Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Politesse]

This is sort of how the book ends, actually. Presumably Jesus could have avoided his fate if any of his claims about himself were true, but he went willingly to his death. If that's not suicide, it's at least in the same neighborhood.

If we take what was written about him as true, then he knew that his death was going to be temporary, and he was looking forward to his glorification.

Harry Potter also gave up his life to save his friends, but unlike Jesus, Harry didn't know that he was going to be resurrected. That makes his sacrifice more substantial, in my view.

But putting Jesus aside, we see in the parable of Lazarus that, in your own words, "Not caring about the suffering of others leads to your own suffering." If that's true, then all of us will end up suffering like the rich man, because there will always be someone else in our sphere of influence that is suffering.

Just as the omni-benevolent God wanted.

That may well be. So what should our response to suffering be?

 

[James Brown]

This is sort of how the book ends, actually. Presumably Jesus could have avoided his fate if any of his claims about himself were true, but he went willingly to his death. If that's not suicide, it's at least in the same neighborhood.

If we take what was written about him as true, then he knew that his death was going to be temporary, and he was looking forward to his glorification.

Harry Potter also gave up his life to save his friends, but unlike Jesus, Harry didn't know that he was going to be resurrected. That makes his sacrifice more substantial, in my view.

But putting Jesus aside, we see in the parable of Lazarus that, in your own words, "Not caring about the suffering of others leads to your own suffering." If that's true, then all of us will end up suffering like the rich man, because there will always be someone else in our sphere of influence that is suffering.

Just as the omni-benevolent God wanted.

That may well be. So what should our response to suffering be?

Good question. Off the top of my head, I'd say it would be, "Do the best you can to alleviate the suffering. But don't worry that if you don't do enough according to someone else, you'll suffer eternal torment for it as a cautionary example to others."

 

[Politesse]

That may well be. So what should our response to suffering be?

Good question. Off the top of my head, I'd say it would be, "Do the best you can to alleviate the suffering. But don't worry that if you don't do enough according to someone else, you'll suffer eternal torment for it as a cautionary example to others."

You're reading a fair bit into the story, I think. It's just a parable. As you do to others, so will be done to you.

 

[Gun Nut]

So when someone claims to believe in a god, goes to church, prays, invokes their god at funerals and weddings, teaches their children about their god, listens to experts who claim to know things about their god, gives money to these god experts, sings to their god, but spends most of their time doing mundane things that have nothing to do with their god, what can we know about this person? What does this person actually believe? What is their behavior telling us about their stated belief that they have a god?

It tells me that this person and their brain really enjoy their god fantasy, which for them may even be something healthy, but that it takes a back seat to getting on with life proper. Sounds a lot like Natural Selection to me.

people "invest" in things they don't really believe all the time. One word... Christmas. I can list far more "things" that people actually do.. go out of their way to.. complain about doing even (putting up lights, anyone?).. The amount of revenue that Christmas generates.. the amount of business that depends almost solely on Christmas investments... sorry... the RITUALS people perform have nothing whatsoever to what they actually believe. I grant that churchgoers believe that performing and perpetuating those rituals are some kind of "good thing".. I grant that. But if what you list proves that people believe in god, then what I list proves they believe in a magic Santa Clause that actually lives at the north pole, and can see everything they do and keeps a list, etc...

 

[Treedbear]

...
What I want to know is how Christians can rationalize the idea that humans evolved from non-humans while also believing that all humans descended from one man and one woman.

...
I have aldo been told that Genesis is allegory. The problem we face is not that we're held accountable for one sin committed in The Long Ago, but that Man struggles with our capacity for sin, a stain we can ask Jesus to wash out.
...

I just want to focus on the above explanation since it's the most likely one used by Christian apologists concerning evolution and how it potentially conflicts with Genesis.

Pope Pius XII's teaching can be summarized as follows:

• The question of the origin of man's body from pre-existing and living matter is a legitimate matter of inquiry for natural science. Catholics are free to form their own opinions, but they should do so cautiously; they should not confuse fact with conjecture, and they should respect the Church's right to define matters touching on Revelation.
• Catholics must believe, however, that humans have souls created immediately by God. Since the soul is a spiritual substance it is not brought into being through transformation of matter, but directly by God, whence the special uniqueness of each person.
• All men have descended from an individual, Adam, who has transmitted original sin to all mankind. Catholics may not, therefore, believe in "polygenism", the scientific hypothesis that mankind descended from a group of original humans (that there were many Adams and Eves).

