I Don't Understand Atheism

[hatsoff]

Hatsoff, it's hard to convey to someone without a relationship with Christ how arvelous it is. Like plato's cave, we try to convince you of the beauty of the outside world when you are entranced with shadows dancing on the wall.

You mention eternal torture. Here's one other aspect of it. If you have a chance at an amazing relationship, the best relationship out there, and you don't seek it out (whether or not you want to say "reject" it), you would be entering into your life separated from that most amazing relatoinship ever. And that would be the ultimate torture.

You say you don't have time and yet you have obviously had the time to read all sorts of philosophy books. One I can think of right off the bat would be Mere Christianity, which is an relatively short read.

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, Mere Christianity is something already on my list, but it's a backburner item. I am familiar with the trilemma argument he presents in that book, and I'm curious what else he talks about in it.

[hatsoff]

Also, about Hell.. I don't believe that God sends us to Hell, but it is on our own merit... In other words, we send ourselves to Hell. God, on judgment day, will simply expose the darkness that we put into our hearts.. The darkness, along with the choices we made in this life. Were they in love or hatred, envy? Love will stand whereas hatred must be destroyed. Hatred cannot exist in a loving world...

Well, I suppose you could avoid saying that we deserve eternal torture by saying that we end up there because we choose it. But I'm not sure that defense would hold up under scrutiny. Are you saying that God agrees we don't deserve to be tortured, but he allows it to happen because he doesn't want to interfere with our free will? If so, then okay. But I have my doubts you would tolerate such a view.

Yes, I believe we tackled this before to some extent. I have been on this forum for years and have never once encountered anything in science, math, or philosophy that denies the existence of God.. Nothing. When I was in my 20's I too also rejected Christianity since I believed in evolution. I still remember fighting with Christians over this.. But it was all for nothing. Because I have learned that science does not interfere with the existence of God. And I have tackled some pretty high top atheists here too..

There are plenty of God concepts out there which have no conflict with the evidence. The problem is, they have no empirical support, either. And so by the principle of parsimony (AKA Occam's razor) we tentatively ignore that which has insufficient supporting evidence.

Such as?

I do not have any specific requirements for belief in Christianity.

We are only here to help.. Again, I'm sorry if I was harsh with you earlier. My bad...

I appreciate your recent kindness, and I myself strive to maintain the same positive attitude.

[jlay]

Reading a book (The God Delusion), I discovered that romantic idealism is not necessarily a religious endeavor. The discovery changed my life and I quickly jumped the fence removing god from my life. Now, I am vastly happy. What is my point? Well, a person can't be argued into believing. However, a person can be argued into repulsion. Blasting argument can place people on a fence and all that is needed is a little taste of the other side.

In other words. "I don't need God to be happy." Great. No one said you did. The bible certainly doesn't teach that. How is happiness a measure of truth?

The best argument for a belief is happiness and joy.

Belief in what? Are you saying there is a standard that is best?

I have this in my life and I am highly thankful for life. If friends ask, I tell them I am an atheist. And then, I try to live a good life hoping my actions give credit to my values.

Honestly who cares if you are happy? Exterminating the Jewish race made Hitler happy. Why does your happiness have value and Hitler's doesn't. How about people who are happy making others suffer? Why do your values matter, and their's don't? Do you really believe that your personal happiness is the standard for truth?

Try to live a GOOD life? If everything is relative, and there is no god, no standard of good, then just exactly who are you to tell us that your life is such? What do you mean, lead a "good," life. What makes one life good, and another bad?

You also say you, "removed God from your life." How do you remove a non-existant thing?

Not to sound snarky, but your posts just has so many conflicts and contradictions. Sounds like you want your life to have inherent value and meaning, so you cling to ideas that it does. Being thankful for life, would imply an object to give thanks to. It is as if you are saying, "God isn't real, but we should live our lives as if He does."

