 |
 |
 |
encouraging ex-Christians
Rants and articles submitted by and for ex-Christians
By Atheist Mommy
1. Atheists hate Christians and Christianity. No, we don't. Personally, I do hate the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, the dishonesty of most religions, and the way that they encourage people not to think or question, and not to trust or use their minds. But I don't dislike someone just because of their religion.
2. Most atheists started out as Christians, and stopped believing because of some bad experience with other Christians. Or maybe we simply started to question, to wonder what happened when we applied the standards of logic, reason and burden of proof to religion, as we already did to everything in our lives. Or, perhaps, we were never believers at all. It happens, you know.
3. Atheists have no sense of morality, since morality comes from God. Ah, the old without fear of hell, there would be nothing to stop people from being bloodthirsty monsters argument. It may come as a surprise to most Christians, but there are reasons for being good other than fear of punishment - which isn't really a reason, anyway, and only shows Christians in a very bad light. Reasons like human empathy, genuine feelings for others, and, most importantly, rational principles. Behaving yourself just because daddy will spank you otherwise does not make you a nice child.
4. Atheists are a unified group, like a church. Are we? I must have missed the memo, then. :) If anything, Id say atheists are more diverse than Christians, because were less sheep-like, and dont accept things on faith, or from authority.
5. Atheists actually know, deep inside, that theres a God, as thats perfectly obvious; they are simply too proud and arrogant to admit the existence of something greater than themselves. Not exactly. You see, the existence of a god is only obvious if youve been brainwashed (either by others, or by your own irrationality) into believing it. We are truly convinced that theres no god, and are not in denial. Really. Im serious. :)
6. Atheists dont really know anything about Christianity. Again, it depends. Some certainly know more than others. However, religion is so ubiquitous that, like it or not, weve all had varying degrees of contact with it, with its teachings, and with believers. Besides, a lot of atheists are naturally curious. I, myself, have read the Christian Bible - more than once, in fact. Now, dear believer, ask yourself how many atheist books, magazines or essays you have read. Oh, I forgot, theyre all the work of Satan.
7. Atheists lives are cold and empty, as they cant feel the joy and love that comes only from God. Really? Id never call my life cold or empty - I have the joys of friendship, love, family, and doing the things I love to do. And, whats more, I'm self-sufficient, unlike anyone who says I don't know how anyone could live without God in their lives - as many Christians do.
8. Atheists are depressive and nihilistic, since they believe theres nothing after death, and therefore theres no point to anything. On the contrary, we, unlike you, know how precious life is, because were aware that its our only one. And, this may come as a shock to you, but we can love our lives, we can feel the joy of being alive, because we don't believe that this is the devils world, or that this is just a test before the real thing. Life is precious, and its our own - not any gods.
9. Atheists are cold and uncaring. No, we are not. Having delusions doesn't make anyone more caring. And, again, we treat life as precious, and do what we can to improve it, both ours and that of our loved ones. On the other hand, many Christians believe life is suffering, and that theres nothing we can do about it.
10. Atheists are arrogant. What, because we dare to use our minds instead of asking who are we to know? No, were not.
11. Atheists want to forbid religious worship. Wrong. We just don't want to be harmed by it. Want to believe in God, Jesus, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Be my guest. Want to teach your kids to do the same? I feel sorry for them, but it will still take many years until people realize how crippling ones reason in childhood is like a bird crippling its offspring's wings. (*) Want to give all your money to a guy with a Lexus and a bad haircut? Fine. But don't try to save me, don't harass me in the street or at my home, don't get politicians to enact laws to give power to you, don't try to teach your religion in science classes by dishonestly giving it a new name and disguising it as science, and don't use my tax money to write your idiocies in public places. In short, do as you want, as long as you keep it to yourself - just like I don't go to your place trying to un-convert you.
12. Atheists are incapable of feeling awe at simple things, like a beautiful sunset, as they see everything in terms of cold science, instead of miracles. Ah, unweaving the rainbow - the idea that beauty and poetry only exist if we know little to nothing about how things work. But I ask you: does the fact that you know about astronomy, physics and light make the sunset any less beautiful? Was it beautiful only because it seemed magical - or an act of god - to you?
13. Atheists live their lives in constant fear of death. Few people actually want to die - those that do are either depressed and suicidal, or are Christians who believe that the world is evil, please, Lord Jesus, take me, and all that. A reasonable fear of death is perfectly natural. Also, we may believe that this life is it, which makes us treat it as precious, but, at least, we don't think that theres a chance of going to a place where you burn and are tortured for eternity
14. Most criminals are atheists (or, alternatively, the percentage of atheists among criminals is higher than among the general populace). Oddly enough, the opposite is true.
15. Atheists are stubborn and closed-minded. Not unless you define closed-minded like this. But, as Ebon said, Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, Nothing - I have faith in my god. Although such people may well exist, I personally have yet to meet a theist who would acknowledge even the possibility that his belief was in error. Many theists, by their own admission, structure their beliefs so that no evidence could possibly disprove them. Atheists, on the other hand, are easy to convince - all it requires is for God to show himself in some unfakeable way - say, for instance, by doing any of the many things he supposedly did in the Old Testament
16. Atheists make bad parents. Again, there are good and bad atheist parents, and good and bad Christian parents. Atheist parents, however, would never do what Abraham was about to do to his son Isaac (and Christians see Abraham's behavior as laudable!), because, to most atheists, our lives are our own. In fact, even if there was a God, it would not follow that our lives are his.
1. Atheists hate Christians and Christianity. No, we don't. Personally, I do hate the atrocities that have been committed in the name of religion, the dishonesty of most religions, and the way that they encourage people not to think or question, and not to trust or use their minds. But I don't dislike someone just because of their religion.
2. Most atheists started out as Christians, and stopped believing because of some bad experience with other Christians. Or maybe we simply started to question, to wonder what happened when we applied the standards of logic, reason and burden of proof to religion, as we already did to everything in our lives. Or, perhaps, we were never believers at all. It happens, you know.
3. Atheists have no sense of morality, since morality comes from God. Ah, the old without fear of hell, there would be nothing to stop people from being bloodthirsty monsters argument. It may come as a surprise to most Christians, but there are reasons for being good other than fear of punishment - which isn't really a reason, anyway, and only shows Christians in a very bad light. Reasons like human empathy, genuine feelings for others, and, most importantly, rational principles. Behaving yourself just because daddy will spank you otherwise does not make you a nice child.
4. Atheists are a unified group, like a church. Are we? I must have missed the memo, then. :) If anything, Id say atheists are more diverse than Christians, because were less sheep-like, and dont accept things on faith, or from authority.
5. Atheists actually know, deep inside, that theres a God, as thats perfectly obvious; they are simply too proud and arrogant to admit the existence of something greater than themselves. Not exactly. You see, the existence of a god is only obvious if youve been brainwashed (either by others, or by your own irrationality) into believing it. We are truly convinced that theres no god, and are not in denial. Really. Im serious. :)
6. Atheists dont really know anything about Christianity. Again, it depends. Some certainly know more than others. However, religion is so ubiquitous that, like it or not, weve all had varying degrees of contact with it, with its teachings, and with believers. Besides, a lot of atheists are naturally curious. I, myself, have read the Christian Bible - more than once, in fact. Now, dear believer, ask yourself how many atheist books, magazines or essays you have read. Oh, I forgot, theyre all the work of Satan.
7. Atheists lives are cold and empty, as they cant feel the joy and love that comes only from God. Really? Id never call my life cold or empty - I have the joys of friendship, love, family, and doing the things I love to do. And, whats more, I'm self-sufficient, unlike anyone who says I don't know how anyone could live without God in their lives - as many Christians do.
8. Atheists are depressive and nihilistic, since they believe theres nothing after death, and therefore theres no point to anything. On the contrary, we, unlike you, know how precious life is, because were aware that its our only one. And, this may come as a shock to you, but we can love our lives, we can feel the joy of being alive, because we don't believe that this is the devils world, or that this is just a test before the real thing. Life is precious, and its our own - not any gods.
