Theology

jerboski

New member
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
63
It doesn't end the debate, because your citations still have to be interpreted. As a Catholic, I have 2,000 years of dogma, doctrine and tradition to inform me. What do you have?



That passage doesn't preclude the possibility that people come to the Father through Jesus unknowingly. We, as Christians, have a rough idea of where the Church is, but we don't know where it is not. And who counts as a Christian anyway? Mormons? Jehova's Witnesses? What about Jews? Is their covenant with God still good? Because modern day Jews explicitly reject the divinity of Christ.



One can "obey the Son" (read: lead a selfless, moral life) without being a confessing Christian.



You're reading simple negative inferences into these passages and confidently proclaiming that the vast majority of humanity is going to burn in hell because they aren't confessing Christians. Needless to say, that is not the most coherent interpretation of the text.

It is a good conversation, and it's remarkable that we're capable of debating such things in a civil way on IE. Our soteriology discussion should probably be moved to the Theology thread. I'll leave the "Atheism" thread for those wishing to discuss the CNN special.

Thanks for the moving thread so we stay out of trouble... I am curious what your answer is to the following:

You said I was reading or making simple negative inferences about scripture or passages, my question to you is... Why do you call Jesus your Christ and Savior? What exactly did he save you from? To imply saving, means He is rescuing or preventing something from happening to you, what is that exactly? That is where my inferences lie..
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
TL/DR version:

Atheism is the only belief set for which there is not only no evidence to support its affirmative stance, but there is also zero value added to believing the belief set. And for every atheist claim, the comparable claim from an agnostic standpoint is more logical and more easily defended from a theological standpoint.
 

greyhammer90

the drunk piano player
Messages
16,821
Reaction score
16,085
TL/DR version:

Atheism is the only belief set for which there is not only no evidence to support its affirmative stance, but there is also zero value added to believing the belief set. And for every atheist claim, the comparable claim from an agnostic standpoint is more logical and more easily defended from a theological standpoint.

Out of curiosity, what is "value"?
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Thanks for the moving thread so we stay out of trouble... I am curious what your answer is to the following:

You said I was reading or making simple negative inferences about scripture or passages, my question to you is... Why do you call Jesus your Christ and Savior? What exactly did he save you from? To imply saving, means He is rescuing or preventing something from happening to you, what is that exactly? That is where my inferences lie..

Here's the wikipedia entry on Catholic soteriology:

A crucial difference between the Catholic and Protestant understanding of salvation is that, unlike Protestantism, Catholicism believes that, after the Fall, humanity did not become totally corrupt (as per "total depravity", which precludes man from any merit in salvation), but was only "wounded by sin," and "stands in need of salvation from God", nevertheless, "it is human nature so fallen, stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men..."

Divine help comes in Christ through the law that guides and the grace that sustains, by which souls work out their "own salvation with fear and trembling." That divine help, that grace, is a favour, a free and undeserved gift from God which helps us to respond to his invitation to enter relationship.

Catholics profess belief that Christ alone is the Saviour of the human race. Christ is God incarnate, bringing about redemption from sin, for "…all salvation comes through Christ."

"…she (the Church) proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ 'the way, the truth, and the life' (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself."

In Catholicism, justification is granted by God via the act (ex opere operato) of baptism firstly, by which the subject is formally justified and made holy by his own personal justice and holiness (causa formalis), instead of appropriated plainly by a living faith as under sola fide, and normally from the sacrament of reconciliation after if a mortal sin is committed. Christ can work apart and before the sacrament of baptism, as desire for eventual baptism is grace enough to be saved, since God is not tied to work by means of his instituted sacraments. Nevertheless, Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance for all sinful members of his Church: above all for those who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification. The Fathers of the Church present this sacrament as "the second plank [of salvation] after the shipwreck which is the loss of grace." This is not the only way for sins to be forgiven, as these can also be forgiven by confessing to God alone. This is why the Catholic Church teaches that Christians outside of the Church can be saved, since in many cases other Christian denominations do not possess the priesthood instituted from Jesus Christ and thus lack access to the "binding and loosing" that priests of the New Covenant practice through the sacrament. A mortal sin makes justification lost even if faith (intellectual assent) is still present. The Catholic Church declared in the ecumenical Council of Trent that, "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema." in canon 9 of session VI. It also said in the VII session in canon IV, "If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not indeed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema (excommunicated)."

