The Athiest Argument

One of my disagreements with Christianity is that it teaches people to think of themselves as sheep.

The Book of Revelations will have many believers on their knees when they should be on their feet with a rifle in hand.

 

I got slammed on the morality thred but Ill be a sport and give this on a try.

If the life on the planet earth just happened accidently why do we have to die?
If your just a process of evoulation do you have a soul?
Isnt a belief in nothing a belief in something?
Wheres all the orphaniges, hospitals, food pantries that atheists founded?
How does one even go about spreading atheistins, whats the message?
Wahts the advantage in being atheist over believing in God reguardless of whom is right?

 

Try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

Of course just believing in God doesn't mean you go with him to heaven. Even doing what you think is "good" will not work. Just your love and personal relationship with him will do that.

Two Crows, Christians have died throughout the millenium, and will continue until the end of time. It's not about how long you live, or the number of "good works" that you did during your life; but the choice you make. People are forgetting where the power is coming from... God gave us a brief glimpse into the future and the end of the world in Revelations. Believe it or not, He is in control, and no matter who you shoot/dethrone/get rid of, the end result is the same. It will happen, as the track record for biblical prophesy is 100% so far- down to the day. Try as you may, it will still happen.

 

Pascal's wager fails because what if you worship the wrong god ? Or the right god the wrong way ?

Why don't you worship allah ?
Why don't you worship odin ?

With respect to them you are the same as I am.

I have looked at Christianity and am not convinced.

 

If your god is in control of everything and nothing you do will change anything, why are you here ?
Why are you wasting your time with prepping ?

 

My faith makes me better. However, I will never try and force it on another.

 

The Lord put us on this earth and gave us all free will. Thus there is the two halves of the Bible, Old and New. The Old Testement shows what the path to salvation would be like under the LAW..Noone could measure up,plus the law is harsh look at the many examples listed in the Old testement. Now look what happens under Grace and the New Testement all your sins and short commings are covered under the blood of the only perfect sacrifice.Since God is a perfect Being and any of our comparisons for goodness and sin amongst each other is not going to justify or offer an excuse.I am not perfect or an expert by any means just a poor sinner saved by grace.The only sure way is to freely accept the gift that the lord has offered or you can try the other path to heaven and it still applies and that is to obey the Law! For all men have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

 

This is a very interesting and civil discussion on one of my favorite subjects and seeing both Atheists and Christians discussing this subject without personal attacks is very refreshing. I appreciate the depth of knowledge of history and philosophy that members on this forum have and thoroughly enjoy reading all your contributions.

From an apologetic (meaning to give a defense for the Christian faith) standpoint, I come from a Christian school of thought called presuppositionalism, that is, unless you presuppose the Christian God, and His word as the only objective standard for truth, all those things that we assume and take for granted in the human experience, like morality, rights, human dignity and even physical laws of science etc., become unintelligible, meaning they do not comport or make sense or are inconsistent with any other particular belief system. One famous debate where this perspective is delved into is the Bahnsen vs Stein debate. Here is a link for anyone interested.
Audio:
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
Transcripts:
http://www.bellevuechristian.org/faculty/dribera/htdocs/PDFs/Apol_Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript.pdf

This argument for the validity of the Christian faith, and subsequent invalidity of all other belief systems, can take some time to unpack but the essence of the argument is that it challenges the unbeliever to demonstrate that his beliefs are internally consistent and do not contradict his other beliefs. For example: most people, whether they are Christians, Atheist or otherwise, believe that it is absolutely wrong to murder (unjustly kill) another human being. Now for the Christian who has the objective standard of God’s word to provide as a basis for making this determination, he has no problem declaring whether or not any particular act of killing is justified or considered murder but for the Atheist, what belief system can he present that would make this distinction intelligible. Some Atheistic philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche have admitted that Atheism logically brings you to Ethical Nihilism and I agree. David Hume even went a step further and admitted that even the basis for all epistemological science, the principle of induction, needs to be called into question. A good article that delves into these two aspects of Atheism is “The Other Side: Metaphysics and Meaning” by Russell M. Manion. Here is a link to the article.

http://www.ucapologetics.com/other.htm

In the form of a fictional dialog, Manion basically lays out all the various arguments that have historically been given by Atheists to justify their belief in objective morality and epistemology. It is a very interesting read and what I would call a challenge to Atheists to either point out the logical flaws in the antagonists arguments in that article or accept that their belief system leads to moral and epistemological nihilism.