9. Atheists are cold and uncaring. No, we are not. Having delusions doesn't make anyone more caring. And, again, we treat life as precious, and do what we can to improve it, both ours and that of our loved ones. On the other hand, many Christians believe life is suffering, and that theres nothing we can do about it.
10. Atheists are arrogant. What, because we dare to use our minds instead of asking who are we to know? No, were not.
11. Atheists want to forbid religious worship. Wrong. We just don't want to be harmed by it. Want to believe in God, Jesus, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy? Be my guest. Want to teach your kids to do the same? I feel sorry for them, but it will still take many years until people realize how crippling ones reason in childhood is like a bird crippling its offspring's wings. (*) Want to give all your money to a guy with a Lexus and a bad haircut? Fine. But don't try to save me, don't harass me in the street or at my home, don't get politicians to enact laws to give power to you, don't try to teach your religion in science classes by dishonestly giving it a new name and disguising it as science, and don't use my tax money to write your idiocies in public places. In short, do as you want, as long as you keep it to yourself - just like I don't go to your place trying to un-convert you.
12. Atheists are incapable of feeling awe at simple things, like a beautiful sunset, as they see everything in terms of cold science, instead of miracles. Ah, unweaving the rainbow - the idea that beauty and poetry only exist if we know little to nothing about how things work. But I ask you: does the fact that you know about astronomy, physics and light make the sunset any less beautiful? Was it beautiful only because it seemed magical - or an act of god - to you?
13. Atheists live their lives in constant fear of death. Few people actually want to die - those that do are either depressed and suicidal, or are Christians who believe that the world is evil, please, Lord Jesus, take me, and all that. A reasonable fear of death is perfectly natural. Also, we may believe that this life is it, which makes us treat it as precious, but, at least, we don't think that theres a chance of going to a place where you burn and are tortured for eternity
14. Most criminals are atheists (or, alternatively, the percentage of atheists among criminals is higher than among the general populace). Oddly enough, the opposite is true.
15. Atheists are stubborn and closed-minded. Not unless you define closed-minded like this. But, as Ebon said, Ask any believer what would convince him he was mistaken and persuade him to leave his religion and become an atheist, and if you get a response, it will almost invariably be, Nothing - I have faith in my god. Although such people may well exist, I personally have yet to meet a theist who would acknowledge even the possibility that his belief was in error. Many theists, by their own admission, structure their beliefs so that no evidence could possibly disprove them. Atheists, on the other hand, are easy to convince - all it requires is for God to show himself in some unfakeable way - say, for instance, by doing any of the many things he supposedly did in the Old Testament
16. Atheists make bad parents. Again, there are good and bad atheist parents, and good and bad Christian parents. Atheist parents, however, would never do what Abraham was about to do to his son Isaac (and Christians see Abraham's behavior as laudable!), because, to most atheists, our lives are our own. In fact, even if there was a God, it would not follow that our lives are his.
1) while i cannot speak for all atheists, I myself DO despise the christian cult, and am slowly coming to see violence as the only solution to the increasing infection of their disease.
2) Yes I started out as a christian, But I stopped believing because it was obviously a mess of self contradictory lies.
3)LOL, this myth always gets a good laugh from me, As a christian I was told its GOOD to throw garbage on lawns of unbelievers, That its OK to gang up on kids who dont love jesus,,,, and take their lunch money, And that if a girl refuses to give her heart to jesus, she deserves to be raped.
I had pastors activly telling me that I HAD to harrass and threaten non christians ... or I would go to hell.
(so much for christian morality)
4) atheists are utterly dissorganized, We need to do something about that, we need to GET organized.
5) UGH, if I could not admit the existance of things greater than myself, I could not admit the existance of the universe,
nor could I admit the existance of any of the great people I openly admire and emulate...
and yes ... I actualy know ,deep down inside that there are no gods.
6) I was only activly in the christian cult for 12 years, and was culturaly christian for another few on either end of that nightmare.
I grew up in a predominantly christian country (canada), Surrounded by christian myths and influences,,, How can I NOT know anything about something I have dealt with EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE????
7)This doesnt even deserve a reply.
I have an active life of working and volunteering, Of music and of freinds.
And I experience both joy and love,
But without the depraved sexual violence of the christian cult.
8)Sorry, My depression was cured when I shed the last chains of the christian cult. The fact that there is nothing after death does not make life pointless, on the contrary, It makes life SPECIAL and deeply important.
9) utter rubbish. most atheists are socialy active in volunteer and charity work, social justice activism, and every other effort to make life better for people, Atheists care about THIS life, THE REAL LIFE, and work to help everyone enjoy dignity and hope IN THIS LIFE,
Unlike the christian cult which commands people to suffer injustice and degradation in their lives, and insists they will have better luck in the next life as long as they grovel to their masters.
10) Most atheists are humbled by the sheer magnitude of the universe. As well as the vast diversity of life.
The very things most christians arrogantly ignore.
11)Forbid? no, LIMIT AND HOLD ACCOUNTABLE.
12) sorry , again you transfer your crap onto us.
I enjoy watching sunsets, sunrises, geese on the bay, little league baseball games, etc etc,,,
13) Most christians are afraid of death, and live in constant fear of dying,
I was at the deathbed of a freind, a fellow atheist and fellow musician.
Michael died peacefully surrounded by freinds , he died with dignity.
14) Atheists are generaly educated, and although the democracy does strive to criminalize social justice activists, the fact remains that it is CHRISTIANS who are raping and murdering and stealing and passing bad cheques, and defauding wellfare, and selling heroin in schoolyards,
Atheists DO get criminalized for protesting against injustice.
but the actual criminals tend to believe in a jesus.
15)the first step to becoming an atheist, is to become open minded.
16)sorry, Atheist parents dont have a god telling them to beat their children,
And TAX, don't forget TAX! Why the hell should these sheisters get off any better than anyone else?
-----------------------------------
As for a few of the other points;
Arrogance? If i'm confronted by someone who shows blatant intellectual inferiority to me then maybe I might come accross as arrogant, but that ain't arrogance, it's only arrogance if you "think" your better than them.
Closed-minded? show unto me the works of ye god in such a fashion as cannot be disproved and ye shall have a convert on the morn. Ain't gonna happen though, is it?
Know nothing of christianity? from what i've seen on this site, most atheists have read more of the bible than most christians! Perhaps that's the awnser, get MORE peeople reading the damn thing, certainly seems to help our cause allong!
No Morality? Consult Mister Dawkins on this point, religion is a parasite on morality, not it's mother. Period.
Glad you posted that here on the main blog...maybe it'll make a difference. We're just average people, just no god beliefs. Sad that the christians out there have such false stereotyped beliefs about atheism and atheists.
Most people do not know, nor do they want to know!
The majority of Atheists are a loving caring rational thinking Human Being, that is concerned with the well being of his/her fellow man/woman. Every person that is born on Earth, is infact born an Atheist and non-believer.
Most Atheists do not support nor condone, lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, wars, hatred of others, nor harm to another human being and believe in upholding the laws of the land.
Atheists, do not believe that you can commit a crime and then later ask an imaginary god-man to forgive you for something you know you should have not done to begin with.
Most Atheists would agree with the teachings of the Ten Commandments, although they do not believe that they were inspired by nor written by an imaginary god, and believe that anyone living in that day, could have just as easily wrote the Ten Commandments.
An Atheist, does not claim to be an Atheist, just to be opposed to the Bible God, as Christians would have people to believe.
Atheists, do not believe in invisible beings or invisible gods, or bible gods or mythological gods, nor man made gods, nor imaginary entities.
An Atheist, does not prescribe to religious creeds nor covenants, nor the ancient teachings that was handed down from the Bronze Age way of thinking and through generation to generation.
Every person is in-fact an Atheist, if you do not believe in Thor, Orisis, Sol, Allah,, etc, then you are an Atheist to those gods.
Most Atheists, live by strict moral standards, weighed by his/her own conscious of right and wrong, in most cases Atheist's morals rise well above those that claim to be initiated into a spiritual righteousness or one that claims to be a Christian.
