 |
|
|
|
|
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.  |
|
|
|
I know how she feels. Sometimes I like to turn on my computer's random number generator, and watch the pretty numbers fly by.
How does it work? Let's take a peek inside:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YIj4rLYo0c
Christian Logic:
Existance as we understand it could not have existed without first being created by a higher conciousness. Obviously that conciousness was God who has existed forever because he is God and says so in his old dusty book written by desert people 2000+ years ago.
And "god" was created by "what" ? himself – and so on.
To quote the book of John "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God and the Word was with God". So yes, as Christians we believe God has always been present. I can understand how you would think that to be strange, why wouldn't we just believe that Earth was always here? My personal answer to that is because the earth has too many unsolved mysteries to believe that it was created by happenstance. Even if the Earth was created by happenstance, that means there had to be some sort of particles somewhere that fused together to make Earth. Where did those particles from from? It all has to have a starting point.
Everything except God, you mean. Right?
"Word" = Logos
Great example of the evolution of Christianity it its early years. By the time the last gospel was written it found itself contending with Greek philosphical schools to prove its validity. The use of the Greek term "logos" went a long way towards intellectualizing christian theology. Tell me, are you familiar with Philo of Alexandria?
The only thing obvious is that you are making up a universe in your mind to help you deal with the complexities of a universe you don't have the mental and emotional tools to deal with. It is obvious that we're born, we live, we die and there is pain, sadness, joy and feeling good mixed in between. There is nothing wrong with that.
As usual arguments for the existence of god start out with a statement that existence must have been created by a higher consciousness (a synonyn for God). You can't prove that statement and no one has to accept it as a premise of your argument. Start your argument to prove the existence of God without having a premise that existence must have had a creator, i.e., a god. Such arguments have been around for many centuries and have been recognized for many centuries as being specious, circular arguments. However, if it allows you to get up in the morning, hold on to your belief, but it is “Just a box of rain,” Rob Hunter and Phil Lesh of the “Grateful Dead” says it best.
I think the major issue with Atheism and the large confusion about the issues surrounding being an atheist are in large part due to an branding issue. Atheists don't have a unified voice and so some of the more vocal atheists are the most unhinged.
I have no problem believing that people without religion can find something interesting or fascinating. In fact Atheists must have this feeling because they were interested enough to challenge the perceptions to try to find the "truth." To them this means there is no god.
The major difference IMO between Atheists and Theists IMO (As a Atheist) isn't what they is the decision that we must prove things to be true before they are true. Not a difference in logic skills of morality but just a difference on where we should start.
If you start with the belief that things are true until something comes along telling you it's not true... then you are going to be a Theist as it's impossible to disprove theology.
If you start with the belief that things are not true until proven true, then you are going to be an Atheist because it's impossible to prove theology.
It also has to do with when you start trusting something. Atheists typically start trusting something after there is evidence and reason to consider it trustworthy. Theists are usually asked to "just trust in God" first, blindly, and then define for themselves things that support that trust. Such Confirmation Bias poisons the whole proposition because you are encouraged to "love" the answer before even beginning to evaluate it's validity. That's like having a favorite number and making it your answer to an equation without actually solving the equation. You might end up being right out of shear luck, but the odds are really, really against you. Picking your favorite god out of the thousands that have been worshipped and plugging it in as the answer to an equation that really appears to have a zero answer just doesn't make sense.
I agree with you. It takes a lot to earn my trust.
This is why it's hard for Atheists and Theists to agree.
This is also why I think Older (tend to be more religious) people get taken advantage of so frequently.
I am not angry, bitter or nihilistic...
God is not simply awe and wonder. God is personal. Three persons, to be exact.
I'm going to ask you a question that I want you to think about carefully. I want you to carry this with you and ask it of yourself and others whenever you are in the presence of great certainty, like that which you have just used. Ask it often, and do not be afraid of where it might move your mind. The question is this:
How do you know that?
Ever feel like you're being watched? Believe in ghosts? Spirits? Demons?
NO!
None of the above, Jake.
He told me.
Which of the 3 told you? And, why don't they just tell everyone, so there's no doubt, and so you don't look like a kook?
They have told everyone. It's in the Bible. And all 3 persons of the Trinity were active in giving it to us. And they have appointed messengers tasked with proclaiming this Bible to the entire world.
"god" is "dog" spelled backward, and The Son of Sam's dog told him to murder people, much like your god does in the Old Testament, especially in Leviticus.
Give me an eternity in hell rather than in a place like Sunday School with close-minded charlatans that I have to abide forever!
Trinity – another great example in the evolution of Christian theology. In order to contend with the many different types of christianity in existence at the time, the early proto-orthodox church was required to call Jesus both God (to counter those that taught he was only the adopted son of god) and human (to counter those that taught he was god and only appeared to be a human). Similarlly, the Trinity let them say that Jesus was God, but that there was only one god (to counter those that believed the OT god was different from Jesus' god). Pretty interesting stuff IMOHO
Creeds were framed in response to new heresies. In this way Christian doctrine is further refined and clarified over time. But the doctrine of the Trinity clarified at Nicaea was taught in Scripture. Jesus said, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:" Matthew 28:19
Not quite, but I can see why you might think that. These weren't "new heresies", they were competing versions of christianity just at least as old as Paul's version. With their own gospels (most attributed to disciples or their companions) and own views on who Jesus was and what he taught. Paul's theology just happens to be the one the won out.
Also – the line from Matthew you quote is accepted by most scholars to be a later addition included to bolster the trinitarian view.
Their "gospels" were new gospels. They departed radically from the teachings of those who had actually been with Jesus, and they came later.
The scholars to which you refer presuppose that the doctrine of the Trinity is late, and therefore they conclude that the verse I quoted must be late. It is included in all of the earliest and most complete manuscripts, as also in virtually all existing New Testament manuscripts, including those from diverse regions.
If that is your belief so be it. My studies have shown me something different. They weren't "new", they were contemporary. They had just as much a claim to the authorship of their gospels as any that ended up in the canon. Paul's church was not the vast majority whith a few fringe groups. He was one group (though based in a power-center, Rome) amongst many. And the fact that he, only decades after Jesus' death was arguing against their beliefs AND bishops hundreds of years later had to argue against some of the same groups shows this was a protracted process.
