 |
|
|
|
|
October 16th, 2013
03:20 PM ET
What Oprah gets wrong about atheism
(CNN) - To some, Oprah Winfrey appears to have an almost godlike status. Her talents are well recognized, and her endorsement can turn almost any product into an overnight bestseller. This godlike perception is fitting, since in recent years Winfrey’s work has increasingly emphasized spirituality, including programs like her own "Super Soul Sunday." But what happens when an atheist enters the mix? A few days ago Winfrey interviewed long-distance swimmer Diana Nyad on Super Soul Sunday. Nyad identified herself as an atheist who experiences awe and wonder at the natural world and humanity. Nyad, 64, who swam from Cuba to Key West last month, said “I can stand at the beach’s edge with the most devout Christian, Jew, Buddhist, go on down the line, and weep with the beauty of this universe and be moved by all of humanity — all the billions of people who have lived before us, who have loved and hurt.” Winfrey responded, “Well I don’t call you an atheist then.” Winfrey went on, “I think if you believe in the awe and the wonder and the mystery then that is what God is… It’s not a bearded guy in the sky.” Nyad clarified that she doesn’t use the word God because it implies a “presence… a creator or an overseer.” Winfrey’s response may have been well intended, but it erased Nyad’s atheist identity and suggested something entirely untrue and, to many atheists like me, offensive: that atheists don’t experience awe and wonder. MORE ON CNN: Diana Nyad completes historic Cuba-to-Florida swim The exchange between Winfrey and Nyad reminds me of a conversation I once had with a Catholic scholar. The professor once asked me: “When I talk about God, I mean love and justice and reconciliation, not a man in the sky. You talk about love and justice and reconciliation. Why can’t you just call that God?” I replied: “Why must you call that God? Why not just call it what it is: love and justice and reconciliation?” Though we started off with this disagreement, we came to better understand one another’s points of view through patient, honest dialogue. Conversations like that are greatly needed today, as atheists are broadly misunderstood. MORE ON CNN: Behold, the six types of atheists When I visit college and university campuses around the United States, I frequently ask students what words are commonly associated with atheists. Their responses nearly always include words like “negative,” “selfish,” “nihilistic” and “closed-minded.” When I ask how many of them actually have a relationship with an atheist, few raise their hands. Relationships can be transformative. The Pew Research Center found that among the 14% of Americans who changed their mind from opposing same-sex marriage to supporting it in the last decade, the top reason given was having “friends, family, acquaintances who are gay/lesbian.” Knowing someone of a different identity can increase understanding. This has been true for me as a queer person and as an atheist. I have met people who initially think I can’t actually be an atheist when they learn that I experience awe and am committed to service and social justice. But when I explain that atheism is central to my worldview — that I am in awe of the natural world and that I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems — they often better understand my views, even if we don’t agree. While theists can learn by listening to atheists more, atheists themselves can foster greater understanding by not just emphasizing the “no” of atheism — our disagreement over the existence of any gods — but also the “yes” of atheism and secular humanism, which recognizes the amazing potential within human beings. Carl Sagan, the agnostic astronomer and author, would have agreed with Nyad’s claim that you can be an atheist, agnostic or nonreligious person and consider yourself “spiritual.” As Sagan wrote in "The Demon-Haunted World,": "When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual.” Nyad told Winfrey that she feels a similar sense of awe: “I think you can be an atheist who doesn’t believe in an overarching being who created all of this and sees over it,” she said. “But there’s spirituality because we human beings, and we animals, and maybe even we plants, but certainly the ocean and the moon and the stars, we all live with something that is cherished and we feel the treasure of it.” MORE ON CNN: 'Atheist' isn’t a dirty word, congresswoman I experience that same awe when I see people of different beliefs coming together across lines of religious difference to recognize that we are all human — that we all love and hurt. Perhaps Winfrey, who could use her influence to shatter stereotypes about atheists rather than reinforce them, would have benefited from listening to Nyad just a bit more closely and from talking to more atheists about awe and wonder. I know many who would be up to the task. Chris Stedman is the assistant humanist chaplain at Harvard University, coordinator of humanist life for the Yale Humanist Community and author of Faitheist: How an Atheist Found Common Ground with the Religious. soundoff (4,964 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next »
Next entry »Stephen Colbert roasts the Pope
« Previous entryIn Syria, Muslims struggle to celebrate holy day
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
What's up with all the 'awe'? Is this some sort of pre-requisite for having a conversation with theists? I am an atheist who may or may not be awed by the world around me, but I'd like to see an argument made for atheism that doesn't require playing the 'awe' card.
As an atheist, and a lover of all things science... the more I learn about natural processes, the less awe I experience.
Everything that is allegedly "awe-inspiring" can be explained in mundane details.
Well said.
