• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

I Found An Intelligent Atheist, But He's Still Wrong

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Craig argues that it's people who send themselves to hell with the free will choices they make.

That's great news, since I don't intend to send myself to hell. That would be pretty foolish, don't you think?

Craig argues, that God's nature is perfect justice and perfect love.

Not the God of the Christian Bible, who is arguably the most vicious monster from a human perspective in all of history and fiction.

Can you name another character in all of history and fiction that is alleged to have killed or intends to kill more human beings than Jehovah, or that inflicted more suffering on the human race than Jehovah? He once cruelly and unjustly drowned almost the entire planet including the animals, has commanded countless genocides, and intends to destroy the earth and all life on it with a fiery apocalypse.

Can you name another character that has been more unjust than the one who punished every member of the human race for the predictable disobedience of a couple of naive young people still lacking the knowledge of good and evil and left in the presence of a malicious deceiver that God threw out of heaven and unleashed on mankind? As a result of the Fall, men must toil in the fields, and women suffer and often die in childbirth. Even the beasts were punished, turning on one another for food.

And then there's hell, which makes everything just noted pale in comparison.

Darth Vader and Lex Luther can't touch that record. Nor can Satan. Nor can Hitler or Pol Pot.

Yet Craig (and most other Christians) is still willing to call that a good god. I call that belief evidence of a moral failing. So does Sam Harris.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
It's no more right or wrong to choose atheism than it is to choose theism, because neither choice is based on ascertainable knowledge. And both are based on subjective reasoning.

Here's my reasoning leading to atheism:

I am a rational skeptic, meaning that I don't accept any claim on faith. I need a reason to believe in gods.
Nobody has given me, nor have I found, any reason to believe that a god or gods exist.

Based on those, I am an atheist.

Those two reasons (mutatis mutandis: substitute vampires and leprechauns for gods) are also the reasons why I am an avampirist and an aleprechauninst. I presume that you are both of those things as well. I think that we are both on firm footing there.

Would you call that subjective reasoning?
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member

PureX

Veteran Member
Here's my reasoning leading to atheism:

I am a rational skeptic, meaning that I don't accept any claim on faith. I need a reason to believe in gods.
There are several logical reasons to believe that God could exists. And there are more reasons to trust that our ideal of God is true. Hence, the huge number of theists in the world relative to the small number of atheists.

Nobody has given me, nor have I found, any reason to believe that a god or gods exist.
These are two very different criteria: sufficient reason to believe that "God exists", and sufficient reason to "trust in the existence of God as we understand God". I am agnostic regarding the former, but theistic regarding the latter. And I have sufficient reason for both.

Based on those, I am an atheist.
Based on these, I am not. But that's our choice, arrived at by our own reasoning.

Those two reasons (mutatis mutandis: substitute vampires and leprechauns for gods) are also the reasons why I am an avampirist and an aleprechauninst. I presume that you are both of those things as well. I think that we are both on firm footing there.
I don't deliberately conflate vampires with leprechauns with gods, so this is not a relevant or coherent comparison, for me.

Would you call that subjective reasoning?
All reasoning is subjective.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
There are several logical reasons to believe that God could exists.
Yup, and one of the the main reasons is the belief that only through god (Jesus, or whatever) can they escape the possibility of the hell they've been led to believe exists.
Their logic is fear driven.

And there are more reasons to trust that our ideal of God is true.
Yup, it can bring a real comfort and peace of mind to those unable to cope with life on their own. "Oh god, grant me the strength to . . . "
Their trust is need driven.

Hence, the huge number of theists in the world relative to the small number of atheists.
Absolutely. Few people have the ability to face life without the idea of a sky-father watching after them.

All reasoning is subjective.
Ever hear of formal logic? Here's an example.

No M are P
Some P are S
______________
Some S are not M​


.
 
Last edited:

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
The problem with such debates is that they are limited to a traditionalist, literalist view of the Bible and exclude other views from a Christian frame-of-reference as well as excluding other theologies such as Buddhist and Hindu.

