How do you feel about atheists?

[Faithdancer]

Who believes he was a god?

Hindus, maybe. Or JWs in their own very odd way.

Orthodox Christians believe he was God.

God is not the same thing as a god. That’s the starting point for any serious dialogue with theists.

Edwin

This point has been made more than once now, Contarini. It is either stubborn refusal to be a respectful guest or a profound lack of understanding that the name of God, is God.

The level of understanding of the Christian faith many of the atheists on CAF exhibit is minimal at best. They attack, but don’t know what they are attacking. There is one atheist, “Daddy’s Girl” I think it is, I used to see around a lot, who would actually ask sincere questions with humility and genuine interest. Most, however, just seem to think they already know all they need to, when in reality they know next to nothing.

 

[GKC]

So is there a specific chemical we can inject in people that will make them love ? Is this something like love potion number nine?

Or, can one boil your affection for Aunt Susan until it is quite liquid?

As someone once said.

 

[Contarini]

Obviously someone like me isn’t the best person to question you on this, but I think HCH’s list greatly resembles things that I’ve been told and asked here on CAF:

1. I’ve been told repeatedly that thing like the universe, the origin of physics, the creation of man can only have come from a god; and those same people have trouble fathoming how I and others like me can believe they exist without a god

Given the inability of many atheists to distinguish between “a god” and “God,” I suspect that this is inadvertently inaccurate–that in fact you have been told that the universe can only come from God.

These two statements are radically different. A god is a superhuman being, who by definition exists within a greater universe of which he/she is a part. God is the intelligent source of the universe posited by philosophical monotheism. Because, in devotional versions of monotheism, this ultimate Source is also held to be the only legitimate object of ultimate worship, I can see why atheists confuse the two terms and mistakenly believe the typographical difference to be a mere convention of respect. But in fact it isn’t.

What you have presumably been told, in other words, is that the existence of the universe is best explained by an eternal intelligence from which the intelligibility and order of the universe derive, and this intelligence, being the ultimate object of worship in many religions, is conventionally called “God.”

2 and 2a) I’ve been asked repeatedly how someone can have a moral framework without a god.

Same question. Are you sure they didn’t say “God”?

Because, again, there’s no reason that “a god” would be particularly necessary for a moral framework. But God is. Unless you believe that moral values reflect an eternal reality from which the entire created reality of the universe derives, then no, you don’t have a rational basis for morality. Unless, of course, you are a utilitarian, which many atheists are.

Utilitarianism does not, in my book, count as a serious moral framework. It’s a hideous parody of morality.

And this is in no way an endorsement of the even more hideous “divine command theory” which many insufficiently thoughtful Christians adhere to, and which many atheists mistakenly think is the standard theistic point of view.

When told what I and others get our morals it’s often met with disagreement.

Well, why wouldn’t it be? I haven’t heard your explanation that I recall, but all the atheist explanations I’ve seen were either incoherent and question-begging or resolved into some form of utilitarianism.

Disagreement is not condescending.

Put that way (and I agree that this is how many Christians put it–you even used the term “God” correctly this time) it is indeed condescending.

I would put it a bit differently: the only good that can truly be desired is God. Everyone desires God, even if you don’t call it that. But it certainly isn’t true that atheists only try to “fill the void” with material things.

My own view of atheists is that they are the great enemies of idolatry in our age. The versions of “God” most atheists attack need to be attacked. I just wish atheists would be open-minded enough to consider the possibility that behind the idols they rightly destroy is something real.

Edwin

 

[JD1789]

Why? Why and must someone pigeon-hole themselves into a single philosophical paradigm? I don’t know if feel will exists, and there are scientific reductionist models that account for it. Bottom line, It is a very interesting question and it is not a claim I am willing to make either way.

No one must do anything if there is no free-will. Everyone must do what is already in motion from the beginning of matter and energy. Those models only attempt to explain our possible illusion of “free-will” and the mechanisms we use to make choices. Everyone is slave to matter and energy if God doesn’t exist.

 

[Contarini]

First off, there have been a lot of posts in the 12 hours since I went to bed so this kind of feels like the initial post was forever ago even though it wasn’t.

Anyway, I don’t think he was denigrating your faith just the method by which Faithdancer claimed he was sure his faith was correct.

The argument boiled down to:

1. There is a method that claims to show that X is true.
2. But that same method could also show that Y is true.
3. All parites in the discussion claim that Y is not true.
4. Therefore the method is incapable of demonstrating that X is true.

