What Atheists Should Learn From Religion

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/19/2012 08:16:11 AM · #201

one issue i do have with atheism, is the apparent want by some (not all) to strip all things God from everything. The pledge of allegiance, courthouse statues, lyrics.

there are extremist on all ends and the make religion or atheism look bad to everyone.

i understand their there needs to be a separation of church and state but why do we need to remove something that has been so intertwined in our country's heritage. it isn't doing any harm. it snot like it going to influence someone to believe that doesn't.

just leave it be. this assault on religion is very counter productive. just as we shouldn't be labeling text books for intelligent design, we also shouldn't be trying to remove God at every corner.

I really feel that all this energy could be put to better use.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

04/19/2012 09:39:53 AM · #202

Originally posted by mike_311:

I'll bite. Sometimes it is not an effort to remove it from everything; it is an effort to allow *all* equal billing.

There is a situation near here where the Gideons dropped off Bibles at a middle school and the students could come to the office to get one. One of the mothers questioned this policy. To hear the Christians around here tell it, she is a pagan looking to kill Christianity, and has been asked repeatedly if she didn't want her son to have a Bible tell him not to get one. However, that was not her position or objection.

She didn't care for him to have the Bible. They have a Bible at their house. She simply believed other religions should also be able to distribute material in a comparable fashion. Right before their Christmas break, they said they would. When she showed up in January with boxes of Pagan spell books she was refused (as she expected she would be).

In America, it is really, really easy to be a Christian (I can say because "i are one"). We even have enough political pull that we can influence legislation to make it even easier.

I'm not saying there aren't people/groups out there that would love to obliterate anything Christian (it often seems some of them are on this board), but I think for *most* atheists/non-religious/non-Christian people, it is more of a desire to have equal billing.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/19/2012 12:07:22 PM · #203

so why did the Gideons even drop off Bibles? Why did the school even accept them? that's the problem right there, not the woman for taking issue with it.

on this note i have no problem with the woman who dropped of the spell books its the same scenario as the flying spaghetti monster.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/19/2012 12:30:54 PM · #204

Originally posted by mike_311:

i understand their there needs to be a separation of church and state but why do we need to remove something that has been so intertwined in our country's heritage.

You mean like slavery and not allowing women to vote? Great! Let's get back to those things that made our country great at its outset.

If it's a product of change, and equality is what is being sought, then it's *not* an attack. Of course religion is going to claim they're being shut out......that's there defense to try to prevent the move towards equality. They know the power of suggesting that someone's bad-mouthing the church......but that's not the case. Wrongs are being righted, and progress is happening.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/19/2012 12:45:31 PM · #205

Originally posted by mike_311:

one issue i do have with atheism, is the apparent want by some (not all) to strip all things God from everything. The pledge of allegiance ...

Reference to God has no place in the Plesge -- it was added in the mid-50's during the anti-Communist pogroms ... actually, I have other issues with the Pledge*, but if you leave it in then are asking atheists to lie -- to swear to something they don't believe in. It is an oath to a political entity, not a church.

* as regards schoolkids, who shouldn't be asked to swear to something they don't understand, and in any event, as minors, are not considered eligible/competent to enter into binding contracts or swear fealty ...

Many years ago a guy in northern California was tired of paying property taxes on his ranch/commune, so he went into the County Recorder's office and tried to deed the property over to God, so they could try and collect taxes from the Lord. When told the government didn't recognize God as an entity, he pulled a quarter out of his pocket, pointed to the slogan "In God We Trust" and said "I mean this one ..."

Message edited by author 2012-04-19 12:46:49.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/19/2012 12:47:05 PM · #206

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by mike_311:
one issue i do have with atheism, is the apparent want by some (not all) to strip all things God from everything. The pledge of allegiance ...

Reference to God has no place in the Plesge -- it was added in the mid-50's during the anti-Communist pogroms ... actually, I have other issues with the Pledge*, but if you leave it in then are asking atheists to lie -- to swear to something they don't believe in. It is an oath to a political entity, not a church.

* as regards schoolkids, who shouldn't be asked to swear to something they don't understand, and in any event, as minors, are not considered eligible/competent to enter into binding contracts or swear fealty ...

