 |
|
|
|
|
June 10th, 2014
02:40 PM ET
Meet the atheist ... who believes in GodOpinion by Frank Schaeffer, special to CNN
They are meaningless because participants lack the objectivity to admit that our beliefs have less to do with facts than with our personal needs and cultural backgrounds. The words we use to label ourselves are just as empty. What exactly is a “believer?” And for that matter what is an “atheist?” Who is the objective observer to define these terms? Maybe we need a new category other than theism, atheism or agnosticism that takes paradox and unknowing into account. Take me, I am an atheist who believes in God. Let me explain. I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood. I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator. It seems to me that there is an offstage and an onstage quality to my existence. I live onstage, but I sense another crew working offstage. Sometimes I hear their voices “singing” in a way that’s as eerily beautiful as the offstage chorus in an opera. My youngest grandchildren Lucy (5) and Jack (3) are still comfortable with this paradoxical way of seeing reality. Most grownups don’t have the transparent humility to deal with the fact that unknowing is OK. But Lucy and Jack seem to accept that something may never have happened but can still be true. For instance they take Bible stories we read at face value, and yet I see a flicker in their eyes that tells me that they already know the stories are not true in the same way boiling water is true and can be tested—it’s hot! It's like that mind-bending discovery from quantum mechanics that tiny objects like electrons can actually be in two places at once and act simultaneously like a particle and a wave. Maybe my grandchildren will embrace quantum theory, and won't look for ways to make the irrational rational by hiding behind words like “mystery” in order to sustain their faith in science or God. Or maybe they'll embrace apophatic theology, the theology of not knowing. Atheists in the Bible Belt: A survival guide But it's not the easiest thing to do. Our brains are not highly evolved enough to reconcile our hunger for both absolute certainty and transcendent, inexplicable experiences. Nor can I reconcile these ideas: “I know that the only thing that exists is this material universe,” and “I know that my redeemer liveth.” Depending on the day you ask me, both statements seem true. And I don't think I'm alone in that. Behold, the six types of atheists We’re all in the closet, so to speak. We barely come out to ourselves and never completely to others. I have met people who claim a label - evangelical or atheist - until you really get to know them. Then, things get more complicated. Many of us, even the devout, have many more questions than answers about God and religion. In other words, people just like me: atheists who pray and eloquent preachers who secretly harbor doubts. I believe that we’re all of at least two minds. We play a role and define that role as “me” because labels and membership in a tribe make the world feel a little safer. When I was raising my children, I pretended to be grownup daddy. But alone with my thoughts, I was still just me. I’m older now, and some younger people may think I know something. I do: I know how much I can never know. Many Muslims, Jews, Hindus and Christians inherited their faith because of where they were born. If you are an atheist, you hold those beliefs because of a book or two you read, or who your parents were and the century in which you were born. Don’t delude yourself: There are no ultimate reasons for anything, just circumstances. If you want to be sure you have "the truth" about yourself and our universe, then prepare to go mad. Or prepare to turn off your brain and cling to some form or other of fundamentalism, whether religious or secular. You will always be more than one person. You will always embody contradiction. You—like some sort of quantum mechanicals physics experiment—will always be in two places at once. Frank Schaeffer is a writer. His latest book is "Why I am an Atheist Who Believes in God: How to give love, create beauty and find peace." The views expressed in this column belong to Schaeffer.
« Previous entrySister Act: Singing nun wins 'The Voice' in Italy
|
  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.  |
|
|
|
(CNN) - All the public debates between celebrity atheists and evangelical pastors are as meaningless as literary awards and Oscar night.
kudlak
Hope you don't mind me reposting this here ... I'm tired of scrolling.
New evidence coming from more accurate indicators result in better estimations of the Earth's age."
I agree with this. The problems, though, include MOST indicators point to a young earth. And even the ones that point to an old earth are suspect at best. You have at least one method that REQUIRES evolution to be true to get a date. You have another that has been proven NOT to work when we KNOW the age, but I'm supposed to believe it does work when we don't.
"The creationist side use to stick to the 6000 year calculation based on ages of people recorded in the Bible until certain trees have been demonstrated to be over 10,000 years old by counting their growth rings."
Except there's the problem of trees growing more than one ring a year depending on the weather.
"Now we even have young earth creationists and old earth creationists, not because of anything they discovered (they do no science after all), "
Completely ridiculous and a logical fallacy.
"The problems, though, include MOST indicators point to a young earth."
What are you talking about? Where do you get your information? You realize that no legitimate scientists believe the "young earth" fable from the bible, right?
SeaVik
"What are you talking about? Where do you get your information?"
It's called Google. Do some research.
"You realize that no legitimate scientists believe the "young earth" fable from the bible, right?"
"No legitimate scientists" is a logical fallacy. AND the number of people who believe something has no bearing on its truth.
My brother works at NASA. I am an Engineer. I can say with authority that no legitimate scientists support your views. As I already asked, where do you get your information? What are your credentials?
I'm not going to comment on your logical fallacies ... other than this. (smiley.)
It's incredibly juvenile for your to ignore the findings of thousands of scientists who are more educated than you simply because they have proven your view to be wrong. If you want to ignore reality, that's your pathetic choice. But don't act like believing in a young earth is in any way a legitimate position based on known information. It, like everything in your world, requires faith, aka ignoring reality.
SeaVik
"It's incredibly juvenile for your to ignore the findings of thousands of scientists who are more educated than you simply because they have proven your view to be wrong."
They haven't proven my view to be wrong. So ... Besides, again, the popularity of a thing doesn't have any bearing on its truth.
"But don't act like believing in a young earth is in any way a legitimate position based on known information."
We both have the same information. We just have different presuppositions that determines what we conclude about that information.
"It, like everything in your world, requires faith, aka ignoring reality."
Nope.
"Besides, again, the popularity of a thing doesn't have any bearing on its truth."
True. The fact that Christianity is more popular than atheism doesn't make it true. However, the fact that experts on the matter have concluded that the earth is billions of years old does make it completely idiotic for religious people who have no credentials to weigh in on the matter think they can make a claim one way or the other. It's funny when your points work against you.
Topher: "though, include MOST indicators point to a young earth."
SeaVik: "What are you talking about? Where do you get your information?"
Topher: "It's called Google. Do some research."
Oh my – I've heard of nanny filters before, but now they must have some kind of young-earth creationist apologist filter thingy that only lets you browse young-earth creationist sites...
noahsdadtopher, you wrote "The problems, though, include MOST indicators point to a young earth. And even the ones that point to an old earth are suspect at best. You have at least one method that REQUIRES evolution to be true to get a date. You have another that has been proven NOT to work when we KNOW the age, but I'm supposed to believe it does work when we don't." That's incredibly va_gue. What indicators are you talking about? Which ones are suspect? What has been proven not to work?
Dating methods that show the Earth to be billions of years old:
Radiometric dating methods:
lead-lead (Pb-Pb)
uranimum-lead (U-Pb)
rubidium-strontium (Rb-Sr)
samarium-neodymium (Sm-Nd)
argon-argon (ar-ar)
The above radiometric dating methods when applied to rock formations in Greenland have yielded ages of 2.52 to 3.81 billion years, depending on the particular rock units that were dated. E.g., see table 5.3 page 91 of "Ancient Earth, Ancient Skies: The Age of Earth and Its Cosmic Surroundings" by G. Brent Dalrymple, from Stanford University Press (c) 2004. The author is an American geologist and National Medal of Science winner.
Rock formations have also been dated to be billions of years old in other parts of the world as well, of course, using those same radiometric dating methods. E.g. See table 5.1 on page 85 of the same reference. Or just pick up an introductory geology textbook.
In regards to dendrochronology you wrote, "Except there's the problem of trees growing more than one ring a year depending on the weather." Yes, but that is rare for bristlecone and ponderosa pines and douglas firs and dendrochronologists can detect the presence of double rings in those trees. Missing rings yielding an age that is too young is more of a problem, e.g., a bristlecone pine can have up to 5 percent of its rings missing. The oldest non-clonal trees are bristlecone pine trees from California and Nevada in the U.S. Also dendrochronology matches fairly well with carbon-14 dating of trees. Of course, no one estimates the age of the Earth from trees, as the oldest living non-clonal tree is The Hatch Tree, a Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) in the White Mountains of California, which is 5,063 years old.
A clonal colony, such as quaking aspen trees can live much longer, however. Pando, aka "The Trembling Giant", is a clonal colony of a single male quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) in the Fishlake National Forest in Utah in the U.S. The clonal colony is spread over 106 acres. It is estimated to be at least 80,000 years of age, but its age can not be precisely determined as can the age of trees that have annual growth rings. Other living organisms indicating the Earth is far more than a few thousands of years old include Posidonia oceanica, a species of seagrass found in the Mediterranean Sea. Specimens of that species may be up to 100,000 years of age, e.g., see the 2012 article "Portuguese scientists discover world’s oldest living organism" at theportugalnews.com/news/view/1152-20 or see the February 2012 paper, "Implications of Extreme Life Span in Clonal Organisms: Millenary Clones in Meadows of the Threatened Seagrass Posidonia oceanica" on which the news article was based, which is available online at the PLOS ONE website at plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030454. PLOS ONE is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal published by the Public Library of Science since 2006. The authors of the paper note "In this study, we found evidence supporting the occurrence of extremely large clones (up to 15 km) and life spans of thousands to tens of thousands of years."