An Atheist, does not hate any god, because they do not believe you can hate something that is not real or does not exist.
An Atheist, does not believe in ghosts, holy spirits, souls, miracles, faith, oracles, visions, dreams, divine inspiration or divine intervention, witches, prayer, speaking in tongues, virgin births, baptism, heaven, hell, angels, gods, imaginary beings, superstitions, devils, demons, spooks, nor that the Bible is the inspired word of a God.
An Atheist, does not claim a religious title to proclaim their own righteousness and worthyness.
An Atheist, does not believe what a man wrote down in books over 2000 years ago, by mentally deranged, opium-using sheep herders to be the inspired word of a god.
An Atheist, has never crucified another human being.
An Atheist, has never started a religious war.
Adolph Hitler was not an atheist, he was a Christian, claiming to be doing the will of the Bible god, by killing Jews.
The American Indians were Atheists, before 1492, there was not one single Bible or church on American soil, and most of them were killed in the name of the Bible God and Jesus.
Why do we not kill the Indians living today, since they are all the direct descendants of those same filthy savage infidels?
Ref. go to: http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm
Great Post, A.M.!
I really like the segment about how theists believe a life without god must be depressive and nihilistic. It is the finiteness of life that gives it meaning to me. Can you imagine having a wonderful relationship for five-trillion years in the hereafter and recognizing that in terms of infinity the relationship is meaningless? The thought of living for eternity, even in a nice place would be hell.
Atheism IS the myth.
Everyone knows God exists, but some suppress the knowledge because they can't stand the idea of being accountable to God.
Nietzche and Ayn Rand are examples of this.
I guess I will just say, "I lack belief in your claims."
Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.
Take a number!
EG, there are churches on nearly every corner in every city, town and village in America. Since they all have the personal support of the omnipotent GOD of Heaven, I wonder why you so fear the influence of any tiny minority of atheists.
You're make a great study.
Thanks.
Atheism is a philosophical position, and it exists,
I do not KNOW that any gods exist, do not lie to me about me.
The fantasy of being accountable to an imaginary fantasy character is utterly irrelevent to me.
I am happy to be accountable to myself and my fellow mamals. at least I know that I exist, and that other mamals exist,
PS your willfull ignorance of history is as pathetic as your willfull ignorance of philosophy
May I add one?
Christians think that atheists are bitter and angry, calling them demon possesed and affirming that they should all be exorcized.
I used to think that way, anyway.
As for Mr. EG. Why should I be so afraid of being accountable to god? Every day I feel accountable to my fellow human being: I want to be honest if I can, helpful if I can, kind if I can, generous if I have it, and always look for some way to contribute to the greater good, to somehow alleviate poverty or stop war, from my own little corner of the earth. What else have I got to account for? Oh, yes, and raise my daughter to be a happy, healthy responsible human being. If there's more accountability that this, then the god you refer to is an unforgiving taskmaster and tyrant.
Naomi
Cute post. Nicely thought out. :-)
Great post! And Emanuel? Manny, Manny, Manny... see a doctor. You bend 'way too easily at the neck, waist, and knees. Salin started out as a religeous student, most of the Nazi heirachy was catholic (they used the Cluniac model of 'give me the boy and in seven years I'll give you the man')etc.
So, how about Bernardo Gue, Tomas de Torquemada, Mathew Hopkins? Even Thomas More said that the smell of burning heretics was a perfume. Franco and what he did as a 'christian?' The Ruandan thing? Just a couple of samples of xians who are supposed to know and be better running loose.
Sad.
Bull, my best friend is a devout christian, he even shushes me when I mouth off about the evils of religion. He's also gay, which is bizzare, y'know what with the hell thing an' all.
(note: my point #’s do not coincide with yours)
1. You incorrectly generalize all atheists by saying “no, we don’t” [hate Christians]. I agree with your fourth statement that atheists are not a unified group. I would say “many” atheists do not hate Christians, or even “most.” But let’s be honest – there are some who hate Christians with a hostile and intense passion.
2. Atrocities committed in the name of religion are no more the fault of religion than are the atrocities committed in the name of atheism. We could also point out the benevolent and good things springing from various worldviews, and Christianity wins this one hands down. No other organization in world history has made so many contributions to education, health care, welfare, and such. I have never seen a single atheist hospital, soup kitchen, etc. I realize this is due, in part, to the lack of a unified group, but it is precisely unified groups of Christians that have accomplished far more good than bad.
And tragedies that occur in the name of a cause are not always representative of that cause. Just because certain people are religious does not authorize them to speak and act for all religious people. For example, Applewhite (the guy who led a group to commit suicide when the Hale-Bopp comet approached) was a perversion of religion, and far from the norm.
We really need to avoid the obvious Hitler/Stalin name-calling games, but there are valid points to be made. Stalin was an atheist, and the Inquisition isn’t Christianity’s finest hour. These things are not necessarily indicators the underlying philosophy is at fault. These horrific tragedies more accurately indicate that humans (and not Christians or atheists or pagans or ???) are faulty.
3. I again see an unfair generalization in assuming Christians do not think and that they do not encourage others to think or use their minds. This is patently untrue. I have undeniable, empirically-observed evidence to the contrary: I’m a Christian, and I think, and I have often encouraged others to think as well. And I am not the only Christian to do so.
4. It won’t come as a surprise to most Christians that behavior can be motivated by things other than fear of punishment. Christianity teaches that we should love and respect each other. We try to do good because it is simply the right thing to do, even if it is unpopular.
I suppose this is a genetic fallacy of sorts … if the motivation came from fear then it must be a bad motivation. Don’t be so quick to dismiss fear. It shouldn’t be the only motivation, but one reason it is so effective is because it is often valid, especially in many non-religious settings. Healthy, rational, well-placed fear preserves lives.
5. Diversity among Christians vs. diversity among atheists? I won’t argue this one too much, but we’re a pretty wild and diverse group. Ask your Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, non-denominationalist, etc. This isn’t necessarily a good thing, but if you find diversity to be virtuous, then sign us up.
6. Sheep-like? I think a sheep in the arms of a loving Shepherd is a beautiful metaphor and consistent with Scripture. Thank you for noticing.
7. How do atheists *not* accept things on faith? Everyone has faith. Even atheists hold certain assumptions that are essentially accepted at face value without much investigation. I don’t think this is an inherently bad idea – we all do it.
Christians can’t empirically prove God does exist, but non-Christians cannot empirically prove He does not exist. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. At this level, we have to admit the role of faith. Yes, Christians are creatures of faith, but no more so than anyone else.
8. The existence of God is only obvious if you are brainwashed? This comes dangerously close to being offensive. I’m brainwashed because I disagree with you? Well, why can’t I say you’re the brainwashed one? Why can’t I say you don’t use your mind? If we’re going to bandy about this kind of rhetoric, it can be thrown in both directions.
Personal attacks have no place in an objective, logical argument. Numerous other statements in your post are cut from this same cloth. I’m not delusional, close-minded, etc. (If you say that I am, but just don’t know it, then I could say the same thing about you.)
9. There’s a general feeling of hostile superiority that runs through the whole post. For instance, you say that you’ve read the Bible, but that Christians don’t read your stuff. There are many Christians who don’t read your stuff, but there are also many atheists who don’t read our stuff. For the record, many Christians have read your stuff.
I feel like you’re painting my portrait from a photograph, but using a picture of someone else to do it. Yes, there are close-minded Christians out there, and they tend to be vocal, but let me assure you – they are not the majority, and they are not my representatives. It would be equally unfair of me to assume that all atheists are embezzling, overweight losers based on the example of Madelyn Murray O’Hare (and you’ve got to admit, she’s not the person you want on your recruiting posters).
10. You argue from a lack of experience to say that your life is not empty without God. If you’ve never experienced Christianity, then how do you know you are not empty? People have converted from atheism to Christianity and described the difference – I assume they are not lying. They appear qualified to make this kind of judgment. Personally, I cannot argue this point, but someone such as CS Lewis (who was an incredibly brilliant thinker) can. He described his conversion as a process he fought every step of the way, but could not resist the truth. If you are truly interested in reading “our” stuff, check this guy out.
