|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What makes atheists doubt their atheism?
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
We've had some very honest and open discussions in Purg about challenges Christians have to their beliefs. But what gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?
Answers welcome from current atheists, ex-atheists, or views from atheists you know.
[ 15. June 2016, 18:54: Message edited by: Belisarius ]
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am a scientist, and I used to be an atheist. One of the issues for me was the way science couldn't really explain one's most important experiences in a personally meaningful way. Love and grief being the most obvious examples.
A particular experience that stood out for me was whilst shadowing a speech and language therapist in a learning disability service. We met with a young man who had a profound learning disability and was blind and deaf - he was supported by a carer who was teaching him by signing onto his body and using objects of reference. There was just something beautiful about the quality of their interaction. And there is no objective way to explain it nor a scientific, logical way to justify the expense of time and resources on a man who would never have the functional level we would expect of a toddler, a sheepdog or a chimpanzee. But it was so clearly right and good, and those values have to come from somewhere.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
WhateverTheySay
Shipmate
# 16598
|
Posted
I used to be atheist. Then I had a number of experiences that I could only attribute to God. I looked into Christianity for a few years in my early teens, before eventually choosing to accept Jesus.
Though truth is I was only ever atheist because my parents are, and at a young age I had not considered to question my beliefs.
--------------------
I'm not lost, I just don't know where I am going
Posts: 872 | From: Lost in Space, without a map | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
It was the improbability of existance that got me in the end. I mean, I can intelectually reason that, given an infinite amount of time, things that are almost impossible will entually happen. That seems clear; but not this! The mind-blowing fact that there is all this matter and it obeys laws and there are living sentient beings, in at least one place, mixed in with it all, that love each other and suffer and die and kill each other and all that stuff. Well you couldn't make it up - unless you were God.
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
Firstly - believing in a god or gods because one cannot think of an alternative is known as “belief in the god(s) of the gaps”. Human beings thought of thunder and lightning as a “gap” until we understood +ve and -ve electrical charge, we used the power of the sun as a “gap” until we understood radiation etc. etc.. Filling the gaps in knowledge with a god, any god, is a decision which involves choice. If you choose the christian god over (say) the hindu gods it matters not – you have your “gap” filled (but human knowledge - the basis for medicine etc. - has advanced not one jot).
What gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?
Conviction - a firmly held belief or opinion Can’t help because I can only speak for myself and, for me, the question does not make sense. I don’t think my atheism counts as a conviction, it’s just the linevitable result of the way I look at life, the universe and everything. I look at the world from a sceptical viewpoint. I neither need nor expect to have an answer for everything.
I grew up in Christianity, smothered in Christianity and totally oblivious to the possibility of doubt. I saw the all-pervasive control, the iron fist of hell nearly (but carefully not quite) disguised in the soft caress of the pristine kid-glove of heaven, the tribal superiority of believers and the glorious, joyful outpouring of pity for those who were going to eternal fire. And I saw that it was good.
Then I realised that it just doesn’t make sense - bits of it might pass muster but the whole is an impossible confection.
From my point of view - it isn’t a conviction that I have, what I have is the inability to fool myself that I need to have a conviction; and I suspect that I am no more responsible for that than I am for my height, my dark curly hair or my blue eyes. It’s a pity I can’t say the same about my weight!
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt.
1 - How do you think that I could logically get to deism?
2 - How do you envisage your Christianity might be proven 100% wrong?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
I haven't got much time to post unfortunately, but here goes (from an ex-atheist):
There were a lot of factors, but two stand out (not actually the most intellectually defensible two, but anyway).
Firstly, for me atheism was pretty nihilist. I'm far too much of a pessimist to ever have the slightest interest in humanism. For me atheism was about accepting that life for most people throughout history had been brief, brutal and meaningless. I'm a historian by background so I never had the illusion that our fairly comfortable 20th century western existence was normative. Life was basically sad and unjust and there was no nice cosy afterlife to make it better.
