One of my breakthroughs in my Christian life came years ago when I discovered that it is not incumbent on me to prove this to those who choose to not believe.

That is a practical approach, since it is impossible to prove that God exists (to either believers or non-believers). There is no reason to believe in God. Belief in God can only be based on blind faith; it is not a rational belief.

The whole point of believing in God is to get away from reality and substitute fantasy for some part of your life. The smaller that part is, the better — but a better life is sometimes not enough motivation to get believers to become more reasonable people. But as long as theists don’t try to make belief into a social-political issue, they can live peaceably in society.

I thought that was a pretty basic observation. God is either invisible (or has observational equivalency with being invisible) and there isn’t any evidence that he exists. That’s the whole point of faith in the first place – if there was evidence, faith wouldn’t be required.

galenrox on March 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

There are lots of things that are invisible.

Love, hate, rationality, stupidity, cleverness, empathy, mathematics …

Do these things exist?

The existence of something is not established by an appeal to sight, sound, smell, touch and taste. Similarly, one of the most elementary mistakes made repeatedly in these kinds is to think that existence equates to corporeality; it doesn’t.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 11:07 AMSee, that hack is an equivocation on the word “good”. You’re saying that without religion, people are judged good or bad on the basis of their actions, but only in religion can people who are judged “good” in relation to their worldview do “bad things”. And that is patently wrong.

Let’s look a Abraham Lincoln: In the positive sense, he wanted two objective goods: 1) maintain the union and 2) abolish slavery, in light of Taney’s ruling on Dred Scott. However, he is considered a tyrant by various people, with a credible argument that he invaded a confederacy of properly seceded states, per their right retained under the Articles of Confederation.

Thus we can judge him preponderantly “good” or preponderantly “bad” in a wholly secular sense. But if we judge him “good”, it’s still clear that there is a case that this “good” man did a “bad” thing.

Now, please contend that maintaining a secular state requires ( “takes”) religion, or that freeing of slaves does. Because this is not what atheists are otherwise telling us.

Please cite fewer slogans in your attempt to control our thinking. You may believe this, but as a former atheist and as a reformed theist, I guessed from hearing this 30,000-foot view of history that it was probably bunk.

Let’s resolve it, with your “WE decide” rule. Well, if you like the Union more than you like the imagined/projected dissimulation through succession, then it’s “good”. If you think the “Union eternal” means that no state or group of states shall secede, then Lincoln didn’t invade–and perhaps the name “tyrant” is unearned. If you think that two nations existing side by side would only eventually war with each other, then perhaps one big Civil War is an acceptable trade-off. If you argue for some pure theory of government, then perhaps, it could have all been worked out with a proper categorization of terms. Now, we can go on and on, and put our own weights on each thing that Lincoln did and sum it up to “good” or “bad” man. And then “WE can DECIDE” to take each action in isolation and figure out whether or not Lincoln committed a “evil” action.

And I’ve just shown you how many things you believe–as well as having shown you that there is no way out of believing if you adopt the “WE decide” argument, because news to you often WE don’t decide, but fall into factions. In fact, if you cut right down to it, as you disrespect nearly 85% of mankind, you don’t want US deciding much–but YOU deciding and IF you let us in, then reviewing our decisions for your tests of “rationality”.

In another way, that slogan is a positive. We are forever buffeted by who defines what as “good” or “bad” “without religion”, but we can accept that in the rules of religion, a “good” person can do “bad” things. And that’s a good thing. Because all people who aspire to the same general concept of good–can learn that that is not the way to do “good”.

So you’re slogan is simplistic from an atheist perspective–not to mention probably an equivocation, if we must haggle the meaning in each consideration and weighing–but useful and valuable from the perspective of independent values, and even a hint of precipitous judgment on the part of “skeptics”.

[Secular government] most certainly is not a Christian concept. It’s a pre-Socratic philosophy which was lost when the West was going through it’s Christianist phase and preserved in the great Islamic libraries until being re-discovered like the rest of the Classics…. then Renaissance then Enlightenment.

lexhamfox on March 24, 2012 at 12:22 AM

You realize that one of Socrates’ charges was “atheism”, don’t you? “Pre-socratic” how?

From Xenophon:

>Socrates is guilty of crime in refusing to recognise the gods acknowledged by the state, and importing strange divinities of his own; he is further guilty of corrupting the young.

Who had this idea? Ikhnaton? Xerxes? The agrarian Latins? I might be missing it, but I don’t see it.

I thought that was a pretty basic observation. God is either invisible (or has observational equivalency with being invisible) and there isn’t any evidence that he exists. That’s the whole point of faith in the first place – if there was evidence, faith wouldn’t be required.
galenrox on March 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Straw man:

“The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person A has position X.

Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position.

Quoting an opponent’s words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent’s actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).

Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person’s arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.

Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.

Oversimplifying an opponent’s argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.”
.

The Temple of Reason (French: Temple de la Raison) was, during the French Revolution, a temple for a new belief system created to replace Christianity: the Cult of Reason, which were based on the ideals of atheism and humanocentrism. This “religion” was supposed to be universal and to spread the ideas of the revolution, summarized in its “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” motto, which was also inscribed on the Temples.

.

Just a reminder:
The atheistic devotees of “Reason” who established the Temples of Reason, were similarly inept with reason. They were however particularly adept at terror and homicide.

The Bible says “In the beginning God created”
The atheist says in the beginning there was nothing. And it exploded.

(Not that I wouldn’t love for you to leave it… :-)

I thought that was a pretty basic observation. God is either invisible (or has observational equivalency with being invisible) and there isn’t any evidence that he exists. That’s the whole point of faith in the first place – if there was evidence, faith wouldn’t be required.
galenrox on March 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

What you are describing isn’t faith; it’s blind faith.

