What Atheists Want

The Washington Post ^ | Chris Mooney

[beavus]

the odds against chance being responsible

A billion year ago, what were the odds that I would be here at 10:18 AM typing on these words on this computer? Pretty slim? How do you compute it? How do you compute the "odds" of the universe being created "by chance" (whatever that means)? Before you trash your own probabilistic model of the universe's creation, how about developing it a bit further first? For example, describe the probability model describing the likelihood of various events before the creation of the universe. For that matter, explain what could possibly be meant by "before the creation of the universe".

Or was this probabilistic theory you alluded to merely a straw man?

[mcg1969]

I've just barely touched the surface of the division of beliefs in one religion with all that. And since we're talking about belief with relevance to religion, don't you think you might get at least a few differing opinions out of those professing to be atheist?

How many different opinions can there possibly be about a God that doesn't exist?

I agree that there can be lots of differeng opinions about how to live in a world without God, though.

[mcg1969]

Very interesting points, beavus. But I'm not claiming that atheistic cosmologists attribute infinities to observable phenomena. On the contrary, I am claiming that they recognize all to clearly the finiteness of that phenomena. And for whatever reason, they find that that finiteness is inconsistent with an atheistic view of the universe's origin.

So are you suggesting that such atheists are themselves guilty of being "duped" just like we theists are? Are you saying that they should just accept the fact that the universe is finite, that it simply sprung up from nothing 15 billion years ago? And that doing so would be the most intellectually "enlightened" thing?

[mikegi]

I would say I was an atheist if it weren't for those nuts who call themselves atheists running around finding offense in every mention of the word "God". I don't want to be associated with them. I'm not oppressed or stigmatized or anything else for my lack of belief in a god.

My wife takes our four year old daughter to church on Sundays just like my mother took me. She can decide if the church is right for her.

I'm not anti-religion, I just have no religious bones in my body. I don't get it at all. I don't steal, rape, or kill others because I don't want that to happen to me, not that I'm going to suffer eternal damnation or whatever.

[Gamecock]

I believe it takes a lot more faith to be an Atheist than a Christian.

I say that because of my scientific training (BS, MS, tons of undergrad and masters courses in biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, neurophysiology) As I peer into the visible inner workings of a cell, and then contemplate those things that occur at a level even beyond the viewing range of my microscopes, I am in awe.

When I look at the diversity of life on this planet, and how each creature and plant is collection of specialized cells that do nothing but work together in a complicated biochemical symphony to keep that creature alive, I am in awe.

When I contemplate the natural world, the stars and planets (all of which are way out side of my training) I am in awe.

But what awes me the most is the fact that some how, all these complex systems come together perfectly for you and I to be here.

Now, some will say that it all occurred ex nihilo. I just can't believe that. They will tell me that it is all just a spontaneous event in which all came together. Sorry, the more I learn, the more I cannot, will not, believe it. The more I learn, the closer I come to seeing the hand of God, in the baby that I am birthing, in the dying who I am comforting and praying with. I see God.

I hear constant howls of protest from atheists, that more people have died in the name of religion, that God allows suffering, and on and on. They look at scandal inside the church (both Catholic and Protestant) and use that as an example of the flaws of Christianity. They look at these things and fail to realize that it is all a part of why we need God, because we will mess up everything we attempt. We are flawed. Christians and atheists, all of us.

I say to those that they think they understand Christianity, but they aren't putting forth the critical thought to truly break it down to its basic level: You don't understand Christianity. What is that level? Me and God, and God's expectation of me, and how I cannot reach it. Then and only then can I understand my role in being kind to the down and out. My role in feeding the poor, in working to help those who are at a lesser state than myself. Just as importantly, to be satisfied that I have not reached, nor probably ever, will reach the level of Bill Gates. Then and only when I understand my role, can I rest in this life.

Well, gotta run. I'm sure I've posted more than enough flaming material..

[Cultural Jihad]

Why is it that theists are so convinced of the merits of this assertion, as if the concept of human rights simply cannot exist in the absense of religion?

Not the absence of religion, but the absence of God. As I said, atheists have a hard time coming up with a convincing argument for human rights.

[mcg1969]

The notion that the universe was brought into being by the efforts of some intelligent being is just one of an unimaginably large number of possibilities

Indeed, and yet we don't know what any of those other possibilities could be. So that's why cosmologists, origins experts, and so forth must speculate on what those possibilities can be. Steady-state cosmology was a rather comfortable place for atheism because it seemed a sensible "default" position. But as Big Bang cosmology has gained so much more credibility, effectively eliminating steady-state cosmology from consideration, it's been necessary for cosmologists to return to speculation and theory.

and there's no reason it should immediately rise above all other possibilities. To the contrary I can reasons to doubt it.

I agree, there are reasons to doubt. I say that as a Christian.

