| Atheist Apologist http://fffoundation.freeforums.org/ |
|
| Evidence for Atheism http://fffoundation.freeforums.org/evidence-for-atheism-t468.html |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | RSM [ Jun 20, 2009 12:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Evidence for Atheism |
That title could probably not have been composed by any other than a conservative Christian with no concept of the actual meaning of the term "atheism." Here someone is using it the same way I would say "evidence for God." The term atheism, however, cannot be legitimately used this way. It is like speaking about "evidence for religion." It is as though we are going into a society to see whether religion or atheism is present. People cannot "believe in atheism" the same way people "believe in God" because atheism is not a thing, entity, or belief system in which a person can believe. Atheism merely describes the condition of lacking belief in theism. God, insofar as he is understood to exist, is an entity. Christianity is a religion or belief system. Freethought and/or Secular Humanism can possibly be called belief systems on a par with religion. But atheism cannot, since it merely describes a condition. Freethinkers and Secular Humanists tend to be atheists or agnostics but not all of them are. John Shelby Spong, for example, was named Humanist of the Year in 1999, while he was also serving as bishop of the Episcopal Church. (He retired a few years later but remains a professing Christian to this day so far as I know.) In my opinion, to say atheism is a religion or belief system is the same as saying a naked person is a nudist. Most people are naked once in a while, such as in the shower, but they could not by any stretch of the imagination be classified as nudists because they always dress according to their society's standards for everyday life, especially to appear in public. The argument has been made that, technically speaking, babies are atheists because they cannot believe in God. Personally, I think that is a ridiculous statement but it is technically correct. However, babies are not Christians, Freethinkers, or Humanists because these are names for belief systems or systems of thought that require a certain level of intellectual maturity that very young children lack. I think Richard Dawkins takes it a bit far when he suggests that labeling a child according to the religion of his or her parents, e.g. Christian, is child abuse but he does have a point. Also, taken in the context of Northern Ireland that Dawkins intends, where being Catholic or Protestant on the "wrong side of the tracks" can mean the difference between life or death, I can see that he has a point. In North America where very many conservative religions co-exist, often in the same school, it can be necessary to use some form of social differentiation when planning community events. For example, the children of Jewish parents will have a different social--and therefore school--calendar than will the children of Muslim parents. The children of Christian parents will have yet another social calendar. This will be the case whether or not the children themselves have the intellectual capacity to make religious decisions for their personal lives. It being the case that atheism is so little understood as to require "evidence," I will post my response to one Christian's questions. He posts as Ranger and is quite new. His post was not directed to me because I had not yet posted on that thread but I found his questions enticing. I will use a new post or posts for that. I may make a few editorial changes as needed to make things fit these forums. |
|
| Author: | RSM [ Jun 20, 2009 1:42 am ] |
| Post subject: | Answer for Ranger |
Originally posted as Post 59 in the thread "Question for ATHEISTS: What are your favorite evidences for Atheism..." on Reasonable Faith forums. Ranger, I read your posts in this thread and was pleased to find them to be respectful of the atheist and to treat him as a human of equal status with yourself--something that is in very short supply not only on these forums but in Christianity as a whole, beginning with the Bible. See for example Ps. 53:1 and Rom. 1:28-32. The Bible does not leave room for the possibility that a person may need to, for the sake of conscience, give up belief in the supernatural. I wish to respond to a few comments in the following post. Ranger wrote: Understanding Ancient Near East texts and culture should lead one toward a more metaphorical (even allegorical) understanding of many HB passages. This is actually a move in the right direction in regards to those seeking to understand the text in its original context. Agreed. But what is today considered allegorical or metaphorical is a very far cry from the way people like Hillel (Jewish scholar around Jesus' time if I have it straight)--and therefore Jesus (if he existed) and apostles--thought, is it not? We are born into the post-Enlightenment mentality where cause-and-effect/black-and-white linear thinking is taken for granted. When we talk about allegory or metaphor, normally we mean some aspect of substituting "this" for "that." I struggle to get into the pre-Enlightenment mind-set but I do not get the impression that this is how they thought at all. After telling part of his story, Ranger says: Quote: Thus, my study of the text itself led me to interpret the text more metaphorically. Does that equate with a more liberal view of the passage? Maybe, but that's a relative label, and in this case, it also equates with a more biblical view of the text in my opinion. I applaud you for adding "in my opinion." Thanks for sharing some of your story. I come from a horse and buggy Mennonite community. There were also a number of car Mennonite communities in the same geographical community. In other words, there were at least four different kinds of Mennonites living on farms next to each other where I grew up (2 car and 2 horse and buggy) and all of us children went to the same school during the week. On Sundays, all of our families went to different churches and none of us ever attended the other's churches or socials. There were jokes about everyone driving in different directions at the intersection (on their way to their separate churches) but heading to the same place (heaven). The confusing part for me was that everyone seemed equally sincere and equally sure that they had the correct understanding of what God really meant in the Bible. Yet they couldn't all be right because many of the different interpretations were mutually exclusive. Also, I found out that calling it "interpretation" was taboo; it was what God said--not an "interpretation." The person who told me this was less than a year older than me but he was a minister and he did have a penis, qualifications I lacked. Possibly these two items helped him to know things I didn't but I seriously doubt it. I was a Christian seeking with all my heart to find an honest way to remain one. And the best he could do was chide me for using a wrong word. By now I've got a degree in systematic theology--probably not as much education as you do--only Masters level. And I got it at a Lutheran seminary so I learned even more ways of "interpreting" the Bible than this Mennonite deacon knew about. And yes, "interpret" is a valid way of stating it. I also conclude that "opinion" is the only thing guiding correct understanding of the Biblical text, unless one wishes to understand it via the scientific method the same as any other ancient texts such as Homer. I was taught from childhood that Christianity is supposed to be a simple religion for children and slaves. About halfway through my two-year degree in theology I was still desperately struggling with my failure to find answers to life-long burning questions about central tenets of