A question for atheists

[Bluegoat]

Thank you for the clarification. I think! I'm still pretty confused, so please be patient as I repeat what I think you're saying. That way I won't waste any time discussing something that no one else is talking about, lol!

 

It seems to me you're saying that the laws of nature explained with a god variable are identical to the laws of nature explained without a god variable. It doesn't make sense to me to invoke such a variable if it's unnecessary.

 

I don't know that morality can be considered objective in the context of the laws of physics. What is the objective source that identifies morality?

 

Your idea that morality can be understood with education goes along with my idea that everyone thinks their morality is right, and those who disagree simply misunderstand the source.

 

I'm surprised no theist has asked you to stop referring to their beliefs as being uneducated. It's uncomfortable for me to read, and I'm not even a believer.

 

I don't think that morality can be understood with education, or not without it, that's not at all what I am getting at. I think almost anyone can learn about theology if they are interested. I'm trying to  present what is the developed theology of orthodox Christianity without getting too much into where it would consider theologically controversial.  There are lots of groups or individuals who aren't orthodox, so I'm not saying anything about them, but there are also people within the orthodox groups who have little knowledge of theology, or even have significant misunderstandings.  A 10th century peasant might have views that would be considered totally heretical by his own church, mainly because he had no opportunity to learn any theology.  And you can still find tat today, Catholics, for example, who don't know much Catholic theology, because they aren't interested (lots of people aren't), or don't have the chance, or had a bad teacher. And a lot of people don't continue their religious education past elementary school, so what they got there is not what you would get in a university or graduate level theology course - sometimes its the language that is different 

 

So I always feel aware in discussions like this that even where there is a very stable theological view, lots of people have heard other things, and I feel like I have to make it clear I'm describing is what someone with a theological education might say about the orthodox teaching, not necessarily what every individual member thinks.  For example, lots of Catholics, especially 50 years ago or more, might say purgatory was a place, but a Catholic with a theological education probably would not consider that to be the most accurate explanation of the official teaching.

 

  Otherwise you tend to see people saying "well, I am a Christian, and I don't think that and its not what I was taught."  Maybe though I can say orthodox teaching instead, though I'm not sure that would be better.

 

About the god variable - I'm not sure I'd say its a different variable at all, just a different way to name it.  I mean, if you want to do science, you don't need to talk about that at all, as it only deals with physical nature.  Once you get into metaphysical questions, you go beyond the physical.  And when philosophers in the ancient world spoke about that underlying self-existent principle, they called it god.  It's not a addition, its the same thing, they've just given it a name  A variety of names really, The Good, The Unmoved Mover.  There were a variety of opinions and arguments about what the various attributes of that principle must be, so it isn't like they all agreed.  If a scientist today says he wants to identify a self-existent first principle for everything that exists, he really isn't engaged on a different kind of task, whatever he decides to name that thing he is looking for.  Though if he is doing it as science he has to limit his methods to a greater degree than philosophy would.

 

But as far as identifying even a completely objective reality,  I don't know that I would say there is a totally objective way to identify it But, I don't think there is a totally objective way to know anything. 

[Onceuponatime]

:lol:

 

OK, zero fork in the drawer probably-- almost certainly-- does mean zero fork in the drawer. To my mind that is measurement matter, not an evidentiary one, but at some point everything does come down to definitions, doesn't it. This is yet another manifestation of how utterly unsuited is my disposition to the philosophical life. Carry on.

One way to look at it is to substitute something silly like leprechauns or fairies.There are hundreds of stories and tales of leprechauns, some written down in glorious detail. There are even people who have believed in them and had rituals to appease them, with consequences that they firmly believe were leprechaun caused. Is it reasonable to say that the absence of concrete evidence for the existence of leprechauns is not evidence of their absence in the world? Forgive me if you are a leprechaunist. Edited January 4, 2017 by Onceuponatime

[Bluegoat]

No. I don't generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted.

 

ETA: With the caveat - I'm not a historian! So take my ignorance into account (read: Please don't play "gotcha" with me, lol!)

 

So, why not?  I mean, there have been things that seem improbable to me, even though people in the know said otherwise and I thought their expertise was real.  It just didn't seem quite right, on an intuitive level.  But it does create a bit of a problem for thinking about the subject generally. 

 

ETA - For example, what are we supposed to say about Hannibal?

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Charlie]

I don't think that morality can be understood with education, or not without it, that's not at all what I am getting at. I think almost anyone can learn about theology if they are interested. I'm trying to  present what is the developed theology of orthodox Christianity without getting too much into where it would consider theologically controversial.  There are lots of groups or individuals who aren't orthodox, so I'm not saying anything about them, but there are also people within the orthodox groups who have little knowledge of theology, or even have significant misunderstandings.  A 10th century peasant might have views that would be considered totally heretical by his own church, mainly because he had no opportunity to learn any theology.  And you can still find tat today, Catholics, for example, who don't know much Catholic theology, because they aren't interested (lots of people aren't), or don't have the chance, or had a bad teacher. And a lot of people don't continue their religious education past elementary school, so what they got there is not what you would get in a university or graduate level theology course - sometimes its the language that is different 

 

So I always feel aware in discussions like this that even where there is a very stable theological view, lots of people have heard other things, and I feel like I have to make it clear I'm describing is what someone with a theological education might say about the orthodox teaching, not necessarily what every individual member thinks.  For example, lots of Catholics, especially 50 years ago or more, might say purgatory was a place, but a Catholic with a theological education probably would not consider that to be the most accurate explanation of the official teaching.

