I thought I might slowly start making a list of tired claims that Christians perpetually make about us atheists. Think of it as a huge FAQ that helps you to answer some of the annoying claims people make about atheism without actually knowing what it is.
First off, you might have heard this gem floating around; that atheism is some kind of religion since not believing in god is a type of “faith”. For instance, if I claim that life arose from non-life, my inability to absolutely prove this statement is supposedly comparable to the belief that an all powerful being willed it into existence.
What is so interesting about this tired christian claim is that it essentially compares all beliefs to a religion; if I believe that the Earth revolves around the sun but have never personally witnessed this event, I am apparently accepting this based entirely on faith.
It sounds almost plausible; after all, not all of us have studied evolution, but most of us would agree that it’s nevertheless true. Is this a type of faith? Faith is a misleading word. We tend to confuse the word with belief, even though the two are not necessarily the same. Faith can more easily be understood if we think of the word “trust”. Christians trust that their God is Omnipotent, Omniscient and OmniBenevolent. They may trust this for a variety of reasons. Most grow up being told this is true by various people of authority, and many also come to trust that the Bible is the infallible word of God. This type of trust does not require anything more than the willful surrender of one’s critical faculties, even in the face of glaringly contradictory or improbable elements (like a virgin birth, or a resurrection).
Strangely enough, I have never met a Christian who thought there was any real evidence that contradicted them. Once a person commits to a rigid way of thinking (like the belief that the Bible is infallible), they will find whatever evidence, no matter how flimsy, that will support their predetermined conclusions. This is called “confirmation bias”. No matter how strong your evidence may be that their claims are untrue, it will either be ignored or attacked. How many Christians ignore the fact that human beings share 96% of our DNA with Chimpanzees, or outright claim that such testing fails to prove that we shared a common ancestor? They would rather believe that God designed us to be different from other animals; that we are special somehow. As far as they are concerned, they know the truth, and it is we that are blind.
Now as an atheist I too trust information that was given to me by people of authority. The difference, of course, lies in the methodology of how information is gathered, and the degree of scrutiny I can apply to it. Yes, I trust that evolution is true, but unlike most of the improvable claims of religion, scientific theories are constantly being revised. Any individual is free to analyze and even disprove them. Science is a process of refinement; our understanding of the Universe is strengthened because scientific theories are corroborative efforts made by independent thinkers. We have been able to uncover many of the secrets of nature from the simple process of observation, hypothesis and testing. As you can see, this is not a process that involves dogma. Over time, even the most cherished theories will collapse if they are shown to be incomplete or wrong.
For the most part, the vast majority of us do not blindly trust others without at least some proof. If I’m trying to sell you a flying car, you’ll no doubt want to take it for a test drive before buying it. We rarely take anyone’s “word” for it, because we know that blindly trusting others is a bad idea. Trust has to be earned, not given. The same should be true about what we believe, and who we chose to believe. If the methods of arriving at a conclusion are shrouded in mystery (the whole God in the gap argument comes to mind), we haven’t really gained any real knowledge, and we would be wise not to blindly trust any belief that demands the surrender of our critical faculties. Being an atheist doesn’t require me to believe in anything without evidence. Can any Christian truly make the same claim?
June 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
So what word would you like to use for the claim that life came from nonlife? Faith trust belief? Be sure to pick a word that can’t apply to religion.
June 4th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I would just use common sense. With many experiments being conducted on how organic molecules can become increasingly more complex with time, see the results here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
That’s a lot more promising an explanation that “Sky-God” did it. How else do you suppose life started?
June 4th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Although being a 17 year old athiest, I’m looking at the Philosophy and Ethics of religion, which has the joy of playing to devils advocate. (I’m at a catholic school).
You ask what word would one like to use for the claim that life came out of no where, philosophy puts the forward the word – Creator ex nihlo, meaning Creator out of nothing. Perhaps this could be manipulated?
June 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
Where is the common sense that life came from non life? Sure it makes since that it can adapt and change or progress with time, but bridging that gap is the part I think that make atheism religious.
Naturally you don’t have an explaination that wouldn’t sound religious so the best strategy would be to kindergardenize what ever explaination that I would have, side stepping the fact that you have to believe and therefore be “religious”
June 4th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
I have no idea what you are trying to say ace
June 4th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
Well, does implying a creator mean that you are indeed religious of some sort?
June 4th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
idk, how about Hypothesis.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Nate,
Do you understand what atheism is?
It is nothing more (or less) than lack of belief in a god or gods…
Atheism is NOT related in ANY WAY to evolution, to abiogensis, to the big bang theory, or any other scientific ideas…
Atheism tells you NOTHING about a person, other than that they do not believe in any gods.
Now, if you’d really like to press the idea of the origins of life, I’d suggest taking it to a science forum, not an atheist one, but if you must, I’d be glad to debate the point with you…
However, first I want to be clear that you’re able to understnad simple concepts, so once you’re able to admit that atheism does not = belief in abiogenisis, let me know…
June 4th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
shameless self promotion
I did a post on this topic a while back…
http://potomac9499.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/is-atheism-a-religionfaithbelief-systemetc/
/shameless self promotion
June 4th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
One opinion I’d like to throw out there is that a large part of the atheists are typically able to think critically. This results in a lot of people trying to rid themselves of biased thinking and reach objective conclusions. This means that often a general consensus is reached among us which probably gives the impression to others that we all follow some sort of dogmatic teaching.
Some traits about religion in general: They explain reality and our special role within it. Religions usually worship a higher power and members are required to live in a manner that pleases the higher power (moral prescriptions). There are also rituals, prayers and other special celebrations. Religion often gives certainty about questions that are unanswerable; like where you “go” when you die, where the universe came from, and what exists beyond our universe.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
So what word would you like to use for the claim that life came from nonlife?
I’d call it pretty basic biochemistry.
June 4th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
So what word would you like to use for the claim that life came from nonlife?
It depends on the specifics of the claim. If the claim is that god made a man out of dust and that’s the end of the story, then I would indeed use the word “religion.”
If the claim is instead that life is not something that simply “appeared” but rather is a fuzzy continuum between obvious non-life and obvious life (with things like amino acids, RNA replicators, viruses, and so on occupying the middle ground), then I would call it a “scientific hypothesis” whose details are perpetually being tested and argued and re-hypothesized by scientists.
This process is usually known as the Scientific method.
June 4th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
From a purely legal stand point athiests should almost want to be declared a religion. With only the tenet that they do not believe in religion. aka they are humanists.
In some respects this is a contradiction however from the stand point of equal rights it makes perfect sence.
It’s really hard to claim discrimination for not believing something. Easy when you can say they are discriminating against your religion.
If it worked for the Flying Spaghetti Monster
June 4th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Spector567,
First of all, I’d argue that a much more common definition of religion would be:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Atheism rejects all claims of “creation of a superhuman agency or agencies” and has no “devotional and ritual observances” or “moral code governing the conduct of human affairs”.
The definition I have posted here is from that link above, and is the FIRST definition given, and I think the most commonly accepted definition.
If you remove the supernatural aspect of the religion, than ANY club or group would be a religion. The religion of democrats or republican. The religion of NAMBLA (well, some of there members may overlap with the catholic church). The religion of people who follow the Atlanta Braves, or the Washington Nationals. Etc, etc, etc, you get the point…
At this point the word “religion” loses all meaning…
—
Also, I’d be much more in favor of removing the special privileges that religions are given, then joining a religion myself to gain those privileges. The first amendment makes clear that the government should NOT be in the business of promoting religious beliefs, and by giving tax breaks, etc to religions, the government is stepping into ground I feel they should not tread.
June 5th, 2009 at 12:19 am
It is also important to notice that belief does not equal religion.
For example, I can reasonably believe (say with about 99.995% gut-felt certainty ) that nitrogen and oxygen molecules exist in what I perceive as homogenous air.
