Are there any good arguments against Christianity? Of course! That’s why so many intelligent thinking people are not Christians.
So what are the best arguments against Christianity? Well it depends on whether you are a Muslim, a Jew, an atheist, a Hindu or something else. Every ‘worldview’ has its own particular set of arguments.
But given that atheism seems to be the most rapidly growing ‘worldview’ in Britain, and at least in part at the expense of Christianity, what are the best arguments atheists bring against Christianity?
Here’s a list of twelve of the most common ones I have heard over my twenty years working with Christian Medical Fellowship.
In listing them, I’m not saying that I find any of them particularly convincing (I don’t and none of them have led me personally to doubt any of the teachings of Jesus Christ).
But some intelligent people do find them convincing and cite them as reasons why they either lost the faith of their childhood or chose not to believe. This is why I am calling them ‘good arguments’ – they are, in other words, good enough to persuade some people.
Some of these arguments I have already posted responses to on this blog. If so they are hyperlinked. I’ll link others as I post new answers.
The most common response I receive today for people not believing is simply ‘because there is no evidence’. This is interesting in itself as I don’t actually know any Christian who would say that their faith is not based on evidence which they personally find plausible.
This suggests to me that Christians, for some reason, are not very effective at explaining to non-Christians why they do believe. Or, alternatively, that atheists for some reason are reluctant to give up their 'unbelief'. Or both.
If you are an atheist please let us know which of these arguments you find most convincing. If you are a Christian then let us know which ones you find hardest to answer. Are there any important ones that you think I have left out? Anonymous posts are welcome.
So, in no particular order:
1.There’s so much suffering in the world
If God is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly benevolent then he would eradicate evil and suffering but the world is full of it. Therefore he is either not all powerful, not all knowing, not benevolent or (most likely) does not actually exist.
2.Jesus can’t be the only way to God
There are many different religions in the world, all followed by many intelligent educated people. Isn’t it simply arrogant and narrow-minded to suggest that all of them apart from Christianity are wrong?
3.Christian faith is just psychological
Christians believe in Christ largely for psychological reasons: because it comforts them, because they were brought up that way or because they are afraid not to believe in case they go to Hell.
4.Miracles can’t happen
The world operates according to observable laws of nature meaning that miracles simply cannot occur. Regardless there is no evidence to suggest either that they do or that they ever did.
5.A good God wouldn’t send people to Hell
An allegedly omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent God has seemingly freely chosen to sentence most human beings to hell. Why? Should such a God (if he exists) be trusted?
6.The problem of those who have never heard
There are many people who have died without hearing the Christian gospel and many today have not heard and will never hear it. If Christianity is true God and people are damned without believing it God would surely have found a way for them to have heard.
7.The Bible is full of errors
Many events in the Bible, such as the creation narrative, the flood, much Old Testament history and the Gospel accounts are not backed up by science or archaeology and much of the history is not even internally consistent. They were also written long after the events they claim to describe are are in the main just 'stories'.
8.Christianity may be true for you but it isn’t true for me
I can see that believing in Christianity ‘helps’ you, that it is ‘true for you’. But it is not ‘true for me’. Everybody should be free to choose his or her own belief.
9.The God of the Bible is a moral monster and restricts human freedom
God, particularly as depicted in the Old Testament, is a vengeful, genocidal, pestilential megalomaniac who does not act morally. Furthermore his restrictions on such things as sexual behaviour, abortion and euthanasia are undermining of human autonomy.
10.It is no longer necessary to invoke God as an explanation for anything
Now that we have the theories of evolution and big bang/multiverse theory there is no need for a designer to explain the origin and complexity of living things or the physical universe.
11.The church is full of hypocrites
Christianity has been responsible for a huge amount of killing and wars throughout history and the newspapers are full of supposed Christians who are paedophiles, liars, adulterers, murderers and abusers. If Christianity were true it would make people better.
12.Christians cherry-pick what they want out of the Bible
Christians do not consistently apply the Bible’s commands but pick and choose what they want. For example they forbid sex outside marriage but are happy to eat shellfish and wear polyester although these are forbidden in exactly the same books of the Bible. Furthermore Christians disagree profoundly amongst themselves about what is right and wrong.
The "hiddenness" of God might be worth mentioning....although I don't think it's a great objection, it gets a lot of philosophical and popular attention.
ReplyDeleteBasically - if God is real, why isn't his existence more obvious?
I think that God's existence is obvious...the atheist objection is "but why isn't it more so?"
Graham
Thanks Graham. I agree.
