 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
News of interest to former Christians
By Sam Harris
SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.
Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.
Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."
That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.
Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.
From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.
link
SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" and "Letter to a Christian Nation."
SEVERAL POLLS indicate that the term "atheism" has acquired such an extraordinary stigma in the United States that being an atheist is now a perfect impediment to a career in politics (in a way that being black, Muslim or homosexual is not). According to a recent Newsweek poll, only 37% of Americans would vote for an otherwise qualified atheist for president.
Atheists are often imagined to be intolerant, immoral, depressed, blind to the beauty of nature and dogmatically closed to evidence of the supernatural.
Even John Locke, one of the great patriarchs of the Enlightenment, believed that atheism was "not at all to be tolerated" because, he said, "promises, covenants and oaths, which are the bonds of human societies, can have no hold upon an atheist."
That was more than 300 years ago. But in the United States today, little seems to have changed. A remarkable 87% of the population claims "never to doubt" the existence of God; fewer than 10% identify themselves as atheists — and their reputation appears to be deteriorating.
Given that we know that atheists are often among the most intelligent and scientifically literate people in any society, it seems important to deflate the myths that prevent them from playing a larger role in our national discourse.
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
On the contrary, religious people often worry that life is meaningless and imagine that it can only be redeemed by the promise of eternal happiness beyond the grave. Atheists tend to be quite sure that life is precious. Life is imbued with meaning by being really and fully lived. Our relationships with those we love are meaningful now; they need not last forever to be made so. Atheists tend to find this fear of meaninglessness … well … meaningless.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
People of faith often claim that the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were the inevitable product of unbelief. The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
Jews, Christians and Muslims claim that their scriptures are so prescient of humanity's needs that they could only have been written under the direction of an omniscient deity. An atheist is simply a person who has considered this claim, read the books and found the claim to be ridiculous. One doesn't have to take anything on faith, or be otherwise dogmatic, to reject unjustified religious beliefs. As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
No one knows why the universe came into being. In fact, it is not entirely clear that we can coherently speak about the "beginning" or "creation" of the universe at all, as these ideas invoke the concept of time, and here we are talking about the origin of space-time itself.
The notion that atheists believe that everything was created by chance is also regularly thrown up as a criticism of Darwinian evolution. As Richard Dawkins explains in his marvelous book, "The God Delusion," this represents an utter misunderstanding of evolutionary theory. Although we don't know precisely how the Earth's early chemistry begat biology, we know that the diversity and complexity we see in the living world is not a product of mere chance. Evolution is a combination of chance mutation and natural selection. Darwin arrived at the phrase "natural selection" by analogy to the "artificial selection" performed by breeders of livestock. In both cases, selection exerts a highly non-random effect on the development of any species.
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
Although it is possible to be a scientist and still believe in God — as some scientists seem to manage it — there is no question that an engagement with scientific thinking tends to erode, rather than support, religious faith. Taking the U.S. population as an example: Most polls show that about 90% of the general public believes in a personal God; yet 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do not. This suggests that there are few modes of thinking less congenial to religious faith than science is.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
When scientists don't know something — like why the universe came into being or how the first self-replicating molecules formed — they admit it. Pretending to know things one doesn't know is a profound liability in science. And yet it is the life-blood of faith-based religion. One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be found in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while claiming to know facts about cosmology, chemistry and biology that no scientist knows. When considering questions about the nature of the cosmos and our place within it, atheists tend to draw their opinions from science. This isn't arrogance; it is intellectual honesty.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
There is nothing that prevents an atheist from experiencing love, ecstasy, rapture and awe; atheists can value these experiences and seek them regularly. What atheists don't tend to do is make unjustified (and unjustifiable) claims about the nature of reality on the basis of such experiences. There is no question that some Christians have transformed their lives for the better by reading the Bible and praying to Jesus. What does this prove? It proves that certain disciplines of attention and codes of conduct can have a profound effect upon the human mind. Do the positive experiences of Christians suggest that Jesus is the sole savior of humanity? Not even remotely — because Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and even atheists regularly have similar experiences.
There is, in fact, not a Christian on this Earth who can be certain that Jesus even wore a beard, much less that he was born of a virgin or rose from the dead. These are just not the sort of claims that spiritual experience can authenticate.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
Atheists are free to admit the limits of human understanding in a way that religious people are not. It is obvious that we do not fully understand the universe; but it is even more obvious that neither the Bible nor the Koran reflects our best understanding of it. We do not know whether there is complex life elsewhere in the cosmos, but there might be. If there is, such beings could have developed an understanding of nature's laws that vastly exceeds our own. Atheists can freely entertain such possibilities. They also can admit that if brilliant extraterrestrials exist, the contents of the Bible and the Koran will be even less impressive to them than they are to human atheists.
From the atheist point of view, the world's religions utterly trivialize the real beauty and immensity of the universe. One doesn't have to accept anything on insufficient evidence to make such an observation.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
Those who emphasize the good effects of religion never seem to realize that such effects fail to demonstrate the truth of any religious doctrine. This is why we have terms such as "wishful thinking" and "self-deception." There is a profound distinction between a consoling delusion and the truth.
In any case, the good effects of religion can surely be disputed. In most cases, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. Ask yourself, which is more moral, helping the poor out of concern for their suffering, or doing so because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it or will punish you for not doing it?
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
If a person doesn't already understand that cruelty is wrong, he won't discover this by reading the Bible or the Koran — as these books are bursting with celebrations of cruelty, both human and divine. We do not get our morality from religion. We decide what is good in our good books by recourse to moral intuitions that are (at some level) hard-wired in us and that have been refined by thousands of years of thinking about the causes and possibilities of human happiness.
