The Plausibility of Atheism

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Thu Oct 29, 2015 1:13 pm

I use It for god's pronoun when soeaking theoretically. I usually use he for the bible god as that is consistant with the various Abrahamic mythologies.

If asked why though I'd identify it as a likley result of partriarchial western culture and the presumption of male as 'default'.

Jason,

I want to respond to your post but I want to have time and a full keyboard, not just my cell and a few minutes at lunch.

dizerner

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by dizerner » Thu Oct 29, 2015 7:12 pm

Some of us remember when "he" was used for an unknown gender in a secular context. Many languages even associate gender to common nouns—we wouldn't think it was anything more than grammatical constructs.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:23 am

Hey Jason,

I finally got a few minutes. Let me see if I can get into this. I'll quote heavily since we've got some distance between the two posts.
Jason wrote:I’m going to go ahead and address the first two items (the idea of an invisible god requiring belief in him, and the issue of equity) since they both address the issue of fairness. When listening to arguments against the existence of god I can’t help but notice that, once the wrapping paper is removed, at the root of these challenges is the concept of fairness. As in -- I can never be sure that there isn’t a god, but I can be sure that a certain type of god doesn’t exist. We would expect that if god does exist, then he’d at least be internally consistent. And an invisible god who is fair but only shows himself to some people, yet requires belief from all people, does not sound internally consistent. So this is a solid challenge.
I agree
Jason wrote: It’s also important to point out that actually proving the existence of god satisfies neither the religious crowd nor the secular crowd. If we somehow prove that god exists, the religious person will say, “Big deal, even the demons believe god exists. They’re no more saved than my shoe.” And the secular person will say, “Big deal, you’ve proven that god exists. Now I only have to sort through a billion different religions to find out what kind of god this is!” I make this point because some feel that the question of god’s existence is the main concern, but this clearly isn’t the case. I’m not aware of any religious tradition that claims salvation hinges upon one simply acknowledging that god exists. What an utterly shallow qualification!
I'm not sure proof is possible. Ignoring the idea of proof as 100% certainty. Any evidence for "god" would be indistinguishable from evidence for another powerful thing which wasn't quite god, or could be evidence that the observer were delusional. An idea as fantastic as good requires extraordinary evidence, as it is an extraordinary claim. This is one of the reasons I ask for a good reason, some line of argument or compelling justification short of empirical evidence. I can't imagine any empirical evidence that would be sufficient.
Jason wrote: Given this, it may seem like we can’t know anything for sure so why even bother? But actually, there are things we can know for certain if we give this a little thought.

1) If god does exist, he is invisible. We’re certain of this because we can’t see him.
Invisible or elsewhere or everywhere and indistinguishable. It amounts to the same thing I suppose.
Jason wrote: 2) If god created this universe, his vastness would surely stretch far beyond our ability to comprehend (given the size and immense complexity of creation). So the mental image of god being a bearded man of some sort is not even remotely in the same category of the kind of imagery that would be accurate of such a being. There is simply no analog.
I'm with you on the bearded guy, but I don't think it follows that a creator has to be bigger and more impressive than their creations. We as humans have many examples of people building something greater than themselves.
Jason wrote: 3) If god exists and made everything, he must have done so for a purpose. No one creates without a purpose. Even if that purpose is the artist’s own entertainment.
What if it creates universes as a byproduct of existence? Something it eats becomes universes once it finishes digesting... as a semi-vulgar example. Another idea I liked was that god is horridly lonely and dissatisfied when whole and shatters itself into a universe to avoid the unified state. The universe is chaotic and disharmonious to prevent recombination. I don't believe it, but it is an interesting thought experiment. If such was the case then adding to chaos and disharmony would be a good act and detracting from it would be bad.
Jason wrote: 4) If god exists, then he’s allowed us the freedom to believe that he isn’t real. He’s also allowed us a measure of moral autonomy because we can seemingly decide how to act in any given moment. This freedom also extends to engaging with alternative ideas about him which may or may not be at all accurate (religious liberty).
Or at least the perception of the same. I think this is mostly fair though.
Jason wrote: 5) If god exists, then what he made should give us information about himself. You can tell a lot about an artist by his painting. Certainly not everything, but some things (like his favorite brush strokes or colors). Even if the painting got damaged by its handlers and we’re only observing it a long time after it had been painted.
Analogies like this bother me. We can't learn much about a person by their painting, look at one of Monet's haystacks and tell me what you know about him. We can garner some better information by looking at the body of their work, but even then we need cultural context to make sense of where they were likely to be. We don't have cultural context or a body of work to look at with reality. Also, this analogy suggests that the creation can be damaged by it's handlers. In the case of humans, sure, we can break stuff, but if the universe is created by a perfect all powerful, all knowing god, we should have no more chance of damaging it than a rat in a mettle cage can damage it's environment. Less actually.
Jason wrote: 6) If god exists, he is surely more intelligent than the best of us. This would mean that, in order to communicate with us, it would be necessary for him to condescend. My wife speaks Filipino fluently whereas I only have a basic grasp of the language. So when she’s speaking to me in her native tongue, she has to speak to me as if I were a child. This is necessary for me to gain anything from the communication.
There are two things here, the first is the idea that he must be smarter than us. This assumes you need to be smart to create a universe. There is no evidence for that, so it isn't something I can simply accept. Going back to my previous digestion analogy I don't need to be smart to make highly complex excretions..