 

  Otherwise you tend to see people saying "well, I am a Christian, and I don't think that and its not what I was taught."  Maybe though I can say orthodox teaching instead, though I'm not sure that would be better.

 

About the god variable - I'm not sure I'd say its a different variable at all, just a different way to name it.  I mean, if you want to do science, you don't need to talk about that at all, as it only deals with physical nature.  Once you get into metaphysical questions, you go beyond the physical.  And when philosophers in the ancient world spoke about that underlying self-existent principle, they called it god.  It's not a addition, its the same thing, they've just given it a name  A variety of names really, The Good, The Unmoved Mover.  There were a variety of opinions and arguments about what the various attributes of that principle must be, so it isn't like they all agreed.  If a scientist today says he wants to identify a self-existent first principle for everything that exists, he really isn't engaged on a different kind of task, whatever he decides to name that thing he is looking for.  Though if he is doing it as science he has to limit his methods to a greater degree than philosophy would.

 

But as far as identifying even a completely objective reality,  I don't know that I would say there is a totally objective way to identify it But, I don't think there is a totally objective way to know anything. 

 

The two comments in bold are not in agreement.

[Charlie]

So, why not?  I mean, there have been things that seem improbable to me, even though people in the know said otherwise and I thought their expertise was real.  It just didn't seem quite right, on an intuitive level.  But it does create a bit of a problem for thinking about the subject generally. 

 

You asked me if I generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted. My answer is that I do not find historical discoveries to be overthrown by new evidence in general. In general, I find that discoveries and explanations based on those discoveries are further corroborated by more evidence, not contradicted (details notwithstanding, not a full 180 degree turnabout). It's not always the case, but generally I find it to be so. I do not feel this provides a problem for thinking about history generally, and I find that last comment to be indicative of the "gotcha" I was hoping you weren't going for. Although, I do find it very interesting for other reasons, some related to this topic but I'm running out of time.

 

ETA: I didn't catch your edit. "For example, what are we supposed to say about Hannibal?" My opinion is that should a historian challenge the claims made about Hannibal, the discussion about what constitutes as evidence would ensue. Ultimately, whatever the historical record shows to be true would be accepted as fact, at least until more evidence comes to modify or correct it. That's all good and true and true of Jesus, too. Here's the difference, very few people care whether or not the claims about Hannibal are true, probably in no small part due to the fact that no one is legislating state or federal laws based on what is assumed to piss him off.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Charlie

[Pam in CT]

re "evidence" of forks, folk heroes and fairies:

One way to look at it is to substitute something silly like leprechauns or fairies.There are hundreds of stories and tales of leprechauns, some written down in glorious detail. There are even people who have believed in them and had rituals to appease them, with consequences that they firmly believe were leprechaun caused. Is it reasonable to say that the absence of concrete evidence for the existence of leprechauns is not evidence of their absence in the world? Forgive me if you are a leprechaunist.

 

 

Well, I don't know precisely where the line is, but there's a distinction between counting how many concrete physical forks are in a concrete contained drawer (that to me is just "measurement"), vs. maybe-rooted-in-concrete-history-but-scantly-evidenced figures like Gilgamesh and King Arthur, vs. leprechauns and fairies and other supernatural claims. 

 

There was a time when the hypothesis that the earth orbited the sun was as goofy and fantastic as the existence of leprechauns and fairies.  And within that time, the absence of evidence did not prove the falseness of the theory.  As with dark matter today.  Perhaps evidence will be found, or perhaps the theory will be displaced by another.

 

Which is not to suggest for a moment that I today accept the possibility of fairies in the same sense or to the same degree as I do the possibility of dark matter.  The plausibility of the hypothesis matters, as does how long and diligently and honestly folks have been looking for evidence.  ETA: I do not believe that fairies exist, but at the same time I cannot definitively prove they are not by pointing to the absence of evidence.  I can, OTOH, use evidence to prove that forks do exist. 

 

 

 I fully agree that prevalence of belief is not, in and of itself, evidence.

 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Pam in CT

[MercyA]

Of course, I'm pukey and cranky and that might be coloring my opinion today.

 

Where's my passing-the-pregnant-lady-some-saltines-and-gingerly-tiptoeing-away emoji?  

 

Sorry you don't feel well, but glad for high hormone levels.  :)

[fraidycat]

I do think it is hard to understand, mainly because I've met quite a lot of people who don't understand it. It really isn't the same, working as a historian, as teaching at even a high school level. There are homeschoolers who teach subjects like biology to their students, but that doesn't mean they are qualified t evaluate evidence as a biologist, or even have a very in depth understanding of how it is done. Typically, when parents teach those kinds of subjects they are very much dependent on the work of the experts in making those kinds of evaluations.

 

Specifically, what you've said about primary documents doesn't even scratch the surface of what is involved in evaluating information in ancient history.

 

As far as ancient history - the consensus on this question is overwhelming - I've compared it to global climate change with good reason - if you were to apply to any department of ancient history while claiming that Jesus was not a historical person, unless you had some startling new information, you would not be hired. There is one professor, in New England IIRC, who takes that view, but he is tenured and generally seen as a crackpot. He's pretty unique, because otherwise you don't really find it whether you are talking about people who are Christians or not, or from cultures that are Christian or not. These are not people with an axe to grind on this subject.

