But, before we get to that, a brief introduction:
My name is Hank & I run a blog called Ethics Gradient (which, it should be noted, may – does – contain some coarse language. In my mind, it’s all perfectly justified but I realise not everyone digs the sailor-talk). I also go by “Mandrellian” on various threads on various blogs, youtube videos and forums. After a few comments on a recent DI thread, Erich Vieth did me the honour of inviting me to be a contributor here at Dangerous Intersection. For my first post I’ve shared one of my previous works from my personal blog and edited it very, very slightly to improve the flow and readability [permalink]. Hopefully it will give people an idea where I’m coming from (besides Melbourne, Australia).
Many thanks to Erich for his faith in me. I shall attempt to justify it with my future posts. OK, let’s get on with it.
Why I am not an atheist …
… and why I am.
I am not an atheist because:
- I hate God
- I prayed to God and my prayers weren’t answered
- Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
- I worship science and the works of man instead of God
- I’m rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
- I think I’m better than God
- I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
- I can’t decide which religion to subscribe to
- atheism is my religion
- I think religious people are idiots
- I worship Batman
- I worship Satan
- I’m immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
- I want to destroy religion
I distrust and criticise (sometimes strongly) certain organised religions because:
- they are human inventions and many seem to be preoccupied with obsessively controlling aspects of peoples’ private lives instead of improving them
- many Christian churches seem primarily concerned with attracting money and then keeping it rather than using it charitably
- many holy books get descriptions of the world & nature completely wrong, which you would not expect had they been dictated by the omnipotent creator of the universe
- many holy books contain descriptions of human events that cannot be historically verified and in all likelihood never happened (eg. Exodus)
- many holy books contain numerous laws, acts & stories of a morality that modern, free societies find repugnant; these societies have passed many of their own laws contradicting such biblical “morality”
- as well as innumerable separate religions; there are so many separate & often violently opposed sects of each religion that it is more likely that none of them are correct than just one of them being so
- many religious groups demand special treatment such as the right not to be offended by statements, artworks, songs or anything else that may criticise or disagree with their dogma; their protests quite often run contrary to ideas such as free speech, beloved by most modern democratic societies
- religious groups frequently try to have laws passed which unfairly impose their narrow standards of behaviour, based on interpretations of specific holy commands, onto the rest of society
- religious people often tend to pick & choose from, or “interpret” their holy texts, discarding what does not conform to modern standards of morality, law & political freedom; they then bizarrely imply that modern morality, law and political freedom rests on the foundations of their particular religion
- there is such a wide spectrum of religious belief & adherence to dogma, ranging from light, barely-existent deism to the kind of rigid fundamentalism that oppresses and kills many, many people in its name, that it leads me to conclude that either their God wasn’t clear enough with his message, didn’t spread it to enough people or that humans have basically made their religions and associated rules up as they went along and have been in conflict with each other about them ever since
- many religious people & groups wilfully mis-characterise atheists as immoral, empty beings with no appreciation for beauty or mystery simply because we prefer natural explanations for the universe’s phenomena rather than defaulting to “God did it”; they believe that any explanation, even a wrong one, is better than “we just don’t know yet”
- many religious groups continue to deny long-accepted scientific facts such as the divergence of species through evolution and the verified age of the Earth; some wish their particular mythology taught as fact in science classes and go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it; some even insist there’s a huge, dark Scientist Conspiracy quashing “academic freedom”
- many religious people & groups attempt to cherry-pick science (as they do their scriptures) for those parts which conform to their belief system while actively denying others, e.g. creationists agreeing with “microevolution” while denying “macroevolution” (which is like believing that matches cannot start bushfires) or attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to debunk the theory of evolution (which is like ajudicating a baseball game with a cricket rulebook)
- some religious groups deny the efficacy of modern medicine in favour of treating an ill person with prayer, a practice which has led to many preventable deaths, often of children
- they all make extraordinary claims based on their scriptures, provide no evidence beyond referring to their (unsurprisingly) self-confirming scriptures and then insist that the onus is on non-believers to disprove their claims
- many religions have become inextricably intertwined with the laws of the patriarchal or tribal cultures which spawned or adopted them, leading to divine justifications for such horrors as female circumcision and “honour killings”, which more often than not punish women, already under the thumbs of domineering males, for seemingly minute transgressions of law
- when it comes to the hot-button issue of sexual abuse by priests, many religions seem more concerned with good public relations, shielding themselves from culpability and keeping numbers in churches than with compensating victims and being active about either punishing perpetrators or preventing further abuse
I am an atheist because:
- any & all claims of and explanations for the existence of God or any other gods have thus far fallen far short of my standards of evidence
- my understanding of the natural universe is that it functions in such a way that doesn’t require (or indicate) the presence of any supernatural entity intervening in either the laws of nature or selected peoples’ lives
That’s it. They are the only two things that I can say I absolutely have in common with any other atheist. In matters of sex, politics, architecture, gaming, interior design, pets, music, clothing, hobbies, language, philosophy, education, sports, typing speed, preferred drugs, affinity with beagles & frogs and any number of other categories I may be diametrically opposite to any (or every) other atheist in the world. To label one atheist with the same attributes you label another atheist is ignorant at best, flat-out dishonest at worst. As such, I try not to do the same thing with religious people.
