Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
markdohle

The Atheist Dilemma

26 posts in this topic

I don't know when I first became a skeptic. It must have been around age 4, when my mother found me arguing with another child at a birthday party: "But how do you know what the Bible says is true?" By age 11, my atheism was so widely known in my middle school that a Christian boy threatened to come to my house and "shoot all the atheists." My Christian friends in high school avoided talking to me about religion because they anticipated that I would tear down their poorly constructed arguments. And I did.

As I set off in 2008 to begin my freshman year studying government at Harvard (whose motto is Veritas, "Truth"), I could never have expected the change that awaited me.

Continue: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march/atheists-dilemma.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article;

"He prodded me on how inconsistent I was as an atheist who nonetheless believed in right and wrong as objective, universal categories."

Yes that is inconsistent. But she doesn't explain why took a leap of faith rather than deny objective moral values? /shrug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know when I first became a skeptic. It must have been around age 4, when my mother found me arguing with another child at a birthday party: "But how do you know what the Bible says is true?" By age 11, my atheism was so widely known in my middle school that a Christian boy threatened to come to my house and "shoot all the atheists." My Christian friends in high school avoided talking to me about religion because they anticipated that I would tear down their poorly constructed arguments. And I did.

As I set off in 2008 to begin my freshman year studying government at Harvard (whose motto is Veritas, "Truth"), I could never have expected the change that awaited me.

Continue: http://www.christian...ts-dilemma.html

I followed the link, and I find the statements by this woman sophomoric. Go to Youtube to see any of the many discussions between for example William Lane Craig and Sam Harris, and you will find all of the points that she brings up addressed in much more depth and with much more intelligence.

There really is nothing new here, in fact, I find that there is nothing there. Religionists simply do not have an intellectual leg to stand on.

So I wonder: what is the point of posting this link?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I followed the link, and I find the statements by this woman sophomoric. Go to Youtube to see any of the many discussions between for example William Lane Craig and Sam Harris, and you will find all of the points that she brings up addressed in much more depth and with much more intelligence.

There really is nothing new here, in fact, I find that there is nothing there. Religionists simply do not have an intellectual leg to stand on.

So I wonder: what is the point of posting this link?

Everything that is posted here, if it related to God, God's existence or non-existence has always been stated elsewhere here on this site. There is really only so much that can be said. She is merely stating how she came to deism and then to theism. I think this is replayed many times, from both sides of the fence. In the end, no arguments can sway anyone, yet people find some agruments helpful in make a choice for or against. So in that regard I find this interesting and well worth posting.

I believe we come to some conclusions on the God question, and then use data to back it all up, be it for theism or atheism. There are men of science who are devout and those who are atheist, and they sometimes fight, which is a waste of time. Still stories are important, this being one of them. I am sure there are other stories that show the journey the other way around, from belief to unbelief.

I believe she was also explaining her journey, how she came to where she is at and I found nothing immature about how she expressed herself.

Though you do have have a point as well. I find some of the things posted from the atheist side a bit tiring as well, so maybe I won't in the future post things like this ;-). I am old however and may forget :whistle:

peace

mark

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article;

"He prodded me on how inconsistent I was as an atheist who nonetheless believed in right and wrong as objective, universal categories."

Yes that is inconsistent. But she doesn't explain why took a leap of faith rather than deny objective moral values? /shrug

The moral sense comes before the God question. All men have the tendency to do the right thing, though some follow through and others don't, be they atheist or believers. The only difference is when you get to the bottom line, an atheist can change his or her mind without any bother about God, or God's law, or the commandment to love etc. In the end, when two atheist talk about morality, one can give an impassioned speech about why treating others justly is a good thing, but in the end, the other atheist can say, I don't agree. If I can get away with it, there is no wrong done. Either humans have a soul, and or made in the image and likness of God, or they are not. Happily the moral sense is alive and well in most humans, though on a cultural level things seem to be falling apart.

peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article;

"He prodded me on how inconsistent I was as an atheist who nonetheless believed in right and wrong as objective, universal categories."

