Posted on 12/16/2008 10:31:38 AM PST by Michael Eden
What drives me to distraction about most atheists—whether leftwing or rightwing—is that they refuse to live according to the logical of their beliefs (ie, that life is meaningless) and insist on being the loudest, most annoying moral crusaders in the universe.
Maybe they're making up for lost time.
Up until very recently, they wouldn't have lived long enough to say anything; executed, burned, imprisoned, tortured, and hanged by those godly believers.
You say:
No, he argues that without God there is no meaning, value, or purpose and arrives at an opinion.
No. You are entirely wrong. Please read the article. Craig cites the leading atheist (i.e. those with whom he is ostensibly arguing as a theist) to show that THEY are saying the same thing. The leading atheist thinkers acknowledge that there is no meaning, value, or purpose apart from a God.
Therefore it is NOT Craig’s “opinion,” but the opinion of leading thinkers of BOTH sides of the debate. So if you are expressing yourself as an atheist, kindly inform me of precisely what qualifications you have to correct famous atheists such as Frederick Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sarte, Jacques Monot, Samuel Beckett, Albert Camus, Stephen Jay Gould, and the host of other leading atheist thinkers Craig cites in his article. I would very much like to know why you believe you understand the subject matter better than these men.
Gould, for example, has argued that bacteria have as much “meaning” as human beings, and that since evolution didn’t intentionally “evolve” human intelligence it has no ultimate “value.”
It is simply an objective fact - which both sides’ intellectuals accept - that there is no ultimate purpose, value, or meaning apart from God and eternity.
Craig’s purpose was specifically NOT to “arrive at an opinion,” but rather to point out a stark fact: that apart from God there IS no meaning, value, or purpose to human existence, and to allow the listener/reader to deal with the implications of that reality.
Thought I’d point out a few things:
1) Jehovah’s Witnesses are not orthodox Christians, and deny key elements of the orthodox faith. Therefore their views on hell are as irrelevant to Christianity as their views on the person of Jesus (a created being).
2) This statement by the Church of England most certainly does not reflect the historic position of the Church, but rather is a denial of what it used to teach (much like the Anglicans and homosexuality).
3) I would agree with the Episcopalians in stating that hell is ultimately “alienation from God.” It is a place of separation from the holiness and righteousness of God. C.S. Lewis famously said that the gates of hell were closed from the inside.
But realize that it is NOT Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, or the Church of England, or the Anglicans, or any other denomination that should carry sway in Christian thought; but rather the Bible.
No one talked more about hell than Jesus (see Luke 16 for the most graphic example, the parable of the rich man and Lazarus). Further, we see hell described in Old Testament passages such as Job 10:21. Jewish Pharisees in fact thought of Gentiles as existing to literally serve the purpose of firewood for hell! The Bible is very clear that there is a place of eternal judgment and eternal torment - originally prepared for the devil and his angels according to Jesus - that those who reject God’s salvation proceed.
As part of the Imago Dei, humans possess eternality of existence. We are born, but we never die; rather, our souls survive the deaths of our animal bodies, either to heaven or to hell.
I would further argue that apart from heaven and hell, there is no ultimate difference between doing good and doing evil; and that if Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler enjoy the same end there is no ultimate justice in the universe.
Thanks for the ping!
You say:
I don’t understand these Obama-type Christians who say that there’s “many paths to the same place”.
Agreed. Nothing annoys me more than people who pervert the very doctrines they claim to hold most dearly.
You also say:
“In the Old Testament, once you died, god was done with you. Whether you happened to be an unfortunate kid on the wrong side of the Israelites killed because you belonged to the wrong tribe, or if you happened to be killed in one of god’s many natural genocides, he was done with you once you expired.”
Here you’re wrong. See Job 19:21. Even MORE important, see Job 19:25-27, in which Job says that He knows he will see His Redeemer in his flesh after the death of his body. Job, by the way, is widely considered to be the oldest book in the Bible. The Pharisees actually believed that Gentiles were created to be the firewood of hell. We can look at Matthew 22:23-33 and see that the Sadducees (Hellenized Jews who sided with the Romans and derived their power from them) didn’t accept the Resurrection. But we also see that the Pharisees clearly did. Go to Acts 23:6-10 and you will see very clearly that the Pharisees so believed. And the Essenes (who left the Dead Sea Scrolls) VERY clearly believed. By and large, the Jews accepted the Resurrection.
As to your answer to my “garbage” question, I can only say this: To quote J. Vernon McGee, “Now, you might have a better plan than God, but what you DON’T have is your own universe.”
Believe me, the Creator of the universe, of time, space, energy, and matter won’t be impressed that you proceed to judge Him for His justice.
I would further submit that a universe without hell would be a universe without ultimate justice. Would you truly prefer a universe in which Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler came to the same end, and experienced the same ultimate destiny? Would THAT be better? Do whatever you will, hurt whoever you want? Murder and rape as you will, for your end is the same as the righteous? Do you truly think that to be a preferable universe?
