Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:26 pm The purpose God had is to create those capable of entering into a relationship with Him and experiencing and enjoying the love that He intrinsically has.
But I, for one, am still left wondering why God thought that worth doing.
We must have the choice to accept or reject the proposed relationship. Still, if He's a loving God, He must do everything He can to make us make the right choice
Well you are telling me this but there are others who would tell me something different, and still others who would tell something different again. Since God has never directly communicated his wishes to me -at least not in any way that I can understand- how am I supposed to know who to listen to should I decide to follow God's path.
He has revealed to us what His plan is,
Not to me, he hasn't.
and then has even gone so far as to pay off the injustice of our freewill misdeeds by dying for us Himself, on our behalf, so at to make our forgiveness fair and just.
I have genuinely tried to understand what this means but have never been able to make any sense of it. I assume you are talking about Christ "dying for us". He died because he was sentenced to death, how is that dying for us?
But don't take my word for it. Here's the Bible's version

I have already said what my attitude towards the Bible is. I don't know anything about the people who wrote what's in it, I have no way of knowing how reliable they are. In short, I have absolutely no reason to believe a single word of what's in the Bible. Besides, I don't understand the archaic language it's written in, and so have to rely on someone's interpretation of it, so I'm not even in possession of the original meaning, but rather just a version of it shaped by someone else's biases, prejudices and agenda.
  • "For God so loved the world, that He gave His unique Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
He only lent us his son, he's got him back now. Why is not believing in him such a deal breaker? I can't help what I do or don't believe. You are telling me something that I find implausible, I do not accept that I deserve to be punished for not believing you.
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Saved from what?
The short answer, then, is that we're here because God is love, and because He wants to bring us into a relationship with Him. We're not cosmic accidents or the detritus of an indifferent universe; we are here by God's deliberate intention, and are precious and valuable, and loved.
We may well be precious and valuable and loved within our families and perhaps even a wider circle but by the time the fact of our existence goes out into the Universe I believe it diminishes into insignificance. I cannot see it any other way, just as you cannot see things other than the way you do. Changing my beliefs on the off chance that I may have got it wrong and you may be right is not really an option for me, sorry.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Dubious »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:26 pm The short answer, then, is that we're here because God is love, and because He wants to bring us into a relationship with Him. We're not cosmic accidents or the detritus of an indifferent universe; we are here by God's deliberate intention, and are precious and valuable, and loved.
I remember that's what they told us in grade two but with each grade forwards there was less of a feeling of being true and just another version of a feel-good story. I stopped thumb-sucking a long time ago but obviously not everyone has.
User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Vendetta »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:26 pm The short answer, then, is that we're here because God is love, and because He wants to bring us into a relationship with Him. We're not cosmic accidents or the detritus of an indifferent universe; we are here by God's deliberate intention, and are precious and valuable, and loved.
I remember that's what they told us in grade two but with each grade forwards there was less of a feeling of being true and just another version of a feel-good story. I stopped thumb-sucking a long time ago but obviously not everyone has.
There is no "feeling" to truth. Something either is true, or it is not. Whether or not something "feels" true has nothing to do with it. Given that this theory/belief is logically plausible and cannot be fully proven otherwise makes it a valid viewpoint, regardless of how much of a "feel-good story" you may perceive it to be. The real question is what was it that caused you not to believe in this given that you had at one point.
Yes, they do say that if something seems too good to be true, it probably isn't (true), but that doesn't mean that there is never an instance in which something seems too good to be true and ends up being true regardless.
Dubious
Posts: 4000
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Dubious »

Vendetta wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 8:51 pm
Dubious wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:26 pm The short answer, then, is that we're here because God is love, and because He wants to bring us into a relationship with Him. We're not cosmic accidents or the detritus of an indifferent universe; we are here by God's deliberate intention, and are precious and valuable, and loved.
I remember that's what they told us in grade two but with each grade forwards there was less of a feeling of being true and just another version of a feel-good story. I stopped thumb-sucking a long time ago but obviously not everyone has.
There is no "feeling" to truth. Something either is true, or it is not. Whether or not something "feels" true has nothing to do with it. Given that this theory/belief is logically plausible and cannot be fully proven otherwise makes it a valid viewpoint, regardless of how much of a "feel-good story" you may perceive it to be. The real question is what was it that caused you not to believe in this given that you had at one point.
Yes, they do say that if something seems too good to be true, it probably isn't (true), but that doesn't mean that there is never an instance in which something seems too good to be true and ends up being true regardless.
When you're in grade two in a Catholic school you're fed loads of crap exactly like the kind IC espouses...BUT as mentioned, with each additional year even a relatively intelligent kid who isn't yet brainwashed gets the "feeling" that this isn't the "real" story without applying your brilliant analysis to the problem. Also note, truth is seldom digital.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Greta »

Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:07 pm
Greta wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:30 am In all the months I've known you, you have never given the slightest hint that you understand the logic of atheism.
Then show me the contrary logic.

Show me, for example, that Atheism is a moral position. Or that it's based in knowledge. Or that it can ground a society...or do any of the things I have said it cannot. If my logic is faulty, it should be a simple matter for your to show that. For it's easy to say "I don't believe you": but it's quite another to show you have reasons for your disbelief.
What atheism did was retain the useful (and usually instinctive) aspects of Christian morality but lessened the religion's quirky and irrational discrimination against women, gays and people of other religions. This was a huge and important moral step, especially bringing more gender equality. A society that aims to utilise the abilities of its people has a huge advantage, both in morale and capacity, over those that reflexively suppress or persecute certain groups for no logical reason. You will note that societies with weak gender equality and high homophobia due to religious beliefs are failing to compete, their cultures in danger of dissolution.

So our western secular societies have refined and improved upon the rough hewn morality of Christianity. It was a start but nothing stays the same, no matter how much you may wish it so.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can:
For God so loved the world, that He gave His unique Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
What is eternal life? What does it mean that Christ saves us?

Please remember that Jesus himself pointed out that the coin had Caesar's portrait on it. Jesus did not claim to have a magical way to dispel the evil of his real world i.e. the cruel Roman occupation. The moral of this story about Jesus is that we need to deal with reality on a worldly level, not on a supernatural level. Don't you ever get your hands dirty, Immanuel?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Walker »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 9:46 am What is eternal life? What does it mean that Christ saves us?
Re: eternal life.

Because of similarities with the present, we can infer with confidence that the past once existed as the present, but it does not exist now as the present.

The past and the future only exist as inferences.

Only the present exists. Existence is only in the present. Eternal life can only exist in the present. Eternal life is always in the present, although we can infer that because the past was once the present that eternal life existed in the past, and we can also infer that eternal life will exist in the future. But, eternal life does not now exist in the past, or the future.

Eternity only exists in the present. Since the world is in you, then living in the present, as opposed to living within the mental structures of past and present, is eternal life.

To be saved, is to be saved from living in the past and present.

The implication is that the present, and thus life which only exists in the present, is eternal.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

That interests me, Walker. I had not thought of the eternal now as a synonym for the present time as experienced.

I have two problems with this explanation . One is that I cannot learn anything unless I retain memories of the past for comparison.

And the other is that I cannot see how 'the present' is to be demarcated from the past and from the future; as a result it seems to me that time is rate of change, so that 'past' and 'future' are models of what has changed and of what will change . The dimensionless point of change then is what we call the present.

From the perspective of psychology any individual who lacks memory is impaired enough for their life to be in danger.

I don't want to believe that eternity is nonsensical, because I personally feel devoted to belief and trust in reality. I doubt very much that transient creatures can experience eternity however I prefer to believe that reality itself, i.e. eternity, is permanent.
Last edited by Belinda on Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Walker »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:51 pm That interests me, Walker. I had not thought of the eternal now as a synonym for the present time as experienced.

I have two problems with this explanation . One is that I cannot learn anything unless I retain memories of the past for comparison.

And the other is that I cannot see how 'the present' is to be demarcated from the past and from the future; as a result it seems to me that time is rate of change, so that 'past' and 'future' are models of what has changed and of what will change . The dimensionless point of change then is what we call the present.

From the perspective of psychology any individual who lacks memory is impaired enough for their life to be in danger.
Memory is subsumed, not replaced.
Belinda
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Belinda »

Subsumed under what, Walker?
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Walker »

Belinda wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:00 pm Subsumed under what, Walker?
(Snapshot to hold: rhythm of bongos and a flute following a voice, dark pants and black turtleneck, smokey room.)