Yes that is inconsistent. But she doesn't explain why took a leap of faith rather than deny objective moral values? /shrug

Buddhism teaches right and wrong as objective, universal categories quite successfully without God. It's called karma. I think the only person who cannot have such belief and be consistent is the physicalist (aka materialist).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The moral sense comes before the God question. All men have the tendency to do the right thing, though some follow through and others don't, be they atheist or believers. The only difference is when you get to the bottom line, an atheist can change his or her mind without any bother about God, or God's law, or the commandment to love etc. In the end, when two atheist talk about morality, one can give an impassioned speech about why treating others justly is a good thing, but in the end, the other atheist can say, I don't agree.

Yawn.... so can theists. A Christian can cite the New Testament and say you should love your enemies, and a muslim can cite the Koran and state firmly that Jews and Christians that don´t pay the submission tax have to be killed, and polytheists in any case.

So, pick your god and argue what you want.

The tired old "morality" argument is a non-starter.

Edited by Zaphod222
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might add that Kant thought his ability to do the same thing without God demonstrated God's existence, that last part is a non sequitur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you mean an atheist's dilemma? Many atheists have no such dilemma.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhism teaches right and wrong as objective, universal categories quite successfully without God. It's called karma.

That's true for some schools of Buddhism. There are others though (Chan/Zen) which teach that the goal is to transcend good and evil. In Bodhidharma's sermons (and others) it is taught that as long as you see you Buddha nature it doesn't matter if you make your living as a butcher or not.

The Five precepts, when read in Pali, sound more like the 5 suggestions or training rules.

Karma though does sound a lot like objective moral values, something that is right or wrong independent of what I or others think.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I suspect all schools teach that at least a goal is to transcend good and evil, and frankly I don't think it matters if your living is as a butcher or not, nor even an executioner, but then I don't claim much Buddha nature.

The thing is, if you do something good, you get merit; if the opposite you lose it. Most acts have complicated and hard-to-measure effects, but they are there all the same, and it is all objective and universal and categorical, but also without a deity or someone making judgments.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad Ms Monge hung with the strangely fascinating Mr Porter, instead of joining the Harvard Libertarian Forum,

http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/hlf/

These are Ayn Rand's people. Ayn Rand used to eat two of those objective-foundation-for-morality "dilemmas" for breakfast every morning. Ayn Rand was an atheist.

Anyway, good for Monge that she has found an "objective" foundation for her morality, based upon how she reads a book that no two people who have read it have ever agreed on what it says. Objective just ain't what it used to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buddhism teaches right and wrong as objective, universal categories quite successfully without God. It's called karma. I think the only person who cannot have such belief and be consistent is the physicalist (aka materialist).

I am not sure that is true, there is a system that can't be escaped for the buddhist, karma as you called it. Buddha did not deal with God, he did not answer that question since he thought it impossible to answer, nonetheless, they have a strick moral code and failure leads to another turn on the wheel. To say that Buddhist are atheist is not a good term I believe, since it is a western term with undertones that Buddhist would not follow at all. There is an afterlife, reincarnation and the possiblity of enlightenment are part of it, this not true in western atheistic thought, so I believe your anology is not that good. For an atheist in the west, there is no justice for evildoers, nor reward for those who do good, is is oblivion for all.

Thanks for your reply.

peace

mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yawn.... so can theists. A Christian can cite the New Testament and say you should love your enemies, and a muslim can cite the Koran and state firmly that Jews and Christians that don´t pay the submission tax have to be killed, and polytheists in any case.

So, pick your god and argue what you want.

The tired old "morality" argument is a non-starter.

Well perhaps all the arguments are becoming a non-starter LOL.....

peace

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well perhaps all the arguments are becoming a non-starter LOL.....

peace

Mark

Not really. Arguments are a great thing, if people bring up new and valid angles. But the theists keep bringing up the same old line of arguments ("the need for a creator", "morality", etc.) over and over. No matter how many times they have been discussed and dealt with.

Kind of feels like watching an endless reel of "Groundhog Day"...

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I suspect all schools teach that at least a goal is to transcend good and evil, and frankly I don't think it matters if your living is as a butcher or not, nor even an executioner, but then I don't claim much Buddha nature.

.

Well, here in Japan they have a whole class of people that were traditionally considered untouchables and strongly discrimated against. They were the butchers and executioners and leather-makers. Those were professions you did not chose but were born into by default. The reason for that is Buddhist thinking. One of the nasty side effects of an otherwise great religion.