We have made considerable moral progress over the years, and we didn't make this progress by reading the Bible or the Koran more closely. Both books condone the practice of slavery — and yet every civilized human being now recognizes that slavery is an abomination. Whatever is good in scripture — like the golden rule — can be valued for its ethical wisdom without our believing that it was handed down to us by the creator of the universe.
link
The first 200 comments appear here under the article. If over 200 comments are posted, click on the "newer" and "newest" links on the Post a Comment page to continue reading the latest comments.
Subscribe to this post's Comments (Atom). Subscribe to every post's Comments (RSS).Quickly catch up on all recent comments posted on ExChristian.Net on the Recent Comments page.
<< Home
Shop
Previous News
Collegue of Ted Haggard admitts sexual misconductPastor charged with stealing Bibles and money
Convert or die!
Atheists coming out of the closet
Pastor pleads not guilty to charge of operating a ...
Westboro Church Must Pay Marine's Family
Megachurch pastor confesses to being gay
Clergy sex abuse widespread across every denominat...
Fraud in the church
Baptist leaders and clergy sex-abuse
News Archives
11.03
It would not make one little bit of differebnce what a man or woman believes. The world is run by Athiests. An Athiest Presidebnt would be no different that what we have already had. "NO_BIG_DEAL"
There's nothing like ignoring the refutation and resorting to citing the Bible as a sufficient retort. It solves everyone's problems, it seems.
ATHEISTS spells EATS SHIT
Well, that I suppose if there is a group of Atheist(s) that come together for a religious sermon, but we all know that Atheism is not a religion.
However, I agree with you that the word Atheist being singular, can be provocative, for instance when I say Atheist; in truth, I'm telling you as the theist, to "EAT SHIT". Oh, what one little character or symbol can mean on perspective.
Christian spells--IT CHAINS
Christianity does chain, it chains the mind, it promotes ignorance, because all religions are formed from ignorance and fear, fear of the unknown and giving this unknown a name, it's called God and from fear and ignorance, another God was formed, called Jesus and from even more fear and ignorance Christianity was formed.
To question the Bible and Christianity, you must be willing to have your mind chained to the Bible, this way the church chains you to subverveince and servitude and you become their slave, a religious slave bound by chains, therefore Christinity, IT CHAINS.
The atheist loves to lie.
Christianity does NOT spell IT CHAINS...you did not account for all the letters!
So the lie was blatantly stupid as well.
But lets try the singular of atheists, ATHEIST...it spells EAT SHIT.
There, it accounts for all the letters.
Hahahahahahahahahaha
And, I really enjoy character games... So, if you are a CHRISTIAN, you are "RICH AT SIN"... Quite quaint for the Christian, who has an evil god.
And, for the True Christian rich in the sin ritual, when they state "CHRISTIAN", the non-believer typically understands; "I CHANT SIR". Such a poetic game.
How fitting.
Theism! = Me Shit!
Yeah, I can understand that. It shit you, and thus you are shit. Unfortunately, you can't define the asshole that shit you, but you still believe, what a shit story.
The article by Sam Harris starts with a good observation that atheism is an impediment to a career in politics. Most people in the USA believe in the existence of God. For that matter, most people around the world believe in the existence of God. The Bible says,'the fool hath said in his heart that there is no God'. The book of ROmans tells us that by observing nature we know that there is a Creator of all things. And most people around the world, thus, convinced of the existence of God. True, John Locke, the father of evidentialism also believe that atheism is stupid. In fact the miracle reported in the Gospels is the perfect case of evidentialism for the authenticity of the Christian Gospel and its trustworthiness. But, unfortunately, David Hume used the same evidentialism to argue against Christianity. But we shall realize that the resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact and that lays the strongest foundation for the existence of God. Now let me deal with each of the ten myths the writer discussed.
1) Atheists believe that life is meaningless.
I agree that atheists can find some sort of meaning to their lives. But what difference does it make to your life whether you live a meaningful or meaningless life since at the end all you got is distengration of the molecules of your body into the grave. From atheistic perspective Hitler and Mother Theresa both had their molecules disappeared into the ground and had the same fate. But the life of Mother Theresa is only meaningful if God exists because evil must be punished and good must be rewarded and that is what most people in the world wish.
2) Atheism is responsible for the greatest crimes in human history.
You can argue that concentration camps and gulap fields are not due to atheism but due to political factors. We can use same argument to dismiss the charge against Christianity as the cause of crusades. Crusades have more to do with political factors of Europe than with the teachings of Lord Jesus who taught to love your enemies always.
The history of twentieth century alone proves that Godless atheists killed more people than the faithful. Besides, their killings are in accordance with the worldviews they espoused. Karl Marx, an avowed atheist, wrote in Das Kapital that violence is inevitable as we move from one achievement of communism to the other. Most atheists with bloody hands also believed in Darwinian doctrine of survival of the fittest. There is no God to ask us accountability. We are the strongest and we could eliminate the week for the progress of human race. Good, that is why Marx wanted to dedicate his Das Kapital to Darwin, though Darwin rejected his request.
On the other hand violence done by Christians is radically contradictory to the teachings of Christ and encourages us to look to Christ, not at Christians.
3) Atheism is dogmatic.
As the historian Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-71) once said: "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." GOod, but if Jesus is the only way to heaven and if that is true, having no way is as bad as having many false ways. The authenticy of Bible is proved historically, archaeologically and philosophically than any other book of ancient times.
4) Atheists think everything in the universe arose by chance.