Memory is subsumed into the present. Knowledge of the present means what it says, but this knowledge can be all encompassing, or it can be enslaved to what is not subsumed into the present, which would be attachment to delusion. All-encompassing knowledge means that which encompasses the limitations of form and incarnation. Considering that the universe is a concept and man has been to the moon, limitations are mind creations. :wink:
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 6604
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Lacewing »

Walker wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:12 pm ...
So, Jesus was instructing people to live in the NOW? :lol: Wonderful. It's fascinating to watch theist interpretations of God and Jesus and theism shift to align with current enlightenment. Over the past few weeks, I've seen this reflected in theist postings in ways that it has not been before. Even if it's not completely recognized or outwardly acknowledged by theists, this is encouraging... the theist scope is broadening!

Makes me wonder... will the theist message shift such that it can pretend to have always been the teacher of modern enlightenment? Or will it dissolve from dilution after broadening such that it can no longer prescribe to its ideas of separation and its resulting judgments?

How can anyone not love evolution? There's just no sense in being unmoving.
Walker
Posts: 14280
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Walker »

Lacewing wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:39 pm
Walker wrote: Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:12 pm So, Jesus was instructing people to live in the NOW? :lol: Wonderful. It's fascinating to watch theist interpretations of God and Jesus and theism shift to align with current enlightenment. Over the past few weeks, I've seen this reflected in theist postings in ways that it has not been before. Even if it's not completely recognized or outwardly acknowledged by theists, this is encouraging... the theist scope is broadening!
Interesting, I didn't know that through the experiences of roving around the internet as you have discovered, seeing as how I've been roving around nature as of late. However, it does make sense, whether or not my sensing of sarcastic delight is an actual projection. As an agent of the public domain and thus witnessing the flow, it only makes sense that each of us is a fragile, if not lacelike, breath of eternity.

8)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 5:52 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:26 pm The purpose God had is to create those capable of entering into a relationship with Him and experiencing and enjoying the love that He intrinsically has.
But I, for one, am still left wondering why God thought that worth doing.
Okay, fair enough. I'll admit, sometimes the human race doesn't seem very admirable.
We must have the choice to accept or reject the proposed relationship. Still, if He's a loving God, He must do everything He can to make us make the right choice
Well you are telling me this but there are others who would tell me something different, and still others who would tell something different again. Since God has never directly communicated his wishes to me -at least not in any way that I can understand- how am I supposed to know who to listen to should I decide to follow God's path.
Jesus said, "He who has ears, let Him hear." That is, if you want to know, you can. But of course, not everybody wants to listen. You have to decide what you want to do, really. I don't doubt you're capable.
and then has even gone so far as to pay off the injustice of our freewill misdeeds by dying for us Himself, on our behalf, so at to make our forgiveness fair and just.
I have genuinely tried to understand what this means but have never been able to make any sense of it. I assume you are talking about Christ "dying for us". He died because he was sentenced to death, how is that dying for us?
That's a good question, but there's an answer.

I'll give you the short version, and you can choose if you want to know more.

God is just. Justice must be fair. Fair means "everybody gets what they deserve." Hitlers and Stalins must be answered. So must local thugs, thieves and liars. But then, so must you and me. Is not the old criticism of God, "He's not fair, because He allows injustice?" Well, what if He doesn't? What if He can put off judgment for a time, perhaps; but not forever? That makes sense, doesn't it? Because if He DID put justice off forever, how could He then be just? So if He's got to do something, He's got to do something about all of us -- including you and me.

But, we might say, How is that loving? If God is love, how can he judge anyone? So now it's a pickle, isn't it? A good God can't not-judge, but a loving God cannot judge us.

But what if God could make a way conclusively to demonstrate His total judgment against evil, but still offer us a way not to be on the receiving end of that?

That is, to coin a phrase, the "crucial" proposition. If God will judge, but not judge you personally, would you accept that as a sufficient demonstration of His justice, and accept that demonstration for yourself? Would you even believe it? And if you did, would you be satisfied that God was fair in offering it? Or would you prefer to say, "Nobody stands in for me: I stand or fall on my own merits"?