Just one example: hell could be looked at as a literal hell. It could be interpreted as being emotional hell with the subjective feeling of unending pain. I'm aware of dedicated Christians who have the later view.
Hearsay.
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
It's no more right or wrong to choose atheism than it is to choose theism, because neither choice is based on ascertainable knowledge. And both are based on subjective reasoning.

I choose theism because it affords me positive possibilities that atheism denies, and I see no logical reason for me to reject and deny myself the benefit of these possibilities based on nothing. But I understand that an atheist might find personal benefit in doing just that. What's right for him does not have to be what's right for me.

If no knowledge is available, an honest person would not choose either until the necessary knowledge is found.

That said, it is very clear, at least to me, that religion is an obvious con game, and can be rejected for that reason.
 

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
Is there any difference? Is a "cyber" bully who makes someone's life a misery online for example much different to a "physical" bully who pulls her hair and calls her names in the playground? You don't need to physically harm a person to inflict trauma.
Human experience tells us that the human mind often goes "mad", it is "lost" when the body (or the mind) is exposed to prolonged trauma. Sometimes this does not mean a disturbed unhappiness for the individual, sometimes it can mean an altered state of reality that generates personal happiness. The individual is deluded, but happy in his or her delusions.
What does the deity do about that? Can't have people "happy" in hell right? So does it keep the mind teetering on the brink of sanity, just so it can keep on the enduring trauma? The deity sounds like a real charmer whatever angle you come at! Just something to think about.

For one thing, all human flesh will be destroyed, the human mind included. Everything will be spiritual. Spirits live forever, think forever, feel forever.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If no knowledge is available, an honest person would not choose either until the necessary knowledge is found.
That's patently absurd, as we are all choosing to act on our hopes, rather than our knowledge, and then accept the results as "knowledge", every day of our lives. It's the main mode of human behavior. In fact, it's really the only way we gain whatever little actual knowledge we possess.

That said, it is very clear, at least to me, that religion is an obvious con game, and can be rejected for that reason.
Not all religions are "con games" and religion is not theism. So choosing atheism based on the fact that some religions are ideological "con games" is neither logical, nor honest.

People choose to practice religion because they believe that doing so 'works' for them in their experience and understanding of life. The fact that it doesn't work for you is irrelevant to them. And is also very likely a self-inflicted result. Just as their belief that it works for them is likewise a self-inflicted result. So you're both experiencing the result of your own bias, and basing your beliefs on that result, but at least the theist has some optional possibilities remaining open to them, whereas the atheist has none.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It's no more right or wrong to choose atheism than it is to choose theism, because neither choice is based on ascertainable knowledge. And both are based on subjective reasoning.
This is pretty damning of theism, IMO. If there's nothing real to suggest that gods exist or not, then:

- "I'm not convinced"-type atheism is utterly reasonable.
- "god(s) exist" is an unjustified conclusion.
- monotheism ("this one god exists and all others don't") is even more irrational.
- theistic religion (devoting one's life to specific assumptions about a god that we can't even be sure exists at all) is baseless.
- monotheistic religion is utterly ridiculous.

I choose theism because it affords me positive possibilities that atheism denies, and I see no logical reason for me to reject and deny myself the benefit of these possibilities based on nothing. But I understand that an atheist might find personal benefit in doing just that. What's right for him does not have to be what's right for me.
What "positive possibilities" depend on theism? You aren't just talking about Pascal's Wager, are you?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
This is pretty damning of theism, IMO. If there's nothing real to suggest that gods exist or not, then:

- "I'm not convinced"-type atheism is utterly reasonable.
- "god(s) exist" is an unjustified conclusion.
- monotheism ("this one god exists and all others don't") is even more irrational.
- theistic religion (devoting one's life to specific assumptions about a god that we can't even be sure exists at all) is baseless.
- monotheistic religion is utterly ridiculous.


What "positive possibilities" depend on theism? You aren't just talking about Pascal's Wager, are you?
Most religions propose that love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity are "divine" manifestations within the human spirit. That they are the "spirit of God" within humanity. And that as such, to follow that theological ideal is to try and become the human expression of those divine traits. And that's what their various religious admonishments and practices are intended to help people do.