Atheists might add natural selection to chance. But does natural selection have some sort of intelligence to direct the evolution? More than 99 percent of mutations are harmful for the organism and you are betting on one percent to carry the evolution in the forward direction? Try reaching your goal with 99 people hitting you backwards while only one person pushing you forward. There is no scientific evidence to Darwinism. It is a myth with no scientific credibility and deserves to be removed from our public schools.
It seems that Richard Dawkins became some sort of prophet to atheism. But let us not forget that great scientists of modern science how established the pillars of modern science like Isaach Newton, Tycho Brahe, Robert Boyle, Carl Linnaeus, Francis Bacon, Mendel, George Cuvier etc were not only believers in God but staunch Christians. Who cares what lilliput scientists like Dawkins believe about God?
5) Atheism has no connection to science.
90 percent of general public believe in God while same percentage of scientists donot believe. That is the sort of impunity the atheists have towards general public. A smart scientist does not mean He has common sense to believe in God. These smart scientists who had no God were the ones who did living experiments on Jewish children during holocause on the basis of doing good to humanity.
6) Atheists are arrogant.
Arrogance has nothing to do with truth. You can be humble and wrong while your neighbor is arrogant and right.
7) Atheists are closed to spiritual experience.
Atheist can have spiritual experience. Buddha, who did not any belief in a personal God, started his faith in a spiritual tradition. But that spiritualism is subjective and convenient. No wonder, most Hollywood celebrities left Absolutist Christian GOd to believe in Buddha who leaves you to live by your own rules. What the atheist really wants is not intellectual freedom, but moral freedom. Spirituality without a God who gave us Ten Commandments is fine with atheists.
8) Atheists believe that there is nothing beyond human life and human understanding.
The naturalism offers no hope beyond the grave. Life according to naturalism is an accident and trivial in the long tree of evolution. Only God can give us a true meaning to this life and life beyond.
9) Atheists ignore the fact that religion is extremely beneficial to society.
Christianity does not teach us that we should help the poor out of our desire to get rewards from God. The Bible tells us that we are created in the image of God and when we see our suffering neighbors who are created in the image of God we are obliged to help them for 'who' they are, not 'what' we get. The best philanthropic organizations like Red Cross and Salvation Army were started by Christians, not atheist. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, the largest contributors to the philanthrophy adhere to Christianity, not to atheism.
10) Atheism provides no basis for morality.
THe author contended that Bible condoned slavery. But, first what sort of slavery the Bible condoned. Read the Torah carefully and you will discover the rules God laid on the masters on how to treat their slaves. We should realize what sort of relationship God prescribed between masters and their slaves. We should not be confounded by simply looking at words like 'slavery'. In one sense, we are all slaves to the government, but we know what sort of relationship exists between us and our government.
When the slave practice went against the teachings of Christ and Bible, the Christians started the abolition movement. Great abolitionists like Abraham Lincoln, William WIlberforce, John Brown, Frederick Douglass were Christians, not atheist. Let us not forget that Martin Luther King Jr. was a Baptist minister thumping his Bible, not a biology atheist professor thumping Origin of Species.
Conclusion: Atheism is stupid, Christianity is intelligent and reasonable.
Yep, most are religious boobs, waiting to be suckled.
Yep, nothing like a "charged" sinner, to stir up the masses.
P a u l
Peckerhead asswipe uneducated loony
So slavery is okay. It just has to be done right! I can’t wait to tell one of my African-American friends that it WAS okay, according to the bible, for his ancestors to be captured and brought to this country forcibly to chop cotton on a plantation. The slavers just didn’t follow god’s directions correctly!
I’m sure that will make them feel better about the whole slavery issue, to know it was the Christian thing to do to them.
BRA LATHE TOY, the altar boy, is a secret boy used to shape the next bra series due to changes in human evolution - therefore, the altar boy, is really a current toy model of a boob/tit.
HOLY BRA TEAT, ALTER HAT BOY, LAY TART BE HO...
"The Bible is a book that has been read more and examined less than any book that ever existed." -- Thomas Paine, The Theological Works of Thomas Paine
Does the Christian god advocate slavery?
Genesis 9:25-27 - "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant."
Genesis 16:8-9 - "And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands."
Genesis 17:12-13 - "And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised."
Genesis 24:35-36 - "And the LORD hath blessed my master [Abraham] greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses. And Sarah my master's wife bare a son to my master when she was old: and unto him hath he given all that he hath."
Genesis 26:12-14 - "Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants."
Exodus 12:44 - "But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof."
Exodus 20:17 - "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
Exodus 21:2-6 - "If thou buy a Hebrew servant...."
Exodus 21:7 - "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant...."
Exodus 21:20-21 - "If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money."
Exodus 21:26-27 - "And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake."
Exodus 21:32 - "If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver."
Exodus 22:2-3 - "If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft."
Leviticus 19:20 - "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."
Leviticus 22:11 - "If the priest buy any soul with his money...."
Leviticus 25:39 - "And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee...."
Leviticus 25:44-46 - "Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever."
Deuteronomy 5:21 - "Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's."
Deuteronomy 15:12 - "And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee...."
Deuteronomy 20:10-11 - "When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee."
Deuteronomy 20:14 - "But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself."
Joshua 9:23 - "Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God."
Luke 12:46-47 - "The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes."
Luke 17:7-9 - "But which of you, having a servant plowing or feeding cattle, will say unto him by and by, when he is come from the field, Go and sit down to meat? And will not rather say unto him, Make ready wherewith I may sup, and gird thyself, and serve me, till I have eaten and drunken; and afterward thou shalt eat and drink? Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not."
1 Corinthians 7:21-22 - "Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant."
Ephesians 6:5 - "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God."