I cannot belief in the sky-god anymore, but once I could, because 99.5% of my social environment were convinced that he did. Lacking other sources, my own belief in the sky-god was around that number.
In religion, I cannot change my central belief(s) without leaving or being thrown out of the religion – if not legally, then at the very least socially. In science or atheism, we are not bound by the obligation to believe anything. If anyone would challenge the oxygen molecule and put forward a proof for i.e. an autarkon molecule
instead, every scientist could make up his own mind, being accountable only to the truth in himself. (Social and scientific acceptance are a different matter, but in principle it is so.)
June 5th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Whenever somebody tells me that Atheism is a religion, I answer with this quote: (I think it’s from Dawkins)
“Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
I find that it gets the point across pretty well.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Mathieu, thank you for sharing that quote. A good laugh at the end of a fascinating forum. I still feel however that atheism is more than a lack of belief. That there is no higher power can no more be proved or disproved than that there is and since observable phenomena must be filtered through the observer’s perception it really can only stay in the realm of the hypothesis. Therefore it is a belief. Whether belief equates with religion is another matter, already touched upon. Surely agnosticism is the only truly scientific viewpoint available.
A further point – Buddhism does not incorporate a god concept – it seems the Buddha was an agnostic himself – by previous definitions offered then this is not a religion. We might need to review the definitions.
Best wishes,
Gemma
June 5th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
I hardly find complete agnosticism to be very scientifically minded. Every serious atheist I know is at least partially agnostic (willing to reconsider their position if shown to be wrong), but taking the stance that “we cannot know for certain if God exists, therefore I believe both positions have equal merit” is a false dichotomy; just because there are two possibilities does not mean they have equal merit.
I don’t see anyone advancing very far in science if we took a purely agnostic position of every issue. Sure, there is no grand unifying theory, but that doesn’t mean a scientist is agnostic about General Relativity. If and when the theory is refined, that’s what we’ll believe. Simple as that.
June 5th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
I always ask people who claim to be agnostic what kind they are.
Since I’m in a country with a state church, and the only person named in our constitution is Marthin Luther, I obviously meet mainly Lutheran agnostics.
Personally, I completely reject christ, but I’m agnostic about Poseidon.
June 5th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
When I say “I do not believe in god” I mean three different things:
1) I see evidence AGAINST the various gods I have studied (primarily abrahamic but a few others as well) and therefor say with as much certainty as I would say “the sun will rise tommorrow” that those gods specifically do not exist.
2) Of the many specific gods that people believe in, of which I do not have any evidence personally for or against them, my inclination is to not believe in them unless provided with evidence (the same as I would feel about Nessie, bigfoot, alien visitations, etc), and I would certainly lean towards the idea of “extrordianry claims require extraordinary evidence” before I accepted any “evidence” for those specific version of god (or gods).
3) Of the deist god who “set things in motion” (either by starting the big bang or whatever it did) and created the laws of physics but has no influence on the universe as we know it (think Spinoza’s god here) I feel it is the one truely unfalsafiable position, and thus the hardest to claim ANY degree of certainty for or against. However I would also lean towards the idea that if this god has no influence on the universe today we can treat it as if it does not exist (at least until we determine some way to look outside of the universe or back “before” the big bang).
June 6th, 2009 at 2:18 am
Some visitors to this site might be skeptical about Christianity or might have left Christianity due to some reasons. In response to your quest for the truth, here I post an article on “why I keep Christianity”. If you as a believer or nonbeliever feel abandoned, disappointed, angry, burdened, weary, guilty and afraid, you are missing the most important point of a truly fulfilled life. You were born for much better than who you are now. You were born for a butterfly instead of a caterpillar which you may live now. You are missing the full potential as a true free human being created and loved by God. “Come to me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest (Matthew 11:28)”, “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32)”. As I have read most your articles from the beginning to the end with patience, I hope you would also have enough patience to read mine to the end to be a fair deal. Although I have not taken any formal courses on theology, my personal experiences with God would be helpful for you to understand some key aspects of true Christianity. As you will see soon after reading my article, true Christianity is not about keeping man-made rules, rituals and traditions out of duty or out of fear of punishment. Christianity is also not about seeking peace, comfort and happiness through wishful thinking. Christianity is all about a loving relationship with the Creator of the universe and our very souls, experiencing explosive joy, thanks and freedom here and for eternity.
I became a Christian in my late twenties during my graduate study in theoretical physics. Before then I was an atheist and believed in myself. To set a stage for the whole story, let me start my story by discussing a fundamental difference between human beings and animals. I think the difference between them is more than just higher intelligence. Human beings ask self-awareness questions such as “Who am I? Where am I from and where am I going? What is the meaning of my life?” I do not think animals ask these kinds of questions to themselves. If you think that they do and that we just do not know it, that is your belief. If you think human beings and animals are about the same except higher intelligence, it is your belief. But my belief is that there is a fundamental difference between them. As science and technology advance further, future supercomputers could solve problems much faster and efficiently than the smartest person in the world and their IQ (Intelligent Quotient) could reach 1000 or 10000. No matter how intelligent those supercomputers could be, still they will not be able to ask themselves “Who am I (computer)? Where am I (computer) from and where am I (computer) going? What is the meaning of my (computer’s) life?” Self-awareness and intelligence are quite different matters. What makes this self-awareness that human beings have but animals do not? I believe that human beings have a soul while animals do not. Where did it come from? I believe that it is from God, because apparently it is not from materialistic things. Since a soul is a spirit, there is no way to prove or disprove its existence by a scientific way for which everybody agrees. You may argue that a soul appears by random chance or does not even exist in the first place. Just like I cannot prove its existence beyond several pieces of circumstantial evidence by a scientific way, you cannot also disprove its existence by the same way. If you think it does not exist, it is not a fact but your belief. But my belief is that there is a fundamental difference between human beings and animals because the former have a soul but the latter do not, and that the soul is from God.
Because a soul, God and heaven are all spiritual matters, it appears impossible to know and experience the spiritual world by the same way as we do for materialistic things such as science. In science we do the appropriate experiments to prove or disprove a proposed theory or hypothesis. But because the spiritual matters do not exist in the materialistic world, they can be known and experienced in ways other than scientific ones. As just one of many examples in our everyday life, think about the unconditional love of a mother for her child. How would you know or measure her unconditional love for her child before observing or experiencing its effects yourself? By studying the structure of her heart or of her neurons in the brain? I do not think you can do it this way. Although we cannot detect or measure its presence by scientific ways, we are sure there exists that kind of special love in a mother. The list goes on such as honesty, hope and integrity. Science has done a lots of things for human beings, but there are still some areas we cannot understand and approach by scientific ways because they do not exist in the materialistic world. Due to its nature, the presence of the spiritual world can be known by its effects or its fruits, or in other words by interactions with other beings. “The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the spirit (John 3:8)”.
Then can we know how the spiritual world works? Many people try to understand and approach it by speculation. They theorize, conjecture and guess it. They think that God should be the way they want it or do things the way they want it. On one hand, some group of people create their own Genie whom they worship and fear according to their man-made rules, rituals and traditions. On the other hand, other group of people are disappointed with their Genie because their Genie does not answer their prayers the way they want it. But there is an alternative to speculation about the knowledge of the spiritual world. Revelation through the Bible. I believe the Bible is God’s words written by the hands of people who were inspired by God. Because it was written and transcribed by human hands over many years, there could be some mistakes in words and phrases. But the core message, who God really is and what he has done such as the salvation of human beings from sin through faith in the Messiah, remains the same. If you think the every word of the Bible is a fabrication by human beings for controlling other human beings, this is again your belief. I advise you to visit http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html for more objective information about the Bible. Since the true characters of a being are revealed only through interactions with other beings, in the old testament God chose a particular group of people (Israel) as an object lesson to show the whole world who he really is. Through the relationship of God with the people of Israel, we come to know and understand the true characters of God, which could be quite different from your Genie whom you might have created by speculation. God is the creator of the universe including our souls, unconditionally loves human beings created in his image, at the same time he is also just and righteous. But the loving relationship between the creator and creatures was broken by our sin of disobeying God and following the evil suggestions of Satan. As a result sin entered into the hearts of human beings and we were separated from the love of God, because God and sin are completely incompatible. But God still desired to have a relationship with human beings so he devised an animal sacrifice where the blood of animals (without defect) was shed to pay the penalty of our sins in our behalf. Since God is just and righteous, the consequence of sins must be paid for complete forgiveness. Here is an easy example to understand the justice and righteousness of God.
