My perspective on Christianity (and strong atheism)

[saizai]

The problem with the Bible is, people like Phelps are right. It does say you're supposed to kill people who work on Sabbath, don't obey their parents, worship other gods, etc etc.

Even if you excluded the "old rules" (though Jesus says not to), there are enough equivalent bits in the NT.

That brings up one basic issue: you either accept the Bible as an instruction manual, or you pick and choose.

If the latter, then you are saying that your ethics personally - however you arrive at them - can dictate what you really accept. Thus, the Bible - and all doctrine - become somewhat superfluous. You're a humanist really, though perhaps still claiming to get your morality from the Bible for various psychological reasons.

If the former, then great, you're consistent. But you're also utterly repulsive to my ethics at least, as well as to most others' (see most Christians' response to Phelps).


I am a "weak agnostic". I have not seen evidence for any god, nor evidence against the existence of every god, therefore I am neutral on the question (and yes, exactly as much as I am neutral wrt leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM, and teapots). Strong atheists commit fallacy of argument from ignorance (AOE!=EOA) / disbelief / ridicule by excluding all of those; some others are intellectually dishonest by rejecting some and not others. So I am perfectly willing to say (and believe) that maybe the IPU exists. (Of course, they don't all have equal probability of existing; their probabilities are, rather, equally unknown. Quite different.)

However, I reject the Christian God not because I believe he does not exist - I don't know - but because I find his morality to be despicable. Even if he does exist, then I feel it is my ethical duty to rebuke him for that.

That is not to say there aren't good bits in the bible too; I'm down with that. But anyone who says you should stone someone to death because they chopped wood to cook some food on the wrong day of the week is, IMNSHO, not someone to be obeyed, no matter what the threatened bribery or punishment, and no matter how nice they are at other times.

And no, you can't get out of that one by saying the laws no longer apply. They did at some point, and it's pretty ****ing explicit. I reject anybody and anything that would ever believe them to be just. Period.

If you don't, then you are either
a) not aware of the disgusting bits in the Bible (OK if you're not Christian; not OK if you are - do your homework);
b) hand waving ALL of them away in some extremely contorted fashion (intellectually dishonest); or
c) OK with your god being a right bastard, and either a bastard yourself, or a coward.

That's about as dogmatic as you will see me get.

So ya gotta ask yourself: are you OK with mass murder (viz Egypt etc) and capital punishment for Sabbath work?

If not, and you're a Christian, why are you worshiping someone who is (or was)?

If you are OK with that, then please just stay waaaaaay the **** away from me.

Rant over.


P.S. I object to the stupid censor

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 8 removed

on this forum.

 

[3point14]

That all seems pretty reasonable. As has been mentioned on here many times before, actually reading the bible is a pretty good cure for Christianity (Christianism??)

The only point I'd make, and I think it may just be messing with semantics, is the whole atheism/agnosticism thing. I realise that it's ultimately impossible to disprove the existence of God, gods or some sort of higher power, and your point about FSM fairies and the IPU (MHHHNBS) is well taken, but I call myself an atheist.

Yes ultimately I can't disprove God, but equally, I can't prove beyond any doubt at all that I'm not imagining the whole world while lying in nuthouse somewhere, or even that my thought processes are not the unwanted byproduct of a malfunctioning computer progamme somewhere. I'm not at all agnostic about these things, and by the same token, I'm not agnostic about the existence of some sort of deity.

As always, however, I never refuse to accept the possibility that I may be wrong.

 

[billydkid]

I am a "weak agnostic". I have not seen evidence for any god, nor evidence against the existence of every god, therefore I am neutral on the question (and yes, exactly as much as I am neutral wrt leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM, and teapots).

But I seriously doubt you are neutral on the questions of leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots. You are not are you? You know those things not to exist.....don't you??????

 

[Humphreys]

But I seriously doubt you are neutral on the questions of leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots. You are not are you? You know those things not to exist.....don't you??????

Teapots don't exist????

Anyway, I think the difference is that all the above things are better defined. The more a supernatural entity is defined, the more ridiculous it seems, and the more clearly false it is. Also, we'd expect Leprechauns and Unicorns to produce clear evidence for their existence, so this actually acts as evidence against the chances of them existing on Earth.

Because of this, I think it's reasonable to be neutal on Gods whose properties and appearance are only very loosely defined (mystical Gods). When it comes to the Bible God, though, I think we're safe to put him in the same realm as FSM - complete nonsense.

