My problem with Evangelical Atheism

[Duelist925]

I don't understand your point. I think it's separate from what I'm talking about. See, the whole concept - certainly in the abrahamic faiths - of god is that he is the one who runs the show and sets the rules. What's happening is the equivalent of someone coming to CS.com and saying they're quite happy to obey the rules, apart from this one, and that one, and...

The difference between CS.com and experiences with the christian god is that we can be shown to have taken action over deliberate ignorance and non-acceptance of the rules. Also, if we decide to change the rules, we actually communicate this.

Again, you are ignoring the possibility that since the pens that wrote the various incarnations of the bible were not held by god itself, that then the book might be flaws, since it was written by man. Or that, hey, maybe its a really fuckin old book with some neat ideas, and then a lot of sillyness as well.

Then your god doesn't love you, because your god didn't tell you which of the sets of rules was the right one.

...You really going to go down This route? Thats low, trying to stir up an emotional response with statement that seems almost designed to annoy and tick off.

But, again, Ill point to my previous argument that doing such abrogates free will, and would cause a shitstorm of global, or, if you'll pardon the vernacular, biblical scale.

Not to mention that if you follow the most basic tenents of it (or any religion) ir "Be a decent person" then people should be able to figure out the general ruleset for themselves.

I don't think it beyond an omnipotent and omniscient being to build that into their texts. For example, "In 1967 it becomes acceptable to eat pork." That would have helped with clarity, don't you think? Didn't happen, though.

Oh, its certainly not beyond any being that can be touted of omnipotent or omniscient.

Its also incredibly stupid to expect.

The bible was written thousands of years ago, not withstanding the various versions there are, depending on the printing. There are parts of it where we cannot pin down exactly when it was written. Stuffing something like that in would make no sense, for a variety of reasons.

1: Different time keeping systems. The time frame would make no sense--to the writers, there was no bc, or ad, there was no 1967. They were on a completely different calendar.

2: The time frame. "Thousands of years". MOst of whats in the bible was there either for a reason that fit for the time, or because of commonly held bigotries of the time. There was no reason to put in "when" something became ok, because the people back then often had no idea that it would EVER be ok. It would like an angel saying "In the year 4276@#$^17th Sulphuric Acid will be safe to drink". The time frame makes no sense, and whats said goes against all common sense. Back then, much of the stuff that today would be considered idiocy or barbarism made sense.

Then your god doesn't love you, because your god didn't make sure that the real set of rules came out. Alternatively, you're saying that because we're not very good then we can choose which bits we want to follow.

Again, abrogation of free will, the people who actually held the pen were flawed and thus the result may be so as well.

And no, I'm saying that we, as a species, are getting better, and smarter, and thus, better able to find the right paths.

If something, such as god, is perfect, then it doesn't need to change. Evolution is no longer necessary.

So? Im not talking about god changing, I'm talking about faith and religion changing. The three are not one and the same. It is entirely possible for a god to stay as it is, and yet the faith for it, it's religion can change as the times, and demands of it change.

The problem here is your relationship with what you think of as your god. Your god sets the rules, you don't. If your god hasn't told you the rules have changed, they haven't.

It also hasn't told me which set of the thousands of sects of christianity, or the untold number of other religions on this planet, is the correct one. So which set of rules? Until god or a messenger there of points out where I went wrong with my beliefs, I'll stick to them, as they are, letting them grow and change as I grow and change.

As long as they are for decent reasons, I have no problems with people debating these. However, 'because god said so' is not a good method of selecting policy.

Agree wholeheartedly.

I'd like to think that if your god did love you, he'd make sure you got the right version. The alternative is that he's not bothered that you're going to hell.

Thats assuming that hell is a punishment for those who were generally good, and just didn't believe in god, or the right god, or whatever. This is not my belief.Perhaps I'm wrong, and good non believes do get consigned to hell--in which case yes, god is a dick. However, neither arguement can be proven until one actually dies, so its a moot point.

And yes, I'm aware of what the bible says regarding this. Again, I reiterate that the bible was not written by god but by man, so there can, and probably are, errors, due to the initial transcription, or the thousands of translations it's gone through.

Know what? If god did speak up - loud and clear - I'd believe. Maybe there would be mass hysteria, but at least we'd know what was what. The silence coming from your god is, from everything that can be shown, evidence that there's nothing there to speak to us.