 

It's possible of course that the experts are all blind and self-deceiving, but given that academia loves that kind of controversy, it seems unlikely, and a conspiracy to keep a lid on that kind of view seems back into the global warming conspiracy territory.

 

A good article on how historians evaluate whether Jesus was a real person, written for laypersons, is here. It gives some interesting insight on historical evidence in ancient history, it's probably the best overview I've seen.

 

ETA - here is the second part of the article

The weaknesses of the Mythicist hypothesis multiply when its proponents turn to coming up with their own explanation as to how the Jesus stories did arise if there was no historical Jesus.

The same way Zeus, Poseidon, Hermes, Odin, Freya, Thor, et al. stories arose. No weakness at all.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I do agree with Pam that the existence of a man called Jesus is a bit of a side trail. 

 

Personally, the existence or not of a man called Jesus is irrelevant to my belief, lack therof or refusal of God. And irrelevant to my reaction to a child hypothetically embracing religion. 

 

And I always think, what would people think of such a person today?  They'd think he was crazy and his followers were crazy.  How reasonable would it make a person to believe him wholeheartedly that he was the son of a god?  Not very reasonable in my book.  I guess I'm mostly baffled as to how this has endured as long as it has.  But then it wouldn't be the first and only thing people believed for a long time that didn't turn out to be true.

[MercyA]

.

 

That sounds absolutely lovely.  The "belief" part of my personal faith is very weak, and it seems that every attempt I make at strengthening it ends up having the opposite effect.  But I want to live like a person of faith, if that makes sense, to be part of a community that says, "here's what we're going to do, and we're all in this together."  But since I am part of a community whose raison d'être is belief, I struggle with feeling like a fraud, like I don't really belong, like I'm just going through the motions, while everyone else is all-in, heart, mind, and soul.  And since no one else in my immediate family is interested in religion at all, that leaves me going alone, without the people I love the most, to a different, separate community.  It just . . . I don't know, it's not working out so great.

 

((Greta))

 

I don't know where you live.  Around here, there are many Christian churches that emphasize community and care over belief.  You can find them by looking at who's supporting refugee services, running ESL classes, hosting food pantries, engaging in interfaith dialogue and joint projects, etc.  ("Social justice" here is a positive term; only recently did I learn that it's a term of derision in other circles / geographies!!)

 

You might try the Methodists, they seem ubiquitous... 

 

Greta, if you decide to look for a new church home, might I also suggest that you consider Mennonite churches? They range from very conservative to very liberal theologically and are heavily involved in peace, justice, and relief efforts around the world. Just a thought. :grouphug:  

Edited February 14, 2017 by MercyA

[SparklyUnicorn]

It endures because a vast number of people have a lot invested. And really, in terms of time, 2000 years seems a lot to us, but is nothing, absolutely nothing, in terms of the Earth, let alone the universe. 

 

Get in a time machine, zoom forward a few millenia, and I guarantee you, if humans are left, humans will be worshipping (or choosing not to worship) something or someone else.

 

true

 

I wonder what people will believe in the future

[Charlie]

I think you might be overreaching here in your assumptions. Bluegoat has never struck me as an especially insecure person. :) I thought people were just having a conversation and doing it fairly respectfully on all sides. 

 

I think it's like any topic here on the forum--if it's a subject you know something about, and you feel that your position is being misrepresented or that there is inaccurate information being shared, it's natural to want to chime in.

 

IDK. Apologetics aren't really my thing, but I don't see anything wrong with polite debate.

 

I want to say that at first I agreed with you, but the more this thread goes on the less I can. For one thing, theology is a matter of belief, first and foremost. It's a matter of figuring out the possibilities of reality against the assumption of a claim that must, by its very nature, be accepted in faith only. It utilizes evidence and logic and history and all kinds of things, but ultimately, theology assumes the existence of the divine. 

 

So, the correction you mention then is a matter of personal belief. And that gets into trying to convince others your beliefs are valid. And that, to me, is proselytizing. So, in answer to my own OP, I would consider this thread to be exemplary of subtle, but legitimate proselytizing as it's become a conversation about how a particular theological viewpoint rightfully explains reality. It may not be followed up with a kind of altar call, but the assumption is there - if you are willing to acknowledge the Truth (or dare I say, if you are educated enough to recognize it, lol), you would then acknowledge the God behind it. Which is the whole point of proselytizing, no?

[Mom-ninja.]

Sucessful for the species, or for individuals, in terms of propagating their genetic material.

 

It's within the context of the idea that morality is an (only) an evolutionary development to encourage us to behave in ways that make the human species successful, for example we feel a moral aversion to murder because if we went around murdering each other that would tend to make us less successful as social beings.  You can look at it on an individual level too, if avoiding murder helps people pass on their genes, means they have or raise more offspring, that tendency would tend to spread in the population.

 

I think personally there is some truth to that, but I also think it falls down in two related ways.  One is that we can see that there are lots of societies where there is or has been rape, murder, and slavery, and they have prospered as a group - its really worked for them.  They aren't nice for the oppressed, but if you go to war, kill your neighbours, and take their agricultural land, you will be spreading your genetic material around a lot more and they won't be at all.  And as we might expect, in some societies some or all of those behaviors are considered ok. 