 

[saizai]

But I seriously doubt you are neutral on the questions of leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots. You are not are you? You know those things not to exist.....don't you??????

I was utterly sincere.

And, I'm a skeptic. In this case, I am skeptical of your claim that those things all do not exist. Please furnish some evidence for this claim.

(Note, I'd say the same thing to someone claiming they do exist. I'm an equal opportunity skeptic! )


So, unless you can tell me why it is that I should "know" that those things don't exist... I see no reason to believe it. Fallacies are not something just for the fundie theists y'know. You have to bear the same burden of proof.

IOW: Yes, I am 100% serious about not knowing whether leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots (that orbit around the sun somewhere we can't see) exist. As should you be, if you are both logical and intellectually honest / consistent.

 

[RenaissanceBiker]

Teapots don't exist????

Teapots can be used to make coffee. They are not really teapots at all, just a variation of coffee pots. They are a minor mutation, a breed of coffee pots. They are not a new species of heated beverage pots. These "teapots" are not evidence of heated beverage pot evolution.

 

[3point14]

I was utterly sincere.

<SNIP>

IOW: Yes, I am 100% serious about not knowing whether leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots (that orbit around the sun somewhere we can't see) exist. As should you be, if you are both logical and intellectually honest / consistent.

Hang on, don't you have to be a little pragmatic about it too?

I mean, you can't actually prove beyond doubt that the elevator you are about to get in at the top of a 70 story building is there, but you still step onto it, don't you? Is that evidence of belief? Or faith?

Me? I believe it's there, even though I can't absolutely prove it. Faith always seems a little unreliable to me.

Your logic, taken to the nth degree, could be seen to result in never getting out of bed in the morning because you can't prove that anything outside your bed exists. It would be pretty tricky to live that way.


and I'll leave it down to someone else to explain the whole burden of truth thing.

 

[billydkid]

IOW: Yes, I am 100% serious about not knowing whether leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots (that orbit around the sun somewhere we can't see) exist. As should you be, if you are both logical and intellectually honest / consistent.

Not if you are using to term "knowing" in any meaningful way. It could be argued we "know" nothing. Well, that pretty much stops everything. I'm sorry, you KNOW there are no teapots orbiting the sun. You know it! I think saying otherwise is intellectually dishonest. There is logic and then there is, well, stupidity. I remember having this debate with a friend of mine who argued that we could not KNOW anything. There really wasn't much to argue about after that. I congradulated him on his brilliant intellectual victory. I'm sure he enjoyed it as much as anyone can enjoy anything that is utterly hollow.

 

[Darth Rotor]

The problem with the Bible is, people like Phelps are right. It does say you're supposed to kill people who work on Sabbath, don't obey their parents, worship other gods, etc etc.

Even if you excluded the "old rules" (though Jesus says not to), there are enough equivalent bits in the NT.

That brings up one basic issue: you either accept the Bible as an instruction manual, or you pick and choose.

Or, you do as the RCC has done and apply such wisdom and effort as is neccessary to expand upon and develop a doctrine.

You have just presented a false dilemma. No points.

If not, and you're a Christian, why are you worshiping someone who is (or was)?

Why do you refer to God as "someone?"

I object to the stupid censor

Edited by Darat: 

Breach of Rule 8 removed

on this forum.

IF sh__ were censored on this forum,
THEN your OP would be blank.

DR

 

[Blutarsky]

I see strong atheists (IE Dawkins) and fundie theists (Pat Robertson) as flip sides of the same nutty, myopic coin. Neither is able to see past their own respective, glorious epiphanies of how they think the world works long enough to talk about things that have real meaning that they may agree upon...

 

[Freethinker]

Or, you do as the RCC has done and apply such wisdom and effort as is neccessary to expand upon and develop a doctrine.

In other words, make up your own rules and excuses for ignoring the bible. If the bible says one thing and you decide it means something different from what it says, that isn't wisdom. It's just the church tweaking their product to keep it palatable to the sheep.

 

[Darth Rotor]

In other words, make up your own rules and excuses for ignoring the bible. If the bible says one thing and you decide it means something different from what it says, that isn't wisdom. It's just the church tweaking their product to keep it palatable to the sheep.

That's a rather crass, and narrow, understanding of a body of work that philosophers worked some centuries to develop.