Suppose a thief stole a billon dollars from a bank, spent all of them, and later was caught. Is it just and right for the judge to release the thief if he confesses his crime with sincere remorse? No, then the justice would not be exercised the way it should be. The appropriate consequence for his sin must be paid by the thief or somebody else, and that is the justice everybody agrees. The animal sacrifice devised by God reveals the characters of God, both his righteousness (The consequence of our sins must be paid) and his love (The consequence of our sins is paid by animals instead of us who committed the sins). In spite of God’s continuous forgiveness of their sins through the animal sacrifice, God’s people (Israel) again returned to the sin and rebellion after a short moment of remorse, revealing the persistent nature of sin in human beings. Temporarily restored relationship through the animal sacrifice lead again to their separation from the love of God. After the great fall human beings could not get out of the bondage of sins on their own in spite of their desire and effort. Despite the original intention of God (“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible”: Matthew 19:26), the people of Israel continued trying to keep all the rules and rituals on their own in order to prove their righteousness before God. As I mentioned before, the old testament is a shadow of what would be fulfilled in the future by the Messiah for the whole human beings. If you have read the Bible, you may remember that there were numerous prophesies about the coming Messiah (Jesus Christ). Because some of them are so obvious even to Jews who still deny Jesus is the Messiah, they just skip reading those sections of the old testament such as Isaiah 53. Eventually the (incomplete) animal sacrifice in the old testament was replaced by the sacrificial death of Jesus to pay the penalty of all our sins once and for all. When we accept Jesus Christ into our heart as our Savior and Lord, we are completely liberated from the bondage of sin once and for all by the help of God (not on our own) because God comes into our heart to reside as the way, the truth and the life (John 14:6). “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (John 8:32)”.
There are two important features in our salvation from sin. First, it is a gift of God for all human beings. “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us (Romans 5:8)”. Our God of love and compassion is just like a loving mother jumps into the water to save her drowning child regardless of the fact that the child is obedient or disobedient to her. Her loving heart for the child is far from the petty conditional love (If you will obey me, then I will save and love you. Otherwise I will not save you). This unconditional love is possible because she shed her own blood with pain when delivering the child. The love of a mother for her child is just a shadow of the love of God for all human beings. Second, it is obtained by faith, not by works. “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God – not by works, so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)”. Our salvation from sin is so precious that even selling all our possessions to give them to the poor would not be enough to earn it, although this is a good thing to do. This is what the people of Israel had done to earn righteousness by trying to literally and legalistically observe all the rules and rituals to be perfect before God. It is impossible to attain the high standard of righteousness by our own works (Matthew 19:26) so God provided for us another way of salvation, salvation by faith in Jesus Christ who fulfilled the whole righteousness on our behalf. Because salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ who died to pay the penalty of our sins in our place, we are 100% sure of our eternity in heaven, free from the fear of our uncertain eternal future. So we do not really fear about
death, because it is just one time horizon in our eternal loving relationship with God. The salvation by faith may not be the way you expected from your common sense (by speculation), but this is the way according to the revelation of God. “There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death (Proverbs 16:25)”. Then you may ask what is the point for good works. We do good works out of thanks for the grace we have received from our God, namely, the gift of the fulfilled life here and the eternal life in heaven which we do not deserve. Now you can see the difference. We do good works out of thanks to God, but not to compensate for our sins in order to earn salvation.
Have you ever experienced the joy of freedom from the bondage of sin with the help of the words of God? I will give you just three examples. First, on one occasion I arrived at a free pornographic site while surfing on the internet. Seeing a few dozens of free pornographic images was very enticing because it was free and nobody was watching me. There was nothing to lose. Seeing them or not was just my finger tip away. Then I was reminded of two verses in Psalm (119:9,11). “How can a young man keep his way pure? By living according to your word. I have hidden your word in my heart that I might not sin against you”. With the words of God I resisted the temptation successfully. What a joy of freedom from the bondage of my sinful desires of self-indulgent lust! The joy and freedom was hundred times greater than my temporary pleasure of seeing the images. Have you ever experienced this kind of joy and freedom? If not, you are missing your full potential as a true “free” human being. With the words of God now I am 100% free from this kind of temptation whether in secret or in public. Second, on another occasion on the way to my work I passed a beggar asking for money. Although I already passed him a while ago, God’s words kept telling me inside my heart “When Jesus saw the crowds, he had compassion on them, because they were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd (Matthew 9:36)”. I could not resist God’s words asking me for compassion on the beggar I had passed. I had nothing but to return to the station where the beggar worked and give him a few dollars together with handshakes. What a joy of freedom from the bondage of my sinful desires of selfishness! Third, yet on another occasion one of my colleagues started to spew several insulting remarks on me during the lunch time. Considering the circumstance and context, it was obvious that they were intentionally directed toward me. I was tempted to get revenge on him by finding faulting with his weaknesses which could be as humiliating to him as possible. Then I was reminded of the words of Jesus “If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:39); Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:44)” What a joy of freedom from the bondage of my sinful desires of hatred and getting even!
Overwhelmed by the mighty love and grace of God, I am 100% satisfied with and thankful for everything, absolutely everything. I even thank God for the cancer I struggled with recently. Because of the disease, I learned to love and trust my God more, learned to be more thankful for everything, learned to have more compassion for other people, learned to resist better the temptation of lust and selfishness! Overwhelmed by the unconditional love of God, my joy, thanks and freedom have exploded like a volcano everyday. Why do I leave Christianity? Why do I abandon my God who has made me what a true human being is meant to be? If some of you may argue that all my wonderful experiences are just from wishful thinking and self-motivation, you are free to think whatever you want. Although you might have left God due to some unpleasant reasons, you can come back to him anytime. We live in a free and democratic society. Nobody in your current community should not criticize or condemn your decision to return to the love of God again. God always loves you no matter who you are now or no matter what you have done, just like a loving mother who does not hesitate to jump into the water to save her drowning children.
Some of you might be skeptical about Christianity because some Christians are hypocrite, selfish, arrogant and ungraceful. I became a Christian because of the love of Jesus Christ for me, not because of good behaviors of other Christians. I admit there are some believers who tear down people around them instead of building up out of immaturity. Please do not be distracted by their behaviors although it may not be so easy to you. I do admit that our spiritual forefathers did many cruel things to humanity in the name of God through such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, indicating the danger of institutionalized beliefs. They were in stark contrast to the unconditional love of Jesus for all human beings. On behalf of our spiritual forefathers I sincerely apologize to all humanity. Many of you including even some Christians might suffer from negative psychology. Students study hard to learn new things, not for fear of dropping out of the school. We eat food to stay health, not for fear of starving to death. We do some Christian activities (worship, fellowship, prayer and Bible study) to enjoy here and for eternity what our God of love is offering us (joy, thanks, freedom and so on). We do not and should not do them for fear of something. Some Christian leaders may use the fear of hell or punishment to get their messages across to others more effectively, but this is not a healthy approach and is absolutely wrong! Fear is the opposite of love which is all about the whole message of Christianity. “There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment (1 John 4:18)”. If you feel hurt or offended by them, I am sorry and truly apologize you on their behalf. Many of you may see the salvation with the eyes of negative psychology. Because we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23), the entire human beings were doomed to the eternal separation from God and that was our destiny in the first place. But through our faith in Jesus Christ we were rescued by God from the eternal condemnation. On the other hand, the negative psychology says that we were doomed to the eternal separation because of not believing in Jesus. Now you can see the difference. The eternal condemnation was caused by our sinful nature, not by our rejection of Jesus as the Savior and Lord. We do not need to be a slave to constant negativism for advances in our knowledge of everything. If you have left Christianity, it is not based on a fact but on your own belief.
