Why do Atheists Bother?

[mikeuk]

I'm all for the public rejection and partitioning against religion but getting kids involved is my main gripe with this.

One of the main criticisms against religion is the indoctrination of the young.. So for the opposition to go down the same route doesn't sit right with me.

Take Dawkins book "the magic of reality" is seemingly aimed at kids and wholly misleading/

The one saving grace, it is written in Dawkins interminable style, so I cannot think any kid would read it! Not enough pictures for one thing! He would of course argue..."but the religions indoctrinate kids from very young, and if they did not, I would not have to".

It really disappoints me how poor the choices made by government have been of scientists to promote "public understanding of science" as him. Who simply uses the position as a platform for his beliefs.

 

[Dan_473]

If every human doesn't want to suffer or die unconsensually (which is true, since unconsensual suffering by definition requires an opposition by the victim to the suffering or murder) then in order to see that universal desire realized by all of humanity, it befits each human not do inflict unconsensual suffering or death. If even one does it, that universal desire is violated in at least one person. If nobody does it, then the universal desire is universally recognized and realized and respected.

"...then in order to see that universal desire realized by all of humanity..."
So, the goal is to have the desire realized by all of humanity. We could say, 'It is good to have this desire realized.' Certainly a possible moral system. Again, if it gives you lots of joy, go with it, I say.

 

[nogard]

"If certain parts are in error, how do you know which parts? How can you trust any of it? It gives someone permission to formfit the Bible to fit what they believe..."
This assumes that there is no spirit of God who can communicate or lead humans.

So it's Spirit led, yet the Spirit is not even strong enough to keep it free from man-made error? All this does is give a religion that is already based heavily on Scriptural interpretation and takes it to a whole other level. Aren't there enough different denominations and understandings of Scripture as is? Apparently a lot of different people are thinking the Spirit is saying a lot of different things. Now the words and authorship of the Bible itself aren't even 100% reliable. In theory, one can dismiss the fallibility of the Bible as a trivial matter, but it opens up a rather large can of worms if you really think about it.

"The farther you stray away from mainstream Christianity..."
You might be interested in this: the majority of Christians are Catholic or Orthodox, neither of which (I don't think) promotes a young-earth view. So, does the only scientific issue have to do with age of earth / evolution?

That's quite a stretch in your definition of mainstream Christianity. If you thought that's what I meant when I said mainstream Christianity, then according to mainstream Christianity, this entire message board is heretical. I was speaking from an evangelical understanding of Christianity, but I would also go as far to say that I'm sure there is also a differing of opinion among Catholics about this topic. To lump them all together as a unified force on the topic is a bit fantastical, don't you think.

And evolution is kind of a big deal, because it does not mesh well at with the creation account in Genesis, which unfortunately has quite an influence on the rest of Bible, namely Paul's theology on sin and death. The popular thing today is to believe evolution and Christianity can coexist swimmingly with eachother. Honestly, they can't. And that's a problem.

 

[Kerry]

Take Dawkins book "the magic of reality" is seemingly aimed at kids and wholly misleading/

The one saving grace, it is written in Dawkins interminable style, so I cannot think any kid would read it! Not enough pictures for one thing! He would of course argue..."but the religions indoctrinate kids from very young, and if they did not, I would not have to".

It really disappoints me how poor the choices made by government have been of scientists to promote "public understanding of science" as him. Who simply uses the position as a platform for his beliefs.

The quote from colincat is one sided our schools are indoctrinating our children with the theory of evolution. But that doe's not gripe him at all.

 

[Dan_473]

So it's Spirit led, yet the Spirit is not even strong enough to keep it free from man-made error? All this does is give a religion that is already based heavily on Scriptural interpretation and takes it to a whole other level. Aren't there enough different denominations and understandings of Scripture as is? Apparently a lot of different people are thinking the Spirit is saying a lot of different things. Now the words and authorship of the Bible itself aren't even 100% reliable. In theory, one can dismiss the fallibility of the Bible as a trivial matter, but it opens up a rather large can of worms if you really think about it.





That's quite a stretch in your definition of mainstream Christianity. If you thought that's what I meant when I said mainstream Christianity, then according to mainstream Christianity, this entire message board is heretical. I was speaking from an evangelical understanding of Christianity, but I would also go as far to say that I'm sure there is also a differing of opinion among Catholics about this topic. To lump them all together as a unified force on the topic is a bit fantastical, don't you think.

And evolution is kind of a big deal, because it does not mesh well at with the creation account in Genesis, which unfortunately has quite an influence on the rest of Bible, namely Paul's theology on sin and death. The popular thing today is to believe evolution and Christianity can coexist swimmingly with eachother. Honestly, they can't. And that's a problem.

I don't think I asserted that the spirit kept it (the bible?) free from man-made error... yes, a lot of people think the spirit says different things... this doesn't mean the spirit says different things... It doesn't look like a 'can of worms' to me... is the only kind of Christianity you can consider is one that requires an infallable bible? (and would it have to be the protestant bible that's infallable?)

The definitions I use for 'Christian' is a person that believes that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)... or, a person whose worldview is based largely on the life and teachings of Jesus... so, based on that, Catholic and Orthodox comprise the bulk of Christians... I don't think either requires rejection of evolution as part of what is needed for full participation in the life of the church... and yes, according to them, most of this message board would be heretical, because for the most part people here deny that there is a visible hierarchy to the church.

I agree that evolution have implications for Paul's theology... was Paul right about everything?

So, in a larger picture, it sounds like the only kind of Christianity you want to consider uses an infallable bible (with literal interpretations), and young-earth creationism... that's cool if that's your approach... consider me a non-Christian, too, then... we'll be in the same boat...

