Problems w/ Atheism

[yankee_doodle]

Well, there are a couple of things. . .

are you gonna tell me?

 

[josie_L]

well come on, Jesus did allegedly choose to torture and kill himself for our sins. I try and avoid talking directly about theology (though as you will see if you engage me on this, I can hang in there) … but seriously though.

The Christian religion is a story about a god who created a species just so he could have the pleasure of coming down and killing himself. I’m cracking up just thinking it.

Call me crazy, but sounds kind of stupid too me. Surely a god who invented our entire universe could have come up with a less masochistic plan

In between all your belly laughing, why don’t you go check out my sister’s posts on this issue (they were pretty detailed)? As for my part, Jesus allowed us the chance to be reborn again to undo the damage committed by Adam (who was created holy and well should have chosen to remain holy), furthermore only Jesus (the new Adam) could do this because he himself was without sin (and who else but God could carry the weight of the world’s sins on his shoulders)? I think the crucifixion even though excruciatingly painful demonstrates the length, and breadth and height to which God’s love extends. It is unconditional and because of it we are new creations in Christ.

p.s. I guess He could have chosen to just forgive us in some other way (I’m not sure of this), but how would we know who He truly was if He had not walked amongst us, talked amongst us as He did? How could we know how much he loved us? Because of Jesus we can now personally feel connected to God, He chose to be one of us.

 

[josie_L]

are you gonna tell me?

Nope.

 

[AntiTheist]

I guess He could have chosen to just forgive us in some other way (I’m not sure of this)

You’re not sure? Look, either this god character is all-powerful or he’s not. If he is, then he can’t be bound by anything – everything that he does is of his own choice, completely and freely chosen by him.

So naturally such a character could have chosen to forgive everyone. Or he could have held only Adam and Eve accountable for their offense and conceived of a way for Adam and Eve to make amends in a non-bloody fashion (some kind of noble labor, maybe? and the god himself could have assumed human form to help with the labor, to show his love). Or – if he insists on passing on the guilt to all of Adam and Eve’s offspring, in completely unjust fashion – he could have asked all of humanity to participate in a positive, constructive project that would have redeemed them (and he could have assumed human form and helped all of man with this labor).

And that’s just me thinking off the top of my head. I’m sure an all-powerful being could conceive of even better non-violent means of atonement.

But no. He made a deliberate choice that a price has to be paid. And not just any price, but a price in blood, the smell of which he apparently finds pleasing. So he assumes human form to suffer a horrifically painful form of human sacrifice, filled with that blood that he loves to smell, and he then made it so that in order to be redeemed, people have to believe in claims not justified by reason.

Well, I don’t value blood sacrifice; I don’t value torture; I don’t value blaming the descendents of criminals for the crimes of their ancestors; I don’t value setting up a system that could result in infinite unpleasant afterlife situations that result from mere beliefs; I don’t value credulity.

This god character apparently does value those things, and that’s really all I need to know about him.

 

[yankee_doodle]

In between all your belly laughing, why don’t you go check out my sister’s posts on this issue (they were pretty detailed)? As for my part, Jesus allowed us the chance to be reborn again to undo the damage committed by Adam (who was created holy and well should have chosen to remain holy),

Actually Adam was probably a single celled organism (or very simple organic matter of some sort). How bad could he of been?

furthermore only Jesus (the new Adam) could do this because he himself was without sin (and who else but God could carry the weight of the world’s sins on his shoulders)? I think the crucifixion even though excruciatingly painful demonstrates the length, and breadth and height to which God’s love extends. It is unconditional and because of it we are new creations in Christ.

no … it demonstrates a nutty myth.

p.s. I guess He could have chosen to just forgive us in some other way (I’m not sure of this), but how would we know who He truly was if He had not walked amongst us, talked amongst us as He did? How could we know how much he loved us? Because of Jesus we can now personally feel connected to God, He chose to be one of us.

I mean … and all the angels are gonna come down and hug me, and if I’m good I won’t get coal in my stocking and Santa Claus will visit me, and heaven is even better than Willie Wonka’s chocolate factory

 

[yankee_doodle]

Nope.

OK

 

[josie_L]

You’re not sure? Look, either this god character is all-powerful or he’s not. If he is, then he can’t be bound by anything – everything that he does is of his own choice, completely and freely chosen by him.

