Update: I have written a response to criticism of this article here, so please do not read this post without also reading my updated response which clarifies many of my more emphatic statements.
I have many thoughts about the recent exchange I’ve been having lately on this blog and elsewhere. Mostly, I’m appalled by the schoolyard bully tactics and the weasely reluctance to delve into the hard questions. Is this what the new face of atheism has come to? Evade having a coherent reason for one’s own beliefs while insulting anyone who dares ask the simple question: why?
The fact is that it’s impossible to live as a true atheist, and the honest atheists who understand the basic tenants of philosophy understand this. True atheism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe devoid of supernatural origin, mind over matter, and ultimate purpose. Therefore, a true atheist has to say that reality is one way while simultaneously living as if reality is another way. In a sense, they live like theists while denying the merits of theism.
Atheists claim they can live normal lives, kindly doing charitable works and contributing to society. That’s very true — but they do those things not because of their atheist beliefs. They do them in spite of their atheist beliefs. They act like it matters to be kind and generous, like it matters to live harmoniously within society, like it matters to accomplish good works, like it matters to put the needs of others at the forefront, like it matters to fight for justice and see truth reign over falsehood. Unfortunately for them, they are completely unable to explain why any of this really does matter. The universe doesn’t care. Space-time, matter, energy, laws of physics — they don’t care. They have no reason to support good. I could go murder a million people and rape thousands of women — do the molecules care? Are the chemical reactions within people’s bodies going to be upset?
Atheists constantly live in a paradox. They go on their moral crusades against “religion” and all its supposed evils, while denying the need to explain in any way why such moral crusades are justified. They say they don’t need a “sky-daddy” to scare them into being good (a silly straw man if there ever were one), yet at the same time they don’t have a sensible reason why their own capacity for morality has any merit whatsoever. After all, the dictator controlling the people of his nation considers his capacity for moral judgement to be quite excellent. Everything he does is for the good of the people, according to his own mind.
Please note that I’m not attempting to say atheism is wrong and theism is right (though of course that’s what I believe). What I am attempting to show is that atheists are every bit as hypocritical as the “fundies” they try to oppose and that the very nature of atheism dictates that it’s meaningless, illusionary, and illogical to have any moral opinion on what anyone believes. If I am, as they say, delusional, willfully ignorant, infantile, mentally retarded, etc. — who cares? Let me be so. The universe doesn’t care, so why should an atheist care?
According to atheism, every single human who ever lived before us is dead forever, we will soon be dead, and one day all humanity will be dead along with the entire universe. At the end of time (whatever that means), why does it matter that we’re even here today having a debate about religion, God, atheism, or any of the rest of it?
Why does it matter? Why does anything matter? Why?
Follow me on Twitter
Subscribe to blog feed
99 Comments
“it’s impossible to live as a true atheist”
This is an indefensible statement. I live as a true atheist. I reject every god there is and without a single nick in my conscience.
“Atheists claim they can live normal lives, kindly doing charitable works and contributing to society. That’s very true — but they do those things not because of their atheist beliefs. They do them in spite of their atheist beliefs.”
Another unsupportable assertion. People have explained to you that it is not only possible to reap personal rewards from acting morally in a manner that depends in no way on god(s), but that there is evidence of this all around you. If I donate money to Hurricane Katrina victims via the Red Cross, I feel as if I have done something useful. Maybe the money wil be pissed away and I certainly can’t count on being compensated in any material way. If I treat those around me with respect, I am treated respectfully in turn. If I lie and cheat, I’ll acquire a reputation for doing so, will be ostracized to some extent, and be unable to enjoy life in the same way I could be treating people morally. The fact that this all boild down to neurotransmitters and game theory rather than divine influence doesn’t make the feelings any less meaningful. We are humans with the capacity to define our lives in any way we choose. If I decide my life isn’t worth living, or, alternatively, that it is more valuable than those of everyone else on the planet combined, god(s) play no role in this subjective assessment.
Answer one thing, Jared: Do you really think that eventhe most ardent atheists are not rewarded psychologically, emotionally, and socially by behacing in ways that nenefit his or her fellows? Realistically this is not something you can deny, yet you probably will since your whole ramshackle argument collapses with such an admission.
It is troubling that you speak so freely of “philosophical debate” when your mind obviously allows you to experience and appreciate only a fraction of available viewpoints. Have you ever read about the Plato’s cave allegory in <i>? I’d say it’s beyond your reach at this time, but give it a shot someday. In Socratic terms, you’re like a guy who not only can see a mere representation of reality, a few shadows here and there, but doesn’t even have a mirror or other device allowing him to see past his own nose. That’s what religious indoctrination does to people. It’s a virus with a nasty tropism for the human intellect.
TImeant “in The Republic” above. There’s no preview function or edit function here, sorry.
@Jared
Bingo!
@Kemibe,
“Answer one thing, Jared: Do you really think that even the most ardent atheists are not rewarded psychologically, emotionally, and socially by behaving in ways that benefit his or her fellows?”
I thought that was exactly Jared’s point. Atheists don’t have the chuptzah to act according to their beliefs (there is no God and therefore no one to answer to) but instead act according to conscience.
“Atheists don’t have the chuptzah to act according to their beliefs (there is no God and therefore no one to answer to) but instead act according to conscience.”
And once again, this amazingly short-sighted viewpoint is predicated on the belief that acting cruelly and evilly is the default position and rectifiable only by a divine external agent.
Never mind what this says about you asa person should you suddenly come to your senses and realize that the God you believe in is a phony; you have yet to explain how non-human animals act in caring, compassionate ways toward other members of their species — both within and outside of their immediate families — despite obviously having no be;lief in gods or even the ability to believe in them.
Humans created gods at some point after realizing they have finite lives, and from there, assigning celestial policeman and jurist status to these “gods” was only a matter of time. After all, people afraid of their own base impulses can benefit immeasurably from genuinely believing that some invisible, all-knowing agent is watching their asses at all times. In principle it’s little different from a compulsive gambler who gives his ATM card to a trusted friend when he enters a casino.
It’s also conspicuous that you and Jared have yet to explain where the whole idea that morals are god-given even comes from. Don’t say you were born with it because it’s far from intuitive. Did whoever drummed that idea into your head encourage you to examine other ideas as well? Something tells me the answer is no.
@kemibe, who said,
“you have yet to explain how non-human animals act in caring, compassionate ways toward other members of their species — both within and outside of their immediate families — despite obviously having no be;lief in gods or even the ability to believe in them.”
You must be talking about those lions who kill other lions’ cubs, or those species which chomp into anything during feeding frenzies, or those crocodiles who guard their young until they get in the water and then use them for snacks?
I think instead you should explain why you anthropomorphize animal behavior with epithets of caring and compassionate. Or do you have the ability, a la Dr. Doolittle, to talk to them about what they’re feeling?
You get insults Jason because your posts are patently absurd bigoted rants.”The universe doesn’t care”?!?! No shit Sherlock. WE care, and that’s enough. If that’s not enough for you, then you simply have a personal problem, and we have no obligation to fix it for you.
You are akin to the man who stands in a busy airport claiming the impossibility of heavier-than-air flight while it goes on all around him. What but dismissive attitudes can you expect when you spout such blinkered nonsense?
slw wrote:
“You must be talking about those lions who kill other lions’ cubs, or those species which chomp into anything during feeding frenzies, or those crocodiles who guard their young until they get in the water and then use them for snacks?”
Nice dodge. I guess since I can come up with countless examples of similar savagery perpetrated by humans (including,more often than not, religious ones), himan beings are no more moral than animals.
“I think instead you should explain why you anthropomorphize animal behavior with epithets of caring and compassionate. Or do you have the ability, a la Dr. Doolittle, to talk to them about what they’re feeling?”
Right. More hand-waving. It’s impossible to observe chimpanzees caring for each other, or ants cooperating in an effort to get food for the queen, or mother birds allowing their babies to poke them in the throat so that they regurgitate food for the young ‘uns, or wild turkeys slowing the pace of their morning foraging so that theone with the limp can keep up (this I’ve seen myself). Since your grasp of ethology is nonexistent and you’re taking the position that noting acts of compassion and caring in nonhuman animals is merely “anthropomorphizing,” there’s little point in trying to discuss anything reasonable with you.
Still, feel free to explain one thing — where your idea that morals are derived from “God” comes from. And please bespecific.
Saying I believe God is the maker of stuff and the author of life probably won’t serve your need for a specific answer, but in a nutshell, that is where the concept arises from. That there is, as you said, examples of morality in nature, which has no ability one way or the other to make moral choice as humans understand it, doesn’t cause a rift in logic, for I believe nature is his handiwork and reveals the characteristics of his eternal and divine nature. I believe morality and conscience are fingerprints of God in the clay of our natures as humanbeings. One doesn’t have to believe in him to experience them, anymore than one has to believe in him to breathe.
But that isn’t what the philosophical discussion here is about. What (and I hate speaking for him but…) Jared and I are asking you is, within the framework of your worldview, why? Why morality at all if it isn’t the shadow of the Creator? Why, as a practical manner, does it make sense to live within self imposed limits if they are only self-imposed? Why assert and enforce such considerations on others who may not share those limits? What is the philosphical underpinnings of your morality and why does it matter?
Jared, three things puzzle me (well, many things puzzle me about theistic stance, but three will do for a comment).
The first, most important one, is not a philosophical or theoretical concept, it is a matter of physical reality.
If morality stems from God, and you (the religious people) have direct knowlede of Him, or even direct communication with Him, it only stands to reason that you would act in a superior moral manner.
After all, you KNOW God. You know his words, his desires, his laws… And some of you believe that you can ask questions and receive answers from God; so you can ask him, and get an answer, if trying to solve a moral dillema.
So, my question is simple: why aren’t you?
A cursory look at the behavior of most Christians demonstrates that you certainly aren’t better then…well, pretty much anyone else, once you take into account education and wealth. Don’t misunderstand me here, I’m not saying that you are worse then others, but you certainly aren’t morally superior.
Why?
Secondly, I have to turn your question around: why does something matter? I will gladly give you my answer to that, if you ask me for it. But what I don’t understand, is why would anything YOU do matter?
Anything you can learn, God already knows. Anything you can build, God can build better. A perfect world, filled with decent and loving people? God could create such a world, if he wants to. Spreading the God’s word to the edges of the Earth? God could speak to the edges of the Earth if he wanted to.
So the only thing that remains is existence after death. I can see how that may look (or even be) desirable, but…how does that add any MEANING to your life?
I’m perfectly honest here – I don’t understand?
I mean, you do something good. How does that have any meaning? You’ll have infinite opportunity to do an infinite number of good deeds in your infinite afterlife. One act is infinitely small, and irrelevant.
