|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 4, 2015 16:12:05 GMT -5
I think you will find most of the discussion is not about the disbelief but responding to those who over and over express their belief in the paranormal as fact. And as far as snarky - human nature jumps in at times when you are told for the n th time that you have no moral code. In 60+ years can you imagine how many times I have heard that? Sometime the response can be a little snarky. This is what puzzles me. Many people who wear the "atheist" label tend to present themselves as a little more evolved and a little more enlightened than the rest of us.
I would not argue that. When I first came across the book title "What You Think of Me is None of My Business", it was a huge growing up moment for me. (Still haven't read the book, the title was enough.) I don't completely live this, but I think I make a pretty valiant attempt. Why do you care what other people think of you? Why would you care if someone assumed you had no moral code? Why not just purpose to live to show the opposite? I certainly don't want to come across as "little more evolved and a little more enlightened than the rest of others"
When I realized that the claim of 2x2's that it was the only TRUE religion WASN'T any more true then any other religions; it set me onto a path of critical thinking about all Christian religions.
Not seeing amongst them as any better, but rather all of them haggling over the most minute crazy little details, -I realized religion was just a matter of people trying to figure out the big questions of life, "who are we, why are we here" etc.
So I took a look at other non-Christians beliefs. I saw them as doing the the same .
Then took a look at why we seem to need religion. This led to my belief that there really are NO gods and that they are the product of our desire to answer those questions. We make gods/goddesses in our own image according to the culture of the area and time period in which we live.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 4, 2015 16:16:19 GMT -5
This is what puzzles me. Many people who wear the "atheist" label tend to present themselves as a little more evolved and a little more enlightened than the rest of us. I am not sure how a person would present themselves as more enlightened. That might be a perception issue. en·light·ened/inˈlītnd,enˈlītnd/ adjective adjective: enlightened having or showing a rational, modern, and well-informed outlook. "the more enlightened employers offer better terms" synonyms: informed, well informed, aware, sophisticated, advanced, developed, liberal, open-minded, broad-minded, educated, knowledgeable, wise;
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Sept 4, 2015 16:25:32 GMT -5
This is what puzzles me. Many people who wear the "atheist" label tend to present themselves as a little more evolved and a little more enlightened than the rest of us.
I would not argue that. When I first came across the book title "What You Think of Me is None of My Business", it was a huge growing up moment for me. (Still haven't read the book, the title was enough.) I don't completely live this, but I think I make a pretty valiant attempt. Why do you care what other people think of you? Why would you care if someone assumed you had no moral code? Why not just purpose to live to show the opposite? I certainly don't want to come across as "little more evolved and a little more enlightened than the rest of others"
When I realized that the claim of 2x2's that it was the only TRUE religion WASN'T any more true then any other religions; it set me onto a path of critical thinking about all Christian religions.
Not seeing amongst them as any better, but rather all of them haggling over the most minute crazy little details, -I realized religion was just a matter of people trying to figure out the big questions of life, "who are we, why are we here" etc.
So I took a look at other non-Christians beliefs. I saw them as doing the the same .
Then took a look at why we seem to need religion. This led to my belief that there really are NO gods and that they are the product of our desire to answer those questions. We make gods/goddesses in our own image according to the culture of the area and time period in which we live.I think this is very well expressed. I would have to say that I went through very much the same process, as a result of life experiences. I didn't, however, arrive at the same conclusion.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 4, 2015 16:25:41 GMT -5
As far as I'm concerned, the post was about Bubbles stating that, "My daughter healed of wilsons disease" and stating that it was because people were praying for her daughter.
Then when I simply asked a few questions, she went into attack mode. Why?
Why do people who believe in these kinds of religious ideas like healing by "laying on hands " & "prayer," get so upset & go into attack mode?
Why do they make all kind derogatory statements about the motives of someone just because that person happens to not believe in their religious ideas?
My questions were not derogatory, simply trying to get to the truth of the matter. Now it turns out her daughter never had the disease to start with!