It's not merely my belief that the text "in the name of the Father, of the Son, and the Holy Spirit" is included in virtually all the New Testament manuscripts, including the earliest. You can check for yourself with any critical edition of the NT. Can you name one significant copy of the Greek NT which omits it?
Your opinions regarding the gnostic heresies were sufficiently refuted by Irenaeus in the 2nd century in his work, "Against Heresies." Some false teachings were springing up in Paul's day. By the 2nd century, they had morphed into docetism. This does not prove they were original. The evidence contained in the New Testament is that Paul, in his refutation of them, was in step with the other disciples of all of the other disciples of Jesus. John also writes against these heretics in his epistles.
None of us will ever know, will we???
Your god has an identity crisis... and likes to dress like a hippie... and likes to kill innocent people... wow, it just occurred to me that your god and Charles Manson have a lot in common.
Are they Curly, Moe, and Larry? Boehner, Cruz, and Palin? A three-headed monster?
God the awesome, drowned 250,000 thousand innocent people in the last coupla tsunamis.
Yes, pretty awesome, isn't he?
Question for you sir,
If you're married, when your wife/husband dies, will you be upset? If you're not married, when your mother/father/brother/sister/best friend dies, will you be upset? If the answer is yes, then you should re-think your position of atheism. If there is truly nothing after this world, then why be upset when people leave it?
Because our lives continue and we feel the loss of not having that cherished person with us anymore.
I understand. But if life is just this and nothing else, then what good does it do to feel happy or sad. It doesn't matter in the long run, we're all going to rot in the ground, right? I understand your point, just challenging you to dig a little further in your mind and–to take a phrase used by many atheists–allow your brain to go there. Allow your brain to think for just a second that there was a man who died so you could LITERALLY live forever. Just try to make that true in your brain for a second. I tell you what, when I think about if that's not true, life seems to not have a point anymore.
Jake VVV.
The after life was just made up to make you feel better. Why do religious people cry at funerals. If the person is truly in a "better" place, why not party?
Because of YOUR personal loss.
Why do elephants cry when the encounter elephant bones? Why does a mother ape carry her dead child with her, visibly shaken for up to a week after the child dies... bonds with other living things are tought to let go of.
That's nature...no gods required.
There is no way I can "make" that be true. My mind will not accept unsubstantiated claims as truth no matter how hard I try.
Just because we have emotions and react to good and bad stimuli accordingly does not mean there is a good, it only means that we are able to perceive and react to the information our senses provide.
If you cannot find a point to life without beliving in your version of god then well that is your problem.
You seem like a smart guy Tom. The mark of an educated man is one who can entertain a thought without fully believing in it. So, entertain the idea of a supreme God who wants to have a personal relationship with you. Entertain it. See what it brings in your mind.
I posted this under the wrong "sub-conversation" here it is in the proper thread so as not to avoid confusion:
Jake VVV. I have entertained this thought. I have also dismissed it as being wishful thinking based on unsubstantiated notions, I cannot make myself believe just because, it is not a willful choice that I can simply turn on or off.
and to elaborate further:
It would be fabulous to be able to suspend how my mind functions and to be able to consciously shut down the ability of my brain to reject a claim that lacks substantiation simply because I wanted to and it would make me feel better.. however This is not a decision i am able to make, it either is verified and accepted by my brain, or it is not. This god concept is not verified, and i cannot fool myself into pretending that it is.
think for just a second that there was a man who died so you could LITERALLY live forever
--------
It's ok to be spiritual and believe in God, but why christianity? You don't need it to believe in God. It's a creation of man, no different than any other religion. No better, no worse, no more legit.
Because you miss the person who is leaving the party. Has nothing to do with your pretend afterlife
Mr. Tom,
How do you believe the world was created? Why do you think we're here? What's the point of life? (serious questions. i think we can learn alot from eachother)
Jake VVV
Why do you think there is a reason, why do you think there is a point?
also serious question.
So please tell me how you KNOW that Jesus died for you and lets you live forever. PLease tell me where you get such profound info.
The same way you know that George Washington existed, Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and Hannibal used elephants to win a battle. It has been written about and has been told for hundreds or thousands of years. Is it a coincidence that the three main religions in the world all stem from the same person (Abraham)? I think not.
Jakevvv
"The same way you know that George Washington existed, Columbus sailed the ocean blue in 1492 and Hannibal used elephants to win a battle"
Incorrect. The chain of evidence is unbroken for the examples you cite. Also, the people you use as examples, did not make supernatural claims.
Neither is true for your Jesus character. While there is evidence of the existance of the man ( though nothing concrete), there is no evidence whatsoever for the supernatural claims.
JakeVVV,
George Washington wasn't dead a month before the myths and legends about him began to circulate. People were ravenous for stories of their super-hero. "Pastor" Mason Locke Weems wrote a biography of Washington published directly after his death. Saturated with tales of Washington's selflessness and honesty, "A History of the Life and Death, Virtues and Exploits, of General George Washington"(1800) and "The Life of George Washington, with Curious Anecdotes Laudable to Himself and Exemplary to his Countrymen"(1806) captured the imaginations of many Americans. It took decades (if not centuries) to put the legends to rest. Fortunately, none of them were in the supernatural category.
There's a fairly new book, "Inventing George Washington: America's Founder, in Myth and Memory" by historian Edward Lengel: "Lengel wants to set the record straight, and he takes on the "cheats and phonies in addition to the well-meaning storytellers who have capitalized on the American public's insatiable and ever-changing demand for information about Washington. It's time to forget the cherry tree mythologies of our schoolbooks. Besides dismissing that tale (and the tellers who perpetrated it) outright, Lengel explores the surprisingly seedy underbelly of Washington biographers. For instance, one of the men who hopped on the George Washington myth-making bandwagon was no less than showman P.T. Barnum. Lengel's account of Barnum acquiring (for $1000) and then parading elderly African-American Joice Heth around the East Coast as "the 161-year-old slave mammy" to George Washington is equally disturbing and gripping; put on display 14 hours a day for a paying public, Heth soon died, and Barnum held a public autopsy-charging 50 cents a head." –http://www.amazon.com/Inventing-George-Washington-Americas-Founder/dp/0061662585/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1 (not an ad for this book - just for info)
Lots of people still believe these erroneous things about George Washington, even after thorough debunking. No, nobody started a religion according to them, but it shows how these stories got a foothold.