Salvation of non-Catholics

In Catholicism, Christ provides the Church with "'the fullness of the means of salvation' which he has willed: correct and complete confession of the Christian faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession." Although the Catholic Church upholds the doctrine of extra ecclesiam nulla salus (that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation) this does not mean that all the elect were in visible communion of the Catholic Church during their life, for "Jesus, the Son of God, freely suffered death for us in complete and free submission to the will of God, his Father. By his death he has conquered death, and so opened the possibility of salvation to all men."

As regards Protestants in particular, in Vatican II and subsequent teaching it is stated,

"The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (Cf. Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15-16 and 26)

For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical [Protestant] communities...They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood..."

"...men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. ...it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church...For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church...." "It is right and salutary to recognize the riches of Christ and virtuous works in the lives of others who are bearing witness to Christ, sometimes even to the shedding of their blood. For God is always wonderful in His works and worthy of all praise.”

Catholicism teaches that Protestantism is a part of Christianity, the only true "faith" (Catholicism regards all non-Christian religions as "beliefs" since they are not based on God's revelation in history, Dominus Iesus p. 7),. Nevertheless, individual Protestants aware of the fact that Christ established the Catholic Church, but fail to join its membership, "cannot be saved" since they are living in open contempt towards God's known truth.

Concerning Jews and Muslims, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium, states:

"In the first place we must recall the people [the Jews] to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh. On account of their fathers this people remains most dear to God, for God does not repent of the gifts He makes nor of the calls He issues. But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind."

Paragraph 16 of Lumen gentium takes a step further and declares:

"Nor is God far distant from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, for it is He who gives to all men life and breath and all things, and as Saviour wills that all men be saved. Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does Divine Providence deny the helps necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God and with His grace strive to live a good life. Whatever good or truth is found amongst them is looked upon by the Church as a preparation for the Gospel"

However, Judaism and Islam cannot be seen by the Church to be satisfactory in themselves. Catholics must call all people to the Christian faith, since it is Christ who must save them in the end. As noted above, whatever truth is found in Judaism and Islam is used as a "preparation for the Gospel." The Christian faith cannot be merely looked at "human wisdom, a pseudo-science of well-being", for "all are called to it and destined for it" since it contains the full truth (Redemptoris Missio p. 11). Lumen gentium goes on to state:

In explicit terms He Himself (Jesus Christ) affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.

The Catholic Church holds to the possibility of non-Christians being saved from hell. As Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio,

"The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the Gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation."

The number of non-Christians saved is known to God alone and must come through Christ's atonement for the sins of the world---an atonement which is specifically called "mysterious" (above, Dominus Iesus p. 21). Nevertheless, Catholics have been exhorted in numerous recent papal encyclicals to not forget the mission ad gentes (to the non-Christians), as the evangelization of the non-Christian world remains central to the Church's mission because of Jesus's great impetus: "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."(Mark 16:16, Dominus Iesus p. 21-22). Those who fail to preach the exclusivity of Christianity as the fullness of God's revelation and the only means to be saved, are teaching against the doctrine of Christ and the Church (Dominus Iesus p. 5-9).

It's heavily annotated, so click through if you're interested in reading any of these sources directly.

Here's how I recently described it to my 6 year old son: Prior to Jesus, the path to heaven was blocked. Through his death and resurrection, the path has been cleared. Our weakness still prevents us from successfully traveling such a long path on our own, but now, with God's grace, the way is open to everyone.

That's probably not very good, though it's the best I can do without rambling and/or citing to theologians much more intelligent than I. Trying to explain theology to a curious 1st grader made me realize how poor my own understanding is.
 
