservation. That’s probably best left to another thread though.

That’s not true. Because there is disagreement over the truth doesn’t mean that a person doesn’t know the truth… or let me put it another way. I have an object in the middle of the room. I ask 10 people what it is. 9 say it’s a chair. 1 says it’s an elephant. Whilst the 1 person might be correct and the 9 are wrong, or visa versa we can’t say that all are wrong simply because there is disagreement. Nor could we say “We’ll never know the truth, because there is disagreement”.

Now make the chair/elephant invisible and intangible. It’s a lot harder to find out the truth – nobody can say any side is wrong, but they can’t prove their opinion right either. And some people might come in and say ‘there’s nothing in the room!’.

You can do both. You can show that certain intended actions are objectively evil and at the same time warn that such actions have consequences for the immortal soul. The atheist has only to worry about the sheriff, who may or may not catch him. The theist has to worry about the sheriff, but also about God, who he knows will surely catch him in the act even if the sheriff doesn’t. This is why Franklin’s remark about what the world would be like without religion is so full of common sense.

Non-theists have consciences too – and while theirs may not be founded upon a fear of divine retribution, they can be just as functional and demanding as that of the most rigid theist.

The theist should act morally out of love for God, not fear of torment, right? Fear as a motivation to behave, while it works, is hardly the mark of true righteousness – it’s for children who do not understand deeper ramifications. Same for non-theists, except that, not believing in God, they act morally out of love for one another. This does not make the ethical actions of a theist any ‘better’ than those of a non-theist, or more likely to happen.

No, the prisons full of men who never go to chapel.

Going to chapel is actually one of the easiest ways to get brownie points for prisoners, whether towards better treatment or parole hearings – it’s quite popular. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily make any of them more or less religious; but some people do in fact ‘get religion’ while imprisoned.

 

[ribozyme]

Going to chapel is actually one of the easiest ways to get brownie points for prisoners, whether towards better treatment or parole hearings – it’s quite popular. Of course, this doesn’t necessarily make any of them more or less religious; but some people do in fact ‘get religion’ while imprisoned.

I am sure that is how Kent Hovind will get some time off of “good behavior”.

 

[Montalban]

Sorry, I don’t think this is a very good example. I doubt if any person who was abused, and then perpetrated the same abuse onto someone else would think that they were doing something good. They may be able to justify it because of their past but it would not be ‘good’ by anybody’s standards.

You’re just guess based on your own concept of good

My use of the word ‘experience’ is in terms of accessing good and evil examples to aid our conscience to discriminate between right and wrong.

How do you know what is good and evil ?

Again, I don’t think your example addresses what I was saying because I haven’t talked about actions that are best for someone at the expense of another as being good.

It doesn’t matter as whether it’s *good *or bad still hasn’t been addressed by you either.

No, I don’t think people should do things or justify their actions just because their actions make them happy or satisfied.

Then what?

I was saying that the good in people is from their nature as humans rather than being derived supernaturally or from religion.

Our nature, without reference to God? So did it evolve? If it did, then it’s still subject to change.

People should be able to act in a good way or stop from acting in an evil way just because it is the right thing to do and not because they are afraid of retribution or because a book or religion told them it was right. This to me is the more rational way of living.

Great, but you’ve still not said *why *it’s good.

You’re just saying “I think we should be doing good, and that’s natural”, without saying *why *it’s good.

 

[Montalban]

Sorry I missed this post skimming through the thread

I miss bits all the time. No problem.

I say humans have free will because I cannot see any greater powers interfering with our ability to choose. An interesting idea on the subject is ‘free won’t’: any time one has to make a decision, the mind automatically comes up with a list of best possible options with what’s immediately perceived as ‘best’ at the top – but unlike animals, we can choose plan B, C, D, or whatever, since we may have different goals and motives beyond simple self-preservation. That’s probably best left to another thread though.

Ultimately, if there is no God (or a super-natural force), then all there is is the material. If there’s only this then you can’t have ‘free will’ in any absolute sense because your ‘free will’ is governed by the material.

Imagine if you will that we discover the ‘chemical’ for ‘free will’ (given that chemicals are material and able to exert measurable results). We could then alter your sense of ‘free will’.

This isn’t that far off what some atheists-materialists believe. Richard Dawkins believes that our sense of religion is genetic. He also compares religious feeling to a disease.

Or, it could be that magnetic fields are affecting your mind to give you a sense of free will. The material world is offering you a delusion of free will.

Now make the chair/elephant invisible and intangible.

How do I make an invisible elephant?

