Freethought & Rationalism Archive

show_no_mercy · 08-27-2009, 05:11 PM

driver8 is not talking about atheism, but ontological naturalism. Thus the battle should be between Christianity and Naturalism, not Christianity and atheism... since bare "atheism" is just as stale and unfulfilling as theism.

aa5874 · 08-27-2009, 06:03 PM

It is amazing that people who believe in Gods that when their belief become popular or adopted by goverments tend to delight in referring to others who reject their Gods as atheists.

But this is nothing new.

When the Roman and Greek Gods were regarded as the true Gods, Jesus believers were calle Atheists.

Justin Martyr, Athegoras of Athens and other Christians, over 1800 years ago, were regarded as Atheists, outnumbered and governed by those who believed in Zeus, Apollo and a host of other Gods.

Justin Martyrin in First Apology 6

Quote:

Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity....

Athenagoras in "Plea for the Christians"

Quote:

Three things are alleged against us: atheism, Thyestean feasts, OEdipodean intercourse....

It can be seen that when believers in Gods collude with the Goverment of the Day, they will regard their God as true and call other atheists. In the 4th century, roles were reversed, Jesus believers under Constantine rejected the once true Gods, like Zeus, and Apollo.

And it will happen again. Jesus believers will become to realise that they really are atheists. The Gods they believe in do not exist. History will repeat itself. The Romans, Greeks, Egyptians and many countries believed in Gods that did not exist and they switched.

Now, I hear some say that Jesus was not a God but was only a man. These people do not believe in any God at all now. I think a Christian who believes Jesus was just a Man is actually an atheist after they have rejected all the other Gods including the God Jesus.

spin · 08-28-2009, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

No, they don't.

Indeed not. This is why the first statement is nonsense.

Your assertions are irrelevant, Roger. You are trying to prolong a silly crypto-apologetic outburst over an issue that was trivial to the thread, about which you felt overburdened to vent your zeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Quote:

They only deal with real things.

The humanities are not real?

Are you really drawing a close parallel between god and humanities?? I don't have an antonym for the verb "reify".

Have your last fling at saving face.

spin

bacht · 08-28-2009, 08:12 AM

I respect your erudition Roger, but the discussion about atheism has been going on since the Renaissance humanists. Great minds on both sides have explored the merits of faith-based vs humanistic ethics. I personally don't see a conflict between scientific analysis of historical materials and belief in a higher power, this seems like a false dilemma to me. The danger I see in humanism is runaway egotism and narcissism (not that religious teachings ever eliminated these in the past), while the potential danger in religion is slavish deference to authority at the expense of innovation and inquiry.

You're obviously an intelligent man, so I can't see you falling prey to the simplistic ravings of the fundamentalists. It's true we live in an era when the legacy of Western culture is being de-valued. I don't know that Christianity has an answer to this, we may just be victims of larger historical forces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

I would only point out that all the atheists I ever met live by a belief system which they are often incapable of stating, never mind supporting, so this is a very unfortunate argument. Since they do not state it, and most change the subject swiftly, we have to infer from how they live and speak. And, after all, I live in the same society. But convenience seems to me to be one pillar of the way of speaking and presumably living of most of them; and the other is to appeal to whatever happen to be the societal values of the time and place in which they happened to be born. When I look back at atheists of past days, this is what I see. The precise values depend, of course, on the menu of values available at the time.

But I happen to remember a different set of societal values, and I remember the shibboleths of today being invented, by people I despise, and promulgated by methods that were certainly not an appeal to logic and reason. (Probably the same is true in every age, which is why merely period values must be wrong). Thus I cannot believe in them.

It is useless to defend atheism by rubbishing Christianity. Atheism must be defended for itself, for what it would be if no Christians existed. If a single atheist was the only man alive, what values would he live by? What would his philosophy lead him to do, and think, and believe? That question is one that every religious position must answer to be credible; and the atheism espoused online fails it at the first hurdle, usually with some statements such as "I don't have to prove anything" or "you don't understand that atheism is just a negation."

You will appreciate, then, that the claims you repeat here to superior rationality seem somewhat shallow, when I see so many atheists living by a set of values that are certainly temporary and certainly wrong and that those who live by them cannot discuss. And that is the real alternative which we are offered, the silent default presumed in every debate. It won't do. Not that this proves Christianity is true -- although I think it is -- but that we must look beyond alternatives which merely reflect period values.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2009, 05:11 PM	#41
show_no_mercy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Dancing Posts: 9,940	driver8 is not talking about atheism, but ontological naturalism. Thus the battle should be between Christianity and Naturalism, not Christianity and atheism... since bare "atheism" is just as stale and unfulfilling as theism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.