A list of other ancient, but still living, clonal organisms can be found in the "Clonal plant colonies" section of the Wikipedia article ti_tled "List of longest-living organisms".
You also wrote, "Besides, again, the popularity of a thing doesn't have any bearing on its truth." True, but if someone has no background in geology, biology, genetics, etc., but would still wish to have some method of assessing the validity of your pronouncements on science, evolution, and the age of the earth without taking classes or reading textbooks in those subjects, that person can simply ask himself or herself, "Is noahsdadtopher likely more knowledgeable on these subjects than the overwhelming majority of scientists working in those fields with advanced degrees in those subject areas?"
E.g., in regards to scientific support for evolution and rejection of creationism and the young earth dogma, in 1986, 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, signed an amicus curiae brief asking the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism, which the brief described as embodying religious dogma.
Topher, I have to say, I am an American and people like you are absolutely infuriating. You are the people who are ruining our country and our planet. You bury your head in the sand and deny reality. Our founders built our country with lots of checks and balances which is good because it prevents extremes, but the down side of that is that if there are enough crazy people like you, it's hard to make real progress. If we continue to have a significant number of people who share your naive views and mindset this will very likely result in our country losing it's position in the world economically and morally (already started in my opinion thanks to religion).
Which progress am I supposedly holding up?
The list is endless. By far the most important thing is that you support mental abuse of children. Brain washing children produces adults like you who believe that it's ok to ignore reality on the basis of "faith". That is precisely the type of thinking that produced 9/11.
@noahsdadtopher,
"...MOST indicators point to a young earth."
You are incorrect. There are no "indicators" that point to a young (>10k) Earth. Please cite your source for this claim.
Generally, I try to avoid mocking others' beliefs. But this is just laughable. Do some research.
I agree it IS laughable that anyone would make such a ridiculous claim without any support whatsoever.
Here's some research:
"Ancient rocks exceeding 3.5 billion years in age are found on all of Earth's continents. The oldest rocks on Earth found so far are the Acasta Gneisses in northwestern Canada near Great Slave Lake (4.03 Ga)..."
(http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html)
"The resulting knowledge has led to the current understanding that the earth is 4.55 billion years old."
(http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-figured-out-the-age-of-the-earth/)
"The age of the Earth is 4.54 billion years (Ga or Gyr), a number which geologists have determined by several independent methods." (http://ncse.com/evolution/science/how-old-is-earth, with references)
Yet again, you make a claim with zero support. YOU do some research. I can google anything I want and find some idiot that shares my same view. Luckily, with science, you can't do that. Real scientists don't agree with you. The fact that you think they do is laughable.
"Generally, I try to avoid mocking others' beliefs. But this is just laughable. Do some research."
And WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT BELIEFS HERE!!! It is known FACT that the earth is billions of years old. You are the one ignoring FACT. You think you are actually in a position to MOCK someone other than you? I'm sorry, but this is just so sad that we have people like you in the world. Grow a f'in brain.
noahsnoahsdadtoper, when asked for evidence to support your assertions, you responded to SeaVik and MidwestKen with "do some research". I'd suggest that anyone wishing to assess the validity of your claims need only ask himself or herself, "What is the credibility of the evidence presented by noahsdadtopher? Does he even present any evidence supporting his assertions?" The answer is, instead of presenting evidence in support of his claims, he demands others look for evidence supporting his claims.
Is the Earth flat or an oblate spheroid? One could "research" the matter at the Flat Earth Society's website at flatearthsociety.org. The "Our History" page on the site notes "The modern age of the Flat Earth Society dates back to the early 1800s, when it was founded by Samuel Birley Rowbotham, an English inventor. Samuel Rowbotham's Flat Earth views were based largely on literal interpretation of Bible passages. His system, called Zetetic Astronomy, held that the earth is a flat disk centered at the North Pole and bounded along its 'southern' edge by a wall of ice, with the sun, moon, planets, and stars only a few hundred miles above the surface of the earth. After Rowbotham's death in 1884, followers of his Zetetic Astronomy founded the Universal Zetetic Society." There is a "Flat Earth Library" with book references on the site. If someone researches the answer to the question "Is the Earth flat or an oblate spheroid?", only through perusal of that site, perhaps he or she might conclude that the earth is flat.
If your research consists only of perusal of creationist websites, e.g. Answers in Genesis, Discovery Insti_tute, etc., you will get a very distorted view of science, one quite different than what you would get by taking science classes, reading scientific journals, or visiting websites, such as the U.S. Geological Survey website suggested by MidWestKen, that are maintained by scientific organizations.
"The answer is, instead of presenting evidence in support of his claims, he demands others look for evidence supporting his claims. "
That's it in a nutshell...
topher
You have my attention. The science behind global warming is solid yet everything we hear (man caused, Carbon caused, etc) is wrong yet few scientists step up to "clear the air". This behavior in the scientific community makes me doubt evolution but not the science behind it.
I'm curious to hear your credentials to confirm that you're in a position to claim that the overwhelming majority of climatology scientists are wrong. You must have some degree MUCH higher than a PhD and 100s of years of experience to make such a claim. Sorry, but seems unlikely you do...
Scientists deliver the results about climate change.
Lobbyists lie about them.
The solution is clear; clean it up. It shouldn't take the scientists telling people to "clean the air."; that's patently obvious.
How bloody absurd.
"everything we hear (man caused, Carbon caused, etc) is wrong"
------------------
Hogwash.
Do a simple thought experiment. Imagine a coal fired power plant. Behind the power plant is a small mountain of coal == Carbon. The power station will consume that mountain of coal (1000s of tons) in a regular period of time, say a week or a few days before the next trainload delivers a new stockpile.
For every 1 kg of Carbon incinerated in modern power station almost 3.7 kg of CO2 will be created in the atmosphere that wasn't there before. This is simple chemistry. Virtually all the carbon is consumed in the oxidization process we call fire. There is very little ash (with "clean" coal). It all becomes CO2. With no increase in vegetation it stays as atmospheric CO2.
Those 1000s of tons of coal become almost four times the 1000s of tons of CO2. It's invisible so people can't imagine all those 1000s of tons of coal floating around in the air but they are there. Now multiply this by every coal-fired power station on earth running night and day and the staggering volume of CO2 produced starts to be something you can understand can impact the earth on a planetary scale.
Wikipedia:
In 2007, the Powder River Basin alone produced 436 million short tons (396 million tonnes) of coal.
---------------
Most of this was turned into CO2. 1.6 billion tons worth.
Total annual greenhouse gas emissions are 5.4 billion tonnes (metric tons).
Every year, year over year this makes a meaningful change in the CO2 in the atmosphere.
Global greenhouse gas emission for 2013 was 39.6 billion tons.
In May 2014 we reached 401.88 ppm of CO2. We were below the 400 ppm threshold in May 2013.
5.4 billion was the US emissions.
39.6 billion was the global emissions.
Problem is there's no science behind evolution. Science rejects it. Evolution is a religion. There's zero evidence of a change in kinds. Genetics says it's impossible. It's not testable nor repeatable (the scientific method.) Evolutionists will often claim it's demonstrated in labs every day, but what they will tell you is fruit flies evolved into fruit flies; e coli evolved into e coli; stickleback fish evolved into stickleback fish. None of which meets the standard of Darwinian evolution. What they have is natural selection.
Topher, AGAIN, how do you say there's no science behind evolution when scientists who are much more qualified than you consider evolution to be obvious? You are in denial and offer zero evidence to refute evolution.
I think I just did a pretty good job of refuting it. It doesn't meet the scientific standard. There's no evidence for it (a fish becoming a fish is not Darwinian evolution) and genetics says it's impossible.
You think you just did a pretty good job of refuting it? I don't. Considering scientists don't agree with you, why should I listen to your illogical position over the scientific consensus? Why do you think you're in a position to refute people much more qualified than you on the subject?
SeaVik
"You think you just did a pretty good job of refuting it? I don't."
That's fine.
"Considering scientists don't agree with you, why should I listen to your illogical position over the scientific consensus?"
One, that's a logical fallacy. Two, there's plenty of unbelieving scientists who reject evolution. Three, there's plenty of Christian scientists that reject evolution. Four, you can reject it if you want to; it doesn't really mean a thing. But don't you think it's a bit bizarre that "scientists" are so staunchly in support of something they can't prove and which doesn't meet the scientific standard? Sounds like a presupposition to me.
“Problem is there's no science behind evolution.”
Wrong. The theory of evolution is a direct result of science.
“Science rejects it.”
Huh? No, I have never heard of a real scientist rejecting the theory of evolution. What legitimate scientists do you think reject evolution?
“Evolution is a religion.”
Apparently you don’t know what a religion is. Evolution is a scientific theory. Religions are cults that believe in things for which there is no evidence. Big difference.
“There's zero evidence of a change in kinds.”
What are you talking about? There is endless evidence showing the evolution of man species. Read a book.