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Out of curiosity, what is "value"?

Every other belief set attempts to present a value added to the believers. In Islam, 70 virgins or whatever. In some Christianity, it's heaven vs hell. In Hinduism, it's reincarnation. And on and on and on.

Atheism is the only affirmative belief set where choosing to believe that belief set in-and-of-itself presents no value added to the believer relative to the alternative option of not believing in the belief set.
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Every other belief set attempts to present a value added to the believers. In Islam, 70 virgins or whatever. In some Christianity, it's heaven vs hell. In Hinduism, it's reincarnation. And on and on and on.

Atheism is the only affirmative belief set where choosing to believe that belief set in-and-of-itself presents no value added to the believer relative to the alternative option of not believing in the belief set.

To be clear you are just talking about after death value added, correct? Because there can definitely be value added to this life by being an atheist.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
To be clear you are just talking about after death value added, correct? Because there can definitely be value added to this life by being an atheist.

I was... but reading your post, to your bolded I actually think that might be debatable.

Can you give me a discreet example of a value added by choosing to be an atheist that isn't also present choosing another belief set (i.e. agnosticism)?
 

pkt77242

IPA Man
Messages
10,805
Reaction score
719
Alright... so you had asked:

In terms of right/wrong, I should clarify that I'm not talking wrong in terms of correct/incorrect. I'm not advocating any belief set as the "correct" one.

Before I get into this, I should preface everything here by saying that there are some people that try to draw a distinction between "hard" atheism and "soft" atheism. In short, the difference between the two is that "hard" atheism is an actual belief set by people who attempt to put money where their mouth is, and "soft" atheism is closer to a meekly held opinion of how things probably are. There isn't much at all wrong with "soft" atheism, and it's closer to/more compatible with agnosticism. What I'm talking about is "hard" atheism which is the kind of thing you can actually build a "congregation" around because it's a true belief set that states affirmatively that there is not a god. And that's what I'm talking about from here on in whenever I say "atheism."

What I'm saying is wrong about "core concepts" of atheism is the justifications, rationales, and faulty logic used by atheists to perpetuate the myth that atheism is grounded in science/facts while other religions are "mythology."

I'll hit on three of the common things you hear from atheists in justifying their atheism:
1. "Accepted science conflicts or disproves aspects of other belief sets but does not disprove atheism..." -- First, what is "accepted science" changes all the time. What people take as "fact" is often disproved at a later date. Any physicist worth his salt would tell you the amount we understand about the universe pales in comparison to the almost infinite amount that we do not understand about the universe. And on top of that, things we do understand -- like the rate at which mass generates the force we call "gravity" -- we almost always have next-level issues with. Why does gravity function how it does? When you break it down and continue asking "why" with any scientific question eventually you reach a point where science doesn't have an answer or the explanation is "it just does." So this flaw in reasoning is pretty obvious.

Second, there is the fact that atheism is an affirmative belief set that there are not and cannot possibly be deities anywhere in the universe. There is no science that supports this affirmative position. The absence of observation does not indicate the absence of existence... this is something science has proven.

2. "There is a scientific or physical explanation for everything and the universe does not require any force beyond our comprehension to exist or function..." -- Patently false. And this statement is a pillar of why most atheists choose to be atheists... the idea is that if there doesn't need to be something beyond our comprehension for the universe to function, then there probably isn't something beyond our comprehension causing the universe the function. The reality is that "deities" as an answer for why/how things function cannot be considered less-plausible than "just because science" at this juncture because "science" doesn't even come close to answer all the questions right now.