[Kurieuo]

There were several important factors that led to my eventual rejection of Christ. One of them is as follows: When I was a teenager, my parents and some of the congregants at my church told me that we cannot prove God, but that we must have faith. I misinterpreted this* as meaning that there is no objectively rational reason to believe in God, much less the Christian God. At the same time, though, I had an unwavering (initially) conviction that God was real, and that his Holy Spirit was at work in the church. So, I turned to the Scriptures, and misinterpreted them, too. I concluded from a few comments by Paul, in particular Ep 2:8, that belief in God is itself is a gift from the Holy Spirit. In other words, the Holy Spirit, I reasoned, must be at work in me, causing me to believe in the saving power of Christ. I came to understand that the Holy Spirit was believing for me, and through me.
...
*- As it turns out, they didn't mean what I thought they meant. In later conversations with my parents, for example, they insisted that we can know God through personal experience, and through creation. But at the time, I misunderstood them to mean that we must have blind faith if we are to have faith at all.

Touching on some of your thoughts quoted here, I strongly believe God chooses to remove the darkened veil to those whom He chooses to reveal Himself more clearly to. Many of the Christian posters here I dare say have an immediate awareness to God in their life and His existence in the world around them. I am not talking necessarily of a mystical experience, but rather a spiritual perception. This would explain why when Christians look at the world they see evidence for God all the way through it, whereas when a non-Christian/Atheist looks at the world they see absolutely no evidence. A well known theologian Jonathan Edwards believed certain moral and spiritual qualifications were required to appreciate the force of evidence for religious truths. Another theologian, William Wainright, building on top of Edwards' beliefs puts it down the "properly disposed heart" being required to appreciate God in the world.

Re: proving God, nothing can be proved. There is only evidence or lack of evidence and we are each the judge of whether evidence proves something or not enough for us to believe. Many theologians and philosophers believe the evidence for God proves His existence. This now even includes Anthony Flew who wrote a favourite paper of many atheists - The Presumption of Atheism. Likewise, many secular philosophers believe there is no significant evidence to warrant or justify belief in God's existence. The two sides are both rationally at a standstill with each other. One side trying to make the other see the evidence they see, while the other side claims there is no real evidence. Thus, there seems to me much merit to Wainright's ideas of a "properly disposed heart".

That said, I myself identify a "properly disposed heart" as a willingness to believe, and proactiveness in actively seeking God whether through reason, the heart, or a mix of the two. This aligns to Christ who said, "For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened” (Lk 11:10). When the door opens, that is when a full disclosure happens, perhaps akin the personal experiences of which your parents' speak, Newton's "once was blind, but now I see" in his Amazing Grace song, and enlightening experiences many other Christians claim to have had.

I am not sure how this works with yourself. Perhaps you did clearly see God, and clear evidence for God in the world, only to then loose that perception as your heart for some reason or another hardened. Or perhaps you did not really perceive God in the world at all beyond your family and church upbringing, teachings and experiences. Perhaps you don't even really know yourself. Maybe my comments can in some way help make sense of your spiritual journey (or anti-spiritual journey???).


I wish to also comment on "faith". I always find it interesting that despite what many Christians advocate, Scripture presents "faith" as something to be had after evidence is provided. A biblical faith is never blind, but rather based on evidence. If one has faith in Christ based on a blind faith, then their faith is in my opinion empty. Some Christians would protest I am sure, but I'm not questioning the sincerity of the belief of such Christians, but rather basing it on my understanding of biblical faith which is based on evidence and reason. How else are Christians meant to give a reason for the hope that is within them to those who ask? (1 Peter 3:15) Those who would protest against me no doubt see it the other way around, that is, those who have a blind faith have the strongest faith to be desired, and those who believe due to evidence or reasoning of some sort have little faith. Yet, I find little to support this Scripturally. Paul even tells us to test everything, hold onto the good (1 Thess 5:21). Hopefully this places a different spin on your understanding of "faith" with regards to Christianity.