Quoting Craig:
“One rabbi who survived Auschwitz summed it up well when he said “It was as though a world existed in which all of the Ten Commandments had been reversed: Thou shalt kill, thou shalt lie, thou shalt steal, and so forth. Mankind has never seen such a hell.” And yet, if God does not exist, then our world IS Auschwitz. There is no absolute right and wrong. All things are permitted. But no atheist, no agnostic, can live consistently with such a view.”
Every innocent pagan will go to heaven. The only problem is that there likely ARE no innocent pagans. Those who have heard the Gospel will be judged for their willful unbelief. Those who never heard it will be judged by their own consciences, and condemned by their own violations of their own sense of what is right and wrong. As for me, I will be one of whom Jesus says, “This one’s with Me.” Read Galatians 4 and Ephesians 1 to see that God (whose universe this is) created the universe with a plan that centered around saving free willed men through Christ. If you don’t like the rules of God’s universe, I suppose you could try to go off and create your very own.
But I don’t think you’ll be successful.
Reading your latest book, m’Lady. Enjoying the savoring, reading it in slow bedtime segments. I’m so glad you published it.
The word hell in the Old Testament is always translated from the Hebrew word Sheol, which I mentioned earlier. Sheol is NOT hell in the New Testament sense, and rather than argue with you about, I'll just post this:
http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html
Irrelevant to the point I was making, since even if you were to translate Sheol into the word hell, it is verifiably not a place of endless torture and pain as described in the New Testament.
Believe me, the Creator of the universe, of time, space, energy, and matter won’t be impressed that you proceed to judge Him for His justice.
I really don't care what your imaginary being thinks. If he was real, and even if I was a believing Christian, I wouldn't accept his invitation to the celestial VIP party in the sky, since I believe that his entire approval process is unjust.
I would further submit that a universe without hell would be a universe without ultimate justice.
Yes, it is a universe without ultimate supernatural justice and injustice. It's the same principle that I came to terms with when I asked a mentor of mine why nice guys often finish last. "It's just the way things are."
Would you truly prefer a universe in which Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler came to the same end, and experienced the same ultimate destiny? Would THAT be better?
I'm not a huge Mother Theresa fan, especially her dealings with the Duvalier family and Charles Keating, but that's a discussion for another day. I obviously think she was a better human being than Hitler.
However, it doesn't really matter what I prefer to be the case. As we discussed earlier, whether or not a certain structured afterlife is preferable to another (or none at all) has no bearing on what actually exists.
Maybe you should consider the possibility that they did meet the same end. We all know that Mother Theresa certainly had her doubts:
So many unanswered questions live within me afraid to uncover them — because of the blasphemy — If there be God — please forgive me — When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven — there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives & hurt my very soul. — I am told God loves me — and yet the reality of darkness & coldness & emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?
Maybe you should also take a look at the ends that they did meet. Hitler died alone in a bunker with a gun to his head, knowing that his entire diabolical plan for world domination and genocide was defeated, and now has his name associated with pure evil. Whereas Mother Theresa died after enjoying a massive amount of praise, adoration, influence, and charity after spending a lifetime doing exactly what she wanted to do, and died knowing that the Missionaries of Charity would live on to continue her work, and her very name being remember as synonymous with charity and goodness.
Is this not justice?
The certainty you have of your final destiny rivals hers:
Those who never heard it will be judged by their own consciences, and condemned by their own violations of their own sense of what is right and wrong. As for me, I will be one of whom Jesus says, “This one’s with Me.
And only such blind certainty could convince you beyond doubt that so many billions of people are doomed to eternal damnation, whereas you have found the true key to eternal happiness. I find such a proposition unlikely, no matter how certain you may be.
2) This statement by the Church of England most certainly does not reflect the historic position of the Church, but rather is a denial of what it used to teach (much like the Anglicans and homosexuality).
Your claims are prime examples of the "No True Scotsman Fallacy."
Allow me to refresh your memory. Your original statement was:
While not confessing to know the ins and outs of every religion known, I'm unaware of any sort of religion that doesn't have some sort of punishment for "wrong" behavior.
Yet here are two well-known religions (the C. of E. being the state religion of Great Britain!) who do not believe in a place of torment for unrighteous souls!
But realize that it is NOT Jehovah’s Witness doctrine, or the Church of England, or the Anglicans, or any other denomination that should carry sway in Christian thought; but rather the Bible.
But the JW, the C. of E., and the Anglicans all likewise claim to be based on Holy Scripture! Oh, now I understand: Only your interpretation of the Bible is correct!
