After all, it's much easier to argue your position if you understand the position of the other man. It's fairly useless to simply say, "well, he's an idiot."
1. Bad things happen because we are a sinful people
Why does god let little kids die of cancer? Well, it's because we as a society have not accepted his word, lock stock and barrel, god withdraws his "providence" and allows bad things
to happen to us as a society. We've done it to ourselves.2. Nothing matters but getting to heaven
It doesn't matter what shape we leave the earth, or what shape our bodies are in, because according to scripture, god will create a whole new paradise earth and we will be transformed to perfect creatures. Everything will revert to the way it was when god first created the earth. Hence, recycling and conservation are unimportant endevors. Besides, we should be spending our time number 3.
3. They CAN'T shut up about it already
Jesus's last command, before ascending into heaven, was that christians should go out and teach everyone about his sacrifice. Therefore, all evangelicals MUST share their faith with everyone, everywhere, at anytime. This means we anyone and anything who interferes with spreading this message of christian salvation must be eliminated. If they aren't, they will prevent other people from being saved, and their immortal soul is in danger. (See Mark 16:15)
4. You are just going to hell, period.
You could be the best person on the earth who gives selflessly to many and sacrifices your entire live to ease suffering whenever and wherever you see it, but unless you've excepted JC into your heart, you will go to hell. This is because Any bible-believing christian knows that it is impossible for us to be perfect enough to please god. Therefore, god sent his perfect son to be sacrificed in our place. Unless you accept that, you ain't going to heaven, not no how, not no way.
5. There is a devil, and he is as real as you or I, and he is responsible for anything bad.
Unless, of course, it's just god testing your faith. (See next section on contradictions)
6. Abortion bad, death penalty good, and here's why.
Babies are completely innocent because they have not had the chance to reject the jesus thing. The death penalty is different because they are not innocent, but if they accept jesus into their heart, they can still be saved.
Common Contradictions: The subjective nature of Evangelical Idealology
- If you try and try to get something you want, or reach some goal, and find it difficult, it may be that god is testing you, or it could bet that the devil is hampering your effort. How do you know? Pray, and it will be revealed to you.
- If you have self doubts, it is God speaking to you that this is not his will. Or else its t
he devil putting doubt into into your heart. How do you know? Pray, and it will be revealed to you. - God is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent. That means he knows all, is more powerful than anything else in the universe, and has always been and always will exist. This means that he knows whether you will be saved or not in advance. But you still have free will. And you're still going to hell if you don't accept the salvation that he knew you weren't going to accept.
- If you're doing very well, and prospering, then god favors you, and that's good. Unless he's allowing Satan to temp you. Which is bad.
I hope this helps clear some misunderstandings. I didn't say it was logical, but there it is.
Added on 2/29:
4. The book, "The Holy Bible" is the inspired and direct word of god. God breathed it into those who wrote it, and every single work, EVERY SINGLE WORD, is infallible and should be used as a guide for our lives. This includes the story of Lot (See Genesis 19), the stories of Jesus and his temper tantrums (See Mark 11:12-21) and the fact that, in several places in the book, things are listed as having a diameter of 10 units and a perimeter of 30 units, a direct contradiction of what we know about pi (for example, 1 Kings 7:23). It is the ultimate source and direction for how we should lead our lives and make decisions. PERIOD.
...
14 gave their 2 cents:
Interesting - let's look at each point. (From a former atheist)
1. Bad things happen because ...
The problem of evil has never been shown to be a sound argument and the theodicies that defend against it are quite strong - I hope this isn't the reason you are an atheist.
2. Nothing matters...
I guess Christians don't care about the environment or healthy
lifestyles - good use of induction.
3. They CAN"T shut up about it already....
Hmm - I sense some hypocracy.
Atheists with blogs probably shouldn't complain about those
moron Christians speaking about
their views.
4. You are just going to hell, period.
Looks like a lack of understanding of the Christian doctrine of Hell. The description is a typical misconception.
6. Abortion bad, death penalty good, and here's why.
Another good use of induction - all Christians support the death penalty.