Secondly, if I'm honest atheism just seemed a bit boring. My parents were very vocally atheist and I spent my student days in a very self-conciously liberal enviroment where atheism/agnosticism was the norm and hostility to Christianity was widespread. So for me atheism/agnosticism was pretty passe (to this day I'm mildly amused by people, generally formerly Christian people, who think they are being terribly daring and original by embracing atheism). If I'm honest it was just dull. Christianity had good stories, complex ethics, centuries of history, and lots of art and music and architecture, whereas the alternative seemed pretty boring and conformist. I realise that boredom and the universal tendency to rebel against one's parents aren't particularly good reasons to change belief systems, but it was probably more of a factor than I like to admit [grin]
Lastly there was just something there. Even at my most atheistic I loved just sitting quietly in churches, and went through occasional phases of reading the gospels. I couldn't have explained why at the time.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I just had a series of experiences of something which could not not exist. I actually had these experiences while doing Zen meditation, and then looked around for a spiritual practice, which could 'hold' them, and Christianity seemed to work pretty well.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Hugh, even if you don't buy into Christianity, why not deism? You can logically get to deism without relying on special revelation or prophets or anything else. If Christianity was proved to be 100% wrong tomorrow it's probably what I'd adopt.
But deism is functionally meaningless. There's no conceivable form of evidence that could support or refute it as a position. Even Russell's Teapot could theoretically be found one day, given a sufficiently strong telescope. AFAICS, deism's equivalent to giving your car a name. It doesn't change anything, but as a species we have a tendency to attribute personality and character to inanimate objects.
I don't really have any convictions, and I wonder how many of my expectations are driven by forcing things into a still roughly religion-shaped worldview, but I'll give it a go. The fact that atheism doesn't promise an objective ethical/moral standard is a frustration, but that's not an argument against it. And I can't really get my head around the Big Bang, but argument from incredulity is desperately weak, and unless I see evidence of God intervening in the world, that would only lead as far as deism, which adds nothing of any substance.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ramarius:
We've had some very honest and open discussions in Purg about challenges Christians have to their beliefs. But what gives atheists the most cause for reflection about the strength of their convictions?
Answers welcome from current atheists, ex-atheists, or views from atheists you know.
Do you mean away from positive atheism or to Christianity in specific?
To get me away from atheism would take a miracle. Literally. An act of God. But God won't act. From which I conclude that if there is a God, that God either doesn't want me to believe in its existance or doesn't care. Either way it's not worth bothering with.
As for converting to Christianity, the Maker of Hell and the Judge Who Condemns People to Eternal Torment and Calls It Just is quite literally the worst moral being I can physically imagine. If I believed in the Christian God I'd be a Satanist on the grounds the curator of Hell was less evil than the judge who dares pervert the term Justice by condemning people to hell. At least I trust I'd have the strength to be a Satanist rather than bowing down and calling God Good to appease him the way the Furies were called the Kindly Ones.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arminian
Shipmate
# 16607
|
Posted
"As for converting to Christianity, the Maker of Hell and the Judge Who Condemns People to Eternal Torment and Calls It Just is quite literally the worst moral being I can physically imagine. If I believed in the Christian God I'd be a Satanist on the grounds the curator of Hell was less evil than the judge who dares pervert the term Justice by condemning people to hell. At least I trust I'd have the strength to be a Satanist rather than bowing down and calling God Good to appease him the way the Furies were called the Kindly Ones."
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.
I would suggest that the Christian God has rather gone out of his way not to have to throw people into hell for their behaviour. That is the whole point of Christianity ! Jesus said all manner of sin will be forgiven and no one who comes to me will be rejected. Its the people who don't want to be forgiven and don't want to admit their sin who have a problem. Even Hitler could have been forgiven in the last moments of his life. That's why the word 'gospel' means almost too good to be true. The thief on the cross next to Jesus got forgiven at the last moments of his life just for believing in Jesus. The other criminal didn't.
Every human on earth has to be honest about their failings to God. All of us mess up. I believe we do need fixing.
As for the eternal torment bit, mostly this comes from Dante's inferno. I don't see any evidence in the Bible for devils with pitch forks running around after people.
Posts: 157 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian:
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.
I would suggest that the Christian God has rather gone out of his way not to have to throw people into hell for their behaviour. That is the whole point of Christianity !
And I claim that's ridiculous. If the Creator didn't want there to be a Hell, God wouldn't have created one. That God then gets to pretend he's being merciful by offering some people a way out of hellis the logic of the abuser "You shouldn't have made me hit you."
Ultimately only one person created Hell - and that is God. Only one person condemns people to Hell and that is God. And no act or acts that a human can undertake in an imperfect world can ever deserve eternal torment. Hitler may deserve ten thousand years of suffering (maybe more) - I'm not arguing. But Hitler doesn't deserve eternal torment.
