Evidence for God from Science

WARNING: EXPLICIT LANGUAGE

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... son-rally/

The article is a response by atheists to Christians attending the "Reason Rally" (on public grounds, mind you, when you read threats of 'church crashing' in the post). Note that the author of the blog post is one of the 'guest speakers' at the event.

Just reading through the comments, it amazed me how some of the people who thought their posts were 'brilliant' were responding to straw men (one great example being the guy, very pleased with himself, who blew apart the concept of 'magic words' - which no Christian I have ever met has taught). But what is scary is that these people do not feel the need to be tempered by a mutual respect for people they disagree with. They hate first and foremost and ask questions later. I'm glad we have had some respectful atheists and agnostics on these boards who present their arguments respectfully and have good things to say. But these people, like any radical, aggressive fringe group, need to be dealt with.

These people + Political Power = A world I wouldn't want my family living in, religious or not.

Agree on all points. I've met these kinds of people in various settings, but typically on Youtube because they like to play tough when hiding behind a keyboard. Yet I have no doubt that some of these people would act on their hatred. Absolutely frightening. But Jesus predicted people like this would come out of the woodwork and persecute us in many ways. This seems to be one of those ways. My one consolation is that God will make it right and these people will get their punishments. I just wish that it wouldn't have to happen, because I don't really want anyone, even hateful people, to go to hell - I just can't imagine the absolute horror they will feel when they realize we were right. It's not smugness - it's sadness. :/

Militant Atheists are disturbing but in all honesty, qualitatively between them and extreme religious fundamentalists in Islam and Christianity, there's not much difference in terms of how they think and operate.

There are people like this in all groups and causes. The key is to not judge the group by the extremists. Most notably, I would warn against seeing all Muslim people as violent terrorists (as much as America has come to see them all this way). I would warn against seeing atheists as a danger to Christianity, when most atheists are far more accepting of varying religious views than religious people (in my experience). It's unfair and frankly, many people who have these views that stereotype other groups are talking out both sides of their mouth; they stereotype negatively on other groups while becoming offended when other people stereotype their own group.

Ivellious wrote:There are people like this in all groups and causes. The key is to not judge the group by the extremists. Most notably, I would warn against seeing all Muslim people as violent terrorists (as much as America has come to see them all this way). I would warn against seeing atheists as a danger to Christianity, when most atheists are far more accepting of varying religious views than religious people (in my experience). It's unfair and frankly, many people who have these views that stereotype other groups are talking out both sides of their mouth; they stereotype negatively on other groups while becoming offended when other people stereotype their own group.

But usually, such extremist religious groups don't rally in Washington DC in one of the most public places in the country. My problem with this isn't that these people exist (I already knew that). It's that they are getting vocal very publicly and no one is standing up to point out how insane this all is.

Callisto wrote:Agree on all points. I've met these kinds of people in various settings, but typically on Youtube because they like to play tough when hiding behind a keyboard.

...as well as behind a limited number of characters per post.

Callisto wrote:Yet I have no doubt that some of these people would act on their hatred.

They would. Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot are good examples of what happens when such seize power. Millions of dead people.

Callisto wrote:I just can't imagine the absolute horror they will feel when they realize we were right. It's not smugness - it's sadness. :/

"Wow, this 'Hell' seems so realistic. I knew that the brain was a powerful thing, but to generate an illusion so impressive that I actually feel pain...
Even though I spent my entire adult life fighting religious indoctrination, my brain still generates images of 'Hell'. Impressive indeed.
Now, where's the button OFF..."

Sorry, I couldn't resist. But I agree that it's sad.

Ivellious wrote:I would warn against seeing atheists as a danger to Christianity, when most atheists are far more accepting of varying religious views than religious people (in my experience).

I would warn, however, that atheists doesn't have an objective moral standard that they follow. Which means, if they are accepting of someone's religious views, it's a result of good will. And good will in humans is not something that I trust, sorry.