I hate injustice and will react to belittling. It disgusts me when people pretend they are interested but all they really want to do is pull apart judge and critize believers and the comments they make regarding loving god loving others prayer and faith. You and ratz are masters at it. Your last sentence is very cutting. Implying I didnt tell the truth. You both behave like judge and jury. I think you get off on it. It isnt about you believing what I believe. I dont give a toss what you believe.You are both so bent on proving people wrong. Goodbye If you "don't give a toss what (I) believe," then why do you get so upset at my just asking you two non-offensive questions?
I am not "bent on proving people wrong."
I do questions certain "ideas" of people because I have found many such "ideas" are the products of "people" wanting to believe something. I myself have often done that.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 4, 2015 18:33:39 GMT -5
The truism that we are all atheists, given none of us believe in every one of the gods contrived by humans throughout the ages, seems to be avoided. This is not quite right unless you hold to a special definition of atheist. As far as I know the definition of atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Those who believe in just 1 of the thousands of gods mankind has created are still considered theists. Don't you think it is possible that a person might not believe in a deity or deities but still believe in the paranormal? Perhaps atheists tend to be more skeptical. It would be interesting to learn who subscribes to publications like Skeptic or The Skeptical Inquirer as far as atheists and theists.How so?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 4, 2015 20:05:27 GMT -5
My daughter had all the symptoms of Wilson's disease when I googled it at the time. Fact. The doc was doing his job scheduling appointments and tests. Fact. It took 18mths to complete the process. Fact. If I ommited to reveal anything because of recalling correct details. That is my mistake. You are offensive dmich. Blatantly nosey and out to prove everybody wrong.
The atheist do have a god its name is atheism. Deny it all you like. It is also known as an anti-christ spirit. That is what I mean, maryhig.
I had asked two questions of Bubbles as to her claim that her "daughter was healed of Wilson's disease." Now, I am portrayed by Bubbles as "nosy," "offensive" and "out to prove everybody wrong."
I'm a nurse. I have seen people healed by medical means but never seen ANYONE healed by "laying on hands" and praying.
What I have seen is that when I attempt to find out the facts underling such claims, many people react much as Bubbles did. They start attacking me.
If they have such a strong faith in their belief in prayer as the answer, it would seem that they shouldn't need to get on the defensive by attacking the questioner.
Lol..unbeliveable. How dare I attack you? By pointing out how you treat people? Analytical. Judgemental. Sarcasm. Belittling. A nurse is not a Doctor. You remind me of the flippin Gestapo interogation team. You take peoples words and use them against them instead of listening to the story. I have a good one for you. A good bone for you to chew over. Just need to find a pc instead of my phone. Btw your comments make me even more determined to continue to trust in the power of my god. Too bad it winds you up.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Sept 4, 2015 21:31:25 GMT -5
It would be interesting to learn how many people who believe in any of the gods would subscribe to a sceptic publication rational. If we had to make an estimate, I'd go with a v. low percentage A hierarchy of gods, which places the god of the old testament at the top, supports the term atheist as inferring disbelief in this god. However if we don't conform to that populist attitude, and place all of the gods on a level, then non-belief in any one of those gods would be termed atheism. From that perspective, it would be fair to assume that all individuals can relate to a non-belief in at least one of the many gods of the human species. Forums such as this require reference to the term atheist in the context of the Hebrew god Yahweh, (and whenever he is mentioned without including reference to Yahweh's wife Asherah, reinforces the biblical patriarchy) for ease of understanding; but by default this gives credence to an entity which deserves as little contemplation as other mythical beings, such as the cliched unicorn, flying teapot, the norse god thor and the spaghetti monster.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 4, 2015 22:08:37 GMT -5
That is what I mean, maryhig.
I had asked two questions of Bubbles as to her claim that her "daughter was healed of Wilson's disease." Now, I am portrayed by Bubbles as "nosy," "offensive" and "out to prove everybody wrong."
I'm a nurse. I have seen people healed by medical means but never seen ANYONE healed by "laying on hands" and praying.
