Why answering atheists?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bruno_Schulz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You probably haven’t considered the possibility that if you applied your thinking skills to atheism as fervently as you applied them to Christianity, atheism too would fall with a loud crash.
That would be pretty funny, since there is no third alternative. One is either a theist (someone who believes in a god), or an atheist, (who lacks such a belief). The often used supposed “third” possibility: “agnostic” is not a metaphisical term, it belongs to epistemology. We are all agnostic when it comes to god’s existence. Some of us believe, some of us do not.
Please name an atheist thinker (other than yourself) whom you really admire.
George H. Smith is a contemporary philosopher, who wrote a great book with the title: “Atheism - The Case against God”. (You can take a peek here: amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240078284&sr=1-1) For lack of a better word one may say that I “admire” his clarity, and his objective analysis. I recommend his book strongly. If your faith can withstand his arguments, then it is very strong indeed. 🙂
 
Spock
*
Now I lead my life pretty much as any Christian does - with the exception of the worshipping part and those requirement which I find nonsensical. Many a time I was told that I am a “very good Christian”, based upon my behavior.*

And that most likely is because in your youth you formed Christian habits and way of life. Good for you.

*When my lack of belief came out, people were very surprised. If that is not enough for God, well that is just too bad. *

I agree … too bad.

How old were you when you became an atheist? Most atheists of great fame found they were atheist very early in life, often in their teen years. Antony Flew, for example … and Bertrand Russell. Do you admire them? Have you read their works?
 
And that most likely is because in your youth you formed Christian habits and way of life. Good for you.
Do you really think that being generally good, helpful to others is particular to a Christian unbringing?
I agree … too bad.
Too bad for God 🙂 As I said, if generally adhering to a lifestyle which is shared by all decent people (be they Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or atheist) is insufficent and just because I don’t worship God is a reason to punish me eternally, then such a God does not merit worship - in my opinion.
How old were you when you became an atheist? Most atheists of great fame found they were atheist very early in life, often in their teen years. Antony Flew, for example … and Bertrand Russell. Do you admire them? Have you read their works?
I never read their books, though I know about them. Funny thing, my first doubts started at about the age of eight, when I fervently prayed for some things, and those prayers were never answered. And I prayed as honestly as only a child can, and my prayers were not selfish. My doubts did not lead anywhere at that time, only much later did I realize that the Christian concept of God makes no sense (the omnimax attributes) and they cannot be reconciled with the state of affairs we can all see around us (the problem of “evil”), while some of them simply contradict each other (justice and mercy).
 
A circle is a circle. The circumference of a circle is not 3 times its diameter. The verse clearly says: 10 cubits for from rim to rim and 30 cubits around it. That is a mathematical error, regardless what the structure was intended to be used. Even in those times people knew a better approximation for the value of “pi”.
Give me something credible to show how it is wrong based on PI… that it is specifically fixed at 3.14. “where http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/images/c.gif is circumference and http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/images/d.gif is diameter. You can test this formula at home with a round dinner plate. If you measure the circumference and the diameter of the plate and then divide http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/images/c.gif by http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/images/d.gif, your quotient should come close to http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/images/pi.gif. Another way to write this formula is: http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/images/circum_formula.gif where · means multiply. This second formula is commonly used in problems where the diameter is given and the circumference is not known”.

According to what I am aware of and I am now offering a second link to another site with such information, the ratio should “come close to 3.14" but it may be variable. That is what coming close to means. Now I am no mathematician but it seems considering a cubit as it is referred to is not a fix unit of measurement, a ratio of 3 is pretty close. Now considering also that this verse has nothing to do with God’s word, how can you possibly use such a weak clam to try to prove the Bible wrong?