Take a look at CERN and the amazing depictions of particle collisions in the LHC, truly awe inspiring. Science at its best.
Take a look at CERN and the amazing depi.ctions of particle collisions in the LHC, truly awe inspiring. Science at its best.
Barry Bonds is God, and there ain't no one on here who can prove me wrong.
Gosh, I love religion.
(Oh, and I still think He was one of the top 3 players of all time – usin' or not).
You may be on to something...god does like baseball....it's even mention in the bible...first few words.
"in the big inning..."
THATS good! Took me a second or two ... wow.
RC, that was "awe" inspiring.
The Christian does good deeds because his love for the God of heaven compels him to become more Christlike which leads him to good works and deeds. His motivation comes from his love for God, because his eternal condition is determined at the time of salvation and good deeds have nothing to do with salvation. Sadly those that argue against this and hold to their atheist convictions are trapped by their own blindness and will not know the truth until they have passed away and then they will immediately know the fallacy of their earthly belief, but to no avail. Their eternal fate was determined long before they were born or raised.
ohhhh proxy threats. I am sooo terrified.
Dan Jepson,
"Their eternal fate was determined long before they were born or raised."
After hearing so many Christians brag about God giving "free will", it's refreshing to see a Christian who doesn't believe in it.
exit free will
And the atheist who does good deeds because it is a good thing to do, or the Pagan or Buddhist or Muslim? What motivates them?
trapped by their own blindness and will not know the truth until they have passed away
----
Interestingly, you'd have to make the same statement about the theist. No one knows the "real" truth. It's not knowable.
I imagine the atheists experience quite a bit of awe and amazement if they think that life, nature, and all of the other beautiful things God created just evolved or made themselves. I can understand if you choose not to believe in Jesus, but to deny that a higher power exists seems naïve to me.
I would never deny that a higher power exists – I know that higher power is my wife.
"naive"? LOL
I don't think you understand what that word means. LOL
I'll wager you would experience some awe and amazement if you spent some time studying biology and chemistry.
I study biology and chemistry and I'm amazed by God and in awe of Him.
Can you not understand that you are made of star stuff, part of a magnificent universe and there is no need at all to believe in any of the man made myths that created so many unbelievable gods?
"...just evolved or made themselves..." followed by "...seems naïve to me..."
That's both sad and hilarious. Please read a textbook before you further embarrass yourself. I'm thrilled that many children these days are actually being taught evolutionary biology. Clearly you missed out.
So let me understand this....
If I don't believe in imaginary sky spirits and imaginary horned devils in imaginary fire pits, The I am naive.
Okkkkkk.....
Who or what created god. All the belief in the higher power does is kick the can upstairs. The same fundamental problems remain.
And they always miss that small detail don't they? If "someone had to create the universe"....then "someone had to create god".
@tom
"Who or what created god."
Yet another atheist that doesn't understand the agrument.
1. Whatever BEGINS to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. The universe has a cause.
Since God did not begin to exist, He doesn't have a cause.
another theist who does not understand that their special pleadings and special exemptions for their god come across as utter hogwash,
This all great and powerful being can just simply be, he does not need a creator.. but ohh everything else is so complex it had to be created. But najhhh god does not need to have been created, he can just simply "be" in all of his apparent complexity. The argument is self defeating and no amount of your special pleading ca n change that.
No you cannot have your cake and eat it too just because you kick the ball out of bounds to make your unsubstantiated arguments,
I find it passing strange that many make this kind of statement get responses, but do nothing to address the replies? Kind of hit and run posters, this has happened numerous times today.
okay, fine.
It is not a matter of denying anything, except for the definitions people have for "god" or "higher power".
Unknown is still unknown, to define it further does not make sense until more is known.
Us Atheist have logic and reason to stand by. Believers have faith to stand by. As long as both have their strong grounds – nobody can convince them differently. I personally do not think an Atheist should go out and bash anybody beliefs. Nor do I think a religious person need to pay dues in currency to a god or church. That money could be better spent repairing for a better country, state, city, and community. Let's put our differences aside and pay attention to what is more important.
What is more important is to stop the criminal behavior of others so we can all more or less live together.
Religion is nothing but fraud, lies, terrorism, and insanity forced upon people and violating their rights.
Religion is a delusion. You are saying we should just let crazy people near our children.
You are pathetically stupid in this regard.
I am not sure if you commented on the wrong post or just plain stupid? I am not advocating for religion nor advocating for crazy people around children.
Our differences cannot be swept under the carpet and trying to coexist peacefully is essentially impossible when religious people refuse to follow the laws and commit crimes shamelessly because they think their religion and everything they do is above the law.
Criminals do not need to be religious to commit a crime, but you seem to be advocating that we should let criminals do whatever because it is somehow "hateful" or "intolerant" to hold people accountable for their crimes.