11. I don’t agree with most of the meat of your points in #8. Some Christians do, but they are not consistent with historical Christianity. Famous Christians like John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, Alvin Plantiga, and others have argued against this type of heresy. Like these great thinkers, I do believe Scripture teaches this is *not* the devil’s world. I also that this life is as real as it gets.
12. I’m an ordained minister that drives a ten year old car that I bought used for less than $3000. And I’m bald. Now, I know you’re going for the stereotypical Jim Bakker-esque picture to make a point, but it’s not really fair to paint all pastors as rich, big hair perverts. For every Bakker, there are thousands of generous, humble pastors. Anyone who thinks pastors are in it for the money is just plain wrong. About 85% of the pastors in America hold a second job just to pay the bills. We live check-to-check like most of America. If I had a nickel for every “pastors are money grubbers” comment I’ve heard …
13. Your point #15 is a prize. “All God has to do is …” How do you know that He isn’t/hasn’t? When you start with the presupposition that a miracle cannot take place, then it could happen right in front of your face, and you won’t see it.
What if I told you that I have personally experienced multiple miracles? What if I said that I am certain God exists based upon personal, observable, concrete events that can only be explained as supernatural in origin? I’m loathe to put words in your mouth, but I’m fairly certain that you (and almost every other atheist) would reject my experience as ignorant, misinterpreted, wrong, delusional, or some other such term. If we are going to throw the term “close minded” around, this might be an appropriate place to bring it up. Just because something fails to fit neatly into your assumptions does not make it acceptable or fair to reject another’s experiences out-of-hand.
I’m willing to admit that I’m wrong about Christianity – kinda. It would take an act of God (ha ha) to get me to change my mind, but I know it’s theoretically possible that I’m wrong. I don’t expect you to admit that Christianity might be right, but I would like to hear an atheist admit that perhaps some of their basic assumptions might be wrong.
15. Now it’s time for my big pet peeve: belief = reality. I cannot believe how many people confuse the two. My (and yours) beliefs do not dictate reality. The ontological nature of the universe is independent of faith. God is either real or not real. Hell is either real or not real. Heaven is either real or not real. You get the idea. If I believe in heaven, but I’m wrong about its reality, then I don’t go there when I die. The veracity of these ideas are not based upon individual belief or majority opinion.
I don’t get to set the standard for truth – I must discover what it is and align my beliefs with that objective and absolute truth. I’m afraid that many people get this backwards. “Whatever works is good for you” isn’t an adequate standard. It must be “Whatever is true is good for you.”
---
Ok, I feel better now that I’ve rattled off a few comments. It’s not a perfect reflection of my thoughts, and I’ve not spent much time proofing and editing. The opinions briefly expressed are my own, as are all errors and mistakes.
Have fun.
"Our spiritual health is dynamic and changes on a daily basis as we grow either weaker or stronger. God wants us to become more mature; unfortunately, there are significant obstacles to our growth, including Satan, the world, and our own sinful natures. We must carefully prepare ourselves if we are to live victorious Christian lives."
The only reason you believe this statement above is because you've heard this from a another human or read this from a book!
You were not born with that philosophy waiting and bursting at the seams to come out!
Simply put, you like all christians and ex-christains alike were indoctrinated!!
Just as you had no knowledge as to speak english until you were indoctrinated by repeating and mimicking what you heard other humans repeat.
Had you been born in Iran you would be speaking Arabic now in 2006 and bowing to Allah.
You are just repeating something that you've either heard or read from a book, this is not original knowledge springing from your brain, it is indoctrination, and not knowledge that you so boastingly and mindlessly rant!
I disagree... non-christians can prove that christians can't empirically know god.
Christianity by its own admission, states as if fact, that their god is immaterial, therefore... god can not ever be known by a corporeal/material being/human.
It's the christian who sets this standard of absurdity - not the non-christian. And, yes, a non-christian can prove the absurdity with basic logic.
The definition of "immaterial", is that it doesn't "exist" in a material universe. The christian disproves their own god, based on their own standards they assign to their god. I need do nothing more, than to accept their absurdity, as they proclaim, and diligently make note.
If you can't come to terms with the absurdity of the christian claims, then... might I suggest a more "logical" approach to existence.
What if I told you that I have personally experienced multiple miracles? What if I said that I am certain God exists based upon personal, observable, concrete events that can only be explained as supernatural in origin? I’m loathe to put words in your mouth, but I’m fairly certain that you (and almost every other atheist) would reject my experience as ignorant, misinterpreted, wrong, delusional, or some other such term.
pitscan, you are mistaken, many of us have an open mind and would like to see your evidence. The problem with the typical evidence presented is that it is psychological or medical in nature, and can be explained without having to invoke a "supernatural" being. If you have real evidence of God's existence than that evidence will withstand scrutiny, and it won't matter whether the observer is a believer or not. If your evidence is so fragile that you are afraid to reveal it then its not good evidence. I would add that its not up to us to prove God doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Bentley said > You are just repeating something that you've either heard or read from a book, this is not original knowledge springing from your brain, it is indoctrination, and not knowledge that you so boastingly and mindlessly rant!”
I agree (to a degree) with what you just said. I am repeating something I read. Of course, this is not original knowledge springing from my own brain. Judeo-Christian values are thousands of years old. If I had said something truly original, I’m pretty sure I would have got shot down for proposing a new idea that greater minds than I have failed to realize earlier.
And while we’re talking about essentially plagiarizing other ideas, you need to be forthcoming as well. You didn’t exactly offer up a completely original rebuttal. I think we can all agree that nobody is going to reveal anything new in this forum. Aren’t we all just repeating arguments that have been used elsewhere?
Dave8 said > The definition of "immaterial", is that it doesn't "exist" in a material universe. The christian disproves their own god, based on their own standards they assign to their god. I need do nothing more, than to accept their absurdity, as they proclaim, and diligently make note.
This is a classic straw man fallacy built upon a thin layer of equivocation … You do not get to define terms for me, then prove my argument wrong based on your faulty definitions. If the burden of proof rests on my shoulders, then I get to define my own terms. I readily agree with you that the God you describe does not exist, but that is not God as I know Him. If we need a new forum to discuss the nature of God, then let’s do it, but so far, it looks beyond the scope of this blog entry.
Alan said > If your evidence is so fragile that you are afraid to reveal it then its not good evidence. I would add that its not up to us to prove God doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on you, since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is a good, well-reasoned point. I think we (as in me and you) could talk productively on this issue.
I would argue that it’s not really relevant who proves what to who and in what order the proving must done. The burden of proof rests upon each individual. Everyone is responsible for their own beliefs and the behavior that flows from those beliefs. Presenting extensive, extraordinary evidence also seems beyond the scope of this blog entry. Is there a forum to discuss this elsewhere? To see a fair, reasoned approach from the Christian perspective, Josh McDowell has written several good books on the subject.
For the record (and I can already anticipate being flamed before I say anything), as I understand miracles, they are not designed to create faith where none is present, but to reinforce it where it is already present. Like a seed being watered grows into something larger, stronger and more fruitful. If there’s no seed in the soil, all of the water in the world won’t make something grow. You might think my answer is a cop-out, but what else can I say? I’m not afraid to admit that faith is important … and necessary.
* You cannot compare language acquisition with religious upbringing. They are fundamentally different, and to argue otherwise demonstrates ignorance.
* Simply put, all christians were not indoctrinated. All I need is one example to refute this claim, but there are many who came to faith in God after rejecting atheism. CS Lewis and Josh McDowell (mentioned earlier) are just two such fine examples.
* "mindlessly and boastingly rant" -- That's a funny accusation coming from a guy with a severe case of "exclamation point-itis." You can call me many names, but I don't think mindless is even remotely fair. I might be thinking wrong, but I am definitely thinking about these issues.
