The Easter/resurrection rumble thread [warning: this is a free for all]

[quote=“the chief”][quote=“antarcticbeech”]
I think my mind is so heavily dominated by rationality that I cannot possibly imagine or feel any God in the Christian sense, but that is ok. I’m sure for people like Housecat he, or she, or it, exists. I always like people with strong beliefs, whether I fully understand them or not.[/quote]

My my my, aren’t you a special little snowflake!
How thoroughly condescending.
I’ll make sure and pat her on her empty little irrational little head for you next time I see her.[/quote]

Intelligence does not equate with rationality, and you could just as easily read my statement, ‘I cannot imagine or feel’ as emptyheadedness on my part. When I talk religion with believers I am always left with the sense - like right now - that there is something I just don’t ‘get’. The way my previous post reads to you is quite possibly an example of this. Anyway, is probably best if I just shut up now.

You’re doing ok. I did say this is a free for all, and it goes both ways. Carry on people.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]AntarcticBeech, lovely name by the way - lovely tree, at least the arctic varieties I’ve seen, terrible for building a cabin though as they have very soft & porous wood, presents something I have noted in many, not all, of those who make the claim to atheism.
That is they are of the opinion that life centers around them. In their sphere there is nothing higher, nothing more infinite nor more intelligent that is worthy of their adulation, respect or praise.
Now I know, some of the atheistic inclination will give something resembling praise or adoration to “nature” or some nebulous “universal” spirit thingy. But really, it seems to me at least, that their ego just simply does not allow their mind to delve into the concept that there is a higher power. Something that exists outside the realm of human existence that is the creator of all this potpouri we know as life its ownself.

This does seem to manifest itself in derision and condescension when in discussions about, and with those who do profess to believe, in religion and a higher life than their own. Rather self-limiting I think.[/quote]

Yeah, this is like when someone suddenly becomes “aware” of past lives, and they were always someone famous, how the jeez does that work?? :loco:

Actually, the best ever take on this appears in Albert Brooks’ (the funniest man in the world) Defending Your Life.

Down-both-legs-pants-wettingly-hilarious stuff.

I have yet to hear an atheist who has made such a claim.

Carl Sagan talked about the importance of maintaining a sense of wonder about the mysteries of the universe. I agree with him, and I do find great wonder, intrigue and inspiration in science (though I’m not a scientist myself). We humans are products of the universe, so we could say the universe is greater than us. Indeed, we’re insignificant in comparison to the vastness of the universe.

But we have yet to locate any kind of intelligence that is greater than human beings have. Perhaps we could create an artificial intelligence one day that is greater than humans have. Perhaps there are aliens out there in some part of the vastness of space who have greater intelligence than us. We don’t know… yet.

No, it has nothing to do with ego. All we ask for is a reason to believe.

Not an assertion, not a threat, not a testimony of subjective experience, not an appeal to faith, not an appeal to solipsism, not a claim that belief in god will make the world a better place. But actual evidence or a line of reasoning that objectively and conclusively points to the existence of a god. Otherwise it is reasonable to be doubtful; after all, you are doubtful about Shiva, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl and a host of other deities.

Atheists are skeptics when it comes to the existence of god(s).

As to ridicule: where does this urge among many atheists toward derision come from? Not in the god concept. It’s more in the details, and in the way it’s presented. I’ll give you an example. Have you ever watched Dr. Charlene Werner’s talk on homeopathy? Easily found on YouTube. It’s not religious, but it’s pseudoscience. And it’s babble, but apparently it makes sense in her world. Try watching it and listening to the claims made. It will be difficult to keep your composure.

The problem is that all too often, we find people trying to convince us of the validity of religion in a way not unlike the way Dr. Werner tries to convince us of the validity of homeopathy.

Examples of religious proponents who have made statements worthy of ridicule include Kent Hovind, Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron (if only for his infamous “crocoduck”), Ben Stein for Expelled, Bill O’Reilly for his “tides go in, tides go out” and “who put the moon there” statements, and plenty more things. Mostly because the claims they make can be readily refuted by anyone who has taken high school level science classes, and which they themselves could have saved themselves embarrassment by a little googling.