Colossians 3:22 - "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ."
Colossians 4:1 - "Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven."
1 Timothy 6:1-5 - "Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself."
Titus 2:9-10 - "Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God."
1 Peter 2:18 - "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."
Hey, Paul, your god advocated slavery, and the early Americas had to deal with your religious followers running around claiming that it was "godly" to keep slaves. Your religious belief and Christian soldiers for Christ fought for their right to own slaves, as a state. Go read a history book, and start with your bible, before you come on here saying that the Christian religion in some way helped emancipate slavery - it started it, and nurtured it for thousands of years, all the way into this Nation's formation.
"The authenticy of Bible is proved historically, archaeologically and philosophically than any other book of ancient times."
Let's not forget how great of a science book it is also. How scientists today can refute the 5,000 year old age of the earth, I'll never know.
And I must also say that those darn folks at the Guinness book of records are totally inaccurate when they list the oldest human to be only 122, when we know darn well according to that perfectly historically accurate book that people lived well into their 900's.
Paul the Muslim religion is the only real truth and the Muslim devil is deluding you into thinking Christianity is the is the one true religion, when in reality you are probalby going to burn in the Muslim Hell unless of course you repent to Allah. Quick Paul while you still have time.
The Christians who supported and engaged in slavery were amply supported by the Bible, in which slavery is accepted as a given, as simply a part of the social landscape. There are numerous biblical passages that implicitly or explicitly endorse slavery, such as Exodus 21:20–21: "And if a man smite his servant, or his maid with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money." Other passages that support slavery include Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22, Titus 2:9–10, Exodus 21:2–6, Leviticus 25:44–46, 1 Peter 2:18, and 1 Timothy 6:1. Christian slave owners in colonial America were well acquainted with these passages.
See this sermon preached in the First Presbyterian Church, Augusta, Georgia, on Sabbath Morning, Jan. 6, 1861: Mutual relations of Masters and Slaves as Taught in the Bible.
To answer other points in Paul's apologetic parroting, see A Life without Christ, How Many People Have been Killed by Christians since Biblical Times, Letters from the Crusades from the 11th Century, and The Great Infidels.
However, I will say again: Paul is every bit the "True Christian™" — of this there can be now doubt. And were he born in in the 11th Century England or 18th Century Georgia, I am sure he'd be in full support of the prevalent Christian movements of the day (See linked articles above).
Happy Holidays Paul! I'm so glad you stopped by. You are confirming every fundamentalist Christian stereotype mentioned on these pages.
To all Christians reading this: Look to Paul and learn. He is modeling, exactly, one of the main reasons this site exists.
Again, Paul. My hats off to you. I'm sure everyone will fully understand the true meaning of Christianity (and Christmas for that matter) by the time you weary of posting here.
There is an old joke about the northern abolitionist versus the southern slave holder; that while the northerner could only appeal to the "spirit" and "trajectory" of scripture, the southerner could quote chapter and verse.
But yes, philosophy, archeology, and history do indeed document the horror and stupidity of your ancient superstitions. Among those is something our friend donner omitted from an otherwise thorough post: it was legal to beat your slave to death. Look it up. Perhaps it could be found in your concordance under a number of headings: slave; servant; murder; vengeance; bloodlust; superstition; barbarity; savagry.
If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man. That includes, if the man rapes the women as well.
As a matter of fact, women were considered property much like slaves in the bible. To this day, women in Arabic nations are "still" considered property.
Jeremiah 6:12 - "And their houses shall be turned unto others, with their fields and wives together: for I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD."
God threatens to punish the men by taking away all of their property, including their wives, and giving them to others.
God, the ultimate slave owner and distributor of property, even the women (slaves).
A serious misunderstaning of the Bible has happened in the responses to this article. Yes, the Bible talks about servants. But servants are everywhere, restaurants, hotels, motels etc. In one sense, all of us are servants to each other as we engage in our professions. The Bible has a strict code of conduct for the relationship between the master and the servants. The Bible never supported lynching, cross-continental transport of slaves, killing of slaves etc. The Bible records the first emancipation of slaves from Egypt into the promised Land by the mighty hand of God Jehovah.
On the other hand, Islam is still practising slavery in Africa in countries like Sudan. The atheists like Stalin put their own citizens in millions in slave gulags. Only God of the Bible says that since He created us in His image He wants us to look for His image in every human being. The apostle Paul wrote in the epistle to Galatians, 'Now there is no difference between a master and a servant, man and a woman, Jew and a gentile. All are one in Christ'. Such is the message of Christianity in the world. That is the attraction of the Christianity even in countries like China, where atheism is the official policy of the state. Do you know, in the last one decade, the Christianity grew into a 90 million strong community in China under the very wings of atheist Chinese leaders. That is the power of love of CHrist and His Christianity in the world. You atheist morons in America, you have been given freedom in this Christian America because we love all human beings. Look at the world and see the amazing power of Christian gospel in bringing millions of people to Christianity around the world. The religion still largest in the entire world. You atheists are a small group of morons. Don't forget that.
Do you honestly believe that a God created the whole universe including, over 125 billion galaxies in just six days, just so he could put people here on Earth, so he could send them to hell depending solely on what they choose to believe?
Do you honestly believe there exists a God that vile and wicked?
Are you that weak minded Paul? And you call us morons!
YOU ARE A TRUE CHRISTIAN™
Pa-raise da Lawd!
Here's a little article that helps explain WHY Paul has no choice but to support the institution of slavery in the Bible:
Here it is:What the Bible says about slavery.
Now it all begins to make sense, yeah real smart god, that Bible god.
So this God enjoys sending people to hell and watching them burn for eternity, even if it's just one person, the Bible God gets a thrill out of watching people burn forever.