If you are skeptical about Christianity due to some unpleasant reasons, I kindly ask you to come close to God to enjoy his unconditional love and grace. If you do not come close to your Creator, you could end up being the older son in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15:11-32, who kept grumbling and complaining due to some petty reasons without enjoying the true love of God. About a few years ago I was going through difficult times and about to leave Christianity because God did not answer my earnest prayer for more than 10 years. My anger and bitterness kept building up to the point that I shouted to my God, “You are only interested in bringing me into your family. After then you do not take care of me any more!”, “In contrast to your promise that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; character, hope (Romans 5:3-4), I am getting more angry, disappointed and sour toward you instead of getting closer to you as a result of the current trial!”, “Those who are far less qualified than me get a better job and faster promotion. Surely this world is not fair!”. Although I went to the church every Sunday and read the Bible regularly, I did not really come close to God in order to know and meet him personally. I myself was the older son in the parable of the prodigal son. I kindly ask you to come close to God to know and experience how good and gracious our God is.
I admit that I still do not understand several things about God and the Bible such as the literal interpretation of the first few chapters in Genesis and some bloody scenes in the old testament. How can I, a tiny creature, understand every detail of what the Creator of the universe has been doing? God has no obligation to tell his creature every detail of his world. God is not my personal Genie. Of course we should avoid this kind of rigid attitude: “Because A said B, B must be the absolute truth. Period. Do not ask any question”. By the way, have you ever heard about the cosmological constant problem in physics and astronomy? According to the most recent observation of the universe, the expansion of the universe is accelerating contrary to our perception. The universe does not show any sign of slowing down of expansion, but instead expands indefinitely. To be consistent with this observation, the Einstein’s field equation should include the cosmological constant of the order of 10^(-120) in reduced Planck unit. However, the calculated value with the best theory available now is of order of unity in the same unit, in other words, 10^(120) larger than the observed value! This is the greatest disaster in the history of physics which has been known and praised as accurate science. As a former theoretical physicist, I do not want to easily give up the best theories physicist have developed so far. I believe that there would be still some things we do not understand, with a hope that someday we may be able to put all pieces together to get the complete picture. If you are considering leaving or have left Christianity for similar reasons with some unanswered questions, I kindly advise you to exercise more patience instead of giving it up easily. In spite of our efforts to know all the answers, there could be still some unanswered questions about God and the Bible. How can mere creatures demand the Creator to explain every detail of his world? How can we declare there is no God, simply because we do not have a full understanding of his world? How can an ant claim that there is no internet, simply because it does not make sense to him or it is not logical to him? Let us not jump to a conclusion in haste!
In summary, Christianity is not about keeping man-made rules, rituals and traditions out of duty or out of fear of punishment. Christianity is also not about seeking peace, comfort and happiness through wishful thinking. Christianity is all about a loving relationship with the Creator of the universe and our very souls, experiencing explosive joy, thanks and freedom here and for eternity. Thank you very much for reading my long article.
June 6th, 2009 at 7:15 am
You could do with being a tiny bit more concise, to be honest.
Not only are those a whole lot of letters to put forth a lot of very old, tired arguments, this is also not the best medium for reading long blocks of text (at least my monitor isn’t).
June 9th, 2009 at 6:31 am
Before we can decide whether or not we believe in God, we need to decide how we are going to define the term. Some say God is love. Now I believe in the existence of love. Others say God is an old man in the sky. That seems unlikely to me so I don’t believe in that God.
To me the real questions which are often not asked by athiests or Christians are psychological questions. If we are to make sense of our selves as a species we need to understand why belief in a God (or a number of Gods) and the concept of sin (one which athiests often seem particularly anxious to be rid of) run so deep in our make-up historically.
It is easy to see why our ancestors looking fearfully at an often dangerous environment they didn’t understand might come to believe in volcano gods or gods of the crops which they could appease. But when mono-theism developed it became a far more complex phenomenon which helped to maintain social cohesion. The concept of being punished for ones “sins” helped to keep people social. Sin was any form of selfish behaviour which threatened social cohesion – having sex with another community member’s partner, stealing, telling lies about someone, etc.
Now I don’t know a lot about Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, etc., I can only look at things from the perspective of Christianity. By this I don’t mean that I am a Christian (in the sense of someone who believes in the virgin birth, the miracles or the resurrection) or that I was brought up in the Christian religion (we got taken to Quaker church a few time but my father was an agnostic and my mother had no belief in the afterlife). But I read a couple of the gospels as a teenager and they moved me to a tremendous extent. I didn’t believe in any of the supernatural nonsense, but this man’s words carried so much power and psychological insight that they burned into my mind and heart. But I couldn’t see how Christians could take comfort in these words. I felt that all my imperfections, all my selfishness and cowardice were exposed by an idealism so extreme. But there were also words of advice that did bring comfort and inspiration over the years. “Judge not that thou be not judged” and “Don’t seek to remove the speck from another’s eye, until you have removed the beam from your own”. From these I would take the idea that fellowship can be established with others when we are honest about our own shortcomings rather than getting up on our high horse. This may seem like platitudes, but basic simple statements of how to best live our lives are really quite rare.
We need to have an understanding of the psychology of religion if we are to step beyond it in a psychologically sustainable way. Is God simply a socially useful myth, or is it a mythological expression of a reality it would be perilous to try to long to deny? Some research into the use of psychoactive drugs has shown that it is quite easy to generate chemically a situation in which as person “sees God”. Psychiatrist R. D. Laing came to the conclusion from his study of psychotic patients that alienation is the common state of all humans, that there is between us and “God” the equivalent of fifty feet of solid concrete. Laing was another non-Christian admirer of Jesus.
If there is some truth from which we are so alienated that we had to give it a human face and call it “God”, what is it? Australian holistic biologist Jeremy Griffith defines “God” as “integrative meaning”, that is the principle in nature to form wholes which are more than the product of their parts. He says that this is the principle behind the development of life, with matter having a natural propensity, when conditions are right, to develop into more complex and ordered wholes. But, he says, we have run from acknowledging this principle because our psychologically insecure, and thus selfish, egos have felt that we are condemned by the idea that selflessness, rather than selfishness, is the meaning of existence. For a couple of million years we have lived with a feeling that we are miserable sinners deserving of punishment. Hence the power of this idea in religion. But, in fact, the opposite is true. We had to forge forward, develop science and eventually get to the stage we are at now where we can understand ourselves for the first time and begin to rehabilitate. The story of Adam and Eve is a particularly useful myth to describe our history, but instead of being the villians of the piece we were the heroes, defying “God” in order to discover the nature of good and evil and taking psychological banishment upon us as a result.
Griffith’s view is that the move towards athiesm in recent years is due to the fact that we have become so psychologically hurt that we can no longer stand the criticism that comes with the religious concept of “sin”.