So naturally such a character could have chosen to forgive everyone. Or he could have held only Adam and Eve accountable for their offense and conceived of a way for Adam and Eve to make amends in a non-bloody fashion (some kind of noble labor, maybe? and the god himself could have assumed human form to help with the labor, to show his love). **Or – if he insists on passing on the guilt to all of Adam and Eve’s offspring, in completely unjust fashion – he could have asked all of humanity to participate in a positive, constructive project that would have redeemed them (and he could have assumed human form and helped all of man with this labor).
**
And that’s just me thinking off the top of my head. I’m sure an all-powerful being could conceive of even better non-violent means of atonement.

But no. He made a deliberate choice that a price has to be paid. And not just any price, but a price in blood, the smell of which he apparently finds pleasing. So he assumes human form to suffer a horrifically painful form of human sacrifice, filled with that blood that he loves to smell, and he then made it so that in order to be redeemed, people have to believe in claims not justified by reason.

Well, I don’t value blood sacrifice; I don’t value torture; I don’t value blaming the descendents of criminals for the crimes of their ancestors; I don’t value setting up a system that could result in infinite unpleasant afterlife situations that result from mere beliefs; I don’t value credulity.

This god character apparently does value those things, and that’s really all I need to know about him.

Buddy, you can hate Him all you want, but I will tell you this you don’t know Him. If you ever had the relationship that I or others have you would understand why I defend Him. I obviously don’t know everything (as I am continuously learning) there is to know about God or my faith (and I probably won’t ever know it all) but what I do know of God is not just something I read in a book, it is a real and tangible relationship brought about by my prayer life and other faith-filled actions on my part (faith is a gift which you must be open to). The God I know is a God I trust, therefore, I accept how He chose to save the world (for the reasons my sister and I mentioned).

p.s. By the way, did it ever occur to you that God being omniscient thought of other means by which He could save us (but foresaw that these methods could not give us the full glory of His salvation)?

 

[josie_L]

Actually Adam was probably a single celled organism (or very simple organic matter of some sort). How bad could he of been?

no … it demonstrates a nutty myth.

I mean … and all the angels are gonna come down and hug me, and if I’m good I won’t get coal in my stocking and Santa Claus will visit me, and heaven is even better than Willie Wonka’s chocolate factory

Your contributions to CAF are being rendered meaningless by your attitude, i.e., if you think this way then you can simply leave, no one is keeping you here.

p.s. I imagined that I could talk to atheists in a way that would bridge our differences, I have, however, seen that this is impossible because we theists cannot talk to people who hold contempt for the things we love. God bless.

 

[humble_maid]

humblemaid: You’re so busy repeating “free will” that you’re missing the point. This god character gets to choose the method of atonement. He’s all-powerful, supposedly. He could have chosen anything. The method he chose was a blood sacrifice in the form of a painful, torturous death by crucifixion. This god values blood and blood sacrifice (it specifically says in Genesis that the smell of blood is pleasing to him).

You keep saying it’s all man and Satan’s fault. So…isn’t this god all powerful? Couldn’t he have chosen to react to this disobedience differently? You said yourself that he made the law. Why did he make the law so that blood sacrifice was necessary? Why does he value blood so much?

It doesn’t matter that he’s sacrificing himself or that he likes free will. The point is that he could have chosen anything, and the method he chose is monstrous. I’m not impressed with what this god has done with his own free will.

Josie:No, I don’t think so. I think a parent’s love is probably pretty close to unconditional, but I have a sense that most, if not all, people would find their love vanishing under certain (possibly very extreme) conditions. I could be wrong, though.

But whether it exists or not is irrelevant. You’re going to tell me that this god character has unconditional love for his creation and that’s why he chose to suffer and die for it. Oh, please. Why didn’t he just choose to forgive everybody? Why didn’t he choose a method of punishment/atonement that’s far more civilized? Why didn’t he choose a method of atonement that’s downright pleasant?

You’re forgetting that this being is supposedly all-powerful. The rules of the game are whatever he says. He specifically chose to torture and kill himself for someone else’s crime, and he thinks that this is in any way “justice”? He specifically chose to have the guilt of “original sin” fall on all of Adam’s descendents – and he thinks that this is in any way “just”?

How about just having Adam make amends in some non-violent fashion? Why didn’t he choose that? I’ll tell you why: because his values led him to choose a different route, one that reveals how monstrous he is.

Alright Anti, I hear you. It’s obvious that you don’t understand what I wrote because you keep repeating that God is bloodthirsty when in fact I proved to you that He is not and the reason why it turned out that way. Now I will listen to you but you must first give me a scenario in which you play an almighty, powerful leader and must contend with a rebel who is inciting the whole kingdom to go against you; but there is one thing you cannot do and that is to break the laws in which you established being that you cannot use your powers to kill and destroy. Ok? Let’s see if you can come up with a better plan.

