Why do you care whether it makes sense or not? Are you in fact a Christian who believes in predestination and considers those who do not to be falling into error? Have you detected a heresy you are keen to stamp out?
I mean, obviously the answer to those two questions is no, but it sounds like it could be yes. Not only are people wrong to believe in Christianity, but worse than that, they’re believing in the wrong kind of Christianity!
As a matter of fact, millions of Christians (not to mention Jews, Hindus, Muslims etc.) do believe in free will and that they have a moral responsibility to freely choose to avoid sin/error/wrongdoing, and that if they don’t, the resulting consequences will be due to their choices. To justify this belief, they can refer to their holy book(s) and the writings of their holy men and the preachings of their spiritual leaders. So to say that atheism differs from religion in making you alone responsible for your actions is not accurate. (Although I do get where @Sam_Stone was coming from).
Judging by the number of people who throughout history have committed what their religion considers sins deserving of hell, the threat of such punishment doesn’t stay religious people’s hands, either.
It may not be settled in theology; but it’s a logical consequence.
Garrison Keillor got a batch of things very wrong, but he got some of them right. He made a reference in one of his shows to “that’s the god who they don’t believe in”.
A lot of atheists – and the Christians – don’t believe in the other ones either, of course. But I do think any serious discussion needs to include “what do you mean by God?”
Well, in Christianity you are condemned to hell from conception, you are evil until you prove otherwise, and who can say for sure if your efforts to do so will be effective or not? Moral agency? Pfui!
I hate this this too. But even worse then participating, is the look of incredulity that is given when you say that you don’t want to participate. It’s basically: “how could you not want to participate in our nice little tradition that stuffs our religion down your throat?”
I once had a client at work who asked me to join him in prayer. I told him we didn’t share religions. He replied, “oh, you don’t look jewish”. When I told him I was an atheist his jaw dropped.
I just recently came across a term for this: “aggrieved entitlement”. I’ve been trying to put it into words since I gave up religion and was very happy to come across the term.
Millions of believers believe in all sorts of contradictory things based on the same set of books. And they pick which spiritual leaders to listen to, all of whom are absolutely convinced they have the same reading of the work. In Christianity, as I understand it, you can avoid wrongdoing all you want but you are still going to hell if you don’t accept Jesus. Good marketing, terrible way to live.
The difference between atheism and some religions is that in atheism you know you need to work out an ethical code. You might borrow from philosophy but who you borrow from is up to you. In some religions you take it from a holy book, and if the holy book is unethical by modern standards you have to follow it anyway because God says so.
To a certain extent even the religious choose their own moral code because they decide which variety of God to believe in, but that is possible only because God seems to be hiding, and so no one knows for sure what he wants or even if he is there.
It matters to me because it demonstrates how incoherent their beliefs are; they aren’t just making baseless claims, it’s impossible for them to be right since their beliefs are internally contradictory or outright nonsensical. And it matters because they have power, and force their irrationality on everyone else whether we want it or not. And on top of that, it poisons our whole society; we fundamentally don’t respect facts and logic, because if we did we’d have to reject the religions that dominate our society.
Therefore blatantly false and irrational claims and beliefs are treated with respect - not just religious ones - because in the name of religion we’ve elevated irrationality and falsehood to respectability, even to virtues.
Hah, don’t you realize that the problem is your puny human mind can’t comprehend the God thing at all? When you say “internally contradictory” God says “I am.” When you say “outright nonsensical” God still says “I am.” In other words, logic and rationality are not up to the job, the only thing that works is complete and unquestioning faith. Faith, baby, that’s where it’s at!
I mean, no it isn’t. I don’t particularly wish to go into this rabbit hole or the one I’m about to bring up but there are in fact logically coherent cases for free will existing in a universe created by a triple Omni god.
The one I’m about to bring up is: it is pretty damn difficult to construct free will from the starting point of pure materialism too! If the claim is “only atheism allows free will” then there is a lot of work to do to establish how free will arises in a universe that is largely determinate except when it’s random. “Something handwavy about quantum” doesn’t really cut it. But what is even harder is establishing a logically coherent view of materialist free will that doesn’t map really really easily to triple Omni god free will.
Of course, the simple answer is to embrace Mind/Matter duality but most western atheists won’t have any truck with that. (Having give it a go, I am too dumb to understand Mind/Matter duality).
“I am the way the truth and the light, no one comes to the father except through me” is a statement with many attributes which at least one person here is going to wrongly imagine I wish to debate, but what is not really debatable is that it is a statement made by somebody who is saying for sure whether your efforts will be successful. “We definitely know how to live right and we can say for sure” is kind of a major plank of the whole religion platform. What was Sam’s original point if not that Christianity and religion generally do in fact offer pretty clear guidance on how to live right and that atheism is unique in not doing so?
Not quoting the whole post for reasons of length but the response to all of it is:
Yes? And? So?
Quoting this for completion and because it’s a good exemplar:
The worst thing about being an atheist is all the other atheists who bang on about how awful Christianity is at the drop of a hat. Non-belief ought to be simply non-belief but it always seems to be anchored in a dogmatic view of Christianity that sounds like nothing so much as sectarianism. “These false believers are poisoning the pure well of our truth, we must confront their lies and preach the wisdom that will lead to salvation.”
I’ve not even criticised.atheism in this thread, I’ve just disputed one posters description of it and four different people have responded with variations on “Yeah well, what about Christianity, it’s illogical and cruel and it’s followers are dumb or hypocrites or unethical”. A non sequitur that really only allows for the responses:
What about Christianity? What about Jainism while we’re here? and
And so I don’t think that’s a difference between being religious and being atheist.
I don’t want to go further into this rabbit hole either; I think it would need to be its own thread. I’ll just say that I’ve seen at least some of them and wasn’t convinced; and that I don’t find ‘it’s hard to construct free will from materialism’ convincing either. That doesn’t make it any easier to construct it from the triomni.
Of Christianity. (At least most versions.)
There are religions which say ‘we know how we’re supposed to live. Maybe you’re supposed to live some other way.’ And religions which say ‘these are some varied good ways that people live’.
And so, to nonbelievers (and some believers), that guidance doesn’t look clear at all.
Sorry to intrude on what looks to be the usual dick-size war, but it seems pretty clear to me that a very recognizable set of mores has been part of human societies independent of whatever fables, rituals and catechisms eventually emerge to codify them. It’s the projection of a person-in-the-sky that seems manipulative to atheists.
Request: in these types of discussions, could posters please just speak for themselves? Whether an atheist or some flavor of religionist, there is a wide variety of views, so much so that it seems to me presumptuous for any one person to attempt to speak for any group, however defined.
This is only a request, not a moral imperative or anything. I think it makes the discussion both more accurate and more personal.
I really dislike when people say, “I’m not religious, but I respect all religions.” That tells me they’re not paying attention. Also, they’re probably male.
If you ask me if I am tired of playing the Heads-I-Win Tails-You-Lose No-Answer Answer Game with religionists, my answer is “I am”. By the way, I have absolute irrefutable proof that gods do not exist…but it is current stored outside the universe in an unlocked box free for anyone to peruse.
Not really, it always happens, but I thought it could be slightly better that way. These threads always all turn into the same discussion. No-one’s mind is changed, no-one’s method of deciding how they find what is true is changed. Still we go on, and on.