These guys are creationists. But our urge to laugh is not restricted to creationist claims. It also applies to things like auras, thetans, spiritual energy fields, snake handling, gematria, 72 virgins, transubstantiation, talking snakes, and more. We roll our eyes when people ask “If humans came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?” We slap our palms to our faces when we hear “The Bible/Koran/Book of Mormom/Bhagavad Gita is true because it says so in the Bible/Koran/Book of Mormom/Bhagavad Gita.” We want to stab ourselves in the eyes with hot needles when we hear “God created man. Man exists. Therefore God exists.” And we simply throw our arms up and give up in exasperation when we hear “The Bible sez it, I believe it, that settles it.”

BTW, I have no urge to laugh at Fortigurn.

Sagan said it well. David said it a bit earlier:

Psalm 8:
3 When I look up at the heavens, which your fingers made, and see the moon and the stars, which you set in place,
4 Of what importance is the human race, that you should notice them? Of what importance is mankind, that you should pay attention to them?

:smiley:

Thanks. I agree with everything you say here by the way (and following):

Well said, Chris.

A good point you make where you ask why believers believe in their particular flavor of God and not others. Zeus, Shiva, Anubis, etc. and to ask them to critique a presentation from a believer in those other gods about what makes them believe. it’s just a short step from there to renouncing all faith. Unless they can’t imageine life without faith, in which case one can only stand back and let them get on with it.

and the comment from TC about atheists thinking that the world revolves around them… I think you would find many atheists, myself included, who are quite content with the realisation that we are all very very insignificant specks of matter assembled from the violent deaths of old stars, momentarily constituted in an evanescent lump of fleeting duration on a minor rock spinning about a third rate star on the edges of a very minor galaxy far from anywhere…

not exactly the center of anything really.

but not afraid that we will die and disappear, to live only briefly in the memory of those around us. Unless, of course, someone writes a great book about us, crediting us with all manner of improbable acts (mostly by not understanding how things actually work), conflating the deeds and expressions and philosophy of our contemporaries and forebears, and then upselling this to a growing flock of equally misguided adherents. Not that that could ever happen, like.

I find a good starting point is to ask whether or not their religion believes in an immortal soul; ‘It does? Sorry, reality clash’. For me that rules out a significant number of religions at one stroke. I usually move on to cosmology next, and that sorts out most of the rest. There’s not much left after that.

I think a lot of religious people get confused by the declarations of the essential meaninglessness of human beings from atheists on the one hand, and the declarations of unique human value from secular humanists on the other. It’s likely that the latter are interpreted as ‘atheist’ statements (which of course they aren’t necessarily), while the atheist protestations that we’re simply mobile bags of chemicals, are overlooked.

I guess in great part I believe in my flavor because it’s the handiest for me. It’s within my reach. But I don’t have any reason to try to stop others from believing in their flavors.

As far as I can tell, Kierkegaard was a Christian. Does it follow from that that his mind was not as “heavily dominated by rationality” as yours?

Likewise, Monsignor Georges Lemaître, proponent of the expanding Universe and the Big Bang Theory?

Are you sure?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Well great, in that case we’re free to take no notice of them. Unless they’re demonstrably mainstream or typical Christian arguments, they’re irrelevant to the Christians here.[/quote]

They may be irrelevant to you, but to say that they are irrelevant to all Christians here is a bit arrogant. They are relevant to religion, and therefore to religious people. BTW, it’s also a bit much to say you can only use Christian arguments to analyze Christianity. That’s a big assertion that requires some logical foundation.

That is absurd, because by doing so they are breaking social conventions. People are atheists because they lose or never had a faith in god or gods.

[quote=“Fortigurn”]

Not in the least. Why would I say something so silly? As for the rest of what you write, you’re now conflating two separate classes of statements. The statements you made originally are phrased as arguments Christians make in justification for their belief. But the new statements you’re making are your interpretation of why people believe Christianity. If you could choose one set of statements to stand by (or even both), I’d be happy to respond to them.[/quote]

No, I am saying they are told as children to be Hindus by Hindus all around them, just as some children are told to be Christian by Christians. The bottom line is, people believe in a deity or deities because they are told to at a young, impressionable age. That is, anyway, the main overall reason.