In short, you seem to be saying everyone should all live together all fuzzy and warm despite this being totally impossible when crazy people are involved.
I'm just trying to point out the gigantic holes in your statement. Oh, did you not see them? Well, aren't you glad I stopped by?
He is saying there *is* a reason to confront religious beliefs.
As a Christian, I believe atheists can be "good" people (kind,moral, loving, generous, etc.,etc.). I also know some people claiming to be Christians who don't possess those attributes. I find it equally annoying when I am looked down upon for my faith by those who consider themselves "enlightened" as when Christians look down at those who don't believe as they do. I don't judge people. I leave it up to God to do that. However, my heart does break for those who don't believe because of what the Bible says about eternity. If you don't agree with me, that's ok. We will find out who is right some day.
I don't care who is right. It is meaningless.
I smell "Pascal's Wager" here. Don't go there!
I feel sorry for those who actually waste what precious little time they have worrying about other people that don't believe in their mythology.
Good for you. I hope you live a long, happy productive life.
Thanks
After I figured out religion and the belief in god(s) is nonsense my life became MUCH better.
Oprah is by no means somebody to be offended by... she's a talk-show host. Sadly many people look up to her – which is the only reason why I'm bothered by her stance on atheism.
I find her statements to be quite odd... I grew up devout Christian and creationist, went to private school, church at least 2 times a week, always went to bible studies, "small group", etc etc. I have always been naturally curious, and someone who has an unending desire to learn and grow... combine those two things together and you get someone who was let down in the worst way by the worldview they were born into.
Strangely – I see reality as the exact opposite of Oprah. To me, it's the people who have "awe and wonder at the mystery" of the world are those who tend not to be religious... scientists being a good example (they are a relatively non-religious group, according to polls)... Whereas the religious have their answers about life, death, the universe, etc. The religious may be in awe that their god created a bunch of beautiful and complicated stuff... but honestly, how many more decades is that going to last as scientists and engineers continue to master manipulating matter and energy to do the unimaginable, including spontaneously generate infinitely complex structures (how many religious people are in awe about Chaos Theory and fractals.. a few I guess).
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." Voltaire
and we did it!!!
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.
Susan B. Anthony
As Joe Lieberman (more or less) put it – there are many questions science can't answer. For these, you are free to make up any answer you want. So if Oprah wants to make up a god to answer questions as to why the universe is so amazing, she can.
Um she didnt mqke up any answers lol
talents? what talents? she has made a career and tons of money off of other people's talents.
Man – I wish I had that talent... lol
Heh heh heh ... I love it when folks get jealous and get their panties all up in a bun over someone smarter and richer than them.
Heh heh heh ... Oprah is laughing all the way to the bank.
I guess Johny Carson has no talent either.
Hey ... come on, tug down those panties a bit ... they are bunned up on you.
Johnny unfortunately is dead, so technically he currently has no talent...
What?
Are you saying there is no Tonight Show in Heaven?
Oh my God ... NOW I'm an athiest!
The joke of the whole thing is that most religions have zero objective evidence behind them. The majority of people believe it because it was pounded into their head at a young impressionable age and taught as absolute truth, despite lacking any confirmation. Indoctrination is a terrible practice and creates an emotional connection to the religion they are taught while they are developing and most people cannot break this cycle. If there was evidence, it would be a different story, but atheism is the only logical position until evidence is found that points to a creator.
Atheism is NOT the default position. It takes FAR more faith to be an atheist.
LET's Religiosity Law #9 – If you must suspend disbelief to have “faith” that your particular religious delusion is real, then you are most definitely psychologically impaired and/or damaged and in need of some therapy/medication.
Disbelief in god is the null hypothesis, so yes atheism is the default position.
I was born not believing in any of the gods and nothing has happened to persuade me to change that opinion since.
Faith (Noun)- Belief without or against evidence
Trust (Verb)- Belief that is always provisional, always conditional, and scales up or down based on the evidence presented and the confidence I have in it.
You are confusing the terms it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist. If you are referring to Pascals Wager, that argument is flawed and has many holes.
Say you have a jar of gumballs. Now there are either an odd number or even number of gum balls in this jar. For arguments sake lets say that Theism could be the claim that there are an even number of gumballs. Now Atheism is the opposite of Theism and most would assume that in this case Atheism would be the claim of an odd number of gumballs, however this is not the opposite. The opposite of this claim would be to refute the claim of an even number of gumballs.
Atheism is not a belief in no god(s), it is the dismissal of the claim that there is a god(s).
I would refute the claim that there is no god(s) just as I refute the claim that there is a god(s). There is not evidence that either claim is true.
I could add that Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. I would disagree with an Atheist who told me there are no god(s) because I'm agnostic, we do not know one way or the other.