* I'm all for appealing to logic, but Aristotle wouldn't recognize this as bona fide debate if it was taking place on his doorstep. For some reason, I feel like many atheists and Christians alike define "illogical" as "disagrees with me." It's entirely possible for both sides to present valid and sound arguments, but we are not even close to meeting those standards. Maybe after we get rid of the garbage we can address issues of cogency -- but I'm not hopeful.
Pitscan: "This is a classic straw man fallacy built upon a thin layer of equivocation … You do not get to define terms for me,"
:-) Well, I suspected you were a christian, following basic christian doctrine. But, perhaps you aren't a basic christian :-)
Okay, I'll play. Is your god, immaterial/supernatural or natural? If you choose not to provide an answer, then you have no foundation to make further argument. Sure, you can keep your god as an individual belief, but... in order for you to pass on your knowledge, or argue your belief, it would appear you need to communicate your ideal of god, right?
Pitscan: "...then prove my argument wrong based on your faulty definitions. If the burden of proof rests on my shoulders, then I get to define my own terms."
Okay :-) I'm all ready for this one.
Pitscan: "I readily agree with you that the God you describe does not exist, but that is not God as I know Him."
Then you believe in a natural god? So... are you a pantheist, or a christian? Perhaps, you are a pantian? God has one foot in the material realm, and one foot in a heaven/immaterial realm?
Pitscan: "If we need a new forum to discuss the nature of God, then let’s do it, but so far, it looks beyond the scope of this blog entry."
Hmmmm, why don't you just provide a simple yes or no, to a material vs. an immaterial god, that will do just fine. You define the terms, by which I measure your ideal of god, fair enough? Or, is there some lengthy protocol you use, to define your god?
This is a classic straw man fallacy built upon a thin layer of equivocation … You do not get to define what a valid or sound argument is for me, then prove that I am not meeting your standards.
Maybe after we get rid of the garbage we can address issues of cogency -- but I'm not hopeful.
__________________________________
Just as you had no knowledge as to speak english until you were indoctrinated by repeating and mimicking what you heard other humans repeat.
Had you been born in Iran you would be speaking Arabic now in 2006 and bowing to Allah.
Well you glossed over the above statement and completely ignored Alan's comments, so it's plain you're not willing to go out of your religious box and admit that anything we have to say here could be a reflection of truth, because it would cut across your grain of indoctrination.
And besides anything that is discussed here needs to stay here, why do you want to go hide your comments somewhere else, because you are afraid one of your followers will perhaps see your true apostasy perhaps?
Why would you mention Aristotle? He's dead and we're alive, but yet you would prefer to put merrit upon a dead philsopher when even he had a different world view than we, the living today, well some of us that is.
Then you mention, "exclamation point-itis" is that the best you can do? Run back to mommy and get some better ideas will ya???
Your picture is that of an person that should have grown wiser with age, sorry you missed the boat of wisdom and intellectual honesty!!
Then you again,
" You cannot compare language acquisition with religious upbringing. They are fundamentally different, and to argue otherwise demonstrates ignorance.
You really insist in not getting it do you?
There is absolutely No Difference between language indoctrination and religious indoctrination.
You are what you've learned by repeating and mimicking regardless of what you insist in believing.
Your beliefs are a direct result of your up-bringing in your geographical area.
Had you been born in Boreno and Cannibalism was the norm, then you would find delite in eating human flesh, to ignore this fact is of plain ignorance on your part.
But I find you do not delite yourself in facts, when you mention faith.
Faith is not a commody, it's a word like a carrot on a stick to motivate the unsuspecting jackass down the cobblestone road.
Pitscan---you classify yourself as a Christian, no? Notwithstanding, the atheist/agnostic position defines "illogical" as "not logical". You'd disagree with an Egyptian on the existance of Ra if he/she had no other evidence than a personal testimony, would you not? I'll assume "yes", for the moment, and ask---are you being "illogical" because you "disagree" with the assertion that Ra exists?
On the subject of the supernatural, or "metsphysical", the atheist/agnostic position is one of neutrality. We define "illogical" as contradictory to the scientific method; contrary to reason---again, "not logical"..i.e..a "married bachelor". Married bachelors not only don't exist...they can't exist.
I agree---it'd be a good idea for the one making the extraordinary claim to define "their" version of "God", so we can avoid further "strawman" arguments. However, based on the widely accepted theological description/definition of "God", I think we can safely say "God" is "limitless" and "perfect". Awaiting agreement, or rejection of this.
It's entirely possible for both sides to present valid and sound arguments, but we are not even close to meeting those standards.
I'm relieved to know you included yourself in not meeting the criteria for "sound arguments".
I readily agree with you that the God you describe does not exist, but that is not God as I know Him.
Fair enough. Okay, if you personally "know" God--the best thing to do next, would be to present your objective evidence for said God--remembering, of course, that you'd have to put limits on "God", to "know" said "God". Keeping this in mind when you present your evidence, we can avoid the "garbage" and get to the "issues of cogency", right?
First off, don’t act like I’ve been hiding behind something, when I clearly haven’t. I just stumbled across this blog today. You can see that I’m not shy ... and I’m far from afraid of saying what is on my mind. My initial post was a rebuttal to a misrepresentation of Christianity. My follow-ups have been a response to that rebuttal. I’ll go where the conversation flows...
Second, you can’t tell me what I believe. You are not even remotely attempting to objectively and realistically portray the Christian view of God. What you have done is construct a straw man – you define a caricature of God then easily refute that. I’d argue against your idea of God too. It’s not what Christians believe. If your understanding of our understanding of God is all I knew, then I’d think Christians were a bunch of absurd lunatics too.
If you want to be convincing, take on the finest definitions we have to offer (which we would preface with “it’s incomplete, but here goes ....”). Tackle Augustine or Anselm or Aquinas or any one of the many articulate proponents of Christianity. Beating up your idea of God is child’s play, but if you can dismantle those guys, then you’ve truly accomplished something.
Third, look up the definition of immaterial. In this context (and according to American Heritage Dictionary), it means “having no material body or form.” It does not mean nonexistent. We have another word for that ... it’s called “nonexistent.” There is no way in the world I would define God using your invalid definition (this is where you equivocate). Does God have a material body? No. Does that mean He cannot exist? To infer nonexistence from incorporeality is unsound reasoning.
One of the classic Christian terms for this aspect of God is transcendence. We would say God lies “beyond the ordinary range of perception” (kudos to American Heritage again). Is God playing the hokey-pokey (one foot in, one foot out of the material universe)? That’s like asking if you can smell the color nine. His nature transcends the concepts of location (ie, “in” and “out”).
Now, at this point the argument about God’s nature usually moves to territory usually reserved for people in the same philosophical neighborhood. Our basic assumptions are so incompatible that reasonable discussion is difficult.
Fourth, just what is a “simple yes or no” going to do for you? Why do so many people have the temerity to ask huge, big, difficult questions (such as those about the nature of God), yet require tiny, small, easy answers. It doesn’t really work that way. I’m not saying there’s a lengthy, drawn out process, but as far as this dialogue goes, would you really accept a single word answer? Both sides of this argument tend to shoot “fire and forget” questions at each other without really listening to the answers. Having the guts to ask tough questions is good, but the having the guts to sit still and consider the possible answers is something else entirely.
Fifth, validity and soundness are objective issues related to the structure and content of an argument. I do get to determine if something meets those standards (as do you). If your premises contain factual error or unsound reasoning, then I get to point it out. Cogency, on the other hand, is a personal, subjective issue. Using an incorrect definition is invalid. Drawing faulty inferences is unsound. First year philosophy students could spot these kinds of errors easily.
Good grief. I don’t know where to begin.
I didn’t gloss over your “had you been born in Iran” comment. I’m doing my best to respond, but there’s a lot to address. Also, I didn’t ignore Alan’s comments – I asked for clarification. The ball’s in his court, and I’ll respond in due time. Give me a little break, ok?
Had I been born in Iran? What of it? I wasn’t born in Iran, so instead of talking about irrelevant hypothetical situations, let’s deal with what did happen. I was born in Alaska, and my parents are Christians. I do not agree with them about everything, and I have rejected many things I’ve been taught. Wouldn’t it be safe to say that I’m at least a little different than the typical Chrisitan?