In my experience Griffith’s main concepts have great explanatory power even though some of his books have also had some dodgy reasoning. But since I’ve come across nothing in the more than twenty years since I first encountered them that even tries to answer the same questions, I can only hope that any weaknesses will come out in the process of further debate the forum for which is being set up at his website :
http://www.humancondition.com/
June 9th, 2009 at 2:41 pm
I think the biggest problem we atheists have is that we keep trying to explain our position while using convienent “religious” terminology. We allow them to frame the topic in such a way that puts us at a natural disadvantage. Try it, the next time someone asks you “do you believe in god?” Instead of the pejorative “no”, try responding with a more accurate answer like “having evaluated the evidence to the best of my ablility, I am convinced there are no gods”. It eliminates the faith/belief confusion if you just rephrase it to be a matter of logic instead of an article of faith.
June 10th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Atheism isn’t a religion, but it is a leap of faith as is any given form of theism, in my view.
I am not a strong atheist, i am a strong agnostic. Onward to rationalistic rignorole….
I have no direct evidence for the existence of any god. But i also have no direct evidence against the existence of any god (lack of evidence is not evidence against). In light of this paragraph so far, as a man of science, how could i justify actively believing that a god does exist, or actively believing that a god does not exist?
Because of the intangible nature of the very concept of an omnipotent god i find it highly unlikely that any such evidence will present itself. Therefore the debate should be a non-issue, in my view.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Jim,
Do you believe in fairies?
How about Thor?
Is Nessie swimming around Loch Ness?
And your thoughts on Harry Potter?
Was Ra a true god?
What are your views on Russel’s tea-pot?
Do you believe I am not going to shoot you tommorrow morning on your way to work/school/etc?
You have no direct evidence that anyt of these things is true.
You also have no direct evidence that any of these is false.
But I assume you’re not going to look over your shoulder all morning keeping an eye out for me.
If you can say any of those things with does not exist, why can’t you say that other fictional characters do not exist?
If I tell you that there is an invisible dragon in my back yard, you can rightfully assume I’m full of shit.
The reason you can do this, is that it defies our current understanding of nature.
If I tell you that gravity does not exist, but we are all held down by the noodely appendages of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you can rightfully assume I’m not being truthful.
The reason for this, is FSM is not required to explain the laws of the universe.
To claim atheism is not to claim 100% certainty.
To claim atheism is to say, “based on the available evidence, I see no reason to believe in a diety (or multiple dieties)”.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:42 am
If i may, i’ll reply backwards and start with the end of your post.
“To claim atheism is to say, “based on the available evidence, I see no reason to believe in a diety (or multiple dieties)”.”
Not necessarily. I consider atheism (strong atheism anyway) to be the positive assertion that no god exists. I do not make this claim, but the quote “based on the available evidence, I see no reason to believe in a diety (or multiple dieties)” does accurately describe my position.
Now then, i’ll go back to the start.
“Do you believe in fairies?
How about Thor?
Is Nessie swimming around Loch Ness?
And your thoughts on Harry Potter?
Was Ra a true god?
What are your views on Russel’s tea-pot?
Do you believe I am not going to shoot you tommorrow morning on your way to work/school/etc?”
The difference between the concept of an intangible omnipotent god and all of your examples (besides perhaps Thor or Ra, i’m not sure on their specifics according to their respective cultures) is that they’re tangible and you can apply principles of probability to them. I find the probability of the existence miniature humanoid winged creatures exceedingly unlikely, surely evidence would have become available if they existed. Likewise a live diplodocus in Scotland (blurry photographs don’t quite do it for me). Harry Potter is a fictional construction of quite a creatively productive mind. Furthermore, i can assess the probability of being shot by a random on the street. And Russel’s Teapot is a useful analogy to explain unfalsifiability. But again, even in concept, that too is technically a tangible thing.
Perhaps I should have elaborated to make my position more clear. The very nature of the concept of such an intangible omnipotent god precludes even the possibility of proof or disproof. It also precludes the ability to apply principles of probability. Therefore, with no evidence, and no way to scientifically apply probability, i am left with my original assertion.
June 11th, 2009 at 12:54 am
Additionally, i find the invisible pink unicorn a better way of explaining unfalsifiability than FSM or the familiar teapot. But even the unicorn is more defined than the concept behind the holy ghost of the christian religion, for example. How can an infinite, omniscient, omnipotent and intangible god be defined for the purpose of probability analysis?
This is where the redundancy and pointlessness of even the very act of asking the question of whether or not such a god exist springs from, in my mind. As profound a question as it is, it ultimately is pointless. Let’s sit down and have a beer instead, mate. At least i have some empirical evidence that i enjoy the taste of coopers pale ale.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am
Personally I think there is evidence for God’s existence. Not proof perhaps, but evidence. Psychotic patients and people who take hallucinogenic drugs quite regularly report sightings of God. Now you may think that this is simply more evidence that “he” is an illusion. But to those of us who believe that the term “God” is a personification of the principle of integrative meaning in the same way that “Mother Nature” is a personification of the ecosystem, this makes perfect sense. The sophisicated rationalisations (as opposed to truly logical thought) of our insecure egos alienate us from this principle because to acknowledge it and respond to it would threaten the dissolution of our individuality. Those whose ego has broken down in psychosis or through the disorienting effects of hallucinogens can often get glimpses of a reality that is all around us and with us every moment of our lives but to which we remain blind. You can also see it in a small child’s sense of wonder :
“At that moment, the Holy Spirit made Jesus extremely joyful, so Jesus said, ‘I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from wise and intelligent people and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, because this is what was pleasing to you.’”
June 12th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Jim
I consider atheism (strong atheism anyway) to be the positive assertion that no god exists. I do not make this claim, but the quote “based on the available evidence, I see no reason to believe in a deity (or multiple deities)” does accurately describe my position.
Do you know anybody who claims 100% certainty?
Even Richard Dawkins (who is probably one of the most outspoken atheists alive today) admits a chance of god being real (he puts it at 5%, which I believe is being generous).
I’ve never met a single atheist in my life who claims certainty. Perhaps I have led a sheltered life, but every atheist I know admits there is a chance we are wrong. There are obviousl contradictions in the bible which make it apparent that it is not the infallible word of god, but that does not exclude a deistic god (or even some other endefined theiostic god).
But without evidence to support the idea of a god, there is no need to incorperate one into our concept of the universe, when it is not needed to explain things.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Mate, strong atheism is a term with fairly well agreed upon meaning. I’ll quote: “Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition ‘gods do not exist’. “. My own position is “I can’t know if god exists, and neither can anybody”. We’re getting into semantics here, and if we don’t share the same definition base, how can we meaningfully debate?
Now then, David Mann
The distorted remembrances of mentally unstable psych patients being used as possible evidence for a god existing is dreadfully unscientific and arbitrary. Where is the basis in that postulation? It’s got the same relevance of the argument that a god exists because of the impossible complexities of life, or for the astronomically (excuse the pun) small chance of the solar system coalescing into the exact shape it did so as to be so conducive to producing life. It’s simply an irrational conclusion jump lacking any logical steps.
Basically, what your argument suggests is that there likely exists an in built system of your brain which has the function of allowing you to perceive the existence of an omnipotent god/holy spirit figure as a comforting omnipresent benevolence at the rejection of more rational possibilites. Mother nature also exists as a human figure of speech representing an extremely complex thing. The ecosystem is an incredible chemical and physical jigsaw of stupendous complication we are lucky to have the privilege of studying. Lucky, not blessed.
“The sophisicated rationalisations (as opposed to truly logical thought)”
If you are claiming that believing that visions of mental patients being taken as serious evidence for the existence of god is exhibiting “logical thought”, I shudder at the standard of education in your (presumably first world) nation.
And a bible quote lauding ignorance is absolutely priceless, and i thank you for showing it to me. I shall hold onto it for further quotation.
June 13th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Even Richard Dawkins (who is probably one of the most outspoken atheists alive today) admits a chance of god being real (he puts it at 5%, which I believe is being generous).
Then i differ with richard on that point, in that i don’t believe such an estimate can be come to in a scientific manner.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:15 am
Do I know what the “first cause” was?