Anyway, I am a new member to this forum and look forward to making a lot of like minded friends here Christian or otherwise. As my username implies, you are right to think that I am a pretty hard-core Christian but don’t let the name fool you, you may find that I am not your stereo-typical Theocrat but a rather fun-loving and whimsical person to chat with. If you get to know me, you will find that I like stimulating and challenging conversation and do my best to always be civil and polite. I appreciate the tone of this thread and wait with interest to hear the dialog progress.

 

I am a Christian as is my family. Our morals and values stem from the teachings found in the Bible. I believe those who dont will not see the glory that is Heaven after they die.
That is what I believe.....if someone else does not, that is their right and I respect them for having their own belief what ever it may be. I am not out to change anyone. I wont preach and I dont harbor any ill will towards anyone with a belief other than mine. The only thing I have for non-believers is a prayer that they will see the light and pity if it is too late.

Most of the people in our little town all go to the same Church so, in a sense, the Church runs our town. It is still a nice little place. We havent had a lynching in at least three years and we gave up crucifying non-believers about 11 years ago. There may be a few people locked up in a basement here or there but that may not necessarily have anything to do with Church.

 

Goodie!!

Sometimes a reply needs to go in many directions and those little bastards have me dependent on them to communicate. I broke out the old IBM typewriter last week. Figured mom would get a kick out of getting an actual letter in the regular mail. I typed a three page letter to her then proof read it. Without emoticons I thought I wrote her hate mail. I had to burn the letter while crying and calling ma to tell her I was sorry. She asked me if I was drunk. [Okay, that really didnt happen but without the little faces we wouldnt know that]

 

I agree Theocrat, that it is refreshing to be able to discuss religion in a civil manner, because that is a rarity. Any time that you deal with belief, most people have a difficult time remaining objective. It is perhaps because religious belief, in particular, is a zero sum game - if we believe differently, for me to be right, you must be wrong, and vice versa. The atheist and the religious enthusiast cannot both be right, and for the Christian to be saved, the Jew must be damned, if the Buddhist is to find nirvana, the Muslim must lose his eternal paradise. It is rather different than one person preferring a 9mm and another preferring a .45 - they both may be right in that, for them, they each have the ideal caliber. Most religious views just aren't like that.

It is also the case that "belief," by its very nature, cannot be supported by fact and evidence. (If it could be, it would not be "belief." The Atheist/Theist argument will never be settled until a Supreme Being decides to let everyone in on the true facts of the case. That, of course, supposes that there is a supreme being. If indeed the Atheists are right, then no one will ever know, because there will be no one to let anyone in on the facts of anything.) In the absence fact and evidence, most people fall back on hyperbole and volume to defend their position.

I find your position of presuppositionalism to be extremely limiting, though it is the traditional position of Christianity, and indeed of all revealed religion. It is as if you circumscribe your logic and rational thought with severe boundaries, before you even begin your inquiry. It is not much removed from the restriction placed upon all of science by the church during the dark ages. This restriction is a self-imposed one though, and I find that to be even more sad. It is you yourself who impose this restriction. Rather than searching for the truth, you decide that you already know the truth, and then look for strings of logic which support your position.

I don't mean to be personally unkind or insulting. The "you" that I am referring to applies to Christians in general. I used to be one myself, and I know very well the box which I struggled to escape, while attempting to pursue a critical inquiry of my own faith. And, until one is ready to reject presuppositionalism, they are limited to what questions they can ask, and what answers they can accept. Arguing with a true believer is a fool's errand (and yet I do anyway - I'm sure that says something about me).

I obviously don't agree that without presuppositionalism, morality, human dignity, and physical laws are unintelligible. I find them all quite intelligible, and quite separate from any religious beliefs. There are many on this earth who do not believe in the Christian god, but gravity affects them just as it does the Christian; and the Christian can no more explain gravity than can the Hindu. Human dignity and morality also exist outside of Christian communities (and I hasten to add that you indeed did not say otherwise) and they have similar meanings to those individuals who do not espouse a belief in Christianity.