There is a total of one sin that deserves eternal torment. And that is the sentencing of another being to eternal torment. The "good news" of the Gospel is that God may be an evil, cruel, and sadistic bastard whose justice is a parody of the term - but despite this it is possible to placate him.
quote:
As for the eternal torment bit, mostly this comes from Dante's inferno. I don't see any evidence in the Bible for devils with pitch forks running around after people.
Umm... it massively predates Dante's Inferno to the point that some morally bankrupt early Christians suggested that one of the delights of heaven was seeing the suffering of those in Hell. Jesus himself merely had people thrown in a lake of fire. The effect of which depends on the immortality of the soul.
And for some sources
quote:
Tertullian
“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause."
“What a spectacle. . .when the world. . .and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see. . .illustrious monarchs. . . groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers. . .as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of. . .Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors. . .in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. . .What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.” [De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX]
quote:
Augustine
“They who shall enter into [the] joy [of the Lord] shall know what is going on outside in the outer darkness. . .The saints'. . . knowledge, which shall be great, shall keep them acquainted. . .with the eternal sufferings of the lost.” [The City of God, Book 20, Chapter 22, "What is Meant by the Good Going Out to See the Punishment of the Wicked" & Book 22, Chapter 30, "Of the Eternal Felicity of the City of God, and of the Perpetual Sabbath"]
quote:
Thomas Aquinas
In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned. [Summa Theologica, Third Part, Supplement, Question XCIV, "Of the Relations of the Saints Towards the Damned," First Article, "Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned. . ."]
“The same fire” (which he decides to be material) “ torments the damned in hell and the just in purgatory…The least pain in purgatory exceeds the greatest in this life.” Summa Theo. Suppl. Qu. 100, acts. 2, n. 3.
I don't think it's exactly fair to blame Dante for Augustine, Aquinas, and Tertullian.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.
You're not the only one!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Arminian
I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity.
You're not the only one!
It's the dirty secret that makes most forms of Christianity metaphysically morally intolerable to me. In order to sell me the good news that we can be saved from Hell, you must first sell me the bad news that Hell exists. And in a monotheist universe there's only one entity to blame for Hell.
No, I know this isn't the bit of the message you focus on. But it underlies it.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
If the Creator didn't want there to be a Hell, God wouldn't have created one. That God then gets to pretend he's being merciful by offering some people a way out of hellis the logic of the abuser "You shouldn't have made me hit you."
Ultimately only one person created Hell - and that is God. Only one person condemns people to Hell and that is God.
Crap.
God didn't create hell. The God of everlasting love is hell. He is hell to those who have freely and persistently chosen to hate him. He does not hate them. In fact, the more he loves them, the more they are tormented. That is why it says that "our God IS a consuming fire" (Hebrews 12:29).
You stated on another thread:
quote:
The God of the NT is far more distant, condemning people to be thrown into a lake of fire en masse without accepting arguments.
Who said that he does not accept arguments? Let's suppose a particular person comes before God after dying, and he presents all his arguments in his defence. Let's suppose God accepts all his arguments: "You've put a good case. I respect that. I do not condemn you. Welcome into my presence of everlasting love".
So the bloke is eternally exposed to the wonderful and glorious love of God. God has done nothing evil to him at all. But there's a problem. This person hates the love of God. Behind all his arguments there is an evil heart that is full of arrogance and conceit. He looks down on others. He despises the weak. He has contempt for anyone who doesn't see his point of view. What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?
I suggest the latter.
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)? The symbol of the lamb is significant. A lamb is the most docile of creatures, and what could be more "harmless" than a slaughtered lamb? The God who presides over the experience of those who are wilfully evil is the God who is the ultimate victim. This the very opposite of a sadistic torturer.
This biblical evidence proves that your analysis of hell is a straw man.
So carry on with your "dirty secret" conspiracy theory. AFAIAC it's BS.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hairy Biker
Shipmate
# 12086
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
To get me away from atheism would take a miracle. Literally. An act of God. But God won't act. From which I conclude that if there is a God, that God either doesn't want me to believe in its existance or doesn't care. Either way it's not worth bothering with.