The majority of atheists are agnostic. For the same reason we do not accept the claim that there is a god, we also cannot outright reject it. Lack of evidence.
Of course that an atheist thinks an atheist is and what a theist thinks an atheist is are frequently not the same thing, and the opposing sides talk right past each other since they are working off from different definitions.
Agnosticism isn't "I don't know", it's "I can't know". I am an atheist, but I believe there IS evidence against certain gods, such as incompatible properties arguments. Stenger's book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" makes some really good points about the evidence that should be there if God exists but which isn't. I'm a positive/strong atheist with respect to some gods and a negative/weak atheist with respect to others. For me, negative atheism is the result of either agnosticism or irrelevance.
How does it require less faith to blindly believe ancient scriptures written before man had any scientific understanding of the world, than to reject those scriptures since they have no verification? Yes atheism is the logical default until evidence is presented.
Topher
For christs sake look up the definition of faith and read your statement again, an oxymoron.
illusive
"You are confusing the terms it takes absolutely no faith to be an atheist. If you are referring to Pascals Wager, that argument is flawed and has many holes."
What? That has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. But I agree that argument is flawed.
I see the wager come in quite a lot with that argument actually, basically they are saying "You have faith that there is no god, which is more of a risk than to believe in god and be wrong. See the relationship now?
illusive
Meh. It's kind of a stretch. What I'm saying is that the evidence FOR God is far more compelling than against.
Pascal's Wager is more of a "I'll believe just in case ..." which would not be a saving faith. So you're in no better position.
You have actual evidence for god? Please give it.
If you site the bible as evidence for god, I will site spider-man comics as evidence of spider-man. Or the Egyptian book of the dead as evidence for Anubis, or the code of hammurabi as evidence of Marduk.
barcs
Because in your worldview you say that something came from nothing and that an explosion created order. You also place faith in evolution of which there is no evidence. One does not need to have had any scientific understanding to have written the Bible. That's a logical fallacy. The Bible is not a science textbook. Though there is science in it and science agrees with the Bible.
We also know we can trust the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical doc.uments, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses (so basically an automatic baloney detector) to claim to have experienced the supernatural and that the works are inspired by God and not that of man.
That comment is fractally wrong
Big bang is not an explosion
We never said something came from nothing
there is an abundance of evidence for evolution
.....it is true that any idiot can read the bible....but that is not a fallacy
there is no evidence for the bibles supernatural stories
The bible was written at least 200 years after any of it supposedly happened
"You also place faith in evolution of which there is no evidence."
LOL. Oh, Topher, that's a good one.
Topher: "We also know we can trust the Bible because it's a reliable collection of historical doc.uments, written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses"
LOL – Oh Topher – that's another good one. WHAT eyewitnesses? Any names? Did they write anything?
illusive
"Big bang is not an explosion"
Ah, so the name is just for giggles. That is EXACTLY what Big Bang says. I used to be a proponent of it myself.
"We never said something came from nothing"
Sure you do. If there was something, where did THAT come from?
"there is an abundance of evidence for evolution"
Then please show me the change in kinds. Should be easy to do if you have an "abundance." Also, please explain how we get the needed addition of information it takes since we only see a loss of information.
"there is no evidence for the bibles supernatural stories"
You mean besides the eyewitnesses? And the fact God told us so?
"The bible was written at least 200 years after any of it supposedly happened"
Not even close. Revelation was the last book written and that was around 94-96 AD ... not hundreds of years later.
Doris
"LOL – Oh Topher – that's another good one. WHAT eyewitnesses? Any names? Did they write anything?"
Why are you laughing at facts? You may reject Jesus was God, but these things clearly happened. As far as witnesses, Matthew, Mark and John were witnesses. James and Jude were Christ's brothers. Paul murdered the Christians until Christ appeared to him. And if you read in Acts, Christ appeared to hundreds at a time after His death.
Topher, your responses have been refuted so thoroughly so many times that it's not worth doing so here. It would take many books, and those books exist. But surely you at least see the fallacy of saying the Bible is true because God said so?
Lance
"Topher, your responses have been refuted so thoroughly so many times that it's not worth doing so here. It would take many books, and those books exist."
Sure, I know books like that exist. But there's just as many that go in my favor.
"But surely you at least see the fallacy of saying the Bible is true because God said so?"
No. The Bible is God's Word. So if He said it happened, I believe it.
Besides, SOMETHING had to have happened back then. Let's face it, it was big enough to change our calendars. It was big enough that the Jews moved their Sabbath. That's a big deal.
Yeah, You have been refuted many times here....and then you threw in Ray Comforts "change in kinds" argument.
You are obviously a troll.
(The name big bang is a bad name, it is more accurately called "The everywhere stretch")
(something did not come from nothing in the terms you are applying to them, As far as we know there was always something..never nothing.)