These things are only unintelligible outside of a Christian context to Christians. I have no problem explaining the need for morality, and the need to respect human dignity, to my child. He gets the message without my having to resort to "because the Bible says so." I think that Christianity rather clouds those subjects and renders them more difficult to define and explain, because the Bible contains a laundry list of how we should not treat our fellow man; and the history of Christianity has some rather dark chapters in it, to say the least. I can explain to my child why killing your fellow man is wrong easier than I can explain to him why the Christian god saw fit to set one group of his children against another, why the Christian god was apparently okay with slavery, why the Christian god allows the innocent to suffer and the vile to prosper, etc. I don't mean to be slamming your beliefs, but these are all questions that I wrestled with during an earlier time of my life. I couldn't explain these things to myself, never mind to anyone else. Once I found myself outside of the box, I no longer had to reconcile the evil deeds of a supreme being with his good and loving nature. You don't need to struggle so hard to stay on your feet, once you step off of the ice.

Morality is no more difficult to explain than is the need for table manners. It is often difficult for the Christian, because he has never had to seek the answers. He simply opens the book, and reads what for him is a satisfactory answer - "It says here, don't do that." "Why?" "Because God will be displeased." If that works for someone, good for them. But because they are satisfied with that solution, it does not necessarily follow that everyone else must be satisfied with that solution.

That is when I feel the need to argue with believers - when they say that "I see the Emperor's new clothes, so you must as well." I don't. I see a naked dude parading around in the buff, and I'm not afraid to say so. Belief is belief. I'm good with anyone believing whatever they want to believe, but for someone to infer, through the use of circular apologetic arguments, that because I don't agree with them I must not understand, is insulting.

It is not my intention to defend the Atheist argument, anymore than it is my intention to defend the Christian argument. I may be a fool, but I'm not crazy. Both arguments are based on belief. If there were actual proof, there wouldn't be the need for an argument. I'd love to know the truth of the matter myself, but then, searching for that truth is how I became an agnostic.

 

Atheist and little girl are on a plane headed across the US. He ask her if she wanted to talk. They began and he asked if she wanted to know why he did not believe in God. She asked him first to answer her questions. Cows, goats, and horses all eat grass but their poop looks different---why. He did not know the answer and she then said that if he did not know anything about simple things like s--- how does he expect to carry on a question about God.

 

I wouldn’t go so far as saying that belief(s) cannot be supported by facts, I would rather put it that beliefs may or may not have factual evidence supporting those beliefs. Also, it is the Christian position that God has let everyone in on the facts and has been recorded by witnesses that were led by His Spirit to record His word for all mankind. And I am glad you understand that when it comes to discussing religious beliefs, or I would add any belief system, it is hard to remain objective. You mentioning how its different than arguing what the ideal caliber, this reminds me of an illustration I once heard where two friends were arguing over what the price of a whopper was at BK, now they may have got really animated when they were arguing but in the end, is whether or not they were right about the price of a whopper going to change their life? not likely, but when a belief really goes to the core of what they have based their life on, things can get really heated and it becomes virtually impossible to change someone’s mind.
I think you might be misunderstanding what presuppositionalism is. I mentioned earlier that it may take some time to unpack what presuppositionalism entails, so as I find time, I will attempt to do that as our conversation progresses. It doesn’t so much circumscribe logic and rational thought as it provides the only foundation for which proceeding to use logic and reason makes sense. Augustine is quoted as saying, “I belief in order that I might understand” this is basically what the presuppositionalist position is saying.

Also, the so-called restrictions placed on all of science by the church during the “dark” ages is a misnomer. I won’t deny that there may have been some abuse by leaders of the Roman Catholic church but as a protestant, this is precisely why we needed a reformation, to free people from the artificial and unbiblical restrictions that the corrupted leadership had increasingly used to control and manipulate the lay people.