You create something magnificient – well, considering that sometime during your infinite afterlife you’ll certainly create something infinitely more magnificient (it’s inevitable within infinity), it hardly seems worth the effort.
You’ll just go on and on, doing stuff, existing, praising God…but I do not see how any of that provides any more meaning to your life then you already have in a limited existence.
In fact, it would seem that a limited existence has meaning through the simple effect of scarcity: you have only one shot at life, and what you do is what you have done; if you don’t make the best of it, you have missed your chance. Everything you do is meaninful because there is only so many times (maybe even only once) that you’ll be able to do it.
Finally, there is a small question of reality. You say “if there is no God, then nothing matters”. I disagree, but even if it is true – if there is no God, then nothing matters – how does that affect the question whether God exists in any way?
You believe in God because you want things to matter? That is kind of like believing that food falls from the sky to the starving children in Aftrica, because you don’t want people to be hungry.
Well, slw asked, and here is one response:
“Why morality at all if it isn’t the shadow of the Creator? Why, as a practical manner, does it make sense to live within self imposed limits if they are only self-imposed?”
The limits are not self-imposed.
We have evolved as group animals for a long time. There are structures in our brains that allow us to understand the emotions and states of other members of our kind (and, by extensions, even to the animals of other species).
These structures provide within us a “feeling” called “empathy”. If you see a person in pain, you feel an echo of that pain yourself. If you see a person rejoycing, you will feel an echo of that happiness.
This imposes one limit upon you – in order to ignore your intrinsic empathy, you need to either be severely psychologically damaged (as is the case with sociopaths), or you need to work hard against the feelings you have been born with.
The second limit is provided by your (also evolved) rational mind. A rational analysis (which is far beyond the scope of a blog comment, but can be found expressed in many books on the subject of Ethics; Kant being my personal favorite) demonstrates that just behavior makes most sense for an individual living within a larger group. By doing good to each other, individuals expend small cost and reap great benefits.
If you doubt this, try living for a while in a society where individuals follow the laws of courtesy, social contract (usually embodied in forms of civil and criminal law), and cultural contract (embodied in its customs); then try living in a place where every individual is on their own (you’ll be able to find such places only occassionally, in great crises and wars; but they implode quickly, since it doesn’t take much time for people to destroy themselves in such places).
Or, to use Jared’s example, yes, he could *try* to murder a million people and rape a million women. Chances are, his actions would make many people unhappy (those he’s trying to murder or rape being the foremost), and they will act to stop him…in ways that are likely to make Jared very miserable.
These limits follow from things that are completely outside your control. There are some others, more difficult to explain, but these two will do.
Finally, refer to my third question to Jared. In the final analysis, none of this matters at all.
You *desire* an absolute moral code, imposed by an immortal entity, who will enforce it through rewards and punishments.
However, the fact that you *desire* such an entity, or the fact that you think the world would be better (or more meaningful, or whatever) if such an entity existed…does not mean that such an entity actually does exist.
…nor does it mean that He doesn’t!
It was very interesting to read the viewpoint of someone who misunderstands atheism to such a profound degree.
They have no reason to support good. I could go murder a million people and rape thousands of women — do the molecules care? Are the chemical reactions within people’s bodies going to be upset?
Other people will be upset with you if you do that, you can be sure of it. A very simple point, but one which completely escapes you in your zeal to make “atheism” look stupid. They can’t help it if you can’t show them good evidence for your religion. They can’t help it if your God won’t show itself to them. IT’S NOT THEIR FAULT despite what some idiot Bible verse or other says.
Even if people who don’t believe in your religion are only pretending that they have good reasons for being moral people and have no “philosophical basis” for that, it has nothing to do with whether or not your God is a myth.
Besides, what kind of a morality says that it’s okay for your God to put people in hell and horrible torture forever. A God who won’t even show itself to people. A God who won’t even give people a second chance after they pass away to the other side and when they find out for sure that there really is a God who will do these mean things to them… sorry game over, no second chance, ooops!
How come you don’t ask your God to stop doing that? What kind of morality is it that says it’s not okay to ask your God to stop doing that? How come you don’t pray that Satan converts over to your religion? THAT my friend is a morality with a weasely reluctance to delve into the hard questions.
After negotiating the minefield of mad inconsistencies constituting Jared’s site, I have to rescind my initial idea that he, while grossly deluded, is obviously a jovial, harmless fellow, the sort of Christian who will never join other delusionals in a desperate battle against reason and expertise. While his intellect may limit his aims in this area, he certainly has these aims. While attending some event called “God’s Media Army,” he wrote :
God is raising up a new generation of media-savvy, technologically-innovative artists, visionaries, producers, technicians, and teachers who are going to lead the church into a completely new age (not New Age) of global impact and expansion unprecedented in the history of mankind.
He also thinks what he calls “the pending death of modernism” is a good thing. This is a guy who works with computers for a living. Does he think his skills will serve him well as a sundial or abacus tech?
This someone who starts a post titled “Allowing God be a supernatural Healer” with the words “I’m a very practical man”; a fellow who writes, in all apparent sincerity,
“[I]t’s impossible to live as a true atheist … Atheists claim they can live normal lives [but can and do] in spite of their atheist beliefs … [a]theists constantly live in a paradox”
and follows this up with
“Please note that I’m not attempting to say atheism is wrong and theism is right (though of course that’s what I believe).”
He’s as muddled as anyone I’ve seen on the Internet — even some of the outright crazies and ground-level idiots are at least consistent — and a perfect example of why, although plenty of otherwise clear-headed people are turned on to religion, it will always hold stronger intrisic appeal to people who permanently part ways with any capacity for rational thinking sometime before the second trimester.
Sadly, he’ll look at this string of pointed criticisms and a little voice inside him will chant: Angry atheists angry atheists angry atheists they’re wrong you’re right Bible they’re wrong you’re right Bible Jesus saves, or something close, and he’ll neatly and cleanly disregard the comments here in favor of maintaining a rip-roaringly insane concept of the world, its people and its workings.
Kemibe, I chose to allow your comment to remain here in the interests of fairness and free discussion. However, as it’s obvious you have no interest in engaging in intelligent dialogue and instead prefer to engage in mud-slinging, mockery, and self-aggrandizement, this is your last comment that I will accept on this site unless you tone down your rhetoric. This is a conversation, not a mental wrestling match.
Be nice.
So, Jared, you grant yourself license to label atheists deluded (“t’s impossible to live as a true atheist”), weasely, evasive, and hypocritical (“they have no reason to support good”), and to say that their views are “meaningless, illusionary, and illogical,” but anyone who responds in kind gets a warning from you?
I’ve asked all sorts of questions of you, Jared, and you have answered exactly none of them. We both know I have done more than posture and insult you. If you are truly interested in intelligent dialogue, you can either start responding to the issues I and others have raised or, if you elect to censor me, continue this discussion at my blog, where there is no shortage of people fond of intelligent discussion and no threat of censorship, biased or otherwise.
Censorship is not the issue. Personal attacks and mockery are the issues. Again, you have been warned. -Jared
“THAT my friend is a morality with a weasely reluctance to delve into the hard questions.”
386sx, I’m not reluctant to delve into the hard questions. Nor are many thinking Christians. There are plenty of very interesting resources out there if you’re interested that delve into these issues.
You brought up far too much to talk about in this particular forum, but these are good topics to consider for future posts. I will address one question: why do evil and suffering exist if God is good and all-powerful?
This is what I would say: because God created beings who were given the ability to choose to love God and follow his ways or to reject God and establish individual autonomy. First satan and a third of the host of angels rebelled and fell from their place of power and majesty in Heaven. Then, as a consequence of his actions, man also chose rebellion and fell from his place of power and dominion over the earth.
We now live in a world filled with willful evil and natural decay, with all matter and energy gradually working its way towards final destruction. However, there’s still a remaining spark of the image of God within every man, and there’s still a remnant of beauty that lingers in this place. The very nature of existence is built upon forces that God has established and allowed to continue.
As a Christian, my most important purpose is to see the Kingdom of Heaven manifested in my life and everyone I meet and everywhere I go. These include the fruits of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. As I walk in faith and obedience to Christ working in my life, I see the glories of the eternal realm touch down into space-time. In the fight against the forces of evil and decay, I have been spiritually equipped, and those abilities have served me well.
Seek and you will find. That is a promise. If you haven’t found God, have you really sought — earnestly, desperately, with your whole heart, laying down your pride, yearning for love, asking for all the hidden, dark places of the soul to be brought out to the light and washed clean, asking the person of Jesus to reveal Himself to you in a real and tangible way?
The first step to God is realizing you can’t live on your own strength and your own power any longer. Sometimes it’s very hard to go down that road. But you will be better of for it.
Ask me to pray for divine favor in your life, and I will. I’d be honored. That goes for anyone here. I mean it.
“Ask me to pray for divine favor in your life, and I will. I’d be honored. That goes for anyone here. I mean it.”
Okay, ask your God if it will stop sending people to hell. That seems like a pretty extreme punishment. The suffering and pain is greater by many many orders of magnitude in comparison to murdering a million people and raping thousands of women. Ask your God if it will try and talk Satan into becoming a Christian. That would save a lot of people a lot of trouble. Thanks.
Ask your God if it will stop sending children to hell because they respect the beliefs of their parents and for believing what their parents say. Their parents are after all visible, and your God is invisible. Hell seems like a pretty tough punishment for believing visible stuff over invisible stuff.
Do you think that it is immoral to ask your God to stop doing those things? Of course you do.
Anyway, sorry you got such rough treatment from everybody. But still that is irrelevant to whether or not your religion is a myth.
*Many say: Christians, Jews, and Muslims act morally in spite of their religions.
*Some atheists spend a lot of time criticizing religion. Others don’t.
*There are zillions of reasons why we should care that don’t relate to a man in the sky. Try to see things from your opponent’s point of view, invoke a bit of creativity, and you might understand.
*Assume that you’re right…atheists have no reasons to care. Does this have any bearing on the question of God’s actual existence?
“Assume that you’re right…atheists have no reasons to care. Does this have any bearing on the question of God’s actual existence?”
This raises another relevant point. Even if it could be shown that atheism did indeed lead to moral corruption, and that atheists were the most pessimistic, miserable, self-serving people anywhere, this wouldn’t make Christianity, or any religion, true. Independent evidence of its claims are required, and such evidence hasn’t appeared in the 2,000 years Christians have had to supply it.
I don’t like the fact that people get cancer, or that kind and benevolent souls are murdered because they’re in the wronf place at the wrong time. Unfairness chafes. But that’s how the world canbe, and the fact that you or I may not like something doesn’t negate its existence or impact.