(If I use your terms...where did god come from?...And if you say "god has always been" then you will be committing the special Pleading fallacy)
Topher, I am God. I just wrote my own Bible. "I, Lance, am the one true God. I created all that exists." It is without question my word (something you can't say about your god and his Bible). I say that it is true. I am God. Want proof? This Bible I wrote says so. It is airtight.
"It takes FAR more faith to be an atheist."
No, it takes more credulity.
Interestingly, of all the groups of scientists, biologists are the most likely to be atheists. We become biologists because of awe and deep appreciation of the natural world. We also realize the Bible and religion has no predictive value in terms of understanding the natural world. Indeed, when the Bible addresses natural phenomena, it gets it dead wrong. The earth is not flat, the sun does not revolve around the earth, snakes don't eat dirt, rabbits don't chew their cud, they eat their feces, which is among the same Old Testament justification for not eating pigs. Bats are not a type of bird. Don't get me started on how utterly wrong the Bible is on the hydrologic cycle.
Lara Avara
Wow. I think you covered just about every atheist fallacious argument there is. And every one of them is answerable. For instance, you say the Bible gets science dead wrong. Ridiculous. Science agrees with the Bible.
"The earth is not flat, ..."
True, and the Bible doesn't say it is.
" ... the sun does not revolve around the earth,"
Right again. Neither does the Bible say this.
"rabbits don't chew their cud, they eat their feces,"
Encyclopedia Britannica: "Some lagomorphs [rabbits and hares] are capable of re-ingesting moist and nutritionally rich fecal pellets, a practice considered comparable to cud-chewing in ruminants ..."
"Bats are not a type of bird."
Bible doesn't say that either. What it does say is the these are all winged creatures.
It doesn't matter. There are TONS of demonstrably wrong claims in the bible. It DOES say that the earth is the center of the universe. That's false. That's the bottom line. For the people that believe it's the literal word of god and not some morality book from thousands of years ago, it makes no sense. How could a perfect god write a book that has false claims in it?
barcs
It DOESN'T have false claims in it.
Oh really? So men can survive inside of whales for days? A wooden arc can really hold 2 of every single species on earth(numbering in the millions) and survive for a year? The earth is really the center of the universe and was created in 7 days? No offense, but the bible is FULL of demonstrably wrong claims. I know you will try and twist the words around to suit your meaning, but you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to suggest any of those claims are true.
barcs
"So men can survive inside of whales for days?"
If God commands it, yes.
"A wooden arc can really hold 2 of every single species on earth(numbering in the millions) and survive for a year?"
It wasn't 2 of every species. It's 2 of every kind. So instead of two chihuahuas and two Great Danes, Noah just needed two dogs.
"The earth is really the center of the universe and was created in 7 days?"
It doesn't say it's the center of the universe, and it was 6 days.
"No offense, but the bible is FULL of demonstrably wrong claims. I know you will try and twist the words around to suit your meaning, but you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever to suggest any of those claims are true."
You're making the claim they are false, so please show how they aren't. For instance, many times over it has been proven to show the arc now only could have been buoyant, but could have carried the animals with room to spare. I understand WHY you don't want these things to be true, but you'll have to demonstrate they aren't possible.
barc Topher has been down this road many times before and will pull out his Christian apologetics BS once again. Topher is so retarded that he believes in Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel as real events despite the historical record showing them to be impossible. Our resident buffoon may offer some entertainment in his replies but he is beyond reason and logic.
Burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the person who says your claim is BS. By your logic you also cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, so that must mean they do!
barcs
"Burden of proof lies on the person making the claim, not the person who says your claim is BS."
You CLAIM that it's BS is also ... a CLAIM!
"By your logic you also cannot prove that invisible pink unicorns do not exist, so that must mean they do!"
Not at all. I don't believe in "invisible pink unicorns" but if they did exist I wouldn't really care. You're the one standing on a soap box making complaints.
The bible doesn't say it is the center of the universe. You are mistaken but I am sure well intended
Topher, the bible most definitely states that there are talking snakes and donkeys, virgins and really old women getting pregnant (before IVF), dead people coming back to life. The whole water-to-wine, loaves and fishes thing, too. Those things cannot be true. And saying "yes but it was a miracle" does not make it true.
Ann
True, my saying it is so is not proof. But God's saying so does.
And because God's making them against the normal order, that does indeed make them miracles. And if there are miracles, they are at least possible.
So you can prove that god said any of that?
But God's saying so does.
-----–
Even though we have no record that God has ever said anything.
barcs
"So you can prove that god said any of that?"
Nope. Though the evidence has convinced millions that it is so.
Madtown
"Even though we have no record that God has ever said anything."
The Bible is the record.
The Bible is the record.
------
And, as you know, God did not write the bible.