That makes real good sense to me, you too Paul?
Double stamp; a cut and paste from some apologetic idiot - no doubt.
Paul: "A serious misunderstaning of the Bible has happened in the responses to this article. Yes, the Bible talks about servants."
Yeah, let's help you with your misunderstanding, shall we.
Slave: "1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slave
Leviticus 19:20 - "And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free."
How long before you make it out of grammar school?
Paul: "But servants are everywhere, restaurants, hotels, motels etc. In one sense, all of us are servants to each other as we engage in our professions."
Uh, no... I can quit my job in my profession, I am not in servitude.
Leviticus 25:44 - "Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids."
Heathen: "1. an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan.
2. an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/heathen
Leviticus 25:45 - "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession."
The slave trade dealt with "buying" slaves, as possessions, that's why they called it the "slave trade".
In other words, if slaves have children, the owner gets to own the children as their personal possessions - like cattle.
Leviticus 25:46 - "And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour."
A "possession" is something you "own", I am not owned by my employer, and my employer doesn't get to "keep my children". The Pagans were considered free game, because they didn't have any allegiance to a religious group, who provided military support. To this day, there is still this sub-conscious drive for the religious, to ignore each-other and go after the "heathen". The modern day "heathen" to the ignorant religious are the modern day Pagan's, or atheists. Pick up a book.
Paul: "The Bible has a strict code of conduct for the relationship between the master and the servants. The Bible never supported lynching,..."
Paul: "...cross-continental transport of slaves, killing of slaves etc."
Dude, at the time god and his slave trade was being conducted, there wasn't this commercial industry transporting people across continents, however, they did in fact cross empire boundaries, etc. And, there was most definitely killing of slaves.
Paul: "The Bible records the first emancipation of slaves from Egypt into the promised Land by the mighty hand of God Jehovah."
Yeah, however, as Moses was fleeing Egypt from being enslaved. However, the Jews of the Old Testament, after fleeing Egypt did in fact own "slaves". Lets name a few.
Abraham owned slaves in Genesis:
20-14: "Then Abimelech brought sheep and cattle and male and female slaves and gave them to Abraham, and he returned Sarah his wife to him. 15 And Abimelech said, "My land is before you; live wherever you like." 16 To Sarah he said, "I am giving your brother a thousand shekels of silver. This is to cover the offense against you before all who are with you; you are completely vindicated." 17 Then Abraham prayed to God, and God healed Abimelech, his wife and his slave girls so they could have children again, 18 for the Lord had closed up every womb in Abimelech's household because of Abraham's wife Sarah."
Joseph owned Slaved in Genesis:
44-17: "But Joseph said, "Far be it from me to do such a thing! Only the man who was found to have the cup will become my slave. The rest of you, go back to your father in peace."
David owned slaves in 2 Samuel:
6-20: "When David returned home to bless his household, Michal daughter of Saul came out to meet him and said, "How the king of Israel has distinguished himself today, disrobing in the sight of the slave girls of his servants as any vulgar fellow would!"
Solomon owned slaves in 2 Chronicles:
8: "All the people left from the Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites (these peoples were not Israelites), 8 that is, their descendants remaining in the land, whom the Israelites had not destroyed--these Solomon conscripted for his slave labor force, as it is to this day. 9 But Solomon did not make slaves of the Israelites for his work; they were his fighting men, commanders of his captains, and commanders of his chariots and charioteers."
Here what Paul conveyed for Jesus:
Colossians 4:1 - "Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."
Paul: "On the other hand, Islam is still practising slavery in Africa in countries like Sudan."
Your god and Jesus approved of slavery, if it was good for them, why should it be wrong for Islamists? They still carry out the belief of your god - you don't, seems ironic.
Paul: "The atheists like Stalin put their own citizens in millions in slave gulags."
Ironic as well, that you condemn an Atheist for what your god, Jesus, and Paul preached. Shall you care to bring up anything else you can condemn an Atheist for that your personal "god" didn't support? Thanks.
Paul: "Only God of the Bible says that since He created us in His image He wants us to look for His image in every human being."
Show that verse, and how it relates to non-slaves/servants, and pagans, thanks.
Paul: "The apostle Paul wrote in the epistle to Galatians, 'Now there is no difference between a master and a servant, man and a woman, Jew and a gentile. All are one in Christ'. Such is the message of Christianity in the world."
Galations 3-28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
So, you suggest there is no "difference" in rights between male and female per Paul in Galatians? Then, of course you could explain the following, that occurs "after" Paul's writing in Galatians.
Ephesians 5:22-24 - "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing."
Colossians 3:18 - "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord."
1 Timothy 2:11-15 - "Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing."
1 Peter 3:1 - "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands."
Women, are still subservient to the male, up to the end of your bible - get a grip, there is "no" equality, even to this day your bible is still there.
Paul: "That is the attraction of the Christianity even in countries like China, where atheism is the official policy of the state. Do you know, in the last one decade, the Christianity grew into a 90 million strong community in China under the very wings of atheist Chinese leaders."
:-) Really, and... do you have the names of a few of these Christians? Where do you get your stats from there Paul, I mean, I talk to people on a regular basis - where do you get your information on what Chinese people believe and think? You have some underground connection that the Chinese government has somehow "missed"?
Also, emancipation is not what brings people to your religion - the fear of an afterlife in hell is the selling point for many. In your bible, women are still considered inferior, property, and to be subservient. Do you believe that is exactly what "Chinese" people are seeking in their life?
Paul: "That is the power of love of CHrist and His Christianity in the world."