The criticism of limiting what questions you can ask or what answers you are willing to accept applies to everyone who desires to have a consistent and well thought out philosophy on life. Bahnsen goes into this in that debate I linked to, he calls it the “pretended neutrality fallacy” and that is what the unbeliever accuses the Christian of is actually guilty of doing the same thing whether he realizes it or not.

It is at this point, I would like to unpack another aspect of presuppositionalism. Christians in general and presuppositionalist Christians in particular are often accused of circular reasoning and I will not deny that at some level, the skeptic is right, we are engaging in circular reasoning. But what is typically not pointed out, is the skeptic also engages in circular reasoning. This can be demonstrated by asking a series of questions as to how you know what you know. Typically for the Atheist, his final answer will be logic and reason; he knows what he knows using the scientific method using logic and reason as the “ultimate authority” in determining what he is going to accept as truth or fact. If you ask him how he knows logic and reason is how you arrive at truth, he will typically say, logic and reason is “self-validating”, which makes his fundamental presupposition circular in nature. The Christian also engages in circular reasoning, when pushed, most Christians will answer that God and His word is their “ultimate authority” and when asked how he knows that, he will say God tells us so in His word, so we would say His word is “self-validating”. Now this is not to say that Christians don’t or at least shouldn’t use logic and reason but that we are to regiment our beliefs in light of what an all-knowing all-powerful being has revealed to us. This is where your comment that trying to argue with a true believer is a fool’s errand has some merit but what you may not realize is that this also applies to the unbeliever since he is equally committed to his belief system. As a Calvinist, I believe that the only reason why some people believe the Gospel and become Christians is purely by the grace of God but that’s a topic for another thread. Unfortunately, Christians and non-Christians alike have not been taught proper logic and critical thinking skills in public schools but this also is a topic for a different thread.

So circular reasoning when it comes to anyone’s ultimate or final authority is unavoidable. But the real issue that is often overlooked is that only by using God as your ultimate authority does the use of logic and reason become intelligible and something that everyone ought to use. So the question shouldn’t be who is and isn’t using circular reasoning but who’s circular reasoning makes reasoning itself intelligible or even a moral necessity. Why OUGHT we try to reason with people to convince someone of our position instead of using force. What argument could you give to Stalin, Mao or Hitler why they shouldn’t use force to get their way?
In regard to intelligibility, by intelligible, I mean that it logically follows, or makes sense, given a particular persons view of reality. For example; let’s say that an unbeliever says that no one should force their moral views on others, if he then proceeds to say that it is immoral for a Christian to condemn homosexuality, this second belief is unintelligible given his first stated belief.

 

God proved himself to me. In my mind and heart I could NOT turn away from the facts he presented. No other force could have done what I saw. Ill leave it at that. If you knock and seriously want the truth it will be revealed. But you must really want the truth. To receive you must ask in faith even if in anger as did I. KF

 

I wouldn’t go so far as saying that belief(s) cannot be supported by facts, I would rather put it that beliefs may or may not have factual evidence supporting those beliefs.
I would maintain that a truth, obvious to all, is not a belief; it is a self-evident truth. I can declare the truth that my knife is sharp, and demonstrate my claim to be true. I need to identify an assertion as a belief only when I am unable to adequately demonstrate the veracity and validity of that assertion.

Also, it is the Christian position that God has let everyone in on the facts and has been recorded by witnesses that were led by His Spirit to record His word for all mankind.
Yes, that is the Christian position; and as long as that position is maintained, the supporter of that position cannot make a truly critical and honest inquiry into the validity of that position. The initial posting of this thread calls into question the Atheist Argument that there is no supreme being, and I would argue that one cannot honestly consider, before rejecting, that argument, unless they are willing to entertain the possibility that the atheist may be right. You can reject the atheist’s argument out of hand, due to your religious beliefs, but you cannot honestly examine the argument while maintaining that you hold a contradictory truth. That is what I was referring to in a past post, that I had struggled free of the “box” which my earlier beliefs had placed me in.