So I believe there is strong evidence for God and that is why I have faith. In a way, I have a similar journey to yours where I questioned Christianity. Only, I asked God to reveal Himself to me, and expecting a mystical supernatural revelation of some sort, instead I was given reason after rational reason to believe to the point I cannot deny even if I wanted to. I'm not sure how I can help Atheists see however, because of their improper disposition. I figure the Holy Spirit works on this, and helps change our disposition, to the point we are able to make some clear decision to believe in or ignore God. I sincerely hope your decision is not final. It would be heartbreaking considering your life's journey. But somehow, I don't think your decision is final. Whether or not I am wrong, I perceive there to be some glimmer in your words here which indicate your decision is not final. Once it is though, you will just become more and more hardened against Christ and it will be harder if not impossible for the truth to be seen. Of course, this is assuming what I believe is true.

[jlay]

Excellent post K. Well said.
Here is the reality. You can't claim to have known Christ or god, and then claim he/they don't exist. It is self-defeating.
You can certainly have informational knowledge and construct a world view around that. But is this the saving faith we are speaking of? Is that what MAKES a Christian??

John writes,
And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. (1 John 3:24)

Jesus said it best.
Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (john 17:3)
In these two the Greek word, ginosko is used. My Lexicon says, "It denotes a personal and true relation between the person knowing and the object known."
I could site many, many other verse related to "knowing."

Why does Jesus reject? "Depart from me, I never KNEW you."
Same Greek word. For a relationship to be established, both have to KNOW the other.

I think a closer study reveals a failure of faith. Not that someone can will themselves to faith. But a failure to comprehend just exactly what is saving faith. And a colossal failure on the part of the church to preach such. In a couple of threads now, I have heard people talk about how they (those who rejected Christianity) enjoyed the faith part of it. I'm really confused here. Christ is to be the object of faith. I have faith in my wife because I know her. Faith is not simply choosing to believe in some information. When I say I have faith in my wife, I am not saying I believe she exists. I am saying that because I KNOW her, I trust her. Certainly one would have to believe God exist to have faith in Christ. But I would contend that although one requires the other that these are two different things.
I can divorce my wife. I can choose not to 'know' her. But I can't claim she doesn't exist. In the same way, there are Christians who have trusted Christ, but they are not living in the marriage.
But how can someone have knowing faith if they never knew who they were having faith in? This may get back to a question I asked before. What is saving faith? I certainly beleive cases like these we are seeing beg us to delve deeper into the word and explore.

Did these folks get spiritual amnesia? Or is there something else at work here.

[Gman]

Well, I suppose you could avoid saying that we deserve eternal torture by saying that we end up there because we choose it. But I'm not sure that defense would hold up under scrutiny. Are you saying that God agrees we don't deserve to be tortured, but he allows it to happen because he doesn't want to interfere with our free will? If so, then okay. But I have my doubts you would tolerate such a view.

Not sure what you mean. Yes God agrees that we shouldn't be tortured, but our rebellion demands it.. In fact the Bible tells us that God cries at our death.. It's not a joyful thing at all..

There are plenty of God concepts out there which have no conflict with the evidence. The problem is, they have no empirical support, either. And so by the principle of parsimony (AKA Occam's razor) we tentatively ignore that which has insufficient supporting evidence.

In that sense it's a catch 22.. Because atheism has no empirical evidence either. If anything it's a matter of opinion or preference..

I do not have any specific requirements for belief in Christianity.

Even your most critical scholar will admit that Jesus Christ walked this earth... What other requirement's do you need?

I appreciate your recent kindness, and I myself strive to maintain the same positive attitude.

No problem. I'm not here to corner you. Just to understand and help... Thanks.

[robyn hill]

Let me present an analogy. Let's say I was a dog breeder. When breeding my dogs, I KNEW that I would endlessly torture some dogs for sins like barking in the night or peeing on the carpet. Generation after generation of puppies, I tortured some of each litter. The puppies had a choice to submit to my authority or suffer the consequences. In god's view are humans not as ignorant as puppies?

What kind of person would I be?

Umm....small problem with your analogy, puppies don't have logic, reasoning, or problem solving brains where as we do. If you came along and peed all over my carpet time after time, I might not have such a problem forcing you to submit to my authority OR making you suffer the consequences. ....oh yeah, I would throw in some endless torture for you too.

[robyn hill]

Are you saying that God agrees we don't deserve to be tortured, but he allows it to happen because he doesn't want to interfere with our free will? If so, then okay. But I have my doubts you would tolerate such a view.