No I do not and neither do religious people. They only have conjecture; subjective, selective ideas – nothing more.
Besides, it doesn’t make any difference unless you seek to control & manipulate others by attempting to take ownership of righteousness, thinking you have a copywrite on goodness in order to impose ideology onto everyone else.
Would you be who you are if god/religion didn’t exist.
June 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
As an Agnostic I find your assertions in this article interesting and quite amusing. You spend the whole article saying how you follow the word of scientists instead of the supposed word of some possibly existent invisible man in the sky.
I assert that while Atheism may not be a “religion” it is, in fact, a faith. Faith is to believe without proof. Atheists believe that there is no supreme being, higher power, God, whatever you want to call the concept… However, I have seen no proof given by science that such a being (or concept) does not exist. I have also seen no proof that one does exist. Therefore, I think that anyone who believes in a supreme or believes in the lack thereof is following a faith.
June 30th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
Stephen Colbert quote, “Agnostics are just atheists without balls.”
July 4th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
here is a quote from epicurus
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
July 20th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Okay everybody, both Atheists and Theists alike…listen up.
The point of whether God exists or does not exist is obviously never to be proven finally by either camp, thus proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that one thing shines paramount over all:
* The issue of God and the existence of the Universe is an eternal mystery, likely never to be solved through logic, emotions or reason ever…period.
Now, that being said, it should be clear that whatever we choose to believe is how this “Creator” or “Non-Existent Creator” wishes it to be, otherwise it simply would not be so.
(Note: This Existent or Non-Existent Creator appears to favor Freedom of thought…no?)
My personal attitude is that by studying The Mystery, one eventually begins to discover fascinating anomalies about it, very similar you might say to the way scientists study the world and the cosmos, only in this regard the area of study is The Mystery itself.
It would appear that The Mystery has a very singular and dare I say definable personality as it were, in that the following facts are undeniable and provable by any intelligent person walking the earth at any given moment, such as:
1. The Mystery loudly proclaims on a daily basis that “Existence exits, and EXISTENCE IS REAL”.
Can any Atheist or Religionist refute this statement?
2. Pain and suffering, along with pleasure and enjoyment are all part of Existence, AND IT IS REAL.
3. Death is the obviously apparent end of Existence for the individual or group experiencing it at any given moment, AND IT IS APPARENTLY FINAL, AND VERY VERY REAL.
4. Knowledge, education, morality and evil are all part of Existence, and the extent of knowable things is likely to be forever unknown, AND YET IT IS REAL.
5. Consciousness is clearly part of Existence, otherwise no one would have any knowledge of anything…AND IT IS VERY VERY REAL.
Now, to make a further study of the above realities, one must ask…”Where do these things come from?”
My personal studies of The Mystery have led me to the following conclusion, which is that all of the above realities are all in relation to CONSCIOUSNESS, with the possible exception of Death, however, no Atheist I have ever encountered has ever been able to prove absolutely that Death is the end of consciousness, and they likely never will be able to, because again, that issue is one of the deepest aspects of The Mystery without question.
So, it is of my personal opinion that in order to get to the bottom of the actual inner workings of The Mystery, ONE MUST STUDY CONSCIOUSNESS.
All other types of investigation into The Mystery will probably only end in frustration, but I think that there is likely to be found a literal GoldMine when the subject of Consciousness is taken up seriously, BECAUSE CONSCIOUSNESS IS THE MYSTERY.
Now, since Consciousness is the most essential aspect of any and every living being, I am of the humble opinion that BY STUDYING ONES OWN CONSCIOUSNESS VIA MEDITATION, the answers to The Mystery will gradually begin to come to light, because ALL LIVING THINGS BOTH EMANATE FROM AND ULTIMATELY RETURN TO THE ETERNAL MYSTERY.
Please feel free to comment on this post.
With kindest regards.
FenceSitter09
July 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Religion is a set of beliefs that guide a persons actions. Buddhism, in its basic traditional form, speaks of no god — is it therefore not a religion? It is a religion of course. And so is atheism. One does not have to have a specific god to have a religion — just a basic set of beliefs. Atheism’s beliefs guided the founders of communism — Marx and Lenin — to create a society free from other religions, so as to exalt their religion — atheism. Atheism then, has been tried and tested in the real-life laboratory of the world, and it has failed.
July 30th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Atheists and Gnostics are right in most of their thinking
It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving to atheists and Gnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. The “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence itself, “All-That-Is.” If something is there, that is God. Look at the book “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots – A life centered in God” (Amazon.com). I am confident that some of your friends will be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself.
Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm
August 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Kerby Rials, that was a load of sophist tripe. Can you seriously sit there and say that stuff and not see how ridiculous it is?
Religions are invariably dogmatic. You’ll find buddhists declaring homosexuality is wrong, just as you’ll find christians doing the very same thing, because the dogma of their religion declares it. Atheism is not dogmatic. While asserting that god does not exist may be a leap of faith in the same way that asserting that god does exist is, that does not make it a religion, as explained above.
Now then, lumping atheism and communism together and saying that atheirm fails because communism doesn’t work is the most idiotic piece of sophistry i have seen in this entire thread. That’s like saying mathematics fails because some awesome mathematician tried to bake a cake, but the cake didn’t turn out right.
THINK before you open your mouth or touch your keyboard. Stop posting moronic ignorance like this.
August 4th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
This is a very interesting discussion. I get the fly on the wall eyeview of man’s intellectual wranglings. It’s all so good. This discussion proves to me that I did the right thing by just humbling myself and looking to God for the Answer. Because I could put in my two-cents as well, I’ve read some books too, I’ve studied others’ writings and musings as well. People, science merely prove that God is. With science we can look into the eye and understand how it see colors. With science we have learned so much about how the brain works. We can manipulate the body with anesthesia, with drugs, etc. But when you look at the detail of the human body, you MUST conclude a God at work there. Any other conclusion is foolishness. It’s hard to deconstruct one’s false assumptions, but once you do and move in the direction of the Truth-God-through Jesus, then you can relax and just accept the truth and let God be God! Hallelujah, Amen!
August 4th, 2009 at 12:29 pm
Our skygod will smite thee with fire and powerful power! You shall burn and scream in mortal agony for ever and ever, and all eternity in hellfire because he loves you.
Man, its not even funny when I do that anymore. Religion has officially jumped the shark
August 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
Amit Kumar?
As in, the Amit Kumar formerly of miranda NSW? If so, i went to school with you buddy =)
anyways, to whoever said this…
“But when you look at the detail of the human body, you MUST conclude a God at work there. Any other conclusion is foolishness. ”
You fail at logic and rationaliry. Perhaps religion is right for you.
August 19th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Kerby Rials:
Religion is a set of beliefs that guide a persons actions. Buddhism, in its basic traditional form, speaks of no god — is it therefore not a religion? It is a religion of course. And so is atheism. One does not have to have a specific god to have a religion — just a basic set of beliefs. Atheism’s beliefs guided the founders of communism — Marx and Lenin — to create a society free from other religions, so as to exalt their religion — atheism. Atheism then, has been tried and tested in the real-life laboratory of the world, and it has failed.
Just saying atheism is a religion does not make it a religion. Listing people who were atheists who were also failed leaders as indicative of all atheists is an epic fail. If religion is in fact a set of beliefs that guide a person’s action, than how can atheism possibly be a religion when atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in god? What specific behaviors does this lack of belief dictate? None! There is nothing that binds atheists together besides a lack of belief in god – there are no atheist commandments, no atheist holy texts, no atheist rules. In fact, the only thing that makes you not an atheist is being a theist and being a theist is not necessarily indicative of being religious either.
Your argument boils down to “Marx and Lenin were atheists and so I have decided they represent all atheists and they had other rules and stuff too, so that makes atheism a religion and they failed so that means atheism has failed too.” That’s an awful lot of presumptions which have to be widely agreed upon in order for your confusing comment to have any merit – and that’s not going to happen.