For instance it seems to me that intelligence is a property of certain sorts of things within the universe. So where did this intelligent entity come from?

Let me restate (and probably oversimplify) what I think you're saying: "if God created the universe, who created God?" Please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's a common question. A common answer is that God is infinite and transcendent and therefore needs no creator. (I'd say "he always was" but that assumes he is in time, which he is not.)

Cosmologists actually understand the logical consistency of that claim, because that's exactly what they're looking for in an atheistic explanation of the origins of the universe: something infinite and transcendent, whether that is a multiverse, oscillating universe, or whatever. Once they reach infinity, they know they can stop. There's no sense in asking what came "before" something of infinite duration.

[beavus]

they find that that finiteness is inconsistent with an atheistic view of the universe's origin.

This point in your post struck me as unusual. I had never associated atheists with a view either of the finitude or infinitude of the universe, though I admit I haven't exactly made a study of atheistic thought. I presume that the finitude you write of has to do with the big bang theory, general relativity, etc., etc., that currently dominates the thinking of cosmologists.

What I don't understand is what it is about the atheists' view of the universe's origin that is inconsistent with finiteness. Will you explain?

[nmh]

"I don't reject or accept people solely on their religious beliefs. Bigotry lies there."

Now, now ... are you telling a fib? Hmmmm? ;) I've encountered you before ;)

[beavus]

There's no sense in asking what came "before" something of infinite duration.

Neither is there any sense in asking what came "before" time.

The apparent absurdity of infinite quantities thus gives the big bang theory, or at least a finite time theory, logical credence. It obviates the need for a moment of creation b/c the universe has always (=for all time) existed, while simultaneously allowing us to not attempt to force the man-made concept of infinity upon observable reality.

[antiRepublicrat]

I didn't know atheists wore some indication on their sleeves that they are in fact athesits.

They don't. But to admit atheism can result in discrimination. Friends you thought you had suddenly look at you differently, as a pariah or as some puppy that needs to be rescued. In either case it's offensive.

I would be willing to bet that a good 90% of Christians never even wonder what those atheists are doing and how can they can be made ashamed.

I'd bet maybe more than 90%. But that <10% is very good at making us feel like second class citizens. For example, I didn't appreciate former President Bush saying that atheists can't be American patriots. I hope you can understand how my commander in chief saying that I am not a patriot while I am carrying arms in defense of my country in combat is a little insulting.

What atheists and homosexuals have in common is the hatred of the idea that they will ever come under judgement by any one or any Entity.

For atheists at least, we don't. Like your 90% of Christians, we don't really even consider it. It is a non-issue. I hold the Christian threat of damnation at the same level of confidence as if some Mayan told me I was going to be damned for not making a sacrifice.

I don't believe in overt conversion unless a person asks or shows an interest.

I appreciate that. Believe it or not, the only place I've even consistently seen that attitude was in Saudi Arabia.

[antiRepublicrat]

The issue is not whether he has the right to his beliefs, but rather are his beliefs right?

Good question. Which holders of the ultimate truth are we supposed to believe? Followers of Christ, Allah, Zeuss, Osiris or the Invisible Pink Unicorn? Each says that if we follow the other then we're damned.

Remember, a Christian rejects 10,000 gods while holding one as true. An athiest simply rejects one more god. We're a lot more alike than you think.

It would, except the atheist tries to lead the believer to a life of utter hopelessness, moral fog, and eternal nothingness.

Then how is it I have hope, clear moral vision and no fear of death? False hope for eternal life is dangerous.

[antiRepublicrat]

Damn typos. You're right, Al-ilah. "Ilah" is very close to the singular "Eloah" especially considering regional pronounciation differences for letter combinations. Thus the currently held belief in the Jewish origins of the word Allah referring to the god of the book.

while others belief 'Allah' may be merely the male name for a well known Pagan deity of the time

I don't hold that in very high confidence. First of all, Allah has no gender. Second, both Allah and Eloah are titles of the one great deity, not names.

[Zack Nguyen]

Then how is it I have hope, clear moral vision and no fear of death?

I don't know. You haven't really explained what you expect to find after you die. As far as morality, you haven't told me what standard you base your moral code on.

[antiRepublicrat]

Screw Webster's. There is no authoritative source for the English language. We don't have L'Academie Francaise to tell us what's right.

How about I go tell a soldier fighting in battle that he's lazy, sitting around pretending to do work. Because if you look in a big dictionary that's a definition for "soldier."

Dictionaries are highly fallible in the constantly changing English language.

[antiRepublicrat]

How many different opinions can there possibly be about a God that doesn't exist?

Well for starters, theres "No gods exist" (notice that yours isn't specially singled-out). Then there's "You all have fun with your strange beliefs and funny ceremonies. I'll be over here living my life."