One problem left: can He make us take that option? Can He force us all to accept it, and still be said to allow us free will? Or does He have to offer it, and let us decide whether or not we think His solution is good enough to stand in our place? Or does every person have an unalienable right to choose whether He will cling to his own terms of "justice," or accept God's proposed solution?

That's it in a very quick package. I'm sure there are follow up questions, but I'll only trouble you with them if you are interested.
But don't take my word for it. Here's the Bible's version

I have already said what my attitude towards the Bible is. I don't know anything about the people who wrote what's in it, I have no way of knowing how reliable they are. In short, I have absolutely no reason to believe a single word of what's in the Bible. Besides, I don't understand the archaic language it's written in, and so have to rely on someone's interpretation of it, so I'm not even in possession of the original meaning, but rather just a version of it shaped by someone else's biases, prejudices and agenda.
I understand the instinctive anxiety. But it's not nearly so hard as you are suggesting. The Bible is the best-translated book in human history...more often and more carefully pored-over by smarter people than any other text. More translations and tools are available to direct it today than at any time in history... and they're practically instantly accessible. See here, for example: http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm

We can read very well for ourselves. And with that, God promises we can understand what we need to -- if, as He said, we have "ears to hear."
  • "For God so loved the world, that He gave His unique Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
He only lent us his son, he's got him back now. Why is not believing in him such a deal breaker?
Well, the short answer is as above: God cannot force people to accept His solution to the injustice problem, and still give them free will. To "believe" is nothing more than to say that we accept the terms of the solution God is offering us as just and fair. We don't have to accept that, but then we are declaring our preference to stand or fall in front of a Judge who must be just with us, and to do so on our own merits.

We can do that, but we are not promised a happy outcome: how could we be? In fact, if (as you indicated at the opening of your last message) we have reason to wonder why God would put up with such as we are at all, then we have good reason to be hesitant about standing up to the perfect Judge on the basis of what we are, don't we?
I can't help what I do or don't believe. You are telling me something that I find implausible, I do not accept that I deserve to be punished for not believing you.
No, not at all. I'm only saying "Listen to what God says, and decide if you think it's Him saying it." Consider the offer God is making to answer the problem of justice on your behalf, and decide whether or not it's the one you want to take. What could be fairer?
For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
Saved from what?
From judgment.

After all, we humans have long been calling for just that: we say, "How can a good God allow evil to happen?" Look at Hitler...look at Stalin..." or more modestly, "Look how unfair my life is...look at how people have hurt, insulted, betrayed and abused me. If God is so good, how can He allow this to go on?"

Good question. But what are we asking for, but for God to judge? However, if He is to judge the evil in other people, what do we expect Him to do about the evil in us? What does a truly "just" God have to do, in that respect?
...by the time the fact of our existence goes out into the Universe I believe it diminishes into insignificance.
Yeah, it's easy to think so. We are very, very tiny.

The Bible asks that very question: "What is man, that You [i.e. God] are mindful of him?" it asks, with rhetorical flair. It's an old question and a very good one. Really, it's the same point you made at the beginning: why would God bother?

That's the surprising thing: He does. That is why we say, "God is love." There's really no good reason He has to care.
I cannot see it any other way, just as you cannot see things other than the way you do. Changing my beliefs on the off chance that I may have got it wrong and you may be right is not really an option for me, sorry.
I'd never ask you to do it gratuitously. And why should you believe me anyway? I see no reason you should.

But we human beings are not fated to believe one thing between the womb and the tomb, and incapable of others. We can investigate and decide for ourselves, and we can change our minds if something strikes us as smarter or better than what we've known before. We can learn.

And that is all God is asking us to do. We investigate, decide whether we like the version of things God is offering us or would rather stand on strict justice -- everybody getting what they deserve. And having decided, we live with the decision either way.

Really, nothing could be fairer.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22263
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

Post by Immanuel Can »

Dubious wrote: Sun Jul 23, 2017 7:49 pm I remember that's what they told us in grade two but with each grade forwards there was less of a feeling of being true and just another version of a feel-good story. I stopped thumb-sucking a long time ago but obviously not everyone has.
I'm sorry that the people who tried to speak about it did such a terrible job of representing it. That's yet another good reason to read it for ourselves.
Post Reply