As for converting to Christianity, the Maker of Hell and the Judge Who Condemns People to Eternal Torment and Calls It Just is quite literally the worst moral being I can physically imagine. If I believed in the Christian God I'd be a Satanist on the grounds the curator of Hell was less evil than the judge who dares pervert the term Justice by condemning people to hell. At least I trust I'd have the strength to be a Satanist rather than bowing down and calling God Good to appease him the way the Furies were called the Kindly Ones.
Are you confusing the God who created man with the God who man created?
--------------------
there [are] four important things in life: religion, love, art and science. At their best, they’re all just tools to help you find a path through the darkness. None of them really work that well, but they help.
Damien Hirst
Posts: 683 | From: This Sceptred Isle | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Crap.
God didn't create hell. The God of everlasting love is hell.
You said it, not me.
To me, hell does not exist. And by trying to convince me there is a hell, you are trying to convince me that this universe is a far, far nastier one than either one with life being it or one where strange beings from the outer dark eat your soul.
And the point you are ducking is that if you are a bible believing Christian, God Judges. Not is. Judges. God decides who gets punished. Note that word decides.
quote:
Who said that he does not accept arguments?
Many, many Christians. And God's perfection and omniscience. If God is truly omniscient then he knows what he will decide before any argument is ever raised. God doesn't change his mind (to do so would mean that the original decision was less than perfect) - he's just going through the motions.
quote:
What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?
Wonder and amazement if what you are saying is true and God genuinely loves him. Speaking from events I've seen when people have been convinced that they are loved and are worthy of being loved. If on the other hand God is harsh and wrathful and instead of loving people tries to force them into a set mould then it will be hell. Because God rather than loving who they are and trying to help them grow is trying to force them to be something.
quote:
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)?
Let's quote the whole verse for starters. And the verses from either side.
quote:
Revelation 14: 9-11
9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,
10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:
11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
You'll note that they are being tormented in the presence of the lamb not by the lamb. What they are being tormented by is explicitely fire and brimstone. The nice parts of God shall merely not look away from the torments inflicted by the wrath of God.
And it is explicitely the wrath of God that is doing the tormenting, not merely the being in the presence of the lamb. If the text had said something like "And on sight of the lamb of God the wicked shall fall to their knees, their tears burning down their cheeks" you'd have a point. But the torments in question aren't ones of being unable to bear the presence of the lamb. They are ones of fire and brimstone.
quote:
The God who presides over the experience of those who are wilfully evil is the God who is the ultimate victim. This the very opposite of a sadistic torturer.
Yeaaaaahhhhhh. On the one side we have God with all the power who is explicitley tormenting with fire and brimstone and having the angels look on. On the other we have the person being tortured without rest.
And you are trying to tell me that the person who both has all the power and is explicitely inflicting the torments in your own source is the victim. Right.
quote:
This biblical evidence proves that your analysis of hell is a straw man.
Given quite how selective your quoting of a partial verse was, I'm saying not a strawman. I'm saying you are selectively quoting, as I believe I have demonstrated, in an attempt to avoid facing what your own text writes about your God. He doesn't torture even in your verses with his presence. He has people tortured with fire and brimstone however mild he seems.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)?
Because Jesus likes to watch? The verse you cite is very clear that the torment comes not from the presence of the Lamb, but from the "burning sulfur" [NIV] or "fire and brimstone" [KJV].
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
Are you confusing the God who created man with the God who man created?
Possibly. But given I don't believe the God who created man exists, I can only go with one one presented in the Bible and in mainstream Christian teaching. There's a reason the best atheist evangelism tool going is to tell people to actually read the bible.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
...From my point of view - it isn’t a conviction that I have, what I have is the inability to fool myself that I need to have a conviction!...
Exactly.
I did the Christian thing and did it well for decades. I even came back to it once after leaving it.
After encountering Higher Biblical Criticism and other things, my beliefs were shook to the roots. I can't unring that bell, or won't.
The best I could imagine myself ever doing is some form of nebulous god-thing being out there, but that hardly fits the bill of Christianity. it barely fits any religion really. I certainly can't buy anything in the bible as "true" and more than I can believe that Shiva is true, or Baal, or the sun-god. I would constantly be asking me which god to put in the gaps.
I think that Penn Jillette (and others) dialed it in that we don't know. We don't know if Christianity is right, if Hindu is right, or a teapot. But I can't see putting a belief in any god into the gap. I'd always be asking which god.