But what could steer me in the opposite direction? Probably the same things that could steer any atheist …
I could be converted to theism if:
- God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved his existence as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.
Such things as tortillas depicting blurred, apparently Mary-shaped silhouettes do not count. If you’re there, God, you’re on notice! Any time is fine. But no tricks – and come alone (if indeed there’s only one of you, otherwise, bring the whole parthenon).
—
In hindsight, there are quite a few things I left off both of those two longer lists, but I haven’t added them here. To add a large amount of new content to a re-post in the hope that a “special edition” would make it heaps, heaps better might (a) make me feel a total hypocrite, like I’m pulling a George Lucas (may he drown in his money-bin) and (b) turn people off, TL;DR style. I also believe that excessive after-the-fact editing takes a bit of the “blogginess” away from what I write. I like the sort-of “stream of consciousness” aspect of blogging, in that it provides a snapshot of my mindset at the precise time I was writing a post, warts & all, as opposed to being a considered, well thought-out post that took a very long time to compile. I don’t do many drafts. If I can’t finish something the day I start, it simply never gets published. Suffice it to say that philosophy didn’t serve me well at school!
OK, that’s enough of that. Keep enjoying the DI experience, readers. I hope to get into some serious/thoughtful/entertaining dialogue with some of you soon.
Hank
And so with Erik's latest non-answer we hit the wall, as I knew we would. I too feel like we are on a carousel with this conversation, but I had to push it for my own benefit.
Erik counters all challenges to his worldview with the same argument. There is no development in his thinking, no change, no room for doubt. Everything has been figured out, put in its proper place and Erik refuses to even take an idea off the shelf and look at it from a fresh perspective.
Erik's refusal to even CONSIDER answering my question is very psychologically revealing. He cannot consider a universe without God because everything will come tumbling down for him and he may revert to the "slave of sin" that he once was.
Earlier in this thread I called Erik "stupid". (For the record, I didn't call him stupid. I said he was obviously "too smart to be that stupid".) I apologized for that but I won't apologize for what I am about to say next. It is something I have thought about Erik and people like him for a long time but kept to myself because I was afraid it would come off the wrong way.
Erik is weak and I am strong.
It doesn't matter whether God is real or not. That is immaterial to this point. What matters, and what Erik has stated over and over again, is that he could not live without his belief in God. I can. He needs something that I don't in order to survive and therefore I am stronger than he is.
I'm not trying to insult Erik or anyone, and certainly there are worse things one can say about another. It is just the only conclusion I can reach after having had this same conversation with many staunchly religious people over the years. The vehemence with which they defend the absurdities inherent in their beliefs reminds me too much of the battered wife defending an abusive husband because she has nowhere else to go.
• Erich Vieth
You wrote “It is obvious that god exists.”
It is very obvious (in nature, in our conscious). Read the Bible and you will see that. Look around and you will realize it.
You wrote “God is always right.”
In the Bible (once again) you will find that God’s nature is righteousness (correct). Yes, God is always right (even if you do not agree).
You wrote “If ever anyone disagrees with you about God, they are wrong and you are right.”
You can disagree with me about God all day long. If I were arguing my opinion then you could be right and I could be wrong. But, I am not arguing my opinion. I am simply stating what God says.
You wrote “The Bible is literally true and provides the answers to all the important questions one might have, if one would only open one’s heart to God.”
The Bible provides all of the answers whether you open up to God or not. If you would open up to Him then you could apply all of the answers.
You wrote “God is especially bothered by skeptics, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals.”
God is bothered by sin. He hates it. God does not hate too many things but He hates sin. Why? Because it separates people from Him and it destroys. The thing about sin is that is never wants to be alone so skeptics want to convince others that they are right. Sex outside of marriage along with homosexuality are immorality which destroys you and the one with whom you are joined. The argument only make sense.
“You’re not open to change or even doubt of any sort.”
In order to be a Christian you must be open to change. That is how you become a Christian (changed or born again from a nonbeliever to a believer). Actually God asks people to put Him to the test (test His faithfulness to His Word).
You do not have to buy what God says, that is your choice (does not change who God is at all). God does not depend on you (as much as you would like to think that).
The reason that I rewrite my statements is because you guys keep coming with the same arguments (not wanting to hear the right answer because it blows up your worldview).
You guys are dead set in your “beliefs” so do not preach to me about being open to discussion.