 

[humble_maid]

Yankee I cannot reply to your post right now so I will try to get back on monday. Thank you for reading the site I gave you.

 

[yankee_doodle]

Your contributions to CAF are being rendered meaningless by your attitude, i.e., if you think this way then you can simply leave, no one is keeping you here.

p.s. I imagined that I could talk to atheists in a way that would bridge our differences, I have, however, seen that this is impossible because we theists cannot talk to people who hold contempt for the things we love. God bless.

by “bridge our differences” you mean convert atheists to Christianity. You’re just upset that I’ve managed to debunk the so called evidentiary premise of every single claim theists use to pretend religion can be logical and reasonable, and expose virtually everything presented as fact by theists as fabrications

 

[josie_L]

by “bridge our differences” you mean convert atheists to Christianity. You’re just upset that I’ve managed to debunk the so called evidentiary premise of every single claim theists use to pretend religion can be logical and reasonable, and expose virtually everything presented as fact by theists as fabrications

I’m not upset (well I was) but I am saddened that I can’t have a conversation with a fellow human being without being told that I’m delusional, irrational, naive, stupid . . .etc.(this is very rude in my opinion), or worse, that the God that I love with all my heart is a looney blood thirsty jerk. Moreover, I’m hardly moved by your arguments as they are not really well thought out (I know enough to know that what you say is incomplete, i.e., you have a very biased and limited approach to your arguments). Also, I never ever once claimed I was trying to convert you in my discussions of a/theism (again if you notice I spend half my time defending my faith from you guys). Thus, it is unfair (and cynical) of you to say that I want to bridge differences for the purpose of converting atheists, I leave that up to God (always have). I only try to defend and propose a different understanding of the world without having to demean yours in the process. I think I have done that to the best of my abilities whereas you have more than once resorted to ad hominens to attack me and my faith. God bless.

p.s. By the way it was I who attempted to initiate a friendship with you which you have yet to reciprocate in kind.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I’m not upset (well I was) but I am saddened that I can’t have a conversation with a fellow human being without being told that I’m delusional, irrational, naive, stupid . . .etc.

oh come one … I never said naive (kidding :doh2:0

(this is very rude in my opinion), or worse, that the God that I love with all my heart is a looney blood thirsty jerk.

what I really say is he doesn’t exist

Moreover, I’m hardly moved by your arguments as they are not really well thought out (I know enough to know that what you say is incomplete, i.e., you have a very biased and limited approach to your arguments).

my arguments are flawless

I only try to defend and propose a different understanding of the world without having to demean yours in the process.

so you never demeaned atheists (or tried to create a causal nexus between say atheism and communism)? I bet you don’t even view these sort of charges as an ad hominem attacks? No matter … I’m used to it (and frankly I like it when theists resort to ad homs).

There’s really no way to debate this issue without seeming like we’re insulting the other person. If I say I think religion is baseless, and arguments supporting it illogical, what does that infer about the people who believe it? If you say atheism leads to moral relativism or whatever … what does that imply about atheists? The bottom line is if you’re overly sensitive (and a devout Catholic) then yes it will be difficult to discuss topics like the merits of theism with an atheist.

 

[yankee_doodle]

I also want to add Josie, I obviously think religious rights are one of our most important freedoms. However, to expect religion to not be challenged on its merits (on an intellectual basis) isn’t in accordance with western values. I’m not saying you’re guilty of this, but I’m also not so sure given your comments.

If someone presents to me as proof their subjective prayer and emotional experience, and I say I believe that experience is not mystical, but rather a psychological reaction to working themselves up into an emotional frenzy (through prayer and imagining a loving god who shed his blood for their sins … and all the rest) … can I say that without sounding insulting? I don’t think so (but if you think I can I’m certainly open to reasonable suggestions).

If you want to ask atheists not to comment on these things, then what’s the purpose of even allowing atheists on CAF?

You’re acting as if your the oppressed minority … when I’m one of a small handful of atheists on a site with perhaps hundreds of thousands of registered Catholics, in a country where Christians make up over 80% of the population? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to whine about being a minority. Non-theists will probably always be a minority (as we almost exclusively tend to attract a small but highly intelligent segment of the population).

 

[josie_L]

what I really say is he doesn’t exist

You called God a “lunatic” (whether you believe He doesn’t exist is not the point I believe He exists therefore temper your responses for the sake of courtesy), and I would infer that you also agreed with anti-theist about his objections to God since you did not object to his statements (“bloodthirsty jerk” that He is).

my arguments are flawless

Your arguments are flawlessly flawed.

so you never demeaned atheists (or tried to create a causal nexus between say atheism and communism)? I bet you don’t even view these sort of charges as an ad hominem attacks? No matter … I’m used to it (and frankly I like it when theists resort to ad homs).