“It's not testable nor repeatable (the scientific method.)”
Well, it takes time (sort of the point, given the earth is billions of years old), but it is directly OBSERVABLE, as opposed to religious theories.
Topher, please provide something that resembles a decent point if you’re going to continue denying facts.
"One, that's a logical fallacy. Two, there's plenty of unbelieving scientists who reject evolution. Three, there's plenty of Christian scientists that reject evolution. Four, you can reject it if you want to; it doesn't really mean a thing. But don't you think it's a bit bizarre that "scientists" are so staunchly in support of something they can't prove and which doesn't meet the scientific standard? Sounds like a presupposition to me.
1) No it isn't.
2) Sure, a tiny majority that aren't considered scientists by anyone who actually has a clue.
3) You are just repeating your point #2 – still not valid.
4) You're right – me rejecting it doesn't mean a thing because I haven't studied it to the extreme as the world renowned scientists who have. Fact is, evolution is about as sure as gravity. There are nuances to evolution that we are still figuring out, just like there are nuances of gravity that we are still figuring out. What is certain beyond any doubt is that the world is billions of years old and evolved.
SeaVik
"Wrong. The theory of evolution is a direct result of science."
Which science is that?
"Huh? No, I have never heard of a real scientist rejecting the theory of evolution. What legitimate scientists do you think reject evolution?"
What do you want, names? Google.
"Apparently you don’t know what a religion is. Evolution is a scientific theory. Religions are cults that believe in things for which there is no evidence. Big difference."
So ... where's the evidence for evolution? By your own definition it's a religion.
"What are you talking about? There is endless evidence showing the evolution of man species. Read a book."
Uh, no. Please tell me where there's evidence of man having come from something not a man or man becoming something not a man.
“It's not testable nor repeatable (the scientific method.)”
"Well, it takes time (sort of the point, given the earth is billions of years old), but it is directly OBSERVABLE, as opposed to religious theories."
Right. It supposedly takes billions of years. How is that testable and repeatable? And where is it observable? What have we observed that started out as one creature and after time became a completely different creature? Note fish "evolving" into fish is natural selection, not evolution.
SeaVik
"Fact is, evolution is about as sure as gravity."
No. Gravity is testable and repeatable. It's scientific.
guy named his kid noah, so believes someone built an ark to fit all living things on to survive a huge flood, can't talk sense to someone like him:) people are brainwashed and so is he, hard to fight and question all that your parents and society has taught to you, with media and the internet we will slowly see religion disappear, as more people come to realize that there is more to this world and many differences in it, not just what a small town preacher tells them every week
Topher, do you feel the earth must be young because that way it doesn't contradict the Bible?
Sorry ... I've been away from the computer. But to answer your question, no. The Bible doesn't give an exact age of the earth. But it does say that the earth is young. We get the date from genealogies and known dates. I grew up believing in billions of years and the like. Until I actually read up on it. Reading a couple books on it now. There's tons of books on the subject. Websites. Published articles. Films. LOTS of stuff. If you (or anyone) doesn't want to believe it, I'm fine with that. My problem is the lies that "there are no true scientists" who hold to a young earth, that there's no evidence for it and that there's nothing published on the subject. When someone claims this they lose all credibility.
Hope you are doing well, by the way.
I'm doing swell, thanks for asking. I hope you and your family are, also.
Topher, either give some evidence to support your insane position or stop being a Mike Huckabee-esque idiot.
What a load of nonsense. All the dating methods generally agree. Ice cores, dendritic (tree rings) volcanic layers, ALL the many radiometric dating systems give a generally agreed date range. NOT ONE point to a "young earth". Not one. If there is, tell us what it is. The probability that ALL the dating systems are ALL wrong, yet wrong in the SAME way, and produce the SAME *wrong* result is ZERO. "Young Earth" nonsense is nothing but utter ignorance of science.
bucky
radiometric dating isn't used to date the earth so quit saying it does. try to be more rational in your assertions.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Scot....a simple check on google (something you religiously biased tend not to do) says radiometric dating is used to calculate the earths age.
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html
"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material"
– somehow meteorites are used as confirming evidence the earth is 4.54 billion yrs old because evidence on earth cannot be confirmed independently, so let's move to 'indisputable' circular reasoning and say well if this meteorite is 4.54 billion years old then the earth must also be 4.54 billion years old, since the machine's measurements match. they couldn't both be much younger samples since our calculations and measurements are flawless. oh yeah, because scientists are never wrong..
' they are aggregates of minerals of possibly different ages.' -the rationale of why dating cannot be precise
– but we'll go ahead and give the earth an age of 4.54 billion years ago give or take 2-100 million years anyway even tho we cannot isolate the supposedly oldest material
awanderingscot
radiometric dating isn't used to date the earth so quit saying it does.
It is used.
Hey scot that bright shinny stuff eh ?
Where does all Earth's gold come from? Precious metals the result of meteorite bombardment, rock analysis finds
Date:
September 9, 2011
Source:
University of Bristol
Summary:
Ultra high precision analyses of some of the oldest rock samples on Earth provides clear evidence that the planet's accessible reserves of precious metals are the result of a bombardment of meteorites more than 200 million years after Earth was formed.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110907132044.htm
Akira
do you know what a radioactive half-life is? if so then please tell me.
'science'
please tell me how the composition of rocks or metal gives the age of that material if you are able. explain that.
awanderingscot
radiometric dating isn't used to date the earth so quit saying it does
try to be more rational in your assertions.
This is the post I am referring to. You stated this in error. It is used.
I am making no claims as to whether it is correct or not; I am just refuting your claim that it isn't used; it is.
Hey scot might help you – it is for kids ! Also look up chondrite ? – the most common type of what scot ?
Isotope
http://www.chem4kids.com/files/atom_isotopes.html
Dala....you seem like an intelligent person. I am not arguing at all. I get offended when somebody tells me we did not land on the moon because they read it somewhere. No proof, they just believe it and say it as fact without backing it up. That is exactly what you continue to profess.
Here is a situation where people who know a little bit about many topics believe their opinion carries the same weight as those who know a great deal about a specific topic. It doesn't.
There are still people who dedicate years and even decades doing the hard work of science in very narrow fields to come up with evidence backed by experimentally confirmed data. Their findings can be verified or dismissed through peer review...by others who also do the hard work. A Google search that turns up contrary information is invariably not backed by the same rigorous methodology. I'm still waiting for anti-evolution 'scientists' to claim their Nobel Prize...don't hold your breath, it ain't gonna happen.
A Nobel prize for Ken Ham. That would be rich!
"But they know enough knowledge to know that their alleged but never proven gods cannot be detected by knowledge."
– i especially like the ending "..cannot be detected by knowledge". you are so correct in that He cannot be detected by YOUR knowledge, mainly because YOUR knowledge is extremely limited.
"There are still people who dedicate years and even decades doing the hard work of science in very narrow fields to come up with evidence backed by experimentally confirmed data."
wow! what was i even thinking? of course all knowledge belongs to atheists! evidently everyone who doesn't believe like they do possesses no knowledge at all. well i guess the party is over and all the believers should not ever try to win a Nobel prize. we'll just cook burgers at fast food joints and clean toilets while the 'smart' people continue with "the hard work of science".
What is the name of your Nobel-winning friend? Apologies if I missed his name.
That's not what I meant an you know it. Specialized fields of knowledge are best presented (or refuted) by experts in that particular field. Laypeople don't have the credibility or background to offer opinions of equal value.
It's like Jenny McCarthy spouting anti-vaccine drivel scaring folks into believing that getting the MMR shot causes autism in children. A woman with no medical or biochemical education making dangerous claims about something she knows practically nothing about. Claims that have been demonstrated to be wrong by the people who do have the medical training and expertise.
The rules are simple. Want to be taken seriously? Then do the hard work and produce the verifiable evidence to back up your claims. Opinions ain't worth spit without facts to back them up.
"we'll just cook burgers at fast food joints and clean toilets while the 'smart' people continue with "the hard work of science">
That might be best for all concerned if you did scot, but I certainly would be wary that cleaning toilets and flipping burgers might confuse you, so I'm pretty sure I don't want any food you've been near...maybe stocking shelves at night or maybe a bridge token taker might be better for you..
From Mr. Schaeffer:
A. "I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood."
B. "I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator."
I find it strange that a person can really believe A, but then conclude B without realizing that feelings of spirituality, love, and trust can come directly from A and not from a creator. I'm not saying such a person can't exist, or that a creator is impossible. I'm saying if you really believe A, then feelings of spirituality, love, and trust can come directly from A. Once you have those feelings plus empathy and imagination, those feelings can easily get projected to fictional characters (I admire Hans Solo). It seems more likely that Mr. Schaeffer gets the rationality of A but has weak conviction on it, something less than belief but short of disbelief. Mr. Schaeffer may be an Evolution Agnostic and a beliver in God.
I think Mr. Schaeffer is a deeply cynical man trying to make money by writing utterly false nonsense, while knowing it will sell because it's about religion.
Schaeffer is like many theists with questions about their faith. His biggest problem is his inability to accept that there may not be a god at all. All of his rambling above seems to be a poor attempt at reconciling the flaws with religion with the ingrained idea that god must exist.