First of all, in fact Faithdancer was using specific Christian terminology, which Mr. Empiricism rather absurdly pressed into the service of Thor. That is not to say that there aren’t equivalents. But to find them, Mr. Empiricism would have had to make some inquiries into what worshipers of Thor used to say or do say today (since the worship of the Aesir has been revived and you can read “Asatru” posts on the Internet), and obviously he didn’t want to bother to do that. Which was, from the start, condescending.

More importantly, though, Mr. Empiricism seemed to assume that Christians disbelieve in the existence of Thor. Why would he assume this? Why this assumption that “we all know” pagan gods aren’t real?

That’s why the comparison to the Easter Bunny–which no adult believes in that I know of–was particularly offensive. (Santa Claus is more complex because there’s more of a real basis for that, but the specific modern forms of Santa Claus are, like the Easter Bunny, obviously made up and not a serious object of belief.)

I myself would not commit myself to denying the existence of any being who is or has been the object of serious belief by adult human beings.

Nothing about the Christian faith commits one one way or the other. What we are committed to, as monotheists, is to worship only the one Source of all Being “whom all call God.” But in Catholicism even this is defined more narrowly than in Protestantism, since the veneration of saints and angels is allowed and even encouraged.

It’s as straightforward a demonstration as possible, and in doing so we need to present a Y (something in the same category as X but not true). As MrEmpricism said he’s not comparing X to Y. He is showing that self-evidence of works can’t be used for something that may or may not be true (Yahweh) if there is no difference if used for something that is certainly not true (Thor).

So he needed to present actual evidence of the same kind for Thor. He didn’t do that.

How else could MrEmpiricism have been able to show the fault in the idea of self-evident works as a means to satisfy the burden of proof if he didn’t apply the same method to a known false deity?

Well, he needed to do a lot of work in actually showing what this evidence might be in the case of Thor, and he should not have assumed that “everyone knows” Thor doesn’t exist. That is very far from self-evident, and the fact that you and Mr. Empiricism both think it’s self-evident says a lot about your lack of understanding of the whole question.

What else there is to do is take the argument on its merits. If Faithdancer or anyone feels that self-evidence of works can be used to demonstrate Adonai and not Thor then that person can lay that out in a post.

For one thing, the fact that you feel the need to use OT names for God is significant. From a Christian point of view, the being worshiped as “YHWH” in the OT was indeed the true god, but “YHWH” in the OT represented a very imperfect understanding of God.

Again, the complete unwillingness to deal with the very well developed Christian philosophical tradition is sticking out like a sore thumb, and really gets in the way of serious discussion.

Edwin

 

[Faithdancer]

First off, there have been a lot of posts in the 12 hours since I went to bed so this kind of feels like the initial post was forever ago even though it wasn’t.

Anyway, I don’t think he was denigrating your faith just the method by which Faithdancer claimed he was sure his faith was correct.

The argument boiled down to:

1. There is a method that claims to show that X is true.
2. But that same method could also show that Y is true.
3. All parites in the discussion claim that Y is not true.
4. Therefore the method is incapable of demonstrating that X is true.

It’s as straightforward a demonstration as possible, and in doing so we need to present a Y (something in the same category as X but not true). As MrEmpricism said he’s not comparing X to Y. He is showing that self-evidence of works can’t be used for something that may or may not be true (Yahweh) if there is no difference if used for something that is certainly not true (Thor).

How else could MrEmpiricism have been able to show the fault in the idea of self-evident works as a means to satisfy the burden of proof if he didn’t apply the same method to a known false deity?

What else there is to do is take the argument on its merits. If Faithdancer or anyone feels that self-evidence of works can be used to demonstrate Adonai and not Thor then that person can lay that out in a post.

I invite you to study Genesis and Job, ponder their correlation with current theories of cosmology, in particular the Big Bang and the expanding universe, and then to explain how these theories support Thor, or the Easter Bunny, or whatever other straw man you choose to erect.

Your post is lengthy, but contains nothing that we haven’t seen here on CAF a thousand times before. Study the Bible, thoroughly, if you want to be taken seriously here.

 

[Faithdancer]

Given the inability of many atheists to distinguish between “a god” and “God,” I suspect that this is inadvertently inaccurate–that in fact you have been told that the universe can only come from God.

These two statements are radically different. A god is a superhuman being, who by definition exists within a greater universe of which he/she is a part. God is the intelligent source of the universe posited by philosophical monotheism. Because, in devotional versions of monotheism, this ultimate Source is also held to be the only legitimate object of ultimate worship, I can see why atheists confuse the two terms and mistakenly believe the typographical difference to be a mere convention of respect. But in fact it isn’t.
Edwin

Yep. As I’ve heard it said by Peter Kreeft-- who may have been quoting someone else-- I wouldn’t believe in the little g “god” that atheists think Christians believe in, either. The trouble is, they don’t want to bother to study Christian theology in depth, they just assume they know enough which (again) of course they don’t. It is intellectually lazy, imho.