It’s a lot harder to find out the truth – nobody can say any side is wrong, but they can’t prove their opinion right either. And some people might come in and say ‘there’s nothing in the room!’.

We can feel the effect of darkness (or the absence of light). Only light is measurable. Darkness is not, because it is a state of absence of light. Darkness is therefore intangible, AND non-material.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

You seem to be leaning towards the latter, restricting the definition of Christian to those who lead the life that you define as Christian, regardless of their beliefs on the matter.

Well well, aren’t we getting a little testy here?

A person’s beliefs mean nothing if they are not acted upon. I have already made this clear in the examples I gave above. People lie both to others and to themselves about who they are. Jesus made this abundantly clear in his censure of the Pharisees. He discounted them as truly religious men. Perhaps you didn’t get around to reading that part of the Gospels?

We also know that Christians are not perfect and do sin. What is to stop those sins from being illegal as well as immoral?

Nothing at all. I never said Christians don’t commit crimes. They do. What we were discussing, if I’m not mistaken is the question raised by Franklin: "If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?

Recently I saw a foul-mouthed young man wearing a T-shirt bearing the words “Legalize Crime.”

Do you think it more likely that this person was a Christian or an atheist?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Fear as a motivation to behave, while it works, is hardly the mark of true righteousness – it’s for children who do not understand deeper ramifications. Same for non-theists, except that, not believing in God, they act morally out of love for one another.

Oh, I see, atheists make better lovers!

So that must be why we have all these atheist hospitals tending to the sick and atheist food-drives for the hungry and atheist shelters for the homeless and atheist donations for the poor and atheist prison ministries.

Fear as a motivation to behave, while it works, is hardly the mark of true righteousness –

As a matter of fact, this has been a Catholic teaching long before you were born, that fear is a motive to do good, but that the highest motive is to do good because God wants us to be truly righteous. Fear is an imperfect motive that often leads us to the more perfect one. But there is nothing unreasonable or unworthy in not eating bad foods out of fear of illness or death. By the same token, it is not unworthy of us to want to be righteous because we are afraid of the consequence of being evil. That alone has kept many a man and woman out of jail, don’t you think?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Suat

Is believing that Jesus was Christ enough to qualify one as Christian?

No! Faith without works is dead. Read your Bible.

 

[Montalban]

Suat

Is believing that Jesus was Christ enough to qualify one as Christian?

No! Faith without works is dead. Read your Bible.

And
Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

 

[Suat]

Well well, aren’t we getting a little testy here?

I would pick amused over testy. I rarely meet someone who actually views the world in black and white.

A person’s beliefs mean nothing if they are not acted upon. I have already made this clear in the examples I gave above. People lie both to others and to themselves about who they are. Jesus made this abundantly clear in his censure of the Pharisees. He discounted them as truly religious men. Perhaps you didn’t get around to reading that part of the Gospels?

Perhaps you are forgetting that I do not consider the Bible the word of god? Or perhaps you are forgetting that other Christian denominations do not think that both faith and works are necessary. If you want to quibble about the meaning of specific passages in the Bible, then feel free to take it up with them. However, until you can both reach an understanding as to what the Bible actually says, do not expect me to take accept your definition of Christian over theirs.

No! Faith without works is dead. Read your Bible.

Which version?

There are plenty of Christian denominations that state that faith alone is necessary in order to get into heaven. However, you appear to believe that only those who have the exact same beliefs as you do qualify as Christians. That is fine, but do not expect me to revise my definition of Christian just because you want to restrict it to exclude denominations you disagree with. As I have pointed out before, this is the no true Scotsman fallacy.

What we were discussing, if I’m not mistaken is the question raised by Franklin: "If the world is so bad with religion, what would it be like without religion?

You are mistaken. I have not addressed the quote.

 

[Suat]

Are you talking about Luboš Motl as he counts himself as a “Christian atheist”.

No, I had not previously known about Motl’s religious preference. I was asking for further clarification on how strictly Gilbert Keith wanted to define Christian. Apparently his definition excludes numerous Christian denominations.

 

[Suat]

Matthew 7:21
"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

Yes, but if I am not mistaken, those who believe in faith alone look to Peter and Paul’s works for scriptural support:

Rom 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

Acts 2:21
And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved…

Who is correct? I do not know, nor do I really care. I suspect neither. However, other Christian denomination read the same book and come to a different conclusion as to the need for faith vs works. Therefore, I do not think that you can define Christians based upon both faith and works. The majority of Christians are upstanding citizens and very moral. But that does not mean they are all. The same applies to every religious or non-religious group, including atheists.