As soon as he figures out what atheist actually means, he may be able to clearly see why his reasoning is failing.
If there were something to understand, I would try to understand it. No one has ever presented anything plausible that would cause me to try to understand further. "Ok, first, a guy in the sky made the universe in 6 days." Ok, I understand everything I need to know about THAT version of a god, ie, it's a blatant fantasy. What more do I need to know?
Why do you dismiss it as a fantasy?
The logical implications of that story are ridicules;
If there were only 1 god, there would be only one religion.
If we all came from 2 people, there would be only one race.
The bible is flawed and open to interpretation, therefore not the work of a god.
Alias
"If there were only 1 god, there would be only one religion."
Not sure I understand this point. Humans are all very sinful people. Of course they make up things, reject God, create a god they are more comfortable with, etc.
"If we all came from 2 people, there would be only one race."
Biblically, there IS only one race.
Basicly we are all humans. However, DNA disproves Adam and Eve.
Every ancient civilization made up gods. The jews and christians are no different.
And nice way to omit the comments about the bible. If the bible were even close to being perfect there would not be so many different interpretations.
Alias
"Basicly we are all humans. However, DNA disproves Adam and Eve."
How so? I'd say DNA supports God. DNA is information. Information doesn't happen without an intelligent mind. If you were walking along and saw on the ground three leaves lying in a perfect line end-to-end, you'd know SOMEONE aligned them that way. Or if you were walking on the beach and saw Micheal Loves Annie with a heart drawn around it, you'd KNOW it didn't happen naturally.
"Every ancient civilization made up gods. The jews and christians are no different."
True. Because of sin. But that doesn't mean you get to disregard the original claims. You have to prove them false first.
"And nice way to omit the comments about the bible. If the bible were even close to being perfect there would not be so many different interpretations."
The Bible was perfect in its original form. But there are things like spelling errors, translation errors and copy errors. The thing is, though, that we know about those things and are all meaningless to the message of the text. And again, you have sinful people trying to create interpretations that fit modern society or fit with what makes them comfortable. That's a bad precedent.
...that even from a carnal perspective your understanding of God [Elohim] and creation is severely limited and as such clouds your discernment.
"In the beginning, Adam was created in the image of God and lived in a dimension in which every herb and tree was for meat and it was "very good". There were no limitations of time – everything was in the now of spirit and not limited.
Then Adam became enamored of his own beauty and began to consider choices outside of a oneness with God. God gave him a will (soul) and placed him in a garden of choices. While Adam could have created in God's realm with the feminine Wisdom, he was also given a choice of a lower realm of the good and evil of his own vain imaginations. Turning his back on the pure virgin of Wisdom, he began to pursue his own conceptions and turn toward a lower realm frozen in the limitations of time. He walked away from the very presence of God and became alone as he followed the vain imaginations of his own mind.
Seeing that Adam had walked away, the Lord God said "It is not good for man to be alone, I will make him an help meet for him."
So Adam was placed in the deep sleep of the limitations of time and that which he lusted after in his mind became reality. So Adam (as he himself said) had received "flesh of my flesh".
Adam did not want to be a co-creator with God in the name of God- he wanted to created his own flesh in his own name. Then God said, that for this cause, Adam had left his mother and father (the very Elohim of the El Shaddai and Yahweh of the Godhead) and entered into the "one flesh" of an earthly, fleshly marriage. Nevertheless, God warned that this relationship not be put asunder by adultery.
At first, as children before puberty, they were not ashamed – until the reality of their condition became manifest and they were ashamed and naked – even attempting to cover up with fig leaves. However, do you think that Adam was really surprised or even deceived about this – he go what he desired (1Tim 2:14)? The woman did what he had already imagined her to do in his previous imaginations. She became fair game for the serpent mind that had already influenced Adam.
This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish. For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.
Fr:DayspringfromonHigh
his primary statement is a very non-sensical illogical paradox. from what i can read, he does NOT believe in God, at least a definitive God of sorts. which places him into the very ordinary category of humanist. nothing really special about that/him after all now is there? no substance to your argument mr. schaeffer, try again.
We should work harder to resist conflating science and atheism. People who believe in God should be able to apply the scientific method and understand it's products as well as atheists. This is convincingly demonstrated by Deists, as well as many Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. The conflict comes in for certain sects of religions where the literal interpretation of sacred texts is taught. Those sacred texts, read literally, are in conflict with established science.
All science does is apply an investigative method that corrects for weaknesses in human nature and capabilities to establish models of the physical world that predict that world as well as possible.
Just recently scientists released amazing data of the polarization of the Cosmic Background Radiation that could be the fingerprint of Cosmic Inflation and Gravity Waves. Already, other scientists are criticizing the methodology, the fanfare, and the results. Some of these criticisms are very pointed, some might say rude. In another case this week, a study critiques three recent papers by different international teams, all of which concluded that satellite galaxies of the Milky Way support the standard model of galaxy formation. The critique by Merritt and his colleagues found "serious issues" with all three studies. "When you have a clear contradiction like this, you ought to focus on it," Merritt said. "This is how progress in science is made." When scientists find things in conflict with what most scientists believe, they challenge it and sometimes make new science. I.e. they learn.
This is the genius of the scientific method. Rather than let human weaknesses infect our knowledge base, you use it to root out biases and errors. It isn't perfect, but it is the best approach ever devised. Belief in God is not in conflict with this. Literal belief in ancient texts is. So science and the scientific method is not the property of atheists. I wish everyone would apply it - It works!
Religious dogma cannot be questioned.
Scientific hypotheses are made to be questioned.
Religious dogma can be questioned. I see it happen often.
Ever seen anyone question evolution on here? A lynch mob quickly forms.
dog·ma
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
– Merriam Webster
dogma
A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true:
– Oxford Dictionary
I guess my religion has no dogma. Lucky me.
I'm guessing you're not a Catholic then, eh?
Nope.
I'm not Catholic.
Those who reject all but naturalistic causation for existence itself (true atheists) are in denial as to the dogma at the foundation of their belief.
Fred,
Just like people wh don't collect stamps all agree on how stamp collections need to be organized.
Alias
Not really, naturalism is the core of the world view of atheists. Just as creator created is the core of the world view of believers. Are you saying naturalism is not the foundation of your world view?
Naturalism or scientism is usually what they preach to me, Fred.
And sometimes materialism.
Dalazz is good at playing word games, almost as good as Theo Puffy Words. Technically he is correct – by definition dogma is not or cannot be questioned. Religious beliefs certainly can, and given the complete lack of actual evidence for any supernatural aspect of religion, they ought to be questioned at every opportunity.
I belong to a religion that encourages discussion and questions about beliefs. We even question your claim that their is a complete lack of actual evidence for any supernatural aspect of religion, opting instead to keep an open mind about such phenomenon.
You are actually being close-minded. You are closing your mind to the reasons not to believe in something without reasonable evidence.
I'm not closing my mind to reasons not to believe in something without reasonable evidence. I can demonstrate that all day long.
Give it a shot and let's see.
I don't believe in fairies. Or the Easter Bunny.
Again, we're not talking about reasonable people but reasonable testimony. If your think some has been produced, I respectfully ask you to share. I could be constructive in discussion.
Reasonable people are fallible. It would be illogical to assume something is true simply on the fact it was said by a person one deems to be reasonable.
True. Although I have people often try and preach to me that they are reasonable, and thus atheist. And I am delusional, and thus Christian. Which is a load of crap. But far too often that is where the conversation goes.
Are you interested in knowing God?
What do you mean?
Some people just want to know about God.
But you can personally know Him. He is a God of relationship.
How would I be able to discern it from a delusion? Is there a way to verify?
Why do you not keep an open mind about such things?
Because such things have not revealed themselves to be real to me. God as the Creator and Redeemer has.
You've had a personal experience leading you to your current god concept, if I understand you correctly. Don't feel obliged at all, but would you like to share it?
No, that is not true. God is not just a concept. And it wasn't just a personal experience.
Do you want to know God?
God wants our hearts. Not just our minds. He can use our minds. But he doesn't need them. But our hearts are something different. That is why when people ask me to prove God scientifically I know they aren't searching for God. It seems like they want an idol or a magic genie.
I am not saying you define your god simply as a concept. I am referring to your concept of god, your personal mental concept of god, whatever it includes.
Did you want to share your experience, or maybe one of your other reasons?
Dalahäst
These anti-theists are remarkably consistent in the dogma they present on this site. I am thinking that if we were as consistent with our vision of God's purpose for creation they could not accuse God of poor communication skills.
Oh, I wanted to thank you for your post a few days ago where you noted Jesus message on the Golden rule was kindness in contrast to the other negative presentations of the same rule from all other holy books. It caught me because at one time I was intentional about existing in a state of kindness both in thought and action.
Right on. Intentional kindness!
I have an open mind too. What's lacking is any actual evidence.
I have evidence, or else I wouldn't believe either.
fred,
I'm glad you left atheists out of your accusation of dogma.
Jesus' alleged message. There is no evidence that anything attributed to a desert dweller named jesus was actually uttered by him, it or anyone.