 

[Lou2U]

Yep. As I’ve heard it said by Peter Kreeft-- who may have been quoting someone else-- I wouldn’t believe in the little g “god” that atheists think Christians believe in, either. The trouble is, they don’t want to bother to study Christian theology in depth, they just assume they know enough which (again) of course they don’t. It is intellectually dishonest and downright lazy, imho.

Not all Atheists are as you say. Some have studied the Christian faith extensively and still decided that (for whatever reason) they don’t believe in it. That being said, not all Atheists are interested in religion - they are content as they are and do not feel the need to study religions to make a decision.

Lou

 

[Faithdancer]

Not all Atheists are as you say. Some have studied the Christian faith extensively and still decided that (for whatever reason) they don’t believe in it. That being said, not all Atheists are interested in religion - they are content as they are and do not feel the need to study religions to make a decision.

Lou

The issue isn’t their “making a decision,” the issue is their attacking a false construct that is a straw man of their own making. This is epitomized by their frequent and childish comparisons of God with Thor, the Eastern Bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

More importantly, though, Mr. Empiricism seemed to assume that Christians disbelieve in the existence of Thor. Why would he assume this? Why this assumption that “we all know” pagan gods aren’t real?

That’s why the comparison to the Easter Bunny–which no adult believes in that I know of–was particularly offensive.

Edwin

So now you are taking offense to thing I never said ? Where have I ever mentioned the Easter Bunny?

BTW you have completely missed the crux of the complaint which Mike from NJ pointed out in an exceptionally clear manner…

“He is showing that self-evidence of works can’t be used for something that may or may not be true (Yahweh) if there is no difference if used for something that is certainly not true (Thor).”

 

[MrEmpiricism]

I invite you to study Genesis and Job, ponder their correlation with current theories of cosmology, in particular the Big Bang and the expanding universe, and then to explain how these theories support Thor, or the Easter Bunny, or whatever other straw man you choose to erect.

Your post is lengthy, but contains nothing that we haven’t seen here on CAF a thousand times before. Study the Bible, thoroughly, if you want to be taken seriously here.

There is pretty much zero correlation between Genesis and cosmology…

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens** and the earth.** - WRONG

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, **darkness was over the surface of the deep **- WRONG

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. - WRONG

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. - WRONG

need I go on?

 

[Lou2U]

The issue isn’t their “making a decision,” the issue is their attacking a false construct that is a straw man of their own making. This is epitomized by their frequent and childish comparisons of God with Thor, the Eastern Bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

But not all Atheists do this.

I don’t want to get into a debate about why some Atheists make those comparisons. I was responding to your last post, which accused Atheists of being “intellectually lazy” and suggested that they don’t bother to study Christian theology.

Lou

 

[Faithdancer]

There is pretty much zero correlation between Genesis and cosmology…

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens** and the earth.** - WRONG

2 Now the earth was formless and empty, **darkness was over the surface of the deep **- WRONG

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. - WRONG

4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. - WRONG

need I go on?

Actually Hugh Ross (a Ph.D astrophysicist) shows, in detail, what every one of these passages means, and what they mean in aggregate, in terms of the order of creation as understood in modern cosmology. So no, you don’t need to go on, because you clearly don’t understand.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

First of all, in fact Faithdancer was using specific Christian terminology, which Mr. Empiricism rather absurdly pressed into the service of Thor.

That is incorrect. Other faiths have also pointed to the fact of existence as evidence of their beliefs.

That is not to say that there aren’t equivalents. But to find them, Mr. Empiricism would have had to make some inquiries into what worshipers of Thor used to say or do say today (since the worship of the Aesir has been revived and you can read “Asatru” posts on the Internet), and obviously he didn’t want to bother to do that. Which was, from the start, condescending.

If you want to nitpick and say that Thor was not a god of creation, fine. There are plenty of other creation gods to choose from.

More importantly, though, Mr. Empiricism seemed to assume that Christians disbelieve in the existence of Thor. Why would he assume this? Why this assumption that “we all know” pagan gods aren’t real?

The first commandment is pretty clear on the fact the Christian god is said to be the one god, and that we all are to have no others.

That’s why the comparison to the Easter Bunny–which no adult believes in that I know of–was particularly offensive.

Are you implying that MrEmpricism was making that comparison? Faithdancer was the one that made the comparison to the Easter Bunny.