Seeing also that you are more familiar with PI, I wouldn’t mind an example to show me how you consider the verse a lie. Also, where PI never waivers from 3.14. I normally would not beat this to death if you hadn’t referred to it as evidence of the Word of God being “wrong”. If anything, perhaps it serves as proof that you are mistaken thinking PI can not waiver from 3.14. I don’t know, what can you offer to that to help clarify? It seems to me that .14 compared to .0 is pretty close.

http://www.mathgoodies.com/lessons/vol2/circumference.html
 
To a degree, yes we can. I never said that the Bible is “useless”, far from it. Certain pieces of it are just not applicable. For example, there is no accepted “indentured servitude” today. And I am sure we can agree on this. However, it is called cherry-picking, which is a subjective method.
Can the “lessons” from those related to “indentured servitude” be applied to similar circumstances today?
Just look at the world today. Contrary to the usual nostalgia when looking at the old times, the “good old times” are today. Humanity did not change all that much since the dawn of time, when it comes to interpersonal relationships.
Which is why your claim about the ancient teaching is wrong. Christianity is prinicply about relationships, ours with God and ours with each other.
However, there is definite increase in knowledge, there is an increase of well-being. There is more tolerance. Still a long way to go, for sure. I would not trade places with even the royalties of the middle ages.
Unfortunatey, more knowledge often is not accompanied by greater wisdom. My father never finished grade school (his father kept him home to fo farm work) but he was wiser than many college educated.

As far as tolerance, maybe in the US, but not in other parts of the world. Bigotry induced violence is still prevalent in several regions of the world.
I am sure it is reasonable to you. Just one example why it is most unreasonable to me is the way how sexuality is treated.
And here we get to the crux of the problem. It is not really a problem of reasonableness. It is principly an emotional problem. It is the your negative emotion related to rules related to your sexual conduct.
Yes, you are right there. The basic assumptions (the universe exists, there are uniform laws of mature, our senses portray the world accurately, etc…) are unprovable basic assumptions, on which we ALL can agree. God’s existence is treated by the believers as another basic assumption, which is unnecessary for me. (By the way, this is an example of those rare instances when we can have an agreement - I hope.)
Possibly. But we can have a mutually respectful conversation. At least for a while. Soon I will be gone for an extended period, since I will not have access to the internet.
 
Sure I would. But the warning has to be reasonable to follow, just like in your example. You might not be aware of it, but I was a believer for quite a long time, and only when I started to apply my critical skills, did the whole system of Christianity fall apart - for me.

Agreed. I know about caves, know about bears, know about the good possibility of danger. The trouble is that your analogy fails. Your warnings are more like advising me not to go into the cave because there is a purple, invisible, fire breathing dragon inside. That warning I would simply ignore.

Let me emphasise again: personal convictions, no matter how deeply felt, which cannot be substantiated by independent ways and means carry no weight at all. Authority is someone who can substantiate what they assert, so that a skeptic can be convinced by facts, and not just because the authority “says so”. The argument: “because I said so” may work on children, but not for adults.

And that is precisely what I meant when I said that I saw no actual arguments, only the expressions of deeply held convictions, which must be accepted on faith, just because “you” say so. In the previous sentence the word “you” is the generic version, including the Church, the Pope, the Cathecism, the Magistretium, the Bible and the whole kaboodle of the believers. None of these can offer any rational evidence, only dire warnings of what will happen if I go into that cave with the purple, invisible fire-breathing dragon inside.

I would love to see rational evidence. Yet I only see nonsense like: “the beauty of a flower is evidence of God”. Please do not take me for a complete fool. I resent that. It was not you who gave me that “evidence”, thank God. I simply ignore those who offer such childish “arguments”.
I understand, I don’t know what those critical skills are you are using to make your determination, but I understand where you are in this. The fact is, you would not believe any proof of the existence of God short of Him appearing in front of you and slapping you up side the head. Mathematics however, is not going to disprove anything in the existence of God. There has been 2000 following Jesus that no one has ever been able to do that and that doesn’t consider thousands of years of history between the Israelites and our Father in Heaven. In fact, there are more and more scholars, including astrological physicists converting to the belief in a supreme being the more they come to study and research the universe. That’s why you get so many headaches. If you don’t mind my asking, what research have you done to learn the truth? Keep in mind I am not being disrespectful but rather curious as to what you may have done in comparison to my situation. If I am going to offer something I don’t want it to be a waist of time if I can avoid it.