3. "Deities interfered wildly in major religions and now that we have video cameras they don't do anything anymore so clearly that was all BS and that's why atheism is the right choice..." -- This type of statement is common. You can twist the words into many other justifications that are similar... other religions are wrong, therefor atheism is correct. In short, the rejection of major religions does nothing to make atheism correct. It's a logical fallacy. One cannot support atheism strictly on the grounds of "other guys are wrong." Which all hearkens back to the over-arching problem with the core concept of atheism... not only is there no proof that beings beyond our comprehension do not exist, but given our current capabilities as humans its virtually impossible to prove or even support this negative statement. Of all the belief sets, "strong" atheism actually has the least of all to back it up. Everything else at least attempts to have 1) legacy information/scripture/at least anecdotal "evidence" of a diety or supernatural force and 2) some sort of theological or logical rationale for believing in the religion. Atheism has literally nothing to justify why someone should believe it, because "doubt in other religions" would lead an informed person to agnosticism instead of atheism.

Couldn't you just flip this around and make it about any religion. Their is hard believers (who believe that their religion is the absolute truth) and "soft" believers who think it is probably that way but aren't quite sure.

Also couldn't most of those arguments just be flipped around and used against believers? For example to your 2nd point, I have heard many religious people who say that when something can't be explained by science that it must be God. Isn't it just as plausible if not more so that we just haven't found the scientific answer for it yet, and that given time we will find it?

For the record, I personally vacillate between being a Deist and agnostic with a lean towards atheism. I also take my children to a Catholic church 3 Sundays a month (and yes I do tithe), have been married in the church (along with confirmed, etc) and my children have been baptized (though are too young for any of the other Sacraments),
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Every other belief set attempts to present a value added to the believers. In Islam, 70 virgins or whatever. In some Christianity, it's heaven vs hell. In Hinduism, it's reincarnation. And on and on and on.

Atheism is the only affirmative belief set where choosing to believe that belief set in-and-of-itself presents no value added to the believer relative to the alternative option of not believing in the belief set.

All belief systems claim to offer, if not a monopoly, then at least more Truth than any other system. The advantage for adherents is supposedly the ability to live a rightly ordered and more authentic life; in short, knowing the "rules of the game" allows you to be a better player. The "value added" by any afterlife is largely beside the question. At least for the Abrahamic faiths, if you're behaving well simply out of a calculated desire to earn entry to paradise, you're doing it wrong. And from that perspective, atheists are no different. They'd argue that by rejecting the supernatural entirely and embracing materialism, one is better able to live an authentic life than those who buy into superstition.

That said, I think I understand the point you're driving at. John Gray--himself an atheist philosopher-- argues that evangelical atheism is irrational:

Roughly speaking, an atheist is anyone who has no use for the concept of God – the idea of a divine mind, which has created humankind and embodies in a perfect form the values that human beings cherish and strive to realise. Many who are atheists in this sense (including myself) regard the evangelical atheism that has emerged over the past few decades with bemusement. Why make a fuss over an idea that has no sense for you? There are untold multitudes who have no interest in waging war on beliefs that mean nothing to them. Throughout history, many have been happy to live their lives without bothering about ultimate questions. This sort of atheism is one of the perennial responses to the experience of being human.

In other words, it makes perfect sense to say:
  • "I believe in God, and here's how that belief affects my life;" or
  • "If there's a God, he's an asshole, and I want nothing to do with him;"* or
  • "I don't know if there's a God, and I'm not sure if such things can be known this side of the grave;" or
  • "I don't really have any use for the idea of God."

What doesn't make sense is to say, "I know there's no God (and therefor no Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, etc.), and I'm going to shout it from the rooftops!" Painting a smiley face on Nietzsche and trying to sell it as "good news" is crazy. As Gray points out in the article linked above, there is absolutely no connection between science, liberal values, and atheism. At all. If the evangelical atheists truly understood the implications of their philosophy, they'd be living lives of quiet desperation and despair, not attempting to win converts.

*This interview with Stephen Fry makes a great deal of sense if he's angry with God, of which there's a long and honorable tradition, starting with the Book of Job. But for someone who's convinced He doesn't exist? It's absurd.
 
Last edited:

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
I was... but reading your post, to your bolded I actually think that might be debatable.

Can you give me a discreet example of a value added by choosing to be an atheist that isn't also present choosing another belief set (i.e. agnosticism)?