 

Also - we still see a lot of the desire to rape, murder, and enslave, both in individuals and within whole groups. It seems like evolution has allowed those impulses to remain, and probably because they are useful in terms of evolutionary success.  If they were really liabilities, they would be selected against.

 

I think if we honestly want to make an argument from evolution, we are really committing ourselves to saying that whatever allows the successful propagation of genes is moral, whatever it means for the unfortunate individuals who get snuffed out. 

 

This just tells me that you don't completely understand evolution. It's a whole lot more than just propagating an individual's own DNA. Evolution is very complex. 

 

 

 

true

 

I wonder what people will believe in the future

 

Have you not watched Star Trek? :D

[Audrey]

All of this. And for those would say why not follow Jesus "just in case"? -  well, what of other religions? Why not follow Islam just in case Muhammad was right? Or Judaism just in case the Messiah still hasn't come? Or Buddhism just in case? Or Hinduism just in case? Why pick the one religious system that happens to be dominant in your country of origin as the right one? That seems rather convenient.

 

As a pp said (was it you Onceuponatime?), they can't all be right but they can all be wrong. Until I see that fork in the drawer I'm going on the belief that they're all wrong. No just in case for me. That's atheism in a nutshell.

The "just in case" argument always makes laugh. I am just reminded of that scene where Benny meets the Mummy. Until then, I will chalk up deific existence as fiction just about as plausible as ancient mummies walking around resurrected.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Audrey

[SparklyUnicorn]

This thread makes me remember why I both love and hate atheist threads.

 

Love, because I remember how much I like other atheists.

 

Hate, because talking about monotheistic religion puts me in a reliably bad mood. 

 

although not too long ago this thread wouldn't have lasted this long and there would have been a heck of a lot more nastiness towards us

 

so overall I'm rather impressed

[Greta]

You might also find it useful to look at some really different religious traditions that what you've been used to.  The kinds of things that get discussed here as if they are not understood by Christian groups are widely known and accepted by some, both more theologically orthodox and liberal.  Many Quaker groups are theologically liberal, but any that I have encountered are fully up on modern religious and textual studies, and they have a lot of emphasis on social justice.

 

And most educated about their religion Catholics (especially outside the US) or Orthodox Christians are as well, though they tend to use a model of textual analysis that is neither critical analysis nor what you see in evangelical protestant groups - largely because the text exists within a larger framework rather than standing on its own.

 

From what you've said here and elsewhere, I think you might find both of those interesting perspectives.

  

Greta, if you decide to look for a new church home, might I also suggest that you consider Mennonite churches? They range from very conservative to very liberal theologically and are heavily involved in peace, justice, and relief efforts around the world. Just a thought. :grouphug:

 

Thank you both! I appreciate everyone's help so much. :)

[Audrey]

although not too long ago this thread wouldn't have lasted this long and there would have been a heck of a lot more nastiness towards us

 

so overall I'm rather impressed

Meh. I'm not. It was supposed to be an atheist thread. Clearly and politely marked. Yet, we've got one person barely veiling their proselytizing and others handing out church recommendations right and left like tic tacs at a halitosis sufferers convention.

 

So, no... not impressed. Same stink, different thread.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Audrey

[Charlie]

Meh. I'm not. We've got one person barely veiling their proselytizing and others handing out church recommendations right and left like tic tacs at a halitosis sufferers convention.

 

So, no... not impressed. Same stink, different thread.

 

Shoot, now you've got me cracking myself up:

 

"Question: Do you get proselytized?"

"Nope."

"Nah."

"They don't dare."

"Sometimes."

"We don't talk to them."

"Have you heard the Good News?"

 

[Audrey]

Shoot, now you've got me cracking myself up:

 

"Question: Do you get proselytized?"

"Nope."

"Nah."

"They don't dare."

"Sometimes."

"We don't talk to them."

"Have you heard the Good News?"

It would be funny but for the fact that if this were a clearly and politely marked Christian content thread and anyone came into it and said -- "Hey, there's no proof of your god. Here's some books, and some websites for atheists, you should try them and see if you like them!" -- then I can practically guarantee that person would be reported and the mods would come deleting posts and locking threads and slapping hands toute suite.

[Greta]

I'm sorry for my part in derailing the thread. I took some things to private messages but probably should have done so sooner (or from the beginning!).

[Lady Florida.]

It would be funny but for the fact that if this were a clearly and politely marked Christian content thread and anyone came into it and said -- "Hey, there's no proof of your god. Here's some books, and some websites for atheists, you should try them and see if you like them!" -- then I can practically guarantee that person would be reported and the mods would come deleting posts and locking threads and slapping hands toute suite.

 

Yep. That scenario has played out often here. So has this one. Atheists having a conversation and Christians coming in and telling us how wrong we are. 

[Gentlemommy]

Zero. Here's the thing Christians fall back on - you can't prove that he DOESN'T exist, which is true , but you also can't prove that fairies don't exist. I read a few of your other posts, and you remind me a lot of how I used to think. I wasn't very outspoken about my faith, but it was a very deep and significant part of who I was. I never questioned it, never felt the need to look for evidence; I was happy being a Christian!

 

All that changed when my husband became an atheist. It turned my world upside down, and I became very determined to prove to him that Jesus really was the son of God who died for our sins so we could spend eternity with him. I started reading every apologetic book I could get my hands on, but he reminded me that I wasn't being intellectually honest if I only read the books written by Christians. So, I started reading books by atheists and learned things I never knew about the Bible that shattered everything I thought was true.