I did not say that atheism caused Communism, I stated that an atheist who refered to religion as an “opium to the masses” created a world system that would cause thousands of other Communists who were also atheists to kill theists.

There’s really no way to debate this issue without seeming like we’re insulting the other person. If I say I think religion is baseless, and arguments supporting it illogical, what does that infer about the people who believe it? If you say atheism leads to moral relativism or whatever … what does that imply about atheists? The bottom line is if you’re overly sensitive (and a devout Catholic) then yes it will be difficult to discuss topics like the merits of theism with an atheist.

I don’t mind if you call religion baseless or that some of our arguments are illogical (we Catholics get that from other theists and atheists on this forum without all the ad homs) it’s how you go about expressing yourself that leaves me thinking you are here for nothing more than puffing yourself up. And I am not being overly sensitive you are lacking however in sensitivity.

p.s. I think it’s been stated more than once atheists can be moral, however, with the advent of the “enlightenment” and all it’s inherent philosophies there has been a downgrading of truth (many coming from atheist philosophers who claim there are no universal moral codes) and morals.

 

[yankee_doodle]

You called God a “lunatic” (whether you believe He doesn’t exist is not the point I believe He exists therefore temper your responses for the sake of courtesy), and I would infer that you also agreed with anti-theist about his objections to God since you did not object to his statements (“bloodthirsty jerk” that He is).

Commanding others to stone people to death, killing yourself, etc. seems crazy?

Your arguments are flawlessly flawed.

nevertheless you haven’t shown that presenting logical counter-arguments. All you do is use emotive tactics (like this one) that have nothing to do with the issues being discussed.

I did not say that atheism caused Communism, I stated that an atheist who refered to religion as an “opium to the masses” created a world system that would cause thousands of other Communists who were also atheists to kill theists.

huh? Most of the murderous acts of men like Stalin had little to do with theism (he’s largely responsible for killing millions of rural peasants for the sake of industrialization).

Moreover, these sort of arguments are post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is to say, it’s a false cause fallacy. More subtly, the argument is also an ad hominem. Additionally, the fallacious Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler argument assumes that their evil was informed by their atheism. However, there is no reason to believe that their atheism informed their evil actions. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest at least two of the three personalities were significantly influenced by religion, specifically Christianity, early in their lives.

I don’t mind if you call religion baseless or that some of our arguments are illogical (we Catholics get that from other theists and atheists on this forum without all the ad homs) it’s how you go about expressing yourself that leaves me thinking you are here for nothing more than puffing yourself up. And I am not being overly sensitive you are lacking however in sensitivity.

p.s. I think it’s been stated more than once atheists can be moral, however, with the advent of the “enlightenment” and all it’s inherent philosophies there has been a downgrading of truth (many coming from atheist philosophers who claim there are no universal moral codes) and morals.

you just make statements without any basis … that’s why it’s difficult to communicate with you. Do you have any proof that atheists are “downgrading truth”? You don’t even define what you mean by that statement (and frankly I doubt you even have a clear idea of what you’re accusing us of).

If you ask me I think secular philosophy offers a far more complete morality than the simplistic codes of your bible, and I’m willing to explain exactly what I mean by that & provide specific examples

But of course once I do, you won’t respond with a well framed argument or examples of your own. You’ll just complain that I’m picking on you :crying:

 

[josie_L]

I also want to add Josie, I obviously think religious rights are one of our most important freedoms. However, to expect religion to not be challenged on its merits (on an intellectual basis) isn’t in accordance with western values. I’m not saying you’re guilty of this, but I’m also not so sure given your comments.

If someone presents to me as proof their subjective prayer and emotional experience, and I say I believe that experience is not mystical, but rather a psychological reaction to working themselves up into an emotional frenzy (through prayer and imagining a loving god who shed his blood for their sins … and all the rest) … can I say that without sounding insulting?** I don’t think so (but if you think I can I’m certainly open to reasonable suggestions). **

If you want to ask atheists not to comment on these things, then what’s the purpose of even allowing atheists on CAF?

Well, ok here’s one for starters, “debate my beliefs but don’t degrade my beliefs.” And by degrade I mean to say do not use unnecessary language to express yourself and our differences when it can be done in manner more open and cordial.

p.s. I have no problems debating atheists whatsoever and they are more than welcome at CAF has long as they can maintain some semblance of respect for those who differ in opinion.