Erik: I'm "preaching" to you for this reason. If some miraculous thing occurred that suggested the existence of a SENTIENT BEING who was in charge, I'd take notice and I would be fully capable of modifying my beliefs about whether God existed. If the clouds opened up and people started ascending into the skies, for example.
But you, Erik, refuse to even consider the possibility of a God not existing. You can't even engage in a thought experiment that the miracles of the world are naturally occurring miracles for which we have no good ultimate explanation.
"You guys are dead set in your “beliefs”…"
Wrong again, Erik. I am agnostic, not atheist. My stance has always been that I can't be 100% sure of anything. I consider the possibility of a God EVERY DAY.
Can you say you do the reverse?
• Erich Vieth
There was a miracle of all miracles that took place with the resurrection of Jesus. There is more than enough evidence in the Scriptures and in History.
Jesus spoke of people like you in the Scriptures when He said
Luke 16:30-31
30 "But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' 31 "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"
God changed my heart (life) so there is no question that He exists. Just because you do not know God does not mean that He does not exist. Has it ever occurred to you that God can use nature to perform miracles?
• Edgar Montrose
Again, you are trying to blame the messed up world on God when man is at fault. You need a paradigm shift.
Morality comes from the Bible, where do you think that we have that sense of right and wrong from?
• Mike Pulcinella
Your view of God is different from who God is. I know the God of the Bible (the Creator of the Universe).
Religious Fundamentalism:
"I used to live in my own little world where I said that Muhammad did not exist. I woke up to reality after that and I saw how ridiculous my ideas about Muhammad were (before I knew Him personally)."
"The Koran provides all of the answers whether you open up to Muhammad or not. If you would open up to Him then you could apply all of the answers."
"Your view of Muhammad is different from who Muhammad is. I know the Muhammad of the Koran (the Creator of the Universe)."
"Again, you are trying to blame the messed up world on Muhammad when man is at fault. You need a paradigm shift.
Morality comes from the Koran, where do you think that we have that sense of right and wrong from?"
"Muhammad has chosen to reveal Himself as the Savior …and the Word (Koran) is the same, therefore, asking me to close the Koran is impossible. My ideas about Muhammad are not worth anything. Muhammad’s ideas about Himself are what are important so I do not rely on my own ideas (understanding) but on what He has revealed in His Word."
Erik, you no fun no more.
Erik Brewer wrote: "Again, you are trying to blame the messed up world on God when man is at fault."
So God had the opportunity and the ability to prevent it, and did nothing? Look up nonfeasance, misfeasance, and malfeasance, and explain how His (in)actions fit in with the "morality" you describe.
"Morality comes from the Bible, where do you think that we have that sense of right and wrong from?"
Prove your assertion. And don't presume to speak for me in the process.
Edgar Montrose
In your argument you are blaming God for giving us a free will. He could have made us like robots but then you would not have had the chance to be a free thinker!!!
You evaded the question, Erik. Answer honestly, for once: Does morality come from the bible?
No cut and paste answer, please, I want to make you think about it.
Erik Brewer wrote: "He could have made us like robots but then you would not have had the chance to be a free thinker!!!"
And just how is the demand of blind, unquestioning faith — abandonment of all logic and reason and intellect and unquestioning acceptance of some very imaginative but archaic ideas conceived by primitive people in an unsophisticated time — NOT like being a robot?
Give it up Mobius. Erik won't think anymore. He's got it all figured out because a book told him so.
• Ben
Here is the problem with your argument. The Koran never claims to change a person’s heart (mind/life) from the inside out. It tries (like all man made religions) to change a person from the outside in. It has never worked and never will work. Man needs a changed heart (inside out) and then his life will change completely. This is what the Bible calls being born again. So again, noble effort but entirely wrong.
• Edgar Montrose
Wow, you said a lot by saying “how is the demand of blind, unquestioning faith — abandonment of all logic and reason and intellect and unquestioning acceptance of some very imaginative but archaic ideas conceived by primitive people in an unsophisticated time — NOT like being a robot?”
If you understood anything about Biblical faith it is not blind and unquestioning. The actual definition of faith is being convinced of what you have understood (ie researched and pondered on, thought through and understood fully). So this idea of blind faith (checking your reasoning skills at the door) is a lie promoted by people wanting to justify (calm their conscious) the fact that they have rejected God. Get your facts straight before you make wrong accusations.
Erik Brewer wrote: "If you understood anything about Biblical faith … Get your facts straight before you make wrong accusations."
You have been reduced to ad hominem attacks. My work is finished here.
• Mobius 1
We see morality in Genesis (from the very beginning). Once you choose to disobey God the lack of morality shows right away (the first murder) when Cain murders Able. Until God gives the Law in the OT the world was pretty much in chaos. Eye for an eye was protection (the common idea was you took my eye so I will put you to death). So yes, morality comes from God and God is the One who gave us the Bible to teach us about morality. I know that you will say that there are writings that predate the Law but they do not predate the Garden (beginning).