You missed bible study one too many times there Paul - you're religion is based on bigotry, even to the last chapter in Revelation - where some are saved and others aren't.
Paul: "You atheist morons in America, you have been given freedom in this Christian America because we love all human beings."
That is outside of your bible, there Paul, if you love someone, it's because you choose to... not because you don't have biblical standing. Do you believe in the "man of the house" principle of the bible? It's in writing there bud, you need to start reading.
Paul: "Look at the world and see the amazing power of Christian gospel in bringing millions of people to Christianity around the world. The religion still largest in the entire world. You atheists are a small group of morons. Don't forget that."
:-) It's better to be honest, and in the minority, than be a hypocrite liar in the majority, but... Paul you are in a class all on your own in ignorant bigotry.
I think what he means is that there are more people who call themselves Christian in the world than those who call themselves Muslim, or Buddhist, or atheist.
And if he wants to state here and now that Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Anglicans, Mormons, all Protestants, Jehovah Witness, and every so-called "Christian," regardless of denominational affiliation and level of commitment, is a True Christian™, just like him, then I guess that proves there are more Christians in the world than Muslims, or Buddhists.
In reality, those who call themselves Christians make up just over 30% of the total population of the planet. And of those 30% who call themselves Christian, I'm sure that Paul would only consider a very tiny portion of them to be True Christians™.
When it comes right down to it, I'd wager that the True Christians are even out numbered by those of us who have decided not to adhere to any religion.
So, if being a small minority is what makes people morons...
Welcome to the club, Paul!
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.
I wonder how many slaves the fundy Paul owns? He says it's ok.
Thats why he goes by Paul, he can do anything he wants and he's got his good book to back him up in anything, what a hypocrite he is.
You atheist morons in America, you have been given freedom in this Christian America because we love all human beings.
Paul, if we happen to call you a dumbass, remember its just an expression of love for a fellow human being.
He tries to pull a bird out of his sleeve and instead, the pigeon flies out from under his jacket. So he yells “just ignore that; it isn’t really what you saw. Let me redefine the magic trick, I will now make this handkerchief change color.” He waves it in the air and a bunch of ping pong balls roll out of his other sleeve. So he immediately covers it by blowing his nose in the handkerchief, stuffs it in his pocket, and says “Watch as the balls turn into birds.” While everyone watches the balls, he fishes around in a box near him and throws a bunch of pigeons into to the air and goes “See?” When no one applauds, he goes “How could you idiots watching miss it? It was real magic.”
That’s about how he explains away servant/slave, compares Christianity to Islam, throws around the name of Stalin, and then resorts to name calling to make his “undeniable” point. As that other mythical being says…Ho-Ho-Ho!
I second Wes' request!
To illustrate: how many arguments have we heard about noah's flood? How many xians have rushed forward with eager evidence; the geological evidence, and so on, while going mute about the bigger issue: what sort of god would do a thing like that? Hmmmm? If you xians can verify the flood's historical truth, then none of us are safe, not in this world, nor in the next.
My lovely wife got me a copy of The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins. Allow me to quote from the beginning of chapter 2:
"The god of the old testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty,unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomanical, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways can become desensitized to his horror."
Dawkins goes on to relate that Winston Churchill's son, Randolph, was introduced to the bible during WW1, by Evelyn Waugh. Churchill laughed all the way through it, exclaiming all the while, "Aint god a shit?"
paul, you have the guts to tell us that your baby jesus somehow cancels all this out, and that he provided us with this great new religion. He didn't. Nope. You, paul, are the moron. Not us. The xian religion has never let go of the jew god.All of us have attended the jew-zoo on sunday, and he is still there.
Just a few personal things. I should not be doing this. About atheism and the meaning of life: paul, what the damned hell does "the meaning of life" mean? My life means as much to me as yours does to you. I do not need to drop to my knees in fear and trembling in order to find meaning in life.
About jesus' resurrection being fact: bunk.
About atheists killing more people than xians: I am not impressed with your body count mentality. You xians have spent 20 centuries showing us that you are willing to spill blood at the drop of a hat. I, for one, would sooner be a member of the Nazi party that a member of any church.
And paul, in the name of all the gods, will you get your bible straight? The bible supports the killing of slaves (reference your post of 12/26, 2:58) Look it up, damnit. We are getting weary of teaching you people the bible you pretend to read.
Some atheists do think life is meaningless. But so do some Christians. Some atheists have attempted genocide and committed other atrocities. So have some Buddhists. Some atheists are arrogant and/or dogmatic. But so are some Neo-pagans. These attributes can be used to describe any annoying human being, regardless of their stance on the existence of a supreme being(s).
Some people are just jerks, no matter what they believe. It doesn't make their beliefs any more or less true.
Precisely. People can be "good" or "bad"; "nice" or "mean"; "loving" or "non-loving", regardless of what "belief"/"non-belief" they adhere to. So which variable is the "dead weight"? It certainly isn't "people".
Answer: "Belief".
Trim the fat for 2007 AD.
(a privative, and theos, God, i.e. without God).
Atheism is that system of thought which is formally opposed to theism. Since its first coming into use the term atheism has been very vaguely employed, generally as an epithet of accusation against any system that called in question the popular gods of the day. Thus while Socrates was accused of atheism (Plato, Apol., 26,c.) and Diagoras called an atheist by Cicero (Nat. Deor., I, 23), Democritus and Epicurus were styled in the same sense impious (without respect for the gods) on account of their trend of their new atomistic philosophy. In this sense too, the early Christians were known to the pagans as atheists, because they denied the heathen gods; while, from time to time, various religious and philisophical systems have, for similar reasons, been deemed atheistic.