I don't have to believe there is anything sinful or wrong with my homosexual brother.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Couldn't you just flip this around and make it about any religion. Their is hard believers (who believe that their religion is the absolute truth) and "soft" believers who think it is probably that way but aren't quite sure.

No, that's misconstruing the difference between "hard" and "soft" atheism. It's actually two separate belief sets (with "soft" atheism not really being much of a belief set at all). It's like how Baptists and Methodists are actually different but similar belief sets... which is different than someone being a devout Catholic that goes to every required mass and then some vs an Easter-Christmas Catholic. when you talk about Catholicism its still the same Catholicism... whereas it wouldn't be for Baptist/Methodist.

I think my posts are too long, so I don't want to waste the page space on getting into it more here, but if you want I can elaborate more. Or I'm guessing there's probably something in Google.

Also couldn't most of those arguments just be flipped around and used against believers? For example to your 2nd point, I have heard many religious people who say that when something can't be explained by science that it must be God. Isn't it just as plausible if not more so that we just haven't found the scientific answer for it yet, and that given time we will find it?

Yes -- well sort of -- but mostly yes, it's the exact same logic. If you go back to a much earlier post I responded to a similar question from GoIrish41 the same way. Bad logic is always bad logic no matter how it's applied. Whenever someone says must be it's usually going to end poorly.

For the record, I personally vacillate between being a Deist and agnostic with a lean towards atheism. I also take my children to a Catholic church 3 Sundays a month (and yes I do tithe), have been married in the church (along with confirmed, etc) and my children have been baptized (though are too young for any of the other Sacraments),

You and I seem rather close (minus the children and such).
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
I don't have to believe there is anything sinful or wrong with my homosexual brother.

And you could just as easily choose a belief set like agnosticism (or many, many others) and have that same feeling be inline with the belief set.....
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
And you could just as easily choose a belief set like agnosticism (or many, many others) and have that same feeling be inline with the belief set.....

I should have noted that I was drawing a comparison between the value added to my life vs Christianity/Islam etc.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
TL/DR version:

Atheism is the only belief set for which there is not only no evidence to support its affirmative stance, but there is also zero value added to believing the belief set. And for every atheist claim, the comparable claim from an agnostic standpoint is more logical and more easily defended from a theological standpoint.

Good post
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
Every other belief set attempts to present a value added to the believers. In Islam, 70 virgins or whatever. In some Christianity, it's heaven vs hell. In Hinduism, it's reincarnation. And on and on and on.

Atheism is the only affirmative belief set where choosing to believe that belief set in-and-of-itself presents no value added to the believer relative to the alternative option of not believing in the belief set.

To also add to this, Atheism is also the only one that doesn't promise punishments and rewards that can't be known to exist. If Christians find value in the promise of heaven, therefore adding value to their lives, it must be recognized that that value stems from the same belief being the one threatening punishment of eternal hell. It's completely circular.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
To also add to this, Atheism is also the only one that doesn't promise punishments and rewards that can't be known to exist.

No, it isn't. There are many that don't do that. For example, again, agnosticism.

If Christians find value in the promise of heaven, therefore adding value to their lives, it must be recognized that that value stems from the same belief being the one threatening punishment of eternal hell. It's completely circular.

There are many belief sets that do not believe in hell as a binary to a "heaven" afterlife.
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
Again, my comments pertain to at large religions that have been discussed in this thread. It's also difficult to answer your question directly when I don't view Atheism as a belief. My life has immense value, and it doesn't come from an unbelief in a god. To say that not believing is a belief, is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
In other words, it makes perfect sense to say:
  • "I believe in God, and here's how that belief affects my life;" or
  • "If there's a God, he's an asshole, and I want nothing to do with him;"* or
  • "I don't know if there's a God, and I'm not sure if such things can be known this side of the grave;" or
  • "I don't really have any use for the idea of God."

What doesn't make sense is to say, "I know there's no God (and therefor no Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, etc.)...

I would add to your list (or perhaps it's just a more detailed version of your 4th item) "I find absolutely no credible evidence for the existence of God, but I do find compelling evidence that there's no need of any deity or supernatural forces to explain the existence or workings of the universe as we know it."