The second part I also disagree with. My wife speaks English as a third language. However I do not condescend to her. I have helped her learn to speak English, and I did so by educating, not condescending. Remember back to school, I performed far better for the teachers who led and motivated than I did for the ones who condescended and preached.
Jason wrote: So off the top of my head, those are six things we’d rationally expect to be true about a god who created our world (given what we can observe). We can’t know that these things are true, but that’s hardly the point. We’re looking to see if reason and observation can tell us anything about what this god would be like and whether an invisible, fair, yet demanding god is internally consistent. If so, then we might have to take the idea of his existence a little more seriously than we otherwise would. It’s easy to disprove a claim that isn’t internally consistent. But a claim that is internally consistent and has great explanatory power is something we ought to take seriously.
I agree that if an idea is internally inconsistent, or contradictory, it can be rejected unless strong evidence explains the problems. I also agree we should look to things with explanatory power. I'm note sure where you think the god hypothesis has any explanatory power though. It is true that "god did it" is an explanation, in the strictest sense of it being a response to a question. I don't see how it adds any explanatory power. The classic example is from an old play whose name I can't recall. A physician instructor is talking to a student about a medicine. The instructor asks how we know the medicine will put a patient to sleep. The student responds that the medicine has a lethargic property. (Paraphrase I can't recall the word). It is a tautology, not an explanation. Shortly it makes a patient sleepy because it makes them sleepy. Explanatory power would be if the student stayed that the medicine was an opiate and the chemicals attach to part of the brain cell interrupting the flow of a chemical that prevents dream states. That is explanatory power.
Jason wrote: So let’s consider why God would require belief in the first place. The obvious answer, I suppose, is because action follows belief. Certainty is actually overrated because we act on a persuasion, not certainty. I’m not certain that I won’t die while driving to work because it happens to people every day, but I’m fairly sure it won’t happen so I still get in my car. This is true of everything I do in a given day. We all live our lives based on what we think is probably true about reality. So I’ll maintain that concepts like proof and certainty have zero practical value. If there’s a human being out there who only does things in accordance with certainty, you’ll probably find them in a padded cell. All of us live by various shades of persuasion.
I agree, certainty should always be conditional upon the evidence and understanding that new evidence may come to light. Absolute certainty is usually called Dogma and I see very few times when a dogmatic response to a problem or question is a good thing.
Jason wrote: So if belief (another word for persuasion) is so important, then why does God seemingly hide from us? That doesn’t seem very fair at all. And yet, it does seem to me that while God does hide, he hides in plain sight. In other words, those who want to find God will see evidence of him everywhere. And those who would prefer that there is no God can choose their own confirmation bias. We find what we’re looking for (“seek and you will find” goes both ways). This might be the reason that God offers us some evidence of his existence, but not so much that it’s impossible to doubt. If God is concerned with the heart of the individual above all, then one’s motivation toward bias actually speaks to the state of one's heart. This seems entirely fair.
I don't think this is a fair representation of reality, or a fair expectation from god. Essentially you are saying that a believer should cultivate confirmation bias. I don't disagree that believers do cultivate such a bias, to me that seems to be exactly the purpose behind rituals like the reciting of the Apostle's Creed. I don't disbelieve because I want to. I disbelieve because the ideas I've found don't withstand scrutiny. The bible contains internal contradictions, and as such can be rejected on that basis. If I am the product of a designer, that designer included my skepticism in the design, yet according to doctrine, it will also punish me for my non-belief. That isn't good or just.
Jason wrote: You might say, “It’s not very charitable to say those who don’t believe are merely looking for reasons not to believe.” And while it’s true that not all unbelievers fall into this camp, I think those skeptics who are more open minded will eventually find enough reasons to become persuaded. We’re all on a continuum of belief. It’s a sliding scale, not a transaction. Some would prefer not to believe. Others are inching toward belief. A few are fully persuaded. But I still maintain that we will find whatever it is we’re looking for (be it salvation or oblivion) and psychologists are fond of demonstrating this. What better way to test the heart than to observe which path one is seeking? In this sense, confirmation bias is actually a good barometer of one’s inner motivations.
Again this reads to me like you think we choose our beliefs, and that we are incapable of fighting against or recognizing our biases. I didn't stop believing because I wanted to, I stopped because I was curious and when I looked into my faith I found it to be foundationless. When I examined my experiences, I discovered that I could get exactly the same feelings from praying to pagan gods, and was left ultimately feeling exactly as lonely with them as I felt with the christian idea. That it wasn't until I looked to myself and other people for a source of strength, and emotional comfort that I found peace again.
Jason wrote: This confirmation bias, or path selection, also speaks to which religious tradition we adopt in many cases. I grew up mostly secular but adopted Christian beliefs. Richard Dawkins grew up in a Christian home but later adopted atheist beliefs. In societies where religion and culture are closely knit together, adherents rarely move away from those inherited beliefs. But sometimes they do. We often forget that the earliest Christians were brought up in a strong religious tradition that was deeply tied to their birth culture. They all defected. So we have a wide range of how and why people potentially move toward or away from certain beliefs. Those who see God as a higher intelligence who chose to condescend, and also like the idea of forgiveness will be inclined to move toward the teachings of Jesus. Those who don't like those things will be inclined to look elsewhere.