Who knows how much debunking was going on in the first century. After all, most of the Jews remained Jews. Certainly not everyone who heard those stories was convinced at the time. After the legend got going, of course, belief snowballed.
Knowing the inevitability of death, makes it understandable, but that doesn't mean that you won't be saddened at the loss of those you arer close to, or admire and appreciate. Nor nott be in sympathy with what they too are now moissing.
But It is the religious who think that their imagined afterlife is far better, who should be celebrating death and presumably trying to get there faster.
Unless the idea is to bring those that do NOT believe with us into heaven/God (i'm not sure I believe in a "heaven" like in the sky).
I get a little upset when people I haven't seen in years go home after a visit, knowing that I won't see them again anytime soon. I may never see them again because one of us might die. I don't fantasize about that never really happening, which is why I make the most of visits.
Things change over time, and some things end. That's a hard truth about life and the sooner you come to realize that "living in the moment" actually means getting the most out of the one life you know that you do have, the better.
Dreams of heaven are like dreams of winning the lotto, without ever buying tickets. I just don't see any good reason for putting much thought into something like that happening.
@Jake VVV – If there is an afterlife that is for eternity and is mankind's highest reward for belief...why do Christians weep when a Christian dies? Why be upset at the sight of a murder? Is it not God's will? Is it not an awesome reward for the murdered soul? Why, in fact, do anything to sustain your life here on earth when your heaven exists and awaits?
I know what your answers will be. But,perhaps, now you can see how silly the questions are that you have asked...
Because the bond will be broken and the person will be missed. Same thing happens when people's pets die. Its not about heaven or hell.
Jake VVV. I have entertained this thought. I have also dismissed it as being wishful thinking based on unsubstantiated notions, I cannot make myself believe just because, it is not a willful choice that I can simply turn on or off.
Jake,
Why does a kid cry when they lose a favorite toy? Why am I sad when my favorite TV show gets cancelled? It's natural to be sad when something that has been an important part of your life is suddenly not there anymore.
Your point makes no sense Jake. I mean, really no sense. You should re-read what you wrote.
If there is nothing after this life, that's a more than adequate reason to feel grief when someone dies. That person's life is finished, and the people they left behind no longer have their loved one. That's what grief is.
Because they are family and friends. Just because I'm going to die and rot and there will be nothing afterwords doesn't mean life and death do not matter. That doesn't even make since. I love life, my reason for being alive for existing, outside the biological reasons, is to have as much fun and experiences I can have before I die, that is it. Sometimes I get joy out of TV, helping someone, fishing, camping, travel, friends and family, a summer breeze and a million more things. If anything, it makes me appreciate life much more. Why have war and hate when life is so short. Why not learn to appreciate each other, spend money on curing diseases and making life easier for people. If you believe in God, why would any of that be important, after all, this life is just a stop over right, who cares about fun. I'll have eternity to have fun when I'm dead right?
Whether a person believes in an afterlife or not, whether that be heaven/hell, reincarnation or any of the multitudes of ideas man has had about what comes next, does not effect the fact that when someone we love dies, we hurt.
Or do only people who believe as you do feel love, and by extension, the hurt of loss?
Exactly, there is nothing after this existence, which makes our short time here that much more precious. Now, if I believed there was an afterlife and I will see all of my loved ones again, why would I care if they passed on?
It is believers in the afterlife that shouldn't be upset when people die because they are in a better place supposedly.
Jake VVV: your post betrays the (lack of) depth of your thinking.
Sadness at a death has nothing to do with an afterlife.
I truly feel sorry for you, and the mental trap you are in.
Innocent? Prove it.
They are gone. All of us will join them. Just a matter of a few heart beats.
According to her own description, Oprah's "god" is no god at all. God is a Spirit without end in time or space, without change, without beginning, who created all things for his own glory, and who rules and sustains everything that exists at every moment.
You, as a parson, need to be careful about what you are preaching. You are probably influencing many people with your unverified claims and fantasies, and not all for the positive. IMHO. I wonder who that House stenographer's parson is?
The claims I make above are 100% verified.
The claims you make are 100% invented by Christian dogma. I don't consider mythology to be a form of verification.
True Christian dogma is not invented by humans. It is received from God himself.
highplainsparson,
I have known a couple of former preachers, and a few have posted on these blogs. They voiced quite a bit of angst and regret for the fantastical things that they told their flock were 100% true.
If they didn't believe them at the time, or were a little unsure, they should have never said them. If you're going to cry "fire", you'd better make sure the building is burning first.
highplainsparson,
They did believe the ideas at the time they were preaching.
Then I hope they were preaching the truth, and not themselves in deception.
I don't believe you highplainsperson.
I've never seen any evidence that there is a god, so I'm certainly not going to blindly accept the myth that the Bible was anything other than the writings of men like you.
No one is asking you to accept anything blindly. Open your eyes and see for yourself.
In other words, just start believing and then I'll start believing?
Uh... I suppose that would work. But I don't, therefore I don't.
I assure you, my eyes are wide open. So wide open that I see that Christianity as the deception that it is.
No, read the Bible for yourself and examine its claims rationally in light of the evidence. Click on my name above, a link to my blog, and take The Atheist Challenge.
I just finished reading the New Testament, yet again. The Kindle edition makes it very handy.
I have no idea what you're talking about. I've never seen evidence of miracles in the universe where I live. I have, however, seen plenty of evidence of people making things up. And that's all I've ever been able to detect in the New Testament.
I believe you, but I have seen many, and experienced them myself. It is not surprising that you haven't, because it is not the ordinary way that things work in the nature that we observe. That's what makes them supernatural.
I would like to invite you to take The Atheist Challenge as described on my blog. You may just experience a miracle. Now, there's no guarantee, but you have nothing to lose. And at the very least, it will let you engage even more knowledgeably on these topics.