 

A few things to consider:

 

The God of the old testament is barbaric - not divine. How could a divine being who created the galaxies view young girls as spoils of war? Read Numbers 31 where God commands the Israelites to commit genocide but spare the virgins for themselves. (verse 18: But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.") REALLY?!! God rewards the men for their slaughter by telling them they get to keep the virgins! Also, why can't God do his own dirty work? Why does he command the Israelites to slaughter nursing babies??? (1 Samuel 15:3). I think it's pretty obvious some ancient tribal leader knew that the best way to motivate your men to go to war is to (1) tell them God wants them to do it and (2) reward them with virgins.

 

Prophesies used to be very convincing to me. I never considered that the writers of the New Testament might have written the stories in a way that fulfilled them. For example, when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey during Passover. Matthew apparently misunderstood the prophesy in Zech 9:9.

 

Matthew 21: 4-5

 

4 This took place to fulfill what was spoken through the prophet:

 

5 “Say to Daughter Zion, ‘See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, and on a colt, the foal of a donkey.’ â€

 

 

The gospel writer didn't understand Hebrew poetry where a 2 line sequence (a couplet) would say one thing in the first line and then the same thing in other words in the next line. He has Jesus riding into town on BOTH animals!!

 

Matthew 21: 6

6 The disciples went and did as Jesus had directed them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt and put on them their cloaks, and he sat on them.

 

So, did Jesus put one leg over the donkey and one leg over the colt and ride into town, or did the writer of Matthew make up the story to fulfill the prophesy he thought said something different than what it actually meant?

 

Actually Matthew's writer has zombies walking around in the city during the crucifixion, which was hard for me to believe even when I was a Christian.

 

52 and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; 53 and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

 

So, did the dead people climb back into their tombs after a few days of shocking everyone, or did they go back to their homes and spouses to die again another day?

 

I could go on and on about the things I learned that made me doubt the veracity of it all, but it would take way too much time. I think when determining the truth, you should doubt all claims equally and be just as skeptical of your own religion as you are of every other religion.

 

Could you share the titles of these books? Thank you.

[PollyOR]

I haven't read the entire thread, but I need to say this ... I appreciate threads like this!  Thank you for sharing and helping me to not feel alone.

 

I stopped attending church eight(?) years ago and I haven't really figured out what I believe.  My BIL was my "go to" person and he died a year ago.   We grew up in the same Christian denomination.  He informed his family that he was an atheist a few years ago.  He was so accepting as I moved through my journey of change.  He listened and cared about me unconditionally.  And now?  I have no one "safe" to talk with.

 

When I was growing up, I assumed every family was like mine.  And then I started hanging out with friends in their homes and realized that there are many different types of families in the world.  It was eye opening.  I think that is how many Christians function.  They think everyone is like them (the Bible is literal, Jesus was a real person, all families pray, all families practice religion, etc.).  They assume everyone is viewing life through the same filter.  I'm one who has stepped back and realized that not everyone sees things through the same lens.  It has been and continues to be eye opening.  No, not everyone is like you.  Not everyone shares the same beliefs.  No, I'm not merely a different flavor of Christian.  I might not attend church with you anymore, but I'm still myself.  

 

It is upsetting to my family (especially my MIL and sister) that my beliefs have changed.  I won't discuss it but they know (I hate confrontation!). Each and every month a couple visits our family mainly with the goal of convincing me to attend church regularly again.  It is maddening.  Lovely people, but I'm so tired of getting attention only because I'm an inactive church member.  I politely receive them into our home because my family still attends church and I don't want to cause a rift between DH and myself.  When I stopped attending church it put extreme stress on our marriage.  

 

I try to support my children in their choices.  For those who are Christians, I encourage them to attend most of their church meetings and activities.  I drive 14yo to an early morning church class every school day.  We leave the house at 6:20 a.m. then I sit in the cold parking lot for an hour while she goes to class.  In our homeschool we do Christian Studies as a subject.  

 

I do have one child whose beliefs changed when she started going through serious depression (suicidal).  I'm just thrilled she is still alive so what she believes is not significant.  I want her to know that I love her and accept her as she is.  Hopefully I'm her safe person.  Hopefully I can be like my BIL.

 

Gosh.  I was just going to write a short paragraph.  I guess I feel a little more strongly about this than I realized.

 

 

[Mom-ninja.]

 like tic tacs at a halitosis sufferers convention.

 

 

 

Altoids would be a much better choice. The right choice in fact. ;)

[Charlie]

Altoids would be a much better choice. The right choice in fact. ;)

 

Have you heard the good news of Mentos?!?

[creekmom]

Could you share the titles of these books? Thank you.

Anything by Bart Ehrman - Jesus Interrupted, How Jesus Became God, Jesus Before the Gospels, etc.   Also, 

Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan Barker.

 I've learned a lot from several atheist blogs - a few of my favorites: southern skeptic, godless in dixie, the reluctant skeptic 

[Charlie]

I'm sorry for my part in derailing the thread. I took some things to private messages but probably should have done so sooner (or from the beginning!).