 

[josie_L]

Commanding others to stone people to death, killing yourself, etc. seems crazy?

ln light of what you understand yes, but needless to say there are ways to express that without outrightly calling God a “lunatic”. For my part, I feel I am trying my best to rid you of these notions but there’s only so much that can be explained through reason alone (and even then reason can be limited by one’s knowledge and understanding of the subject matter being discussed).

nevertheless you haven’t shown that presenting logical counter-arguments. All you do is use emotive tactics (like this one) that have nothing to do with the issues being discussed.

Was I to take seriously that your arguments are flawless?

huh? Most of the murderous acts of men like Stalin had little to do with theism (he’s largely responsible for killing millions of rural peasants for the sake of industrialization).

I never denied that he killed many rural peasants, however, the Church was an enemy to Communist-atheists and so they did everything in their power to crush it (and its followers).

Moreover, these sort of arguments are post hoc ergo propter hoc, that is to say, it’s a false cause fallacy. More subtly, the argument is also an ad hominem. Additionally, the fallacious Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler argument assumes that their evil was informed by their atheism. However, there is no reason to believe that their atheism informed their evil actions. In fact, there is ample evidence to suggest at least two of the three personalities were significantly influenced by religion, specifically Christianity, early in their lives.

I am simply informing you that they were atheists who willingly chose their worldview and then systematically attempted to eradicate those who stood in their way (the Church having influence over the populace was a target). The fact that you wish to believe religion/christianity had something to do with their embrace of atheistic/secular/paganistic worldviews is surreal.

you just make statements without any basis … that’s why it’s difficult to communicate with you. Do you have any proof that atheists are “downgrading truth”? You don’t even define what you mean by that statement (and frankly I doubt you even have a clear idea of what you’re accusing us of).

I said since the enlightenment many (atheist and/or agnostic) philosophies have enabled a down grading of morality in that moral absolutes were denied.

If you ask me I think secular philosophy offers a far more complete morality than the simplistic codes of your bible, and I’m willing to explain exactly what I mean by that & provide specific examples

Then please give examples of how secular philosophy has expressed morality better than Christianity (especially in light of the fact that they were not working on a blank slate)?

But of course once I do, you won’t respond with a well framed argument or examples f your own. You’ll just complain that I’m picking on you :crying:

If it can be done without your usual sarcastic/patronizing comments I promise not to cry?

 

[gearhead]

Jumping into the middle of things…

I never denied that he killed many rural peasants, however, the Church was an enemy to Communist-atheists and so they did everything in their power to crush it (and its followers).

Freethinkers were also enemies to Stalin and the Communist party. Most modern atheists are much closer to the freethought position than they are to Stalin-style communism.

I am simply informing you that they were atheists who willingly chose their worldview and then systematically attempted to eradicate those who stood in their way (the Church having influence over the populace was a target). The fact that you wish to believe religion/christianity had something to do with their embrace of atheistic/secular/paganistic worldviews is surreal.

Well, Stalin did start out training to become a priest, though I don’t think that this had anything to do with what he would become.

However, I think there was a link to religion in another way: the European political structure that gave birth to communism was horribly oppressive to many people, and often times religion would be used as an element of that oppression and control.

Communism, especially Stalinism, was a horrible, brutal system, but it began as a response to real issues. Some of those issues involved the Church.

I said since the enlightenment many (atheist and/or agnostic) philosophies have enabled a down grading of morality in that moral absolutes were denied.

OTOH, I think that in many cases, religious philosophies have enabled a downgrading of morality by declaring horribly harmful things to be objectively morally good, or by encouraging people to abandon their own intrinsic sense of right and wrong and instead accept what their religious leaders tell them without engaging in critical thought.

 

[camerong]

So, this was an interesting argument that boiled down to each side was saying the other is arguing unfairly, right? Let’s try to advance things.

Several atheist posters have objected that atonement theology is illogical (or worse) because it involves unnecessary suffering, violence, gore, etc., and an all-powerful God could chose an option less unpleasant.

The foundation for this argument, I think, has not been laid. If God could have chosen a better option for the atonement, this presupposes that there is such a thing as good and bad. I think you must first establish that there is a good and bad, outside of societal construct. For if it results only from societal construct, then its pretty silly to suggest that an all-powerful, infinite being is in any way bound by a particular society’s view of good or bad. This is necessary before we can start talking about whether a blood sacrifice is really bad or good. In other words, you claim that bloodshed is bad, but also claim that the whole of existence is a bunch of atoms knocking around. How can certain atoms bouncing in certain ways be any better or worse than others?

Please forgive me if I have failed to read an important part of this argument, this thread is many pages long and I have only read the last few.