Asking if there was someplace else to discuss this isn’t hiding. Look at the tiny little box we have to type in! This isn’t exactly the most conducive media for this type of discussion.
Mentioning Aristotle is a bad thing? I can’t win! If there ever was an authority on logic and reasoning, he would have to be a candidate. I’d like to ridicule your point here, but that would be like fishing in a barrel.
Run back to mommy? Accusing me of lacking wisdom and intellectual honesty? Aristotle would be very displeased, Mr. Ad Hominem.
Do you have any idea how language is acquired? Really, do you? Read a linguistics textbook before you embarrass yourself any further.
Why do so many of you insist on telling me where I got my beliefs and what they are? I’ll tell you if you would really like to know, but I’ve seen little evidence that you care. I can safely refute your claim that my beliefs are a function of the geographical locations in which I’ve lived. Of course, I fully expect to be called names for making that statement, but what can I do?
Cannibalism? Plain ignorance? I have nothing polite to say here.
You FINALLY make a statement that is worth arguing: “Faith is not a commody [sic].” We disagree. I think it is a commodity. Why do I fear that we might not be able to peacefully agree to disagree on this one?
I think we can talk. Thank you for trying to approach this rationally. It’s not an easy thing to do.
I do not define “illogical” as “disagrees with me” but that is the vibe I get from lots of folks. I also disagree with part of your definitions of “illogical.” To be sure, it is “not logical,” but now we need to define logic. Will you accept “valid and sound reasoning” as a suitable definition?
I think you carry it a little too far to equate the scientific method as *the* standard for logic. Something can be logical, yet fall outside the ken of the scientific method; however, it cannot be logical if it is contrary to valid and sound reasoning. Your married bachelor is a great example of illogical. Love, freedom, or any of the many other abstract concepts are not subject to direct scientific analysis. Knowledge can be derived from other sources.
To describe God as limitless and perfect is consistent with the widely held view of God, but it is far from complete. There’s a traditional list of other attributes or characteristics that could be mentioned here. I could supply a rudimentary list, but I would prefer to defer to Aquinas and others more learned than I. Would you accept URLs instead?
Would you fairly characterize many of the statements directed at me today as sound, valid, and objective? I can’t help but think you cringe whenever you read some of the stuff written by others on your “team.”
I suppose at this point I should present some objective evidence. I’ve got an appointment to keep (please don’t say I’m dodging anything – have you seen how much I’ve written today!?), but for now, I defer to someone smarter than I. Google “Aquinas” and “proof of the existence of God.” That may not be the best place to start, but off the top of my head it should suffice.
I’d appreciate a little clarification on your last paragraph. Can you restate this for me? I want to make sure I understand you correctly: “ ... present your objective evidence for said God --remembering, of course, that you'd have to put limits on ‘God’, to ‘know’ said ‘God’. Keeping this in mind when you present your evidence, we can avoid the ‘garbage’ and get to the ‘issues of cogency’, right?”
So then, like the number nine, "God" is an idea/concept?....and it's up to man to describe this "idea" by assigning properties to represent it, in order to have a universal functioning concept? Hell yeah...I'll buy that for nine bucks. So, who has the one true representation of "God"?...the Muslims, right? lol
His nature transcends the concepts of location (ie, “in” and “out”).
"His" nature? I don't remember the number nine having a penis. So I guess it's a good time to ask---does this transcendental "God" have male anatomy? If so, I guess "he" is playing the "hokey-pokey", after all.
This "God" transcends "yes or no" questions, but for a description/definition, please see "X, Y, and Z's" books in the Christian apologetic's section of your local book store.
There's nothin' new going on here.
Paranoid?
Pitscan: "I just stumbled across this blog today."
Oops, my fingers slipped, and they wouldn't quit typing...
Pitscan: "You can see that I’m not shy ... and I’m far from afraid of saying what is on my mind. My initial post was a rebuttal to a misrepresentation of Christianity. My follow-ups have been a response to that rebuttal. I’ll go where the conversation flows..."
Here we go :-)
Pitscan: "Second, you can’t tell me what I believe."
Dave8: "You define the terms, by which I measure your ideal of god, fair enough?"
I'll let that speak for iteself.
Pitscan: "You are not even remotely attempting to objectively and realistically portray the Christian view of God."
See previous comment, perhaps you should just go ahead and "objectively" and "realistically" portray the Christian view of God. I mean, I can only ask so many times.
Pitscan: "What you have done is construct a straw man – you define a caricature of God then easily refute that."
Still, waiting on "your" ideal of a god, that I have been asking for, based on "your" terms.
Pitscan: "I’d argue against your idea of God too. It’s not what Christians believe."
Uh, huh, are we getting somewhere with this? or is this some stall tactic?
Pitscan: "If your understanding of our understanding of God is all I knew, then I’d think Christians were a bunch of absurd lunatics too."
So, it's okay for me to think you absurd, if all I know, is my understanding, and your understanding of God?
Pitscan: "If you want to be convincing, take on the finest definitions we have to offer (which we would preface with “it’s incomplete, but here goes ....”)."
What does .... mean, exactly?
Pitscan: "Tackle Augustine or Anselm or Aquinas or any one of the many articulate proponents of Christianity."
Been there done that, found them lacking. However, you still have a chance to propose an argument. Well, that is... if you can articulate one, perhaps you can bring one of their arguments forward, if you lack one for yourself. That would be just fine.
Dave8: "Beating up your idea of God is child’s play, but if you can dismantle those guys, then you’ve truly accomplished something."
Again, waiting for you to either present your argument/dialogue, or pull one from them...
Here's a link for St. Anselm of Canterbury. I'll await your response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anselm_of_Canterbury
Pitscan: "Third, look up the definition of immaterial. In this context (and according to American Heritage Dictionary), it means “having no material body or form.” It does not mean nonexistent."
Material:
–noun 1. the substance or substances of which a thing is made or composed: Stone is a durable material.
2. anything that serves as crude or raw matter to be used or developed: Wood pulp is the raw material from which paper is made.
3. any constituent element.
4. a textile fabric: material for a dress.
5. a group of ideas, facts, data, etc., that may provide the basis for or be incorporated into some integrated work: to gather material for a history of North Carolina; to write material for a comedy show.
6. materials, the articles or apparatus needed to make or do something: writing materials.
7. a person considered as having qualities suited to a particular sphere of activity: The boy's teachers did not think he was college material.
–adjective 8. formed or consisting of matter; physical; corporeal: the material world.
9. relating to, concerned with, or involving matter: material forces.
10. pertaining to the physical rather than the spiritual or intellectual aspect of things: material comforts.
11. pertaining to or characterized by an undue interest in corporeal things; unspiritual.
12. of substantial import; of much consequence; important: Your support will make a material difference in the success of our program.
13. pertinent or essential (usually fol. by to): a question not material to the subject at hand.
14. Law. likely to influence the determination of a case: material evidence.
15. Philosophy. of or pertaining to matter as distinguished from form.
[Origin: 1300–50; ME < LL materialis of, belonging to matter. See matter, -al1]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/material
So, your god has no "matter" or "form", but yet exists?
But, you are making this claim from a "material" platform, called your brain.
So, at what point does your mind become immaterial when you think of god? Woudl you suggest then, that you must "lose" your material mind, in order to understand God?
Pitscan: "We have another word for that ... it’s called “nonexistent.”"
Well, if your material mind, is non-existent, I can understand how you could perceive a non-existent god, if you like.
Pitscan: "There is no way in the world I would define God using your invalid definition (this is where you equivocate). Does God have a material body? No. Does that mean He cannot exist? To infer nonexistence from incorporeality is unsound reasoning."
So, again, if god is made of no matter, and no form, then... what do you propose god is made out of?
Pitscan: "One of the classic Christian terms for this aspect of God is transcendence. We would say God lies “beyond the ordinary range of perception” (kudos to American Heritage again)."
Ah, transcendence, that which is beyond material "existence".
Transcendence:
adj.