You ask for proof by God appearing before you but you then would have to accept judgment for the life you’ve led if by chance He is real and decided to grant your request. Your refusal to accept or believe in Him according to that which God has spoken would mean you would not be pleased with the final outcome. Yet this is what you ask for. Sounds to me like you’d go into that cave after all.
 
A circle is a circle. The circumference of a circle is not 3 times its diameter. The verse clearly says: 10 cubits for from rim to rim and 30 cubits around it. That is a mathematical error, regardless what the structure was intended to be used. Even in those times people knew a better approximation for the value of “pi”.
"Any practical attempt to divide the diameter of a circle into its own circumference can only meet with failure. Such a procedure is entirely theoretical in nature. Dividing unlikes, a straight line (the diameter of a circle) into a curved line (the circumference of a circle) can only be met with frustration. The kind of frustration that is portrayed throughout history in humankind’s attempt to measure the incommensurable. No matter how hard one may try, even with the assistance of contemporary electronic computers, bending either the straight line or the curved line, alters the nature of the problem and yields an impossibility. As soon as one of the lines is bent the results are tainted. Then, there is the question of the very thickness of the lines being measured in length. Whether one measures the inner part of the curved line of the circumference or the outer edge makes a great deal of difference; especially, when one is attempting to achieve an exactness in the concept of pi ( http://www.earthmatrix.com/ancient/ima/pi.gif ) to hundreds or even thousands of decimal places.

If we realize that the measurement of the ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle is entirely theoretical and speculative, then we may also realize that the result shall always represent an approximation. In fact, the very fact that pi is always expressed in terms of an unending fraction (with mathematicians searching it to the nth number of decimal places), should cause us to accept the idea that pi can only be an approximation. (As Lambert illustrated in 1767, " http://www.earthmatrix.com/ancient/ima/pi.gif is not a rational number, i.e., it cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers"; Beckmann, p.100.)

Once we realize that pi represents a fractional expression in numbers, it were as though either nature itself were wrong, or the numbers must surely be able to be manipulated to render whole numbers. The ancients sought to work with whole numbers. However, once we realize that the ancient reckoning system may have been based upon the concept of a floating decimal place, then we should understand that all numbers, in fact, may be visualized as whole numbers. The cut-off point becomes one of arbitrary choice at times. With regard to the concept of pi, contemporary mathematicians have not decided to accept that arbitrary cut-off point, and continue to search for the unending decimal expression of pi. At one time, not too long ago, pi was simply represented to be 3.1416; and, in a practical sense, it served all purposes of constructing things out of matter and energy. Today, the unending expression of pi to hundreds of thousands of decimal places serves no practical purpose that we know of, at least, other than that of an unending contest to discover the ultimate expression of pi. "
Source;
earthmatrix.com/ancient/pi.htm
 
Spock

Do you really think that being generally good, helpful to others is particular to a Christian unbringing?

Not particular, but certainly helpful. My wife and I have been active in prison ministry for several years and the comment I hear most often from prisoners is that they wish their parents had taken them to church. Some of them admit that they just stopped going on their own in their teen years.

There is a form of atheism there (the state of being with God). That doesn’t mean that all atheists end up in jail … but I think teens who get little or no religious education and then rush into the “religion is stupid” mode have, for the most part, set themselves up for a fall of some kind sooner or later.

Arrogance is what gets most people in trouble … and I haven’t found anyone better than Christ who teaches humility … a virtue I sorely need all the time.
 
I believe the rise of atheism is connected to the rise of heretical fideists. After the reformation, Christianity began to be associated with faith not reason as opposed to the Catholic Church which put much emphasis on philosophy. So now that religion was associated with only faith it became an easy target for some Enlightenment thinkers to criticize and for 19th-20th century atheists to finish off. Now the western world is very secularized.

When many people today look at religion they see archaic myths being followed for no reason at all. The see reason and science as inherently atheistic, which is a fatal mistake that has contributed much to the rise of atheism, because science and reason should lead to the truth.
People also don’t like religious outdated morals with their unreasonable restrictions which they see to be nothing more than absurd and outdated. This is especially true in regards to sexuality. People want their own morals based on nothing more than hedonism and altruism. Hence they are only lead by their feelings. Which to them is logical enough. However this is not the case at all.