 

That's awfully nice of you to say, Greta. Thanks. Fwiw, I don't mind conversations deviating from the OP, but I do mind inequality. I get the impression you'd be as accommodating to atheists on a Christian question thread, but in my experience with online conversations is similar to what they are saying. There comes a point where "correction" starts to get called "persecution," even if it's not quite those words, and even if it's only bandied about by a few. I should hope it doesn't happen here, but I find that it happens when a lot of believers feel like they're being backed into a corner and have the upper hand (population). And honestly, that's kind of how it is when you offer illogical answers to logical questions. You're backed into a corner because assurances of things being true doesn't work for people who don't believe the same things. So it feels personal, even if it's not.

[Ravin]

Sucessful for the species, or for individuals, in terms of propagating their genetic material.

 

It's within the context of the idea that morality is an (only) an evolutionary development to encourage us to behave in ways that make the human species successful, for example we feel a moral aversion to murder because if we went around murdering each other that would tend to make us less successful as social beings.  You can look at it on an individual level too, if avoiding murder helps people pass on their genes, means they have or raise more offspring, that tendency would tend to spread in the population.

 

I think personally there is some truth to that, but I also think it falls down in two related ways.  One is that we can see that there are lots of societies where there is or has been rape, murder, and slavery, and they have prospered as a group - its really worked for them.  They aren't nice for the oppressed, but if you go to war, kill your neighbours, and take their agricultural land, you will be spreading your genetic material around a lot more and they won't be at all.  And as we might expect, in some societies some or all of those behaviors are considered ok. 

 

Also - we still see a lot of the desire to rape, murder, and enslave, both in individuals and within whole groups. It seems like evolution has allowed those impulses to remain, and probably because they are useful in terms of evolutionary success.  If they were really liabilities, they would be selected against.

 

I think if we honestly want to make an argument from evolution, we are really committing ourselves to saying that whatever allows the successful propagation of genes is moral, whatever it means for the unfortunate individuals who get snuffed out. 

 

I would take exception with this analysis on two fronts:

 

One, that work in sociobiology is ongoing and constantly giving us new insights into how cooperative social behavior (as opposed to coercive or violent social behavior) and modern ethics and institutions, including religion, are adaptive. 

 

Also the environment has changed. There are more people, and what used to work doesn't work so great any more, especially if you're looking at the long game (more than just the next generation) in propagating those genes. Humans have gotten less violent along with rising populations. Our chances of dying through violence in modern society is much, much, much smaller than in the past. 

 

We have never been safer or tamer as a species.

[mamaraby]

Have you heard the good news of Mentos?!?

Mentos, Altoids, and Tic Tacs are heresy! Only people who choose gum are living in the light.

[Spryte]

Mentos, Altoids, and Tic Tacs are heresy! Only people who choose gum are living in the light.

Yes, but Mentos do make a Big Bang when in Diet Coke... :D

Edited January 5, 2017 by Spryte

[Greta]

That's awfully nice of you to say, Greta. Thanks. Fwiw, I don't mind conversations deviating from the OP, but I do mind inequality. I get the impression you'd be as accommodating to atheists on a Christian question thread, but in my experience with online conversations is similar to what they are saying. There comes a point where "correction" starts to get called "persecution," even if it's not quite those words, and even if it's only bandied about by a few. I should hope it doesn't happen here, but I find that it happens when a lot of believers feel like they're being backed into a corner and have the upper hand (population). And honestly, that's kind of how it is when you offer illogical answers to logical questions. You're backed into a corner because assurances of things being true doesn't work for people who don't believe the same things. So it feels personal, even if it's not.

 

 

Thank you, Charlie!   :001_smile:  As to the bolded, I sincerely hope that I would.  I was thinking about this earlier this morning:  I'm sure you've heard the phrase "white fragility", well I think there is a "Christian fragility" in our culture as well.  With all due respect to my fellow Christians, I do feel that often we need to toughen up, and realize that disagreement is not persecution.  (I'm not speaking about this thread in particular here, just things I have observed generally.)  The simple fact is that, even though things are changing, we still enjoy not only tremendous freedom to practice our faith, but also a position of privilege.  You're absolutely right:  there is inequality.  So we must take care to use that freedom and privilege responsibly, thoughtfully, and compassionately, and to strive for equality.  (I hope and pray that I will develop the wisdom and maturity to do so!)    

 

Personally, I really enjoy listening to and reading these kinds of conversations with people from a variety of religions and/or non-religious perspectives.  I find that I learn a lot more when I listen and don't talk.  :lol:  Which is what I should have done this time, so thank you for graciously accepting my apology for that.  And thank you for starting the conversation, and to all the atheists who posted.  I sometimes forget to click the like button, but I really liked this entire conversation!

[Charlie]

Mentos, Altoids, and Tic Tacs are heresy! Only people who choose gum are living in the light.

 

People who have studied these things have concluded Mentos is the Good News. You just need to educate yourself more, then you'll understand.

[Pam in CT]

I'm sorry for my part in derailing the thread. I took some things to private messages but probably should have done so sooner (or from the beginning!).

 

 

I am as well.  Sometimes the lure of a promising rabbit hole is more greater than my sorry willpower can resist; I'm still working on that.