Some theologians believe Pius XII explicitly excludes belief in polygenism as licit. Another interpretation might be this: As we have nowadays in fact models of thinking of how to reconcile polygenism with the original sin, it need not be condemned. The relevant sentence is this:

Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion (polygenism) can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.
— Pius XII, Humani generis, 37 and footnote refers to Romans 5:12–19; Council of Trent, Session V, Canons 1–4

That seems to be the bottom line. And Catholics aren't exactly known for demanding a literal interpretation of the Bible, in contrast with many Protestants sects. The point is that this conflict between science and revelation undermines the very basis on which Christianity rests.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A person who is, to all appearances, dead; But who later is clearly alive, wasn't dead.

Except the minor hiccup of he doesn't stick around. People see him, but then he is gone. Nice fleeting miracle.

Angel: Why do you seek the living among the dead?

Body Swabber: Oh, where is he? We'd love to speak to him.

Angel: Well... he uhh... metaphorically speaking...

Body Swabber: Is he dead or not?

Angel: I gotta go!

 

[ruby sparks]

If I'm not mistaken, there apparently may have been an early christian textual account in which Jesus was executed a second time shortly after the resurrection but did not rise from the dead again. It may have been omitted from the canon for obvious reasons. I read about it in a book entitled, 'Jesus: so good they crucified him twice'.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If I'm not mistaken, there apparently may have been an early christian textual account in which Jesus was executed a second time shortly after the resurrection but did not rise from the dead again. It may have been omitted from the canon for obvious reasons. I read about it in a book entitled, 'Jesus: so good they crucified him twice'.

Well, if they didn't put a stake in his heart the first time, of course he'll rise again. Can't half-ass these sort of things.

 

[ruby sparks]

Gosh. Now the blood-drinking starts to make sense.

 

[blastula]

Although, I disagree with Gun-Nut that virutally no one sincerely believes in God, I do agree that actions and behavior are a needed and stronger indicator of sincere belief, beyond uttering the words "I believe in God".

Most of the arguments discounting the role of behavior in reflecting belief are using invalid comparisons.

For example, take a smoker who does sincerely believe that smoking is bad for their health. The belief that smoking is bad is merely a belief that it makes a bad outcome more likely, but not certain. In fact, 84% of moderate lifetime smokers will not get lung cancer. So, smoking doesn't actually conflict with the belief that smoking is bad.

As if the average person understands statistics and risk assessment so well.

However, a belief that and all knowing God punishes those who do X is not probabilistic, it is certain. In fact, the major motive to believe in such gods is that it makes outcomes certain and therefore reduces existential angst. There are no beating those odds. Thus, doing X is a stronger indicator that you don't believe in a God that punishes X, than is the case for smoking and beliefs that smoking is bad.

Everyone has different theologies, not all Christians believe in hell, but even among those who do, a very popular theology is that those who believe in Jesus are forgiven their sins.

Sure, you could also add a belief that God will forgive you, if you ask nicely, but that just shows that one's actions do reflect one's theistic beliefs, so much so that people need to invent corollary beliefs to tack onto basic theism in order to allow themselves to engage in various behaviors.

The forgiveness theology is no more invented than any other theology. And what action is reflecting what belief here? You got it backwards. By your own framing, the belief is a response to behavior.

If you sincerely believed that the God of the Bible existed and that the Bible was his word, you would read, think, and talk about the Bible constantly. That b/c such beliefs inherently would make understanding what is actually being meant in every Bible passage more pragmatically important than anything and have more assumed impact on your and societies' well being than all of science combined.

If such beliefs were sincere and held with confidence, then the consequences of failing to fully understand the Bible would be so certain, severe, and infinitely more long lasting, extreme, and certain than the consequence of anything else that people do. And those theists that don't give any special deference to the Bible or particular source of information would still spend most of their waking hours thinking and talking about what that God wanted and how to achieve it.

To claim that these behavior don't follow from sincere theistic belief is to claim that people's actions are not driven by the most basic desires to avoid pain and seek pleasure.

You got it backwards again. Short term pleasure is commonly overvalued compared to longer term benefits.

It would be analogous to the belief that a meteor was definitively going to strike Earth and end all life in 10 years from now, unless we could find a way to stop it. IOW, sincere belief in anything close to Abrahamic monotheism where eternal suffering can only be avoided by knowing and following God's will would psychologically and behaviorally look like the sincere belief of scientists who knew with scientific levels of certainty that a meteor was going to kill them and all life within a few year, unless we figured out how to stop it. Virtually every person who believed it and expected they or their loved one's will still be alive would be obsessed with it and constantly talking about it and wanting every social resource to be directed at figuring out how to prevent it. Nothing else would matter by relative importance. The only exception would be people who also sincerely believed in an afterlife and thought that the meteor was sent by God and therefore nothing could be done. And actually, that would mean they don't actually believe there is anything that could be done, which means their lack of action to stop it would be a reflection of their lack of belief that it could be stopped. With the God the most monotheists say they believe in, it isn't just material death at stake but (according to what they claim to believe) the eternal well being of their soul, the equivalent of potential suffering infinite painful material deaths over and over. So, actually this analogy undersells just how extreme and all consuming the thoughts, discussion, and action would be if most of society sincerely believed in the God of the Bible.