For myself, I'm an atheist for exactly the same reasons that I don't believe in Santa Claus: there is no credible evidence whatsoever for Santa, his existence doesn't stand up to any critical examination of the reasons given for believing in him, and all the things attributed to him are MUCH better and more believably accounted for by rational explanations.

Your comment about the atheist who says he knows there's no God (and therefore no Truth, Beauty, Goodness, Justice, etc.) is baffling and somewhat alarming to me to realize how wrong one side's understanding is of the other. That seems to be a very common belief amongst Christians: that atheism = amorality or that without God the atheist has no morals, no values, no ethics, no sense of goodness, beauty, justice, or right & wrong, and no way to know, discover, or determine any of those things.

There are millions of people around the world who have little or no knowledge of God & Christianity (and millions more in the distant past such as the ancient Greeks, Egyptians, and Chinese, or pre-European-contact Native Americans, Africans, Aborigines, etc., etc.) who never had any inkling of such, yet those people certainly had values, an appreciation for art and beauty, knew right from wrong, had a system of morals and ethics, had laws and understood justice, and all the rest. Clearly, a belief in God or a Judeo/Christian religion isn't necessary to have any of those things. Even the most primitive tribes had all those things to varying degrees before being exposed to the Judeo/Christian concept of God and religion.

I've actually found that I'm much more moral, ethical, and have a stronger sense of values and right & wrong as an atheist (and that's not a shot at or criticism of religion). It's because instead of following certain moral or ethical guidelines because someone told me I had to, or because I feared the punishment from not doing so, I do those things now because I understand why they're important and necessary in order to live in a decent, workable society and be able to interact in a positive way with the people around me.

It's much like the following example: when I was a kid I made my bed, cleaned my room, did homework, went to school, took out trash, did laundry, went to bed and got up at a reasonable time, and all the other normal things along those lines. I didn't see the importance in doing any of it, and the ONLY reason I did any of those things was because my parents made me and I didn't want to get punished for not doing them. I couldn't wait to become an adult, move out of my parents' house, and not have to do ANY of that stuff any more!

Well, about six weeks into my freshman year at Bama it started to dawn on me that there just might be some reasons for doing some of those things other than just avoiding the wrath of my mom. :) My sheets smelled like a sweaty horse blanket, my bathroom smelled like a horse stable, and the mound of trash bags in my kitchen was starting to take over the room and smell like a garbage dump. I was tired of having a sink full of dirty dishes and having to wash something every time I wanted to eat, and tired of digging through a huge pile of dirty laundry to find whatever was the least stinky to wear. I was tired of getting 4 hours of sleep per night, constantly being late to class, and always behind on assignments because I habitually stayed up half the night and didn't do any homework. It started to dawn on me that there were some very good reasons in of themselves to go to bed and get up at reasonable times, to do homework, to do laundry and dishes, and to keep a clean home. I started doing those things because I realized and fully understood why they were necessary and important, not because they were the rules and I'd be punished if I didn't.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Again, my comments pertain to at large religions that have been discussed in this thread. It's also difficult to answer your question directly when I don't view Atheism as a belief. My life has immense value, and it doesn't come from an unbelief in a god. To say that not believing is a belief, is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

OK clearly there are three disconnects here:
1. There are major religions that don't frown on homosexuality OR have a hell. For example, Judaism doesn't have a "hell" in the sense you're talking about (the closest they have is a sort of purgatory)... nor does Hinduism or Buddhism (similar to Jewish "hell"). And Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality.

2. From what you're saying, you'd fall into the category of "soft" atheist... which is akin to -- in a gross over-simplification -- saying "I don't really think there is a God, and I certainly don't believe any of the major religions, and I choose to live my life believing that there isn't a God." You're right, this really isn't a belief set the same way other belief sets are. And that's why I said above in the long post "In short, the difference between the two is that "hard" atheism is an actual belief set by people who attempt to put money where their mouth is, and "soft" atheism is closer to a meekly held opinion of how things probably are. There isn't much at all (that one could logically argue) with "soft" atheism, and it's closer to/more compatible with agnosticism." When you define "soft" atheism as a lack of belief in God -- as you did above with the accurate stamps analogy -- it is completely and utterly different than "hard" atheism.