I think you might be misunderstanding what presuppositionalism is. I mentioned earlier that it may take some time to unpack what presuppositionalism entails, so as I find time, I will attempt to do that as our conversation progresses. It doesn’t so much circumscribe logic and rational thought as it provides the only foundation for which proceeding to use logic and reason makes sense. Augustine is quoted as saying, “I belief in order that I might understand” this is basically what the presuppositionalist position is saying.
Both Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, certainly two of Christianity’s best known apologists and philosophers, proceeded with what was to them a self-evident truth – that the “Christian” God exists, and that the writings of the Christian Bible are the divinely inspired revelations of that god. As far as I’m concerned, they were engaged in a fruitless task before they ever began writing. I think that we have to at least give a nod to Descartes for famously declaring “I think, therefore I am”, because he was willing to even doubt his own existence. It is a little silly perhaps to take things to that extreme in a philosophical examination, but at least he was willing, at that point, to throw out all preconceptions before beginning his examination of his personal truth. (He later fell into the same circular logic that, in my opinion, defeated both Augustine and Aquinas; but he started out well.)

If you accept the premise promulgated by Augustine, Aquinas, and even Descartes – that the Christian God exists, that he created all things in the universe, that his is omnipotent and omniscient, and that he is inherently good – you have effectively circumscribed your use of logic. You have constructed an intellectual fence, and said that this premise is off limits to critical inquiry. At this point, you can argue with those who don’t share your beliefs, but you cannot honestly consider the potential truth of their position.

The criticism of limiting what questions you can ask or what answers you are willing to accept applies to everyone who desires to have a consistent and well thought out philosophy on life. Bahnsen goes into this in that debate I linked to, he calls it the “pretended neutrality fallacy” and that is what the unbeliever accuses the Christian of is actually guilty of doing the same thing whether he realizes it or not.
I agree that we are all a slave to the filters our mind places on our view of the world. Those filters are constructed from our personal experience, the culture into which we were born, and the views of our peers, friends and family. No two people who read this discourse will be capable of reading it exactly the same way. Everyone views any incident or discussion with certain preconceived ideas firmly embedded in their subconscious.

It is at this point, I would like to unpack another aspect of presuppositionalism. Christians in general and presuppositionalist Christians in particular are often accused of circular reasoning and I will not deny that at some level, the skeptic is right, we are engaging in circular reasoning. But what is typically not pointed out, is the skeptic also engages in circular reasoning. This can be demonstrated by asking a series of questions as to how you know what you know. Typically for the Atheist, his final answer will be logic and reason; he knows what he knows using the scientific method using logic and reason as the “ultimate authority” in determining what he is going to accept as truth or fact. If you ask him how he knows logic and reason is how you arrive at truth, he will typically say, logic and reason is “self-validating”, which makes his fundamental presupposition circular in nature.
I cannot defend the “Atheist Argument,” but I would agree with Galileo when he said that “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same god who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, has intended us to forgo their use.” I think that in order for any of us to honestly pursue the truth, of any matter, we must first shelve our preconceptions.

The Christian also engages in circular reasoning, when pushed, most Christians will answer that God and His word is their “ultimate authority” and when asked how he knows that, he will say God tells us so in His word, so we would say His word is “self-validating”. Now this is not to say that Christians don’t or at least shouldn’t use logic and reason but that we are to regiment our beliefs in light of what an all-knowing all-powerful being has revealed to us. This is where your comment that trying to argue with a true believer is a fool’s errand has some merit but what you may not realize is that this also applies to the unbeliever since he is equally committed to his belief system.
I agree, in as much as your comment applies to the atheist, but not necessarily to the “unbeliever.” As Richard Dawkins (a rather notable, or notorious, Atheist) observed, “We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in.” You yourself are an “unbeliever” as that term is applied within Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, or a hundred other “isms.”

As a Calvinist, I believe that the only reason why some people believe the Gospel and become Christians is purely by the grace of God but that’s a topic for another thread. Unfortunately, Christians and non-Christians alike have not been taught proper logic and critical thinking skills in public schools but this also is a topic for a different thread.
And an interesting topic it could be. Calvinist predestination seems uncomfortably close to the nihilism ascribed to Nietzsche; for if some are predestined for the hangman’s’ noose, and others for the glories of heaven, what indeed is the point of it all? God’s “grace” seems to be more an example of the arbitrary beneficence of a petty worldly monarch, than that of the Lord of the universe. Again, you can claim that I just don’t understand “grace”, and I would probably gratefully agree. There are many things that I don’t understand, and I feel the richer for it.

