The Bible makes a lot of contradictory and incompatible claims, and I have no doubt that you can cherrypick verses to support just about any conclusion as to what it recommends. The questions that atheists raise are the same ones that Christians raise with themselves. You forget that most atheists you interact with have been Christians, and you constant attempts to stereotype atheists are pretty clumsy.
Thus proving skepticism doesn't begin with the atheist. Nor is this stereotype of Christians being blind adherents till they wake up to atheism any more impressive. Much like what Einstein said about atheists considering religion the 'opium of the masses'. Seems there is less distinction between the Atheists of nearly 50 years ago and today as you would like to have us believe.
Difference is that past Christians have raised these questions they have also been addressed by Christians. The problem with evil may still be raised today, but St. Thomas Aquinas's answer still remains a logical and emotionally satisfying solution. Christians being 'converted' raises serious doubts to whether one was a legitimate Christian to begin with. As you have proven with your view on Mormons and such Cop., 'Christian' is an easy label one can slap on someone. The difference between that and atheism is that Christianity has specific tenets.
You've hit on a very interesting aspect of religion--its redemptive quality. If you've gotten yourself into hot water with the rest of your community--perhaps even landed in jail--religion can help one to restore a sense of self-worth. It fulfills a real need in those who feel guilty or rejected, and that is why Christian evangelism works so well with people in desperate circumstances. It is not so much that humans are "fallen and sinful" as it is that such a belief levels the playing field for someone who has low self-esteem. A more objective view of humanity is that people are a complex mixture of good and bad behaviors, not that they are particularly biased to behave badly.
Wow, you've just repeated my point that all humans have explicit cruelty and evil and implicit nobility and good, as if you thought of it on your own, or that I didn't already realize this. Your problem is that mankind does lean towards behaving badly. Man is fundamentally twisted, broken and fallen. One needs only listen to the evening news to know this. To deny this is to only show that your view isn't as skeptical as you noisely claim it to be.
You are putting words in my mouth, and I disagree quite strongly with you on the basic depravity of the human race. Look at what I wrote. I did not talk about "all humans" or "humankind".
"A more objective view of humanity is that people are a complex mixture of good and bad behaviors" Yes, clearly I imagined this.
I said that the redemptive aspect of religion, especially Christianity, appeals to those who have behaved badly. Evangelical Christianity has far less appeal to those who do not feel guilty, persecuted, or insecure. In general, humanity is neither good nor bad. Whether cruelty and evil are "explicit" or "implicit" depends on the individual. If I were to generalize across humanity, I would say that people are mostly decent and good. The few who behave badly tend to make the news, because their behavior is exceptional.
So they are a complex mixture of good and bad, but at the same time neither? Riiiiiight. You have proven to be completely contradicting on this point. To advocate this is to deny evil, and thus raising the problem of evil makes no sense. Sadly for you, all one needs to do is turn on the evening news to know humanity is screwed up, and evil is very self evident. The fact that this exceptional news is more a constant norm, rather than an exception doesn't help you either.
Clearly you're not as skeptical as you so noisely claim to be.
I am always struck about how badly Christians say God's creations have turned out. If that is what they truly believe, then they ought to reconsider their judgment on God's perfection.
That He makes us live with the consequences of our actions? Seems a reflection on us rather than Him.
You ought to think a little more carefully before tossing off so many facile claims and sweeping generalizations. Just because one feels guilt, that does not always mean that one is guilty. Guilt is just an emotion, and it is not always based on rational thinking.
When one feels guilt about stealing, he isn't necessarily guilty of stealing? It seems more reasonable and self-evident than a murderer simply thinks he isn't good looking.
The use of Christ as a scapegoat for humanity's sins was a practice as old as the hills when the religion began to promote the story. It had its roots in pagan practices of human sacrifice, and it makes no more sense now than human sacrifice made back in the centuries when it was more common.
As with our many discussions on the historical accuracy of the Bible, I have no confidence in your objectivity or rationality when it comes to historical matters. Human sacrifices can be traced back to simply animal sacrifices. That you can generalize and find parallels means nothing as nothing follows from it. Especially since Christ's sacrifice wasn't a human sacrifice, but God sacrificing Himself.
[It may surprise you to learn that I could care less what you think of my academic background and skills. Personal attacks do not make your arguments any less flawed. My point about God's invisibility was an appropriate response to what you wrote. If you thought that I misjudged your meaning, then you need to express it more clearly.