Many years ago a guy in northern California was tired of paying property taxes on his ranch/commune, so he went into the County Recorder's office and tried to deed the property over to God, so they could try and collect taxes from the Lord. When told the government didn't recognize God as an entity, he pulled a quarter out of his pocket, pointed to the slogan "In God We Trust" and said "I mean this one ..."

In its original form it read:

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, the words, "the Flag of the United States of America" were added. At this time it read:

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

In 1954, in response to the Communist threat of the times, President Eisenhower encouraged Congress to add the words "under God," creating the 31-word pledge we say today. Bellamy's daughter objected to this alteration. Today it reads:

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/19/2012 01:05:22 PM · #207

Originally posted by GeneralE:

* as regards schoolkids, who shouldn't be asked to swear to something they don't understand, and in any event, as minors, are not considered eligible/competent to enter into binding contracts or swear fealty

When I was in school, this just seemed natural. Later in life when I visited my kids in school and they do the pledge, it seems too - Government indoctrination - to me. Too "big brother" to me.

It just doesn't seem right.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/19/2012 01:17:30 PM · #208

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

* as regards schoolkids, who shouldn't be asked to swear to something they don't understand, and in any event, as minors, are not considered eligible/competent to enter into binding contracts or swear fealty

When I was in school, this just seemed natural. Later in life when I visited my kids in school and they do the pledge, it seems too - Government indoctrination - to me. Too "big brother" to me.

It just doesn't seem right.

Hey, we can agree! :-) (see the title of my picture).

As

Isaac went through elementary school, I asked him every year if he understood what it meant. I told him that he could stand (out of ordinary respect/courtesy) but that he didn't have to recite it if he didn't want to.

I don't think third-graders can truly understand concepts like "allegiance" and "liberty" and "justice" ... and if its truly a binding oath, why does anyone need to recite it more than once, ever?

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/19/2012 01:18:46 PM · #209

Originally posted by mike_311:

The Gideons dropped them off and the school accepted them because "that's the way we've always done it and it's a Christian thing, therefore it is okay". I don't know that *that* was an exact quote, but it was pretty darn close.

04/19/2012 01:29:33 PM · #210

i wasn't aware of of the many incarnations of the pledge, in that case go ahead an change it.

04/19/2012 01:30:32 PM · #211

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Actually I agree with Paul, but on a different point. I don't say the pledge because it's a lie for me too. My alliegance is to my God. My alliegance to my country is limited to the extent it falls in line with my first allegiance.

I've always thought the pledge was a little weird. Makes sense it was brought around during the red scare. I think for most people it doesn't cause any thought and the words don't mean anything more than the words to "Take me out to the ball game".

EDIT: Spelling fairy told me I spelled allegiance wrong... :)

Message edited by author 2012-04-19 14:11:14.

04/19/2012 01:34:34 PM · #212

i have no allegiance, mine goes to the highest bidder.

04/19/2012 01:52:55 PM · #213

Originally posted by mike_311:

i have no allegiance, mine goes to the highest bidder.

Mercenary...

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/19/2012 02:06:58 PM · #214

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by mike_311:
i have no allegiance, mine goes to the highest bidder.

Mercenary...

i wish, either my rates are too high or no one wants to hire me.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/19/2012 05:18:07 PM · #215

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've always thought the pledge was a little weird.

It was even weirder when the little guys did the "roman salute" to the flag. Once Hitler started his rallies we switched to covering your heart. Holding out your right arm in the "Heil Hitler" salute makes the pledge look too much like what it really is, a submission to authority.

PS the writer of the pledge was a Socialist.

Message edited by author 2012-04-19 17:21:18.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/19/2012 05:29:12 PM · #216

Just out of curiosity (and this is a neutral question) does anyone here have an opinion on whether we, as citizens, OWE allegiance to the nation that is our home, whichever nation that might be? And if we DO, what comprises "allegiance" anyway? For example, just in the spirit of discussion, there's still a concept called "treason" and we can still (in theory) be executed if we commit it... But if the concept of "owing allegiance" to a nation is just a carryover from outmoded feudal concepts of owing allegiance to a liege lord, if nationhood itself is perhaps an outmoded concept, what do we have to replace it with?

