"Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance, the only thing it cannot be is moderately important." C.S. Lewis
I finally feel like we might have come to the crux of the matter in our last two posts. Namely, I admitted that there is not absolute scientific proof of the existence of God and that a person must take a leap of faith, and you responded that atheists are unwilling to take that leap of faith. Now my question is, “Why not?” The leap of faith is not a blind leap. There is plentiful evidence that the leap is rational and logical. What I do not understand is why an atheist does not understand or accept that.
Also, the benefits of making the leap far outweigh the alleged benefit of not making the leap. Yes, Christianity has its problems. Yes, evil is committed by people who claim to be Christians. Nevertheless, on the whole, the Christian life is better for the person who believes and is better for society.
For the sake of the argument, if Christianity is false, what harm is there if you have believed it and were wrong? You will only benefit yourself and society by believing. On the other hand, if Christianity is true and you choose not to believe it, then the consequences are severe.
What part of what I have written above do you not agree with?:
1. Do you disagree that there is evidence that makes the leap of faith rational?
2. Why are you unwilling to take the leap of faith?
3. Do you disagree that the Christian life is actually more beneficial than the unbelieving life, both for the person and for society?
I hope that this will shape our discussion for the next few posts.
To 'most' atheists the prospect of becoming a 'believer' is somewhat repugnant. Your question #3 kind-of hits the mark. The danger choosing a belief 'system' is that it would inherently affect our view of what is valuable and, due to the human condition, will age like wine...and slowly degrade the ability to make truly objective decisions. The longer we are forced to accept prescribed values the more we lose touch with our 'natural' connection to our conscience. We become atheists not necessarily because we want to be free of religion, but because we value independence from prescribed values.
ReplyDelete*sniffs* I smell Pascal’s Wager. What gives Christianity precedence on this than any other religion? Why not believe in Odin or Zeus than be an atheist? Why not praise Vishnu or make offerings to Osiris? Would it honestly make sense to carry around a holy icon for each and every religion out there and make the required sacrifices each time they were required by each of them just on the off chance just one of them is the right one? I feel no urge to carry around a necklace of holy symbols like Beni Gabor (Kevin J. O’Connor) did in The Mummy. Even if confining this to Christianity which denomination would you choose? You’ve got options from Catholic to Lutheran to Methodists to Baptists to Latter Day Saints to whatever flavor of the week suits your fancy to justify why you do the things you do and I really don’t feel like typing out each one individually. Are all of these right? If so, why are there indeed so many different interpretations of the same holy book?
ReplyDeleteA leap of faith is not rational, faith is not rational, faith is the denial of evidence presented to maintain belief that something that is not proven to happen or indeed proven to not happen will indeed happen.
A leap of faith is not needed. Many people can be happy, benefit society, help their fellow man, love their family and children, and ensure the prosperity of the human race as general without taking one. In fact some might argue that a leap of faith is indeed, in certain scenarios, dangerous. On my mind right now are two such instances, snake handlers that believe the snake will only bite them if they do not have faith and when bitten die and leave their loved ones, family, and community grieving and faith healers who work through the power of prayer rather than attempting to receive proper medical attention at a hospital.
The only benefit that I see a Christian life providing is adding to a sense of community of the majority group in the area I live in when I in-fact do not support or agree with their ideals or faith. Were I to join Christianity I would have to lie to the community that I joined and that would be detrimental to both sides I believe. I’m able to do good for myself, my family, my loved ones, and my community without having to prescribe to set ideals and values that were decided over a millennia ago for another society entirely. I firmly believe that I and many others are educated or at least able to educated in matters of life, ethics, morality, and civics that we can examine what life throws at us on an individual basis and handle it properly and rationally and choose the best outcome for us.
A god is not needed to have a beneficial life, the ability to be honest and the ability to roll up your sleeves and get to work are all that is required.
The question wasn't which religion is the right one, just why the believe in the supernatural seems to be such a leap of faith.
ReplyDeleteWhich religion is correct is another subject that can be tackled quite easily. The different denominations is also a cop-out. They still share the same core beliefs. Many people will read a novel book and interpret it differently, I guess they should not read then.
You may not see a Christian life being more beneficial now, but that's easy to say after hundreds of years that this country has been following God's given rights. I don't think you would agree if we were in the 16th century. And don't mention what people do, because it is completely separate from what is being taught.
Its like taking chemistry, then someone makes a bomb, therefore chemistry is evil.
"Which religion is correct is another subject that can be tackled quite easily."