[quote=“BigJohn”]The bottom line is, people believe in a deity or deities because they are told to at a young, impressionable age. That is, anyway, the main overall reason.[/quote] You make cartoons out of us.

My father had some sort of spiritual beliefs, maybe strong ones but they were hard to pin down (he could talk about Jesus, Khalil Gibran, Omar Khayyam (as far as I can tell, Omar was an atheist), and probably other stuff I don’t remember), and I think by the time I was in about the fourth or fifth grade, he had stopped going to church.

My mother was a Baptist and wanted to take me to church and Sunday school on Sunday. I remember asking when I should get baptized, and someone, I think my Sunday school teacher, told me that I would know it by some kind of feeling. I never did really get that feeling, but I sort of faked it so I could just get the baptism thing over with.

At some point during elementary school, maybe sixth grade, I guess, it became a hassle to get me to go to Sunday school or church. My dad said that I didn’t have to go, but I had to read whatever the Sunday school lesson was, and he would come in and quiz me about it. That’s when he surprised me by showing how knowledgeable he was about the Bible.

There were illustrations in those little books–you know, illustrations of Biblical figures, dressed in the way people imagined they dressed. There were also pictures of the kinds of houses they lived in, and other acoutrements of their lives. After my father would quiz me, I would go outside to play with my friends, wander around, whatever. I remember that when I went outside and saw the TV antennas, and the bungalow-type houses, and the cars zipping by, and the jet planes overhead, that they came into conflict with the pictures in the Sunday school book. In fact, they, and many other things in the life I was leading moment by moment, seemed to overwhelm those pictures.

Again, I guess it was in elementary school (maybe nine, ten, eleven, not sure exactly when it was, but thereabouts), I went to my parents crying, and told them I was having trouble believing in God. One or both of my parents showed me some photographs from a book. I think the photographs were of archeological excavations of what was purported to be an ancient Israelite/Jewish temple from before the birth of Christ. I think one or both of my parents referred to it as Solomon’s Temple.

That gave me some relief, but I bet that relief didn’t last more than about a day, maybe a lot less than that, because it wasn’t long before I reasoned, “Just because there was a Solomon and he had a temple, that doesn’t mean that there’s a God.”

But I didn’t exactly stop believing; it just got mixed in with and diluted by a bunch of other things (that mixed in and diluted thing really has always been the case with me; I’m no poster boy for spirituality).

I remember getting crude ideas about evolution from somewhere. I don’t recall them being in serious conflict with my religious beliefs. Those TV antennas on Sunday probably had more anti-religious influence on me than Darwin.

Oh, yeah, at about age thirteen I read the story “Letters from the Earth,” by Mark Twain. That actually caused me to tinker around with atheism briefly, but not more than about a month.

I’ll go ahead and cut to age fifteen. I was somewhat rebellious, so my parents sent me to live with my oldest brother and his wife for one school semester. About that time, I stopped believing in God. I remember talking to my dad on the phone from my brother’s house and telling him, “I don’t believe in anything anymore.” And I remember him answering, “Well, that’s a start.”

My two best friends throughout most of my childhood were brought up in an atheist household. Their mother was an atheist. The older of the two brothers struggled with spiritual ideas for a while, but I don’t recall what finally happened as a result. The younger brother eventually became a Christian.

Oh, this may be the way I found out that my childhood best friend was not joking about having become a Christian: He had gotten advanced degrees and a wife and kids, and gotten a good job way up north. By that time, we didn’t communicate regularly. I called him up one day, just to see how he was doing. It happened to be Easter Sunday. I believed in God again by then, but I didn’t pay too much attention to Easter, or religious holidays, for that matter. But right after I said hello to my friend and let him know who was calling him, he said, “He is risen.” :laughing: Just thought I’d add that, in keeping with the thread’s theme.

Like I said, man, you make cartoons out of us. We’re actually three-dimensional human beings. We’ve, you know, got a lot more detail than you assign to us.

Great post Charlie. We’ve all got a lot more in common than we know.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Great post Charlie. We’ve all got a lot more in common than we know.[/quote] Thanks, TC. I kinda figured (or hoped) we did.