Okay, I've taken a look at your challenge. And I've already accomplished both of those things, earlier in my life. I have attended church at seven different denominations or religions throughout my life, including Judaism, Christianity, and Buddhism. I wrote a Christian rock opera when I was in college. I've read your Bible, and I read it back when I was assuming it was all true, not in order to use the reading as ammunition.
And yet, I now understand that your religion is a hoax, intended to extract cash from the gullible.
Yet another attempt at getting myself indoctrinated, is not an answer. I'm way past that point. Show me some observable, repeatable, and measurable proof of the existence of your god, and we can talk.
Everything else? Sorry, been there, done that.
Cash? Lol. I can't tell you how frequently I've been tempted with offers to go into other lines of work for more money, and leave church ministry.
Try it again! You've nothing to lose, and everything to gain. Note that there is no guarantee that someone who takes the challenge will become a believer. That is not the point.
Proof? That evidential kind of argument will never convince you entirely, (because your obstacles are not truly intellectual) but take a look at this free ebook written by a friend: http://www.lulu.com/us/en/shop/mark-hausam/why-christianity-is-true/ebook/product-18953167.html
If you're not making any money at it, parson, then you're doing it wrong. Take televangelism lessons and your profits will skyrocket.
You seem like a nice guy. You have a good life, okay. Thanks for the chat.
It's not about the money. You're welcome! Thank you.
I hate to be rude, pal, but ... you sound like the usual huckster with all the double talk.
You could use psychological help at least, or psychiatric help more likely.
I think that the sentiment expressed by Oprah short changes theists almost as much. I see your point that it effectively denys your atheist believes, but in doing so it dilutes theistic beliefs. There is much more to theism than just those really nice things we hopefully all share in common... in particular, the believe in a tangible presense; a personality. "Spirituality" is not the same as "Theism" – just ask any Bhuddist.
Exactly.
Very true. Some people seem to overdo the quest for shared ground to the point of diluting ideas and emotions to the point of meaninglessness.
TRUTH: Atheists can be "awed" all they want. But if they don't believe in the true and living God and get saved as the bible has said, then they will end up in hell. And all their admiration of the universe won't mean a thing...
Since you claim it is truth, it is now your job to undeniably substantiate the existence of this hell.
Tom, I don't believe in a true "hell" in the sense of burning and flames and what not. I believe that Atheists who live without God will do just that for eternity. Live without God. Those of us who believe that Christ is the ONLY way will spend eternity with God.
Yes, you believe that, but belief =/= TRUTH, heck it does not even equal lowercase "truth"
Well, I've been living without 'god' for 25 years and I've been doing okay so far. I'll just keep at it then.
Jake VVV,
I don't believe any of that. I did at one time, but just can't do it anymore. There is simply no verified evidence for it. I don't know what, if anything, lies beyond this life. Shall I pretend?
Jake VVV
Topher is that you?
I don't mean to insult you but you sound/write a lot like are resident buffoon, Topher, are you really him posting under a new handle?
Jake,
I would like to ask you a question, one which I have wondered about for a long time. If God is all powerful, and is capable of anything, why would he/she/it (God) find it necessary to impregnate Mary, to bring Jesus to earth, so that he could 'forgive us of our sins? If God is truly all mighty, why not just float a baby down the river, in a canoe/raft, like Moses (iirc), and then guide Mary to find Jesus? Also, if God created us in his image, then we are similar to him/her/it (God), therefore, God created us intrinsically with the flaws which we need 'forgiven' for? So, if I am on track, God impregnates Mary, with Jesus, who is the son of God, or is God, or is the Holy Spirit, to forgive us of our sins/flaws/desires, which he/she/it created us with in the first place? I was raised in a Christian church, but the more deeply that I think about any religion, it makes less and less sense. I guess the point I find in life, the reason to keep on moving forward, is to leave the world, hopefully, better than I left it. I suppose there is really no point, in the end we're all dead, but fortunately, most have a desire to leave the earth better than when they entered it.
It is true. Evidence? None. Deal with it
That has long been dealt with ty. No evidence, no reason to consider it as true.,
there is no way to establish the veracity of the statement without evidence. As such any claim of "TRUTH" is fallacious.
You too will become an atheist, for just a moment, at the instant of your death.
LOL. Since you can't claim that as a truth, we have to question anything else you may claim as "truth".
Opposing View,
Since there is virtually NO CHANCE that you believe and support everything in the Bible, it looks like atheists in hell will have company.
I believe everything in the Bible. I am a Christian. Why wouldn't we?
highplainsparson,
Do you support slavery like the Bible does?
Do you support the Bible when it says to beat helpless children with rods for discipline?
Do you tell your fellow Christians to get divorced since they are living in adultery by being divorced and remarried?
Do you support people being FORCED into marriage like the Bible does?
Do you support people being unable to divorce no matter how abusive their spouse is, like the Bible says?
Get serious.
I am serious. But you are not taking the Bible seriously, which is obvious in your superficial and lazy reading of it. Go to my blog via my name above and click on "The Atheist Challenge" because it is for you.
highplainsparson,
You had ZERO answers. Are you completely STUMPED about what the Bible says?
There's no use discussing the Bible with someone who won't take it seriously enough to give it a fair and careful reading.
highplainsparson,
Still COMPLETELY STUMPED. Amazing. And you use "parson" in your name. Read a Bible so you can answer simple questions about it.
I'd expect, however, that you support discrimination against gays and fantasize that the Bible actually mentions abortion.
I simply refuse to, as Jesus put it, "cast pearls before swine." When you're willing to have a thoughtful and intelligent conversation based on a real attempt to understand it, then look me up. Until then I recommend that you take up The Atheist Challenge.
highplainsparson,
I asked you if you support several commands in the Bible and you were afraid to answer. (God must be impressed!) You aren't fooling anyone but yourself.
Read a Bible someday and see what it says and if you agree with it.
Don't worry. Virtually NO ONE believes and supports everything in the Bible. That's why there are so many Christian HYPOCRITES who pick on gays and pro-choice supporters.