Do you know how many people have made the claim that they were atheists in their past so that they could hock their wares and increase their net worth with books, speaking engagements and other money making ventures?

Conversely, how many atheists have you heard that have inflated the legitimacy of their enlightened view by making the point they were raised in a religious family/environment, and/or were strongly religious at one point? Crying out loud, it’s practically a meme on Reddit.

God is either invisible (or has observational equivalency with being invisible) and there isn’t any evidence that he exists. That’s the whole point of faith in the first place – if there was evidence, faith wouldn’t be required.
galenrox on March 24, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Not so. God has always provided evidence for His existence from the beginning. We are not expected to have Faith out of nothing. Christ provided the apostles loads of evidence, in the miracles He performed and in appearing to them after the Resurrection… He did not expect them to believe out of nothing. He said ‘blessed are they who have not seen and believe,’ and yet He didn’t abandon doubting Thomas to disbelief. He gave proof. We may not have indisputable proof, but we do have a wealth of evidence. There is evidence in the Sudarium of Oviedo, The Shroud of Turin, Eucharistic Miracles like that of Lanciano, stigmata, medical miracles, apparitions, etc…

What do you make of this evidence, or do you dismiss it out of hand. Do you take the carbon dating which has been soundly debunked and ignore the evidence of the Sudarium in relation to the Shroud? What is more irrational, looking at a wealth of evidence and concluding in the favor of belief, or dismissing it out of hand and believing something based on no evidence whatsoever? What evidence do you have that God does not exist that is stronger than this for His existence?

It is not irrational to look at this evidence and believe. You may not find it conclusive enough to abandon your intent to disbelieve, but that doesn’t make you more rational than me. It means we’ve looked at the evidence and come to differing conclusions. That is assuming you have looked at the evidence with an open mind.

And I don’t believe every bit of evidence at face value. There are some apparitions I have doubts about. I have doubts about incorruptibles. However, I find the scientific studies of the Shroud and Sudarium compelling, particularly when taken together and adding the scientific studies of the Eucharistic Miracle. Not only do I conclude that they are real, but that Jesus suffered and shed his blood (his precious type AB blood!) for my salvation. Deo Gratias!

However, my Faith does not rest on this evidence. I do not have, nor need rock solid proof that they are the burial cloths of Jesus. If it were somehow proved that they were forgeries, it wouldn’t make a difference, but evidence more and more leads to their authenticity. I think they were gifts to the doubting Thomases Jesus knew would come, whose hearts are not too hardened to Him.

No PROOF, but definitely evidence…do with it what you will.

:)

This is where “no recognition of God” will get you.

Classic.

listens2glenn on March 24, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I don’t disavow the existence of a god glenn, just the man made ones that you and others worship. That doesn’t mean I have some inside line to another god, it just means that I can see a god as a possibility.

As Omar Khayyam said in his Rubaiyat

“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”

There is no objective truth other than what WE decide it is.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Is your statement an objective truth?

YiZhangZhe on March 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It is to me, but it becomes one to us when we agree.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM

.
This is where “no recognition of God” will get you.

Classic.

There is no objective truth other than what WE decide it is.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Uh… I don’t think you understand what “objective” means.

Is your statement an objective truth?

YiZhangZhe on March 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It is to me, but it becomes one to us when we agree.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Whooooosh.

Is your statement an objective truth?

YiZhangZhe on March 24, 2012 at 3:02 PM

It is to me, but it becomes one to us when we agree.

There is no objective truth other than what WE decide it is.
SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Is your statement an objective truth?

When good people do bad things such as: murder, adultery, theft, perjury, it takes religion?

Thou shalt not kill, unless he says so (god allows, and performs murder against many people in the bible, doubt it, just read it)
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness

Mike OMalley on March 24, 2012 at 2:20 PM

You gave a small sampling of the big ten commandments, but why are the first 4 wasted on the vanity of your god? SUREly god could put other commandments in there besides those 4 like say maybe thou shalt not have slaves? thou shalt not bugger young children under your care?

Anyone can make a better ten commandments… Try these

1 Do not do to others what you would not want them to do unto you.
2 In all things, strive to cause no harm.
3 Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.
4 Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.
5 Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.
6 Always seek to be learning something new.
7 Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.
8 Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.
9 Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.
10 Question everything.

Silverman says this is their moment, as important to atheists as the Stonewall riots were to the gay-rights movement four decades ago.

Atheists, in particular 紅衛兵; the Red Guard, had such a moment in 1966 to 1967 in the PRC:

Sort of like the faith that atheists have that there is no God.

Solaratov on March 24, 2012 at 1:48 PM

No, sort of like the faith knowledge that your god, nor any other man made gods, aren’t the god that could possibly be.

He surely isn’t the god of the bible, koran, or any other religious cults currently being practiced. That much I know.

With or without religion you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

When good people do bad things such as: murder, adultery, theft, perjury, it takes religion?

Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not bear false witness

Atheists and agnostics are both saying the same thing, atheists just have the balls to call the religious out on their unconvincing lies.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 11:28 AM

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Typical. Just another anti-religion hater-type.

With or without religion you have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, that takes religion.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 11:07 AM

And with that, you just went from being a reasonably intelligent person who is an atheist to just another typical hater who is an atheist. As such, you can now be ignored.

Deceivers need believers, and that’s why religion needs faith.

SauerKraut537 on March 24, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Sort of like the faith that atheists have that there is no God.

Well, no, I didn’t actually put forward any argument yet. What I offered was a response to your argument. The distinction is subtle but distinct nonetheless.

Secondarily tho, not everything is meaningless; just the point of human existence.

Cleombrotus on March 24, 2012 at 12:11 PM

The distinction doesn’t make any sense, as I was responding to a statement you had put forward already.

And your secondary point makes no difference to my argument.