1. Surpassing others; preeminent or supreme.
2. Lying beyond the ordinary range of perception: “fails to achieve a transcendent significance in suffering and squalor” (National Review).
3. Philosophy.
a. Transcending the Aristotelian categories.
b. In Kant's theory of knowledge, being beyond the limits of experience and hence unknowable.
4. Being above and independent of the material universe. Used of the Deity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/transcendence
So, if your mind is material, and you live in a material universe, how is it your mind is able to perceive without sensory experience a transcendent form? Do you go out of your mind often?
Pitscan: "Is God playing the hokey-pokey (one foot in, one foot out of the material universe)? That’s like asking if you can smell the color nine. His nature transcends the concepts of location (ie, “in” and “out”)."
So, not in/out? Then, nonexistent with in/out? Smell and seeing are two senses, that exist in the material realm. Your god is transcendent, you don't get the privilage of using your senses. Begs the question, how you came to know of god to begin with... if god is transcendent, and immaterial.
Pitscan: "Now, at this point the argument about God’s nature usually moves to territory usually reserved for people in the same philosophical neighborhood."
I can see that. There is the group who accept they live in this material universe, and that they can not possibly talk about things which they can not honestly verify with a straight face. And, then... there is the other group, who has no problem taking the other position.
Pitscan: "Our basic assumptions are so incompatible that reasonable discussion is difficult."
I don't know, seems pretty civil so far. We haven't left material and transcendence. If you concede you have to be out of your mind, in order to know god, then, I can accept that :-)
Pitscan: "Fourth, just what is a “simple yes or no” going to do for you?"
You wanted to set the terms, why wouldn't I let you found your argument? It's your argument we are looking at.
Pitscan: "Why do so many people have the temerity to ask huge, big, difficult questions (such as those about the nature of God), yet require tiny, small, easy answers."
Well, if your definition of "god" is "incomplete", may I suggest you go back out of your mind, to get some more answers?
Pitscan: "It doesn’t really work that way."
Then, please, by all means, tell me and everyone else in the world looking at your post and picture, what you really mean.
Pitscan: "I’m not saying there’s a lengthy, drawn out process, but as far as this dialogue goes, would you really accept a single word answer?"
Yep, if your god is immaterial, transcendent, and you live in this material world... you can't possibly know that "god", unless you become immaterial yourself. In other words, you have to be an incorporeal being, to make such a statement... that would be like a ghost, right?
Pitscan: "Both sides of this argument tend to shoot “fire and forget” questions at each other without really listening to the answers."
I'm really trying to focus in on your definition of god, and how you see yourself fitting in the universe. I mean, I accept myself as being material, and any god I would want to suggest, would have to be perceived through my material senses, I'm just trying to see another point of view - if possible.
Pitscan: "Having the guts to ask tough questions is good, but the having the guts to sit still and consider the possible answers is something else entirely."
Been at it for years, and have about fifty plus years left, based on the mean age of my genetic tree - unless of course, I can continue in an incorporeal form infinitely...
Pitscan: "Fifth, validity and soundness are objective issues related to the structure and content of an argument. I do get to determine if something meets those standards (as do you)."
And, I applaud you for presenting some information, even if it's incomplete, and you had to be out of your mind to present it.
Pitscan: "If your premises contain factual error or unsound reasoning, then I get to point it out."
Surely, I would expect no less.
Pitscan: "Cogency, on the other hand, is a personal, subjective issue."
All human endeavors are subjective to some degree, the basic meaning of objective is "without human prejudice". In short, you can't talk totally objective, unless you are no longer a "subject" of humanity, but... if you are able to be out of your mind, I suppose you could also be an objective incorporeal being, making absolute objective arguments.
Pitscan: "Using an incorrect definition is invalid."
What word should we use to describe something that we can not sense or experience?
Pitscan: "Drawing faulty inferences is unsound. First year philosophy students could spot these kinds of errors easily."
I agree, my first year of philosophy was about, oh, a decade ago, got an "A", and then I graduated. How about you?
boom': “ ... present your objective evidence for said God --remembering, of course, that you'd have to put limits on ‘God’, to ‘know’ said ‘God’. Keeping this in mind when you present your evidence, we can avoid the ‘garbage’ and get to the ‘issues of cogency’, right?”
I would have to get answers to my other questions before I can make sure this still applies, considering your newest post. You alluded "no" to the answer to the question of whether God is both immaterial and material..i.e.."playing hokey-pokey". Well, I think I've shown that that's precisely what "God" is doing, until you can explain how a immaterial idea/concept has a "penis".
Again, I'm sorry, but thus far, I see nothing new in your position. And BTW, URLs..i.e.."internet authority" won't suffice anymore than if you were claiming that hermaphrodites make better lovers, and then gave me a link to "Inboard/Outboard Honeys.com", to support the claim.
You see my point, I hope.
PS: Thanks D8...that was another one for ya.
Where do I begin? I had assumed that we could have a fair, reasonable conversation. I think I sorely misjudged you. Sorry about that … I won’t let that happen again.
Do I believe God is a concept? Sure. So are you and I. We’re also more than a mere concept, as is God. Who has the “one true representation” of God? I don’t think we’re at a point where this conversation can bear that level of debate. You guys have me chasing down so many ridiculous rabbit trails that we’ll never that far.
Case in point: I distinctly and plainly said that God did not have a body. Your little “He” has a penis crack, while witty, is utterly imbecilic. I’d expect an eighth grader to make a comment like that.
It’s called anthropomorphism, and it’s pretty common worldwide. Humans routinely ascribe human qualities to non-human entities. Watch Disney. Look at the USS Nimitz -- seaman call it a “her” and I don’t think you’ve got anybody looking for a giant, steel vagina on “her” keel. I think you knew you were tossing up a piece of crap on this one before you even hit the “publish” button. You should be ashamed of yourself.
And why in the world do you keep saying “nothing new going on here” as if there’s something wrong with that? I AGREE. I am completely certain that nobody participating in this “discussion” will contribute a single new idea to the grand atheism/theism debate. People much smarter than us have been wrestling with this for far longer. We’re all a bunch of armchair philosophers repeating arguments that others have already made.
You had another post, which I’ll address later. I’m going through these in chronological order.
To Dave8>
“I can only ask so many times.” You want my objective portrayal of God? I’ve agreed to only four basic words so far (immaterial, transcendent, limitless, and perfect), and I cannot get somebody to repeat my understanding back to me in a way that shows comprehension. I know … you’re still waiting for more.
Somehow, this blog entry has strayed far, far off course. I responded to an article written by AtheistMommy who tried to clear the air about ways that Christians misunderstand atheists. In doing so, she demonstrated that atheists also misrepresent Christians. I rebutted some of her statements, and now it’s been turned into a wide-open free-for-all on the nature of the Christian idea of God. I thought people posting comments should try to stick to the title on the page, and tried to limit my comments to the gap of understanding between Christians and atheists. Everything I’ve seen since that post only reinforces my conviction that you don’t understand us. I hear you say “it’s been civil,” but I feel like I’ve been insulted quite enough already.
So, instead of trying to bridge that gap, I’ve been put on the defensive. I pop in here as a guest and get treated like a birthday piñata. This isn’t a discussion or a debate. It’s a farce. You’d rather play “pin the penis on God” (or congratulate someone else for doing so) than reasonably interact.
I know, you’re still waiting for my description of God. I’ll get there, but I’ve got to respond to the rest of your post.
Ok … let me explain the straw man fallacy. If you want to decisively win an argument, go after the strongest, most articulate proponent of the opposition. For example, if you’re an evolutionist who believes in gradualism who was debating another evolutionist who believed in punctuated equilibrium, then you should try to take down Stephen Gould (the standard bearer for PE). You could more easily confuse and beat up on a lesser proponent of the view (a straw man), but then all you did was beat a man and not a message.
You can beat me with a stupid stick until I’m deaf and dumb, and all you’ve done is beat up on a pudgy bald man. Think of it in athletic terms. Good teams want to beat good teams. What kind of accomplishment is it for the Colts to pummel the Lions? Anybody can do that. But the Colts knock off the Broncos and Patriots on the road in back-to-back games? Now that’s saying something. I’m the Lions. Why don’t you try Anselm or Augustine?