 

[ColinCat]

The quote from colincat is one sided our schools are indoctrinating our children with the theory of evolution. But that doe's not gripe him at all.

I'd rather they be taught that than be terrified of hell, or made to feel inadequate and worthless when god doesnt answer their prayers.. When the teacher said he would.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

I'd rather they be taught that than be terrified of hell, or made to feel inadequate and worthless when god doesnt answer their prayers.. When the teacher said he would.

I agree that using Hell as a scare tactic is low, to say the least. I don't know who, of the faith, teaches that people should feel inadequate or worthless, but for anyone that does, that is unsound doctrine.

 

[nogard]

I don't think I asserted that the spirit kept it (the bible?) free from man-made error... yes, a lot of people think the spirit says different things... this doesn't mean the spirit says different things... It doesn't look like a 'can of worms' to me... is the only kind of Christianity you can consider is one that requires an infallable bible? (and would it have to be the protestant bible that's infallable?)

The definitions I use for 'Christian' is a person that believes that Jesus is the Messiah (Christ)... or, a person whose worldview is based largely on the life and teachings of Jesus... so, based on that, Catholic and Orthodox comprise the bulk of Christians... I don't think either requires rejection of evolution as part of what is needed for full participation in the life of the church... and yes, according to them, most of this message board would be heretical, because for the most part people here deny that there is a visible hierarchy to the church.

I agree that evolution have implications for Paul's theology... was Paul right about everything?

So, in a larger picture, it sounds like the only kind of Christianity you want to consider uses an infallable bible (with literal interpretations), and young-earth creationism... that's cool if that's your approach... consider me a non-Christian, too, then... we'll be in the same boat...

Dan, you are not listening. I already told you that when I was a Christian, I conceded the Bible was fallible. What I was doing in the last few posts was playing devils advocate for those who believe why it is important to believe in an infallible Bible. But regardless, believing that the Bible is fallible lends credibility issues to the faith itself, no matter which way you cut it. And while we may both believe the Bible is not 100% accurate, I think our belief on the level and severity of inaccuracy is probably different and that plays a large part in it as well. Someone who maybe thinks there might be a few typographical or translation issues is going to view this point differently than someone who thinks there are larger issues such as authorship and borrowed texts and the like.

You mention that just because people think the spirit says different things, doesn't mean the spirit says different things. Of course not, but how can we know what the spirit means then? If our only physical manifestation of the faith around today, the Bible, is not a reliable source of truth, then what is? Our feelings? What we personally believe is true about Christianity?

It's not just Paul's words that are affected by evolution. The problem of sin and evil takes on a whole new light. When did sins become sins, when did we start getting souls, and so on and so forth. I mean, you do realize you are promoting a belief system that is a shell of Christianity. Let's review...The holy text is unreliable, the origin story may be a myth, spiritual interpretation is fragmented into hundreds of different doctrinal disputes that no one know for sure the answer to...where do I sign up!

 

[Dan_473]

Dan, you are not listening. I already told you that when I was a Christian, I conceded the Bible was fallible. What I was doing in the last few posts was playing devils advocate for those who believe why it is important to believe in an infallible Bible. But regardless, believing that the Bible is fallible lends credibility issues to the faith itself, no matter which way you cut it. And while we may both believe the Bible is not 100% accurate, I think our belief on the level and severity of inaccuracy is probably different and that plays a large part in it as well. Someone who maybe thinks there might be a few typographical or translation issues is going to view this point differently than someone who thinks there are larger issues such as authorship and borrowed texts and the like.

You mention that just because people think the spirit says different things, doesn't mean the spirit says different things. Of course not, but how can we know what the spirit means then? If our only physical manifestation of the faith around today, the Bible, is not a reliable source of truth, then what is? Our feelings? What we personally believe is true about Christianity?

It's not just Paul's words that are affected by evolution. The problem of sin and evil takes on a whole new light. When did sins become sins, when did we start getting souls, and so on and so forth. I mean, you do realize you are promoting a belief system that is a shell of Christianity. Let's review...The holy text is unreliable, the origin story may be a myth, spiritual interpretation is fragmented into hundreds of different doctrinal disputes that no one know for sure the answer to...where do I sign up!

I don't think our positions on the level and severity of inaccuracies in the bible is all that different... but I also don't think it's super important, either... so, it sounds like we agree then, that a person can be a Christian and accept a (very) fallable bible.

So, how does the spirit communicate with humans? Well, if the universe was created and ordered by God, then it makes sense that God has the ability to communicate with and lead us. I don't think that communication has to take on a physical form.

Am I promoting a shell of Christianity? What definition of Christianity are you using?

 

[nogard]

I guess I should counter that by asking you what denomination today most closely aligns in doctrine with the Christianity that you believe in (the beliefs referenced in this thread as well as the rest of the beliefs that make up your faith)?

 

[Dan_473]

I guess I should counter that by asking you what denomination today most closely aligns in doctrine with the Christianity that you believe in (the beliefs referenced in this thread as well as the rest of the beliefs that make up your faith)?

An easy answer would be the Church of Christ / Christian Church, I think sometimes called Restoration Movement or Stone-Cambell. Since officially they have no creed, that it's up to each person to read the bible and decide for themselves what it means, there's nothing I could disagree with...

A fuller answer would be that it's apples and oranges... I might agree with this group on the role of the spirit, another on the way of salvation... if in the end you want to say that I'm not a Christian, that's not a big deal to me... I think I said something like that on one of these threads...