3. "Hard" atheism is a belief set and is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of atheism where people affirmatively state that there are no gods/deities/"supernaturals"/beings beyond comprehension... it's the kind of hard held belief where you can have a "congregation" as was talked about on CNN.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
For myself, I'm an atheist for exactly the same reasons that I don't believe in Santa Claus: there is no credible evidence whatsoever for Santa, his existence doesn't stand up to any critical examination of the reasons given for believing in him, and all the things attributed to him are MUCH better and more believably accounted for by rational explanations.

Seriously? It's physically impossible to prove the absence of the metaphysical in the universe... whereas you can definitively prove that Santa Clause isn't delivering presents to all the children in the world.

I don't believe the hypothetical questions on teh existence of god(s) have any parallel to Santa Clause.
 
Last edited:
C

Cackalacky

Guest
So is all this one big lifestyle choice based on Pascal's wager? With the obvious, more palatable, choice being to err on the side of the possibility of paradise or release from our collective reality in exchange for another collective reality (or nothingness, nirvana, no memories)?
 

Circa

Conspire to keep It real
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
818
Again, my comments pertain to at large religions that have been discussed in this thread. It's also difficult to answer your question directly when I don't view Atheism as a belief. My life has immense value, and it doesn't come from an unbelief in a god. To say that not believing is a belief, is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

A belief. I promise you I will beliving.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
Seriously? It's physically impossible to prove the absence of the metaphysical in the universe... whereas you can definitively prove that Santa Clause isn't delivering presents to all the children in the world.

I don't believe the hypothetical questions on teh existence of god(s) have any parallel to Santa Clause.

They were having a great discussion. Let's not blow it up by calling people's beliefs absurd. Not trying to be a jerk but I am enjoying the back and forth ... Yours included.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
They were having a great discussion. Let's not blow it up by calling people's beliefs absurd. Not trying to be a jerk but I am enjoying the back and forth ... Yours included.

I didn't call anyone's beliefs absurd. His analogy, on the other hand, makes absolutely no sense. And it completely trivializes the belief in god(s) to the belief held by children in something we all know and can definitely prove doesn't happen.

I'll edit my post to tone it down as much as possible but you can't expect me to just let that go with a free pass in this discussion thread.
 

no.1IrishFan

Well-known member
Messages
6,279
Reaction score
421
OK clearly there are three disconnects here:
1. There are major religions that don't frown on homosexuality OR have a hell. For example, Judaism doesn't have a "hell" in the sense you're talking about (the closest they have is a sort of purgatory)... nor does Hinduism or Buddhism (similar to Jewish "hell"). And Hinduism does not condemn homosexuality.

2. From what you're saying, you'd fall into the category of "soft" atheist... which is akin to -- in a gross over-simplification -- saying "I don't really think there is a God, and I certainly don't believe any of the major religions, and I choose to live my life believing that there isn't a God." You're right, this really isn't a belief set the same way other belief sets are. And that's why I said above in the long post "In short, the difference between the two is that "hard" atheism is an actual belief set by people who attempt to put money where their mouth is, and "soft" atheism is closer to a meekly held opinion of how things probably are. There isn't much at all (that one could logically argue) with "soft" atheism, and it's closer to/more compatible with agnosticism." When you define "soft" atheism as a lack of belief in God -- as you did above with the accurate stamps analogy -- it is completely and utterly different than "hard" atheism.

3. "Hard" atheism is a belief set and is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of atheism where people affirmatively state that there are no gods/deities/"supernaturals"/beings beyond comprehension... it's the kind of hard held belief where you can have a "congregation" as was talked about on CNN.