Tangent
I always love these "I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity."
Y'all realize that there are a LOT of forms of Christianity, and that if someone says something about Christianity, the problem is, the Christianity that person is describing IS Christianity. Just because you might be in one of the good sects, it doesn't mean that the bad sects don't exist. In fact, they are legion. You get to be drug into their badness by being on the same team in these conversations. Sure, you can point out you want them off your team, and good on you for wanting that, but they are still part of the team. Denying they exist is absurd.
In the U.S. we have Southern Baptists, who hate gays and repress women. Catholics, little different. We have people that don't give their kids blood transfusions. We have Mormen. Etc etc. It is not a nice Christianity filled with love and peace. Yes, we also have UU, but then our other nutjobs don't consider them Christian because they are too...whatever...or not enough, which itself says something about Christianity.
/tangent
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
quote:
if you are a bible believing Christian
It's quite a big "if". It also needs an explanation of "believing", and frankly ignores any idea of a hermeneutic the way the following arguments are presented.
The "god" that many Christians seem to believe in is very easy to disbelieve in. I am an atheist in terms of that "god". But I do have hope in God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Don't ask me why on this thread as it really is quite irrelevant here. This thread is not about me, so I'll promptly piss off.
This has all drifted a long way from the OP...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
What do you think his experience of the eternal love of God will be? Bliss or hell?
Wonder and amazement if what you are saying is true and God genuinely loves him. Speaking from events I've seen when people have been convinced that they are loved and are worthy of being loved. If on the other hand God is harsh and wrathful and instead of loving people tries to force them into a set mould then it will be hell. Because God rather than loving who they are and trying to help them grow is trying to force them to be something.
So evil doesn't actually exist? Is that it? People only destroy other people's lives because they feel unloved, and once they come into the experience of ultimate love they will, of course, be the lovely people they really were in their "heart of hearts"?
No wonder the atheistic influenced society we live in treats criminals with kid gloves. They're such poor misunderstood darlings, aren't they?
And I can just imagine a certain Austrian gentleman entering into an intense consciousness of God's infinite love for each precious Jewish person, and that fine fellow being overcome with such contrition for the error of his ways, because really deep down he didn't really have anything against those people. He was just so tragically unloved!
Gimme a break, man!
quote:
You'll note that they are being tormented in the presence of the lamb not by the lamb. What they are being tormented by is explicitely fire and brimstone.
Good for you for attempting a bit of biblical exegesis. Pity though that you didn't bother to think about the method of communication employed in Revelation 14. It's full of symbolism, in case you hadn't noticed. Hence the reference to the "lamb". And so it does seem rather odd to me that you should read "fire and brimstone" literally, especially considering that literal fire would not torture a person forever, but destroy him in a matter of seconds. And you seem to have forgotten my reference to Hebrews 12:29. The presence of God is a consuming fire. So God - the same God who has revealed himself through Jesus Christ "the Lamb" - is the agent of torment - in other words, the same reality which is bliss for some people is hell for others. Nothing to do with God being selective, and everything to do with our response to God.
So does it not seem rather strange that the eternal victim of evil should also be the God who "tortures" people? I suppose someone with a huge chip on his shoulder (and who clearly has a desperate personal need to build a case against God) might argue that this is God's "revenge" for the cross. But in that case, it would seem rather strange that God would continue to torment people while still, as it were, "nailed to the cross" (which is what the symbolism of "the Lamb" indicates). The passage really indicates that God is an eternal victim of evil and never the perpetrator.
A bit of sensible and consistent exegesis reveals that my interpretation is correct. The wicked are tortured by their own arrogance, not by any sadism on God's part.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
These threads often seem to reverse by 180 degrees. It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?', and now it seems to have become 'why do atheists doubt religion'!
Ah well, there must be a reason why this often happens. Maybe the original idea is uncomfortable or unthinkable!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I did the Christian thing and did it well for decades. I even came back to it once after leaving it.
After encountering Higher Biblical Criticism and other things, my beliefs were shook to the roots. I can't unring that bell, or won't........
Tangent
I always love these "I don't recognise any of what you wrote from my understanding of Christianity."