[Charlie]

Thank you, Charlie!   :001_smile:  As to the bolded, I sincerely hope that I would.  I was thinking about this earlier this morning:  I'm sure you've heard the phrase "white fragility", well I think there is a "Christian fragility" in our culture as well.  With all due respect to my fellow Christians, I do feel that often we need to toughen up, and realize that disagreement is not persecution.  (I'm not speaking about this thread in particular here, just things I have observed generally.)  The simple fact is that, even though things are changing, we still enjoy not only tremendous freedom to practice our faith, but also a position of privilege.  You're absolutely right:  there is inequality.  So we must take care to use that freedom and privilege responsibly, thoughtfully, and compassionately, and to strive for equality.  (I hope and pray that I will develop the wisdom and maturity to do so!)    

 

Personally, I really enjoy listening to and reading these kinds of conversations with people from a variety of religions and/or non-religious perspectives.  I find that I learn a lot more when I listen and don't talk.   :lol:  Which is what I should have done this time, so thank you for graciously accepting my apology for that.  And thank you for starting the conversation, and to all the atheists who posted.  I sometimes forget to click the like button, but I really liked this entire conversation!

 

Thank you! That was all really nice to read! It gives the warm fuzzies.

 

So let me ask you a question, if you don't mind. If in the thread about Christianity and universalism, I were to offer the following answer to Mergath's question, do you think it would be received as one person's opinion, or as a not-so-subtle zing about the God they genuinely love and adore? And do you think it would be given consideration, or would it be interpreted as deflecting from the conversation in a problematic way?

 

She says,

The only people I can imagine being truly tormented by something like that are the severely mentally ill, or those who have been significantly damaged during life. And that doesn't seem fair.

 

So how does that work, exactly? What are the conditions for who would find the presence of God unbearable enough for it to count as hell?

 

I would answer that finding the presence of God unbearable isn't limited to people with severe mental illness or those who have been damaged. Stephen Fry gives a good answer to why someone might feel being "in the presence of" God to be profoundly unacceptable as it would be an infringement on their freedom and autonomy of thought and person. The way I think of it is if we were to replace the idea of spiritual union with physical union, the idea of being forced into union would never be justified. But Fry explains it much more nicely:

 

[Charlie]

I am as well.  Sometimes the lure of a promising rabbit hole is more greater than my sorry willpower can resist; I'm still working on that.

 

Please don't be on my account. You said something that's been rummaging in my brain ever since, and really, that's what makes these conversations fun! Your post was about lack of evidence, but I though the conversation had moved on. Perhaps I'll come back to it when I have more time.

 

[MercyA]

So let me ask you a question, if you don't mind. If in the thread about Christianity and universalism, I were to offer the following answer to Mergath's question, do you think it would be received as one person's opinion, or as a not-so-subtle zing about the God they genuinely love and adore? And do you think it would be given consideration, or would it be interpreted as deflecting from the conversation in a problematic way?

 

[...]

 

I would answer that finding the presence of God unbearable isn't limited to people with severe mental illness or those who have been damaged. Stephen Fry gives a good answer to why someone might feel being "in the presence of" God to be profoundly unacceptable as it would be an infringement on their freedom and autonomy of thought and person. The way I think of it is if we were to replace the idea of spiritual union with physical union, the idea of being forced into union would never be justified. But Fry explains it much more nicely

 

I'm not Greta, but as a conservative Christian, neither Mergath's question or your answer bothers me. We are just having a conversation. That's what this forum is all about, I think--good, intelligent, polite conversation from a variety of perspectives. People try to convince each other of various things here *all the time*. I'm not sure that religion needs to be in a separate category.

 

FWIW, I don't think Greta or Pam have anything for which to apologize. Their posts are always gentle, always careful, always well-thought out, and if anyone finds them offensive, I'd say they're being a touch too sensitive. :)

[Greta]

Thank you! That was all really nice to read! It gives the warm fuzzies.

 

So let me ask you a question, if you don't mind. If in the thread about Christianity and universalism, I were to offer the following answer to Mergath's question, do you think it would be received as one person's opinion, or as a not-so-subtle zing about the God they genuinely love and adore? And do you think it would be given consideration, or would it be interpreted as deflecting from the conversation in a problematic way?

 

She says,

 

I would answer that finding the presence of God unbearable isn't limited to people with severe mental illness or those who have been damaged. Stephen Fry gives a good answer to why someone might feel being "in the presence of" God to be profoundly unacceptable as it would be an infringement on their freedom and autonomy of thought and person. The way I think of it is if we were to replace the idea of spiritual union with physical union, the idea of being forced into union would never be justified. But Fry explains it much more nicely:

 

 

Well, I can say that *I* certainly don't see it as deflecting from the conversation, but as something that deserves serious consideration.  And given the nature of that particular conversation and the caliber of the people participating in it (I don't know them all well, but I know several of them as well as this kind of format will allow, and they are awesome people!) I think it would be given that consideration.  

 

I suspect that it might spark a conversation on "the problem of pain" as C.S. Lewis put it, and that people might attempt to explain to you how they can believe in a loving God who allows suffering.  I can't, however, promise that you would find their answers very satisfying or convincing!  :D  

 

I also suspect that the other Eastern Orthodox ladies (Milovany and Patty Joanna) would explain that while we tend toward a "generous" view of salvation, what you've brought up is exactly why our church doesn't teach Universalism:  because there is still the issue of consent.  If everyone will eventually be saved, then that means that even those who don't want to be saved will be saved, and that's essentially no different than a God who chooses to send people to Hell when they don't want to go to hell, right?  But they could do a far, far better job of explaining that than I could, so I would encourage you to go ahead and post.