In point of fact you would not believe, you would KNOW. There is a difference to these two words.

I Believe there is a god. I do not Know this. I could be wrong, and freely admit that I could be wrong--there is a possibility that there is not a god.

There is a small, but important, difference between those words.

And secondly, silence is not evidence of absence. I was not always aware of CS.com, or here. I thought that something like it must exist, due to,well, the fact that everyone I knew loved to bitch about their jobs, and the internet is the best place to bitch. But I did not know, until I found it.

Simply because a thing has not proven itself to you beyond a shadow of a doubt, does not mean that it does not exist.

Sorry, I thought I made that clear. In the abrahamic faiths, the god figure is the creator and the one who sets the rules. Going down the pick and mix route and claiming to that the other stuff isn't relevant, while retaining title to membership of that faith, is telling the 'boss' what is now deemed to be acceptable.

No, it isn't. It's showing that one is intelligent enough to realize, "Hey this book is a thousand years old, and I have the ability to think for myself. Maybe I should think before I act upon what may be outdated knowledge and/or rules."


God shouldn't need to tell us what we should be smart enough to figure out on our own.

If you want to claim a philosophy based on being nice to people, I'd consider signing up. Maybe a decoder ring would be good as well? If that philosophy then changes due to new discoveries, for example it was once acceptable to fly halfway around the world to make a friend happy by visiting and then we realise the carbon emissons are helping to impact towards global warming, then fine - we can adapt and change. Maybe use Skype or something.
However, to ascribe the activities as being acceptable or unacceptable based on the claimed word of a perfect being and then changing those when it becomes inconvenient without said perfect being getting involved?

Cut out the middle man. Don't tell your god what to tell you to do. Just work it out for yourself and tell yourself what to do.

My morality and personal philosphy are only tangentally related to my religions beliefs. Sometimes one informs the other--my morality changing my philosophy, or philosophy changing how I viewed religion and god.

It rarely comes down to my religion influencing my morals or philosophy, and even when it does it tends to be for the better.

And it is not a matter of inconvenience, as I and others have stated multiple times. Please get that through your head. It's a matter of figuring out what works in todays day and age, not what worked two or three thousand years ago.

Rapscallion

I'd very much like to thank you for so excellently demonstrating the very first point in this entire thread. You have not made me want to embrace atheism, or shaken my beliefs. You have not changed my mind with any of these arguments. All you have done is make me respect you less, and annoyed me a fair bit by acting like such a steryotype.


And again, I ask, because you ignored it the first time: Why should anyone give you even the time of day if you admit you are not only a smug dick, but are PROUD to be one?

[Rapscallion]

And again, I ask, because you ignored it the first time: Why should anyone give you even the time of day if you admit you are not only a smug dick, but are PROUD to be one?

I'll say it loud and clear. I've been short of time lately, so I've not had a chance to point out how everyone but myself is wrong, but thanks to responses such as this I am now proud to hold the 'smug dick' badge to my heart. I'm considering getting a tattoo on my forehead with this.

Thank you for justifying my choice in this matter. Thank you for converting me from middle of the road to frothing at the mouth at mild-mannered vicars.

I'll be back in the very near future.

Rapscallion

[Lachrymose]

I Believe there is a god. I do not Know this. I could be wrong, and freely admit that I could be wrong--there is a possibility that there is not a god.

There is a small, but important, difference between those words.

No, not small. Not small at all. HUGE!

I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but massively, MASSIVELY, respect the "I do not know" statement, from both sides. (And also am the same way as far as that goes.)

[Andara Bledin]

I'm a pretty staunch atheist, but massively, MASSIVELY, respect the "I do not know" statement, from both sides. (And also am the same way as far as that goes.)

Thank you for that.

To be honest, that's all that most of us are requesting: That those who have chosen to believe differently respect that we chose a different path.

When and if we do something that has a negative effect on some other's well-being, then, please, speak up and say your piece.

But when the only discernible difference between us is the "belief switch" being 'on' as opposed to 'off,' then judging based on that without any other support is exactly the same as someone being judged for choosing to not believe, and just as wrong.

You don't get a pass to be a bigot just because your side is the one usually unfairly judged. Two wrongs do not make a right.

^-.-^