Y'all realize that there are a LOT of forms of Christianity, and that if someone says something about Christianity, the problem is, the Christianity that person is describing IS Christianity. Just because you might be in one of the good sects, it doesn't mean that the bad sects don't exist. In fact, they are legion. You get to be drug into their badness by being on the same team in these conversations. Sure, you can point out you want them off your team, and good on you for wanting that, but they are still part of the team. Denying they exist is absurd.......
/tangent
It sounds as if you're looking for certainty and nothing less than a definitive agreed Christian theology before allowing it any credibility. The Nicene creed's as close as we've ever got. God leaves us with more questions than answers. That doesn't mean that God is a God of the gaps or that God doesn't exist.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Why does it say in Revelation 14:10 that the wicked are tormented "in the presence of the Lamb", which is a clear reference to Jesus Christ crucified (see Revelation 5:6)?
Because Jesus likes to watch?
Obviously that's the case, if that is what you want to think.
You're a morally responsible free agent, so go ahead and believe it. No one is forcing you not to - especially God.
(BTW, see my previous comment about the fire and brimstone - and the same applies to the sulphur)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ramarius
Shipmate
# 16551
|
Posted
For shipmates who want to discuss why they don't believe in God, Christianity, or any any other form of theism I've started a new thread for you here .
Perhaps we can keep this thread focused on the subject in the o/p
--------------------
'
Posts: 950 | From: Virtually anywhere | Registered: Jul 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Blue Scarf Menace
Apprentice
# 13051
|
Posted
In the little Quaker book Advice and Queries, the question is posed, “Consider the possibility you may me wrong”. At some point during my atheist days that question entered into, and remains, in my head. Out of that question came the questions, “What if there is a God?” and “If there is even the remotest possibility that there is a God, what should I do about it?” Out of that springs my belief.
--------------------
Boomshanka
Posts: 18 | From: Sherwood Forest | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
It sounds as if you're looking for certainty and nothing less than a definitive agreed Christian theology before allowing it any credibility. The Nicene creed's as close as we've ever got. God leaves us with more questions than answers. That doesn't mean that God is a God of the gaps or that God doesn't exist.
Doesn't mean he does, either.
Is it really too much to ask for logical consistency, and believability?
I don't expect Christianity to be a definitively agreed upon theology, in fact, it's been my observation that quite the contrary is true. It has also been my observation that a lot of Christians try to force their theology on other Christians. It's a bug and a feature.
What I do expect is for something professing "love" that it be loving, not gay bashing, woman hating, etc etc. I know, it's a lot to ask. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?'
"It seemed", seems to be the problem. I was a little unsure of what was being asked myself.
I personally do not doubt my atheism. Perhaps that's why some of us are failing to answer the question to specification. I can't imagine re-believing the unbelievable. It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist. I really doubt it will happen
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And I can just imagine a certain Austrian gentleman entering into an intense consciousness of God's infinite love for each precious Jewish person, and that fine fellow being overcome with such contrition for the error of his ways, because really deep down he didn't really have anything against those people. He was just so tragically unloved!
Whaddaya mean, "unloved"? Your whole premise is that he had the love of the omnipotent creator of the Universe. I can't think of anything more likely to give the Austrian gentleman you refer to a warm fuzzy feeling than more than confirmation that God has a deep and abiding affection for him.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These threads often seem to reverse by 180 degrees. It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?', and now it seems to have become 'why do atheists doubt religion'!
Ah well, there must be a reason why this often happens. Maybe the original idea is uncomfortable or unthinkable!
I suspected as much when I read HughWillRidmee's non answer to the question. The thread entitled "Can Atheism develop an epistemology to live by?" spun off into something else entirely. This one seems to be disappearing down the same rabbit trail. If we started a third thread on atheism would something similar happen?
It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question rather then tell us why they don't believe in God. If the thread was entitled "Why I don't believe in God" then their responses would be relevant. But it's not called that.
So what makes atheists doubt their atheism? I've encountered quite a bit of thought within Christianity on doubt (for example, http://www.rzim.eu/doubt-training-day-oxford-audio). Is there such a response found within atheism? Or are atheists so rational that they don't doubt?
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think²:
One of the issues for me was the way science couldn't really explain one's most important experiences in a personally meaningful way. Love and grief being the most obvious examples.
quote:
Originally posted by Hairy Biker:
It was the improbability of existance that got me in the end.