As noted before, you might have personal experiences, perhaps as part of a mental illness, but you, nor any other believer, has actual evidence, evidence that would stand up to the scientific method or the justice system's rules of evidence. You are all pretending to know things you do not. Enjoy your delusions, but please keep then away from children.
Right. That is your personal experience, hotairace. You haven't proven to anyone but yourself that my beliefs are delusional. Or harmful to children.
I actually do teach about Jesus to children. And I let them make their own decisions.
hotairace
As a skeptic you should ask yourself why not one writer of the Old or New Testament gave a detail account of the appearance of God or Jesus or Christ. At best I have stumbled across the Isaiah account where Jesus was a man of "muddled" appearance (in short "Non-descript" ). I have mentioned several times that other nations did not fear the God of Israel because they did not know God. The did fear the Nation of Israel because God was with them. The hero's of Old defeated their enemies when God was with them. This very day our enemies are defeated when God is with us. The evidence is in the testimony of the those who witness the living power of God over the things of this world. The witness of those who have experienced that presence.
Abraham had faith because he accepted a wild promise that went against all physical evidence and knowledge of the day. Without faith it is impossible to please God. If you were presented with the evidence you demand you would only believe with the same kind of faith you accept naturalism. That is like saying you have faith the sun will rise in the east tomorrow which is not faith at all.
fred, I am not the least bit interested in your question or it's answer because I'm not interested in the details of fictional cartoons and the characters within. Convince me, or have your imaginary buddy convince me, that The Babble is anything more than a steaming pile of bad fiction and I might change my mind, but until then. . .
God allegedly wants. . . Every time you claim something about your alleged but never proven god you are pretending to know things you do not. Lying, in other words.
hotairace
Do you have the capacity to notice that Dalahäst and I have open minds while yours is closed?
hotairace is probably one of the most closed-minded individuals I've tried to talk with on here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI
hotairace
I don't understand. What do you think I told you about God that makes me a liar
Freddie, you are 100% wrong as usual. I am completely open to any actual evidence (scientific method or justice system's rules of evidence) that any believer can provide. Anything else is just unsupported personal experience, cultural mumbo jumbo or lies, none of which to date has been even slightly convincing as to the existence of any alleged, but never proven, god. Your words might resonate with you, but that doesn't make them true. You might want to ask a mental health professional why you belief things for which there is no actual evidence.
Can you prove using the scientific method or justice system’s rules of evidence that the scientific method or justice system’s rules of evidence is the most reliable methods for knowing something?
I know things that the scientific method or justice system’s rules of evidence can't prove to me. Very important things.
There are the rules of logic.
Can you be more specific on these things you know?
I know the love of a child. Nothing that a scientist using only science or any court of law has declared has given it justice to what I know.
The how do you know?
I've experienced it. I can't explain it with science or the justice system. But I know it. If a few guys on the internet say I have to use their understanding of logic to actually know it, I just smile. I know better than that.
How you determine if it is delusion or not?
The same way you do, I imagine. I don't suffer from unhealthy delusions, at least according to my therapist. If I do suffer from a delusion, I can't detect it myself. That is how delusions generally work. You can be suffering from delusions right now, and the scientific method nor the court systems rules will not help you.
I get outside help. And I've been given a general clean bill of mental health. Belief in God is not inherently delusional. I trust our psychological experts.
I think the scientific method would be an excellent determinator of a delusion I may or may not have, most notably the peer-review step of the process.
Sure. It is a good tool. I use and embrace it.
I know human beings are incapable of perfectly following the rules of logic. That is why we have creative ways, like stories and songs, of communicating information. We have hearts. Love is not logical.
I find it very telling when people who believe in things for which they only have anecdotal evidence call people who demand proof "closed minded". It's not closed mined to demand proof when people make supernatural claims. Demanding proof before believing is what responsible adults do.
Right. That is what I did. And I had to keep an open mind.
What I didn't do was start insisting the other person was delusional and keep insisting I was reasonable. Nor did I try to bully them or try to ridicule them with personal insults and derogatory terms.
If someone acts closed-minded, they are closed-minded. Whether they are atheist or Christian. Both are vulnerable to be that way. I see evidence that some atheists on here suffer from it.
Lynch mob? Is that what you call it when someone questions the existence of your god? Do you actually understand what a lynch mob is?
No, that isn't what I call it when someone questions the existence of my god. I have lots of friends that question my beliefs. But in a respectful manner, so we have a good relationship in spite of our differences.
I do actually understand what a lynch mob is, and I was using it for dramatical purposes. I've asked questions about evolution on here before, and had people start calling me derogatory names. It wasn't fun.
hotairace
Mental health professionals do not consider belief in God delusional or godlesness as delusional. Belief in God (even in Canada) is normal historically and currently. If I was to attempt walking on water even after many failed attempts you may have a case
The justice system’s rules of evidence doesn't dismiss people who believe in God. But it does for those who suffer from mental illness or delusions.
Dala: "I see evidence that ..."
I thought the emboldening via html was non-effective for some time here. Maybe I just haven't seen someone use it lately.
As Professor Terguson (Sam Kinison) said to Thorton Melon – "I'm gonna be watchin' you..."
People's words and treatment of others provides evidence.
Some on here profess to be reasonable and logical. But they fail to demonstrate it. Which gives me no evidence to believe what they say. They don't practice what they preach. But they sure to like to preach!
The only dogma in atheism is that there are no gods.
Not all atheists believe in evolution, nor are they all naturalists, humanists, materialists, nihilists, communists etc.
Some of us hold certain propositions as a kind of personal dogma.
I believe, admittedly without sound evidence, that while many things are unknown, nothing is unknowable.
Doc: " nothing is unknowable."
Oh my – that would be truthfollower's cue to think by "nothing", you don't mean "everything is knowable", but rather that you aren't making sense since "nothing" is "not any thing" therefore it can't be [is] anything – lol. Now I'm confused -the spirit of truthfollower has temporarily rendered me a pile of mindless flesh...
I don't live in a scientific forum. I live in the world. And I know all scientific forums consist of people that believe in God. I don't make any claims about the physical earth based solely on religious myths. The fact that some people do is not my fault.
I'll trust the mental health community over the hostile anti-theist online community in regards to that topic. You seem to be the one holding delusions.
I teach children about Jesus. Among other things. Parents thank me. You are the only one suggesting I stay away. You keep getting sillier and sillier with your preaching and ranting.
Dalahäst
If people actually questioned evolution it would be one thing, but almost everyone on here who criticizes it simply dismisses all the evidence supporting it out of hand, which is probably why you see that reaction. They offer no counter explanation allotting for the evidence whatsoever, so they appear to be just being obstinate.
I've seen people just question it and get called derogatory names. Sorry, not all evolutionists are kinds and rational people. Sure, some people do what you suggest. But not all. I don't. I can't control what other people do. I focus on what I can control: myself.
Dalahäst
"I don't believe in fairies."
Not so much anymore, but people use to report having personal experiences with fairies, right?
I guess you actually do know how it feels to be a nonbeliever then.
I've never met anyone that reported to have personal experiences with fairies.
Of course I know what it feels like to not know God. I lived that way for a long time.
Doc,
I like your approach of contrasting dogma and the scientific method better than my approach of limiting the issue to the literal interpretation of texts. Any dogma is liable to come into conflict with science at some point.
"We should work harder to resist conflating science and atheism.
--------------
They should never be conflated.
People who believe in God should be able to apply the scientific method and understand it's products as well as atheists.
------------------
And of course they do. It is fundamentalist Evangelical Protestants who struggle the most. American Muslims are almost twice as likely to accept evolution as American Evangelical Protestants and Jews are more than three times as likely to accept evolution as Evangelical Protestants.
% who agree that evolution is the best explanation for the origins of human life on earth
Total US population ......... 48%
Buddhist ............................ 81%
Hindu ................................. 80%
Jewish ............................... 77%
Unaffiliated ....................... 72%
Catholic ............................. 58%
Orthodox ............................ 54%
Mainline Protestant ......... 51%
Muslim ............................... 45%
Historically black .............. 38%
Evangelical Protestant .... 24%
Mormon .............................. 22%
Jehovah’s Witness ........... 08%
Pew Forum 2009
A high percentage would say evolution explains how life changed after its origin. But it is not the cause of the origin, like the question posed here suggests. Right?
Neither Bostonola or I suggested that the topic was the "cause of terrestrial life".
I'm not talking about his post. I'm talking about that study you posted.
You can find another Pew report on the subject here. It focuses on Christian denominations.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/12/Evolution-12-30.pdf
Page 2.
Evangelical Protestant acceptance of evolution is still at 27%
White Mainline Protestant numbers for acceptance of evolution in this survey climb to 78%.
I have to run and don't have time to transcribe the data right now.
Did the absolute first living organism evolve? From what?
It's fair to say we really have no idea where the first cellular organism came from.
Abiogenesis is a theory. Is it 'truth'? Who knows. There's not enough evidence yet to disprove it or prove it.
I know, but a person may say "no" to "evolution" being the "best" explanation because they feel their religious explanation provides meaning that a purely scientific explanation lacks.
Doesn't mean they reject evolution. It was just a poorly worded question.