ReplyDelete1. prove using evidence that there is a god
2. prove using evidence that your god is that god
EVIDENCE not conjecture not anecdotal bullshit
not arguments about the utility of religion
not arguments from the bible
not how you feel
not your opinion about life or the universe or anything else
just objective facts
...okay go
^one further qualification use an argument that hasn't already been properly refuted by atheists ad nauseum
ReplyDelete"A god is not needed to have a beneficial life, the ability to be honest and the ability to roll up your sleeves and get to work are all that is required."
ReplyDelete1. prove using evidence that there is a beneficial
2. prove using evidence that your beneficial is that beneficial
EVIDENCE not conjecture not anecdotal bullshit
not arguments about the utility of atheism
not how you feel
not your opinion about life or the universe or anything else
just objective facts
...okay go
Even though this article has nothing to do with proving God. I'll entertain it.
ReplyDeleteNo arguments from the bible.. that's a good one. In case you don't know, the bible isn't a single book, it is a lot of book compiled together to make it. If you do not accept anything in the bible as evidence or history, then I can say the same to you.
Do you believe that Chemistry is evil too?
You believe in evolution right? proof to me macro-evolution without using any books at all, no opinion or conjectures, show me the objective facts. Show me that life came from no-life in the primordial soup. This shows how incorrect your premise is.
..okay go
Lets say we are in year 1500 and I said I believed in atoms, and you said the same thing you repeat now, proof it to me, blah blah blah, and I could not show you any evidence. Do you automatically assume that atoms do not exist? According to your current stance, you would in fact admit that atoms were fairy tales, just like goblins, but here we are 500 years later and finally are able to measure them.
What if our science is not good enough yet to know and to be able to proof God, but lets say it will be in 500 years from now. Do you reject this as a possibility at all? Or are you that against God that even reject the possibility in the future.
This line is out of order, pasted it incorrectly.
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that Chemistry is evil too?
Sorry!!!
I think anonymous on top said it best.
ReplyDelete"To 'most' atheists the prospect of becoming a 'believer' is somewhat repugnant."
This is why Atheists will not take a leap of faith, this is why no matter how much evidence is presented, it will not be enough to convince them. This is exactly why God has given them to the depravity of their hearts. You simply want to be your own king, answer to no one and have no consequence to your actions.
The funny thing is that Atheists always mention why would God not take me to heaven, just because I don't believe in him? This is hypocritical, why would he when you don't even like him and find believing in him repugnant, why would he have the desire to show himself to you? But in spite of all this, his love is so great that he still saves a lot of us, not because of we are, but in spite of who we are.
At least you said the truth and that is respectable.
the bible is factually inaccurate loaded with contradictions and seriously lacking in contemporaneous verification
ReplyDeletewhere as things like chemistry and other sciences are not
the bible is loaded with prescriptive normative language
whereas chemistry and the sciences are simply positive and observational
any analogy that treats these things as though they are some how of equal merit concerning truth claims is just plain fucking stupid
concerning proof of "macro evolution" it and micro evolution are the same thing small change over time eventually becomes big change
so i can point to any example of micro evolution and i have already won that argument
the guy who copied and pasted and then ignored the part where i said pretty clearly not to argue about the utility of religion by asking if atheism was beneficial
my answer the whole reason i said not to argue about the utility of religion was that when you are evaluating a truth claim you follow the evidence
whether the facts benefit you or not is irrelevant
last guy if there were any evidence there would be no need for a "leap of faith"
"the bible is factually inaccurate loaded with contradictions and seriously lacking in contemporaneous verification"
ReplyDeleteCan you please provide examples that proof your point, and please let it be an actual example, not the many things atheist choose without having any bible knowledge whatsoever.
"concerning proof of "macro evolution" it and micro evolution are the same thing small change over time eventually becomes big change
so i can point to any example of micro evolution and i have already won that argument"
This is begging the question, the fact is you cant prove it, have never seen it happen, yet you believe it. You see animals adapt with genetic information that already exists, you see small adaptation and therefore make huge leaps of faith saying a single celled bacteria after millions of years and after millions of amazing "beneficial" mutations turned into a human. You are stretching it. Where's the amazing proof of abiogenesis you all cling to so much?
The whole point is that even if scientists said that whatever we don't have proof now doesn't exist, then we would never discover anything else. You make a claim that God doesn't exist and can't back it up.
Do you know what a contradiction is? I would love to hear your explanation. If you don't like what the bible says, it is one thing, but lacking contemporaneous verification means nothing, heck we can't even explain the brain we have, how cognitive it is, how we can create abstract thoughts, yet it doesn't mean it is stupid to realize we have these capabilities. Then again, maybe your brain chemicals reactions are making think that way and you have no control over what you think.
Also, maybe you should watch your language... maybe?