Erich, Is this the "Thread that will not die???" .
It is obvious from his comments, that Erik Brewer holds dear the Christian values of tolerance ( in the sense that he has infinite tolerance for those who agree with him) and perseverance. His patient tutoring of the "Godless Atheists", on this site, shows his compassion, his agape', his concern for our immortal souls, so that someday when we have left behind our mortal coils we may meet again in the by and by to listen to his great knowledge for the rest of eternity, while the non-believers will toast like cheap wieners in a warmer place elsewhere.
He protects those who visit his website by deleting those propaganda comments posted by the unenlightened free-thinking atheists, but the best he can do here is attempt to squash the opposition with a holy steam-roller of bland and repetitive themes and excessive verbiage.
Is anyone else getting bored with this? Or is it just me?.
Undoubtedly Erik Brewer will respond to this comment in his usual, boring, predictable way, Spewing forth his usual rhetoric of personal interpretations of the scriptures, possibly with a reference or two to an actual book, chapter and verse to "prove" (possibly to himself) that he is right and we are all wrong.
He just don't "get it".
It is not that we are because we think. We think because we are.
Erik, your words belie the hollow rattling of distant sabers, borne on the winds of time and distance, thrown together in the rhubarb of the crowd, not found in the hastily gathers fragments of ideas of others present and long past, lies an answer, but do YOU know the nature of the question?
I doubt it.
Through all the hyperbole and falderol, the words convey no meaning, I hear naught, but the sentences tell of one who sees an inferior world and seeks to change it to his view, rather than accept that world, lest he become a part of its inferiority.
On January 26, 2007, I stood alone. In the cold of mid morning, I had come to a place in search of a treasure hidden away in plain view, and I had found it. I performed that task that was required of me, made my mark, made my trade, and having done so, I hid the treasure for others to find. Then I paused, except for the faint gurgle of water, muffled by the ice and snow that covered the stream, there was a thunderous silence.
It held a sensation of wonderful, peaceful isolation, that only my kind can truly appreciate.
Sorry, I drifted for a moment.
Niklaus: "will toast like cheap wieners"? Hey, speak for yourself! Not that I've ever roasted myself over a hot fire, but I would hope I would make a better impression if that ever happened.
Edgar Montrose
When you have lost you should admit it. If you do not want to admit it then try to divert the blow in another dirrection (ie the ad hominem comment).
If you do not understand what faith means then I would advise you to study up on the Greek definition of the word for faith (pistis).
Come back after that and we can talk more. If not, just admit defeat.
Not that anyone needs to hear from me on this topic, but y'all are free to move on to other topics any time you are ready. I'm ready. Anyone else ready?
I've been ready.
Come on, Erik. You just can't admit to facts, you've lost, been refuted, repeatedly, and all you do is spout your words. Your meaningless words. I won't admit to defeat, because I haven't lost. Neither has Edgar, Mike, Erich, Vicki, or anyone else here, except you.
You're the one who can't accept defeat. You're the one who can't face the music, nor give a comprehensive argument in favor of your righteousness. All I see is another insecure christian, one who sticks by his convictions, because he's afraid of the truth.
You think you're small compared to god? Try comparing yourself to the impossible size of our own solar system, galaxy, universe, or the fact that your DNA strand, stretched out all the way, would reach the sun.
That's small. And you think your god only has matters to deal with on this one, single, pale little dot in the far expanses of the ever-expanding universe? Ego-centric to the core.
Your answers don't satisfy anything, they're intellectually dishonest, self-defeating, and are wrong.
Now, I know you're going to work your condescending fingers and dismiss my post, because you can't counter it. You have yet to prove your point once in your foray into this blog, and I don't have any hope that you'll break that trend. Have fun with the unicorn in your bible.
Yes, I admit defeat. My objective was to get you to understand that your assertions represent beliefs, not facts; and that we all have beliefs and those beliefs are often irrational. I have found that people trying to justify their beliefs using logic ultimately either must admit that logic does not apply, or resort to emotional arguments out of exasperation. You have placed yourself into the latter category. And, as I have failed to achieve my objective, I am defeated.
Go in peace.
Erich,
I was just hoping we just go for some kind of record on the length and number of comments.
Anyway, I just decided stir the pot as it were, by tossing in a few personal interpretations and observations taken out of context and backed by unsubstantiated references to obscure concepts.
The January 26 part may be interpreted many ways, but is a prosaic description of of actual events on that day. I was playing "The Game". I began playing The Game about 2 years ago for exercise, because the player can set his/her own rate. The Game is played around the world by people of all ages, races and nationalities.
But the Game does not define me as a person, what I own does not define me. What I believe personally doesn't define me. Who I am is seen in how I interact with society.