“Seek and you will find. That is a promise. If you haven’t found God, have you really sought — earnestly, desperately, with your whole heart, laying down your pride, yearning for love, asking for all the hidden, dark places of the soul to be brought out to the light and washed clean, asking the person of Jesus to reveal Himself to you in a real and tangible way?”
This is indeed one of the critical points, Jared.
If you seek *anything* earnestly, desperately, with your whole heart, laying down your pride…etc, you WILL find it.
Always. No matter what it is you seek.
If you in this way seek the proof that UFOs exist, and abduct thousands of people, you will find it. Others will disagree with you, and call you deluded, but you will *know the truth*.
If you in this way seek free energy, building device after device that breaks the laws of thermodynamics, you will succeed – other people will tell you that they don’t work, but you will *know the truth*.
If you seek…well, I hope you get the point. I chose non-religious examples precisely because I wanted to be clear that this has nothing to do with religion…any religion. But if you seek religion in this way, you will find it. If you seek Hare Krisna, you will find him. If you seek Allah, you will find him as well.
If you seek desperately, earnestly, laying down your pride, asking for the hidden – you will find exactly what you seek, because your desperate, earnest brain will produce a delusion to soothe you – a view of the world where everything that supports your delusion is magnified, and everything that undermines it will be ignored.
And you won’t even notice it! That is the power our brain has – it will exclude things that would deeply wound our basic ideas about reality. It is built directly into your thought. Saying to you that God does not exist, now, is like saying to you that color red tastes funny – it does not process.
Scientists have to work very, very hard to get around this problem (“confirmation bias” is only one of the names commonly given to it).
You, Jared, have lived on your own strength and your own power this whole time. You just lie to yourself about it. Someday, perhaps, you will discover the truth of it, and I do not envy the pain that will cause.
And if you truly think that all of the hidden, dark places of your soul have been brought out to light and washed clean…then you have managed to delude yourself about your lack of pride as well as everything else.
Dear Jared White,
You ask as good of a question as why and how there is a god. Indeed, why does anything matter? Certainly, nothing will matter at all once we are all gone. Nothing here has intrinsic value but for what we give, or as much more often, given to us by those who lived and are living before we came to be. There are great many kinds of pleasures derived from acting for the benefit of others, but in the magnificent scheme of things, they do not matter. Atrocities do not matter, just as much as God matters. Indeed, nothing matters once we’re all gone, while somehow we all do our part to act like things do matter. Theists and atheists alike, once humanity perishes and its artifacts return to nature, “why” we did anything would not matter. So, why do we do the many things we do?
There is no “ultimate” reason behind what we all do. The difference between atheists and theists is that the former did away with pretending like there is an inherent reason to do the things humans can do. We can live in the beautiful and brutal universe, appreciate it, describe and learn a few things about it, and say good night when our time comes.
Perhaps I may rephrase: We do not motivate or justify our actions upon faith. We must admit that we do not know what cannot be known, but base actions upon what we could know or do know with reasonable certainty.
What is important is that we use reason to its fullest, not torture and eventually extinguish it as faith, by definition, requires.
Reason is valuable. Reason thus allows for one to conclude that there is no inherent value to all that has been and shall be. Reason also allows that we assess what is valued in our time, to act upon what one considers as good, discard those that aren’t. They do not last, people and values, but we do not live for the eternal either. We are content with accepting the fact, to the extent that we could gather, that we are ephemeral. We need not aggrandize ourselves beyond such understanding.
With respect,
Yasu Yoshii
Although I enjoy imaginary friends, there’s no proof of a god. It’s weird that people believe in him so much, when there’s zero proof. I know, the proof is in life itself!(tm)
at times like this though, I have to admit. Why can’t the rapture be more organized? I mean, shouldn’t you be getting ready now? Don’tchya have somewhere to be?
I confess I don’t understand your second paragraph, but in regards to the statement that there’s no proof of a god, even most atheists are intellectually honest enough to admit that it’s a flawed statement with major philosophical hurdles that must be overcome. And, actually, you’re right — the proof IS in life itself. What I’ve experienced in my life is all the proof I require to believe in Jesus Christ as my Lord and my God. Every day is a gift, and I try to maintain a state of humble thanksgiving as I live out each day in the path that God has set for me.
P. S. Just a reminder that any personal attacks on me or any other person on this blog will be removed. I just had to remove an inflammatory comment, and I will not hesitate to do so again if necessary. So, please, if you are going to say something nasty, don’t. It’s that easy.
This is in response to 386sx’s comment.
You said, “Okay, ask your God if it will stop sending people to hell. That seems like a pretty extreme punishment.”
To everyone the truth is given. Even now, you are told that Jesus Christ is the only way to Heaven. If you are told that in order to avoid eternal punishment, you must repent of your sins and follow Jesus, and you refuse to do so, is God really sending you to hell, or are you sending yourself? People ask “why does God send people to hell?” all the time, and it’s the most ridiculous question in the world. God created us to love Him. If you created something to love you, and it did nothing but spit in your face, would YOU reward it?
“Ask your God if it will try and talk Satan into becoming a Christian. ”
Satan lived in Heaven with God, and experienced His Glory and love personally, and then TURNED AWAY FROM IT! The bible says we are judged by what we know, therefore you should be able to comprehend why Satan doesn’t get a second chance!
As far as children listening to their parents? Again, everyone has the choice to believe what they want. Everyone has the chance to hear the truth. The gospel is preached in all the nations, and there really isn’t any excuse anymore not to know who Jesus is and what He did. Alright, so what about before mass communication? Again, we are judged on what we know. If someone truly and honestly has never heard of Jesus and dies before ever hearing the message of salvation, I don’t believe they are going to go to hell! However, it’s not my place to decide. The point is, YOU are hearing the truth now, and YOU are rejecting it.
Jesus loves you. Why is that such a hard thing for people to accept?
so God and/or/as well as Jesus is that petty? That he wants you to believe blindly, and no matter what you do, as a rapist, a murderer, a lover, a thief, a parent, a good person, a bad person – is that as long as you believe, you’ll go straight to Heaven? and bypass Hell? …. and you buy that?! a being that apparently is THAT PETTY will let you get away with MURDER in this life, only to be rewarded in the next??
“Jesus loves you. Why is that such a hard thing for people to accept?”
Because this “love” attributed to a mythical godman is part of an incoherent fairy tale coupled to massive injustices, precudices, and other evils. Why is that so hard for you to understand? (That was a rhetorical question — people like you and Jared are thoroughly brainwashed, if not outright stupid.)
I understand your pain and confusion “smarter half”. It wasn’t long ago that I was attacking Christians, because of my lack of understanding. Sooner or later though the facts stand for themselves. For instance, did you know the bible is really 66 books written by over 40 different authors over a time span of thousands of years, all in different parts of the world? There were over a 100 prophecies written about Jesus before He actually arrived, that were fulfilled throughout His life. This is the only book of it’s kind, and really a mathematical impossibility. With God all things are possible though.
Did you know the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls (the oldest preserved form of the Old Testament), actually confirm that the bible we have today was the same as 2000 years ago. It hasn’t been corrupted, which also means that God kept His promise of “preserving His word”, as written in the bible.
Are we brainwashed? Absolutely. Our brains have been COMPLETELY washed of all the lies that most people are buying into in this generation. How do I know they are lies? Because I once believed them. Like I said, I was once fighting the same battle you are fighting right now, and I lost to the power of God. The scales that were over my eyes blocking the TRUTH were removed and now I see clearly.
I’m sorry that you associate Christians with “injustices, prejudices, and other evils”. I used to have the same viewpoint, and there are still times when I question some Christians (even though it’s not my place to do so). However, it shouldn’t hinder your own walk with God. Everyone is at a different level, and NO ONE is perfect. I’m sure, even as an atheist, you have a similar belief.
Although, aren’t you forming a prejudice thought when you make a comment that we are stupid? (By the way it’s P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E). When you have a negative mind, you are only going to see negative things. If you have decided that all Christians are terrible people than you are missing the good too because all you are looking for is the bad.
This is a debate that will go on until the end of time. What I can’t understand is why so many proclaimed atheist people are on a Christian blog anyway. Don’t you have anything better to do? Or were all the evolution books sold out at the bookstore?
Answering your last question there, Justin, I was engaged in a cross-blog debate at one point with an atheist Darwinianist, and a bunch of those folks came over here. Normally, I try not to stir that pot too much.
“Your smarter half”: I just have one question for you…why are we brainwashed but you are not? What if everyone holds to some belief system as to how existence came to be, and some may be true and some not true? Science can explain, to a certain degree of knowledge, how current physical processes work in the material universe, but it can not explain love, joy, peace, God, time, laws, ideas, dreams, visions, good, evil, or any other non-material thing. It cannot explain why we’re even having this conversation right now. And its ability to explain the origin of the material world itself is severely limited. Seems to me the atheist requires just as much faith for the belief in a world without God as the theist does for one with God.
“I just have one question for you…why are we brainwashed but you are not?”
That’s easy. You were virtually programmed to believe in the “truth” of a certain belief system long before your brain was mature enough to critically assess its worth, whereas others have enjoyed the liberty of evaluating the evidence about the world on its merit.
Like many who have no use for the profoundly incoherent Jesus/God concept, I at one time indulged in some genuine exploration of same, at which point I bore neither undue fear of what I might find (or not find) nor any inherent bias against the notion that something as unlikely as the Christian god could exist. I was not at all surprised to discover what your pastors never told you — that Christianity itself is wildly unoriginal, that the various contradictions and absurdities in scripture are just as loopy as they appear and cannot be explained away in the manner of addled theologians, that the reason science appears to all but rule out the notion of Bible-style air-lords is because it does, and that the reason the world operates precisely as if there were no such things as deities and antideities is because this is — for better or for worse — indeed the case.
Understand that I long ago stopped caring what people like you think other than as a psychological footnote, just as long as your insanity remains removed from governance and public policy; pray in your pews (and closets) all you wish. I have no reason to divest you of your intellectually conflicted and worthless ideas and I bear you no ill will as you barrel toward the same heavenless fate as every other living thing on the planet.
Take care.
YSH
Good luck with your “heavenless” fate. You certainly shall reap what you sow.
We’ll all reap the same thing, Justin, and luck is not an issue. It’s liberating to not agonize over faery-tale lives that aren’t; all the better to focus on the only one each of us has.
YSH
How could we reap the same thing? Tell that to a farmer. If he plants wheat, and his neighbor plants olive trees, will they both have the same harvest? Surely, this concept is quite universal, whether you believe in God or not.