the Christian faith. Some of the texts we had to read were heavy reading and I had been unable to follow all the concepts. It occurred to me that I might have missed The Answer, that it might have been hiding in there somewhere and I just wasn't smart enough to find it. Wearily I asked myself whether I had to wade through all those texts again in order to be sure. Then it hit me: Christianity is supposed to be such a simple faith, simple enough for children and uneducated slaves to understand; I should not need years and years of formal education in order to understand its central tenets. The Answer does not exist. The answer I had been seeking regarded salvation. Another key question regarded evidence for God's existence. One day a few months later, I just "knew" that God did not exist. I had never in all my life ever found the slightest bit of evidence for the supernatural but I had done my best to believe because I was made to understand that God did exist. And that hell was real, just waiting to swallow up bad girls and unbelieving atheists. With those two items out of the way I realized that there was no legitimate way by which I could identify as Christian anymore. That was quite a frightening realization. What was I if I wasn't a Christian??? Not long thereafter I found the exChristian.net forums. Quote: But why go so far as to reject the very God who you (hopefully) believed created rationality?...Where are those evidences for atheism? What are those strong arguments which compel someone to utterly reject theism? Is a possible correlation, contra the current evidence, between scientific education and atheism really the best argument for atheism? I'm not sure what you mean by the "God who created rationality." Things are rational because they are in accordance with the way the universe works. "The universe" includes the human brain and intelligence, emotion, and perception. I imagine reality might be experienced somewhat differently by a dog or horse or fish or insect than it is by a human being. However, I can communicate most easily with other humans so I choose the human experience as my basis for understanding reality. Human intelligence applied to the relentless study and examination of the universe as it appears to human perception across time and space has brought us to the understanding that all that exists could have logically come into existence without the word or existence of a supernatural entity. Logic dictates that this is by far the most rational conclusion, i.e. that it makes no sense whatsoever to imagine that a supernatural entity spoke a word and in that way brought the universe into existence, as some holy books claim, when we have evidence that a natural means was possible. Quote: I hope that you can see that in the absence of better arguments than this, why most people would continue to be theists.
Sorry, sir, I haven't a clue what evidence you see for theism. Possibly you can provide the evidence for God's existence? I have not been pushing much for it anymore the last while because people on here were getting really pissed by my demand and I was told there is no evidence for God's existence. That agrees with everything I can discover. Why, in the total absence of evidence, a person continues to believe and arrange their life as though there were a God watching them with rewards and punishments is totally beyond my comprehension--unless they fear men more than god. I suspect this to be the under-lying reason in most cases because it is seriously unpopular in our land to be atheist. So much so that we have many a discussion on how to "break the bad news" to friends and family, or how to answer the question, "What church do you go to?" We know that it might cost our job or physical safety to "come out," depending where we live or who we are related or married to. People have been divorced, deprived of their children, and kicked out of their homes for deconverting. And they deconverted out of deep conviction, out of love for truth and honesty, for the sake of personal integrity. Thus, my answer to the question of this thread should be obvious:
2. I can find no evidence whatsoever for the existence of the supernatural or God. For most things in life, if we search long enough and fail to find the object of our search, we are justified in giving up that the thing can be found. I apply the same argument to invisible and imperceptible entities such as Gods. 3. Natural explanations exist for everything humans at one time thought was God, so I think it is safe to assume that natural explanations exist for the few things we have not yet figured out. I realize that I do not make an exhaustive argument in this little post for the nonexistence of God; it would take an entire book for that and few people would accept it even then--theists and atheists alike. However, Christians are strong on testimony. As such, people here should be fine with accepting my testimony of having searched for evidence of God and finding none. Obviously, it is impossible to believe in something for which there is zero evidence, given that belief means to accept that which it makes sense to think is correct based on the available evidence. For the record: I did not reject God. God failed to let himself be found. Consequently, in the name of honesty and personal integrity, I was forced to change my personal statement and identity to something that more accurately reflected reality. [align=center]*****************[/align] Ranger, I also read your post about the increase of religion in recent decades. That would agree with my personal observation of society. I have been puzzled by popular claims made on both sides (the atheist-agnostic group vs the conservative Christians) with each claiming that their side is gaining in numbers. I don't know how anyone can do a statistical study on the topic. With the advent of internet access, major social changes are taking place with each side using the new technology for the propagation of its own message. Very many people have deconverted due to the access to information on the Bible and biblical times/early Christianity that had previously been unavailable to them. I think this gives the atheist-agnostic group the idea that their numbers are increasing significantly. I personally had never been comfortable with belief in an entity for which there is zero evidence, but I was born in the middle of the twentieth century long before the internet. Access to exChristian greatly aided my deconversion in the fall of 2006. However, the internet also makes religious information easily available to people seeking "deeper answers" than they had been able to find in public education and their secular life, etc. Fundamentalist and evangelical communities take full advantage of cutting edge technology to spread their messages. (I find the most advanced technology--which I normally don't have--for listening to sermons and lectures, etc. appears first on their websites; for the most part, secular organizations use mainstream conventional tools.) Megachurches stream their sermons and music online for anyone who wishes to participate any hour of day or night anywhere in the world. If I am not mistaken (and I have studied this in a number of courses), conservative religion across the board around the world has been gaining strength in numbers and politics throughout the last quarter of the twentieth century. This is especially the case in the Christian and Muslim world; I am not sure about the Hindu and East Asian religions. The only religion I have studied in any depth is Christianity. Ranger, thank you for your comments re Adherents.com. I have been using it for stats because it is the only source I know. Can you provide a link to the sources you recommend? Thank you. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|