I don’t wish to condemn those who embrace a belief in predestination and grace, though I admit that my own words, upon reflection, seem to belie this; but frankly, my attempts to understand these concepts from a positive perspective have, in the past, left me with a headache.

So circular reasoning when it comes to anyone’s ultimate or final authority is unavoidable. But the real issue that is often overlooked is that only by using God as your ultimate authority does the use of logic and reason become intelligible and something that everyone ought to use.
I cannot, for the life of me, accept the validity of this statement. If you were to remove the word “God”, which refers to your concept of the Christian God, and replace it with the god of any other faith; I believe that you yourself would be the first to condemn that statement as illogical. How do you expect anyone else to accept it?

In regard to intelligibility, by intelligible, I mean that it logically follows, or makes sense, given a particular persons view of reality.
That same line of thought could be applied to the “zombie face eaters” that have recently popped up on the news, and on this site. If the “zombie face eater” has a view of reality that makes it logical for him to chew off another person’s face, who are we to object?

For example; let’s say that an unbeliever says that no one should force their moral views on others, if he then proceeds to say that it is immoral for a Christian to condemn homosexuality, this second belief is unintelligible given his first stated belief.
I would agree with you that, in general, being intolerant of someone because of their intolerance is an absurd position; and if religion remained in the pulpit and did not interject itself into secular matters, I would have a difficult time objecting to Christian moralizing. However, that is not the case, and while I can accept a Christian condemnation of homosexuality, to use your example, I cannot accept ANY religious group, sect, or organization, attempting to foist their particular interpretation of morality onto American society at large. I would feel the same way about an Islamic group attempting to legislate the requirement that women wear headscarves when out in public. You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot impose your beliefs on others, without your actions becoming a tyranny. A Christian tyranny is just as chafing and onerous as a secular tyranny.

 

A Christian tyranny is just as chafing and onerous as a secular tyranny.

True, however today secular tyranny is rampant. United Nations for one. World Government for a second. All religions today are being persecuted in the name of secular humanism. The beauty of our American constitution was the fact that it was conceived on christian principles. God never ordered anyone to serve him. We were given free will from the start. The constitution was to ensure us all religious freedom,free from government control or meddling. This follows what the bible taught. However secular humanists don't think this is enough. As a Christian I do not condemn homosexuals for they have made their choice. Today however they seek to force us to except them. They seek to destroy marriage between man and woman refusing to except civil unions. It is not the religious who are on the offensive here. We point out what God says and they call us Bigots. But no one here says you have to follow God. We just point out what happens if you don't. So today the word is compromise. From the United Nations and other Secular organizations compromise is being forced on Jews, Christians and Muslims in the name of peace or Humanism. Ill never compromise my faith. EVER. Religion has no place in government and Government has no place in Religion. However has removing the ten commandments from our halls of justice and our schools improved the country? Has the outlawing of prayer in public buildings added any quality of life? Did Obama's statement that we are no longer a Christian Nation do any good? On the contrary. The more God is removed from this country the farther its slips into decay. The moral fabric of this nation is being destroyed by Compromise.​

 

When you insist on using the rules in your book to write the laws for everyone in the country to live by, that is as much a tyranny as Islamists expecting us all to live under sharia.

 

So you would say our constitution is flawed? I counter and say it is worse today by removing Gods influence . All trends prove me right. The more God has been removed from American Life the worse this country has become. Now we even have to worry about Islam taking over. If The U.N. and other Global humanists would stay out of religion there would be no problem. I do agree however that Christian Morals should not be forced on any one. The Constitution is what it is. A contract made by God fearing men . No one forces anyone to live here. You don't like our constitution ? leave. But no, they dont leave do they ? instead they try to change it , compromise it and the original intent has been lost to socialism and Secular Humanism. What is wrong with Thou shalt not Kill? Shalt not steal? Not commit adultry or desire your neighbors wife? The list goes on. This country was founded on christian principles but allowed anyone of any religion to live here in peace. That has changed.