When people leave the Catholic Church often enough they don’t really leave the true Church, they leave a mythical version of the Church. A fideistic Church that has changed its doctrines, adds them without reason, and has no logical defense against atheism They leave a hypocritical Church that has been forced to alter its old doctrines due to new advances in science. However this is a Catholic Church that never was. I think its disgraceful that God’s own Church has come to be associated with all the nonsense and absurdities of fideistic religions.

Everything in Catholicism is backed up by reason. St. Thomas of Aquinas made this extremely clear. All of our moral teachings are based on logic and reason even the ones on sexuality. My signature shows how Freud himself reached the same conclusion about human sexuality as the Catholic Church. And the Church has always been open to interpret non moral stories in the Bible based on the available evidence. This is why we are open to an allegorical Genesis in light of evolution. This is also why the Church was against Galileo, his theory at the time did not have enough evidence to convince the science of the day that he was exactly right and the Church merely was on the side of the day’s science. And the Church does and has made use of valid arguments against atheism. Aquinas’s proofs are an example of this.
 
AirLiner

I believe the rise of atheism is connected to the rise of heretical fideists. After the reformation, Christianity began to be associated with faith not reason as opposed to the Catholic Church which put much emphasis on philosophy. So now that religion was associated with only faith it became an easy target for some Enlightenment thinkers to criticize and for 19th-20th century atheists to finish off. Now the western world is very secularized.

I’ve been thinking along these lines for a long time. I think the Reformation was really the opening of the door not only to heresy, but also atheism. When enlightened people saw how absurdly some of these sects were performing, and how busy they were trashing each other, it was easy enough to make the leap that religion is a hopeless muddle and perhaps God after all a fiction.

There were hardly any atheists in the Middle Ages. The Western world was united by one religion. It’s hard to see how the West will ever recover that spiritual unity. Perhaps the dramatic rise of atheism will inadvertently draw Christians closer together to meet a heresy anathema to all religions.
 
There were hardly any atheists in the Middle Ages. The Western world was united by one religion. It’s hard to see how the West will ever recover that spiritual unity. Perhaps the dramatic rise of atheism will inadvertently draw Christians closer together to meet a heresy anathema to all religions.
Well, to be honest it seems virtually impossible for the Catholic Church to recover what it has lost. Then again, the Church has been through tougher times. We did triumph over pagan Rome, then again the political situation was different back then.

These day’s if you want to win over the people you don’t go for the government you have to go for the people, which is extremely hard. First of all people are very attached to their immoral hedonistic lifestyles. Now there have been cultures in the past even more immoral than ours though it took authoritarian governments to eliminate these lifestyles. Pagan Rome and Weimar Berlin are examples of this and I know the latter didn’t exactly lead to a good Christian society either.

In today’s world of democracies, our only alternate is outspoken reason. You have to drown the people in it. However this is also a major issue, New atheists such as as Dawkins, Hitchens, and the lot have made people think that secular lifestyles are actually backed up by reason. The good news is that their arguments are made up of absurd sophistry. The problem is that not many people including many Christians are good at pointing this out. Now the solution is to have many very outspoken Christian apologists defending both theism and the Church, like Hilare Belloc and G.K. Chesterton. Now today there are competent theists, like William Lane Craig, and Alistair McGrath that are taken seriously. However neither of them are outspoken enough. I think they need to reach out to more people and also be well spoken enough to counter the extreme dogmatic atheist bias in people. Another problem is that neither of them are Catholic. Now people shouldn’t be lead to the same churches that lead to the rise of atheism, so we really need another Chesterton or Belloc these days.

So there is still hope. Or else its back to the old Imperial Roman ways for the Catholic Church in the Western World. Living an existence in the fringe while surrounded by extremely immoral persons that hate us. But, hey at least in the near future of the Western World, Christianity isn’t on the path to becoming illegal, or having its members executed.
 