I suppose something similar existed(s) in other Buddhist countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really. Arguments are a great thing, if people bring up new and valid angles. But the theists keep bringing up the same old line of arguments ("the need for a creator", "morality", etc.) over and over. No matter how many times they have been discussed and dealt with.

Kind of feels like watching an endless reel of "Groundhog Day"...

They keep bringing them up because they are valid arguments, just as atheist do the same as well. Just watch more than three debates and both sides pretty much say the same thing. The side that wins is the one that says there side better, which means nothing. The God question can only be solved by each person in the depths of their hearts, to make an honest apprasial as possible, on the reality of a trancedent reality or not.

Peace

mark

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep bringing them up because they are valid arguments, just as atheist do the same as well. Just watch more than three debates and both sides pretty much say the same thing. The side that wins is the one that says there side better, which means nothing. The God question can only be solved by each person in the depths of their hearts, to make an honest apprasial as possible, on the reality of a trancedent reality or not.

I can live with that summary.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They keep bringing them up because they are valid arguments, just as atheist do the same as well. Just watch more than three debates and both sides pretty much say the same thing. The side that wins is the one that says there side better, which means nothing. The God question can only be solved by each person in the depths of their hearts, to make an honest apprasial as possible, on the reality of a trancedent reality or not.

The real Atheist dilema is simply it's foundation as a volitional choice not a rational one. Of course Atheists would say the same thing to Theists as well. How two people can look at the same evidence and draw completely different conclusions is beyond me.

My point however is simply that Atheists like Stephen Hawking for example, cannot say "science says God doesn't exist" because the evidence can easily be interpreted another way. And in my personal opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly stronger toward the Theistic stance rather than the Atheistic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My point however is simply that Atheists like Stephen Hawking for example, cannot say "science says God doesn't exist" because the evidence can easily be interpreted another way. And in my personal opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly stronger toward the Theistic stance rather than the Atheistic one.

Nonsense. There is no evidence. You are looking at a void. So the question is if you leave it at that or if you invent a fictional, unprovable being to fill the void. In that case, the burden of proof is on your side.

The theists really should stop trying to use reason. Wlliam Lane Craig states the theists` cause a thousand times better than you ever could, and he fails. So why waste your energy and our time?

Edited by Zaphod222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. There is no evidence. You are looking at a void. So the question if you leave it at that or if you invent a fictional, unprovable being to fill the void. In that case, the burden of proof is on your side.

The theists really should stop trying to use reason. Wlliam Lane Craig states the theists` cause a thousand times better than you ever could, and he fails. So why waste your energy and our time?

Because what may seem to be a waste to you is anything but that to those it helps to see. I cannot convince the volitionally blind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because what may seem to be a waste to you is anything but that to those it helps to see. I cannot convince the volitionally blind.

Sure, recreational drugs also help people to "see" things.

Pick your poison.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me go back and revist your first statement.

Nonsense. There is no evidence.

Prove it. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. This statement is just a logical presupposition of the volitionally blind.

Now that that's over, on to your next one.

Sure, recreational drugs also help people to "see" things.

Pick your poison.

Scientific evidence is capable of helping people to see things. This statement must mean that all scientists, as well as every human being on the planet is delusional as well.

Pick your poison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me go back and revist your first statement.

Prove it. Lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. This statement is just a logical presupposition of the volitionally blind.

One can not prove a negative (that something doesn't exist). What you can do is look at the claim and examine the evidence given to support the claim to see if it is real and not manufactured evidence and that it does indeed support the claim.

Blindness occurs on both sides. For example, take the battle of Jericho. Some that read the story in the Bible take it as a historical account. Research, on the other hand, shows that when the Jews arrived, the city was abandoned. Some will ignore the evidence and continue to believe in the mythical battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point however is simply that Atheists like Stephen Hawking for example, cannot say "science says God doesn't exist" because the evidence can easily be interpreted another way. And in my personal opinion, the evidence is overwhelmingly stronger toward the Theistic stance rather than the Atheistic one.

Hawking is partially correct, God doesn't exist in nature science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.