[Charlie]

I'm not Greta, but as a conservative Christian, neither Mergath's question or your answer bothers me. We are just having a conversation. That's what this forum is all about, I think--good, intelligent, polite conversation from a variety of perspectives. People try to convince each other of various things here *all the time*. I'm not sure that religion needs to be in a separate category.

 

FWIW, I don't think Greta or Pam have anything for which to apologize. Their posts are always gentle, always careful, always well-thought out, and if anyone finds them offensive, I'd say they're being a touch too sensitive. :)

 

Sure, but I didn't ask about personal opinions. Greta's and Pam's apologies reflected the fact that they heard frustration for a larger issue, and that, in my opinion, shows empathy, compassion and courtesy. I was touched to hear them. I will make one caveat with regard to my comments about no minding tangential conversations. I do mind when they get into the topic of manners, tone, and the like. I find they get personal and the essence of the thread is lost. I think many people are enjoying this thread as is. Let's let this go right here. We've each said our piece, and let's move on. Cool?

[Greta]

 

 

FWIW, I don't think Greta or Pam have anything for which to apologize. Their posts are always gentle, always careful, always well-thought out, and if anyone finds them offensive, I'd say they're being a touch too sensitive. :)

 

 

Being put in the same category as Pam is a complement I don't deserve!   :001_smile:   You're very sweet, as always, Mercy.  :grouphug:

[J-rap]

Mergath, on 05 Jan 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

The only people I can imagine being truly tormented by something like that are the severely mentally ill, or those who have been significantly damaged during life. And that doesn't seem fair.

 

So how does that work, exactly? What are the conditions for who would find the presence of God unbearable enough for it to count as hell?

Weird -- I've searched and searched but can't seem to find the original post on this.  But this question is a really, really big one for me too.  .... deleted the rest.  Seemed more appropriate for the other thread!

Edited January 5, 2017 by J-rap

[Greta]

Mergath, on 05 Jan 2017 - 10:52 AM, said:

Weird -- I've searched and searched but can't seem to find the original post on this.  But this question is a really, really big one for me too.  Which is why I lean toward more of a Christian Universalist approach.  Because otherwise it isn't fair, and I believe God is fair.

 

 

It took me FOREVER to figure this out, but if you click on the little swooshy arrow in the upper right-hand corner of the quoted box of text, it will take you right to the original post.

 

ETA:  The original conversation is here, and Mergath's post is #42.

Edited January 5, 2017 by Greta

[MercyA]

Sure, but I didn't ask about personal opinions. Greta's and Pam's apologies reflected the fact that they heard frustration for a larger issue, and that, in my opinion, shows empathy, compassion and courtesy. I was touched to hear them. I will make one caveat with regard to my comments about no minding tangential conversations. I do mind when they get into the topic of manners, tone, and the like. I find they get personal and the essence of the thread is lost. I think many people are enjoying this thread as is. Let's let this go right here. We've each said our piece, and let's move on. Cool?

 

You've lost me a bit, since you did ask:

 

"I were to offer the following answer to Mergath's question, do you think it would be received as one person's opinion, or as a not-so-subtle zing about the God they genuinely love and adore? And do you think it would be given consideration, or would it be interpreted as deflecting from the conversation in a problematic way?"

 

I was telling you how I would receive it, as a participant in that thread. I thought that's what you were asking. Sorry I misunderstood, but sure, I'm happy to move on.

[MercyA]

Thank you, Greta.  :)

[J-rap]

It took me FOREVER to figure this out, but if you click on the little swooshy arrow in the upper right-hand corner of the quoted box of text, it will take you right to the original post.

 

ETA:  The original conversation is here, and Mergath's post is #42.

 

Oh my goodness!  That is so simple!  Wish I had known that a long time ago.  Thanks!

[Charlie]

You've lost me a bit, since you did ask:

 

"I were to offer the following answer to Mergath's question, do you think it would be received as one person's opinion, or as a not-so-subtle zing about the God they genuinely love and adore? And do you think it would be given consideration, or would it be interpreted as deflecting from the conversation in a problematic way?"

 

I was telling you how I would receive it, as a participant in that thread. I thought that's what you were asking. Sorry I misunderstood, but sure, I'm happy to move on.

 

Thank you. :-)

[Rosie_0801]

Being put in the same category as Pam is a complement I don't deserve!   :001_smile:   

 

Yes you do.

[Greta]

Yes you do.

 

:blush:

[Greta]

I don't mind the interjections from a faith perspective from either Pam or Greta, as they tend to the thoughtful end of the religious spectrum, and I know I learn a lot from Pam's musings in particular. 

 

But I do think it's a wee bit funny when an atheist thread becomes a thread in which we reassure the religious :) Not that I don't care about your feelings ladies! I do! I just think its wryly amusing. 

 

 

Oops.  :lol:  Yeah, that wasn't really my intention here.   :o

[mamaraby]

But I do think it's a wee bit funny when an atheist thread becomes a thread in which we reassure the religious :) Not that I don't care about your feelings ladies! I do! I just think its wryly amusing.

Especially because it cuts into our rep as morally bankrupt, baby eating, drug addicted, satan worshippers.

[Ravin]

I've always wondered where the "baby eating" accusation actually comes from. Does anyone know? I had a Navy chaplain once ask me if I eat babies when, upon being sent to him for counseling, the topic of my personal faith came up and I explained that I'm a Heathen (and what that means when I say it).