Hello there, I'm an atheist

[mattrose]

I try to listen to what that person has to say. If they say something like the bible has perfect morality, or is an ideal book, then I'll ask them about some of the more unsavory bits.

Well that is a good approach (listen first). I appreciate that.

My view of the Bible is essentially this: God has been self-revealed progressively throughout history culminating in the incarnation (Jesus). Due to God's partnering preferences, that revelation tends to come through human beings. Literary records of those revelatory events were compiled as 'The Old Testament.' Once Jesus came, the literary records composed by authorized recorders of that revelation were compiled as well. In sum, I believe the Bible is a trustworthy source of the history of God's revelation culminating in Jesus.

In reverse, another world war would be quite a damper on my mood.

Curious when you consider the 'golden era' (so to speak) as beginning. After WW2? More recently?

I'm curious, you don't see the things I'm talking about as true. Have you looked into them? I didn't just state my opinion I offered a well researched text by an expert in his field supporting my view. I can't buy the book for you but you can get at quite a lot of the data through google.

I am not opposed to looking into the data more, but I've heard arguments on both sides (that this is both the best and worst of times). I doubt both views, frankly. I think things more generally go in cycles for much/most of history. But if I get time I'll look into the links you provided.

The god you describe seems to me to be just a big person with magical powers. Not markedly different from the Greek pantheon. I would not find such a being worthy of worship.

Well then I failed to communicate My point was not that God isn't all those 'omni' things. My point was that God is, first and foremost, love. God is relational (God is actually a relationship... the Trinity). The kind of God I am talking about wanted to create the world so that creation could experience that love and be invited to participate.

I disagree with you. Your opinion flies directly into the face of the available evidence. Evolution is not concerned with individual survival it is a mechanism for species perpetuation.

Your words, here, are mixed. In one sense evolution is just a mechanism. In another sense it comes across as a personal being with concerns. I think this is telling. My point was not that Darwinism isn't about survival of the species (plural, not specifically individualistic). My point was that any given member of a species is only motivated to be the fittest individual. Of course, 'higher' lifeforms may be smart enough to consider the fact that if we live a certain way more of us can be 'winners,' but that is just a brute fact at best (not what I'd call an actual basis for reality).

I'm a humanist too (I'm just a Christian humanist). But my humanism is based on the fact that humans actually have value as image-bearers of the divine. This fact is of eternal value. I am not impressed by the secular humanist basis for human value. Generally, in that view, we are just an extension of something accidental.

I've read numerous attempts by atheists and secular humanists to posit a thoroughgoing basis for morality. I have not been impressed at all. You seem to have been impressed. Clearly it's an area of disagreement. My current belief is what I said... I think western atheists and secular humanists are unknowingly living off the fumes/foundations of the theistic worldview. This ignorance allows them to think their own worldview has a foundation when it doesn't.

I appreciate your presence here (as I've enjoyed over the past 10-15 years having such discussions with atheists/agnostics).

[ApostateltsopA]

My view of the Bible is essentially this: God has been self-revealed progressively throughout history culminating in the incarnation (Jesus). Due to God's partnering preferences, that revelation tends to come through human beings. Literary records of those revelatory events were compiled as 'The Old Testament.' Once Jesus came, the literary records composed by authorized recorders of that revelation were compiled as well. In sum, I believe the Bible is a trustworthy source of the history of God's revelation culminating in Jesus.

How do you feel about the historical events mentioned? Do you believe there was a global flood?

Curious when you consider the 'golden era' (so to speak) as beginning. After WW2? More recently?

An interesting idea, I hadn't put much thought into it. I would probably place the event at the enlightenment. I would roll it back further to the great thinkers of Greece, the Ottomans and Rome, except there was the unfortunate Dark Age that really set us back when the Roman empire fell. Still I think the enlightenment brought the idea of empiricism back to the foreground and set us to learning in a way we had forgotten. The world wars, in that light, I see as the death throws of the violence which led up to them. WWI was largely an outgrowth of the 100 years war and WWII was largely the result of WWI ending so badly.

I am not opposed to looking into the data more, but I've heard arguments on both sides (that this is both the best and worst of times). I doubt both views, frankly. I think things more generally go in cycles for much/most of history. But if I get time I'll look into the links you provided.

I'm glad to read it. I haven't seen any material on this being the worst of times that I found to be supported by the facts. In fact the only material I have seen that makes claims like that also alludes to a new world order and illumanity, and I have seen no evidence to take such claims any more seriously than time cube guy or the chemtrails folks.