"Patty Biller -I am NOT deluded. I have been enlightened and set free. I pray you come away from your evil. Must be a joyless, dark life to have!"
You are a sad wretch of a person with daddy issues, if you need a fairy tale about a sky-daddy to make you feel better. I on the other hand have a much happier and fulfilling life than you obviously do... please don't project your stupid christian "evil, joyless and darkness" on me... frankly, I think your delusions of righteousness are comical...
Why do people persist in thinking that what they believe about an unfathomable mystery has any bearing on the truth of it?
Conjecture and fantasy do not equal reality.
If I person says, "I believe in the teachings of the Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, or that there is not God, that statement is saying something about their choice, but asserts no truth or enlightenment about the mystery of death or the creation of the universe. If someone says, "I do not know how the universe was created, nor share any special knowledge about death or the existence of a soul," then they have expressed the universal and only truth of the matter.
@fibsernum
"If a person says, I believe in the teachings of the Bible, or the Quran, or the Torah, or that there is not God, that statement is saying something about their choice"
I agree with your post... except for this sentence. Nobody chooses their beliefs. Try believing that the sky is green or that your mom worships squids... go ahead. Choose to believe. Mmm hm, you can't.
Religions like Christianity have somehow tricked people into believing that they chose their religious belief. They follow that up with declaring that people who believe differently are actively choosing an evil path. The second largest religion – Islam – uses the same slight of hand. It is an excellent premise to sustain and grow an idea... it's a mind virus... a relatively efficient one.
It's not a choice at all. Most kids are indoctrinated.
Seems to me that this constant defense of the atheist label and semantics is rather obnoxious...and QUITE religious. You have chosen to identify as an abstract noun instead of an adjective. You're the source of your own frustrations.
They act just like the religious. Very ironic. Very funny!
I guess we'll see how it all plays out. The number of atheists is rising, slowly, but it's possible itwould be faster without the label. I and many other non-believers steer clear of any group carrying that name as they tend to be disproportionately filled with extremists. But the atheist identification is mostly, I think, for young first generation atheists with family issues who are still working out their identi ty. For most others there's really no need of a label except when problems arise due to government or organizational discrimination.
When Isaac Newton saw the apple fall from the tree, he gave it enough thought, and then realized that there is gravity. Gravity is real today as it always has ever been, yet, no one knows what it is nor can anyone see it or touch it!
God is the same way, we are here, this reality is here, when you give it enough thought, you realize that there is a Supreme Being (God) behind all of it. God is real today as He always eternally Is, yet, no one can see nor touch Him.
yes, Jesus explained it that the Presence of God was life the wind. You can feel it, cannot see it, yet you KNOW it is there. Love having Jesus in my life!!!
God bless you.
Vic
When you say that are you commanding god to bless her or have you left out the "may" that belongs at the beginning of the statement?
Or did someone sneeze?
Well, "may" is implied as in wishing her the blessing of God. Otherwise, it is a "prayer" that I "supplicate" God for blessing her.
Ah, but gravity touches everyone – we all can see its effects, whereas religion only touches those that have been "touched." There's a good video of an evangelist touching many such "touched" believers, set to benny hill music I believe.
there is only one true jesus... and he cuts my grass
LOL! Don't tell ICE! LOL!
Love having Jesus in my life
----
Don't make the mistake of thinking "God" is synonymous with the christian version of God. Lot's of people believe they feel the presence of God, but don't know the first thing about christianity. Have Jesus in your life if you choose, but it's not the only way. The ways chosen by other people are equally relevant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0-04VDrCbM
Do you have any evidence yet Vic? One can measure the wind, one can perform controlled experiments with and without air to confirm it. Not so with your god – without evidence you have to believe to believe.
Like I said, we are here, reality is here, that's irrefutable evidence just like the apple falling down from the tree!
You are evidence of you.
Someone with mental retardation has a different sense of reality than you. So does someone living in the jungles of New Guinea.
You need to come up with a different approach
sybaris = low class
Vic
The matrix has always been, some know this, some are just realizing it, and some cannot fathom it, but it is real. I know it's real.
Sounds silly right? Just as much logic, evidence and reason as your claim.
Gravity is the curvature of space-time. The apple falling from the tree, like God, is a myth.
To this day, no one knows what gravity really is! What science knows is the effect of it, which is, In Classical Physics, basically, an attraction force between masses.
Gravity (gravitational force) is one of the main reasons that there can not be a Unified Field Theory. It is a different animal than the strong, weak & electromagnetic forces that can not be combined in one field theory. That's why Albert Einstein could not combine his Theory Of General Relativity with Electromagnetics.
In modern physics, the General Theory Of Relativity postulates that gravity is caused by the curvature of spacetime that governs the motion of objects; however, that is not proven yet.