I don’t think it is arrogant; of all the Christians posting here, none of them have used these arguments. What I think is arrogant is slapping down a series of arguments no one here has used and asserting their relevance to the discussion at hand.

They’re only relevant if people are actually making them. If I say ‘Atheists say they’re angry every day because they don’t have love in their hearts, which is why they want Christians to be rounded up and shot’, it’s an utterly stupid thing to say if it’s not remotely representative of what atheists actually say.

I didn’t say that at all.

Evidence please. Which social conventions? Children of religious people overwhelmingly grow up religious; children of atheists overwhelmingly grow up atheist. In both cases the reason is exactly the same; their views were formed significantly by their parents, before they were in a position to form their own independently.

Well exactly; children born to atheist parents overwhelmingly grow up atheist. How surprising!

I agree, and as I’ve pointed out that is the main overall reason why people are atheists. Ironically however, more people deconvert from religion to atheism than convert from atheism to religion; I wonder who’s more open minded and genuinely prepared to change? :smiley:

I agree (Cicero already made this point almost 2,000 years ago, and he wasn’t the only one), just like people in different cultures are atheists because they are told to be. :smiley:[/quote]
That is absurd, because by doing so they are breaking social conventions. People are atheists because they lose or never had a faith in god or gods.[/quote]
It’s been said that everyone is born an atheist because babies do not have a religious or theistic beliefs when they are born. But there are different personality types: some children may be naturally more inclined toward theistic belief than others. But I don’t really know.

In any case, a child brought up in, say, a Hare Krishna community completely isolated from the rest of the world, will only know about the Hare Krishna religion, and will not independently discover, say, Christianity or Islam. These religions are taught to the child by parents and community. It’s plausible that the child may become skeptical of the religion and eventually become an atheist; he may even invent his own religion. But he won’t become an adherent of any other established religion on the planet if he is totally isolated from them.

Even if a kid is exposed to different religions while growing up, the odds are that he will retain a religious tradition the same or similar to the religion of his parents and primary community. The 1991 study “Counting Flocks and Lost Sheep: Trends in Religious Preference Since World War II” by Tom W. Smith of the University of Chicago bears this out, with 90.8% of Mormons following their parents’ religion, 86.6% of Jews, 80.0% of Lutherans, 71.8% of Southern Baptists, for starters. Almost every instance is over 50%, with only “Liberal Protestantism” and “Interdenominational” showing just under 50%.

Upbringing is hugely influential in the religion a person practices.

This is true, and there’s nothing cartoonish or shameful about it: it’s merely a distillation of a complex circumstance whose details differ from person to person.

Do you really believe that to be an intellectually honest insinuation? :laughing:

(I’m quite sure Fortigurn intended this as tongue in cheek, and realizes and will explain for all the logical fallacy involved.)

Once you see the light, it’s hard to go back. :smiley:

Welcome to the club Chris; BJ and I already agreed on this.

Of course it was tongue in cheek. :smiley: It’s interesting all the same; arguments that a religious upbringing constitutes irreversible brainwashing in favour of religious belief founder horribly against the fact that so many deconvert completely to atheism (nice try Chris, I see what you did there).

Chris, this strand of the thread started here:

[quote=“BigJohn”]God exists because people tell us he does and it feels like a nice idea.

The Bible is the Holy Book because people say it is.

Christ rose from the dead because it says so in the Bible.

If you want to disagree with any of this on intellectual grounds, you have to do so in a way that doesn’t offend or disrespect those who do agree.

OK, got it?[/quote]

Setting aside the fourth statement and the question at the end, are you really saying that statistics prove the above, that is, that statitics prove that the above statements are sound representations of the attitudes and beliefs that cause people to have Christian beliefs? Because if you are, that’s breathtaking, man.

Once you see the light, it’s hard to go back. :smiley:[/quote]
Not me. I left the church for about 12 ten years before I went back. Life makes more sense to me this way. There’s no way I’m completely “right” about what I believe in; I think my puny little brain would necessarily shortchange the reality of what God is. But for me, to ignore something as big as God didn’t make sense either.