I do agree with everything the Bible teaches. This does not include distortions and misperceptions based on sloppy exegesis.
highplainsparson,
If you did believe and support everything, you would have quickly given some "yes" answers. Instead: ZILCH.
No one believes and supports every word of the Bible. They just pick and choose what they agree with and IGNORE the rest.
As long as you are picking and choosing, why not pick the CRITICAL Golden Rule next time?
Believe what you want. Ignorance is bliss. If you really want to know what the Bible teaches on these topics, get ahold of me. But I suspect that you're only interested in bashing the Bible based on a weak and superficial reading or second hand information, which makes your opinions about it less than credible.
Observer is correct. The Bible contains MANY references and edicts bearing the points Observer made. And more questionable things. I used to be a devout Christian for nearly half of my life until I realized a lot of those things weren't even brought up in church or even amongst fellow Christians in private. I questioned: "What's this bit about keeping slaves?", etc. "Can anyone help me? It's a bit confusing". That was when they told me to simply "take it up with God" and refused to discuss those things. I discovered many other things they conveniently kept silent about. I then asked myself: "If Christians are to hold the Bible as the gospel of truth-coming to them directly from God through men-and desire to teach/share all of its writings to everyone, and base their entire belief on the writings of the Bible, why do they get to pick what they want to read, preach, talk about and what they don't?" ALL of the Bible applies to everyone or none of it applies to anyone, because, well, we were all certain God is 100% perfect and He makes NO mistakes. When I confronted my pastor about this discrepancy, I was booted out of church and everyone I knew turned their backs to me. All I did was ask questions. I learned a lot about blind faith and selective ignorance.
I'm sorry you had that experience. I strive to teach the entire counsel of God, not to pick and choose. Regarding the passages alluded to, I do bring them up in church.
highplainsparson,
Distort this:
Leviticus 25:44-46 ESV
"As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly."
p.s. Please don't try the "oh, they were really indentured servants, nannies and gardeners and other 'employees'"
In the immediate and specific context of this passage, all factors considered and understood, I will bow and submit to the justice of God in giving this command. If you'd like to discuss further please go to my blog via my name above.
highplainsparson
"In the immediate and specific context of this passage, all factors considered and understood, I will bow and submit to the justice of God in giving this command."
So you do support slavery. If you have read a Bible, you'll know the answer to this:
If a slave owner takes a rod and breaks the arms and legs of an elderly female slave, but she doesn't die in a day or so, what does the Bible say the punishment should be?
I might add that they will be in supreme awe of his holy and righteous justice, when in hell.
sure, whatever helps you sleep at night...
I do sleep better knowing that there is a just God who will right all wrongs, who will not allow sin to go unpunished.
When you use the word "knowing" it hurts your argument. Stick to "thinking" and "believing".
In your dreams, @highplainsparson. In. Your. Dreams.
If I wanted a real good example of ignorance personified I would point to you. Have you EVER had an original thought in your life that wasn't put there by some religious huckster on sunday at your local temple of hate??
I would think that an omnipotent, omniscient being would have a better success rate.
Please send me to hell. I'd rather perish there than spend eternity floating around with this maniacal, megalomaniac, murdering God of yours in "heaven".
I much prefer eternity in hell that in Sunday School with bigots and close-minded people like you!
Her actions and words confirm Oprah, like almost every religious zealot, as a bigot.
How is she a bigot? When are people going to understand that a difference of opinion is not bigotry? If I disagree with you, I am not a bigot. Grow up.
I don't know that she is a bigot. I made it a point never to watch a single show of hers so I am no Oprah expert. She has a certain amount of talen and a hell of a lot of money. I do think she should spend some of it hear rather than for some African school. All in all, I have spent more then the ten seconds I allocated to talking about her so I'll go now.
Wow your being harsh here. She is not a bigot, she is being insensitive and a bit close minded in her choice of words but not bigotted. You have to remember most of our society are taught the same things and preached to the same way in order to convert the unconverted and to explain the more intricate and complex functions of human emotion in a simple way. Oprah is only guilty of regurgitating the same ole stuff we hear everyday. It wasn't mean or divisive really.
Not a bigot – just someone (like most "faith" or "spiritual" people) who feels that her view of the universe is correct, and who tries to either convince others that her view is correct or that their own view is really the same as hers, just described differently. This is the mindset of almost all "people of faith". Actually, Oprah is better than many – evangelical and fundamentalist types (of most religions) tend to reject others' views outright rather than trying to see a commonality.
The problem with this is that it does not go deep enough. If an atheist can be "spiritual" and acknowledge that the ocean, the plants, the animals, and humans are all 'living with something cherished', how can you explain this seemingly inherent "cherishedness"? There is no way you can tell me that it is simply coincidence if you feel that way. Sounds like this person has a one track mind.
One cherishes one's children regardless of belief. Why shouldn't this extend to other things?
Humans tend to like homes in beautiful partly wooded settings, with lttle furry animals abounding, perched a little above a pleasant stream. Not becaue of spiruality, but because those are the places our instincts tell we would be most likely to survive.
And then where do instincts come from? Its here where science fails (and I'm a Christian man who thinks the whole Genesis creation story didnt even happen...science and I are good friends). When you can't tell me why something happens in the physical world it's because there is something bigger out there. Instincts are something science will never be able to fully comprehend. Logically, there has to be someone that comprehends it in the world...
Actually they come from evolution.
Or it could be because we just haven't figured out the reasons yet.
Instincts are "hard-wired" responses that exist because over millions of years of adaptation of a particular organism, those with that response survived and reproduced better than those without it.
People with genetics predisposed to liking lightly wooded areas with fuzzy animals were more likely to survive and so did. That's because those areas had fewer predators, better shelter and prey to eat. There were/are humans predisposed to explore and take risks as well, but there were less of them because they were more likely to die. That will shift a bit over the ages now that we can build shelter and ship food to live almost anywhere.
If anything, the predisposition towards green, quiet places may be part of what has led to urban sprawl. Cities are the only way to support the number of people on that planet now. To survive, we'll have to drop our love of Eden.
Just look at countless examples throughout history where something in the physical world couldn't be explained by science and was simply credited to the wonder of god(s) only to later be understood through advances in science. We might not be anywhere near understanding something now, but who knows what humanity's knowledge of the subject will be in a few hundred years.