And if your only focused on your own life, how can anything but your own life matter? And if your own life is the only thing that matters, and came to an end tomorrow, what benefit would living have been? And if there is no benefit and no meaning, why not end it now? Surely, there must be something more…
… Surely?
Your smarter half, you are ->this<- close to getting banned on my blog. I have a strict “politeness” policy and calling people insulting names is forbidden. I welcome all forms of well-intentioned debate and sound discourse, but personal attacks I cannot stand. You have been warned…
To address your response in a nutshell, I tell you this: greater minds than either of us have carefully studied the Bible, theology, philosophy, the natural sciences, natural moral law, and personal experiences of mystics throughout the centuries and have come to the well-reasoned conclusion that there is a God, existence had a First Cause that is made of up mind not matter, and that Jesus was who he said he was. If you want to disregard their claims, that is your prerogative, but to wave the “you’re all dupes” card and leave it at that shows that you aren’t really as certain of your beliefs as you make out.
My relationship with Jesus Christ is based both on personal testimony and on evidence-based reason. I’m pleased, in fact, to see time and time again that real science verifies my belief in God. One more thing, and then I’ll close: I may have accepted Jesus as a child and later researched if such a belief was warranted, but millions of people throughout the centuries have accepted Him later in life. Some people have accepted Him in old age after years of being atheists. They became Christians because the evidence led there. So your claim that we’re all brainwashed from infancy is just, well, bizarre.
I wish you no ill either, and I’m glad you said the same. I just hope that you could give us a little bit of respect as intellectual peers. It’s difficult to talk with someone who openly thinks you’re an idiot.
… But there is no evidence. A gut feeling isn’t evidence.
So a man apparently lived 2000 years ago.
So there are some old books that were edited, written, and added to by a bunch of men who you trust your soul with.
Why do you disregard the petty question I posed up there? *looks up*
-Ender
Ender, I appreciate your posts. There is massive evidence for God and for the Bible’s accuracy, and your petty question really isn’t relevant to this discussion. If you are really interested in deep Christian theological topics, I suggest you read some books by respected scholars on the subject (Charles Stanley, John Piper, Francis Schaeffer, C. S. Lewis, etc.). Or read the Gospels (I prefer the ESV translation) and let Jesus tell you Himself what solution there is for the restoration of mankind.
Best regards, Jared
Check out this story of someone who was an atheist and decided to turn their lives over to Jesus…
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god_article.php?id=7433
Thanks Chris for the link. A touching story of someone who came to realize not just the intellectual truth of Christianity but the person of Christ. Hallelujah!
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
Whats the difference between your position and this:
The fact is that it’s impossible to live as a true theist, and the honest theists who understand the basic tenants of philosophy understand this. True theism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe with supernatural origin, a sacred text and an other worldly ultimate purpose. Therefore, a true theist has to say that reality is one way while simultaneously living as if reality is another way. In a sense, they live like atheists while denying the merits of atheism.
None, they are both bigoted and false. Maybe you can see this now the tables are turned and using your own words?
Ironically whilst both versions are false, the above version is more true than yours since no xian theist truly follows the word of god – slavery any one?
Martin, how is it that a universe born out of spiritual mind, not dead matter, would not have a moral obligation to follow the spiritual laws established by such a mind? Your comment failed to explain how “turning the tables” showed any problem at all with my original statement. In fact, your alternate version is quite illogical.
BTW, slavery is wrong and many of the people who fought vigorously against slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians. If you’re referring to Hebrew slavery as described in the Old Testament, it was much closer to servitude than outright slavery and certain important restrictions on the masters were put into place. I think it’s much more important to be wary of a worldview that provides no reason to believe in the equality of man and the right of all people to be free.
I am sorry that your moral compass and your empathy are so weak that you cannot conceive of an adult taking responsibility for their own actions without requiring reward for being good or punishment for being bad. To me, your God is equivalent to Santa Claus. Worse actually, since your God as described in the Bible performed abominable acts (e.g. punishing the innocent for the transgressions of a few) and commanded his “chosen ones” to kill others. At least Santa Claus is not reputed to be so lacking in morals.
@Jared:”Martin, how is it that a universe born out of spiritual mind, not dead matter, would not have a moral obligation to follow the spiritual laws established by such a mind?”
This is a loaded question and the best answer is to say can you restate this impartially, without bias, then we can proceed to answer the question.
@Jared: “Your comment failed to explain how “turning the tables” showed any problem at all with my original statement.”
The point I was making is that it was pure rhetoric. The trouble with rhetoric is that can be turned around, as I did, without losing any rhetorical force yet there is no supporting argument or evidence behind it one way or another. If you cannot see this, this shows another problem with you creating that original statement, if you are going to take a moral position, surely you owe it to yourself to ensure you understand what position you are taking, otherwise far from taking the moral high ground you might be doing the opposite.
@Jared:”In fact, your alternate version is quite illogical. ”
I could just as easily say the same about yours, that is not the point. One can, by temporarily modifying ones wordlview, make both version coherent and understandable. Well at least I can, can you?
@Jared:”BTW, slavery is wrong and many of the people who fought vigorously against slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians.” And surely you cannot deny that who fought vigorously for slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians? If slavery is wrong it is in spite of what has been said in the bible hence you cannot be a true theist which my point in that inversion of your quote. Regardless this is a diversion from the main point.
@Jared:”If you’re referring to Hebrew slavery as described in the Old Testament, it was much closer to servitude than outright slavery and certain important restrictions on the masters were put into place.” Oh dear, the no true scotsman argument – servitude IS slavery – look up the UN on the 5 million “slaves” we have today in Africa. Secondly these restrictions on “slavery” were ignored by Christian slavers over the ages, but at least some would they would were true theists and disagree with your “true theism”. How can that be? Dont bother to answer lets stick to the main point here.
@Jared:”I think it’s much more important to be wary of a worldview that provides no reason to believe in the equality of man and the right of all people to be free.” I could not have said it better myself, this was my motivation to write my comment. So now I can ask given you agree with this, why did you right your post in the first place then?
This leads onto the one and most crucial point you ignored in your response:
@Martin:”None, they are both bigoted and false. Maybe you can see this now the tables are turned and using your own words?”
Well, can you see the bigotry of your statement or not?
JW, I am curious (but not really surprised) that you have totally ignored M’s arguments. I’d love to see you refute them.
I’ve already refuted Margin’s argument, and there’s nothing left to respond to. The issue is clear: moral laws and spiritual laws require a lawgiver. Laws don’t create themselves. The logical picture of a universe that was wrought from a non-material entity outside of the limitations of time and space is that it would be expected to adhere to the rules that were established at the point of creation. Any deviation from those rules will produce decay and chaos. However, the logical picture of a universe that is self-existing, with laws already in place that seemingly have no original origin, produces real philosophical problems which I have already discussed.
@Martin: no, I see no bigotry in my statement. The concept of morality is rendered meaningless in a universe without eternal, conscious significance.
No, not Martin. M. he has posted three times and the only reply you’re given to him was this:
Sorry if I’m missing something otherwise obvious.
Also, I am not certain which laws you are talking about? The laws of physics?
Oh, I’m sorry db0, I didn’t realize you were referring to a different commenter. This thread is an old one, so I’ve lost my sense of context. I would be happy to reply to some of his questions, but as they’re numerous and complex, I wouldn’t be able to do the job justice here and now.
The laws I’m referring to are spiritual laws, not physical laws. However, even secular scientists are beginning to realize the problem of how the laws of physics even got started — but that’s a whole ‘nuther issue.
@Jared: “I’ve already refuted Margin’s argument, and there’s nothing left to respond to. ”
You never refuted it in your first response and you have not replied to any of my questions in my second response. How can you claim that you are moral when engage in purely rhetoric with no argument or evidence in support?
@Jared “The issue is clear: moral laws and spiritual laws require a lawgiver.” This is your claim, where is your evidence? There is no evidence that the “laws of nature” require a lawgiver, indeed they were primarily found by making no such assumption,so, by extrapolation why should “moral and spiritual laws” – they most probably do not either. With respect the spiritual laws I suggest you consult Buddhists and Taoists etc. who would specifically disagree with you on this point. As for “laws” you appear to be equivocating as human made “laws” – better put as rules to avoid confusion – generally do require some form of rule-giving and human process, on the other hand scientific laws are specifically not rules and are a different category entirely and do no require a lawgiver, similar for your claims over moral and spiritual laws.
Jared: “Laws don’t create themselves.” An empty assertion, where is your evidence for this?
Jared:”The logical picture of a universe that was wrought from a non-material entity outside of the limitations of time and space is that it would be expected to adhere to the rules that were established at the point of creation. ” Why would it be expected to? Now you are using the term “rules” not laws. Could you please not equivocate and be consistent. Many other question but your statement is diversionary and I won’t pursue it further.
Jared: “Any deviation from those rules will produce decay and chaos.” It is not possible to deviate from scientific laws, that is why they are laws. If you are implying that it is possible to deviate from moral and spiritual laws, then these are not laws.
Jared: “However, the logical picture of a universe that is self-existing, with laws already in place that seemingly have no original origin, produces real philosophical problems which I have already discussed.” Not here you have and but anyway this again all diversionary.
Jared: “no, I see no bigotry in my statement.” The fact that you do not see this is techically an “argument from ignorance”. And your statement contradicts your new claim, sent in your first reponse to me that “I think it’s much more important to be wary of a worldview that provides no reason to believe in the equality of man and the right of all people to be free” but this is exactly opposite to the position you are taking with your original statement!
Jared:” The concept of morality is rendered meaningless in a universe without eternal, conscious significance.” Again an empty rhetorical claim, where is the logic and/our evidence for this?
Most of the above is responses to your avoidance of the claims at hand. I need not have bothered answering but did so in order to help you better understdand what you are saying and the inconsistencies in it.
The real point was and still is this. To sum up I wanted to see if you could see that your original statement was a statement of immoral bigotry. You have admitted you cannot see this – that is you certainly cannot understand this as a statement of immoral bigotry. Yet you are against bigotry as your other statement quoted above seems to imply. Now if you are against immoral bigotry presumably you would not want to express a statement of bigotry due to ignorance, would you? Yet this is what it appears you are doing and avoiding answering.
Given this, I cannot see how you can both assert a moral superiority over “true atheists” from your, presumably, “true theism” position without making your position self-refuting since you are now relying on deliberate and acknowledged immoral ignorance to claim moral superiority and this latter claim is negated by your former position.
You can choose to avoid answering these questions again but note only the last two paragraphs are substantive to this thread. Of course, if you avoid answering this again I will be forced to tentatively conclude that your moral claims are false and you both support and endorse immoral bigotry.