Ivellious wrote:There are people like this in all groups and causes. The key is to not judge the group by the extremists. Most notably, I would warn against seeing all Muslim people as violent terrorists (as much as America has come to see them all this way). I would warn against seeing atheists as a danger to Christianity, when most atheists are far more accepting of varying religious views than religious people (in my experience). It's unfair and frankly, many people who have these views that stereotype other groups are talking out both sides of their mouth; they stereotype negatively on other groups while becoming offended when other people stereotype their own group.

Generally, this is true. What often happens is that these extreme fringe groups get a disproportianate amount of attention for their size as they are more vocal than the silent majority. This is as true of so-called "new" atheists as it is of Christian identified fringe groups such are Westboro Baptist Church or militia groups and of course there's often more going on there than just religious elements or issues.

I'd agree too that the majority of muslims are not radical but without any desire to be overly critical in that one direction I think there is, in general, a larger percentage demographically of the more radical elements of Islam and Islams basic history and beliefs lends itself toward a greater willingness to take up arms. Combine this with very non-religious issues such as poverty, social injustice and you have what to my perception anyway is a greater percentage of the movement that is radical and willing to act upon the baser elements of their movement. It's easy to overstate that and move into stereotyping which is not warranted. It's easy when you identify and examine a group like this to lose site that there's more going on than just the religious issues. It's human nature to simplify and form general conclusions without recognizing that there are multi-faceted issues at work beyond the religious including economics, education, and whether there is realistic hope within the society at large that allows for energies to be channeled in a positive, hopeful direction.

Ivellious wrote:There are people like this in all groups and causes. The key is to not judge the group by the extremists. Most notably, I would warn against seeing all Muslim people as violent terrorists (as much as America has come to see them all this way). I would warn against seeing atheists as a danger to Christianity, when most atheists are far more accepting of varying religious views than religious people (in my experience). It's unfair and frankly, many people who have these views that stereotype other groups are talking out both sides of their mouth; they stereotype negatively on other groups while becoming offended when other people stereotype their own group.

With all due respect, history begs to differ that atheism is far more accepting of varying religious views than religious people.

Regarding Islam first, it seems to me that much of it was spread by the sword and especially by Mohummad. Not all Muslims are "extreme" to that extent, particularly many Westernised ones, but then not all Christians are necessarily true to their foundations either. Yes, Christians persecuted and wrongly killed others too in crusades and what-not. The difference is that with Christians, those who did this in the name of Christ took Christ's name in vain because they go against the actual teachings of Christ and as such Christianity.

Now with Atheism, one just has to look to Russia and what happened back when it was the USSR under the likes of secular leaders like Lenin and Stalin (religion was quelled and loss of life has been estimated to be at 66.7 million over a period of 40 years). Or Mao Tse Tung where estimates are placed between 32 and 61.7 million, and even up to 63.7 million. Or the Cambodian halocaust where about one-third of the population (about 8 million) were killed under Pol Pot.

Now compared to the tens of thousands in the crusades, which is also bad... it seems if were are to judge a particular ideology as being the most accepting or non-accepting, that history shows those ideologies without God are the least accepting and most brutal.

So when Atheists express their hatred, and given at least 75% of religious persecution is directed at Christians¹ in the world, I believe Christians are quite entitled to raise concern. There is a good possibility we could end up having a few more Christians or Muslims even targeted by over-enthusiastic Atheistic who hate religion with a passion, and this could very well lead to more occurences such as what happened at Columbine.

Although to be fair, after saying all I've said, the original article and posts orginally linked to by atheists, I personally feel are quite tame and harmless.

In defense of atheists, I only ask that you try not to judge - only through patience and discussion can we get along. :]

Much as atheists must not judge theists on the actions of the hateful (Westboro, for instance) theists, please don't categorize all atheists as hateful either. I myself am what many would describe as a 'militant atheist', but I can promise you that I only espouse respect and civility when I can.

I would warn, however, that atheists doesn't have an objective moral standard that they follow. Which means, if they are accepting of someone's religious views, it's a result of good will. And good will in humans is not something that I trust, sorry.