I could say more on this, but I don’t wish to intrude on your time more than necessary. I’ll tackle the other items in my next post.
I'm not really sure where to go with this last bit. I can agree with you that we are much more likely to adopt the religion of our parents than another, at least in our youth. Do you think that Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam offer valid paths to god?

I don't know if you want to try responding to everything, or just pick one or two things. We can always work back to whatever. I can get on here pretty regularly with my phone, but only for a few minutes at a time. I'll check back regularly and try not to leave you hanging so long on our next exchange.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:32 pm

Apos, I wanted to say that I’m really enjoying this discussion. I’ll try to respond in a format that takes into account your current situation. There are a few points I’d dispute in your latest post, but we don’t want to be pedantic or argue over what god would theoretically have for breakfast. I’d rather focus on one or two of these major themes so you won’t have to use quote blocks. Feel free to respond conversationally, especially if you’re in a hurry or typing with your thumbs.

From your response about confirmation bias, I’m not sure you quite grasp my argument so forgive me for being unclear. I do not think that confirmation bias is a good thing, nor something to be cultivated. I was making the argument that our internal preference is often what we seek to affirm, whether we’re aware of it or not. When you told me earlier that you didn’t need to read a particular book because you’d read a refutation of it, you were guilty of confirmation bias. What if the arguments were not properly represented in the review or the points validly framed? Imagine if I told you I needn’t bother reading anything by Bertrand Russell because William Lane Craig refuted him in an article? Would you not accuse me of trying to confirm a bias? You might say that you personally account for bias by only considering the argument itself, but this ignores everything we know about human psychology. Like hypocrisy, confirmation bias is something which is easy to see in others and nearly impossible to see in ourselves.

You brought up the bible so we might as well get into the subject of specific revelation. We’d probably agree that if god directly communicated with his creation, we’d learn things about him that we otherwise wouldn’t be able to know (like whether he poops universes or creates chaos because he’s lonely). Although I’ve tried to make a case in this thread that there are some things we can know about God through mere observation and reason, I will fully admit that this doesn’t get us very far. If we actually wanted to know what kind of being this is, in any practical way, it would be necessary for him to tell us. And I think he has, at least partially.

You said the bible contains internal contradictions, but I do not take this as a given as I once did. Arguments from skeptics (most of whom seem to have a very poor understanding of how to read ancient literature) are generally not very impressive and do not stand up to cross-examination. Mostly it's emotional rhetoric. If you have specific examples, this forum is the perfect place to air your grievances since we have some very astute bible students and scholars present. We don’t all agree with one another (thank God) but there’s a deep knowledge base here for you to take advantage of. You might also consider calling Steve’s radio program since he loves discussing this topic and does so in a very respectful manner. He won’t chew your head off like some hosts tend to do. If voicing your concerns over the air sounds daunting (it does to me!) then just create a thread and we’ll merrily discuss the bible’s worthiness compared to other religious texts.