What I have seen is that when I attempt to find out the facts underling such claims, many people react much as Bubbles did. They start attacking me.
If they have such a strong faith in their belief in prayer as the answer, it would seem that they shouldn't need to get on the defensive by attacking the questioner.
Lol..unbeliveable. How dare I attack you? By pointing out how you treat people? Analytical. Judgemental. Sarcasm. Belittling. A nurse is not a Doctor. You remind me of the flippin Gestapo interogation team. You take peoples words and use them against them instead of listening to the story. I have a good one for you. A good bone for you to chew over. Just need to find a pc instead of my phone. Btw your comments make me even more determined to continue to trust in the power of my god. Too bad it winds you up. Your beliefs won't "wind me up," Bubbles. You have a perfect right to believe whatever you want to.
I have already explained that I am not questioning the "person" (such as yourself) but I do question "ideas."
Yes, I am analytical when it come to ideas. Yes, when I get all the information available I do "judge" whether the idea has any factors that seem to make it a reliable premise.
The "Sarcasm & Belittling," that you accuse me of seems to be in the eye of the holder.
That remark, "You remind me of the flippin Gestapo interogation team," is completely uncalled for! It indicates what I have already said, you have attacked me for asking questions.
If you don't want any of your beliefs or ideas ever questioned, -please just say that you don't want them questioned & I will certainly leave you to your beliefs & ideas.
PS: You say that you "have a good one for you. A good bone for you to chew over," -go ahead. I probably will not answer. There comes a time when even I come to the limit of being accused of being like a "Gestapo interogation team"
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 6, 2015 19:39:49 GMT -5
I spoke to my daughter on the weekend about TMB. Her first response after asking why do you bother? Acidic foods needed to be removed from diet. It was the gastroenterologist who was worried he thought she had Wilsons disease because of all the symptoms. He stated that the biopsy is definitive whereas opthimology test doesnt always reveal the copper. I asked her. Do you believe god healed you?. Looking directly into my eyes (hers watering) she said "absolutely". K has always had strong faith from a little girl. She is an independent thinker and not afraid to tell me when I am wrong. That is my final word on this.
Oh forgot. She is a nurse. Very good one too.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 7, 2015 2:10:14 GMT -5
I spoke to my daughter on the weekend about TMB. Her first response after asking why do you bother? Acidic foods needed to be removed from diet. It was the gastroenterologist who was worried he thought she had Wilsons disease because of all the symptoms. He stated that the biopsy is definitive whereas opthimology test doesnt always reveal the copper. I asked her. Do you believe god healed you?. Looking directly into my eyes (hers watering) she said "absolutely". K has always had strong faith from a little girl. She is an independent thinker and not afraid to tell me when I am wrong. That is my final word on this. Oh forgot. She is a nurse. Very good one too. A nurse?
It is a little difficult to understand why a nurse would consider someone healed of a disease they didn't even have to start with.
Strange.