That is what I would say...and also what the bible says. Why would God create robots, they aren't capable of love. Love requires choosing and free will. If it is forced it is not really love, it's bondage. You might say, because i have heard it said before from atheists, that it is forced in a way because of the repercussions of not choosing God. But I say, there is no other way for God to experience a relationship with us. The bible says there is God and Satan. If we don't choose him, we are left to fend for ourselves with the other. What is so unfair about that? Does God have to hit us over the head with a hammer? He sent us his son, the bible, a bunch of prophecies, and a universe that has an origin with many questions not answered through science. What else would one suggest God do to try and have a "real" relationship with us that is not forced?

[hatsoff]

Yes God agrees that we shouldn't be tortured,

Well that's quite a statement, and I see robyn hill echoed it. I don't think too many of your Christian peers would agree with you both, but I'm glad you dissent from them.

In that sense it's a catch 22.. Because atheism has no empirical evidence either. If anything it's a matter of opinion or preference..

How is it "a matter of opinion or preference"? If you could find no evidence for the existence of God, why would you go on believing in Him?

Even your most critical scholar will admit that Jesus Christ walked this earth... What other requirement's do you need?

As I said, I have no specific requirements.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Yes God agrees that we shouldn't be tortured,

Well that's quite a statement, and I see robyn hill echoed it. I don't think too many of your Christian peers would agree with you both, but I'm glad you dissent from them.

It doesn't matter what «Christian peers» or unbelievers like you think; it's what is in the Bible that counts. Are you ignorant about what the Bible says about hell and why anyone ends up there? Or you are just working this «torture» aspect because it gives justification to your contempt? (I think it's a bit of both.)

FL

[Kurieuo]

Re: Hell - The Craig-Bradley debate: Can a loving God send people to hell?

[hatsoff]

Just to be clear, although I do have theological problems with certain combinations of doctrines, especially those involving damnation, I haven't been referring to those in this thread, nor do I plan to talk about them in the near future. I was only pointing out that the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity, and its non-Calvinist analogs, lead believers in such doctrines to have a morally warped view of humanity.

In other words, I'm concerned here with the moral perspective of Christians, and not the character of some hypothetical God.

[Gman]

Yes God agrees that we shouldn't be tortured,

Well that's quite a statement, and I see robyn hill echoed it. I don't think too many of your Christian peers would agree with you both, but I'm glad you dissent from them.

That is the way it's been taught to me in my churches since my youth. And it's Biblical too.. Of course people will attack it, like the atheists, and try to bring about falsehoods. No surprise there...

How is it "a matter of opinion or preference"? If you could find no evidence for the existence of God, why would you go on believing in Him?

It's a matter of preference in a way that no one can deny the existence of God. Not even Richard Dawkins will.. And evolution and science is compatible with it too. You can't take science and disprove God. You simply can't.. If someone can, then please reveal it and call CNN while you are at it...

Why would I go on believing Him? Because I have found evidence for God, and He has personally changed my heart. Although I still need work in this area..

As I said, I have no specific requirements.

Well then I don't know what more to say.. Perhaps it is an emotional thing?

[Dazed and Confused]

Isn't that strange? I forgot.. There were actually 4 prophetic signs given to the Jews after Christ's death (around 30 AD).

All of this is found in the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds around that time (non-Christian sources)... A fact.

Interesting?

Doesn't the Talmud mention that the Temple tapestry, which was before the Holy of Holies, tore down the middle on the same Passover Jesus was crucified? And the Talmud also stated "Woe to us for the scepter has departed from Judah and Shiloh (Messiah) has not come." This of course going back to the prophecy given to Judah in Genesis 49:10. All of these examples are an awesome testimony to a historical Jesus. I don't remember if I pieced the following together from multiple sources or not, but I believe it to be accurate:

"This is a prophetic verse regarding the timing of the Messiah's birth, spoken by Jacob to his son Judah. Genesis 49:10 "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes, and to Him shall be the obedience of the people."