I would further argue that [...] if Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler enjoy the same end [,] there is no ultimate justice in the universe
Adolf Hitler was a hate-filled madman, but I truly believe that a just God would be moved to redeem him. Indeed, I think that it would be blasphemy to claim that God would be unable to rescue his soul. And I would be sorely disappointed were an allegedly infinitely compassionate God not to undertake every effort to enlighten and ultimately embrace him.
After all, whatever pain inflicted upon his victims, it will be nothing in comparison with the ineffable, eternal joys they receive in Heaven, so Hitler's crimes fade into nothingness in the grander scheme of things.
In fact, given the infinite, never-ending joy promised in Heaven, penny-ante Earthly life - no matter how pain-filled, or heroic, or monotonous - becomes practically meaningless.
Regards,
Atheism simply means not believing in the existence of god, although some people who call themselves atheists behave as if it is a religion and act as if their is an atheist Church.
Thre are no "leading atheists"
I believe in God, but it is based on faith. There is no rational proof of the existence of God. I am a Christian, but it is based on faith that the Bible is true, not on any objective proof that Christianity is any more valid than Buddhism.
I believe that faith is an individual thing. I believe that you cannot convert a true atheist or devout believer in another belief system by insulting them or by falsely stating their position. Conversion comes through leading by example.
Mr. Craig ignores the fact that the majority of people on Earth are not Christians and most would argue that their lives are neither meaningless nor lack value or purpose.
The largest problem I have with the essay, however, is that the author summarizes by using the "better choice" argument. This reduces everything else he said to nonsense. It's like tossing salt over your left shoulder and saying, "I really don't believe it, but better safe than sorry!
So it seems to me that your logic is this: I believe God's proffered bargain is unfair (presumably because some people, including you, choose to reject the offer); thus, God does not exist. How does that follow?
But accepting your statement for a moment, what, exactly, is "ghastly" about the bargain? I've asked you this once before and you've chosen not to answer. I suspect this was deliberate.
The structure of the human body is good enough to work, obviously, but ask anyone who’s needed to get an appendectomy or hang upside-down to get a sinus to drain whether it’s “perfect”.””
Can I assume you are not a life scientist?
And if you died before then, or even after then but in some part of the world that just hadn’t gotten the word yet, well, I guess it sucks to be you....””
Steve, your assumption is that you can fathom the mind of God. God to you is as you are to the ant. We are talking about the creator of the universe and we humans are but tiny ants on a speck of cosmic dust. Try communicating with an ant and see what his level of understanding is.
LOL! I don’t have to be any kind of scientist to know that a design that includes useless (but occasionally fatally malfunctioning) parts or drain paths that run uphill is hardly “perfect”.
Up until very recently, they wouldn’t have lived long enough to say anything; executed, burned, imprisoned, tortured, and hanged by those godly believers.””
You obviously have not lived in China and Russia. Joe Stalin and Mao were atheists. Recall the reason the pilgrims came here and what a country founded by true Christians provided for your grateful soul.
The original assertion is that a being (one of whose defined attributes is omnibenevolence) exists. Evidence is cited proving that the alleged being is not only not omnibenevolent, but is in fact a vicious SOB even by human standards. Contradiction; original premise clearly invalid. QED.
But accepting your statement for a moment, what, exactly, is "ghastly" about the bargain?
Perhaps it would be easier to see if an equivalent bargain from history were cited: Believe in the Party, and the Paradise Of The Workingman shall be delivered unto you and your children; disbelieve, and you shall be cast out into the Gulag. Clearer now?
Whether or not you or I think the bargain is unfair has no bearing on whether it is true, or whether or not god exists.
My original point to the author of this speech was that there is a reasonable argument to be made that one would not want it to be true. He stated in the last line of the speech that not believing in biblical Christianity is "to prefer death, futility, and despair to hope, meaningfulness, and happiness."
My retort is that it gives me hope, meaning, and happiness to know god's proffered bargain is not true, and that he does not exist.
He says that it is irrational to not believe in god, and I'm telling him and you why I think it is rational, and why I prefer it.
I've asked you this once before and you've chosen not to answer. I suspect this was deliberate.
Billions of souls living in everlasting agony because they don't agree with your particular religion is a ghastly thought, and I thought that that was one of the reasons that you were to called upon to deliver to word of Jesus; to help prevent so much eternal suffering.
You, on the other hand, thinks its just fine and dandy, sunshine and lollipops. Another billion down the tubes to everlasting torture; no big deal. I'm glad that there are many Christians that don't share your view, and certainly don't treat eternal agony in such a pedestrian and immature manner.
On the contrary; the clear influence of Persian dualism (God/Satan -- Ahuramazda/Ahriman) marks it as one of the youngest.
Up until very recently, they wouldn't have lived long enough to say anything; executed, burned, imprisoned, tortured, and hanged by those godly believers.
And of course, since right and wrong (or good and evil) can only exist if there is a G-d to define them, and they deny the existence of such a G-d, they're the world's biggest hypocrites as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.