Here are some comments about atheism that will make you think!
by Born-again Atheist on Wednesday, June 1, 2011 at 11:05pmThis note is dedicated to Christians and theists who wish to argue, debate or discuss religion with Atheists. I am going to help you do that by addressing a few fundamental errors many Christians make in their assumptions about Atheism:
1. "ATHEISM IS JUST ANOTHER KIND OF FAITH." False. "Theism" means belief in at least one god or deity, and the prefix "a-" means "lack of." That's it. All "atheism" means, and has ever meant, is a lack of faith in all gods. To argue to the contrary demonstrates an ignorance of the English language and merely damages one's own credibility.
2. "ATHEISTS ARE 'DARWINISTS' (I.E. EVOLUTIONISTS) AND VICE VERSA." False, on multiple levels. Firstly, "Darwinist" used in this way is merely an insult (like calling a Christian a "Jesus Freak" or "Bible-Thumper.") Secondly, Atheism and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. There are many people who believe in Evolution who also believe in a god, including many Christians. Most Atheists do believe in Evolution, but not because of their atheism. Again, Atheism is merely the lack of a certain kind of belief, and does not imply a belief in anything else. Science, Evolution and Atheism are not all one in the same, and insisting on such things is merely ignorant and insulting.
3. "ALL ATHEISTS ACTUALLY DO HAVE FAITH." True. Yes, I said true! In fact, generally speaking, all people have some kind of "faith," just not necessarily a religious faith. One definition of faith is simply confidence in a person or thing. I have faith that when I sit down, my chair will hold me. This is usually a reasonable faith because it is based on prior experience that can be objectively confirmed (i.e. my chair is holding me as I type this.) Another definition is a general belief in something without evidence for that belief. That is not necessarily religious, either. It is, however, against reason. As anyone can know, not all Atheists are reasonable people, as some merely hate religion out of personal feelings. It is not Atheism but reason that is, by its nature, generally opposed to any belief without evidence (religious or otherwise).
4. "I HAVE PROOF/EVIDENCE THAT MY FAITH IS TRUE." False. If you did have objectively verifiable proof, your belief would no longer be "faith;" rather, it would be a reasonable, evidence-based belief. If you refuse to accept even that fact, then you're functioning on your own personal definitions of words, which only serves to prevent others from understanding you.
5. "ATHEISTS JUST DON'T WANT TO ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE OF GOD." Maybe. Again, Atheism is merely the lack of religious faith. It is reason that is against forming beliefs solely on faith (religious or otherwise.) If you believe you have actual evidence of a god's existence, most reasonable people will be skeptical, but should want to hear you out. The problem is that you probably don't. Most people who claim to have evidence of a god don't know what "evidence" means. It is not a challenge to Evolution or any other beliefs, because even if you proved all other beliefs wrong, you still haven't even addressed your own belief, let alone proven it correct. This is why reasonable people insist that you "stay on-point." Anecdotes of personal experiences are also not evidence. Even if your story is 100% true, if there's nothing for you to hold in your hand and show for it, then there's no way for anyone else to evaluate the validity of it. No matter how convincing it may feel, a story is not evidence that another story is true. This is also why going back to Scripture to "prove" its validity is also not evidence. Can I prove Odin is real just by using logical-sounding rhetoric to make his story sound reasonable? Or Paul Bunyan? Or even people that did exist, like Abraham Lincoln? Citing a book, telling stories, or quoting other people isn't evidence of anything.
6. "ATHEISTS ACCUSE ME OF BEING IGNORANT/UNREASONABLE OUT OF PREJUDICE." Maybe. All people are given to stereotyping. We're all human and fallible. But these words are not always prejorative (meant to insult). "Ignorant" merely means "without knowledge." We are all ignorant of most things. A reasonable person will agree to that fact. Part of the problem with "reasonable" is that "reason" has many definitions. In the context of a debate on religion, the commonly accepted understanding is that "reason" means forming beliefs based on objective evidence. Claiming that having a religious faith makes one "unreasonable" in the sense that "smart people can't believe in a god" is prejorative, and easy to confuse with simply stating that a religious faith is "beyond reason," that is to say, not based on objective evidence. It's always easy to assume one knows what another person is saying without really listening to him or her, and we are all susceptible to this human flaw. But "assume" makes an "ass" out of both "u" and "me." You can be "reasonable" in all other ways and still maintain a personal faith in your god, which is your human right; and unless you are acting in an unreasonable manner, no one has any standing to claim otherwise. Stand on that fact when dealing with reasonable people, because they should at least be open to it as a possibility, lest they forfeit any right to call themselves "reasonable."