Common Contradictions:
God is omnicient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.
A lot of good literature on reconciling these attributes -
although this is the best point
on this whole blog (although it
is not a justifiable reason for disbelief)
How about we do a little atheism 101:
1. My atheistic reasoning is grounded in logic
whereas theistic belief is based on blind faith.
Disbelief is never a logical conclusion but always one of
A) ignorance
B) personal preference
C) self deception of (A) and (B)
Logic never forced anyone to be
an atheist.
2. I'm an atheist because my beliefs are grounded in science.
Science tells you nothing about the ultimate origin of the universe (first cause) or the origin of life (Abiogenesis).
Belief in nothing is no more grounded in science than belief in something.
3. Christians would rather die
than think.
Another great use of induction.
4. I see no reason to believe in God so the burden of proof is on the theist.
A cop out for the atheist - the burden of proof is at best undecided in theism vs. atheism.
Thanks for this great post. I really like your blog and I've added you to my blog roll!
www.thegreenatheist.com
If you have read previous posts, John, you'd see that I'm speaking about fundamentalist, evangelical christians. Of which I used to be a proud and strong member. Obviously there is some variation in this group, but by and large this is the general consensus. and by the way, I am an atheist because I can no longer quiet the voice in my head that questions the contradictions and lack of logic involved in believing that the bible is the direct word of god.
So from your argument, you are saying that because I don't know how the universe is formed, and nobody knows for sure, we should believe in christian mytholody? Sorry, I don't buy that. why not just believe in Ra, Krishna, or the giant spaghetti monster? They are just as viable. The bible was written over thousands of years by people, and there is nothing in it that could not have been written by people living at that time, right down to the screwed up information (that was known to those authors) of the ratio of circumference to radius as being 3. Wouldn't something inspired by a god be accurate (say, 3.14....)?
John, atheist bloggers write about our experiences and views for whoever comes looking. There are a few people, Dawkins etc, who are outspoken and in your face about atheism, but they are the exception. Even in Canada, I get mormons and JWs coming door to door, Campus Crusade kids bothering people at university, and general well-meaning Christians trying to convert me at inconsiderate times.
The point here is not that all christians hold all these views, but that, by faith, a great many christians do hold a great many of these dumbass contradictory illogical views.
Disbelief is never a logical conclusion? True that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but why believe based on a lack of evidence? By nature, the conclusion of disbelief based on lack of evidence should always be provisional, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a sound conclusion. Read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World for a further discussion of this point.
As for creation of the universe and abiogenesis, there's no reason to think that we won't come up with a solution for abiogenesis sometime in the not too distant future. Scientists haven't been working on abiogenesis for very long, hell, we've only had knowledge of the structure of DNA for 53 years. Be patient. As for the creation of the universe, if you're uncomfortable with that, just become a Deist. No reason to assume the Christian god, especially when genesis has little correlation to reality.
Would Christians rather die than think? Don't you want to go to heaven, John?
As for burden of proof, Sagan deals with that one too. If I claim to be able to fly, are you going to assume I'm telling the truth or are you going to want proof? And if you want proof, are you going to extract it yourself or would you expect me to prove it to you?
Lynn's daughter, nice post there. It's always good to hear from the deconverted.
I arrived here by way of the Friendly Atheist blog. Good work, Lynn's daughter. It's nice to hear from someone who has been there.
Nance
Hi Lynn's daughter,
I'm also a former fundy evangelical, now atheist for about the last 5 years. Nice to meet a fellow traveler! :-)
Like Nance, I arrived here from Hemant's Friendly Atheist blog.
I grew up attending Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa during the "Jesus People" days. (Ever see "Thief in the Night"?) If you're interested, I help moderate a support group for former fundamentalists worried about "coming out of the closet" and current fundamentalists working their way out of blind faith into reason.
We're over at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exit-fundyism/ and would love to have you join us if you're interested.
Hi Lynn's daughter.
Great post. Covers a lot of the wierder fundamental notions.