There is no way for us to know or prove that this theological ideal is true, except to adopt it and live by it and see if it 'works' for us in our lives. (This is faith: this choosing to live according to a hoped for truth, rather than known truth.) And most human beings, when they do this, will find that their experience and understanding of life is greatly improved. And they take that personal experience as their proof that the theological ideal they hoped to be true, is in reality, the truth.

None of this proves that God exists, or that love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity are "divine" manifestation within the human spirit. But for those who believe it, it has shown itself to be true.

This is a positive possibility that the atheist has rejected without trying, for no good reason, and has thus denied himself.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Yup, and one of the the main reasons is the belief that only through god (Jesus, or whatever) can they escape the possibility of the hell they've been led to believe exists.
Their logic is fear driven.
Most of our lives is fear/pleasure driven, and for good reason.

Yup, it can bring a real comfort and peace of mind to those unable to cope with life on their own. "Oh god, grant me the strength to . . . "
Their trust is need driven.
No human copes with life on their own. We are a social-cooperative species.

Absolutely. Few people have the ability to face life without the idea of a sky-father watching after them.
Looks like you really loathe your fellow humans for being so weak and foolish. That's very sad for you, being so superior to them, an all.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Most religions propose that love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity are "divine" manifestations within the human spirit. That they are the "spirit of God" within humanity. And that as such, to follow that theological ideal is to try and become the human expression of those divine traits. And that's what their various religious admonishments and practices are intended to help people do.

There is no way for us to know or prove that this theological ideal is true, except to adopt it and live by it and see if it 'works' for us in our lives. (This is faith: this choosing to live according to a hoped for truth, rather than known truth.) And most human beings, when they do this, will find that their experience and understanding of life is greatly improved. And they take that personal experience as their proof that the theological ideal they hoped to be true, is in reality, the truth.

None of this proves that God exists, or that love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity are "divine" manifestation within the human spirit. But for those who believe it, it has shown itself to be true.

This is a positive possibility that the atheist has rejected without trying, for no good reason, and has thus denied himself.
Humanism accomplishes the same things without a god, so I don't see how love, generosity, or kindness depend on theism.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
I'm starting to think that, like evolution, many religious people just don't have the capacity to fundamentally understand what atheism even is.
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
Looks like you really loathe your fellow humans for being so weak and foolish.
Sorry my comment hit home so hard with you.

chills-with-no-fever_1.jpg


Didn't mean to make you feel bad about yourself.

s72152544.jpg


That's very sad for you, being so superior to them, an all.
It is. If only people were as superior as me what a wonderful world it would be.

BzV3OlZlX-PeU2eoipprULGs6lGn5DurSvoH1XLU8FxUPd-LzqSMkYrDCkFyFmxA6izF=h310


.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That's very sad for you, being so superior to them, an all.
The first trick to being superior is to simply be it...not to lord it over others.
The second is to look inferior while doing it.
How'm I do'n?
 

Looncall

Well-Known Member
That's patently absurd, as we are all choosing to act on our hopes, rather than our knowledge, and then accept the results as "knowledge", every day of our lives. It's the main mode of human behavior. In fact, it's really the only way we gain whatever little actual knowledge we possess.

Not all religions are "con games" and religion is not theism. So choosing atheism based on the fact that some religions are ideological "con games" is neither logical, nor honest.

People choose to practice religion because they believe that doing so 'works' for them in their experience and understanding of life. The fact that it doesn't work for you is irrelevant to them. And is also very likely a self-inflicted result. Just as their belief that it works for them is likewise a self-inflicted result. So you're both experiencing the result of your own bias, and basing your beliefs on that result, but at least the theist has some optional possibilities remaining open to them, whereas the atheist has none.

I note that you are indifferent about whether the religious notions you approve are actually true or not, an attitude I have often seen used by theists to deflect criticism.

I find it curious that people do not feel that tactic embarrassing.

Sure theism is a scam. I suppose that the first ancient tribesman who found that he could escape the daily grind of survival by pretending to talk to gods found pretty quickly that he was onto a good thing (for him). And so it goes on and on.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Most religions propose that love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity are "divine" manifestations within the human spirit. That they are the "spirit of God" within humanity. And that as such, to follow that theological ideal is to try and become the human expression of those divine traits. And that's what their various religious admonishments and practices are intended to help people do.