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Sept 7, 2015 4:11:44 GMT -5
Health professionals who believe that a supernatural being can heal disease make me uneasy. What value do they place on evidenced-based medicine? What criteria do they identify as a pre-requisite for healing through prayer? If god can heal through prayer, how do they cope working with terminally ill babies and children when they believe that god has the potential to heal yet these little ones are dying?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 7, 2015 7:09:56 GMT -5
Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” August 19, 2015 by Dave Armstrong 195 Comments SphinxIdol Cryosphinx at Karnak Temple, Egypt; photograph by Guillaume Lelarge [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license] It’s currently fashionable for atheists to deny that a universe without God is caused by “pure chance” or “randomly colliding atoms,” as their earlier forebears might have boldly and proudly described it. Yet natural “laws” somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes). Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist / materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer. The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Indeed, this is a faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists. Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.” Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism. Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent. Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism. Some Atomist utterances even have the “ring” of Scriptures; for example, urgings of an appropriate humility regarding man’s opinion of his own importance, because the universe is so large, and we are so small, as if, somehow, largeness itself is some sort of inherently God-like quality. One Atomist informed me that “order is in the eye of the beholder.” That reminded me of the biblical Proverbs (perhaps he was the Atomist equivalent of Solomon). Yet in Atomism, each person is gods too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing. Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Atomist that others of different, much more rational, faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever-inventive and childlike – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the unnecessary addition of mere explanation. “Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are. Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck adoration and awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is senseless and “intrusive.” Mere rational examination is precluded from the outset. In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we ourselves possess and value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, self-contained, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else. It may be (at least for certain sorts of childlike minds) an immensely enjoyable game to play, but like much of modern philosophy, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe (very unlike the Atomist) that irrational and non-rational beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance. Yet we can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fancies and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists seek very hard to maintain those marvels, and perhaps that’s not all bad. We must be tolerant and open-minded. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan! Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 7, 2015 7:11:44 GMT -5
Health professionals who believe that a supernatural being can heal disease make me uneasy. What value do they place on evidenced-based medicine? What criteria do they identify as a pre-requisite for healing through prayer? If god can heal through prayer, how do they cope working with terminally ill babies and children when they believe that god has the potential to heal yet these little ones are dying? Health professionals are professional. It makes me uneasy the way atheists group christians in with the killers and murders and pedophiles.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Sept 7, 2015 8:40:30 GMT -5
Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” August 19, 2015 by Dave Armstrong 195 Comments SphinxIdol Cryosphinx at Karnak Temple, Egypt; photograph by Guillaume Lelarge [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license] It’s currently fashionable for atheists to deny that a universe without God is caused by “pure chance” or “randomly colliding atoms,” as their earlier forebears might have boldly and proudly described it. Yet natural “laws” somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes). Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist / materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer. The atheist places extraordinary faith in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Indeed, this is a faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind. It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists. Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.” Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism. Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. They thought spirit was great and that matter was evil. Atomists think matter is great (and god) and spirit is not only “evil” (metaphorically speaking), but beyond that: non-existent. Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism. Some Atomist utterances even have the “ring” of Scriptures; for example, urgings of an appropriate humility regarding man’s opinion of his own importance, because the universe is so large, and we are so small, as if, somehow, largeness itself is some sort of inherently God-like quality. One Atomist informed me that “order is in the eye of the beholder.” That reminded me of the biblical Proverbs (perhaps he was the Atomist equivalent of Solomon). Yet in Atomism, each person is gods too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing. Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Atomist that others of different, much more rational, faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever-inventive and childlike – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the unnecessary addition of mere explanation. “Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth. It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are. Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck adoration and awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is senseless and “intrusive.” Mere rational examination is precluded from the outset. In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we ourselves possess and value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods. It is, indeed, an ingenious, self-contained, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else. It may be (at least for certain sorts of childlike minds) an immensely enjoyable game to play, but like much of modern philosophy, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe (very unlike the Atomist) that irrational and non-rational beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance. Yet we can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fancies and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists seek very hard to maintain those marvels, and perhaps that’s not all bad. We must be tolerant and open-minded. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan! Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith. In the Comments section, Armstrong provides a link to a "clarifying" follow-up essay to the "absurd" and "sarcastic" (Armstrong's words) original essay quoted above. I find the discussion in the Comments section of the second piece more interesting than the essays by Armstrong.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 7, 2015 16:22:19 GMT -5
Atheism: the Faith of “Atomism” August 19, 2015 by Dave Armstrong 195 Comments SphinxIdol Cryosphinx at Karnak Temple, Egypt; photograph by Guillaume Lelarge [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license] It’s currently fashionable for atheists to deny that a universe without God is caused by “pure chance” or “randomly colliding atoms,” as their earlier forebears might have boldly and proudly described it. Yet natural “laws” somehow attained their remarkable organizing abilities. One either explains them by natural laws or by humbly bowing to divine teleology at some point, as an explanation every bit as plausible as materialism (everything being supposedly “explained” by purely material processes). Matter essentially “becomes god” in the atheist / materialist view; it has the inherent ability to do everything by itself: a power that Christians believe God caused, by putting these potentialities and actual characteristics into matter and natural laws, as their ultimate Creator and ongoing Preserver and Sustainer. The atheist places extraordinary "faith* in matter – arguably far more faith than we place in God, because it is much more difficult to explain everything that god-matter does by science alone. Indeed, this is a faith of the utmost non-rational, childlike kind.