August 27th, 2009 at 5:46 pm
You make a pretty good case against the “position of faith” argument here.
My version is tuned to the Ray Comfort version, which I think Christians are overly fond and confident in. In this, Comfort draws a thing parallel between seeing a TV for the first time (off), and being informed that it “magically” displays images of a person far away. Uninitiated, we would be understandably skeptical, and this is his parallel: We would consider claims of a far-off invisible person to be ridiculous. Yet, television /is/ real, and whatever science by which it works would be as mysterious to the uninformed as the holy ghost.
It seems like a good case, but it’s flawed: The equanimity dissolves when we consider the simple fact that belief in television is not /required/ to observe it first hand. Whether or not I believe Ray’s claims about a distant TV station, I /will/ observe it in action when he turns it on.
No pre-disposed FAITH is required to witness the effects. We can literally test the supposition impartially. Any number of believers and non-believers can be called in to objectively agree that the television does indeed do (at least) as it is claimed.
But can we subject a god to the say test? Turn on the switch Ray, that we might see his talking head on the screen for ourselves! [ok that's cruel, haha]
In short, the “your position also begins in faith” is utterly flawed in that we, they and any one else who cares can objectively observe the substance and structure of DNA, of the decay rate of carbon – and their observations will agree with those of science – whether or not they choose to carry a belief of any kind into the process.
So – the position is not equivalent – unless there is a test that works on unbelievers as well as believers. Ray says I should ask god sincerely for forgiveness and beg his holy spirit to enter me.
Well I just tried that, and nothing turned on. Conclusion obvious.
September 7th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
…if you seek HIM with ALL you heart. That is a key and a promise. Try reading the Bible and really seeking HIM. I have done this and it works. I am convinced that HE is Lord. In fact I know that HE is GOD.
Here is a fact that I found interesting:
The first English language Bible printed in the USA was done so by an act of Congress. It was for school study.
It made me see a really simple truth that perhaps the framers of our Constitution knew more about what they meant than certain ’scholars’ of today who perpetuate a missapplied statement mentioning Church and State relationships.
September 25th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
I reccomend you the proof found in bloganders.blogspot.com (left menu) for an Intelligent and Perfect Creator and what His purpose is.
Anders Branderud
October 8th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
Sorry to be relatively stupid, but i was under the impression that Atheism simply meant lack of belief in God or a God. Surely a religion needs a God or indeed a ‘leader figure’. Last time i checked, some self important arrogant “full time atheists” such as Dawkins is known to be, do not qualify as a Leader nor God.
October 14th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
nate Says:
June 4th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
“Where is the common sense that life came from non life?”
Common Sense is not usually a good arbitrator of any scientific theory. Common sense may tell me just by looking at my garden that the world is flat but common sense doesn’t really explain DNA too well nor quantum mechanics.
October 26th, 2009 at 11:58 am
In the spirit of inter atheist pollination, My thoughts on this post appear here…
http://seeingthinkingknowing.blogspot.com/2009/10/atheism-not-religion.html
November 5th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
With all due respect, Christians do not believe their God is “Omnibenevolent” (is that even a word?). No such word in the Bible. I have never seen Omnipotent in the Bible either.
Christianity holds God is JUST God. A merciful God. A loving FATHER. But I don’t read anywhere in my Bible where it says he is a “benevolent” God. Perhaps his overall PLAN has a benevolent END, but it’s fair to say many of his recorded actions were not benevolent (at least on the surface, in so far as we walnut-minded humans perceive benevolence).
As Christians, we consider God our Father. He governs with a Father’s love. Loving, healthy-minded fathers spank their children out of disciplinary love. The father knows this act is benevolent, but the child naturally thinks it is evil. Why? Because the child does not yet understand that a father’s love is not always warm and fuzzy (i.e. benevolent as the child understands the meaning of love at such a young age). It is only later in life the child thanks the father for the butt-whoopin’s.. when he comes to understand why they were necessary. So goes the spiritual walk.
Regardless, we (Christians) lean not to our own understanding, so yes, we must have FAITH to fill in the voids. But, come one, it’s not like the voids can be filled by science or philosophy either. Name a single philosopher worth his salt who figured it all out from A to Z. None did. None will. So somewhere FAITH has to come into play.. right?
My FAITH is that my God has the answers somewhere and he’ll reveal them to me in time. That is also my HOPE. My longing. My passion as a Christian man. For I have read as deeply as you all the philosophy and science I can get my eyes and hands on and I am utterly dissatisfied with the results. Only in the Bible have I found what my conscience considers TRUTH. Only the Bible has satisfied my search for truth.
But you must also have some sort of faith right? You must have faith in the stability of the universe, else you wouldn’t go outside and walk under the stars at night without an armored tank to protect you from stray meteorites. You must have faith in the stability of the oxygen to go jogging or walking without an oxygen tank, else how could you exist? Of course you have TRUST in something out there, you just don’t have a name for it. I do. That’s the only difference between us… isn’t it?
Sincerely,
Mark
December 21st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I have no time for religion but I understand enough about life to know that you can’t specify that anything is absolute. They may not be a God, but to say that there is no God is too judgemental for me. However, it makes no difference to me whatever the answer may be.
An Atheist is someone who has decided that there is no God. That is their belief. A belief with no facts behind it is the basis of a religion!
December 26th, 2009 at 5:02 pm
Wow, this article was less than convincing, but debate in the comments section was definitely worth the read. After making my way through all of it, I have come to the same conclusion I held prior to reading. Atheists and Christians are of equal ignorance. Both hold subjective opinions and neither are open to the possibility that they are wrong.
“Real knowledge is to know the extent of one’s ignorance” Confucius. Unfortunately, not many here are aware of their own.
January 5th, 2010 at 7:36 am
Yes you can argue that all opinions are subjective, that every thought is a belief. That a belief in scientific evidence on the basis of data is as naive as the trust required to believe the text written in holy scriptures.
However, this simply isn’t the case. Some of these internal conclusions happen to reflect reality.
If this was not the case there would be no medicine, no computers, no cars. We wouldn’t have a hope above the level of chance of making everything work. Now of course non of these things work perfectly, computers crash sometimes, cars fail to start, medicine doesn’t always prevent/cure illness. That’s because science starts on the basis of knowing nothing and moving forward bit by bit, building on old knowledge by testing very precise hypotheses, and sometimes refuting old knowledge as innacurate. But medicine and technologies (that are currently available, and these are continuously evolving and developing all the time) work a lot of the time. Certainly above the level of chance. This is why people are living longer, communication is easier (like you reading this right now. Without science this would never have been possible). For all of these things to work there needs to patterns of phenomena occurring that are measurable in some way that makes them predictable. That is how science works. This is scientific thinking.
Now a large percentage of people educated to a high level, particularly within the sciences,(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2111174/Intelligent-people-less-likely-to-believe-in-God.html) are atheist. No, that doesn’t automatically make atheism it right, but it is arguable that people who have been taught to think in a scientific and critical manner have reached the conclusion that atheism is the logical starting point. That in order for us to claim something to be real there needs to be quantifiable data that shows it’s existence beyond it happening by accident.
So really the challenge should be on people who believe in religion that their view is an accurate portrayal of reality, that their god and that god’s influence actually exists, rather than the people who believe in nothing.
This is why atheism is not a religion.
And incase my argument hasn’t convinced you, here are some further points…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3RO9RkvHN4l
January 8th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I like your post, and it’s very valid. I think you may have misunderstood this “Tired Christian Claim” though, whether because you misunderstood or the Christians who made the claim misunderstood what they were saying.
The core of this claim comes from atheism’s assertion that “God does not exist.” (I’m going to limit this to Christianity’s God for the sake of brevity). God is non falsifiable – there is no way to disprove He exists. We have no way of sensing Him (if He exists).