Well then I failed to communicate My point was not that God isn't all those 'omni' things. My point was that God is, first and foremost, love. God is relational (God is actually a relationship... the Trinity). The kind of God I am talking about wanted to create the world so that creation could experience that love and be invited to participate.

Interesting. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what do you think it is?

Your words, here, are mixed. In one sense evolution is just a mechanism. In another sense it comes across as a personal being with concerns. I think this is telling. My point was not that Darwinism isn't about survival of the species (plural, not specifically individualistic). My point was that any given member of a species is only motivated to be the fittest individual. Of course, 'higher' lifeforms may be smart enough to consider the fact that if we live a certain way more of us can be 'winners,' but that is just a brute fact at best (not what I'd call an actual basis for reality).

First off, yes I said evolution is not concerned with individual survival. I then labeled it a mechanism. If my speaking colloquially is going to lead you to accuse me of thinking of evolution as a person, and not recognizing it for the natural process, I can be more careful in my language. I assure you I have not personified it and do not believe it has any persona at all. I would prefer though if you didn't look for semantic arguments and instead focus on the substance of our discussion.

Why do you think that individuals are only motivated to help themselves? There are countless examples of other species acting altruistically. Were you aware that when a colony of slime mold (Amobeas) runs out of food some members of the colony sacrifice themselves to create a stem so the rest can spore, and live? How many different kinds of animal parents will die to protect their young? Please give this article a read. It describes altruistic behavior in several species. It also links to a study which shows that friendships provide significant survival advantages for social species. A lot of people like to represent natural selection as red in tooth and claw, each member of each species out for itself. That is a mischaracterization of reality.

I'm a humanist too (I'm just a Christian humanist). But my humanism is based on the fact that humans actually have value as image-bearers of the divine. This fact is of eternal value. I am not impressed by the secular humanist basis for human value. Generally, in that view, we are just an extension of something accidental.

I have seen you use the word accidental disparagingly in several instances. Why do you think secular humanists value individual humanity, and humanity as a whole accidentally? Is it our belief that there is no great cosmic purpose to things that you dislike?

I've read numerous attempts by atheists and secular humanists to posit a thoroughgoing basis for morality. I have not been impressed at all. You seem to have been impressed. Clearly it's an area of disagreement. My current belief is what I said... I think western atheists and secular humanists are unknowingly living off the fumes/foundations of the theistic worldview. This ignorance allows them to think their own worldview has a foundation when it doesn't.

This will remain a point of contention then. I'm curious what would it take to change your mind? Is there some evidence you are lacking? Your point of view is alien to me. It strikes me as condescending to boot. I've outlined a basis for ethics with out making any appeals to a higher power. You haven't addressed those points, you've just reiterated your assertion about theistic fumes without even offering argument.

I appreciate your presence here (as I've enjoyed over the past 10-15 years having such discussions with atheists/agnostics).

Thanks, so far I'm having fun. This is not nearly the dogpile I faced when I tried to talk to the folks on the JREF board about social justice and the need for more.

[mattrose]

How do you feel about the historical events mentioned? Do you believe there was a global flood?

I believe Genesis 1-11 is one of the more difficult sections of Scripture to determine literary genre. I think there are some good arguments for interpreting it as historical or otherwise. And if it is determined to be historical, there is still room for multiple interpretations of the flood itself (worldwide or local). In other words, as non-essential doctrine, Christianity allows for a lot of different possible positions concerning your question.

Interesting. Do you believe in Hell? If so, what do you think it is?

I believe in Hell. I believe that hell is the destination of those who reject Truth and Love. While there are various ways that Christians may understand what happens in Hell, I believe the best argument can be made for the idea that hell is a place of extinction. In other words, ultimately, I believe the same thing will happen to wicked people as you likely believe.

There are countless examples of other species acting altruistically.

Since both of our views would anticipate altruism built into the fabric of existence... I have no reason to counter this argument.

This will remain a point of contention then. I'm curious what would it take to change your mind? Is there some evidence you are lacking? Your point of view is alien to me. It strikes me as condescending to boot. I've outlined a basis for ethics with out making any appeals to a higher power. You haven't addressed those points, you've just reiterated your assertion about theistic fumes without even offering argument.

Let me, perhaps, clarify where I'm seeing a flaw in your ethical system.