Hey Martin, you are welcome to conclude anything you like, as I’m not taking your bait. This discussion is closed as far as I’m concerned. You didn’t raise any points that weren’t already discussed earlier in this thread and in other similar posts on this blog. I’m always interested in productive discussions of the relative merits of worldviews…but this isn’t one of them. Thanks for coming to my blog, but I suggest you refrain from any further arguments along these lines.
Best regards, Jared
well at least you lost credibility Jared.
Because I do not espouse the existence of a supernatural personal God, life has for me become it’s own reward, and the meaning of life is life itself. By asserting this, I simply cherish life for what it is , the pursuit of happiness, and emotional as well as intellectual awe. I base my system of morality (1) upon these things, as well as (2) the accepted ‘laws’ of my society. While it is true that I am free to do anything I want–we all are–what prevents me from acting immorally or unethically? The same thing, I’m assuming, that prevents you: a personal choice. You are choosing to behave in a manner either to avoid punishment or to earn reward, and I am choosing to behave in the same manner although I have no need for threats or reward to locomote these decisions. Ultimately all moral decisions are personal choices and always have been. You choose to believe a certain way and act accordingly. I choose to disbelieve a certain way and also act accordingly. I don’t need threats or promises of reward to act a certain way. I respect and honor people simply because I respect and honor myself, my life (however brief), and the world around me.
If you knew you were going to be sent to Hell no matter what you did or believed in this life, would you still behave the way you do right now? Would you still make all those so-called moral and ethical choices if Hell were unavoidable? I was a born-again Christian who rejected salvation on moral grounds simply because I could not accept the fact that I was going to Heaven while others were going to Hell. As long as one person was being ‘sentenced’ to Hell I felt it was morally imperative of me to be there as well. I handed my Salvation back to God. It wasn’t until I was able to do this–to reject Salvation on more grounds–that I could begin to understand the often slippery meaning of true morality, and what a long strange trip it’s taken me. ‘Morality’–like ‘God’, like ‘Soul’, like ‘Heaven’ and ‘Hell’–is only a word after all, and words are found nowhere ‘out there’ in the ‘real world’. Think about it.
Pax et bonum
Craig, I think I can answer your premise in two ways: (a) morality is actually not a problem of reward or punishment. It’s a problem of love. See my post on this very topic to see what I’m getting at. My reward or punishment in the afterlife is not a motivating factor in my behavior, and in fact the central message of Gospel is one of love and grace, not one of raw justice devoid of mercy.
And (b), you are correct in saying that meaning of life is life itself. But you are incorrect in stopping there, because the source of that life is what provides life its meaning, and that source is found in the divine person of Jesus Christ. He is the author of life, and He gives us life abundant. Craig, you haven’t really lived until you lived in the presence of the one who died that we might live. I humbly submit to you that if you rejected the precious gift of eternal life, you never really knew the person who gave you that gift. Perhaps He’s still waiting for you to see Him for who He really is.
So how does your morality of love justify your original post?
Can you rephrase that as an actual question instead of an attack? Thanks.
Those who think that religious indoctrination is not the epitome of brainwashing should view this huge, morbidly fascinating thread.
Jared White and his de facto supporters have not given a single reason independent of the Bible that anyone should believe that morals are “God-given.” There are literally an infinite number of equally evidence-starved arguments for other imaginary beings being the source of morality, or of earlobes, or of anime porn. If I claim a three-peckered dingo from Altair-6 is the source of all morality, I am providing no less support than a Christian who claims that morality is God-given. These are facts, fundies.
“Morals” are dynamic quanta derived in complex behavioral, cognitive, and emotional traits. They are not entities that can be neatly packaged and excised or introduced en masse into organisms. It was all well and good to believe 2,000 years ago that everything could basically be boiled down to a dollop of something, but then came the reality of nature and screwed it up for the simpletons. Yet their numbers are string today, but selection pressures against raw lack of intellect are surprisingly weak.
However, the evidence that “morality,” like everything else, springs from the biology side is unassailable. We see how altrustic and even self-sacrificing behavior can reward genes even where it does not reward individuals, and even Jared should be able to discern why it benefits an individual in a community of social animals not to lie, cheat, and steal with abandon. We do not even need to look to other animals for confirmation, only to fairly basic mathematical models. But what we see in those other animals underscored exactly why there’s no need for a god to explain anything.
(Rest of post deleted by blog author due to personal attacks.)
Aghast & Agog, I’m sorry I had to do this, but I edited out some of your comment. I almost deleted the whole thing, but since you did raise some interesting points, I decided to respond.
First of all, nobody’s claiming that a three-peckered dingo from another planet is the source of morality. A dingo is a created lifeform who operates according to finite rules within a finite universe that has a beginning and an end. Such a being is hardly in a position to dictate the basic rules of existence. Comparing “God” to a dingo is like comparing the Starship Enterprise with a watermelon. Both may technically be “an object”, but that’s about the extent of the comparison. Just like the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” nonsense, such rhetoric is built upon a straw man and can easily be dismissed. The concept of God that we’re discussing is an entity completely without parallel within any area or time of the known universe.
Secondly, the “reality of nature” that you briefly refer to is…what exactly? You can say morals are “dynamic quanta” based on “mathematical models” until the cows come home, but that’s just mumbo-jumbo intended to obscure the facts. Something is either right or wrong, and while you can certainly add contingencies to such statements (such as the plausible argument that killing a human being is wrong except in the case of capital punishment or certain highly-constrained warfare or self-defense scenarios), they’re hardly outside of the realm of fairly straightforward propositions. The problem is that moral statements, whether simple or more complex, often have little relation to the biological world, and your claim that it’s unassailable that “morality, like everything else, springs from the biology side” is simply not true. Many things don’t spring from the biology side, as numerous respected scientists and philosophers are quite willing to tell you. It’s only in the pop-sci world where everything can easily be reduced to biology.
Frankly, the entire “human experience” as it relates to free will, consciousness, moral choice, creativity, intelligent communication, and so forth, cannot be reduced to biology. Studying the behavior of monkeys or bees may be quite fascinating and give us new insights into our own biological makeup, but such studies are going to be quite unrewarding when it comes to higher-order human desire, behavior, and larger philosophical questions.
Finally, to address one more point, you say that “even Jared should be able to discern why it benefits an individual in a community of social animals not to lie, cheat, and steal with abandon.” Actually, I’ve discerned that lying, cheating, stealing, and even killing can often bring results that seem to benefit the individual committing such acts. Many people have died at a ripe old age having lived extravagant lives built off of the suffering of others. It’s even been argued in the name of Darwinism in the past that the biological process known as the “survival of the fittest” can and should be applied socially to human communities. The materialistic atheist’s argument for fully sacrificial and altruistic behavior that is not self-serving is actually quite weak and in fact does nothing to explain the reasons why people do things that don’t obviously benefit themselves.
So, in conclusion, it’s not clear whatsoever that we don’t need a “god” to explain anything. We certainly need something to explain everything, since “things” generally don’t create themselves, and moral laws most certainly do not create themselves.
Jared, I advise you not to edit my posts unless you want an uncontrollable firestorm here. That’s your one warning. You’ll never get rid of me or my many friends if you do this and it won’t be the sort of attention you want.
You’re not in a position to advise. This is my blog, and I’ve made it clear that inflammatory language and personal attacks against me or any other person on this blog will NOT be tolerated. You were already warned and you ignored my warning. Discussion over, and I’m removing all further communication from you. Again, I’ve made my comment policy quite clear, and you ignored it. I’m sorry it had to come to this, but you brought it upon yourself. –Jared
@martin:So how does your morality of love justify your original post?
@Jared:Can you rephrase that as an actual question instead of an attack? Thanks.
It was a simple question and not an attack.
I fail to see how a morality based on love, presumably compassion and its ilk could lead one to say what you said in your original post especially when this is incongruous with the claim you made in a comment that “I think it’s much more important to be wary of a worldview that provides no reason to believe in the equality of man and the right of all people to be free”. Your original post and your comment contradict one another. Where is the love?
I could analyze your post line for line as just about each one has serious problems but since you have failed to respond to my honest previous questions there seems little point i making the effort.
None of this appears to be the behavior of someone who believes they have found the answer and wants to communicate this, with love, to everyone else so that they can also get the benefit. If there is anyone here who is lurking trying to find out if Jesus is the right path for them, your presentation of Jesus is more likely to put them off than encourage to find out more. Indeed are you not doing a disservice to Jesus by such actions. Surely Jesus wants you not to bear false witness? Is that not a sin in your own eyes? If you think people when they hear the word of Jesus and reject it are going to hell, then what about people who present the word of Jesus in such a way that their readers will be more likely to reject it? It seems to me if you believe in hell then beware. Come judgment day I imagine God would look at you and your blog and say “Well Jared you put off more people following Jesus and sinned in failing to spread the word, you will join those you turned away from Jesus, its hell for you!”
Hey Martin, I’m afraid I really don’t know what you’re driving at, but perhaps I can explain. My original post was an editorial. I was talking in generalities about what atheists believe and how their actions don’t match up with the logical conclusions of their worldview. It’s like a political column where someone talks about the failed policies of Republicans, or like a sports column where someone talks about the problem baseball players have with steroids. I’m not defaming any particular individual — I have plenty of friends who are atheists or have other religious beliefs and we get along just fine. If you felt personally insulted by my article, then I apologize, but it’s no different then when I read someone’s article that criticizes Christianity. If I got offended every time I read something in a newspaper or online that came against what I believe, I’d be a pretty darn angry person!
One more point, and then I’ll close: from the very start, you’ve taken everything I’ve said in response to you and turned it around into an accusation of hypocrisy and negativity against my character. How can we have a civil discourse when you’re unwilling to respect anything I might say to you? I never once personally insulted you or talked about you other than to address specific issues on an impartial and objective basis. It would be truly fabulous if you could reciprocate.
I strongly disagree with you. Atheist don’t have all the answers and do not claim to. Atheists know when to say they don’t know. This sounds quite honest and true to me. They respect and seek out the truth, which in itself displays a moral value that is not the product of spite. Where as the theists claim they have the answers for everything and anything, because that is what their god of the gaps provides. They are not open to scientific arguments against their beliefs, but they will gladly take any scientific evidence that would ever support their beliefs. Hello, confirmation bias. If anything, I am leaning towards that theist are not true to themselves, they will accept that in which gives their life meaning and comfort, despite any opposing evidence that suggest that that in which they are accepting is highly improbable to be true.
Hi Travis, nice to hear from you again. I wish you were right, that atheists in general would be upfront in saying that they don’t know the answers to some of the tough questions about life. Frankly, I agree with you that theists should be humble enough to admit the same, and if you read the bulk of my posts over the months, you’ll find that I do admit I don’t have all the answers.