Typically, believers see our lives as empty, meaningless, without purpose, and with no reason no to go berserking - robbing, raping, killing.

The secular humanist can pursue any ideals he chooses without the need of a god concept - at least not an external god. The secular humanist fulfills that role himself. I recall when I lived in a rural neighborhood not too many years ago that I would frequently encounter turtles crossing the county roads there - relatively empty roads that had a car going by every few minutes or so. I would always pull over and carry the critter across the road to his apparent destination simply because I wanted to ensure its safety. Nobody was watching, and I did what I did because it was good and right, with no expectation of being praised or rewarded except with the knowledge of having done the right thing. It made feel good to do that - to be a little godlike, or as you say, divine, and take care of one tiny corner of the universe.

Is that experience available to the person that believes that he is being watched 27/7, his mind being read, and an account of all that he does made for the purpose of rewarding or punishing him?

There is no way for us to know or prove that this theological ideal is true, except to adopt it and live by it and see if it 'works' for us in our lives. (This is faith: this choosing to live according to a hoped for truth, rather than known truth.) And most human beings, when they do this, will find that their experience and understanding of life is greatly improved.

I did that through my twenties. I had been an atheist before, and tried Christianity - like a pair of shoes, to test the fit. I suspended disbelief and immersed myself in the life.

Initially, I experienced a euphoria that I interpreted as the Spirit. Then I moved to another state, and tried multiple other churches, never repeating the experience. I came to understand that I had stumbled onto a very charismatic preacher who was the source of that feeling. Other congregations seemed dead an lifeless. Where was the victory in those churches? Where was the Spirit?

I came to see that the promises were not being kept in this life, and that therefore, there was no reason to believe that there was a god going to keep them in an afterlife, either. Also, I said that I suspended disbelief to give this new worldview a chance to begin to make sense. That never happened. So, I left religion for what I later learned to call secular humanism. It has served me better than religion did.

It's reasonable. It esteems man rather than demeans him. It calls us to be a part of the world rather than turn from it. It admonishes us to develop the latent potential in ourselves and to enable others to do the same. We actually believe and try to live by the Golden Rule unlike those in the religions that merely give it lip service. It's the basis of the humanist method for deciding moral matters - rational ethics, or reason applied to compassion. We are interested in developing moral and intellectual excellence.

It turns out that those shoes fit better.

And they take that personal experience as their proof that the theological ideal they hoped to be true, is in reality, the truth.

I have concluded the opposite for the reasons just given.

This is a positive possibility that the atheist has rejected without trying, for no good reason, and has thus denied himself.

By leaving Christianity, I denied myself what felt like an inauthentic life. To continue in it would be living a lie, which, if I can borrow from the religious vernacular, would be the greatest sin - the sin against ones own integrity..

It was an excellent choice for me. I have had a very rich and satisfying life outside of religion.

Have you ever lived as a secular humanist? If not, what makes you think that you know what such a life is like or what possibilities are available to the unbeliever? I've lived both lives. As a Christian, I needed more. As a humanist, I have remained content and fulfilled.

Isn't that your measure of what constitutes truth?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Few people have the ability to face life without the idea of a sky-father watching after them.

Looks like you really loathe your fellow humans for being so weak and foolish. That's very sad for you, being so superior to them, an all.

I could have made the same statement, and it would not have been made with loathing or contempt. It is with regret that I see such people. The idea of being continuously watched and judged is necessarily infantilizing.

If you raise a child that way, it won't mature properly. You need to give the child increasingly more space as it matures to allow it to develop fully.

The Christian belief systems fosters childlike thinking. Believing by faith in authority rather than learning to think critically and question claims is childlike. Magical thinking is childlike. Praying is basically like making a wish before blowing out the candles on a cake. And a sense of continuous supervision and a cosmic naughty-nice list is obviously antithetical to authentic moral maturation.

Here's in part what I mean by an authentic existence:

Try standing up like the bipedal ape you were born to be, shed the comforting but disabling swaddling of religious beliefs, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all. And then face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, and that things don't get better if we don't make them better.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of those around you - people, and maybe a few animals.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.
 
Top