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Lastly there was just something there.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I just had a series of experiences of something which could not not exist...and then looked around for a spiritual practice, which could 'hold' them, and Christianity seemed to work pretty well.
These statements are moving! Thank you. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
Going back to the OP, perhaps we might consider C. S. Lewis' testamony:
C S Lewis' Conversion to Christianity (from Wiki)
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
[QUOTE] Or are atheists so rational that they don't doubt?
Atheism that is.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
I'd be interested in more doubts which atheists might have (or did have in the past).
I can't really say that I've ever been an atheist, but there seemed to be a barrage of doubts attacking me through my late teens and early twenties.
The thought of giving up on God and embracing atheism was, to me, too horrible to contemplate - no way was it in any sense "good news". My natural response was to search out apologetic writings and philosophies to reassure myself that my (sometimes ailing) christianity was reasonable.
Some of the works I found were better than others, so I had to become discerning. Even all these years later, I'm still not finished - I probably will never formulate all my findings into a book, and even if I could I doubt I would convince many, but then again they only have to be good enough for me.
But, back to the topic, at least I am finding that some of my apologetics tie in nicely with others' (on the other side of the fence) reasons for doubting atheism, possibly even for converting.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
It would be nice to see people like HughWillRidmee, The Great Gumby, Justinian, Mad Geo and Crœsos answered the bloody question...
So what makes atheists doubt their atheism?
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Asked and answered:
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I personally do not doubt my atheism. Perhaps that's why some of us are failing to answer the question to specification. I can't imagine re-believing the unbelievable. It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist. I really doubt it will happen
Any other questions?
I often wonder what the ratio of atheists that deconverted then reconverted is, compared to those that were never converted then converted. From my admittedly casual observation, the people that de-converted tend not to go back. But I freely acknowledge it is anecdotal evidence. C.S. Lewis was apparently an exception...
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
These threads often seem to reverse by 180 degrees. It seemed to start off as 'why do atheists doubt their atheism?', and now it seems to have become 'why do atheists doubt religion'!
Ah well, there must be a reason why this often happens. Maybe the original idea is uncomfortable or unthinkable!
The reason may be the fact that God is not religion ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Rapter's Eye wrote "It sounds as if you're looking for certainty and nothing less than a definitive agreed Christian theology before allowing it any credibility. The Nicene creed's as close as we've ever got. God leaves us with more questions than answers"
The Nicene creed was written by men, it does not fulfil the promise of God which is to create a new mind and spirit in a person.
Read the testaments of Paul, who declared he had followed the way Jesus taught, received all knowledge, understanding and wisdom by way of spirit. He declared that he was taught by no man and when speaking with the other Apostles
found the word he spoke was the same as these others, having also been taught Truth by God.
If Saul of Tarsus; a very religious man; was saved by following the way Jesus taught; if he was transformed by the works of God; if he received the new mind and spirit of Christ; is
there not but this one way of salvation, and should not all mankind follow this same way Paul declared he had followed?
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
The thought of giving up on God and embracing atheism was, to me, too horrible to contemplate - no way was it in any sense "good news". My natural response was to search out apologetic writings and philosophies to reassure myself that my (sometimes ailing) christianity was reasonable.
Have you considered that the "does this make me feel sad?" test may not be the best way to test the accuracy of a proposition?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
Man, this thread went downhill fast.
I guess their answer to the original question is feigned emotional outrage, biblical copypasta, and wooden literalism. Quelle surprise.
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
@Mad Geo - I think we've all gathered by now that some atheists have never doubted their convictions (either that or they won't admit it).
But there are others who have, and we have had a few responses from them already.
Why do you feel the need to evangelise your atheism, repeating the same quote twice? If someone doesn't see things your way, since you believe we'll all just be annihilated in the end anyway, why should it matter to you?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Asked and answered:
Apologies.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I often wonder what the ratio of atheists that deconverted then reconverted is, compared to those that were never converted then converted. From my admittedly casual observation, the people that de-converted tend not to go back. But I freely acknowledge it is anecdotal evidence. C.S. Lewis was apparently an exception...
A.N. Wilson would be another, eh, exception.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist
If this was your understanding of God, that he's comparable to Santa Claus, then no wonder you're an atheist.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosina
Shipmate
# 15589
|
Posted
Mad Geo's sig is ""Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
I find people will believe almost anything if they want it to be true, or are afraid it might be.