Well, to be honest it seems virtually impossible for the Catholic Church to recover what it has lost. Then again, the Church has been through tougher times. We did triumph over pagan Rome, then again the political situation was different back then.

These day’s if you want to win over the people you don’t go for the government you have to go for the people, which is extremely hard. First of all people are very attached to their immoral hedonistic lifestyles. Now there have been cultures in the past even more immoral than ours though it took authoritarian governments to eliminate these lifestyles. Pagan Rome and Weimar Berlin are examples of this and I know the latter didn’t exactly lead to a good Christian society either.

In today’s world of democracies, our only alternate is outspoken reason. You have to drown the people in it. However this is also a major issue, New atheists such as as Dawkins, Hitchens, and the lot have made people think that secular lifestyles are actually backed up by reason. The good news is that their arguments are made up of absurd sophistry. The problem is that not many people including many Christians are good at pointing this out. Now the solution is to have many very outspoken Christian apologists defending both theism and the Church, like Hilare Belloc and G.K. Chesterton. Now today there are competent theists, like William Lane Craig, and Alistair McGrath that are taken seriously. However neither of them are outspoken enough. I think they need to reach out to more people and also be well spoken enough to counter the extreme dogmatic atheist bias in people. Another problem is that neither of them are Catholic. Now people shouldn’t be lead to the same churches that lead to the rise of atheism, so we really need another Chesterton or Belloc these days.

So there is still hope. Or else its back to the old Imperial Roman ways for the Catholic Church in the Western World. Living an existence in the fringe while surrounded by extremely immoral persons that hate us. But, hey at least in the near future of the Western World, Christianity isn’t on the path to becoming illegal, or having its members executed.
This is a response I posted to a proclaimed Atheist on another thread and it seemd to follow this subject to a degree;

"I know you said you have no interest in learning about God, (not sure why you come here in that case) but for those who believe in God and refer to the Bible, we will say at this time Old Testament, God made it clear that parents are responsible for their children and to teach their children all about God especially His love for us. Regardless of what denomination it may be, that is part of the teaching of the Old Testament. Until children are of an age to choose to accept God or not to, this is the responsibility the parents have and of course are going to pass on based on their faith. That is of course the way it was.

Now If we look at the last 50 to 60 years for example, much like you in some ways the generations from the 60’s and 70’s have pulled drastically away from God. Parents not only lost much of what they use to know and practice through the teachings of their parents, they lost the concept of teaching their children about God as well. Their priorities centered mostly on their “goals” not realizing the goals are actually set by industry through commercialism and absorbed by our own self pride. All this is evident in what we have called progress.

We have enacted laws and given our approvals for abortion, the selective elimination of the most vulnerable of human life.
We are working diligently to eliminate the words “In God We Trust” from our currency. Is it we no longer believe in Him? More likely we don’t even take the time to consider it much at all.
We are, in a growing number of our states, supporting the legalization of “same sex” marriages and some barbaric means to pursue stem cell research.
We have “drive-by” shootings and assaults performed against our youths by our youths;
We discipline children for outward signs of affection when they so much as hug a friend; We produce serial killers who can select people at random, look down the sights of a sniper rifle while hidden and end a life for amusement;
We have school massacres performed by our children gunning down our children; fathers and mothers not only killing each other but killing their own infants and children before committing suicide;
We have families destitute and living in cardboard boxes under bridges while some corporate executives receive hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus money in one quarter (not including their regular income). Is it because they are legitimately successful? No, more often than not it is because they are full of greed to a point they have fraudulently manipulated the markets and their investors.
By the way, it is our public officials who are now taking our tax dollars from many of those who contributed now living on the streets to bail out the banks and businesses who put them out on the streets.
Many institutions including commercial businesses will not allow employees to say the Words “Merry Christmas” as a greeting. But it still represents the Celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ whether some like it or not. Many of the business owners will pray for a successful sales season I’m sure. And on it goes as if the time will never come that we will have to answer for the transgressions of the society we created.
So in fact up to recently more people have fallen away from God. I say until recently because there has been a rather sudden substantial increase in converts to Catholicism including Muslims, converting atheists, Jews and fallen away Christians returning as well. Regardless of your personal beliefs, this should make things a bit safer even for you depending on where you live over time. You know, everything that has occurred over the last 2000 years has been professed in the Bible, it hasn’t been wrong yet. You also may want to consider these things also have been prophesied in revelations. "
 