The question pertained to H. Sapiens not all life.
It is entirely possible that I paraphrased it from the source. I don't have a link to it.
We do not know, yet. However, it is pretty clear that we have some origin, and that is something either here on earth or from a basic chemical makeup. Some posit life began from rocks, as we require minerals to survive as do all animals from single celled organisms up to us.
Bostonola speaks of science and the engagement in science by religious people here. Evolution is science. Origins of the universe, while an example of science, isn't necessarily the topic.
You and I both agree that a very large number of religious people accept the big bang theory as a reasonable description of the early formation of our observable universe. These people only differ from atheists on this subject by saying "God caused it to happen" where atheists would say "we have no idea why it happened".
I've had atheists give me some weird, unscientific explanations for the cause of human life. I've also had believers give very scientific understandings and also admit the mystery to it. It is not that simple.
Here's some newer data from a different survey:
---------------
a = humans existed in present form since beginning
b = humans have evolved over time
........................................................... a ...... b
All US adults .................................. 33% ... 60%
White Evangelical Protestants ... 64% ... 27%
Black Protestants .......................... 50% ... 44%
Hispanic Catholics ....................... 31% ... 53%
White Catholics ............................. 26% ... 68%
Unaffiliated ..................................... 20% ... 76%
White Mainstream Protestants ...15% ... 78%
Pew Forum 2013
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/12/Evolution-12-30.pdf
page 2
Again we see some religious groups agreeing with a well-accepted scientific theory, with Evangelical Protestants lagging behind in acceptance of science. On this question Evangelical Protestants are a polar opposite to mainstream Protestants. One would not think this dramatic a difference would be theological.
Theism – belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
Deism – belief that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a Creator, accompanied with the rejection of revelation and authority as a source of religious knowledge.
Atheism – disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
Anti-theism – one who opposes others belief in the existence of a god/gods.
Agnosticism – the view that the truth of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknowable.
Author "I believe that life evolved by natural selection. I believe that evolutionary psychology explains away altruism and debunks love, and that brain chemistry undermines the illusion of free will and personhood. I also believe that a spiritual reality hovering over, in and through me calls me to love, trust and hear the voice of my creator."
By definition he would be a deist. He rejects the authority and religious knowledge of organized religion but hears, trusts and loves the voice of a creator. No new words needed to define him.
Couldn't agree more. +1 here.
Just out of curiosity, is there a reason you use the term "atheist who believes in god" rather than "naturalist who believes in god"? It seems the second one fits better with what you are saying, but your article made it sound like you specifically identify with the word "atheist." You make some really great points here–I thoroughly enjoyed this article and think more people need to read it. Thanks!
It sells more books that way.
Ok, so you're a Deist then. Like most of the founding fathers.
Not most.
Just the ones that made the greatest contributions to the Const.itution and the Bill of Rights.
I wonder how many of them wouldn't have declared themselves full-fledged atheists had they the scientific knowledge we have today? Maybe that's why deism has been largely eclipsed by atheism these days. With their limited knowledge, it only seemed "reasonable" back then to still presuppose some creator, right?
What scientific knowledge do you think would have made them conclude there was no God?
The collection of scientific knowledge we have today.
He didn't conclude. He wondered.
That would be all the scientific knowledge you reject Topher for your dogmatic reasons.
topher why do you ask the same questions over and over, ad naseum? You have been answered before... you obviously can't comprehend the answers given to you... or you purposely ignore them. Which is it?
'Maybe that's why deism has been largely eclipsed by atheism these days.'
-----------------------
I'm not sure that it has. A plurality of the 'nones' identify with a universal spirit. They outnumber nonbelievers by about 3 to 2.
(Pew 2007 data)
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
"That would be all the scientific knowledge you reject Topher for your dogmatic reasons."
Which would be ...
The earth is less than 10,000 years old....
noahsdadtopher
You could begin with Darwin, I suppose. Before evolution through natural selection became a solid alternative, it was only natural to presume that some creator who had magically "poofed" every living thing into existence fully-formed was the best explanation. Before the actual geologic age of the earth and the universe was discovered it was far easier to just accept the calculation of a 6000 years for everything. This knowledge has been growing exponentially ever since, and anyone who still insists that some creator must have been involved must be drawing on a lot more faith than these past deists ever needed to.
topher. A part of the problem listing evidence is that there is so much that a few are stated and then believers try to pick away at those in isolation. Taken in totality we have natural explanations for all that religious texts offer as the work of a god. Genesis is not literally true – there are christians that accept that – but there is no objective evidence (which excludes religious texts). So no evidence for a god and no need for a god to explain the universe we live in.
kudlak
"This knowledge has been growing exponentially ever since ..."
Exponentially is right. The age of the earth keeps growing exponentially every year. The age of the earth hasn't been proven by either side. But the majority of dating systems agrees with the young earth position.
"But the majority of dating systems agrees with the young earth position."
Please provide a reference....
In Santa We Trust
"Taken in totality we have natural explanations for all that religious texts offer as the work of a god."
An explanation is not proof. And just because you can explain something naturalistically, that doesn't mean God wasn't involved in it. So at this point, it's just an "unbeliever" finding an excuse.
"Genesis is not literally true – there are christians that accept that – but there is no objective evidence (which excludes religious texts)."
There's tons of evidence that points to Genesis being true. Now, you might conclude that evidence is lacking or not enough for you to believe it, but it's not true there is no evidence. You just have a presupposition that tells you it isn't true and thus make conclusions on the evidence based on that. That's fine. My presupposition is that the Bible IS true and my conclusions are based on that. But let's stop fooling ourselves into saying there's no evidence for the other's side. We both have the same evidence.
the majority of dating systems agrees with the young earth position.
----
LOL, I better make some popcorn.
You just have a presupposition that tells you it isn't true and thus make conclusions on the evidence based on that.
-----
Excellence in Irony.
"There's tons of evidence that points to the Sun revolving around the earth as being true. Now, you might conclude that evidence is lacking or not enough for you to believe it, but it's not true there is no evidence."
Just as valid.
Creationism/ID Young Earth "science" is only believed to be accurate by the religiously lobotomized.
topher. As we have a natural explanation why do we need a supernatural explanation? There is no evidence supporting the Genesis stories – even if you deny the evidence against, for example dating techniques, that still does not support Genesis.
Presuming that the universe had a supernatural origin, there is nothing to support the notion of a personal god.
In Santa We Trust
"There is no evidence supporting the Genesis stories – even if you deny the evidence against, for example dating techniques, that still does not support Genesis."
The dating techniques themselves might not prove Genesis, but when the dating technique gives a result of a young earth it is in-line with what the Bible says, so it certainly helps one lean toward the Bible being correct. And yes, there's plenty of evidence that supports Genesis.
"Presuming that the universe had a supernatural origin, there is nothing to support the notion of a personal god."
You mean besides His Word? And the fact that you can know Him personally?
B-b-b-bird bird bird, b-bird's the word.
B-b-b-bird bird bird, b-bird's the word.
Well-a don't you know, about the bird?
Well everybody knows, that the bird is the Word!
I'm SHOCKED — SHOCKED, I tell you — that your argument is a Pee Wee Herman reference.
Topher,
Surfin' Bird is a song from 1963; it really can't be termed a PeeWee Herman reference...
Besides, Grease is the word...
Topher, again I challenge you to produce a reference to a scholarly article published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that successfully makes the case for a young earth. I bet you can't come up with anything not from a YEC website.
noahsdadtopher
New evidence coming from more accurate indicators result in better estimations of the Earth's age. That's as simple a concept as accepting that satellite imagery is giving us better maps and modern telescopes are giving us better images of deep space than people could hope for in the 1800s.
The creationist side use to stick to the 6000 year calculation based on ages of people recorded in the Bible until certain trees have been demonstrated to be over 10,000 years old by counting their growth rings. Now we even have young earth creationists and old earth creationists, not because of anything they discovered (they do no science after all), but because that's as far as they can push the age without being laughed at openly in debate (by most people). Give it another few decades and they'll be forced to push their ages to the millions of years, at least. That's the trend that plainly apparent.
noahsdadtopher
"An explanation is not proof. And just because you can explain something naturalistically, that doesn't mean God wasn't involved in it. So at this point, it's just an "unbeliever" finding an excuse."
Say you happen to be driving in the desert and come upon a dead coyote by the side of the road. Is it more reasonable to just assume that it's roadkill, or should you fall back on what you learned form your childhood, and conclude that it must have died after getting hit on the head by an anvil dropped from an ACME weather ballon in it's failed attempt to catch the roadrunner?
Occam's razor is actually a very sound principle, so why shouldn't it be here? Besides, once you open up the possibility of a creator god then you have to determine which creator god is most likely. Surely you wouldn't appeal to present-day popularity of any particular one as a logical argument, right?
Surfin' Bird is a song from 1963; it really can't be termed a PeeWee Herman reference...
Besides, Grease is the word...
-------------------
In this context, I'd say it's a Family Guy reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIK3GXdkxL0
Deist, not atheist. This really isn't difficult.
Kind of a slow one again today ...