Though atheism, historically considered, has meant no more in the past critical or sceptical denial of the theology of those who have employed the term as one of reproach, and has consquently no one strict philisophical meaning; though there is no one consistent system in the exposition of which it has a definite place; yet, if we consider it in its broad meaning as merely the opposite of theism, we will be able to frame such divisions as will make possible a grouping of definite systems under this head. And in so doing so we shall at once be adopting both the historical and the philosophical view. For the common basis of all systems of theism as well as the cardinal tenet of all popular religion at the present day is indubitably a belief in the existence of a personal God, and to deny this tenet is to invite the popular reproach of atheism. The need of some such definition as this was felt by Mr. Gladstone when he wrote (Contemporary Review, June 1876):
By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole unseen, or to the existence of God.
Moreover, the breadth of comprehension in such a use of the term admits of divisions and cross-divisions being framed under it; and at the same time limits the number of systems of thought to which, with any propriety, it might otherwise be extended. Also, if the term is thus taken, in strict contradistinction to theism, and a plan of its possible modes of acceptance made, these systems of thought will naturally appear in clearer proportion and relationship.
Thus, defined as a doctrine, or theory, or philosophy formally opposed to theism, atheism can only signify the teaching of those schools, whether cosmological or moral, which do not include God either as a principle or as a conclusion of their reasoning.
The most trenchant form which atheism could take would be the positive and dogmatic denial existence of any spiritual and extra-mundane First Cause. This is sometimes known as dogmatic, or positive theoretic, atheism; though it may be doubted whether such a system has ever been, or could ever possibly be seriously maintained. Certainly Bacon and Dr. Arnold voice the common judgment of thinking men when they express a doubt as to the existence of an atheist belonging to such a school. Still, there are certain advanced phases of materialistic philosophy that, perhaps, should rightly be included under this head. Materialism, which professes to find in matter its own cause and explanation, may go farther, and positively exclude the existence of any spiritual cause. That such a dogmatic assertion is both unreasonable and illogical needs no demonstration, for it is an inference not warranted by the facts nor justified by the laws of thought. But the fact that certain individuals have left the sphere of exact scientific observation for speculation, and have thus dogmatized negatively, calls for their inclusion in this specific type. Materialism is the one dogmatic explanation of the universe which could in any sense justify an atheistic position. But even materialism, however its advocated might dogmatize, could do no more than provide an inadequate theoretic basis for a negative form of atheism. Pantheism, which must not be confused with materialism, in some of its forms can be placed also in this division, as categorically denying the existence of a spiritual First Cause above or outside the world.
A second form in which atheism may be held and taught, as indeed it has been, is based either upon the lack of physical data for theism or upon the limited nature of the intelligence of man. This second form may be described as a negative theoretic atheism; and may be furthur viewed as cosmological or psychological, according as it is motived, on the one hand, by a consideration of the paucity of actual data available for the arguments proving the existence of a super-sensible and spiritual God, or, what amounts to the same thing, the attributing of all cosmic change and development to the self-contained potentialities of an eternal matter; or, on the other hand, by an empiric or theoretic estimate of the powers of reason working upon the data furnished by sense-perception. From whichever cause this negative form of atheism proceeds, it issues in agnosticism or materialism; although the agnostic is, perhaps, better classed under this head than the materialist. For the former, professing a state of nescience, more properly belongs to a category under which those are placed who neglect, rather than explain, nature without a God. Moreover, the agnostic may be a theist, if he admits the existence of a being behind and beyond nature, even while he asserts that such a being is both unprovable and unknowable. The materialist belongs to this type so long as he merely neglects, and does not exclude from his system, the existence of God. So, too, does the positivist, regarding theological and metaphysical speculation as mere passing stages of thought through which the human mind has been journeying towards positive, or related empirical, knowledge. Indeed, any system of thought or school of philosophy that simply omits the existence of God from the sum total of natural knowlege, whether the individual as a matter of fact believes in Him or not, can be classed in this division of atheism, in which, strictly speaking, no positive assertion or denial is made as to the ultimate fact of His being.
There are two systems of practical or moral atheism which call for attention. They are based upon the theoretic systems just expounded. One system of positive moral atheism, in which human actions would neither be right nor wrong, good nor evil, with reference to God, would naturally follow from the profession of positive theoretic atheism; and it is significant of those to whom such a form of theoretic atheism is sometimes attributed, that for the sanctions of moral actions they introduce such abstract ideas as those of duty, the social instinct, or humanity. There seems to be no particular reason why they should have recourse to such sanctions, since the morality of an action can hardly be derived from its performance as a duty, which in turn can be called and known as a "duty" only because it refers to an action that is morally good. Indeed an analysis of the idea of duty leads to a refutation of the principle in whose support it is invoked, and points to the necessity of a theisitic interpretation of nature for its own justification.
The second system of negative practical or moral atheism may be referred to the second type of theoretic atheism. It is like the first in not relating human actions to an extra-mundane, spiritual, and personal lawgiver; but that, not because such a lawgiver does not exist, but because the human intelligence is incapable of so relating them. It must not be forgotten, however, that either negative theoretic atheism or negative practical atheism is, as a system, strictly speaking compatible with belief in a God; and much confusion is often caused by the inaccurate use of the terms, belief, knowledge, opinion, etc.