[tdadams]

Not the absence of religion, but the absence of God. As I said, atheists have a hard time coming up with a convincing argument for human rights.

OK, pick apart the semantics. You know what I mean.

I'd like to see you make a convincing argument that human rights don't exist in the absense of God. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe that.

[Zack Nguyen]

But if you are correct, that rights are God-given, why do these people find themselves with none?

That's like denying that you are a parent simply because your child keeps disobeying. Rights are given by God. They must be guaranteed by moral governance, and/or the vigilance of the individual.

By the logic expressed in your post, neither you nor anyone else has a right even to live. And that is a very dangerous road to travel down.

If you work, you have the right to get paid, correct? Yet sometimes businesses close down without paying their employees. Sometimes people get swindled. Does this mean that you never, at any time, have the "right" to be paid for your labor? Does life just amount to what we can fatalistically horde for ourselves?

The only right I see that is a God given right to everyone is the ability to think and make a decision.

By your logic there is no such thing as rights because not everyone enjoys the ability to think or make a decision. No, rights are based on something eternal. They have to be or they do not exist.

[MissAmericanPie]

You are talking two different animals. Apples and oranges. Government vs Society.

Living in America the individual has inalienable rights, listed in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. We all live under that frame work and that frame work is based on Christian principles and enclosed with iron bars that God who is over all insures those rights and no mere man dare tamper with them.

Society is a whole nother animal, it's what the majority of the population considers the norm. And while that Society cannot place a person in prison for being an atheist, and displays no desire to do so, because Christians believe in freedom, government's attempts at engineering what Society has determined falls inside or out side the norm, is destructive to the point of the fatality of society. Neither homosexuals, or atheists should want that, and I'll tell you why.

A Society is much like a living organism, it is either healthy, or diseased and dying. When government interfers in a healthy society, especially one that is not overtly hostile in the majority to either homosexuals or atheists what happens is, government's power becomes more and more totalitarian, more intrusive towards society, society becomes more, disjointed, diseased and dying. Which is what we have now, and what liberals and socialists have been working towards with eager anticipation for decades.

Before you eagerly chime in, "Me too", let me assure you, you will not like living in what remains. You will not like living under a totalitarian government, or the manevolent compassion of socialism, and that is where not only the world, but the USofA is heading now that government as set itself against, and as the enemy of society. You will not enjoy rationing, you will not enjoy laws regarding
what you can or cannot say, can and cannot read, what you can and cannot buy, what you can and cannot sell, what you can and cannot hold as wealth, as government becomes more and more intrusive, as it is now, with "hate speech", etc. Because eventually it will be your ox being gored. You have bought into the lie that with Christians in charge you will be jailed and persecuted, when it is because Christians have been in charge that you have not. There were laws on the books in Texas regarding the act of sodomy, never inforced except when sodomy began to show up in public parks in the daytime with children playing.

The law was a tool used to control what society deems overt unseemly public behaviour. It was struck down and that does not benefit homosexuals as it leaves them open to personal attacks from the public should a dad walk into a park restroom and find his kid has witnessed what dad had rather he didn't. Dad may not call the law, because the law isn't on his side, so the situation may cause him to deal with it himself, or stop going to public parks which have now been made unavailable to society as a whole.

The Christian believes two things. The lessons of history, too much government interference in the lives of individuals is a destructive thing, and the belief that God judges whole nations on the content of the character of the individuals that make up that nations society. And we believe He judges accordingly. The gospels are full of accounts of God blessing or cursing entire cities and nations on the content of the individuals living in them.

Christians in the USofA believe that it was our devotion to God that caused God to lead us to this continent to worship Him in freedom, and that He has poured out riches, power, and freedom on this nation more than any other in the history of the world. On another thread a poster protested my claim that all western nations have been historically ahead of the pack because of their respect for God, and the USofA's purity of worship has put us even ahead of them. She pointed to South America as a means to blow my theory out of the water and it was so silly I didn't bother to respond that there is no comparison between the mixture of voodoo/Christianity that has been the norm in S. America, and the more pure form of Christianity practiced in the USofA.

So before homosexuals, or athiests take the whip of government in their hand to lash society, they might want to think twice about the ultimate results. Because you are part of society also, one that is being robbed more every day of it's resources, history, heritage, culture, freedom. The foundations of society in the USofA has been under attack for decades from the institution of marriage, to the right to control our own property. Now the very protections insured by the Bill of Rights and Constitution
are under attack and/or being ignored all together.

Think twice before adding to the problem of governments destruction of society is all I'm saying. I don't know what incidents has led atheists to chaff at living in a Christian society, what makes you feel "second class", but living without it will be far worse for all concerned.

[Zack Nguyen]

I'd like to see you make a convincing argument that human rights don't exist in the absense of God.

If there is no God, what is forbidden? Nothing.

If there is no God, then where do rights come from?