When I look up at the stars in the night sky, it is obvious to me that there are many suitable planets where life has taken hold just as it has here on Earth. It makes me wonder if there is primitive life in the universe that worships gods in the same way many humans do. Perhaps the delusion of god parallels the development of the cerebral cortex in human being and has similar manifestations in other living creatures with the necessary intelligence. The question I ponder often is when (and how) does a species stop believing in fantasy as a whole, and embrace reality. Perhaps only evolution has a chance to show us, but in truth, mankind will likely be extinct prior to the removal of religion from our lives.
Just a thought due to reading SciFi books my whole life... but any being that is purely logical will probably not resemble a Vulcan, but more likely an insect. Our encounter with a logical insectoid species, at an equal or more advanced technological stage than humans, will most likely result in them considering us insane meat prey.
'it is obvious to me that there are suitable planets where life has taken hold just as it has here on Earth'. You certainty that life exists in other planets,in the absence of concrete proof, is just as delusional.
Indeed, theism is much more reasonable than atheism. Is it more rational to believe the universe popped into existence out of nowhere completely uncaused, or that it was caused by a powerful and intelligent mind? Is it more rational to believe the intricate design and incomprehensibly balanced fine tuning of our universe happened by chance, or that an intelligent agent designed it for a purpose? Is it more rational to believe moral values exist inexplicably or as the result of evolution, or that they are the product of a moral law giver? In each case, the latter seems to be the more reasonable position prima facie.
Intelligent design is pseudo-science for religious imbeciles. People who think ID is factual are mentally impaired and should be mocked publicly in the town square (i.e. this blog).
"Is it more rational to believe moral values exist inexplicably or as the result of evolution, or that they are the product of a moral law giver?"
---------------------
Who was the 'moral law giver' to every indigenous society on the planet from Inuit to Incas or the Maasai to Polynesians. They all developed their own set of moral values, without any middle eastern traditions.
obio,
Could it be *any* other way - perhaps a way that we don't know about yet (if ever)? Keep looking, though; don't stop at: "Lightning just *has to be* a display of anger from a god in the sky, and there's absolutely no other way to explain it".
'it is obvious to me that there are suitable planets where life has taken hold just as it has here on Earth'. Your certainty that life exists in other planets,in the absence of concrete proof, is just as delusional.
Indeed, theism is much more reasonable than atheism. Is it more rational to believe the universe popped into existence out of nowhere completely uncaused, or that it was caused by a powerful and intelligent mind? Is it more rational to believe the intricate design and incomprehensibly balanced fine tuning of our universe happened by chance, or that an intelligent agent designed it for a purpose? Is it more rational to believe moral values exist inexplicably or as the result of evolution, or that they are the product of a moral law giver? In each case, the latter seems to be the more reasonable position prima facie.
Posting it twice doesn't make your comment less moronic
Doing what you are told is not practicing morality...it is being obedient. Morality isn't just about WHAT is right and wrong...it is also about WHY it is right and wrong and "because I said so" does not answer that issue.
" Is it more rational to believe the universe popped into existence out of nowhere completely uncaused"
Ah. I see the problem here – you have a false understanding of current cosmological theories. No theory I'm aware of ever posits there ever having been nothing. That is a straw-man.
Morality is a covenent by and for human beings that allow us to live together and work as a cooperative group.
Moral relativism is a truism – that's why there have been so many different types of religion and government throughout human history.
As for the "fine tuning" argument – it boils down to differences in worldview.
You believe that the Universe is created just to have life (specifically humans) in it.
Others believe that life is adapted to its environment, not that the environment is adapted to have life.
It is more logical just in terms of scale, that there is life elsewhere in the universe than not. If there wasn't that really would be a miracle since the law of large numbers applies to life on planets. There are hundreds of billions of stars in our galaxy, each with planets, that large of a number even if a tiny fraction had an atmosphere and even if a fraction of them had water (as we know it is required, but life may not require it on other planets) it would be amazing if there wasn't a carbon based lifeform somewhere else in our galaxy, let alone in the universe with billions of galaxies each with billions of stars and trillions of planets.
Hi Alien,
I think your thought regarding "when (and how)... a species stop[s] believing in fantasy as a whole, and embrace[s] reality" assumes that we are currently aware of what "reality" truly is.
I think you and I can agree that our perception of reality is very very very limited. We only have our 5 senses and, even with our best scientific devices, we are only able to really comprehend what our very very very limited brains can fathom.
It is very likely that everything that we think we "know" is extremely inaccurate and completely dependent upon our own experiences and that the "reality" we think we know if either false or just severely incomplete.
With that in mind, I generally discount all of the science and knowledge that has been developed throughout human history as being useful for living in the world we understand, but not truth by any means.
In addition to my heavy discounting of human ingenuity, I also choose to believe that their is something beyond this reality and that the Bible is the explanation of what that is.
I understand that you most likely feel that the Bible is the work of human ingenuity, but I guess that is where you and I would disagree.
Good thought in general though.
"It is very likely that everything that we think we “know” is extremely inaccurate and completely dependent upon our own experiences and that the “reality” we think we know if either false or just severely incomplete."
Can you support what you have stated here?
Toes barely touching the floor
Her filthy white night gown torn and tattered
Back arching
Facing an invisible tormenter
Releases a silent scream
Eyes red and purple
A sea of fire fills the ceiling and he is there floating
He is smiling with arms outstretched
Words have maning; you believe in a god or gods, therefore you are not an atheist. The fact that you don't believe in a traditional, specifically defined Judeo-Christian god is irrelevant.
Exactly. His "god" is the definition he has in his mind. The same goes for ALL believers. Every single one of them imagines god differently than any other individual, so ALL believers believe in THEIR definition of god.
I used to have an atheist boss who would, during crunch times, tell me "I have faith in you," and we would laugh all about it!
From my own experience, working and interacting with self-proclaimed atheists in the corporate world and elsewhere, I come to the conclusion that Atheism is possible only in theory while an oxymoron in reality, and I believe that's what Frank Schaeffer is alluding to here.
When you subscribe to Humanism, Naturalism, Materialism, Realism, Activism, what have you, which all are doctrines, you are already an "active" believer of some sort, which defies the very concept of Atheism, which is "passive."
One of the biggest takes on Naturalism, which is practically what theoretical Atheism turns into in reality, is 'dehumanization,' that is reducing humans to only matter. 'Dehumanization' does not get past anyone, even the self-proclaimed atheist, and that's apparent in Frank Schaeffer's case.
Here is logically how Atheism is only possible in theory and not in practice:
Positive......Negative
Active........Passive
Present......Absent
Belief.........Disbelief
Theism......Atheism
The logical negative —which is a passive state— of Theism is Atheism. One can only be an atheist if he/she is passive. The moment you actively pursue the Atheism stance, it is automatically a belief system.
Early on:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2014/06/10/meet-an-atheist-who-believes-in-god/comment-page-6/#comment-3026554
Vic,
You may be confusing atheism and agnosticism.
I think he also missed
"Logic... Faith"
"The moment you actively pursue the Atheism stance, it is automatically a belief system."
How do you "actively pursue" non-belief? Is it like a person who doesn't believe in Bigfoot agreeing to go on a bigfoot hunt with those who do believe? I still don't think that guy instantly becomes a believer but is still a skeptic and doesn't believe this adventure will show anything other than how stupid the believers are.
If you call "active pursuit" coming here to refute the status quo of belief then I still don't think it can be considered it's own belief system because the atheists are not saying "We know how it all happened, we know the answer to everything and it is.. 42" No, we only speak up when a believer says "We know how it all happened, we know the answer to everything and it is.. God." and the non-believer asks for proof of this and all we get is "Well, God is a mystery". Unverified conjecture and opinion thrown about as fact and the believers look at us like "What? You dont believe us? Why do you hate us so much? How could you think we would lie about something like this?" Well, I don't know, but the fact there are 42,000 different versions of Christianity alone implies even among yourselves you cannot agree on what is truth, not to mention the thousands of other faiths and other gods. To look at that writhing mass of religious confusion and say "Yeah, I think that one gets it right" is beyond lunacy. The only sane position is to understand that it is far more likely they all have it wrong than any single one gets it right.
What an asinine logic loop
What you have there Vic is what is called a "false dicotomy"
Atheism is not necessarily disbelief...it is most often "non-belief". Now if atheists proclaimed "there is no god" as a factual statement (which some do) you would be right....but that isn't the position all, or even most, take. You seem to have a difficult time grasping this even though it has been explained to you ad nauseum.
One thing is for sure, an anti-theist is NOT an atheist. The atheists (in theory) I worked with are not anti-theists, like what I see here on the CNN Belief Blog.
Most atheists I know are not anti theist at all. Many are anti religion though.
That is another false dicotomy Vic. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I consider myself an anti-theist in that I think in the end theism is harmful to society. That does not mean however that I hate people faith, in fact a majority of the people I love are people of faith. People of faith can, and do, very good things for the world. But the faith is not required for that.
boston you make a good point. Anti-theist implies being against the "theist" personally. I think a better term for my position is "anti-theism"
Vic
If you're right, and the only real atheists are the ones who shut up about their beliefs, then that would also mean that you and most other apologists here aren't theists so much as anti-atheists, right?