I anticipate responses like "But people who believe in climate change still don't act to act though they do." Like smoking and cancer, climate change is a highly uncertain probabilistic thing. The reason that few people are doing anything about it is that they don't hold at least one or more of the following beliefs: 1) That the effects will definitely be catastrophic for human civilization, 2)That it will happen within their or their kids' lifetime. 3) That there is anything they personally could do that would make a difference.

As if humans are so rational about facing bad events. Unless it's happening in the present moment, humans commonly won't react like you want from your conception of the perfectly rational human.

 

[blastula]

I don't see how that is comparable. A belief is a mental state, it's not a bodily behavior.

Just describe what would qualify as establishing the belief.

How is a belief not a physical arrangement in the brain? How is anything "mental" not a physical arrangement in the brain? Behavior doesn't even need a brain to be behavior.

I'm nit picking I know but any "belief" is ultimately something physical, and with sufficient knowledge can be documented and quantified such. We're not there presently but there isn't anything non-physical involved.

I mean it's not something he can observe. You can't tell if a person is lying about the contents of their mental state by observing their actions.

If there were a lie detector that was 100% reliable, does anybody think that all or even most of the people who claim to believe in god would be detected as lying?

Were any of the former theists here lying about their belief back then? I know I wasn't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If there were a lie detector that was 100% reliable, does anybody think that all or even most of the people who claim to believe in god would be detected as lying?

Hell, i could probably pass a lie detector test on an event that happened to my Dad in boot camp before i was born. I just have been told the story so very, very often, and shared it myself, that i accept it as reality.
Someone spends 20, 40, 80 years telling people they're Christain, they more than likely believe it if for no other reason than repetition.

 

[blastula]

Yes, but this is about belief not knowledge.

 

[skepticalbip]

If there were a lie detector that was 100% reliable, does anybody think that all or even most of the people who claim to believe in god would be detected as lying?

No, although I would think that most do not believe in all the claims about god that their professed religion claim. I think theists invent their own concepts of their god but those concepts are heavily influenced by their religion.

Now turn that around. Would this perfect lie detector find that many who claim to be staunch atheists are lying? I've found that many do still hold some feelings of some 'unknown power' but not as described by any existing religion. There are 'atheists' who are fearful in graveyards at night, think there is something to the ouija board, tarot cards, astrology, etc.

 

[blastula]

Well, some are confused about the term atheism. There have been polls about evolution that show some (small percent of) self-identified atheists believe life evolved over time guided by a "supreme being." Not sure that should count as lying.

Some atheists still have a fear of hell, but that's not really a lie as much as an ingrained, conditioned attitude, like a reflex.

 

[skepticalbip]

But then beliefs are not arrived at through rational consideration. If someone has a fear of hell then they believe it is real, meaning a belief in some judging intelligence... even if they rationally reason it is BS.

Or as you so aptly stated just a little earlier in this thread, "Yes, but this is about belief not knowledge."

 

[blastula]

Yes, the hell reflex is not out of rational deliberation. But I don't think we should judge our beliefs on theism based on our reflexive non thought out attitudes.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

There are 'atheists' who are fearful in graveyards at night...

I rode my bike to and from work for 20 years. The ride home took place anytime between midnight and 2:00am. The route was almost the same except on the ride home I was able to cross major roads much more safely so I took a route home at night that was just too busy during the day.

At one point I had to ride several hundred feet along a guardrail, nothing on the other side but trees, brush, water, etc., and it was on a hill so I had quite the slow ride uphill in the dark. On some nights a raccoon would suddenly growl at me from the darkness, scare the shit out of me, especially since I was moving so slowly uphill. Downhill during the day, no problem.

Walking through dark graveyards has nothing to do with the graveyard and everything to do with the darkness. The proof is that walking through the graveyard during the day doesn't raise a hair.

This is a selected-for behavior wrt unseen danger, it pays to stay alert. I don't think gods or spooks or beliefs are involved.

 

[skepticalbip]

^ ^ ^

In your, case that may be the true. But when growing up I knew several people who claimed to be atheists who refused to go through the local graveyard (which has no trees or underbrush) to get to an area overlooking a river we would gather to party (which does have lots of trees and brush). They would take a much longer route (a couple miles) to get there.

 

[Random Person]

If someone claims to believe something other than what I believe then I can be sure they are lying.