John:
Atheism 101 revisited:
1) This is a straw-man argument. You cannot prove, by logic, that Christianity is true either. I don't know of any Atheist that says that they chose atheism due to a logical deduction... though they will frequently use the colloquialism that their choice "is logical". Don't confuse these two.
The latter is common - I don't know of any atheist that would back up the former.
Disbelief is "logical" in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence. If somebody says "there are WMDs in Iraq" would it be "logical" to believe it to be true before first seeing evidence of this claim?
In your ABC you missed out: D "I have looked carefully at Christianity and found no evidence to support it." Which is my position. Just because you don't agree with me - doesn't mean that I am ignorant or illogical.
2) As they say "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
For abiogensis, take a look at: "At Home in the Universe" by Stuart Kauffman. For pre-"big bang" cosmogeny - take a closer look at "membrane theory".
As to science as a vehicle for disbelief:
For me to believe in something is must stand up to scientific principles.
To define that (so there isn't any misunderstanding): this means that a) it must predict something that can be tested and live up to that prediction. b) it must be possible to disprove it (ie it must be falsifiable) and attempts to disprove it must have so far failed. c) these experiments must be repeatable (ie give the same results) independantly of how many times the research is performed or who it is that does the research.
The tenets of Christianity do not predict anything measurable and cannot be falsified - therefore fails both of the two most important criteria.
It is for this reason that I choose not to waste any energy on believing in it. If, at some future time, somebody comes up with a way of verifying the veracity of Christian principles I will be intrigued. If the research is then repeated by a variety of reputable institutions, with the results peer-reviewed - you'll have me for certain.
3) ad hominem doesn't add to the strength of your argument here
4) So... a sales-agent for something that you've never needed before comes up to you and says "you must buy this product, it will enhance your life and you just can't live without it".
You have heard about this product before and have decided already that you don't need it. He is insisting that you spend your valuable time researching it AGAIN, because he is convinced that if only you read more about it you'd suddenly "see the light" and want to buy it after all. He really likes it himself, after all, and can't understand that you have indeed researched it and simply have chosen that it isn't for you.
What's worse is that these sales agents are everywhere. Most of them are polite, and only talk about the product if you go looking for it - or specifically ask them about their experiences with it. Unfortunately a significant portion of them are kind of used-car-salesmanish - pestering you at every opportunity and trying every slimy trick in the book to grab your attention, including knocking on your front door on a regular basis.
At this point are you pre-disposed to rush right out and research this product AGAIN, for the umpteenth time, when you've already decided? Do you think it fair that the customer should do the research on this when they are so sick of hearing about it?
The theist is the saleman here - if you want to convince me, then yes - you must do the groundwork on this. You are perfectly free to just not say anything at all or to politely accept a "no I'm not interested" and leave it at that.
Hi Lynn,
Two comments below:
"why not just believe in Ra, Krishna, or the giant spaghetti monster? They are just as viable."
I actually don't think you can compare "purple snowmen" and "spaghetti monsters" with historical religions. Nobody believes in "purple snowmen" because there is no reason whatsoever to believe in them. Historical religions however have something that needs explanation - the very existence of the religion, historical claims of the supernatural, and personal testimonies of millions of followers. I think this is an important difference that rules our comparison with "purple snowmen gods".
"The bible was written over thousands of years "
The books of the new testament were written anywhere from 45AD to 140AD. Placing the death of Jesus around ~30AD - this is similar to writing about the life of Jimmy Carter today. I don't think "general skepticism" arguments apply when discussing the Bible - it is no ordinary ancient text. I'm not aware of an ancient text that is more studied and has more surviving original manuscripts. Excluding the Old Testament, the proximity of when the material was written to when events took place at least requires specific historical arguments to rule out its credibility.
Taryn
"This is a straw-man argument. You cannot prove, by logic, that Christianity is true either."
I never said you can prove Christianity. I don't think it is provable.
My *only* claim is that it incorrect to say it is *more* logical to disbelieve. The only other reason I responded to this blog was to correct what appears to me as bigotism. The fact that it is against fundamentalists doesn't really matter to me.