Finally, you asked if I consider Islam and Buddhism valid paths to god. I do not. Although I believe God’s revelation of himself is progressive in nature, there was a moment in history when he actually showed up. Since then, we’re no longer ignorant of what he’s like. He’s like that Jew from an insignificant place who hung out with outcasts and lambasted religious hypocrites and died while forgiving his tormentors. I realize these statements are obvious to no one who hasn’t deeply looked into these things. Should I start a new thread to defend my very exceptional statements here?

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Sat Nov 07, 2015 3:18 am

Hey Jason,

I'm not even sure what refutation we talked about now, I'd have to go back and look. One of the things I do when I'm looking for information quickly is seek refutations and then rebuttals. If I find a chain I'll read as much as I can. I will happily admit I can't eliminate my own biases, but that is one of the reasons I spend time in places like this. So on the topic of bias, I agree we all have them and we tend to find what we look for, unless we work harder. Even then it can be hard to see past our inclinations. However as I was a believer I think that shows its certainly possible. Alternately if I'm a created being and not a happy accident of experience, genetics and culture, then I was designed to be skeptical, and that suggests I'm created as kindling. Not a pleasant thought.

If you want to start a new thread that's fine. I'll give you an easy contradiction, one I think stands up to multiple translations. In the tale of Lot from Genesis, several limits are described for the powers of God. He doesn't know what is happening in Soddom, though he has heard negative things about it. The angels were dispatched to take a look for him. He actually barters with Abraham, and while Lot is described as righteous he acts horribly (offering his children to a mob for sexual assault), and the very young children who are presumably present somewhere in the town are not mentioned at all. As Soddom is being destroyed it is said that God can not destroy it until Lot gets out. That seems to contradict the level of power God is described as having elsewhere. I could send in the US Marines to a city to obliterate it, and they would be capable of doing so while protecting a single individual, or their family. It seems hard to imagine that if God were real the US marines would be more capable than it of surgical destruction.

I want to get back with mattrose about the story of Jeptha at some point too, but we left a long conversation there. Happily I should have more free time again in a few weeks.

One thing you said,
[Quote=Jason]Since then, we’re no longer ignorant of what he’s like.[/quote]

Aren't we? the majority of the human population is not Christian. Islam is growing faster than Christianity. Within the umbrella of Christianity there are wide ranging and contradictory ideas held as true about nearly every facet of the dogma. This is something I'd be curious about seeing your response to. You agree with me that a person's religion is highly dependent on their upbringing. Why are so many left out in the dark through no fault of their own? I have to say, next to the problem of evil or suffering, this is one of my biggest reasons for rejecting the idea of any revealed religion as true. If you believe in evolution, why do you think the first several millennia of human existence passed with no information about god?

Oh, to go back to your question about Russel and Craig, it would depend on what they were saying. I'd certainly read what Craig had, but I suspect it would be a lot of the came smoke and mirrors I'm used to seeing from him. His modal ontological argument is terrible. I think Descartes did a better job, though he still fell short of the mark.

At any rate I'm enjoying this too. I'm not sure when the radio show plays, I suspect it would be inconvenient for me to be available when they are broadcasting. Though if a honest open discussion is desired someone I know does make regular time for theist callers and guests is David Smalley of Dogma Debate. I'm one of the supporters for that show and would be happy to pass contact information. They are pushing for a lot more interaction with believers this year.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Mon Nov 09, 2015 10:11 am

However as I was a believer I think that shows its certainly possible. Alternately if I'm a created being and not a happy accident of experience, genetics and culture, then I was designed to be skeptical, and that suggests I'm created as kindling. Not a pleasant thought.
I’d like to explore this train of thought because I don’t see being skeptical as a negative trait or worthy of judgment in scripture. Being skeptical just means you require sound reasons before you trust something. This is how it should be. You’ll remember that Thomas was skeptical of the resurrection and instead of Jesus chiding him for it, he encouraged the disciple to touch his wounds. Are you, Apos, required to then have the same level of trust that Thomas did after touching the resurrected Christ? Perhaps not. We have a different kind of evidence now than existed in those days, but we are never left without sound reasons.