I really am aware that there are religions that don't threaten punishments or condemn homosexuals, I've pointed out three times now that I misspoke. I was only really referring to the religions being discussed in this thread.

In your scenario(which I find very reasonable), I'm certainly a soft atheist. I cannot prove, and certainly do not KNOW that there is no god. I think our misunderstanding is what you call a hard atheist, I call an anti-theist. I think it was Hitch that coined the phrase but I'm not sure.
I'll admit, when I watched the CNN video and saw a congregation of Atheists with a leader, I also thought to myself, this stinks of a new religion.
 

Bishop2b5

SEC Exchange Student
Messages
8,929
Reaction score
6,159
Seriously? It's physically impossible to prove the absence of the metaphysical in the universe... whereas you can definitively prove that Santa Clause isn't delivering presents to all the children in the world.

Comparing Santa Clause to a discussion of the hypothetical existence of the supernatural is absurd.

Don't take the analogy too literally, Lax. It's just that - an analogy about the reasons for not believing - not a direct comparison. Nobody (including myself) thinks a discussion about the existence of Santa Claus is on the same level of seriousness as one about the existence of God.

To your first point however, there are VERY few things we can actually be 100% sure of. I'm 99.999% sure we landed on the moon, that my wife hasn't cheated on me, that my parents weren't Soviet spies, and that Isaac Newton existed, and I can't definitively prove that Hitler's dead, the moon isn't hollow and harboring alien invaders, or that terrorists didn't bring down the Concorde in Paris, but the evidence proving or disproving those things is so overwhelmingly convincing that I can act as though they're 100%. Same with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. I can't prove the nonexistence of God or a supernatural power, but the lack of actual evidence for such is so close to nonexistent and the evidence against is so compelling that I can reasonably act as if it's proven.
 

Circa

Conspire to keep It real
Messages
8,000
Reaction score
818
....thank you for being a friend......
(Your sig)
<div style="max-width: 500px;" id="_giphy_MnWbFsmlpcBKU"></div><script>var _giphy = _giphy || []; _giphy.push({id: "MnWbFsmlpcBKU",w: 327, h: 240});var g = document.createElement("script"); g.type = "text/javascript"; g.async = true;g.src = ("https:" == document.location.protocol ? "https://" : "http://") + "giphy.com/static/js/widgets/embed.js";var s = document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(g, s);</script>

Funny stuff here.
 

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,545
Reaction score
28,993
Don't take the analogy too literally, Lax. It's just that - an analogy about the reasons for not believing - not a direct comparison. Nobody (including myself) thinks a discussion about the existence of Santa Claus is on the same level of seriousness as one about the existence of God.

Gotcha, my bad (and H/T to GoIrish41).

To your first point however, there are VERY few things we can actually be 100% sure of. I'm 99.999% sure we landed on the moon, that my wife hasn't cheated on me, that my parents weren't Soviet spies, and that Isaac Newton existed, and I can't definitively prove that Hitler's dead, the moon isn't hollow and harboring alien invaders, or that terrorists didn't bring down the Concorde in Paris, but the evidence proving or disproving those things is so overwhelmingly convincing that I can act as though they're 100%. Same with my religious beliefs or lack thereof. I can't prove the nonexistence of God or a supernatural power, but the lack of actual evidence for such is so close to nonexistent and the evidence against is so compelling that I can reasonably act as if it's proven.

What's interesting to me though is our limited understanding of our physical (not to mention metaphysical) universe. Is the lack of evidence a condition of an absence of the divine? Or is it a condition of our limited comprehension?
 
B

Buster Bluth

Guest
In your scenario(which I find very reasonable), I'm certainly a soft atheist. I cannot prove, and certainly do not KNOW that there is no god. I think our misunderstanding is what you call a hard atheist, I call an anti-theist. I think it was Hitch that coined the phrase but I'm not sure.

I think Hitchens' anti-theism is that he hoped god doesn't exist. He was totally against the idea of there being a god and/or that god's existence would be a good thing. He thought a supreme creator creating people to worship him was totalitarian and evil.
 
Last edited:
Top