Lack of an answer does not equal proof of god. Please study history and you will see this to be true every time something has been attributed to god.
Jake,good points but you are falling into the same trap that believers always have. If you can't explain something, it CAN ONLY BE GOD. Centuries ago, when there was an earthquake, no one could explain it, so it must be God angry at them. Then a great plague wipes out 1/2 of Europe and can't be explained, so it must be Gad again. Today no one can explain instincts, so it CAN ONLY BE caused by God. Time and time and time again, natural mysteries are explained eventually by science. I'm afraid there will always be things we don't know, but that doesn't mean we should just shrug our shoulders and say "see, it must be God!".
Of course atheists such as Diana Nyad and Chris Stedman can "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," experiencing "awe and wonder," etc. blah, blah, blah. It simply makes no sense for them to do so since literally all of it are simply accidents of random & undirected chance, chemical anomolies, and the result of many small changes over long periods of time. Remember– we're obviously NOT the only accidents in this vast universe– indicating that human life is NOT special, unique, or particularly uncommon. No "awe and wonder" to be had here.
The only reasonable and purposeful goal for all atheists is to pass on their genetic code, then wait to die once their only truly meaningful purpose has been realized.
You are trying to assign rational reasons for emotions. Emotions happen; they are not based on logic but biology and social interaction.
If I take an antidepressant to change my dysphoric mood (emotion), how can you argue against the pharmacologic or biologic affect?
I wouldn't. Not sure of your point?
Its sad to see all the people on here with limited understanding of Atheism, science,and an actually understanding of how we have evolved physically and socially trying to explain away Atheism. True arrogance and ignorance....funny how those two always go hand in hand.
It's not "random and undirected chance" – too many believers make this mistake. Magnets behave the way they do because of their physical nature, for example – not because some deity reaches in and arranges them just so. And it's not tiny changes over time – sometimes it's dramatic changes over time. You should learn more about the nature of the Universe and the many and varied processes of evolution (not just biological evolution).
Why does it not make sense for atheists to experience wonder and awe? Just because we are contingent (i.e. "accidental") creations of a physical universe, why must that preclude a great appreciation for the numinous splendor or life? It would seem to me that the atheistic worldview would make those feelings even more pointed.
No basis for awe and wonder because the belief of atheists is that we and everything else are just accident or a collection of trivial events? Why do people feel awe and wonder after seeing a man made movie? People submerge themselves into an activity that they rationally know is a charade, e.g., there is no real Iron Man or any other superheroes but the adrenaline gets pumping regardless. Knowing all the physical processes and material making up a sunset doesn’t make it any less spectacular or awe inspiring and doesn’t always lead to the notion that there has to be a god to create such beauty.
That's silly. One can certainly be "in awe" of the Grand Canyon without assigning it any religious or spiritual value – it was clearly something carved over millions of years by the (accidental, if you wish) flow of the Colorado river, not by any supernatural power. The universe is a huge place, with many spectacular sights in it, and one can be impressed (and even "awed") by those sights without having to ascribe those feelings to a belief in "something greater".
Aw, you guys hate us SO much for not believing in your story. It's so pathetic that you pretend it's all about love. Sorry, the world is filled with mystery and wonder and miracle, and it has nothing to do with your mythos. Every person carries around his or her own little universe, filled with unique thoughts and memories, and they interact by the millions so that almost anything can happen. Possibly love and friendship have some chemical basis or are the product of some coincidence of acquaintanceship, but you'd be even more laughable if you said they didn't exist. If you have to say "Duh, Gawd made that and so I am impressed" when you see a sunset, your soul is already dead. Humans wonder and marvel, and THEN we invent gods and say they painted the sunsets and piled up the mountains. No, you are free to wander around your bleak world of chemicals and physics, hoping to pass on your genes somehow, all you like, but I'll go on hanging out in the real world of intangibles and beauty and honor.
What you really seem to be asking is "How dare you be happy and not believe, while I believe and am not happy?"
There are not only two choices, i.e., atheism or theism. By definition, atheists don't believe there is a supreme being that has created the physical world from nothing and is separate from creation. Theists believe in a personal god, a supreme being, or in the case of polytheists, many supra being. Along with these two belief systems you have pantheists and panentheists. Pantheists see god as being synonymous with the universe; there is no separate Supreme Being controlling it all while panenthiest posit a divine cosmic force that interpenetrates the universe, but extends beyond it. All are belief systems that have arguments “proving” them to be true, as long as the premises the arguments are based on can be controlled or manipulated, e.g., initially making accepting God’s existence as being a given so that His existence can be proved. An example is Christians claiming the Bible is God’s holy, inspired word because it says so. The point is that people can't be neatly put into well defined boxes. Someone can be spiritual and be in awe of creation without believing in a superior, supreme being, such as a panthiest who believes God is all that is, which seems to be the point behind, "I am that am," Exodus 3:14. Instead of one being in three persons it is one being is all the persons and everything else.
Atheists don't believe in gods by definition, it doesn't have to be a supreme being (check OED, Merriam etc.). Theists, deists and traditional pantheists and panentheists would all not be atheists. Some modern materialists like to call themselfs "scientific patheists" which is a pretty silly term for people who are adamantly non-theistic and materialistic. Panentheists almost always belief in traditional god extending through and beyond the universe. A trickier group are panpsychics (panextentialists) who might use the term pantheist. They don't necessarily believe in a god in the traditional sense, but might be close enough for argument or unsure of the exact nature of the universal consciousness.
No panentheist I know believes in a "traditional" god, if by that you mean one supreme being.
No, not necessarily singular, but sentient and powerful. Not all panentheists, but the majority I think are Hindu today with most believing in gods of this sort (singular or plural). That is not to say all Hinduism is theistic or panentheistic, just that most panentheists, bu absolute number, are Hindus who believe in gods of more or less the traditional conception.
I honestly don't know very many religious Hindus. Those I do come across to me as more polytheist than panentheists. Most of the people I know that claim to be panentheists are neo-pagan of one variety or another.