So in that sense, to assert that God definitively does not exist is to say something unproven that is accepted on faith. That’s why I think of atheism as a religion.
The only purely logical view as far as I can tell is agnosticism. If I were interested in being logical, I’d be an agnostic. But, as someone above me said, atheists and Christians alike are ignorant and petty. I think it’s good that everyone’s trying to do the right thing, though, right? Most people that are invested in their religion (or worldview) are doing it because they believe it’s going to make them a better person. I can be sad that you guys don’t have God on your side, but at least you’re doing good stuff. I just want to hug someone now gosh.
January 9th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
evolution CANNOT be backed up with any evidence at all, because fairy tale story, that’s why atheist is a religion. besides, world moral is collapsing and the governments will form one world government to enforce everyone to have a chip in their hands and foreheads just as the bible says.
January 22nd, 2010 at 12:53 pm
No, not believing in god is not a religion.
I don’t believe in god in the way the concept has been presented by most human beings. That’s it. That’s the way I’ve always been and only a few years ago discovered that there was a word for people like me… technically I guess I’m more agnostic.
It’s stupid to even call it anything. I’m a non-believer. Is that better? Does that carry with it less of a label?
I’m not part of some organization, I don’t make plans to meet with other people like myself and praise those of the science community and other such things that people who are religious tend to do.
What the hell sort of qualifications are there to whether something is a religion or not? Why does it matter?
January 26th, 2010 at 12:09 am
I am religious, actually – not Christian, Jewish or Islam (and holy shitballs, not Wiccan, thank all that’s good and sweet!), but religious all the same if you can call it that. But, being religions, I’ve heard from other people of faith that they also deem Atheism to be a religion – why? Not because you have faith in something without proof – let’s be frank most religious people don’t even have that, so having any kind of faith doesn’t qualify in my book as religious. It’s because many Atheists (be honest, now) push their beliefs like religious fanatics.
No, not all Atheists, but almost all that I’ve met. You have no idea how many times I’ve had someone ask me if I’m religious just so they could start in on a rant about Atheism. I mean, I have no beef with Atheists, and agree with most of what they believe, but if you don’t want to be seen as religious zealots or fanatics, for Darwin’s sake, stop shoving your ideas down people’s throats. That’s one of the biggest issues I’ve got with the major world religions – the missionary work. Maybe Jungle Baby doesn’t give two shits about Jesus or Odin or Darwin?
What I’m about to say (or any of this, even) isn’t directed at anyone here or the author, so please bare with me. It’s my opinion based on my own run-ins with Atheists: Atheism is a smart way to go, science is – whatcha call it? Oh yeah, proof. But it’s one thing to hold beliefs, that just makes you of a certain mindset. It’s a whole other to decide that people who don’t share those beliefs are beneath you and must be brought up to speed by any means necessary – that makes you a Christian.
January 26th, 2010 at 1:56 am
I think I turning this around will be useful here’s a concept.
If a religious person can’t prove their god exists in a court of law
then no claims about said god can be made in public. Any claims such as god hates homosexuals should be charged as incitement to hatred and the peron jailed until such time they can prove their god exsits.
The point is until it is established that YOUR CLAIMED god exists, criticizing Atheists is stupid, disingenuous and a position that ignores the FACT there is NO EVIDENCE for any god claim made by any religion.
As soon any any evidence even suggested that a particular god may actually exist a whole new field of science would open overnight.
I’m sick or religious dicks twisting the facts and insulting Atheists
essentially trying to bully their religion on others. Get over the first hurdle of proving your claim god exists then you will actually start to have some credibility instead of looking like a stupid asshole.
January 27th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I don’t think that any of you understand what atheism is. Atheism is not about belief. If you are an atheist it means that you know God does not exist, There is nothing about belief in that statement. In that sense most people who claim to be atheist are probably not. Rather they are probably agnostics. Agnosticism is about belief. Also you do not have to believe in God to be religious. You can believe in God or a higher power without following a set religion. So maybe you should all brush up on your definitions before you start to argue about something that you clearly don’t understand.
January 30th, 2010 at 10:57 pm
you Atheists defend Atheism as well as the Muslims defend Islam…
(obviously not killing people, but you kill peoples careers)
February 20th, 2010 at 6:29 am
A very interesting thread indeed… Over the years I’ve come to the conclusion that everyone of us has a PERSONAL belief. No matter who you are. No two christians, nor atheists understand god or the lack of it, in the same way. My beef with religions don’t lie in the PERSONAL points of view that any individual might have. That’s yours, keep it to yourself. No, for me the issue is the effect these PERSONAL views may have in the society as a whole. People being mutilated, abused, segregated, murdered in the name of ancient beliefs is just… inhuman. I don’t care about proving or disproving the existence of god, santa or the tooth fairy; Everyone has to figure that out by themselves. Now, removing the influence and impact that those very PERSONAL views have on non-spiritual matters(legal, economical and otherwise) is a cause that I will preach and crusade for. And if you think that makes me religious, well that’s just your PERSONAL point of view.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:35 pm
“Atheism is a Religion”
Who say this, is a stupid person! ( Max Benser )
March 11th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
I wouldn’t say it is a “religion”, but I would say it takes infinitely more faith to believe we’re all a cosmic freak accident. So, I commend you on your off-the-charts faith.
March 16th, 2010 at 6:27 am
I agree about atheism (having been an atheist), but I do have a question – what about naturalism? The conviction that all that exists can be explained by natural means.
No matter how many times that claim is tested by science, it will always be declared true, because science rejects anything that isn’t natural. If a natural answer can’t be found, the explanation is “we just don’t know yet”.
You could argue that naturalism is a position taken on faith that can’t be disproved by science because it is a base assumption of science (which means that whenever science confirms it, the confirmation is based on circular logic).
Saying that things we don’t understand work based on natural processes could potentially be referred to as “naturalism of the gaps”, and “we don’t know yet, but there is a natural explanation… we’ll probably find it with more research, or it might be too complicated for us to understand but it IS NATURAL” is somewhat akin to “the lord moves in mysterious ways… we’ll understand someday in heaven, but even if we don’t GOD STILL DID IT”.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of science, but thinking it’s the end all and be all, the ultimate explanation, describing everything in the universe naturally – that seems like faith, or at the very least (if you choose to distinguish) unfounded, unprovable belief. But then doesn’t everyone, in honest, have to accept that science is based on several unprovable assumptions that might be described as logical fallicies? Like the idea that when things are repeatable, it proves they always happen. In fact, all conclusion based on induction is a bit shaky… it has very important practical purposes, but it’s hardly proof.
Anyway, Naturalism=faith? Thoughts?
March 22nd, 2010 at 5:41 pm
Marie, what is an example of something that isn’t nature?
May 4th, 2010 at 5:17 pm
Did you heard what Rob Matts said about that?
July 10th, 2010 at 2:31 am
superb post !!! thanks
August 7th, 2010 at 1:52 am
Just what I was looking to see today! I want you to know I don’t take this stuff for granted. I’m so happy you put this up. Any possiblilty of exchanging links? I really hope so. I added your rss feed to my reader. Also visited some of your sponsors, good stuff. I hope you visit my site about Santa sometime soon and return the favor. Have a most excellent day.
August 31st, 2010 at 4:03 am
I’m not a baseball fan, but this whole episode stinks to the high heavens. WHY in God’s name is congress (A group of liars if there ever was one) WASTING their valuable time on a baseball player who allegedly lied about taking drugs that may even kill him someday. The country is in the grip of a horrible mess caused by the inattention of politicians for the last 30 years. That boil is getting ready to burst,and here we have Congress trying to “look busy”. It’s really disgusting. It’s impossible for Congress to hold anyone in contempt, because that is the feeling that the entire country has -against THEM!…..