**
George H. Smith is a contemporary philosopher, who wrote a great book with the title: “Atheism - The Case against God” If your faith can withstand his arguments, then it is very strong indeed. 🙂
Oh no. Indeed. All such “great books” I started to read in the early 60th and every single time I put it away, amused about such rubbish and sad about the extend of such blockheaded waist of time and life of those who believe such muck and take it for serious.

It’s like when you get first time a porn-print in your hands. It might be made in best art of printing and photographing, it remains and always will remain, rubbish and plain disgust. No matter which great artist styled it and how “a great book” it is considered by those who use or even have to use this drug in slavery of it.

No Dear. Anything against God is for Hell. No thanks. I’m not with you!
**
 
Spock

Here is an interesting review of George H. Smith’s book on atheism: anthonyflood.com/smithatheism.htm

It’s always good to see another person’s reaction to a book you admire. Food for thought.
Thanks for the link. I went and read it, and needless to say I was unimpressed. A few lines and responses:
Flood:
The atheist as such does not have a burden of proof, but the atheist as naturalist surely does.
This is sheer verbal sophistry. The two phrases are identical. In general it is impossible to prove a universal negative.
Flood:
Smith asserts that the knowable is to be exhaustively identified with what is “natural.”
Well, yes. It cannot be proven deductively, but insofar everything we examined either had a natural explanation, or it is so far unexplained. To try and fill up the “gap” is asserting the god-of-gaps, and the “gap” is steadily shrinking. Today we do not think that the lighning is the “flaming sword of God”.

Smith said:
‘Natural existence’ is a redundancy; we have no familiarity with ‘unnatural’ existence, or even a vague notion of what such existence would be like”

Exactly. Flood does not even attempt to show that “unnatural existence” is plausible concept, much less tries to show an instance of it. All the existence we are familiar with is constrained by space and time. “Timeless” and “spaceless” existence is postulated by theists, but they cannot even insinuate just how is that kind of “existence” possible, much less show how could such postulated “existence” interact with the physial world. It is sheer magic. “An unknowable being using unimaginable means made it somehow happen” - is the summary of the theist’s position.
Flood:
Man appropriates both “without reason,” i.e., by “faith.”

But the laws of logic and the fact of an external world, i.e., a world that exists independently of the human mind that thinks about it, are two examples of truths not arrived at by reason, i.e., by abstraction from sensory material.
Again, Flood plays word-games. The are certain basic assumptions which cannot be reduced to anything else.

These are (among others) the existence of the external universe, the existence of universal natural laws, the acceptance of laws of logic, etc… These cannot be demonstrated, since they are the foundatoin of every explanation.

To equate these with “faith” is just another feeble attempt to make “faith” acceptable as an epistemological tool. Flood tries to equate the “unfounded” concept that the universe exists with the also unfounded concept that a magical, invisible, all-powerful… etc. being exists, who cannot be seen or tested.

This kind of equivocation makes his credibility nonexistent. I would not mind to see an actual criticism of Smith’s book, but such intellecual dishonesty, twisting words simply does not cut it. Flood’s “criticism” is the purest baloney. Maybe he does not even understand what Smith says.
 
Spock

All I had to do was to read this below to find what you call the “purest baloney.”

In his book – ATHEISM - THE CASE AGAINST GOD, Smith wrote: ”Just as Christianity must destroy reason before it can introduce faith, so it must destroy happiness before it can introduce salvation. It is not accidental that Christianity is profoundly anti-pleasure especially in the area of sex. Pleasure is the fuel of life, and sexual pleasure is the most intense form of pleasure that man can experience. To deny oneself pleasure, or to convince oneself that pleasure is evil, is to introduce frustration and anxiety and thereby become potential material for salvation.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top