Personally, I fall somewhere in the spectrum between pantheist and panentheist, probably just to the left of middle (provided pantheist is at the left).
Just shows that, as always, even when it is true that the majority of any group are X, individuals within that group can be A, N and D also.
myweightinword, I believe most Hindus are polytheistic panentheists.
That is possible, Sara. Like I said, don't know very many religious Hindus. Most that I know are more culturally Hindu, observant of certain holidays and the like, but not much beyond that.
I can only speak from personal experience.
So this is one of those situations where semantics matter:
It is not correct to say that Atheist do not believe in a God... that simply implies they have no faith and very easily confuses them with agnostics.
The more correct statement is that "Atheists believe there is no god."
Not just splitting hairs here... there is a big difference between not believing in something, and believing that something does not exist. One of those statements actually implies "belief".
Both definitions are, unfortunately, correct. See the OED:
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Most self-identified atheists are using the "lack of belief" definition and define agnosticism as relating to knowledge rather than belief. I agree this isn't a good state of affairs, but it's the semantic reality.
Sorry, I was only comparing atheists to theists. Theists can believe in multiple gods, polytheists, but due to the almost total absence of a significant representation of them, usually, perhaps a mistake, when speaking of theists one normally assumes the topic is monotheism. However, the Trinitarian Christian belief in three persons from one being could lead to them being heterodox polytheists.
Yeah, I guess it depends where you are. I agree the trinity can be interpreted that way and is, I think, in some orthodox on Mormon sects (with Mormonism being generally polytheistic anyway).
I frankly don't care what people think, I'm atheist and I don't believe in invisible sky gods. When you are dead, you are dead, that's it. I'm not hear to explain how everything else is here, it is.
Well I'm glad someone validated my point about semantics, even if it was Oprah.
I find the Judeo-Christian-Islamic co-opting of the word "God"/"Allah" to be unoriginal and crude, splashed with arrogance. It's like naming your dog Dog, and then assuming that anytime someone says "my dog did X" they are talking about your Dog. You're not scoring intellectual points, you are conflating your anthropomorphic, all-loving, prescient, all-powerful, illogical YHWH with a general definition of a god, which is nothing more than "a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes"(via google).
Classic example: "The universe had to have a creator, therefore God exists". Origin of the universe arguments aside, in order to be intellectually honest that statement has to read "The universe had to have a creator, therefore at least one god exists." Unless you have a cogent argument as to why your particular god is the only one that could have accomplished such a feat.
End rant.
Even if you insist that everything has a creator, this is not proof for an unarguable statement of fact that there must be a god or First Cause. Everything could be/have been here for eternity with no first impulse starting all of it; there is no proof there was a start all that is. The whole process is open to scientific investigation.
Exactly. Many religious people will act with disbelief if a non-believer says "the universe was always there." Believers will argue it had to be created by someone or something. But when you ask them "who created that creator?," the answer is generally along the lines of "He was always in existence."
To each his own in all things spiritual. I don't think Oprah did anything wrong..it's her show and she was voicing her opinion of what Diana Nyad was saying.
Not exactly. She basically tried to tell Nyad what it is that Nyad herself believes. Rather rude, if nothing else.
Can you imagine if she's said in an interview Hindu "Well, you say your a monotheist so I wouldn't consider you Hindu" or to a Mormon that she doesn't consider them Christian?
It's called "putting words into somebody's mouth" or "twisting the meaning of what was said".
Oprah of course has the right to her Own (pun intended) opinion, but not her own facts.
Nyad was pretty clear with what she said. No need for Oprah to twist it for sensationalist reasons.
Another interpretation of Oprah's statements may be that she did not want to alienate the millions of believers by saying "you're right, there are no gods". Better to call it "spiritual" so both sides can claim a victory. Cowardice?
If I, as an atheist, take your discussion of your Christian views, and say, "Oh, that's OK, I don't consider you Christian" – as if Christian is a bad thing to be – is it any easier for you to understand the problem here?
Oprah seems to have been trying to be nice – but in doing so, she's showing how she thinks atheist is a bad word, a negative thing to be, a lesser thing to be, and 'respecting' her guest by promoting her out of atheism.
Another example would be if someone told Oprah that she didn't seem black to her – she was as nice as any white person. It's a compliment – but a prejudiced compliment, made with the assumption that being black was lesser.
Instead of listening closely to her interview subjects, Oprah Winfrey has the unfortunate habit of instead interrupting them to make her own pronouncements.
It is Oprah's mission to proclaim the Gospel of Oprah.
I DONT have "beliefs". Beliefs KILL PEOPLE! I have "ideas". Nothing has done more to cull the human population then the hatred induced by religion for fellow humans with different "Beliefs"..... it is inherently ignorant and self serving.
The atheist argues that there is no supreme being, that the world is entirely physical...material. Yet if you ask an atheist whether he perceives certain things or acts to be "good" or "bad" he will almost certainly acknowledge that this charity or these actions are "good", or that this action is "bad." But this is illogical and hypocritical. In a purely material, physical world there can be no qualities of "good" or "bad." Therefore the atheist's position is illogical.
Wrong. Whether something is perceived as "good" or "bad" has nothing to do with the possible existence of a supreme deity.
It has EVERYTHING to do with a supreme deity! Think a little deeper here. Challenge yourself. Every time you hear of a school shooting or children being killed, you are not happy about it. You might not be visibly sad, but you acknowledge that it is not a good thing. You can say that about every culture. Every culture (at least a majority of people in every culture) believe that killing children is bad. You can't tell me that an overarching theme between cultures doesn't point to a supreme being...
Yes I can, killing children is bad because biologically it goes against a humans need to procreate and protect our lineage. Nothing to do with god here.
Jake, maybe the overarching theme is that we are humans who whose complex brains are triggered to feel remorse and pity.
You don't want to go there, because every major culture invents a different deity. More people believe in Buddha and Allah than believe in Jehovah, so according to your argument, your god is false. And aren't you really just trying to insult, goad, or hurt the feelings of people who don't follow your holy sports team, rah rah rah? We're wearing the wrong jersey and your ratty little feelings are hurt? As I said, hilarious that you like to describe yourselves as followers of a god of love.