I would warn you not to judge the morals of others as no moral system is implied through atheism. In my case, I am a moral realist (or objectivist) and I treat my actions and ethics very seriously - I can observe that my actions have demonstrable harm and ascribe negative value to such harm. I may not be accountable to anyone but myself, but I think we all have a good sense of right and wrong through our conscience (which you can argue is prescribed to use by God and inherent in all humans, if it eases your understanding of this). In that sense, our two systems need not even be in direct conflict - they are simply two approaches to the same goal.

However, I thought it was quite plain that theism espoused either a secular objective morality or a subjective moral system (which is subject to an almighty, objective, authoritative being). I am usually a little confused by theist's answer to the Euthyphro dilemma. How would objective morals work in a theist framework? Just curious.

As for those who would wantonly lump all non-theist moral systems into those of the most notorious atheists (Stalin, Pol-Pot), I must say, not only is that quite ignorant, but very offensive. I don't accuse all christians as having the same morals as Anders Behring Breivik, nor must you denounce all atheists as morally bankrupt and evil.

just wish that it wouldn't have to happen, because I don't really want anyone, even hateful people, to go to hell - I just can't imagine the absolute horror they will feel when they realize we were right.

When I was a christian in long days past, I used to think that if people tried to be moral enough, even after death, they could be saved - belief or not belief. I never thought of hell as a permanent punishment, and that repentance could come at any time, even in the afterlife. Do you think god is so callous as to condemn them to hell forever for a finite amount of foolishness? I think not - but I don't wish to impose my own thoughts. I only want that you consider good acts to themselves be commendable, no matter who they belong to. Perhaps god does the same. Thanks. :]

Beanybag wrote:In defense of atheists, I only ask that you try not to judge - only through patience and discussion can we get along. :]

I always try my best. But very often I've been judged by certain atheists because I'm Christian, I've been called backward, mentally challenged etc. only because my beliefs don't match theirs, and that usually comes from people who claim to promote tolerance. Yeah, tolerance for everything except Christianity. Note that I'm not generalizing, I'm just talking about my impressions.

Beanybag wrote:I would warn you not to judge the morals of others as no moral system is implied through atheism. In my case, I am a moral realist (or objectivist) and I treat my actions and ethics very seriously - I can observe that my actions have demonstrable harm and ascribe negative value to such harm. I may not be accountable to anyone but myself, but I think we all have a good sense of right and wrong through our conscience (which you can argue is prescribed to use by God and inherent in all humans, if it eases your understanding of this). In that sense, our two systems need not even be in direct conflict - they are simply two approaches to the same goal.

You just admitted that, under your set of beliefs, you may not be accountable to anyone but yourself. Now, you may have a good will and good intentions, but who says you'll never become tempted to do something that's considered unethical? Would crime rates go up if there were no police? I'm sure they would. "If there is no God, everything is permissible", as Dostoevsky said, and he was right. You may choose to try and live a "moral" life, but someone else may not.

Beanybag wrote:As for those who would wantonly lump all non-theist moral systems into those of the most notorious atheists (Stalin, Pol-Pot), I must say, not only is that quite ignorant, but very offensive. I don't accuse all christians as having the same morals as Anders Behring Breivik, nor must you denounce all atheists as morally bankrupt and evil.

I'm not doing so. I was responding to Callisto's thought that a certain number of atheists who demonstrate hatefulness would act upon their hatred.

P.S. You're implying that Breivik is a Christian? Where did you get that from?

Reactionary wrote:

Beanybag wrote:I would warn you not to judge the morals of others as no moral system is implied through atheism. In my case, I am a moral realist (or objectivist) and I treat my actions and ethics very seriously - I can observe that my actions have demonstrable harm and ascribe negative value to such harm. I may not be accountable to anyone but myself, but I think we all have a good sense of right and wrong through our conscience (which you can argue is prescribed to use by God and inherent in all humans, if it eases your understanding of this). In that sense, our two systems need not even be in direct conflict - they are simply two approaches to the same goal.