And I don’t believe you’ve really “been there done that” with these guys. They’re in the class of Locke, Hume, Nietzsche, Sartre, and other great thinkers. These guys would not have agreed with Anselm’s conclusions, but they would not have summarily dismissed him as “lacking.” This bona fide genius constructed sound and valid arguments that merely failed their standard for cogency. And before you jump on me for this statement, please make sure you know what sound, valid, and cogent mean when it comes to formulating an argument.
Now, I’m finally deep enough into post to get (kinda) back on topic. I agree that God is not composed of matter and he has no physical form. So far, so good. You then take some weird leap and I cannot figure out how you got there: “you are making this claim from a ‘material’ platform …” From this point, you are on some other track that has no relevance to the Christian idea of God. It is at this layer of your argument that you commit a serious enough error that everything else that follows is worthless for argumentative purposes.
You appear to be assuming that I must be the source of my own idea of God, ie, my claims come from my material brain. It doesn’t. Knowledge is divided into two broad categories: a priori knowledge (this is the classic epistemological term used to describe things we know apart from experience) and a posteriori knowledge. Only the latter is derived from sensation, while the former is independent of it. You say that I have no empirical proof for my idea of God, and I agree.
This is where we need to introduce another term: immanence. Christians believe that God reveals His nature to His creatures. How do I know about the immaterial, transcendent God? Because He’s immanent. We know about God because He wants us to know about Him. If He was not immanent, then your original argument would not be flawed, and my position would be in deep doo-doo. So, I’m not “out of my mind,” but “on God’s mind.”
It should also be obvious to you that Christians consider God to be ontologically unique (there’s another term for you). We’re okay with the fact that we do not completely comprehend God – He’s bigger than us. We’re less capable of completely grasping God than a nine year old is of completely grasping quantum physics. We think that’s a good thing. I don’t have to be out of mind to admit that I haven’t completely mastered a topic. That’s humble and realistic – traits which should be respected rather than ridiculed.
Back to Boom>
I have no idea how you can say that my suggestion to read on online edition of Aquinas’ proofs for the existence of God (it’s short, you know) is the same thing as a claim that hermaphrodites make better lovers. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back for that one. It’s funnier than God’s penis, but no more accurate. You asked for an argument, and I “brought one forward” under the limited time that I had.
I did not cite an amorphous internet as an authority. I cited Aquinas. He wrote that over seven hundred years ago. Again, I have to believe that you know better and were just going for a laugh. How about a fair shake? That’s not too much to ask.
I want to start with a single premise: everything is not the same. Is this a simple enough statement upon which we can agree? Every distinct ontological entity in the universe has some value, just not the same value. Compare a man and a blade of grass. Which carries greater ontological significance? I would say man does. If we’re going to argue about this, then there’s no point going forward. If we can move forward, I’ll try to show you how to construct a valid, sound argument from this premise for the existence of God.
And yes, I’m ripping it off of somebody else (thank you Anselm). It’s not new with me. He explains this much better than I.
Back to the argument: if all things are not equally significant, it is reasonable to assume that some things are more significant than others. For the purpose of this exercise, let’s simply define God as the greatest possible being in the universe. I’m not pushing the Christian idea here … just a general theist idea. Whatever the greatest possible being in the universe is, I’ll call god. You can call it Supreme Being, the Force, Al Gore, whatever.
To play the game, imagine something … anything. Now, ask yourself what is greater than the thing you imagined. Keep asking yourself this same question for each thing you imagine. Keep going until you can’t imagine something greater. You would eventually have an idea in your mind – the greatest possible being. I’d like you to share your final picture. Tell all of us what your greatest possible being looks like.
If you’re really open-minded, and willing to humor me (trust me … if this blows up in my face, you’ll have tons of material to laugh at when you’re all gathered around the fireplace in the old atheist’s home), I’ll let you define God … the greatest possible being. Feel free to throw ideas in there that you think are contrary to the Christian idea of God. If someone posts one idea, and you can conceive of a greater one, then go for it.
Now, I’ve seen nothing so far that would indicate to me anyone on this board will take up the challenge (yes, I’m trying to goad you into doing it). Go ahead and try it. I double-dog dare you.
Having an active imagination is evidence of having an active imagination, and that's about all.
From Pitscan's website: There are significant obstacles to our (spiritual) growth, including Satan, the world, and our own sinful natures. We must carefully prepare ourselves if we are to live victorious Christian lives.
Our success requires ... knowing the tactics of our enemies, and knowing the resources available to each child of God. The PITscan can help you discern this vital information.
Perhaps you're not getting enough traffic on your own site to keep you busy, but frankly, reading huge quantities of your bizarre nonsense here is becoming annoying. This site was created to encourage ex-Christians, not to provide a soapbox for crusading religious fanatics. Please honor that.
And, just an observation: You are too quick with the self-applause. Your overconfidence in your ability to effectively communicate your ideas is striking. Think about it — if you really were saying something people wanted to hear, you wouldn't be coming to us, we'd be coming to you.
Have a nice day.
You begin by understanding that you came to us, regardless of the "why", and this is an EX-christian website. Fair enough?(rhetorical)
You end by understanding that the following things: ad hominem; assumptions; apologetic soundbites; URLs to Christian philosophers; secondhand heresy; amateur evangelism; diversions; analogies; your opinion(i.e..on the original article)......and yes, even if you had proof for a non-personal, universal entity..i.e.."God"(which thus far, you have yet to provide) none of these things are evidence that Christianity is an objective universal "Truth™". BTW, you want me to understand you as an individual, right? You do the same. Speaking of...
Disclaimer: I use humor, sarcasm, irony, etc..when I communitcate with others. When I do so, it not an attempt to show that Atheism is true. Example: If I say to my opponent: "So God has weiner?"..it doesn't mean that Atheism is true. It also doesn't mean that Atheism is false, and therefore Christianity is "True". You get the point.
(more later..it's a holiday)
I apologize for barging into this lengthy discussion so late, and for cherry-picking a few items to discuss; the volume of your posts is already far more than I can hope to respond to point-by-point. I further apologize if my comments are now somewhat out-of-date.
First, I'd like to point out that your initial objections contain some semantic nitpicking. If the phrase "No we don't [hate Christians]" is interpreted narrowly as "No, none of us hate Christians," then it is susceptible to disproof by a single counter-example, as you point out. However, in my view, this is something akin to a straw man. If interpreted more reasonably (and much more verbosely) as "No, the broad assertion that we hate Christians is false, as very many of us clearly do not", then your objection disappears. Since I think we can all agree that there exists at least one atheist who hates Christians, what would be the point of arguing the former?
Next, you tout the beneficence of Christian organization while dismissing "atheist" groups. First, it is by no means clear to me that the net effect of Christianity has been positive, given the blight of the Dark Ages, the hideous social stigmas (e.g. against homosexuals) that it fuels, and the enormous obstacles that it has thrown up to past social reforms (e.g. abolishing slavery), to mention but a few. I have no problem acknowledging that there are thousands of "faith-based" organizations that do some good; what I am not convinced of is that the "faith" part is in itself a net gain for society. Second, you claim that there are no "atheist" organizations doing good works. If you substitute the word "secular", your statement is blatantly false. You see, there is very little need to label anything as "atheist", as there is no doctrine to perpetuate.
Next, you downplay the role of fear in Christianity, saying "Christianity teaches that we should love and respect each other. We try to do good because it is simply the right thing to do, even if it is unpopular." I could just as easily substitute "secular humanism", or "Buddhism", or "Hinduism" for "Christianity" in that sentence. The question is how effectively do these work, and what else do they teach? Surely you cannot claim that Christianity does not also teach that "hate" is sometimes justified, and is even exhibited by your god.
Concerning faith you said "How do atheists *not* accept things on faith? Everyone has faith. Even atheists hold certain assumptions that are essentially accepted at face