I think there are 3 different things we're talking about

1. There is an ethical system (like 'love one another' or 'do no harm', etc.)
2. There is a motivation for carrying out the ethic (like 'it'll draw people to Jesus' or 'it'll preserve the species')
3. There is the moral obligation to carry out the ethic (like 'God is our King and we are God's subjects)

I recognize that some atheistic people posit an ethical system. I recognize that some atheistic people posit a motivation for carrying out the ethic. What I fail to see is any actual moral obligation within those systems. I applaud those atheists who choose to live in God honoring ways even though they do not believe in God, but I don't understand why they think another atheist who chooses NOT to live in God honoring ways has any actual obligation to live differently. It might be smart (as far as the preservation of the species is concerned) for them to live differently. It might even be built into them by evolution. But obviously they are able to go against it... and I don't see why they are obligated to change.

[Homer]

Apos wrote:

As a fun corollary, if there is no god, then this life is all there is and living the best life possible should still be the goal we seek.

Which dovetails neatly into why would I believe that kindness, generosity and love are things which we should strive for.

But why? If there is no God we are nothing more than an accident of nature then our life is no more important than that of a dandelion. And why should it matter to me whether "good" or "bad" should come to other dandelions? "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".

Matt wrote:

There is a big difference b/w someone's morality and the basis for their morality. And the reason is that most people (Christians and non-Christians alike) don't always consistently live out their worldview or take it to its logical conclusion. To make matters even more complicated, people disagree about what those logical conclusions are!

Exactly! I once worked with a man who is a self proclaimed atheist. He was the most consistently selfish person I ever met and I aways thought he was the most logically consistent of atheists I have known. For some reason I found him likeable and he liked me.

[ApostateltsopA]

Apos wrote:

As a fun corollary, if there is no god, then this life is all there is and living the best life possible should still be the goal we seek.

Which dovetails neatly into why would I believe that kindness, generosity and love are things which we should strive for.

But why? If there is no God we are nothing more than an accident of nature then our life is no more important than that of a dandelion. And why should it matter to me whether "good" or "bad" should come to other dandelions? "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".

Do you really think nihilism is the only response to there not being a god? Lets say that a person has had their long term memory damaged, they can't remember anything from before each sleep. Happens with sad frequency if a certain part of the brain gets damaged. Should that person be fed well? Should they be clothed or offered any entertainment? They won't remember. However in the moment they are fed, and comforted a good thing transpires. It isn't any less good because they don't remember it the next day.

It would be nice if there were an afterlife and some part of me which survives death, probably. However I can't convince myself that it is true. I've looked at the arguments for and against and I find the arguments against carry more weight. This doesn't lead me to want to run up my credit cards on a heroine binge. It leads me to cherish the time I have and to be the best parent I can be. Just living a good life is reward enough, I don't need a fancy golden ghost palace. When my time comes, I will know I leave the world a little better than I found it. That my daughters and their children can build on the foundations they inherit. From an external view sure, what does it matter, but to each dandelion it matters, and we are so much more than they.

I believe in Hell. I believe that hell is the destination of those who reject Truth and Love. While there are various ways that Christians may understand what happens in Hell, I believe the best argument can be made for the idea that hell is a place of extinction. In other words, ultimately, I believe the same thing will happen to wicked people as you likely believe.

Well I certainly don't reject truth or love. Though I don't agree with Christianity as truth. It isn't for lack of looking, it is just that the argument, and the evidence fall short. I could no more believe in Jesus than I could agree that the water floridators are a secret Illuminati cult. So what do you think happens to me? Do you believe I'm refusing to see, or do you accept that despite all my looking and thinking I have become unconvinced?

What I fail to see is any actual moral obligation within those systems.

Well what do you think is required for a moral obligation? I think you may have defined it so that obligation requires an external source of morality in which case no secular system could meet that.

[mattrose]

Well I certainly don't reject truth or love. Though I don't agree with Christianity as truth. It isn't for lack of looking, it is just that the argument, and the evidence fall short. I could no more believe in Jesus than I could agree that the water floridators are a secret Illuminati cult. So what do you think happens to me? Do you believe I'm refusing to see, or do you accept that despite all my looking and thinking I have become unconvinced?

I am not your judge. I would not claim to know the genuineness of your search. I do know that in our little interaction your understanding of Christianity is, in my humble opinion, quite minimal. I do not know if you can be faulted for that necessarily, as many people are presented with a distorted version of Christianity and are given little to no reason to doubt its label.

Well what do you think is required for a moral obligation? I think you may have defined it so that obligation requires an external source of morality in which case no secular system could meet that.