I do think, however, we should distinguish between genuine skepticism from its irrational form. This kind of skeptic forms an opinion and then refuses any piece of evidence that goes against that paradigm. There are atheists and Christians and Buddhists and Jews and New Agers who all fall into this camp. Personally, I do mental exercises where I argue (with myself) against my own Christian paradigm by adopting other worldviews. This is a great way to cause a shift in one’s thinking toward healthy skepticism and not the irrational sort. Reading or listening to online debates is good, but doesn’t engage the part of the brain that this exercise does. One is passive thinking, the other active.
If you want to start a new thread that's fine. I'll give you an easy contradiction, one I think stands up to multiple translations. In the tale of Lot from Genesis, several limits are described for the powers of God. He doesn't know what is happening in Soddom, though he has heard negative things about it. The angels were dispatched to take a look for him. He actually barters with Abraham, and while Lot is described as righteous he acts horribly (offering his children to a mob for sexual assault), and the very young children who are presumably present somewhere in the town are not mentioned at all. As Soddom is being destroyed it is said that God can not destroy it until Lot gets out. That seems to contradict the level of power God is described as having elsewhere. I could send in the US Marines to a city to obliterate it, and they would be capable of doing so while protecting a single individual, or their family. It seems hard to imagine that if God were real the US marines would be more capable than it of surgical destruction.
That’s a great example! This and other portions from Genesis are written is such a way as to describe God as a man, or at least having petty, human-like qualities. In the Garden of Eden passages (Genesis 3 and 4) God also seems to not know things that he clearly knows, like when he asks Eve, “Who told you that you were naked?” Or when he asks Cain, “Where is your brother?” This is common to this type of literature and is known as anthropomorphism. I don’t know why ancient peoples found this style of writing helpful, but I once heard scholar R.C. Sproul say, “Of course these portions were written in a primitive manner… they was written to primitive people.” So perhaps it was helpful for those slaves coming out of Egypt (the primary audience of Genesis) to hear God described in a relatable way since the Egyptian gods were not like this.

The New Testament tells us God was “veiled” from ancient peoples so even prophets had only glimpses of knowledge here and there and that the fullness of God’s attributes are seen in Jesus. I’ve heard Richard Dawkins say that if God wanted him to believe in the bible, then he should’ve put a scientific equation in there which proved true. But I’m not sure how a passage about the Higgs Boson, for example, would’ve helped thousands of years of farmers and peasants who were just trying to survive and to love their neighbors as themselves. I do, however, believe there are a few easter eggs sprinkled throughout, perhaps for a more modern audience. Such as when Job 26:7 states, “He spreads the northern sky over empty space and suspends the earth over nothing.” Or Isaiah 40:22, which says God sits above the sphere of the earth. Clearly, these are poetic in nature, but one could also choose to see a wink and nod in such passages.

As to Lot offering his daughters, my understanding is that within Middle Eastern culture (even today) when you take a guest into your home, you treat them as your own kin, if not more worthy of esteem. If anything happens to your guests, it’s taken as the greatest cultural embarrassment. I’m assuming Lot was a man of his time and was therefore described as righteous because he did what a righteous person would've done in that culture. Would Jesus have sent the daughters out to protect his guests? I’m guessing “no” but God often acquiesces in scripture to accommodate cultural leanings. Why He chooses to do this or even respect our silly customs is a mystery to me. You’d think He would just yank us aside every five minutes to instruct us on ethical behavior, but He doesn’t do that. And I don’t know why. There are portions of this story (and many others in the Pentateuch) that make me scratch my head. To heap on even more confusion, there are Open Theists like Greg Boyd who account for these oddities in a completely different way than I have here.

You might ask why I don’t just throw out the portions of scripture that I find difficult. I would actually have no problem doing so and taking a more liberal view of scripture, except that Jesus and his apostles seemed to take them at face value (some Christians, like our brother Paidion, dispute this). Either way, I’m open to hashing this out as an in-house debate. But it doesn’t make much sense to have this discussion with an atheist because there is not enough common ground for it to be a fruitful exercise.