Atheism – disbelief in the existence of God or gods.
Anti-theism – one who opposes others belief in the existence of a god/gods.
I think it is easy to confuse the two sometimes as their answers to some questions posed by theists would be the same. However, the differences lay in the intent. When I say "I see no evidence for any God/gods and the evidence we do have proves a global flood did not occur as the bible claims" when asked by a believer why I don't believe, it might look very similiar to an anti-theist who is attempting to convince you to quit believing in God.
@June 11, 2014 at 2:30 pm |
See, that's the problem right there.
You are discussing the matter as a belief and a personal opinion. Anti-theism not being Atheism is a logical deduction and not just an opinion. You say "I consider myself an anti-theist in that I think in the end theism is harmful to society." Right there is your "belief," that's anti-theism AND NOT Atheism.
Vic,
I am an atheist because I don't believe any of the theists claims of their god(s).
I am anti-theism because I believe, and can evidentually support, that theism is inherently divisive.
These are not mutually exclusive positions. One can be either, or both. And while I would admit my anti-theism is a "belief", an "opinion", it is not religious. I would equate it to being anti-war. It is more of a political position.
Cheese,
"I am anti-theism because I believe, and can evidentually support, that theism is inherently divisive."
I believe that as well but come to a different conclusion. Humans find just about any reason to create 'tribes' which are inherently divisive. If all religion never existed, I believe human conflict would not have been much different. Pure supposition for sure. My point is, humans (at the large scale) are divisive, religion or not.
"Humans find just about any reason to create 'tribes' which are inherently divisive."
----------------------
I'm with Bostonola on this one.
Tribalism should be deprecated in preference to a respect for true liberty of conscience with freedom to believe or disbelieve for all. Only by respecting the rights of everyone can we move past primitive primate tribal patterns of behavior.
Anti-theism displays all the hallmarks of tribalism. It is essentially "you're with me or against me".
"Humans find just about any reason to create 'tribes' which are inherently divisive."
This I agree with...I think we do. But the nature of religious dogma, asserting there is an ultimate authority and that authority agrees with you, is a tribalism that ups the ante. It not that if religous were rejected we wouldn't have tribalism issues, its that religious tribalism is an added problem that isn't necessary. If it went the way of the dodo bird we would have lost nothing except one less reason to divide ourselves.
And GOP, I am not anti-theism to the point that "my way is the only way". I would never want belief legislated against or sanctioned in any form. As I stated above most of the people I love and respect are theists. I just think in the end theism is harmful and does little to nothing to further the human cause.
Certainly religion is tribalism. As is nationalism and politics and even being a sports fan for a particular team. Sports fans literally wear their tribal symbols on their bodies.
To behave as a 'fraternity' of anti-theists is 'eye for an eye' retributive tribal behavior that reduces us to a more primitive level.
"To behave as a 'fraternity' of anti-theists is 'eye for an eye' retributive tribal behavior that reduces us to a more primitive level."
I agree with that as well. I am not looking to get retribution, or to join a club. I vehemenetly disagree with many positions I have heard anti-theists take and have opposed them when able. I am not that type at all.
That is complete non-logic vic...where did you come up with that one?
So if someone is a theist, but doesn't pursue his "god" he isn't a theist?
You really need to check your definitions.
So atheism is belief system so it is not atheism? But if atheism is a belief system, that is good right? Unless you are saying atheists are as dumb as you and all the other theists.
Passive aggressiveness passes for "logic" these days?
Atheism describes what I do NOT believe.
Naturalism describes what I do believe.
@Vic, you have posted this many times:
"One can only be an atheist if he/she is passive. The moment you actively pursue the Atheism stance, it is automatically a belief system."
-------------------
It continues to be nonsense.
What you are actually stating is "disbelief == belief", which unless you are trying an Orwellian slogan, is not the logical consistency you think you are driving at. It is a fallacious syllogism.
Disbelief is disbelief. It is not an active stance or a belief system.
Vic
"The logical negative —which is a passive state— of Theism is Atheism"
Or, the logical negative of atheism is theism.
Better to just call them opposites, eh?
Actively pusuing Naturism or anything else does not negate the fact hat one doesn't beleiev in God. If one does not believe in God (or od or gods) one is an atheist, independant of whatever else they may be. Passivity in the belief of god is not negate by active pursuite of other beliefs. One can have faith in many things without having faith in a deity.
"Actively pusuing Naturism
--------------
I think you'll find that "naturism" is something else. Based on what I've read it is usually practiced in campgrounds in the summer time to the exclusion of non-adherents.
Perhaps naturalism is the word you are looking for?
"If you don't eat yer meat, you can't have any pudding. How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"
"You! Yes, you behind the bikesheds, stand still laddy!"
Not many people know that background line... kudos
Favorite album...
"When we were young and went to school, there were certain teachers who would hurt the children any way they could, by pouring their derision upon everything they did, exposing every weakness no matter how carefully hid by the kid. But in town it was well known when they got home at night their fat psychopathic wives would thrash them within inches of their lives!"
That music is timeless, and way too good to be on a shelf. I recently had a blast at the tribute band Brit Floyd, currently touring the U.S.; they do the music right, plus lights and lasers and genuine Floyd video backgrounds. I was grinning ear to ear for the whole show.
Yes, Christians can enjoy secular music and concerts. God created sound and light waves, and Floyd's messages about the dangers and perils of modern society and consequences of a faithless life are consistent with Scripture.
Glad you enjoy it too. Brit Floyd is playing here next week. I saw Roger Waters "Wall" concert 2 years ago and it was probably the best I ahve ever seen.
Can't say I have read into Floyd's message as a warning against a faithless life....I see the opposite.
Pretty much true, except I'm not sure where you derive "consequences of a faithless life"
I agree Pink Floyd's messages are not really meant the way I take it and see it; I wasn't very clear in my comment. Their anti-religion songs to me are targeted at hypocritical religious people and organized religion that is money-centered and man-centered. And to me their songs about society and war and life and despair show our need for reconciliation with our Creator.
Waters' recent "Wall" show is among my lifetime favorites too. It stayed with me for weeks (and still does). Among other things, I loved the way he incorporated some current visuals (like 9/11, Iraq etc), and brought in local inner-city kids to dance on "Another Brick Pt 2".
Go see Brit Floyd if you can, you'll be glad you did.
MFDirt
You are one sick puppy.
It worries me how casually you can knowingly misinterpret their meaning and use your made up crap to support your point of view about religion.
Alias, that's a strange comment coming from you. I don't know why my opinion about the truths presented in Pink Floyd's music causes you to worry. But I know you should worry about your decision to knowingly misinterpret the truths in the Bible.
And to me their songs about society and war and life and despair show our need for mutual campassion and understanding.
Reconciliation is an abusive concept....especially the christian version of it.
Roy: [singing] We don't need no education.
Moss: Yes you do. You've just used a double negative.
I think Mr. Shaeffer needs a new term for his complex of beliefs, how about Ambigutheist.
That sounds reasonable....call Mr. Webster!
I think Mr. Schaeffer has left himself open to skepticism about his real intent. By defying the simple definition of the word atheism, the t!tle of his book guarantees heated discussion. This is a good marketing ploy, but makes me suspect his sincerity.
I completely agree!
bostontola,
That's a great neologism!
Schaeffer could be considered an agnostic theist or an SNR (Spiritual but Not Religious) I suppose, but I do think that his contradictory slogan is for shock value. It does seem to have gotten him quite a bit of attention - here, at least.
I agree.
Please bow your heads:
Dear Lord, thank you for all the sorrow you have brought to us on this day and all the many dark days of the past when you ignored our suffering and did nothing to prevent horrifying atrocities from taking place. Your worthlessness is the key to salvation. Amen.
And now a Hymm,
O Lord, please don't burn us.
Don't grill or toast Your flock.
Don't put us on the barbecue
Or simmer us in stock.
Don't braise or bake or boil us
Or stir-fry us in a wok.
Oh, please don't lightly poach us
Or baste us with hot fat.
Don't fricassee or roast us
Or boil us in a vat,
And please don't stick Thy servants, Lord,
In a Rotissomat.
Heretics, all of you.
Our pasta, who art in a colander, draining be thy noodles.
Thy noodles done, Thy sauce be yum, on top some grated Parmesan.
Give us this day our garlic bread, and forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trample on our lawns.
And lead us not into vegetarianism, but deliver us some pizza,
for thine is the meatball, the onion, and the bay leaves, forever and ever.
R'amen.
He was boiled for our sins.
In the Name of the Pasta, and of the Sauce, and of the Holy Meatballs,
R'Amen
One of the stupidest headlines ever. By definition an atheist does not believe in a god. Sheesh...
You think that is stupid, read Theo's posts.
To clarify, Theo's posts are less than intelligent.
Hey world reflection;
Whipped misery gardener.
Flowers; evil children.
Cain disengaged.
Murderers breaking ground;
Disposable nobodies.
God hard gun; dead dreams.
Tainted dreams; dope dreams.
Personal; beautiful God.
All I can say is....Thank god I'm an atheist! This is a ridiculous story....they must be running out of ideas.
They have ideas. Really weird, twisted ideas.