Challenge your self Jake! Think outside the book! Move on from the fairy tales and mythology that is keeping your mind mired in the Bronze Age. Learn to appreciate what you have in the here and now, because happily ever after is only found in the here and now, there is no hereafter.
why the nonsensical psycho babble tom? "good" and "bad" are simply constructs of our society, not some supernatural proclamation.
No, that's too simple. There are certain ideas of good and evil that are the same across all societies, ethnicities, even time periods. How can you define what is good without ultimate goodness or what is evil without ultimate evil? That is because you have conscience or "soul" that is created by God.
You don't need an ultimate anything. Good and bad are constructs of our societies. For instance, I, as an atheist, feel that it is bad to blow up a school 100% of the time, as I'm sure you, as a Christian do as well. However, a terrorist, say a Muslim extremist, might view it as a good thing to blow up a school because he is attacking the 'infidel' and will be martyred.
" For instance, I, as an atheist, feel that it is bad to blow up a school 100% of the time, as I'm sure you, as a Christian do as well."
In the South, Christians blew up a Christian church in order to kill black children. Other Christians declined to try them for doing God's will, so don't tell me Christians have any problem blowing up a school. I'm sure there's a Bible verse that allows it.
The ideas of good and bad are perceptions of event or feelings. They are taught to us as children and continue to be influenced by society as adults. They vary not just among nations, religions, cultures and subcultures but also individuals. You would know this if you had a basic understanding of social contrasts and patterns of behavior. Codes of conduct and social behavior are older than your religion and any mention of your god known to man.
You got nthat wrong. I'm an atheist, but I don't accept that there are abstract concepts of good and evil. Those are religious inventions. Eathquakes aren't good or evil, no matter what the results turn out to be.
I do believe that that there are sometimes people who deliberately do things we consider bad as a society, and conversely well meaning people who fo things we consider good. But different people judge the outcomes and actions differently.
Then I don't think you know what the word "atheist" means. Morality doesn't have to come from a higher being. It comes from understanding things like joy, sorrow, love and seeing the correlation that our actions have with these emotions. I don't have to believe in a god to believe that killing is wrong.
Why is there no good or bad in a material world? If you are going to make that claim, you will need to support it. A materialist or physicalist doesn't need to deny meaning to words that describe emergent properties of things. Good and bad are no less meaningful to a materialist than cold or blue.
Tom, you are wrong about that. Something can qualify as good or bad in a material world by virtue of whether it works or not (pragmatically speaking). If murder undermines a peaceful society, then we can call murder bad. Same goes with stealing, cheating, etc. Likewise, if love builds a peaceful society, then we can call love good. All of this can be done without aid of an immaterial world.
Just because you say that God is what makes up good and evil doesn't make your argument logical... If anything, you are reinforcing the stereotype that a person without God is a person without morals (which I have still yet to see the proof). Which in itself is not only narrow-minded but straight out wrong. Because a book, written by Man, tells you so? This is why you cannot bring up atheism in public because you get people who try to demonize by using terms like "illogical" when they don't even know how to present logic, let alone argue it.
Okay lets break this down. What i am reading from you Tom is that some how the concept of Good and Bad is tied to Religion or the acknowledgement of a Creator. This would mean that all mens versions of good and bad are the same wouldnt it? For instance a Christian can eat pork and it is good but if a Jew eats pork it is bad? Same god, similar scriptures yet a different version of good and bad. Doesn't this leave room for the individuals perception of what is good and bad?
How can it be that since an Atheist who by most religions is already a sinner (bad) can still do (good) in the world. Like feeding the hungry, fighting fires, rescuing kittens from tree's etc....Why does any of his/hers/yours or my actions have to be tied to an invisible diety to be understood?
The sunrise is good right? Does god make the sun rise or is it the rotation of the earth as it travels around the sun? I m really having troulbes with YOUR logic.
"The atheist argues that there is no supreme being, that the world is entirely physical...material."
No, the atheist doesn't believe in gods. There is no "atheist" position on whether or not the earth is material. Atheists can be idealists, dualists, materialists or neutral monists. Atheism is just about gods like a-unicornism is aboutunicorns.
I was working in my garage yesterday and hit my finger with a hammer. It hurt. I didn't like the pain and considered it bad. when the pain subsided, I considered that bad. I then extrapolate that to everything. If someone hurts someone else (physically or mentally) I call that bad. If someone alleviates pain (physical or mental) I call that good.
No god needed to determine if something is good or bad.
He'd say Gawd hit you with that hammer in order to save you from chopping off your hand with an ax, like you would certainly have done without Gawd saving you. So pray loud and give money! All part of Gawd's Plan.
You have made a common mistake. You used the reference of "good" and "bad". You are equating to bad to evil. There is a difference.
The ideas of "good" and "bad" are based in societal mores, not in belief in a deity.
This is why so many of our ideas of what is "good" and what is "bad" are similar around the world, even in cultures far different from our own, and also why so many of them are different. This is why the notion of what is "good" and what is "bad" changes over time.
Tom, are you trying to make an intelligent point? Fail.
He's inventing philosophy on the spot with no idea that it already exists. Fascinating. Like watching a hog try to swim.
You say this Tom but then you ignore the issues with your philosophy of inherent goodness or badness of actions.
Was killing Hitler "Bad?" Or for the less weighted question, is shooting the man who is attacking your neighbor "bad"?
Actions are just actions, good and bad are society's judgments of those actions.
Evil is when you know an action is perceived to be bad, and choose to do it anyway because it benefits you to do so.
Goodness is when you know an action is perceived to bad, so you choose to not do it even though it would benefit you.
Tom, you are really going to hate college. The philosophy classes will blow your mind. You actually think no one has ever thought about these 'enduring questions' before you came along? Google "Sartre" and then "Christian Existentialism." That ought to answer half your questions.
As an atheist I like to say that I don't have morals. I have ethics.
Ethics are logical contstructs, based on the harm an action can cause others. Morals can mean anything, from disowning a gay son to killing someone with a different belief system. The problem with religion is that it provides many people with a moral "get out of jail free" card. If they think that performing some action is God's will, then they can justify doing it. Even if to an outsider the action would be considered horrific.