I have to run now, so I’ll address the rest of your post shortly. Stay tuned.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Paidion » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:06 am

Hi Jason, you wrote:Or Isaiah 40:22, which says God sits above the sphere of the earth.
I don't suppose the question I have is of earth-shaking significance. But I have often wondered about the justification of referring to the Hebrew word in this verse as "sphere" when its correct translation is "circle". The word used in the Greek Septuagint is "γυρος" (gyros, from which we get gyroscope) also means "circle". In ancient times, the earth was understood to be a circle, flat like a pie plate. I don't think anyone in those times visualized it as a sphere.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:04 pm

I don't suppose the question I have is of earth-shaking significance. But I have often wondered about the justification of referring to the Hebrew word in this verse as "sphere" when its correct translation is "circle". The word used in the Greek Septuagint is "γυρος" (gyros, from which we get gyroscope) also means "circle". In ancient times, the earth was understood to be a circle, flat like a pie plate. I don't think anyone in those times visualized it as a sphere.
I thought gyros referred to those tasty Greek sandwiches? But seriously, it seems the early Greeks (Pythagoras in the 6th century BC and later Aristotle) argued for a spherical earth. I don't know if Isaiah, in his poetry, meant sphere or circle so it's just a guess. The Job passage, though also poetic, actually envisions a floating earth. Could've been a lucky guess though.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 379
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:28 pm

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by Jason » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:44 pm

Apos, here's my reply to the last bit.
the majority of the human population is not Christian. Islam is growing faster than Christianity. Within the umbrella of Christianity there are wide ranging and contradictory ideas held as true about nearly every facet of the dogma. This is something I'd be curious about seeing your response to. You agree with me that a person's religion is highly dependent on their upbringing. Why are so many left out in the dark through no fault of their own? I have to say, next to the problem of evil or suffering, this is one of my biggest reasons for rejecting the idea of any revealed religion as true. If you believe in evolution, why do you think the first several millennia of human existence passed with no information about god?
If Jesus is actually God (in whatever form one imagines) then any knowledge of God at all is actually knowledge of him. I base this theology largely on John 1 which says that "the world was created through Christ" and that "he is the true light who gives light to everyone coming into the world." Among the world religions, Jesus alone appears as an important figure in all of them. One of my best friends is a Muslim and he told me they believe Jesus was considered a sinless prophet who was born to a virgin and will conquer some great beast at the end of the world. The Jews considered him a Rabbi and all of his early followers were Jewish. Eastern religions consider Jesus an Enlightened One and secular philosophers have long admired him for his ethics. The New Age or pagan movement also believe Jesus is an important figure.

While the adoption of Jesus into these religions proves nothing in particular, it's nevertheless curious to note that Mohammad is only accepted within Islam and Buddha within Buddhism and the gods of the Greek within their own mythology. Jesus is unique among his peers in that he is honored so widely.

But this doesn't solve our confusion, does it? Because adherents to those religions have some correct and some incorrect views about Jesus. But I think the Christians have the most accurate views about Jesus because they were the ones who actually preserved his teachings. I mean, why would early converts not seek to preserve their teacher's instructions? Of course they would. Those teachings must still be interpreted, but there are enough summary statements within the NT writings to make the heart of his teaching difficult to miss. When Jesus said the entire law and prophets were summed up in a single command or when Paul said that only one thing counts with God, these clearly-stated summary statements should be used to interpret everything else which seems unclear. Our opinions differ because that's what humans do. We disagree on everything. You know the saying, put 10 people in a room and you'll end up with 11 different opinions. But a plurality of opinion never excludes the possibility of one being correct. Isn't that the nature of truth anyway? If something is true, all opinions to the contrary (no matter how many there are) will necessarily be false. An interesting questions to ask is, "How many wrong things can one believe about God and still be accepted by Him?" I wish I knew the answer to that.

As to whether I believe in evolution, I can only say that I'm very much open to it, but very underwhelmed by the often overstated evidence. So at this time, I can say that I think the evidence for natural selection and adaptation within a species is outright proven. And the arguments for abiogenesis and common descent are a patchwork of bad ideas and false assumptions that are largely upheld by means of ridiculing anyone who questions the paradigm. Any time ridicule is levied against intelligent dissenting voices, I get suspicious.
Last edited by Jason on Tue Nov 10, 2015 1:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
ApostateltsopA
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 12:16 am

Re: The Plausibility of Atheism

Post by ApostateltsopA » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:56 pm

Quick reply,

I too had read that the Greks had deduced earth was a sphere and had measured it fairly accurately. This http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta ... ion54.html backs that idea up but while a credible site, NASA, I have not had time to validate the claims.

Post Reply

Return to “Agnosticism & Atheism”