DR

 

[Jimbo07]

Hang on, don't you have to be a little pragmatic about it too?

Actually, for the purposes of this board, I've maintained a fairly agnostic position. However, I've always thought (and argued) that pragmatism trumps any philosophy, be it: atheistic, agnostic or fully theistic.

In a pragmatic sense, we all have to behave as though we are atheists. The theists get around this with little catch phrases like, "the Lord helps those who help themselves." We have to trust that if we have looked both ways before crossing the street, and having decided it's safe, that a car won't suddenly 'pop' into existence and mow us down.

As far as KNOWing anything goes, we don't. We don't KNOW that a car (or dragon or blgixtkrgig) won't suddenly materialize, we're just stuck acting as if we do.

About the physical world, science gives us a bit more certainty about the things we can act upon, as if we KNEW them. At the very least, it tries to delimit some of the uncertainty. Conjuring certainty seems to be a trick of the highly religious.

... so... I'm gonna have to back saizai up a bit here. We don't know that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun, I just suggest that there are more practical applications of our currently limited space-science resources. Taken to a less-extreme position, this is a dilemma that faces pure research, when results aren't guaranteed.

 

[Freethinker]

That's a rather crass, and narrow, understanding of a body of work that philosophers worked some centuries to develop.

DR

The belief in god has been cultivated over millenia, and regardless of the intellectual might applied or the amount of effort dedicated to understanding it, it succeeds only in attempting to extract information from fiction. Catholic Doctrine, however thoroughly thought out, is based on mythology.

Much the same as newsgroup discussions about whether Picard or Kirk was a better starship captain. Regardless of the validity of your reasoning and the rigor of your analysis, it has no basis in fact.

 

[Myriad]

If you don't [reject the Christian God], then you are either
a) not aware of the disgusting bits in the Bible (OK if you're not Christian; not OK if you are - do your homework);
b) hand waving ALL of them away in some extremely contorted fashion (intellectually dishonest); or
c) OK with your god being a right bastard, and either a bastard yourself, or a coward.

Well, I'm a right bastard (c), I suppose. Although I guess I could make a case for (b); I'm intellectually dishonest. No, wait, I'm just ignorant, so it's (a). Or, on second thought, I'm really quite the coward, so it's back to (c). Huh, I can't seem to make up my mind here. Quite the difficult choice you've presented!

I suppose I could ask other Christians for their view, but the opinions of a bunch of ignorant, dishonest, cowardly bastards aren't going to help me much, are they?

Lack of faith in the literal truth of the Bible I can understand and support. (Like many Christians, including the Pope, I believe that holding the Bible as literally true is a form of idolatry. See my posts #88 and #111 in the "Why are they sins?" thread for some of my rather unorthodox views of the Bible.) Likewise, lack of fath in God I can understand. Where some have the "gift of faith" you have instead the "gift of doubt." (And that's not sarcasm. I don't believe that's in any way a lesser or unworthy gift.) You want empirical evidence that's not forthcoming.

But what about faith in humanity? Lack of faith that any of 2 billion of your fellow human beings can be knowledgeable, honest, courageous and ethical, I find harder to understand. Is there no empirical evidence that there are good, honest, knowledgeable, brave Christians in the world? I'm not saying that all Christians have all these qualities, nor that these qualities are any more common in Christians than in non-Christians. Just that the idea that no Christians can possibly have all of them seems absurdly cynical, if not bigoted.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Freethinker]

Where some have the "gift of faith" you have instead the "gift of doubt."

One thing a great many believers don't really "get" about atheists is the doubt issue. We don't doubt. The evidence of the existence of gods does not even rise to the level of doubt. You wouldn't say that you doubt the existence of Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy. If I claim to have just placed a live squirrel in your shirt pocket, would you say "I doubt it."? You would be certain I had not. When one is losing their faith, doubt may be an issue, but when you are comfortably done with religion, doubt doesn't enter the picture.

 

[Myriad]

My apologies, Freethinker. I misspoke (though, to be fair, I don't believe I was addressing you in the first place).