If, hypothetically speaking, there IS an external source of morality, then perhaps it is true that an external source is required. If that is reality, then my insistence upon it should not be considered a flaw in definitions.

I am curious to know if, in your view, you can clearly distinguish b/w motive and obligation for morality. Does obligation exist? And, if so, how? is there an 'ought'?

[Paidion]

I'm glad to read it. I haven't seen any material on this being the worst of times that I found to be supported by the facts. In fact the only material I have seen that makes claims like that also alludes to a new world order and illumanity, and I have seen no evidence to take such claims any more seriously than time cube guy or the chemtrails folks.

Try googling "World Government." You will find that it has been in the planning stages for decades. Surely a World Government would be a "New World Order" and its likely emergence can be taken very seriously indeed. I cannot tell you however, whether its emergence will be "the best of times" or "the worst of times" or somewhere in between.

[Homer]

Apos wrote -

Do you really think nihilism is the only response to there not being a god? Lets say that a person has had their long term memory damaged, they can't remember anything from before each sleep. Happens with sad frequency if a certain part of the brain gets damaged. Should that person be fed well?

If we are all no more than an accident of nature, why feed the person? He is of no benefit whatever to other persons. He is just using up resources.

Should they be clothed or offered any entertainment? They won't remember. However in the moment they are fed, and comforted a good thing transpires. It isn't any less good because they don't remember it the next day.

By what standard is it good? Seems to me there is no standard to determine whether it is good or bad. It is only opinion which can be argued either way. Without a standard outside our accidental selves it seems the better argument would be to just let the person die.

[morbo3000]

Homer wrote:
If there is no God we are nothing more than an accident of nature then our life is no more important than that of a dandelion. And why should it matter to me whether "good" or "bad" should come to other dandelions? "Eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".

1. The process of natural selection is not accidental. That's a caricature.
2. You have very low esteem of dandelions.
3. Is it only G-d that keeps you morally in check? Your estimation of a dandelion, or the forests, or other people are based on the revelation of G-d's existence to you, in whose absence, you have no values? Your pronouns seem to indicate that.

In the area of sexual ethics... and speaking as a man, I have to wonder if the only reason I think p0rn is bad is because G-d said not to lust. If G-d hadn't said that, then is it ok to lust? Or if there was a consequence for lust, should I only not look at p0rn out of fear of the consequence?

Or is there a higher motivation? Which is honor and respect for another human being, and not reducing their value to their sexual potential and my desire.

In the real world, it doesn't matter whether a person comes to the conviction that people have intrinsic value and worth because they are a creation of G-d, or because they are the amazing, wonderful result of aeons of evolution.

Homer wrote:
I once worked with a man who is a self proclaimed atheist. He was the most consistently selfish person I ever met and I aways thought he was the most logically consistent of atheists I have known.

I think you are confusing atheists with self-ists. Self-ifsts are no respecter of creed. Their actions have nothing to do with their beliefs. Catholic, protestant. Theist, deist, atheist. Mac, PC. Boxers, briefs. Can all be self-ists.

We can't judge the merits of a worldview by the person who epitomizes our caricature of that worldview. To many, the epitome of a muslim is a man who wants the infidel to die. The epitome of a Jew is a man shrewd with money. The epitome of a white capitalist is a Wall Street executive. The epitome of an atheist is a selfish man. etc.

Matt wrote:
There is a big difference b/w someone's morality and the basis for their morality. And the reason is that most people (Christians and non-Christians alike) don't always consistently live out their worldview or take it to its logical conclusion. To make matters even more complicated, people disagree about what those logical conclusions are!

We are a very small minority of people who are even aware of the *basis* for their morality. And honestly, it doesn't matter.

Lastly, it's important to listen. When apos says that there is a basis for his morality, values, etc. we should listen to him, and consider what he is saying. Rather than say "That's not a good enough basis, because it's inconsistent with what I think your worldview teaches. Atheists can't believe that. Therefore, you are an inconsistent atheist." [Homer]

[morbo3000]

Homer said:
If we are all no more than an accident of nature, why feed the person? He is of no benefit whatever to other persons. He is just using up resources.

By what standard is it good? Seems to me there is no standard to determine whether it is good or bad. It is only opinion which can be argued either way. Without a standard outside our accidental selves it seems the better argument would be to just let the person die.

I think you should listen to apos. Seems he has answered this question more than once. Has explained that he has a standard for good. The problem is, you aren't listening. Because you believe that there is no value in a person, or dandelion, without a creator, you are deaf to someone who says "yes, there is."