It is quite humorous, then, to observe the constant charge that we Christians are the ones who have a blind, “fairy tale,” gullible, faith, as opposed to self-described “rational, intellectual, sophisticated” atheists. Atheist belief is a kind of polytheistic idolatry of the crudest, most primitive sort, putting to shame the colorful worship of the ancient Babylonians, Philistines, Aztecs, and other groups. They believed that their silver amulets and wooden idols could make the sun shine or defeat an enemy or cause crops to flourish. The polytheistic materialist, on the other hand, is far more religious than that. He thinks that trillions of his atom-gods and their distant relatives, the cell-gods, can make absolutely everything in the universe occur, by their own power, possessed eternally either in full or (who knows how?) in inevitably unfolding potentiality. One might call this (to coin a phrase) Atomism (“belief that the atom is God”). Trillions of omnipotent, omniscient atoms can do absolutely everything that the Christian God can do, and for little or no reason that anyone can understand (i.e., why and how the atom-god came to possess such powers in the first place). The Atomist openly and unreservedly worships his trillions of gods, with the most perfect, trusting, non-rational faith imaginable. He or she is what sociologists call a “true believer.” Oh, and we mustn’t forget the time-goddess. She is often invoked in worshipful, reverential, awe-inspiring terms as the be-all, end-all explanation for things inexplicable, as if by magic her very incantation rises to an explanatory level sufficient to shut up any silly Christian, who is foolish enough to believe in one God rather than trillions. The time-goddess is the highest in the ranks of the Atomist’s wonderfully varied hierarchy of gods (sort of the “Zeus” of Atomism). One might call this belief Temporalism. Atomism is a strong, fortress-like faith. It is often said that it “must be” what it is. The Atomist reverses the error of the Gnostic heretics. king), but beyond that: non-existent. Atomists may and do differ on secondary issues, just as the various ancient polytheistic cultures differed on quibbling details (which god could do what, which material made for a better idol, etc.), but despite all, they inevitably came out on the side of polytheistic idolatry, with crude material gods, and against spiritual monotheism. Some Atomist utterances even have the “ring” of Scriptures; for example, urgings of an appropriate humility regarding man’s opinion of his own importance, because the universe is so large, and we are so small, as if, somehow, largeness itself is some sort of inherently God-like quality. One Atomist informed me that “order is in the eye of the beholder.” That reminded me of the biblical Proverbs (perhaps he was the Atomist equivalent of Solomon). Yet in Atomism, each person is gods too, because he is made up of trillions of atom-gods and cell-gods. When you get trillions of gods all together in one place, it stands to reason that they can corporately perceive the order of which any one of them individually is capable of producing. Within the Atomist faith-paradigm, this make perfect sense. But for one outside their circle of religious faith, it may not (just to warn the devout, faithful Atomist that others of different, much more rational, faiths may not think such things as “obvious” as they do). The Atomist – ever-inventive and childlike – manages to believe any number of things, in faith, without the unnecessary addition of mere explanation. “Why” questions in the context of Atomism are senseless, because they can’t overcome the Impenetrable Fortress of blind faith that the Atomist possesses. The question, “Why do the atom-gods and cell-gods and the time-goddess exist and possess the extraordinary powers that they do?” is meaningless and ought not be put forth It’s bad form, and impolite. We know how sensitive overly religious folk are. Instead, we are asked to bow to the countless mysteries of Atomism in dumbstruck adoration and awed silence, like the Magi at the baby Jesus’ manger, offering our unquestioning “scientific” and “philosophical” allegiance like they offered gold and frankincense and myrrh. The very inquiry is senseless and “intrusive.” Mere rational examination is precluded from the outset. In a certain remote and limited sense, we Christians (since we ourselves possess and value faith) stand in awe of such Pure Faith, with its sublime fideism and Absolute Trust in Design via trillions of atom-gods.' ' It is, indeed, an ingenious, self-contained, even elegant system, admirable in its bold, brilliant