Jason's already said he owes allegiance to his God before his country... Anyone else have anything else to toss out there? I'm sure the soldiers among us will weigh in with allegiance-to-country as a necessary concept for "security", whatever that entails...

R.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/19/2012 05:59:30 PM · #217

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's a deep subject. Personally, I think my allegiance will always be my family first then myself second. At least the feudal lords had the best interest of those they lorded over in mind at least some of the time. I can understand the concept of treason, but only as it applies to people that work for the government. If you're trusted with state secrets, you should be held accountable.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/19/2012 06:40:41 PM · #218

Originally posted by Kelli:

... I can understand the concept of treason, but only as it applies to people that work for the government. If you're trusted with state secrets, you should be held accountable.

Sadly , there do exist instances where "Secrets" are generated by government institutions simply to cover embarrassing situations and have nothing whatsoever to do with national security.

There have been instances where disclosing information truly did benefit the whole of society as they revealed activities that truly ran afoul of legal parameters.

Ray

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/19/2012 07:04:12 PM · #219

'Treason doth never prosper; what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.'

- Sir John Harrington, 1600

ThingFish

Olympus OM-D E-M5

Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8-18mm f/2.8-4 ASPH

04/23/2012 11:54:07 AM · #220

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of Godâ��s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a â��wish-fulfillmentâ�� factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: â��Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?â�� This is the basic question of existenceâ��why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, â��In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.â��

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Letâ��s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, â��I think, therefore I am.â�� Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must â��be.â�� In other words, â��I think, therefore I am not an illusion.â�� Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of â��analytically falseâ�� statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as â��spontaneous generationâ�� â��something coming from nothingâ��a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, â��I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.â�� Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choicesâ��an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

â�¢ Something exists.
â�¢ Nothing cannot create something.
â�¢ Therefore, a necessary and eternal â��somethingâ�� exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal â��something.â�� The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einsteinâ��s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: â��It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.â�� The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

â�¢ Something exists.
â�¢ You do not get something from nothing.
â�¢ Therefore a necessary and eternal â��somethingâ�� exists.
â�¢ The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
â�¢ Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
â�¢ Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, â��Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence â�¦ In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.â��

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

â�¢ He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
â�¢ He must be powerful (exceedingly).
â�¢ He must be eternal (self-existent).
â�¢ He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
â�¢ He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
â�¢ He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
â�¢ He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
â�¢ He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
â�¢ He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
â�¢ He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
â�¢ He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
â�¢ He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
â�¢ He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24; Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

One last subject to address on the matter of Godâ��s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheistâ��s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believerâ��s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makesâ��â��no god,â�� which is what â��atheistâ�� meansâ��is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, â��An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential propositionâ��one that denies the existence of somethingâ��cannot be proved.â�� For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, â��More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.â��

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).
//www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html

Need questions concerning your Christian faith answered?
//www.gotquestions.org
and
//carm.org/

Message edited by author 2012-04-23 11:54:29.

Nullix

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/23/2012 01:48:29 PM · #221

Great, where's the popcorn? This will be good.

Your post what pretty, but you lose people here at bible references.

Once you quote the bible here, people think you're a crazy bible-thumper.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/23/2012 02:03:03 PM · #222

Originally posted by Nullix:

Once you quote the bible here, people think you're a crazy bible-thumper.

? I've quoted the Bible here several times, often correctly.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/23/2012 10:25:13 PM · #223

Well, dang, I was going to post about an interesting conversation going on at Slate magazine, but that was either a lot of typing or cut and pasting and I hate to just hijack it.

That being said, I think the argument isn't bad, but has enough wiggle room that one isn't compelled by the conclusion. Still, even if it doesn't compel, it does reveal some important ideas. Most of it, however, has been talked over on the threads.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/23/2012 11:19:28 PM · #224

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Well, dang, I was going to post about an interesting conversation going on at Slate magazine, but that was either a lot of typing or cut and pasting and I hate to just hijack it.

It's a straight cut 'n paste from //www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html : he gave us the link immediately beneath the quoted text.