The term "Shiloh" was recognized by the Jewish rabbis as a Messianic title. "The world was created for the sake of the Messiah, what is this Messiah's name? The school of Rabbi Shila said, "His name is Shiloh, for it is written: until Shiloh comes." (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 98b, Rabbi Johanan) The "scepter" refers to the judicial power of the nation. This regards the Jews ability to enforce Mosiac Law. A key point of this law was the right to administer capitol punishment. Thus, this prophecy says that the Messiah will come when the nation's judicial power has been removed.

Although Judah was deprived of its national sovereignty during the 70 year period of Babylonian captivity, it never lost its scepter, for the Jews were allowed to have their own judges even while in captivity. This is evident in the book of Ezra. Ezr 1:5 "Then the heads of fathers' {households} of Judah and Benjamin and the priests and the Levites arose, even everyone whose spirit God had stirred to go up and rebuild the house of the LORD which is in Jerusalem". Ezr 1:8 "and Cyrus, king of Persia, had them brought out by the hand of Mithredath the treasurer, and he counted them out to Sheshbazzar, the prince of Judah".

"The first visible sign of the beginning of the removal of the scepter from Judah came about when Herod the Great, who had no Jewish blood, succeeded the Maccabean princes who belonged to the tribe of Levi and who were the last Jewish kings to reign in Jerusalem." (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict). The crucial turning point came soon after Herod's death when, in about 7 AD, the Romans removed the power of the Sanhedrin Council in Judah to pronounce the death penalty. Thus the scepter (the supreme judicial power) passed from Judah. According to Josephus "around the year 6-7 C.E., the son and successor of King Herod, Herod Archelaus, was dethroned and replaced not by a Jewish king, but by a Roman procurator named Caponius" (Antiqities 17:13). The Talmud states that on this occasion the members of the Sanhedrin were overtaken by "a general consternation." Incredibly, it is further recorded that they "covered their heads with ashes and their bodies with sackcloth, exclaiming: 'Woe unto us, for the scepter has departed from Judah, and the Messiah has not come!'" The conclusion was that Shiloh would come only when the scepter was removed from Judah. And in fact Shiloh did arrive, but not how they would have invisioned His arrival."

[Gman]

Doesn't the Talmud mention that the Temple tapestry, which was before the Holy of Holies, tore down the middle on the same Passover Jesus was crucified? And the Talmud also stated "Woe to us for the scepter has departed from Judah and Shiloh (Messiah) has not come." This of course going back to the prophecy given to Judah in Genesis 49:10. All of these examples are an awesome testimony to a historical Jesus. I don't remember if I pieced the following together from multiple sources or not, but I believe it to be accurate:

There are curtains in front of the holy of holies, but apparently the one's that ripped were the ones on the "outside" of the temple (before the holy place).. The fact is, the New Testament makes it clear that the centurion and all the others around the crucifixion site could see with their own eyes the Temple curtain being torn in two Luke 23:44-49. If so, they weren't the one's on the inside...

Herod's temple and curtain (in red).


"It must be realized that there was no difficulty in witnessing the tearing of the Temple curtain from the Mount of Olives, which was a Sabbath Day's journey of about half a mile away from the Temple mount (Acts 1: 12). This outer curtain was 55 cubits high and 16 cubits wide (over 80 feet tall and 24 feet in breadth) (Josephus, War V21O-214). This curtain was a magnificent creation of art, Josephus (who was an eyewitness) described it as a wonderfully made tapestry woven with the finest materials."

It wasn't the Talmud, but yes.. This huge over 80 feet tall and 24 feet wide curtain was apparently also witnessed (i.e. torn) by outside sources (than the Bible). A Jewish Christian work of the early second century called "The Gospel of the Nazaraeans" said that the large stone lintel which supported the curtain (for stability) split in two when the curtain was severed (cf Hennecke-Schneemelcher, The New Testament Apocrypha, vol 1, pp.l50,153). And yes... ALL ON PASSOVER.

The curtain split from top to bottom, Mark 15:38.. So basically, during the earthquake at Christ's crucifixion, it was the stones that caused the curtain to split.. The massive weight of the overhead stones (above the curtain) fracturing did the work.

Isn't that fascinating?