"To produce this miracle of molecular construction all the cell need do is to string together the amino acids (which make up the polypeptide chain) in the correct order. This is a complicated biochemical process, a molecular assembly line, using instructions in the form of a nucleic acid tape (the so-called messenger RNA). Here we need only ask, how many possible proteins are there? If a particular amino acid sequence was selected by chance, how rare of an event would that be?
ReplyDeleteThis is an easy exercise in combinatorials. Suppose the chain is about two hundred amino acids long; this is, if anything, rather less than the average length of proteins of all types. Since we have just twenty possibilities at each place, the number of possibilities is twenty multiplied by itself some two hundred times. This is conveniently written 20^200, that is a one followed by 260 zeros!
This number is quite beyond our everyday comprehension. For comparison, consider the number of fundamental particles (atoms, speaking loosely) in the entire visible universe, not just in our own galaxy with its 10^11 stars, but in all the billions of galaxies, out to the limits of observable space. This number, which is estimated to be 10^80, is quite paltry by comparison to 10^260. Moreover, we have only considered a polypeptide chain of a rather modest length. Had we considered longer ones as well, the figure would have been even more immense." Francis Crick
And yet all atheists believe this on faith...
THOR WILL SMITE ALL OF THEE WITH HIS Mjölnir! HOW DARE YOU INSULT THE GREAT EXISTENCE OF THOR WITH WHAT... A PATHETIC BOOK CALLED THE HOLLY BIBBLE!
ReplyDeleteTHES SI Y ATHAISTS WIL NOT TAEK A LEAP OF FATEH THES SI Y NO MATAR HOW MUCH EVIEDNC3 SI PRESENTED IT WIL NOT B ENOUGH 2 CONVINC3 THEM!1!1!1111 OMG WTF THES SI 3XACTLEY Y GOD HAS GIEVN TH3M 2 TEH DEPRAVITY OF THEYRE HAARTS!1!!! OMG WTF U SIMPLEY WANT 2 B UR OWN KNG ANSW3R 2 NO ONE AND HAEV NO CONSAQUANC3 2 UR ACTIONS!11!1!1 OMG
ReplyDeleteTEH FUNY THNG SI TAHT ATHAISTS ALWAYS M3NTION Y WUD GOD NOT TAEK ME 2 H3AEVN JUST B/C I DONT BLEIVE IN HIM????!!! OMG WTF LOL THES SI HYPOCRITICAL Y WUD H3 WHEN U DONT AVAN LIEK HIM AND FIND BLEIVNG IN HIM REPUGNANT Y WUD H3 HAEV TEH D3SIER 2 SHOW HIMSELF 2 U??!?!!?! BUT IN SPIET OF AL THIS HIS LUV SI SO GR3AT TAHT HE STIL SAEVS A LOT OF US NOT B/C OF WE AER BUT IN SPIET OF WHO WA AER!1!!!!1! WTF LOL
DA WHOLE POINT SI TAHT 3V3N IF SCEINTISTS SADE TAHT WUT W3 DONT HAEV PROF NOW DOESNT EXIST THAN WE WUD NEVAR DISCOVAR ANYTHNG ALS3!!!1!1!1! LOL U MAEK A CLAME TAHT GOD DOASNT AXIST AND CANT BAK IT UP
ReplyDeleteDO!11111!! U KNOW WUT A CONTRADICTION IS?!????! OMG WTF I WUD LUV 2 HEAR UR 3XPLANATION!11!!1! LOL IF U DONT LIEK WT BIBLA SAYS IT SI ON3 THNG BUT LAKNG CONTAMPORAENOS V3RIFICATION MAANS NOTHNG H3K WE CANT EVAN EXPLANE TEH BRANE W3 HAEV HOW COGNITIEV IT IS HOW W3 CAN CREAET ABSTRACT THOUGHTS YET IT DOESNT M3AN IT SI STUPID 2 R3ALIEZ WE HAEV THES3 DERPABILITEIS!1!!!!! OMG WTF LOL TH3N AGANE MAYB UR BRANE CH3MICALS R3ACTIONS R MAKNG THINK TAHT WAY AND U HAEV NO CONTROL OVER WUT U THINK
ALSO!!1!!! OMG WTF LOL MAYB U SHUD WATCH UR LANGUAEG.!1!!1111!1!!11 OMG WTF LOL MAYB?!!?!! OMG LOL HERP DERPP!
using the bible to argue that the bible is true is circular reasoning which is why any argument that does it fails .
ReplyDeletemacroevolution - there is ample evidence in the fossil record and in other places
the argument about odds is dumb given the vastness of the universe let alone the likely multiverse
to the last guy type your arguments in something that resembles english and maybe ill bother with them