So does this god wonder about his own creator in the same way? Let me guess you answer... No, because no one created him – he didn't need it, right? 🙁
God is Eternal in Generation, He ALWAYS IS.
which god?
“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”
― Isaac Newton
Indeed.
I believe in God Almighty, that is the Father, Son (Lord Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit.
Vic
Yes we guessed, we feel pity for you.
Actually, the people who discovered the reasons why gravity works just won the nobel prize (Higg's Boson). Just because something is awe inspiring doesn't mean that it had to have an unknown or explainable reason that it works or exists. People just need to stop being lazy and learn things on their own instead of taking their religious leaders ideas as their own. Learning and knowledge is beautiful and exciting, not a sin.
It's "Higgs Boson" not "Higg's Boson"
To this day, no one knows what gravity really is! What science knows is the effect of it, which is basically an attraction force between masses (Classical Physics.)
As for the Higgs Boson latest discovery, it might be a Higgs Boson with a spin! It is not yet proven to be the Particle Physics Standard Model Higgs Boson (Spin-0, a Scalar!) The Particle Physics Standard Model can ONLY be completely proven by a Spin-0, a Scalar Higgs Boson Particle!
That's the exact opposite of Isaac Newton. He observed the action and measured the time and speed of objects falling. He did experiments and the results confirmed it. WIth god, there is no such evidence and to even mention those 2 things as similar is a complete fallacy. Has anybody witnessed god creating something or had any legitimate contact with him/her? Science is based on evidence, god is based on a complete guess.
“He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God.”
― Isaac Newton
Nice quote mine. It still doesn't mean science and faith are the same thing.
It doesn't meant they fight against each other.
I would agree with that. There's no reason they should fight with each other, but much of it stems from this society we live in that is dominated by religion, and it's almost expected of you to believe or say "god forbid" when referencing anything bad that can happen. Atheists are finally able to speak out without the threat of death and imprisonment, so they take advantage to stand up for it. I don't see how this is any different from African Americans speaking out about slavery and prejudice or Jewish folks talking about the holocaust and antisemitism. The truth is atheists have been oppressed by religion for a long time and they want the same respect that religious folk are given.
Maybe Newton only said that because if he said he didn't believe in god some church would have him executed.
Ask an atheist what he DOES believe, and you'll actually have a real conversation. Until then, stop judging them because they reject YOUR religion that has zero evidence behind it.
Steve Stedman says "I believe it is up to human beings, instead of a divine force, to strive to address our problems." That's exactly what God and I believe too 🙂
So you know what god thinks? I call that an over-inflated sense of self importance.
Mark – get a sense of humor
Who is more "moral"?
1. A Christian, who does good deeds.
2. An atheist, who does good deeds and tells you all about it and declares the Christian is only doing good deeds because they imagine they are motivated by some reward system.
Religion is the cause of all the evil in the world. If there was no religion, my life would be perfect. But since there is religion it sucks and I have to act hostile toward people that have a belief in God.
Religions want to dominate society: religious texts on public buildings, religious belief taught as science, prayer at public meetings, religious belief as law, etc. yet in the USA where christianity is the major religion the christians fight against say islam doing those things, so they must understand how objectionable it is to have someone else's beliefs pushed down their throat.
Do you have any evidence for your god or you just have to lash out because you cannot justify your delusion?
Do you recall the Hutus and Tutsis conflict in Rwanda? Do you know why they were slaughtering each other? Not religion. They were actually all Christian. They slaughtered each other for Tribal differences. Humans will slaughter each other for ANY DIFFERENCE. Skin color, culture, religion. It doesn't matter. So go ahead and continue to dream about your perfect life without religion.
John – you hit the nub of it there. People will use any excuse to hate others – I think this behavior evolved from a need to look after one's own family first.
You don't HAVE to hate. You choose to hate. My belief in God has no bearing on my interaction with those who believe what I believe and those who don't. Liberal intolerance has replaced conservative intolerance. You're no better than the haters of old; you're just a next gen hater...useless.
I seriously doubt religion is the cause of all evil. Nor that your life would be perfect it religion disappeared. Not quite sure why you have such an apparent hatred of religious people. But I suggest you stop hating them all – and help them to see the errors in their ways.
Have to? No the correct answer is you WANT to because you are an ignorant, self-righteous, cruel, bigot who has nothing better to do with his life. I will continue to explore the wonder of this world and this life and you will continue to spread your poisonous misery. How can someone so USELESS as you NOT commit suicide?
The moral person is ALWAYS the one that does it out of the goodness of his heart, not because they fear hell or religious consequences. Therefor the atheist that does good deeds (as countless do) have a better moral compass and is more compassionate.
Hu? A religious person can be motivated the same as an atheist. My post was a joke, but don't swing the other way and make a bigger joke out of atheism.