You do not have the gift of doubt. You have, instead, the curse of absolute certainty, which you share with, for instance, Creationists who do not "doubt" evolution because how can they "doubt" something that they are absolutely certain doesn't exist at all, any more than they would "doubt" Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

You're entitled to your certainty, as are they. It's unfortunate, though, for those of us who have to share a world with both of you.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[blutoski]

One thing a great many believers don't really "get" about atheists is the doubt issue. We don't doubt. The evidence of the existence of gods does not even rise to the level of doubt. You wouldn't say that you doubt the existence of Santa Claus or The Tooth Fairy. If I claim to have just placed a live squirrel in your shirt pocket, would you say "I doubt it."? You would be certain I had not. When one is losing their faith, doubt may be an issue, but when you are comfortably done with religion, doubt doesn't enter the picture.

Speak for yourself. This is only the view of a radical atheist, not the view of an atheistic skeptic.

I have been an atheist all my life. But I still understand that I could be wrong. I have doubt about religion. I might find out I'm wrong when I die. We'll see.

And this bothers me because I'm a Skeptic, and I see many Atheists abandoning skepticism for Atheism as an alternative. They are making a positivist claim they are frustratingly proud to admit they cannot support philosophically. This basically makes it one more religious view, in my opinion.

But I seriously doubt you are neutral on the questions of leprechauns, unicorns, the FSM and teapots. You are not are you? You know those things not to exist.....don't you??????

Agnostic is not the same as neutral. There are two layers to skepticism: the philosophy of metaphysics versus questions about the philosophy of how to act in the world. The ancient Greek philosophers called the latter "good life philosophies", and the flagship philosophy was Skepticism. Competitors included Stoicism &c. They drew a distinction between understanding the true nature of the universe versus deciding how to live day-to-day.

Later, we had the Gnostics, and I would say that Atheists are also a type of Gnostic. (People who believe they understand the true nature of the universe, rather than merely understand how to manipulate a proximate, or human model, of it). This distincion was also the important work of Kant (he called them the nuomenal (real) and the phenomenal (human-interactable) universe).

There is also the accumulation of supporting evidence: is there a teapot orbiting the sun? Well, who says so? Who's making the claim? ie: what is the 'teapot' equivalent of 2,000 years of biblical study? Does NASA say there's a teapot orbiting the sun? (credible authority) Did somebody bring it along on a Shuttle mission, and it fell out in a docking mishap? (plausible mechanism) How much documentation would you need for this to look reasonable? (scientific consensus) Gospels may not be 'proof' of Jesus, but they're more than we have on teapot-asteroids... so as a skeptic, I would say more plausible at this time, but like everything... who really knows?

So, at the end of the day, my philosophical conclusion is that we can't know for sure, but that atheism is probably right, and so I choose to live this way.

Part of the role of Skepticism is to introduce scientific thinking to the masses. Scientific thinking is probablistic - inductive - and contains no real concrete proofs of what we can point to as absolutely true. This is unfortunate for those who are uncomfortable with uncertainty, and such people perform poorly in science because they cant cope with inconclusive findings or reversals of consensus. They either struggle, or move on to other careers.

When it comes to dealing with 'big questions', such people become religious or sometimes atheistic: they need construct certainty where - unfortunately - there is none.

So, what I'm saying is that you are actually making the mistake that you accuse theists of: misrepresenting the view of atheists. It's what a lot of atheists don't "get" about skepticism.

That's why Atheists and True Believers sneer at agnostics: it's a defensive reaction to the fact that people can live their lives without the crutch of a concrete gnostic framework. It's sour grapes, if you will.

 

[Blutarsky]

My apologies, Freethinker. I misspoke (though, to be fair, I don't believe I was addressing you in the first place).

You do not have the gift of doubt. You have, instead, the curse of absolute certainty, which you share with, for instance, Creationists who do not "doubt" evolution because how can they "doubt" something that they are absolutely certain doesn't exist at all, any more than they would "doubt" Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy?

You're entitled to your certainty, as are they. It's unfortunate, though, for those of us who have to share a world with both of you.

Respectfully,
Myriad

For some people on earth, there's nothing more important than being right...I do love those types people...

 

[ceo_esq]

The problem with the Bible is, people like Phelps are right. It does say you're supposed to kill people who work on Sabbath, don't obey their parents, worship other gods, etc etc.

Even if you excluded the "old rules" (though Jesus says not to), there are enough equivalent bits in the NT.

I'm not sure what "equivalent bits" in the New Testament you're referring to, but I think there is a strong argument (based on passages like John 8:2-11 and others) that Jesus did not condone putting, for example, Sabbath-breakers or disobedient children to death.