I myself would not commit myself to denying the existence of any being who is or has been the object of serious belief by adult human beings.

If you do not wish to do that, that is fine.

Nothing about the Christian faith commits one one way or the other.

The first commandment says to do otherwise.

So he needed to present actual evidence of the same kind for Thor. He didn’t do that.

You are missing the point. It was presented without evidence or explanation that the Christian god was real based on the self-evidence of alleged works. It was simply thrown out there to be taken as true despite it being unsupported. MrEmpiricism used the exact same methodology to give equal evidence of the existence of Thor. Now you expect additional evidence for Thor that you don’t require for the Christian god.

I’m sorry but many of us here will not subscribe to that kind of special pleading (a term I expect to use several times in these responses to you).

Well, he needed to do a lot of work in actually showing what this evidence might be in the case of Thor, and he should not have assumed that “everyone knows” Thor doesn’t exist.

Will you also ask that those who state the Christian god is true based on the self-evidence of works to make the same showing of evidence?

That is very far from self-evident, and the fact that you and Mr. Empiricism both think it’s self-evident says a lot about your lack of understanding of the whole question.

I agree it is far from self-evident – for all deities.

For one thing, the fact that you feel the need to use OT names for God is significant. From a Christian point of view, the being worshiped as “YHWH” in the OT was indeed the true god, but “YHWH” in the OT represented a very imperfect understanding of God.

I used that name to separate which god we are referring to. I am now using the term “the Christian god” exclusively in this thread.

Again, the complete unwillingness to deal with the very well developed Christian philosophical tradition is sticking out like a sore thumb, and really gets in the way of serious discussion.

Has anyone here addressed the Baha’i philosophical tradition? It too has a longstanding tradition. Just by it being around for a long while and having a history of philosophy behind it does not mean that we just have to accept it. Christians certainly do not. To only allow that as evidence for the Christian god and not for other is, again, special pleading.

 

[MrEmpiricism]

Actually Hugh Ross (a Ph.D astrophysicist) shows, in detail, what every one of these passages means, and what they mean in aggregate, in terms of the order of creation as understood in modern cosmology. So no, you don’t need to go on, because you clearly don’t understand.

Sorry but Hugh Ross is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, and again I don’t care about your appeal to authority I only care about the evidence. And yes you are right I do not understand how ANYONE could try to mangle our understanding of the cosmos to try and make it fit in with genesis.

 

[Faithdancer]

Sorry but Hugh Ross is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, and again I don’t care about your appeal to authority I only care about the evidence. And yes you are right I do not understand how ANYONE could try to mangle our understanding of the cosmos to try and make it fit in with genesis.

So you claim to be able to interpret the Bible better than someone who has and still is engaged in intensive study in systematic theology? That takes a bit more time than a quick Google search.

 

[Faithdancer]

Are you implying that MrEmpricism was making that comparison? Faithdancer was the one that made the comparison to the Easter bunny.

I made no such comparison. I use the Easter Bunny to illustrate the point that atheists often resort to childish straw man comparisons using the Easter Bunny as one of their favorites. “Thor” is really just another version. And if you continue to use the lower case “g” in referring to the Christian God, that is also very immature, and completely disrespectful to the vast majority of members here.

 

[JD1789]

Sorry but Hugh Ross is DEMONSTRABLY wrong, and again I don’t care about your appeal to authority I only care about the evidence. And yes you are right I do not understand how ANYONE could try to mangle our understanding of the cosmos to try and make it fit in with genesis.

I agree with you on this one. In my opinion, I don’t see a single reason of why Genesis would explain the scientific origin of the universe. It wasn’t meant to be literal, so why try to fit literal scientific truths into a mythological story?

 

[Faithdancer]

But not all Atheists do this.

I don’t want to get into a debate about why some Atheists make those comparisons. I was responding to your last post, which accused Atheists of being “intellectually lazy” and suggested that they don’t bother to study Christian theology.

Lou

Name a few here on CAF, please do! And tell us what seminary they attended, or at least what comprised their “study.”

 

[MrEmpiricism]

So you claim to be able to interpret the Bible better than someone who has and still is engaged in intensive study in systematic theology? That takes a bit more time than a quick Google search.

I have watched plenty of Hugh Ross FYI, now you can skip the discussion if you like, if not you are going to need to do better than an appeal to authority. I can read what the bible says, and genesis has no correlation to our understanding of development of the universe. I pointed out what genesis says and where it is wrong, feel free to counter, but please do so with reason and evidence, not logical fallacies.

BTW you would be far better listening to the likes of George Coyne than people like Ross.