You seem to doubt that it's possible to have bad reasons to do something good
Your post doesn't even make logical sense. I'm trying to figure out your point but nothing makes sense that you are typing. If that was a joke, it wasn't funny.
" because they fear hell or religious consequences. "
How do you know that is what motivates a religious person?
I pick the atheist.
umm. doing good deeds out of a genuine concern for the welfare of others will always trump doing good deeds because you believe the creator of the universe wants you to do it.
"because you believe the creator of the universe wants you to do it."
Out of your hands that was typed, not mine.
your point is incoherent.
You imagine people do good deeds out of fear of going to hell. There is no proof of that. Maybe that is what you did when you were a Christian, but that doesn't mean everyone else does.
Why don't you just do a good deed? Why do you have to tell everyone you are doing it better because you are an atheist?
"You imagine people do good deeds out of fear of going to hell. There is no proof of that."
Right, it's just my imagination that on any Sunday you can walk into a Church in my town and hear a guy tell you about the fiery pit and those who will be going there. If that was not a central theme for most Christians why would it ever get mentioned from the podium except in order to scare their parishioners into good behavior or donating more money?
Pastor Colin is implying that atheists tend to tell others when they do something good. Ironic that he makes this discriminatory claim like it's fact, while at the same time blabbing about proving why Christians do good things. It's also ironic that he's taking the moral high-ground to criticize atheists for being sanctimonious! Talk about a hypocrite!
I'm an atheist. I was criticizing Bill's pathetic who is more moral quiz.
There are countless examples in history of incentives / assistance having been provided in return for people to convert to a certain religion. While it's silly for someone to think their good deed counts for more because they are atheists, incentives having been provided for converting to a certain religion are an accepted or even proactively adopted strategy.
What about the Christian that does good deed and tells you all about it and declares all atheists immoral, incapable of doing good? I have friends that span many religions, and I have noticed the agnostics / atheists are the most selfless. I know it doesn't apply to everyone, but compassion is what matters, not whether you believe in a god.
Nice job of loading the dice on the question...doesn't show any bias at all (sarcasm)
That's a false choice.
3) How about Christians who go about thinking they are the only ones capable of good deeds but ignore atheists who do good deeds without the crutch of a reward system.
4) The atheist who says his good deeds are better because he is not a Christian.
your claim is only valid if you don't think there is any value in understanding the way the world works. If dogma is a problem on any level (and I think conceding this point is obligatory in the stem cell debate, the condom blocking efforts in Africa, and the martyrdom debate) then by definition the atheist's deed is, "better" because it doesn't come prepackaged with the potential for horribly immoral acts on the basis of their delusions. Osama Bin Laden spent a large portion of his life building roads and trying to better the lives of other muslims, unfortunately, because he was doing this because of his adherence to ancient scripture, we can call attention to the fact that it actually matters what peoples motivations are
Crutches have their place in life. Consider if George Zimmerman had been carrying a religious crutch instead of a gun. A young life may have been spared. Consider if some Black man using a religious crutch, morality, tells another morally weak Black man to leave some liberal White man alone instead of standing silent and allowing you to be assaulted. Consider we are our brothers keeper if the scriptures be true. Take your choice.
Well, if by #2, you're actually citing the atheist view on how Christians view themselves and good deeds, your proposition is completely fallacious. Performing "good deeds," in orthodoxy, has nothing to do with some eternal reward system; quite the opposite. The Gospel of grace precisely puts to rest the exhausting exercise of reliance on "good deeds" to earn eternal favor. Religious and non-religious alike - we're hardly good. In fact, most of us are pretty rotten and laden with self interest. In that latter point, the christian and atheist probably reach common ground.
Oh goody, Jay, you have another book called the "Gospel of Grace? Did you write that book, or did you just pull something out of your But.t?
I was just joking guys. I'm an atheist. But a$$uming you are better because of what motivates you to give is arrogant. Be an atheist, not an arrogant a$$.
what a silly, deceitful choice.
Well done! I am not an atheist, I do believe in God, and I really enjoyed reading this article. I feel that you did a nice job explaining why Oprah (and others) don't get atheism. In the end, we will find out what is true, so why can't we all just get along in the meantime.
Because many like to legislate their beliefs on others, and false beliefs hold science from advancing.
There's two reasons right there.
Because religions want to dominate society: religious texts on public buildings, religious belief taught as science, prayer at public meetings, religious belief as law, etc. yet in the USA where christianity is the major religion the christians fight against say islam doing those things, so they must understand how objectionable it is to have someone else's beliefs pushed down their throat.
Because when people believe they have supernatural approval for their actions they are capable of heinous crimes and vested with authority to rule over others of dissimilar beliefs.
Queue the perpetuators of Hitler, Stalin and Mao killing on the basis of their alleged atheistic beliefs.
*yawn*