I have to take exception to your “god of the gaps” canard. I don’t subscribe to such an idea whatsoever. I think the evidence for God and specifically the Judeo-Christian God can be found within all aspects of biology, physics, archeology, theology, philosophy, sociology, phycology, and whatever other “olgies” you can name. It’s not a matter of taking a commonly-accepted secular worldview and sticking a deity on top. It’s seeing the world through a completely different paradigm that affects the logical conclusions derived from any aspect of scientific or academic inquiry.
You mention confirmation bias — well, there’s just as much confirmation bias in the secular world. Evidence is routinely smashed into a pre-conceived notion that mind is an “emergent” property of organized matter, that everything in the universe self-assembled itself using natural laws, and that there is no supernatural order. Even worse, some evidence is completely ignored when it outright contradicts such a worldview. This has become a real problem in the academic field, as over 700 scientists who have signed a document critical of Darwinian evolution as a satisfactory explanation for irreducibly complex mechanisms in biology can readily attest.
Look, at the end of the day, we can all find faults in other worldviews and tear them apart. But what really needs to happen is a healthy dose of honesty within the debate. No one side here has a monopoly on knowledge, truth, intelligence, or factual evidence. I only hope my opponents would find the moral backbone to respect the other side instead of playing the “ignorant fundamentalist rube” card. (I’m not saying you are, Travis, I’m talking in generalities again.)
Is this like the 400 global warming denying scientists?
In any case, science deniers and conspiracy theorists always complain that they are ignored, just because peer-reviewd journals cannot publish nonsense.
Also, the “irreducible complexity” theory has been debunked already
One more thing. It is true that both sides (if by “sides” we mean science and non-science) can find faults in each other’s arguments. The difference is that the science’s side uses cold hard facts and evidence, while the others use faith.
As far as the topic of irreducibly complex mechanisms such as the flagellum and the eye are often subjects of, both have been shown to have evidence of an evolved ancestry. Scientists are always working on figuring out complex issues such as these, and at one point science did not know exactly how the eye could evolve, but with further investigation they have made significant advances and have come to find an evolved ancestry. God was once placed in these gaps and many more. But as science improves, the gaps get smaller and smaller.
I do not think that confirmation bias is common among secular humanist. I’ m sure there may be some, but overall, I think the percentage is low. It has been my experience that most if not all secular humanist, atheist, scientist, and such, are open to any opposing evidence that may contradict there own views.
You mention a supernatural order. We know of natural laws, we can observe them, we participate in them, they can be tested, etc… but there is no proof of some kind of supernatural order, that is, something outside of what we know as natural laws. If such proof exist, feel free to put it forth.
In regards to an honest debate, I agree. It’s obvious both sides must be honest in order for it to be productive. However, there are members on both sides of the argument that often misrepresent their respective side. I think this causes a lot of confusion in the debate. Some do so knowingly, and others unknowingly. I see this a lot, and it just creates misunderstandings, stereotypes, etc… which is probably those individuals intentions. Of course, it ends up being counterproductive, and hurts those who are genuinely seeking the truth.
With that said, I am one that has no interest in deceiving to simply win an argument. I seek that truth, and aim to come closer to it. One must be honest. So, I hope to represent atheists as accurately as I can in these discussions.
@jared:Hey Martin, I’m afraid I really don’t know what you’re driving at, but perhaps I can explain.
Well I have asked you in about 15 or so questions about your claims in the initial article and your responses to me. You have only answered one – you fali to see the bigorty in your original article (and you not answered that this failure is itself a moral failing) There is nothing I am driving at, this is just another instance of you avoiding and failing to defend your claims.
@jared: My original post was an editorial.
Since when are editorials are immune to criticisms?
@jared: I was talking in generalities about what atheists believe and how their actions don’t match up with the logical conclusions of their worldview.
And just about every statement you made there was mistaken and biased. Talking in generalities does not let you of the hook with regard to defending these claims and others challenged you specifically on all this.
@jared: It’s like a political column where someone talks about the failed policies of Republicans, or like a sports column where someone talks about the problem baseball players have with steroids.
So you admit this is a piece of political rhetoric seeking to convince with little regard to an honest and ethical representation of those you were criticizing?
Well we all knw how concerned with the truth politicians are!
@jared:I’m not defaming any particular individual — I have plenty of friends who are atheists or have other religious beliefs and we get along just fine.
Oh dear when have we heard that one before
@jared:If you felt personally insulted by my article, then I apologize, but it’s no different then when I read someone’s article that criticizes Christianity.
For what its worth no I felt no personal insult. What has this got to do with failing to defend the claims you have made, nothing. This is changing the subject – not what one expect’s from someone who claims the moral high ground in this debate.
@jared: If I got offended every time I read something in a newspaper or online that came against what I believe, I’d be a pretty darn angry person!
I agree there is nor right not be offended for anyone. But again this is nothing to do wiht the topic at hand.
@jared:One more point, and then I’ll close: from the very start, you’ve taken everything I’ve said in response to you and turned it around into an accusation of hypocrisy and negativity against my character.
Absolutely false. I have held up your claims – not you – to scrutiny and you have judged yourself as evidenced in your responses.
@jared:,i>I never once personally insulted you or talked about you other than to address specific issues on an impartial and objective basis. It would be truly fabulous if you could reciprocate
As any impartial observer can see this is what I have been attempting with you and you have failed to respond in kind. This is sheer cheek of you to claim the opposite. Just syaing it does not make it true however many times you repeat a claim.
All I and any impartial observer could conclude – less tentatively now I might add – is that you have failed to answer queries about the immoral bigoted claims of your article and responses and then have failed to answer the consequential dilemma of your moral adequacy being self-refuted by this bigotry and to wonder how can you honestly continue to claim this superior moral view .
Martin, I am going to ask you one, simple, and direct question. I will repost my original paragraph that you took exception to, and I entreat you to explain, in a simple and concise manner, what immoral bigotry is contained within my statement.
The fact is that it’s impossible to live as a true atheist, and the honest atheists who understand the basic tenants of philosophy understand this. True atheism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe devoid of supernatural origin, mind over matter, and ultimate purpose. Therefore, a true atheist has to say that reality is one way while simultaneously living as if reality is another way. In a sense, they live like theists while denying the merits of theism.
Jared White said: “The fact is that it’s impossible to live as a true atheist, and the honest atheists who understand the basic tenants of philosophy understand this. True atheism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe devoid of supernatural origin, mind over matter, and ultimate purpose. Therefore, a true atheist has to say that reality is one way while simultaneously living as if reality is another way. In a sense, they live like theists while denying the merits of theism.”
There are many red flags here as Martin suggest. I don’t know if it is bigotry or not but there are red flags nonetheless. Such as suggesting that one cannot live as a true atheist is in fact a fact, and that it is “impossible.” Do you have proof of this? If not, you should not call it a fact. To do so would be a lie or bullshit (there is a difference.)
Also, being an atheist suggests nothing more then that one does not believe in the existence of god. If one does not believe in the existence of a god or gods, then they are a true atheist. As far as moral values are concerned, moral values do not come from religion, god, or theism. Moral values are man made, like god is. So an atheist can still live morally without religion, god, or theism.
Jared White said: “I’m appalled by the schoolyard bully tactics and the weasely reluctance to delve into the hard questions. Is this what the new face of atheism has come to? Evade having a coherent reason for one’s own beliefs while insulting anyone who dares ask the simple question: why?”
Ha! Oh Please… This is nothing more then using an atheists dialog towards creationists back against atheist. Unfortunately it doesn’t make sense and is not true in this direction. You are simply trying to misdirect your audience. For example you say that atheists are “Evade having a coherent reason for their beliefs” Atheism does not imply a held belief, it implies a non-belief. You mean you want reason for an atheist non-belief? Easy! INSUFFIENT EVIDENCE to suggest that such a god exists. The probability is to low to even consider especially when compared to the evidence to suggest natural causes.
“Look, at the end of the day, we can all find faults in other worldviews and tear them apart. But what really needs to happen is a healthy dose of honesty within the debate. ”
Typical religious-zealot equivocation and misuse of the term “honesty.”
You can try to “tear apart” facts if you like, but you’re just babbling into a hurricane if you do. Atheists, on the other hand, speak perfectly within the realm of reason when dismissing the misguided ideas of people like you.
Religious belief is inherently dishonest. The believer posits that something which he by definition cannot see, hear, touch, feeel, etc. — and has characteristics ascribed to it that contradict natural laws — nonetheless exists. To embrace gods of the Christian sort is to reject facts. This is either delusional or dishonest — period.
Well, that was hyperbole on my part. I should refrain from stating my logical conclusions as facts. Nevertheless, I stand by my claim that due to the natural outworkings of the atheist philosophy, you can’t really live day-to-day based on conclusions derived from a true materialistic, atheistic philosophy.
I’m sorry, I can’t let you off the hook that easily. The materialistic branch of atheism (as opposed to a belief system such as certain forms of Buddhism) encompasses more than a denial of a god/gods. It states that the material world we can directly observe or measure is all there ever was and will ever be. Any other non-observable “dimensions” are simply more of the same kind of material stuff subject to natural, scientifically explainable laws. All organization we see in the cosmos and all life we find on this planet and possibly others self-organized from simpler material components. This is the logical conclusion of a belief system that denies a non-material “First Cause” that is composed of mind rather than matter. So let’s just get that out of the way right now. You can’t espouse a non-belief in god/gods without embracing the logical conclusion of such a philosophy.
Also, your claim that morality is invented by man is a statement based on a relativistic worldview. Many people, including myself, state otherwise: that morality, like all basic truths such as 1+1=2, stand alone outside of any particular human’s understanding or experience. This follows from the realization that if morality is simply an arbitrary system invented by man to organize society, then morality can be manipulated, ignored, or “evolved” by man at any point in time without any objective consequences. Morality then becomes a convenience, a contract agreed to by people as long as it brings them appreciable benefit. I find that view to be unconscionable.
There’s no way to measure the “probability” of monotheistic deity existing. This is yet another straw man argument that really doesn’t bear lengthy argumentation. How would you measure the probability of such an entity? Against what? I can measure the probability of calling 99 coin tosses out of a hundred correctly by observing a large number of coin tosses and coming up with a mathematical formula to describe the number of choices (in this case, two) and the randomness factor over a given range. What such mathematical formula can you come up with to describe God? What scientific equipment can you come up with to observe God? God, by the very definition of the concept, cannot be observed or measured like you would a lab rat or a subatomic particle. So talking about “probability” in this case is illogical.