I wonder why that is?
--------------------
"Imagine." If you can imagine, you can dream, and if you can dream, you can hope and if you have hope, you may seek and if you seek; you will find.
Posts: 75 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Well, Mark, can I call you Mark?
I was asked a direct question, which I had answered, and now has been acknowledged. Excuse the hell outta me for being thorough. I was going to shut up after that, but since now you've irritated me, I'll say more.
Perhaps the problem is that there is an inherent assumption on the part of theists that atheists SHOULD doubt themselves? Or is it that theists cannot believe that atheists might not doubt, since THEY do? Hmmmmm.
I don't need an actual answer to that.
I would actually modify my earlier position, upon further consideration. I am not sure there are gods, so I could technically be called an agnostic, which I suppose is a form of doubt about atheism.
But I don't choose to place a god in the hole of that uncertainty. My default is to assume there ISN'T a god there, which is why I'm an atheist.
I know, it's complicated.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist
If this was your understanding of God, that he's comparable to Santa Claus, then no wonder you're an atheist.
Yeah, he just knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows if you've been bad or good. Any resemblence is purely coincidental! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Unreformed:
quote:
It's directly equivalent to trying to believe in Santa Claus after having found out he doesn't exist
If this was your understanding of God, that he's comparable to Santa Claus, then no wonder you're an atheist.
Yeah, he just knows when you've been sleeping, knows when you're awake, and knows if you've been bad or good. Any resemblence is purely coincidental!
Yeah, I can also safely assume you don't know what you're talking about, either. Having a discussion with you about the nature of God would be like trying to teach calculus to someone who can't even count yet.
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Unreformed.
Try not to stretch an analogy too far. I'm trying to keep it simple here.
But frankly, anytime an atheist starts talking, theists start looking for reasons there is something wrong with us. There's nothing WRONG with us. We just don't see why your god is better than any other god is better than no god. It's not like your god improves anything in my world or worldview. Quite the contrary. Getting rid of theism was very liberating.
Rosina
People are afraid of death. IMO Religion gives them false hope that death isn't what it is. Final.
Someone earlier mentioned nihilism and atheism. What they don't realize is that if atheism is nihilistic (and dont know that it has to be), it doesn't matter. If life is without meaning in atheism, and atheism is true, then life in theism is meaningless, it's just deluded that it isn't. I know, Pascal's rolling in his grave right now. LOL
I digress.
Anyway, people asking the OP question, feel free to ignore my ramblings. I'm just discussing OTHER questions that came up.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Perhaps the problem is that there is an inherent assumption on the part of theists that atheists SHOULD doubt themselves? Or is it that theists cannot believe that atheists might not doubt, since THEY do? Hmmmmm.
Perhaps. But it seem to me that at least some of the Christians here think that doubt is a reasonable position for anyone to take given the correct circumstances. After all, you only doubt that which you already believe. And this is why there is an assumption that doubt applies to atheists as well.
Now if atheists don't doubt then I suggest we start another thread along the lines of "As an athiest I have never doubted my worldview and here is why".
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
I know, it's complicated.
It appears so.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Mad Geo
Just so you know, I would welcome the certainity that death was the complete and final end. I might even be more ready to commit suicide if you could guarantee that. Unfortunately I have this niggling doubt.
Yes I know I am in the minority, but I think you need to be aware that for some annihilation is wishful thinking.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Unreformed
Shipmate
# 17203
|
Posted
quote:
But frankly, anytime an atheist starts talking, theists start looking for reasons there is something wrong with us. There's nothing WRONG with us.
There's nothing wrong with you, per se.
I don't have a problem with atheists who learn the Catholic, Christian concept of who God is.
No, really. That's perfectly fair. Nietzsche perfectly understood (as much as a man can) what Christianity is, and what the nature of the Christian God is, and he rejected it. But he was actually rejecting God, not strawgod. He despised and hated Christianity for what it really was, not what he thought it was.
What's more Nietzsche, fully understood and appreciated the implications of what abandoning Christianity and its worldview really meant, both on a personal and societal level. Most modern atheists don't.
[ 16. July 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Unreformed ]
--------------------
In the Latin south the enemies of Christianity often make their position clear by burning a church. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, we don't burn churches; we empty them. --Arnold Lunn, The Third Day
Posts: 246 | From: Richmond, VA | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