intellectual audacity and innovation, if nothing else. It may be ( at least for certain sorts of childlike minds) an immensely enjoyable game to play, but like much of modern philosophy, at bottom it is hopelessly irrational, self-defeating, and ultimately incoherent. For that reason, the Christian must reject it, since we believe (very unlike the Atomist) that irrational and non-rational beliefs are untrue and unworthy of anyone’s allegiance.Yet we can’t help — almost despite ourselves — recalling with fondness the wonders and fancies and fairy-tales of childhood. Atomists seek very hard to maintain those marvels, and perhaps that’s not all bad. We must be tolerant and open-minded. Atomists are (we might say) the “adult children” among us: like Peter Pan! Who can resist Peter Pan, after all? This (arguably) gives them their charm and appeal: evident in so many Christian discussion threads, where they suddenly enter and — seemingly oblivious to the existing discussion — start incongruously preaching their rather fantastic fideistic faith. What an absolute delightful parody of religious faith, (at least Christianity!)
The man is a great writer! Wish I could do as well! Of course, Armstrong didn't realize that was what he was doing!
He took the words used to depict religious beliefs (underlined above) & and attempted to apply them to Atheists & that is what made it a great parody ( note about Dave Armstrong)
Dave Armstrong (born 1958)[1] is an American Catholic apologist, author, and blogger. Raised as a Methodist in Detroit, Michigan, Armstrong converted to non-denominational, Arminian evangelicalism in 1977, with strong affinities to the Jesus Movement and Messianic Judaism, and then to Catholicism in 1990, largely as a result of reading John Henry Cardinal Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.[2][3] He was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991 by Father John Hardon, SJ. (Definition of the word-god) 1. (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity; the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou; 2. (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity. synonyms: the Lord, the Almighty, the Creator, the Maker, the Godhead; More Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh; (God) the Father, (God) the Son, the Holy Ghost/Spirit, the Holy Trinity; the Great Spirit, Gitchi Manitou;
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Sept 7, 2015 17:41:29 GMT -5
That was the bone for you to chew on dmmich
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 7, 2015 21:53:41 GMT -5
I spoke to my daughter on the weekend about TMB. Her first response after asking why do you bother? Acidic foods needed to be removed from diet. It was the gastroenterologist who was worried he thought she had Wilsons disease because of all the symptoms. He stated that the biopsy is definitive whereas opthimology test doesnt always reveal the copper. Right. As mentioned the slit lamp test only has a 95% accuracy. Of course, it can be administered quickly and cheaply and if it is positive a course of action can be decided. Healed her of what? The biopsy showed she did not have WD. OK. Can she explain why acidic foods need to be eliminated?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 7, 2015 22:14:54 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rational on Sept 8, 2015 0:38:29 GMT -5
In the Comments section, Armstrong provides a link to a "clarifying" follow-up essay to the "absurd" and "sarcastic" (Armstrong's words) original essay quoted above. I find the discussion in the Comments section of the second piece more interesting than the essays by Armstrong. I have seen scribbling of a 5 year old that was more interesting than Armstrong.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Sept 8, 2015 0:38:21 GMT -5
Health professionals who believe that a supernatural being can heal disease make me uneasy. What value do they place on evidenced-based medicine? What criteria do they identify as a pre-requisite for healing through prayer? If god can heal through prayer, how do they cope working with terminally ill babies and children when they believe that god has the potential to heal yet these little ones are dying? Health professionals are professional. It makes me uneasy the way atheists group christians in with the killers and murders and pedophiles. Relax, Bubbles. You don't need to be uneasy about atheists grouping "Christians in with the killers and murders and pedophiles," because we don't do that.
It might be your idea about Atheists, but just relax, it isn't true! Maybe someone is just feeding you a line of bunk?
|
|