"For me to believe in something is must stand up to scientific principles."
Well then correct me if I'm wrong - but I don't believe most "origin of the universe" theories hold up to the principles you listed. String theory is often criticised for the very reasons you listed. I'm not a cosmologist and have no expertise in this area - but I'll stick with the dominant theory until I have reason to believe otherwise. Based on the most respected science, I still think the origin of the universe requires a cause. That alone is enough to make atheism "less logical" then deism. If you add problems with Abiogenesis (I'm not talking just the lack of a theory), it tips the scales further.
"Disbelief is "logical" in the face of an overwhelming lack of evidence."
So I don't agree with your above statement - I think its false to claim that lack of evidence is the reason for disbelief. I think science points towards deism - not the other way around.
I do believe atheism is logical. At best - it's *as* logical as theism. So it then comes down to preference or pragmatic reasons - not the logical determinism so often claimed by atheists (and then used as criticsm against Christians)
Personally, I'm not really interested in arguing Christianty unless the premise of deism is at least accepted as logical. If you are not a deist - there is no reason to believe in Christianity.
John, Two comments below:
I actually don't think you can compare "purple snowmen" and "spaghetti monsters" with historical religions.
I hope that you are including Krishna and Ra as one of those. They both predate Christianity and Krishna is one of the gods of hinduism, generally accepted as the world's oldest religion, and still going strong.
"The bible was written over thousands of years...the Bible - it is no ordinary ancient text. I'm not aware of an ancient text that is more studied and has more surviving original manuscripts"
I can think of a few: the koran, the torah, and the vedas, just as a start. and, I never said that the bible didn't have some historical accuracy, but there is a huge leap to be made between "some historical accuracy" and it being the ultimate authority for my life, particularyl when there are some "rule" in it that are utterly apalling, rules that we would never use them as our moral compass today. Just as a start: slavery (forced servitide without compensation is sanctioned throughout the OT and NT, and even Jesus himself gave rules for how slaves should be properly cared for).
Hi lynn's daughter,
I loved your "Fundamentalism 101, First Lessons" entry, it IS very important that we understand the other side's point of view before we make any snap judgments. I am way cool about the gathering of valuable intelligence to prepare myself for rational "combat" with the fundamentalist.
Having given that praise, I must now withdraw it completely and condemn you to eternal Pasta Hell. It's FLYING Spaghetti Monster, not "giant spaghetti monster." I'm an FSM fundie meself, and I am soooooooo intolerant of anyone who can't get the nomenclature right. :)
Oh, my!! Is there some kind of past rosary that can be said to get one out of jams like this? Some kind of "Hail Mary/Our Father" type combination that will save me??
Okay, here's your "indulgence" for redemption:
1. 1,000 "Hail Donato's Pizza's" and pray fervently on a rosary fashioned from cheesy breadsticks.
2. Suck angelhair pasta up through your nose. It must be "angel" hair pasta, for it is Divine and is the Flying Spaghetti Monster's favorite noodle (James Cameron said so!).
Beware the assaults of the AntiPasto! He will tempt thee to complete distraction! Hide in the Temple of the Olive Garden if you must, but be on your guard at all times!
The subjective and relativist viewpoint of Fundamentalism is something a lot of people don't talk about. I was raised Catholic- though, many Fundies have told me over the years that Catholics aren't Christian- but I've long been an agnostic/non-zealous atheist.
In the Catholic framework, you were expected to do some good works to at least back up your claims of believing in Christ- I've never understood why you get to go to heaven just for accepting Jesus 'into your heart.' Regardless of what you do, how willing you are to reform or evolve. A most insidious subjectivism and relativism, and judging by the deeds of the Fundamentalist kids I know when I was in high school I'm not the only one who noticed a loophole. :P
Many thanks for a good post!
As John points out, you come to conclusions that aren't true for all Fundies- but as unfortunate (or embarrassing for John) as it is, they'd apply to most.
Regards,
Aaron
Post a Comment