You just admitted that, under your set of beliefs, you may not be accountable to anyone but yourself. Now, you may have a good will and good intentions, but who says you'll never become tempted to do something that's considered unethical? Would crime rates go up if there were no police? I'm sure they would. "If there is no God, everything is permissible", as Dostoevsky said, and he was right. You may choose to try and live a "moral" life, but someone else may not.

Someone else may not, but I do think that the large majority of people choose good and feel good about freely choosing good - like I said, this can be supported by saying that God gives us a conscience to know right from wrong and feel better when we choose right and worse when we choose wrong, he's helping us out. Beyond that, a good society does implement measures beyond that: police, laws, prisons, etc. It's worth noting that people choose bad things even with their belief in god as well. Sometimes they do bad things because of a belief in God (however misguided it might be)! We can all only try our best to live our best, however we know how.

Beanybag wrote:As for those who would wantonly lump all non-theist moral systems into those of the most notorious atheists (Stalin, Pol-Pot), I must say, not only is that quite ignorant, but very offensive. I don't accuse all christians as having the same morals as Anders Behring Breivik, nor must you denounce all atheists as morally bankrupt and evil.

I'm not doing so. I was responding to Callisto's thought that a certain number of atheists who demonstrate hatefulness would act upon their hatred.

P.S. You're implying that Breivik is a Christian? Where did you get that from?[/quote]

I am implying he is a Christian, albeit a very bad one. Imagine if you will, the story of Abraham and his son. Abraham is told by god to kill his son Isaac. But what if Abraham, after listening to God, became lost and caught up in this act and did not hear his call to save his son? What if Breivik thought he was doing God's work whilst doing Satan's work unknowingly. For some, doing good, even with their belief in God, can be difficult still! I try not to judge and do my best, while encouraging the best from others around me. I can only hope that, in the end, that is enough.

What exactly is the "atheist moral system" and where did it co me from?

PaulSacramento wrote:What exactly is the "atheist moral system" and where did it co me from?

I have the fall back that some god may have given me the moral capacity I have, but I'll also answer your question. There's a lot of rational reasons to be moral, as well as some natural tendencies to do so. The golden rule is derivable by entirely rational reasons (it's logically inconsistent to not follow it). Other morals come from a possible evolved morality that we got as a social species (there's some empirical evidence to support this e.g. lower level morality in lesser species) - that wouldn't make it objectively binding, however, and I understand that. It would explain why moral behavior propagates in a society and why it would enforce itself in the form of laws. Beyond that, all I can say for why I behave morally is that I choose to, and I choose to based on the reasons I gave above. I understand that might not be sufficient for you, but it is sufficient for me. I am not trying to persuade anyone to my world view, I only wish to have a conversation and to defend my world view.

I recently met a young man named Chris. He was a devout atheist, enjoyed Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. The more he heard them speak, the more he recognized the fact that they were coming from a point from anger. In debates, he stated," the Dawkins & Hitchens sides were more concerned with insulting and demeaning than answering the points with logic and reason ". Chris accepted Christ and is currently attending the adult Sunday school class I'm leading.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:What exactly is the "atheist moral system" and where did it co me from?

I have the fall back that some god may have given me the moral capacity I have, but I'll also answer your question. There's a lot of rational reasons to be moral, as well as some natural tendencies to do so. The golden rule is derivable by entirely rational reasons (it's logically inconsistent to not follow it). Other morals come from a possible evolved morality that we got as a social species (there's some empirical evidence to support this e.g. lower level morality in lesser species) - that wouldn't make it objectively binding, however, and I understand that. It would explain why moral behavior propagates in a society and why it would enforce itself in the form of laws. Beyond that, all I can say for why I behave morally is that I choose to, and I choose to based on the reasons I gave above. I understand that might not be sufficient for you, but it is sufficient for me. I am not trying to persuade anyone to my world view, I only wish to have a conversation and to defend my world view.

Define morality in light of this view, and then look at the rationality of immoral decisions, like killing for money. A thing that is rational does not make it good and moral, and in the naturalistic view, you must then ask what rationality is and how you could come to any conclusion about anything. Why trust your rationality, if you have it, at all? Naturalism is rather self-defeating in this regard. Thanks for the post, though.