Lastly, a third type is generally, though perhaps wrongly, included in moral atheism. "Practical atheism is not a kind of thought or opinion, but a mode of life" (R. Flint, Anti-theisitc Theories, Lect. I). This is more correctly called, as it is described, godlessness in conduct, quite irrespective of any theory of philosophy, or morals, or of religious faith. It will be noticed that, although we have included agnosticism, materialism, and pantheism, among the types of atheism, strictly speaking this latter does not necessarily include any one of the former. A man may be an agnostic simply, or an agnostic who is also an atheist. He may be a scientific materialist and no more, or he may combine atheism with his materialism. It does not necessarilly follow, because the natural cognoscibility of a personal First Cause is denied, that His existence is called in question: nor, when matter is called upon to explain itself, that God is critically denied. On the other hand, pantheism, while destroying the extra-mundane character of God, does not necessarily deny the existence of a supreme entity, but rather affirms such as the sum of all existence and the cause of all phenomena whether of thought or of matter. Consequently, while it would be unjust to class agnostics, materialists, or pantheists as necessarily also atheists, it cannot be denied that atheism is clearly perceived to be implied in certain phases of all these systems. There are so many shades and gradations of thought by which one form of a philosophy merges into another, so much that is opinionative and personal woven into the various individual expositions of systems, that, to be impartially fair, each individual must be classed by himself as atheist or theist. Indeed, more upon his own assertion or direct teaching than by reason of any supposed implication in the system he advocated must this classification be made. And if it is correct to consider the subject from this point of view, it is surprising to find to what an exceedingly small number the supposed atheistic ranks dwindle. In company with Socrates, nearly all the reputed Greek atheists strenuously repudiated the charge of teaching that there were no gods. Even Bion, who, according to Diogenes Laertius (Life of Aristippus, XIII, Bohn's tr.), adopted the scandalous moral teaching of the atheist Theodorus, turned again to the gods whom he had insulted, and when he came to die demonstrated in practice what he had denied in theory. As Laertius says in his "Life of Bion", he "who never once said, `I have sinned but spare me --
Then did this atheist shrink and give his neck
To an old woman to hang charms upon;
And bound his arms with magic amulets;
With laurel branches blocked his doors and windows,
Ready to do and venture anything
Rather than die."
Epicurus, the founder of that shcool of physics which limited all causes to purely natural ones and consequently implied, if he did not actually assert, atheism, is spoken of as a man whose "piety towards the gods and (whose) affection for his country was quite unspeakable" (ib., Life of Epicurus, V). And though Lucretius Carus speaks of the downfall of popular religion which he wished to bring about (De Rerum natura, I, 79-80), yet, in his own letter to Henaeceus (Laert., Life of Epicurus, XXVII), he states plainly a true theistic position: "For there are gods: for our knowledge of them is indistinct. But they are not of the character which people in general attribute to them." Indeed, this one citation perfectly illustrates the fundamental historic meaning of the term, atheism.
The naturalistic pantheism of the Italian Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) comes near to, if it is not actually a profession of, atheism; while Tomaso Campanella (1568-1639), on the contrary, in his nature-philosophy finds in atheism the one impossibility of thought, Spinoza (1632-77), while defending the doctrine that God certainly exists, so identifies Him with finite existence that it is difficult to see how he can be defended against the charge of atheism even of the first type. In the eighteenth century, and especially in France, the doctrines of materialsim were spread broadcast by the Encyclopedists. La Mettrie, Holbach, Fererbach, and Fleurens are usually classed among the foremost materialistic atheists of the period. Voltaire, on the contrary, while undoubtedly helping on the cause of practical atheism, distinctly held its theoretic contrary. He, as well as Rousseau, was a deist. Comte, it will be remembered, refused to be called an atheist. In the last century Thomas Huxley, Charles Darwin, and Herbert Spencer, with others of the evolutionistic school of philosophy, were, quite erroneously, charged with positive atheism. It is a charge which can in no way be substantiated; and the invention andonism of Ernst Hackel, goes far towards forming an atheistic system of philosophy. But even the last named admits that there may be a God, though so limited and so foreign to the deity of theists that his admission can hardly remove the system from the first category of theoretic atheism.
Among the unscientific and unphilosophical there have from time to time been found dogmatic atheists of the first type. Here again, however, many of those popularly styled atheists are more correctly described by some other title. There is a somewhat rare tract, "Atheism Refuted in a Discourse to prove the Existence of God by T.P." -- British Museum Catalogue, "Tom Paine", who was at one time popularly called an atheist. And perhaps, of the few who have upheld an indubitable form of positive theoretic atheism, none has been taken seriously enough to hav exerted any influence upon the trend of philosophic or scientific thought. Robert Ingersoll might be instanced, but though popular speakers and writers of this type may create a certain amount of unlearned disturbance, they are not treated seriously by thinking men, and it is extremely doubtful whether they deserve a place in any historical or philosophical exposition of atheism.
However, once the writer resorted to denigrating Thomas Paine and Robert Ingersoll, that's where he lost me. Those two men were absolute geniuses, and their writings should be read by everyone with any interest in this topic. I suspect that because Paine and Ingersoll are such powerful authors, the Catholic church cannot refute anything they said, so instead the writer casts aspersions on them by saying "they are not treated seriously by thinking men." Yeah, nice apologetic: "If you read these guys, you're stupid."
To Anonymous. The next time you post, only reference a couple of points, refer back to the website, and make comments using your own words. I generally delete all copy and paste posts on sight. I'm making an exception here, only because this Catholic writer showed his butt by condemning Paine and Ingersoll without giving a single example of how their thinking was skewed.
And although this Catholic author did his best to pin down what he thinks describes a "True Atheist™," all he really succeeded in doing is widening the meaning of the word atheist so that everyone who rejects Christianity (especially Catholic Christianity, no doubt) can now be called an atheist.
Is this why Jesus said "I come not to bring peace, but a sword"?
Says who? Josh Mcdowell?