I did. I said it was an analogy to catagory error. You still haven't addressed it. That atheists clamor for a standard that can't be used by definition then simply harp that it doesn't exist. It's a circular approach and therefore false.
The more you temporize, the more you make my point. You waste an inordinate amount of brainpower in trying to remove every possible trait that could make your god a detectable being. In doing so, you make it impossible to distinguish him from a nonexistent being. People who believed in Zeus were able to defend his existence with exactly the same reasoning. Just as you cannot prove beyond a shadow of doubt that God does not exist, you also cannot prove that an invisible bogeyman is not living in your bedroom closet. You may have outgrown your unfounded belief in bogeymen, but you have not outgrown your unfounded belief in gods.
Sure I can. As an invisible bogeyman is still a material being I can use a variety of methods to disprove his existence. That just makes my point even more about being a catagory error. That you call for an empirical standard is a call for inductive reasoning. However one can't know anything inductively with absolute certainty. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.
However a different approach one can use to know things with absolute certainty is the deductive method. As an invisible boogeyman would only be invisible but still contain space, looking for the effects of two things interacting would prove or disprove existence. As my closet is full of clothes and junk to the point where nothing else can occupy it without some revealing effect I can absolutely conclude there isn't an invisible boogeyman in my closet. The problem you still have with this Cop. is that material things were still created from an immaterial source and God as the Bible describes Him is still immaterial so he can't be held by that standard, and I have numerously pointed to the effect that logically proves God's existence. The universe is a created thing and an effect of something. Created things have Creators.
Einstein said very little during his lifetime to support your claim that he was a theist, and he said a lot to explicitly reject that claim. You cited a Wikipedia article, but you ignored most of its content except for a quote that, taken out of context, would appear to have him endorsing theism by association with religion. In fact, what he said was that he felt more comfortable with the non-theistic religions such as Buddhism and non-theists such as Spinoza. He endorsed a religious attitude of awe and reverance towards nature, not a belief in a thinking, planning god. Using a fallacious appeal to authority, you have invoked scientists such as Einstein to endorse your theism, but you misrepresented his actual beliefs in the process. So, not only was your reasoning flawed, but you have had gotten your facts wrong, as well.
Blah, blah, blah, have to put it in context (interesting how you call for that where as in the Bible's case it's every interpretation for itself), blah, blah, blah, pointedly ignore various quotes that show Einstein undoubtedly believed in a Higher Power behind all existence that created all the laws that the world abides by, blah, blah, blah, even ignore the very direct claim of being an agnostic.
And I can't see how you can criticize me for an appeal to an authority, when at the same time you're trying to twist that authorities view to fit yours. As Einstein didn't hold to a Personal God, my view is that he was simply wrong on that point. But that's inconsequential to the fact that on this point all I'm advocating is basic theism.
Utterly untrue. I gave a link for my quotes. I cite your own Wikipedia reference to refute your claim that he was a theist or even a deist. He simply did not believe that the universe was created by a conscious entity. Just because he believed science incapable of disproving your god, that does not mean that he endorsed your belief in such a god.
You quote Einstein's rejection of a Personal God, which I acknowledged since I only refered to it in the context of basic theism in the first place. That's still a far cry from atheism, but as you've proceeded to say "I'm not an atheist" actually means he is an atheist, I find myself being unconvinced to your rationality. If you can do it, I don't see why I can't say Einstein did in fact hold to a Personal God, you just have to put his statements in context of him trying to be coy and distancing himself from the more fanatical fringe. This is of course nonsense, but if you can do it....
Sntjohnny was right. That atheists refuse to conceed even what is blatant only shows the chest thumping and hot air is on the atheist's side of things.
If you feel that the beliefs of intelligent people embarrass those who disagree with them, then I refer you to this Wikipedia list of atheists. Frankly, such blatant appeals to authority are plain silly. There are extremely intelligent and extremely stupid people in both camps.
Of that I'm well aware of. Unfortunately calling for that fallacy is inaccurate as you'd have to show Einstein and Newton
weren't competent authorities on the nature of the universe. Saying they were lunatics about religion doesn't do much good when such men appealed to there knowledge of the universe as evidence of a Creator's existence. Slapping such labels as being 'lunatics' or 'not outgrown' (as if it were a maturity issue) means little, as I have often labeled atheists as being little more than children who hide in the closet and cover their eyes and ears to pretend something they don't like or want will go away if they try really really hard to ignore it.
Author
Topic: The Mighty Cop: Why we have faith, and why we lose it (Read 2105 times)