Posted on 12/05/2003 10:43:11 AM PST by vannrox
This is a subject near to my heart and my own spiritual journey, and I'd like to discuss it with as many intelligent minds as possible as I ponder it. It seems to me as though the most basic, intrinsic aspect of a religious philosophy is faith. I have been talking to a lot of Christians lateley, so I'm not sure if that is the prevailing veiw among people of other persuasions. Anyways, it seems to me as though a religion can really be boiled down to beliving that it is THE answer, and it seems to me as though atheism is no exception.
But this is where I came to realize there many different brands of thought given the title of Atheist, each with their own twists. Here are some categories that i have run across, and my opinion(just roll with me on this one):
Spiritual Atheists Some people claim to be "spiritual" but not "religious," disavowing belief in a god persay in favor of just not thinking about the issue. It sounds just lazy to me. They get the "all good people go to heaven" feeling without defining good, heaven, or even feeling itself. This may work for some, but it seems to lack any real thought into the matter.
Non-Practicing Atheists And there are the "Catholics" like my parents who dont buy a word the church says, but are so afraid of what it means to be atheist that they desperately cling to a religion that offers them no real meaning.
Deist Atheists Some people use Atheism to describe a sense of disbelief in the major established world religions, which to me sounds like it could still be a throwback to the deism of the 18th century. Basically it can be summed up as: There is some kind of god, hes a pretty decent guy, dont be an ass and everything will turn out ok somehow, once again, a little too lazy for me.
Orthodox Atheists Then there are the Atheists so absolutly steadfast in their disbelief in god that they would have made an excellent Christian in another life (THAT's an interesting turn of phase!). They dont buy the proof that the various religions offer, but the seem to narrowmindedly rule out any possiblities except absolute soulless oblivion. I have a friend like this, and i have yet to figure out how he can 100% FOR SURE rule out a higher power of any type...
Agnostics This is the only one that really makes sense to me. I mean, maybe there's a god. Probably not one of the big religion's vengeful, mythical "gods" with their spotty and doubtfully accurate "historical records," I doubt reincarnation that doesnt work well with the increasing entropy of the universe, and the evidence for it is even less credible than the rest ... But prove to me god's not just hiding...
Thats where i'm at right now. I would appreciate any input, even religious propaganda. I want to know the truth, even if it means the complete destruction of my current schema for faith.
I would even go so far as to recommend two such books, The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith, to anyone who is openminded enough to consider Christianity. I almost bought into it after reading those, but to me, there are still holes (i'll probably talk about those later) If your already Christian, they will strengthen your faith, and if not, they will rock your world...
Do you have any reasons to believe there is no Santa, or is it a faith statement on your part?
Yes. Use this analogy. "Everybody has an 'belief' as to why they exist and how the world began and what happens after death."
I will concede it may be possible -- although it is very hard for me to imagine this -- for some not to have a 'belief' about these things. This person, however, would be amazingly shallow.
Something like that, actually. Scientists have suggested that the universe repeats cycles of contracting and exploding and we're currently at an expansion portion following an explosion. Any time energy is expended the whole system loses that energy (unless it has a mechanism to recapture 100% of that energy). So, unless there is some mechanism to insure 100% of all energy involved in the universe is recaptured at the posited collapse of the universe then eventually it will not have sufficient energy/mass for the explosion. Remember, atheists must claim something has always existed, and their choice is matter/energy/existence. Given an infinite number of these cycles of contraction and explosion eventually it would run down if the system loses even just the most infinitesimal amount on each cycle...remember we're talking eternity here, so infinite repeating of this process.
Also what does "prime mover" mean? Is it something like when I throw a baseball and it leaves my hand the prime mover is there to push the ball through the air?
No, what I meant by that term was that even if one were to assume existence just "was", the universe is in motion, it's not just static. You may recall the law of science that says things at rest tend to remain at rest, and things in motion tend to remain in motion unless some other force is applied. So what began the motion of the universe? Physical laws would expect motionless existence to remain motionless...so there must have been some prime cause, which I was just referring to as prime mover. Is that clearer?
Presents showed up under my tree as a kid and I had no idea where they came from. Likewise, good people die in freak accidents and I don't know why that has to happen.
Does that mean you don't have any reasons to believe there is no Santa, and the evidence you have leads you to accept it?
Also, define "good" please.
Codswallop. The "big crunch" does not have the evidence to support it. There never was a "before" the Big Bang since time itself started with the Big Bang.
Except there is actual evidence for the Big Bang and absolutely none for an afterlife.
The crusaders were atheists? That's a new one. Regardless of how someone reads the Bible if they believe in God then they, you know, believe in God. So they aren't atheists. And if they believe in the divinity of Jesus, then they're Christians.
The Nazis weren´t religious either, they wanted to bring down the Christian faith.
Hitler maintained that he was a Christian. Was he being honest? Who knows. But he felt the need to maintain some sort of public Christianity. So it appears that Christians were a major part of the political environment that countenanced his rule.
Not that any of this means much one way or the other.
That is exactly the Christian view. God said let there be light, and bang!
You're very welcome. And to say you don't know is entirely honest. I believe God created, but HOW He did it I have no idea. That's power far beyond any of our comprehensions. Like you, I'm comfortable not being able to explain how God does something.
Except that Santa was never created to explain some object outside of their ability to explain, it was a cultural myth that has always been known to be such.
Also, define "good" please
Are you getting at that I can't define good and evil without an external entity to judge it?
Yup. Good, bad...any judgment requires an objective perspective. I've seen arguments that attempt to claim social preference as such a perspective, but it falls apart upon further examination.
You can take my example to be "Why does anyone have to die in a freak accident?"
To be honest, I do not know. All I can say is that we are all mortal bodies with an immortal soul. There are no guarantees how long we will have in our mortal bodies. However, since we have immortal souls that will continue to live beyond death, then the length of our mortal lives takes on relatively less significance in my view.
I agree.
But you must remember what we are dicussing. Why are we here, where did the universe come from, what happens after death are all matters of faith.
Concerning the Gospels, they don't pretend to be anything other than an account presented as honestly as possible of a very unusual event. Check the introduction to Luke
One of the goals of famed archaeologist Sir William Ramsey was to disprove Luke (also the author of the Book of Acts.). He found Acts to be accurate.
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations
According to the link this experience led Ramsey to become a Christian.
Another noted skeptic who put scriputure to a secular test and came away a Christian was Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)
Well, there was one person who did come back. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.