@Aghast & Agog, you say “religious belief is inherently dishonest.” Come on, that is just pure nonsense and you know it. Atheism is a religious belief, a belief in the eternal significance of matter and of human self-actualization. So, in fact, you’ve just condemned your own worldview.
If, instead, you wish to say “belief in a supernatural order and a non-material First Cause made of mind not matter is inherently dishonest”, then that is equally foolish as you have to prove that there aren’t logical and philosophically valid arguments to be made for such beliefs. Given that the vast majority of human history has been dominated by theistic belief and not atheistic belief, I think the burden is on the atheist to state his case for the validity of his position.
Nuh-uh! Atheism does not deny gods, it states that there is no sufficient proof to believe in any gods. There is also no sufficient proof to make any factual statements about the universe beggining, thus in that case we are using a probably theory from what we can observe, same for the future.
That’s all.
I’m sorry to dissapoint you but morality has been working more or less in the manner you describe until now. That is, yes, morality is subjective and it is subject to change, like anything subjective. The examples in history are numerous where the commonly accepted human morality has shifted.
Just because you find it unconscionable, does not make the truth any less real.
For your information, there are atheists who espouse an objective morality or a morality based on objective values. Check Objectivism for the first and Desire Utilitarianism for the second. They still are atheists, so as you can see, the search for understanding still goes on.
An atheist pointing the fact that you cannot prove that your imaginary friend is real makes our argument a straw man? I think not.
If God, as you say, cannot be observed or whatever, then how do you claim to know his will? How do you know that the Bible is REALLY his inspired work and not the feverish dreams of sex-starved hermits?
No it’s not. Atheism is as much as a religious belief as not collecting stamps is a hobby and “bald” is a hair colour
Jared White said: “you can’t really live day-to-day based on conclusions derived from a true materialistic, atheistic philosophy.”
Yes you can, and people do. You just don’t want to accept it. You are clinging to your religion.
Jared White said: “The materialistic branch of atheism (as opposed to a belief system such as certain forms of Buddhism) encompasses more than a denial of a god/gods. It states that the material world we can directly observe or measure is all there ever was and will ever be.
There are no branches of atheism nor is their a belief system. Atheism is not a religion. It is simply a title for one who does not believe that a god or gods exist. Remember that is not necessary or a requirement for lets say, an atheist to also be an evolutionist or naturalistic. Though many may be naturalistic or evolutionist, it is not a requirement or necessary to be an atheist.
Jared White said: “This follows from the realization that if morality is simply an arbitrary system invented by man to organize society, then morality can be manipulated, ignored, or “evolved” by man at any point in time without any objective consequences. Morality then becomes a convenience, a contract agreed to by people as long as it brings them appreciable benefit. I find that view to be unconscionable.”
Yes! Man has redefined and evolved moral values over time, and it’s a good thing we have, or it might still be acceptable to act in ways that would be considered rather inconceivable now, but were somehow justified and in accordance to moral values of past times. I could lay down some examples, but should know the atrocities of past times that were once considered acceptable and moral.
Jared White said: There’s no way to measure the “probability” of monotheistic deity existing. This is yet another straw man argument that really doesn’t bear lengthy argumentation. How would you measure the probability of such an entity? Against what?
Ah, the “God is outside the realm of scientific examination and reason and cannot be measured” speech. If that is true, then how can you be so sure that such a deity does in fact exist? You can’t. For there is nothing to show for it’s existence.
“Atheism is a religious belief, a belief in the eternal significance of matter and of human self-actualization. So, in fact, you’ve just condemned your own worldview”
Do you realize how incoherent this is? Here’s a parallel statement:
“‘Off’ is actually a channel in my cable line-up, a blank one enjoyed without the benefit of electricity and a remote.”
Atheism is not a religion. To say that it’s a religion is trivially false. There’s nothing in the meaning of “not believing in gods” about eternal significance or self-actualization or pancake syrup. It is about not believing in gods. Period. Your introducing static into the definition is merely a convenience so you can propound strawman arguments, but you are fooling no one except, perhaps, yourself
@Travis and Aghast, the commonly understood “pop” view of Western materialistic atheism is a worldview that encompasses the logical conclusions derived from the opinion that there is no god/gods or supernatural order and therefore humans must create their own meaning for existence. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others are well-known advocates of this type of worldview. This is what we’re talking about. Simply saying “I don’t believe God exists” may strictly qualify the speaker as an atheist, but that doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for discussion about the issues involved. Can we please get past that now? The Dali Lama is an atheist, to the best of my knowledge, but that’s not the class of atheism we’re discussing.
That is blatantly incorrect. Especially since Dawkins has before explained that his version of atheism is the same as the one I described (I don’t know enough about Harris)
This “pop atheism” that you are arguing against then is unveiled to be a strawman.
@db0, this is precisely the kind of weasly behavior I’m upset about in regards to the theism vs. atheism debate. You are completely obfuscating the discussion. Richard Dawkins has gone on a crusade against “religion” in order to tout his belief system about the origin of the universe, morality, human purpose, the existence of the supernatural, and the meaning of life. He uses evolutionary science as a tool to defend his beliefs, but what he espouses requires the baseline of materialistic atheism in order to make sense. A quick Internet search reveals just some of many juicy quotes by Richard Dawkins:
“There is no spirit-driven life force, no throbbing, heaving, pullulating, protoplasmic, mystic jelly. Life is just bytes and bytes and bytes or digital information.”
“We – and that means all living things – are survival machines programmed to propagate the digital database that did the programming.”
“This is one of the hardest lessons for humans to learn. We cannot admit that things might be neither good nor evil, neither cruel nor kind, but simply callous – indifferent to all suffering, lacking all purpose.”
“In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Richard Dawkins is an atheist who believes that there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good at the bottom of the universe. That is his worldview. That is what he writes books about and speaks about at public seminars. Why are you trying to run from such philosophical statements?
Jared White said: “the commonly understood “pop” view of Western materialistic atheism is a worldview that encompasses the logical conclusions derived from the opinion that there is no god/gods or supernatural order and therefore humans must create their own meaning for existence. “
What evidence or studies is there that suggest that there is a “commonly understood pop view of Western materialistic atheism?” There is no western atheism, or materialistic atheism, etc… There is only “atheism,” the position of not believing in the existence of a supernatural god or gods.
The term “Atheism” doesn’t encompass any beliefs one does hold, it only addresses the position of not believing in the existence of a supernatural god. You keep tacking on other labels and descriptions to the term atheism that is beyond its definition. If you want to talk about evolution, or naturalism, or materialism, or other issues, address the topics with those names, not atheism. Are you purposely trying to mislead your audience?
What evidence is there of a commonly understood pop view of Western materialistic atheism? Are you serious, Travis? Surely you must be joking. The rise of the Dawkins/Harris/Hitchens coalition and their attacks on all forms of organized religion is one of the hottest news stories of the current decade. In fact, the media’s actually dubbed them the “New Atheists” and there are numerous examples in Time, Wired, CNN, and other media outlets of what this form of atheism encompasses. Just do a Google search, for crying out loud.
Look, we can quibble about the various nuances of the dictionary term “atheist” forever, but that doesn’t serve any purpose other than to confuse impartial observers. We could also argue about what constitutes a “fundamentalist” or a “zealot” or a “skeptic” or what have you, but it usually serves little purpose other than to ignore the larger issues. As far as this discussion goes, the atheism I’m talking about is the Western materialistic atheism of the aforementioned “New Atheists”. Is that clear enough?
Since you’re all about Dawkins quotes, then here’s one more
That should be clear enough.
Also, you cannot generalize and then attack the generalization, this is a form of straw man argument. Either you refute the positions of people commenting here or your are trying to use fallacies to argue.
People arguing with you, do not argue against fundamentalist as such, they argue against the views you expressed in your main article. You on the other hand are attacking generalizations and “pop atheists”. For your information, most atheists, other than their lack of belief, have very little in common.
“Richard Dawkins is an atheist who believes that there is no design, no purpose, no evil and no good at the bottom of the universe. That is his worldview. ”
It is also mine. This does not make me religious or my atheism a religion. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that atheism is not a religious stance? You certainly accept that atheism differs from theism in various other aspects. Perhaps you find it necessary to say such things in order to detract from the reality that atheism contains no elements whatsoever of a contrivance, as does Christianity, the core elements of which are demonstrably false. Christianity proposes such thigs as dead men returning to life, global floods, six–day creation, and people living for hundreds of years, all of which only the uneducated, the brainwashed, or the insane can really believe in. Atheism proposes nothing in an of itself and certainly hinges on no false assumptions.
You can believe what you like, Jared, and you can blog about it to your heart’s content. Just don’t expect that if you make wildly hypocritical, ignorant, deluded, or incoherent statements that people will not call you on it.
Hi Jared et al
Well this thread has been busy whilst I have been… busy. I will try and be brief.
@Jared: Martin, I am going to ask you one, simple, and direct question. I will repost my original paragraph that you took exception to, and I entreat you to explain, in a simple and concise manner, what immoral bigotry is contained within my statement.
Fine I will but can you reciprocate and do me the courtesy of answering the 15 or so question I have asked you.
First what is bigotry? It is taking an aspect of a person and assigning them as a member of a group (whether they agree with this, chose this or not), then negatively and inaccurately describe an aspect of this group and irrationally asserting that any member, as one has decided, has this characteristic and condemns them, or worse, for it.
OK lets look at this paragraph:
@JaredThe fact is that it’s impossible to live as a true atheist, and the honest atheists who understand the basic tenants of philosophy understand this.
First here you are describing a nominal group for which you have determined that anyone who has no belief in god is a member of and then you make two false claims of this group.
a) It is impossible to live as a true atheist
b) Honest atheists understand this – implying that anyone who denies this is dishonest
Well the only identifying characteristic of “atheists” as you present them are a lack of belief in god and there is nothing else. You cannot from this one data item determine anyone’s politics, economics, worldview, philosophy or morality. To say it is impossible to live as a “true atheist” is blatantly and trivially false and enough people here have more than asserted and so do I. As for (b) in particular although I do not use the label “atheist”, I do not believe in god because it is the best and only honest and ethical position I can take on the matter. Whilst I am not alone in this viewpoint, I cannot assume that all others in this nominal group come from the same point of view. Still this alone refutes (b). Both claims (a) and (b) are false if you can show one person in your nominal group that does not have that characteristic and there are more here. You might respond in terms of an average but you are equivocating, sort of, over atheists and atheist – you are are specifying that no-one who is a member of your nominal group has certain characteristics and this has been repeatedly refuted by myself and others here.
@Jared:True atheism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe devoid of supernatural origin, mind over matter, and ultimate purpose.