I hope this is of help to anyone who reads it. Some things need to be agreed upon and set aside in this, arguably the most important, debate. If we cannot agree on any of these foundational concepts, then what hope have we for agreeing on anything at all?
6 comments:
An atheist who thinks he uses 'reason' to govern his life (until his next chronic emotional blow-up), cannot honestly say that there is no Creator.
He can't prove his claim in the physical realm until the Creator decides to show himself.
So at best he can only claim to be agnostic, not knowing if there is a supreme being at this time.
But the atheist is neither reasonable nor certain of this issue. It is a matter of faith either way.
It is his faith that makes him claim to be atheist, he chooses to believe in no 'god' usually due to dramatic negative events in his formative life. This is rudimentary abnormal psychology.
He foolishly paints himself into a corner, not leaving his options open.
When the Messiah appears, the agnostic can honestly say, 'Oh, I didn't know.'
All the atheist can say is, 'Oh shit!'
The believer is real winner. His life and health are greatly enhanced through a positive faith-filled lifestyle. When he dies, he is comforted by the good life he has led. Win-Win! He awaits the resurrection in the grave. So what if it doesn't come? Will he know about it?
The point is YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED EITHER WAY! Atheists are foolish and irresponsible, unprepared for what 'may' come afterward.
Many of the most scientific men in history were so REASONABLE that they decided to accept that if there is a Creator of the incredible creation they dealt with, that they better be prepared. Smart, very smart!
Such agnostics can show respect for the possibility outside their understanding, even if they don't know for sure.
Respect is better than hatred and spite.
Atheists are only fooling themselves. They are BITTER, HATEFUL and ANGRY at the Creator for how their life has turned out at some point.
The atheist who runs around claiming 'there is no god,' is no better than the foolish preacher who runs around making ignorant claims about something he doesn't know about.
Both should objectively study into the matter with all their hearts to find out for themselves. Forget about what others say, decide for yourself.
If they want to know about the Creator, they will have to pray and live the kind of life the scriptures say pleases Him. Of course.
If not interested, OK, BE HONEST and just SAY I DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW the CREATOR!
Stop making excuses, including 'there is no god.' This is an ignorant statement with no proof whatsoever.
Welcomed:
Prove to me that there is a god. At that point, I'll stop denying one.
Isn't Science limited to what it can investigate with the scientific method? This would leave the supernatural outside the realm of science. Perhaps it is better to ask, "Is it reasonable to believe in a god?"
Isn't atheism an unreasonable position to take because an atheist would have to know everything before declaring there is not god?
Agnostics Welcomed, you ignored NO2HWA's definition in point 1 in the original post: "All 'atheism' means, and has ever meant, is a lack of faith in all gods."
His "has ever meant" is unjustified, because some people (you and anonymous, for example) actually do use the word to mean "faith that no god exists."
Words may carry different meanings in different texts, which is why careful writers take the time and effort to stipulate what they mean by a particular word in a particular document. In order to carry on a meaningful discussion, respondents need to acknowledge the stipulated definition (even if they themselves prefer a different one) in addressing the topic at hand.
If you had read NO2HWA's definition carefully, you would have seen that people he calls "atheists" have the same belief/non-belief frame as people you call "agnostics": both simply profess no faith in any gods. You are arguing against a proposition that was not part of the original post. Whether you intended to or not, you are making what is called a "straw man" argument: demolishing a position you yourself set up and attributed to the other guy.
For me, the bottom line is that each person is entitled to their own perspectives based on their own perceptions, experiences, upbringing, intellect or lack thereof and so on.
No two people have the same experiences no the same views. Anyone can see, if they wish, the characters in the New Testament in no way "all spoke the same thing." They weren't "all one body we," and "There were always factions between the players from before the body cooled.
No one changes another based on arguments. People change when there is a shift in their own perceptions and removing of filters they have had in place to prevent other perspectives etc.
It's personal and the only way people can successfully "all speak the same thing," or make a large group of people seem to all believe the same, is to wear masks and keep their personal views to themselves.
Post a Comment