This “true” qualifier is a weasel term and a form of condemnation – anyone who denies this is not a true atheist. This is blatantly false. Different atheists have differing moral views most of which are vastly superior to your morality – which was fatally disproved 2500 years ago – and is one of the worst type of moral systems imaginable. The mere fact that you are coming up with these falsehoods is further evidence of the immoral grounds of your worldview.
@jared Therefore, a true atheist has to say that reality is one way while simultaneously living as if reality is another way.
Ridiculously false since atheism is not a wordlview. All these “atheists” have in common is a lack of a god factor in their worldview, that in their worldview god is not relevant and that is it. If you want to know what a particular atheists worldview is then yo need to ask them.
Jared:In a sense, they live like theists while denying the merits of theism.
I see no merits in theism and anyway theism itself says not thing about morality or politics either! You cannot tell someone’s worldview from whether they believe in god or not. It is what else they believe that tells you this. In your case you have made it quite clear that you are basing your morality on a belief in god and we all know that such a morality cannot work in principle and in fact – it is a form moral subjectivism which you correctly condemn elsewhere whilst failing to see that you are victim to it yourself!
All in all this and the rest of your original post was implying that “It is is impossible to be moral without god” which is one of the most morally repugnant statements today and there is now no doubt – given your responses that you insist on holding this view despite all evidence to the contrary – that your post therefore is a statement of immoral bigotry and so it certainly refutes any claims of the claimer to be moral. One cannot both be moral and hold anything like such a position.
Now is that what you want us to believe or do you want an honest and ethical conversation with those who disagree with you – an opportunity to learn about different worldviews and how they work? This is your choice. You judge yourself by what you have and will say.
Now if you will do me the courtesy of answering my 15 of so questions…
@Jared:the commonly understood “pop” view of Western materialistic atheism is a worldview that encompasses the logical conclusions derived from the opinion that there is no god/gods or supernatural order and therefore humans must create their own meaning for existence.
Oh dear. Now you have changed the subject to ‘the commonly understood “pop” view of Western materialistic atheism’. Well I and others dispute this is what is commonly understood as atheism. Anyway you have the opportunity to converse with real live “atheists” here and so disabuse yourself of these supposed “pop” views. Further this is a classic way in which one can encourage and spread bigotry and discrimination. Perpetuating common or pop views regardless of the facts. For example, one can hark back to so-called common and pop views of “blacks” in the 20th century (or chose your own example). What is the difference to what you are doing with “atheists” now? None that I can see.
Jared: Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and others are well-known advocates of this type of worldview. This is what we’re talking about.
They can speak for themselves, they do not represent my own or most “atheists” I know views. Of course their arguments against god are correct but not original to them. As for their polemics well that is their opinion, nothing more nor less. And anyway even if I disagree with them on those points it does not alter the fact that whatever they have said is far far less severe and more honest than what is repeatedly said in the past and present against “atheists”.
Jared:Simply saying “I don’t believe God exists” may strictly qualify the speaker as an atheist, but that doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for discussion about the issues involved.
And this is the whole point. If you had written your article condemning the “New Atheists” which would include anyone who wholeheartedly agrees with them – not me for one – then this whole thread would have been quite different. You made the equivocation/obfuscation can you now retract your original post and update it in the light of your modification as to whom you are condemning?
For once you are quite correct!
Jared:Can we please get past that now? The Dali Lama is an atheist, to the best of my knowledge, but that’s not the class of atheism we’re discussing.
In order to get past that it is beholden on you to clarify what you said in your original post as I just noted above. If you do that then we can get past that and still have an interesting and lively discussion.
I have asked one question here and I will repeat it “You made the equivocation/obfuscation can you now retract your original post and update it in the light of your modification as to whom you are condemning?” I have done you the courtesy of answering your question in my previous comment. Can you please do the same to at least this question (although I have not forgotten the 15 odd other questions this is the critical one in relation to your post and this thread!)
Hi Martin,
In light of your expanded criticism of the apparent bigotry of my original post, which I very much appreciated hearing, I have written a detailed response to most of the points you have raised to date. Please go read this and feel free to continue the discussion on that thread. Again, I do appreciate your answer to my question, and I felt I could do no less than to address your criticisms as best I could.
All the best,
Jared
I usually do not leave a comment, but you really impress me, also I have a few questions like to ask, what’s your contact details?
-Johnson
A major part of boosting person’s [b][url=http://www.edhardy.uk.com]ed hardy clothing[/url][/b] self-esteem and total personality package is derived from his [b]ed hardy clothing[/b] choice up garbing up in style or in ways he feels comfortable. It is a given fact that a person’s way of styling himself up in everyday basis speaks a lot about his own personality. Bubbly and outgoing type of people more often than not choose light and pastel [u]ed hardy clothing[/u] shades while the more refined and reserved type of people settles for the safe shades of the [u][b]ed hardy t shirts[/u][/b] spectrum. But still there are those whose loud and expressive personalities are evident on the unique prints and cuts and styles that they make and match. Talk about the fashion sense that goes beyond the mold of monotony. Ed Hardy Clothing is the name of the apparel line. These are fresh, unique, vibrant and [b]ed hardy clothing[/b] stylish apparel choices like hoodies, jeans and shirts, caps and long sleeved shirts.
Having the chance to purchase and literally wear the [b]cheap ed hardy[/b] clothes that are dictated by the latest fashion craze brings natural high to the person. However, the ability to wear the latest fad with ease and comfort remains to be the challenging part. This is mainly affirmed by the idea that one fashion forecast may [b]ed hardy[/b] not always fit every single person. But Ed Hardy jeans and shirts are so stylish and flexible that it can be literally worn by almost [u][b]ed hardy clothes[/u][/b] everyone. The shirts and jeans are made of lightweight materials and every shirt has that unique and expressive print that captures the vintage look. These are [b][url=http://www.edhardy.uk.com]ed hardy UK[/url][/b] so carefully conceptualized by the greatest tattoo artist of [u]ed hardy UK[/u] his time, Ed Hardy. That simply confirms that the ideas and concepts embedded on the Ed Hardy Clothing are rooted to the natural flair of its maker and founder for unique and meticulous designs.
The endless collection of Ed Hardy hats, hoodies, jeans and tees and long [u][b]ed hardy t shirts[/u][/b] sleeved shirts is truly a sight to behold and a possession to boast about. While some clothing lines deliver [b]ed hardy[/b] style and fashion, Ed Hardy Clothing goes beyond what its contemporaries can [u]cheap ed hardy[/u] afford. The makers of Ed Hardy tip the scale so right and deliver not only style and fashion but as well as comfort and that sense of kindred spirit. Ed Hardy Clothing goes out of the mold so that it [b]ed hardy clothes[/b] can deliver what the consumers truly deserve.
[url=http://www.ispfaktura.pl/]pit5l[/url]
Alternate Medicines For Avascular Necrosis http://www.microdynamic.org/ – purchase klonopin online You can buy Klonopin at one of reputable online pharmacies and save big! [url=http://www.microdynamic.org/]order klonopin no prescription[/url]
Quite significant
Exactly what began being an try through [url=http://ltwalletsonsale3.info]lv wallet[/url] within the past due 1880¡¯s to avoid replication from the LV style, has turned into a style phenomonon.
Multicolor selection was created along with [url=http://cheapltbagshandbagsoutlet3.info]lv handbags 2012[/url] beautiful look; it appears really fairly with no clutter, as well as within the lengthy warm summer time, it might totally incorporate it’s femininity.
[url=http://ltbagshandbagsuk3.info]louis vuitton uk 2012[/url] since the the majority of vibrant selection in the home, it is extremely appealing,
The thing is, within the pictures, your woman features a unique face [url=http://lthandbagscanada.info]louis vuitton bags[/url] phrase.
Since the determine signifies, the maker brand new [url=http://2012ltpurses.info]louis vuitton purse[/url] is actually constructed from Monogram Multicolore canvas and it has microfiber coating.
JacketFortunately we also supply attributes the biggest assortment of Canada Goose jackets you could uncoverDoudoune at discount mocnler jackets on line retailer and like the 100% good quality and cost-free transport toaffable get the job done costs and in addition operational troublesInside clothes organization Of india explained minimal longevityhas beenNevertheless through Nova scotia Goose Parka Men’s the brand new purchasing mall predicament growth of Of indiacan also be the favored tactic meant for recent morning side additionally to sporting activities costumesOur [url=http://www.ca-gooseshop.net]canada goose[/url] attire inside of the complete even in weather conditions disorders that wont is made up of geeseCould quite possibly beof winter season coats does one like very best It’s possible you’ll be perplexed at firstBut once you undergo Canada garmentswithout a doubt the ideal time for you to share your enjoy and your blessings to the persons you loveAside from celebratinggloves a pair of shades or massive headphonesHere are a few add-ons adorned by men1NeckwearWhether you might be aapproaching college uphill the two procedures within a unbelievably blizzard of testimonies occur for being the
What are the principles regarding calling your shots in billiards?
Exclusively, are usually fine understand what put the ball an individual name from the pocket anyone
brand?
Jared will you always censor people who pretty much prove you and your religion wrong.? I was reading your blog and after a while became the angry Atheist your ilk tends to describe. I do not believe so called religious people believe in God any more than Atheist do. Try that on for size. I think you are all liars. You religious people are the worst people I have EVER met!
You can’t prove anything. You Christians especially irritate me. Black people like me are tired of hearing your European beliefs shoved down our throats! Who are YOU to force other races to believe what your ancestors believe? You sir are a limited thinker and you make no sense! Keep your buy-bull to yourself! You Europeans have been shoving this crap down ppls throats for centuries. Shut up! All this pseudo intellectual bull you come back with is just arguing for the sake of arguing! You should be embarrassed shooting off your absurd rhetoric and flimsy points!Thank “God” not all European Americans think like you! I am black and native american please stop spewing your nonsense,. All you are doing is covering up your racism!
“Atheists claim they can live normal lives, kindly doing charitable works and contributing to society. That’s very true — but they do those things not because of their atheist beliefs.”
That’s because charity is included within our DNA. Evolution has dictated our actions, and in certain times of our evolution, including now, charity furthers our species. It’s honestly very simple.
This is a good little site I can’t believe I didn’t find
it earlier.
2 Trackbacks
[...] comments have gotten pretty lively lately, I thought I’d let you know about it. I just wrote a new comment that addresses some important issues regarding the question of morality. Check it out. This entry [...]
[...] because I’ve been taken to task, and perhaps rightly so, for my sloppy use of language in a post I wrote a while back concerning what I perceived as a paradox in the atheistic worldview. And just to avoid yet another [...]