DeleteAs I say above the 'most common response I receive today for people not believing is simply "because there is no evidence"'
The arguments above are, shall I say very simplistic in a theistic sense, which I guess is how theists like their arguments. The onus is on the theists to produce evidence without reference to their books of preference ( Bible, Torah, Qu'ran) which are all incontrivertibly contrivances by man and thus works of fiction. Good luck with that - in my 50 years thus far, though I have searched, I have not encountered one decent argument to convince any rational being of the existence of any omnipotent deity.
ReplyDeleteReally? Well I suspect then that your 'encountering' over these 50 years has been at a rather superficial level as many rational beings have been already convinced by decent arguments of the existence of an omnipotent deity. Just as others haven't.
DeleteI just don't understand what there is to be rational about if you deny God. Turning human reason into God is what some people have done. It does not lead to good things.
DeleteI love how we theists are required "to produce evidence without reference to their books of preference." In other words, we're not allowed to use the evidence that already exists. We have God's Word, but we can't appeal to that. Why? Because it demonstrates the existence of God. Well, yeah, if you *a priori* discard all the evidence for theism, sure enough -- there's no more evidence for theism.
Delete1. You say that the arguments above are very simplistic, then you go and commit to several of them by claiming that the Bible is fiction.
Delete2. You claim that the bible is fiction because it is "incontrivertibly" (spell-check my friend...) contrived by men. I take it that anything that is contrived by men is fiction? In that case your argument is too, so it is self defeating.
3. 50 years searching isn't really that long. It's an infinitesimal drop in the bucket of eternity. This might be worth further consideration.
4. The majority of "rational" atheists and agnostics whom I have talked to, when pressed to their rational limits, will admit that their lack of faith is mainly due to moral or emotional reason.
There is of course a problem in demanding evidence from a God who asks you to have faith - what sort of evidence would it take.
DeleteYou may say why doesnt God appear - and I expect He would say: but I sent you my Son, who is my exact image, so you could see me and hear His testimony, if only you would believe Him.
JB in Alabama
ReplyDeleteTo me as a Christian, 1, 5 and 9 are all related. Together, they are the hardest aspect of God for me to grasp. I think previous generations of the western church had a better handle on God’s holiness and “otherness” than we do today. For me, thinking of the vastness of space and how small we all are help to put God into perspective, if such a thing is truly possible. He just will not fit in our limited knowledge. I do not believe it is wrong to question God about perceived injustice. Several Old Testament prophets and Job did just that. I have done it. Most every Christian has at some point. And he does promise to give wisdom to those who seek it.
I think we do not understand the brevity of our time here on earth, either. When seen from eternity, we will wonder why we cared so much about, what will then appear like, temporary inconveniences. Who can really grasp that and live in the knowledge of eternity without having been there? It’s all toil, frustration and pain down here, but if we could only understand where we were going…
The most compelling argument on this list is 11, and I appreciate that people are honestly put off by the way we Christians misrepresent Christ. I really believe there are many people in the western church today that are merely following “church culture” or a political philosophy or other trappings of Christianity that really have nothing to do with following Christ. But even earnest Christians are prone to fail as we will remain in the process of being made perfect for a lifetime. Some elements of the Christian faith will always be offensive to some, but our behavior is not supposed to be one of them.
I was raised in fundamentalist (i.e., "born again") Christian churches, and now consider myself an atheist. My sticking point is number 5. I accept the point JB makes above in his second paragraph, about the brevity and relative irrelevance of suffering on earth; I can grasp how this can be "part of God's plan" which we will only understand after death. But by the same token (i.e., eternity), I cannot accept that God is good when he has created, or at least is failing to stop, a system which human reason can (in my view, at least) only perceive as evil: namely, the eternal torture of human beings. Even the worst criminal here on earth does not deserve ETERNAL torture, much less the ordinary souls who will apparently be sent to hell and tortured eternally for simply failing to believe in God. I would be very curious to hear how Christians deal with #5.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is pretty straightforward. Do you believe in punishing criminals? A murderer, for example, deserves to die or possibly be locked up for the rest of his life (depending on which one you think is appropriate), right? You would consider it good to inflict death or permanent loss of freedom on a murderer.
DeleteHow can you be *good* while endorsing a system which a criminal can only perceive as evil: namely, forcible deprivation of his life and liberty?
Thanks for the answer, Eric. I'm sure more objections will come to me, but here are the first few.
Delete1. I believe murderers should be locked up for life. However, I do not believe that they should be brutally tortured every day of their imprisonment for years and years until they die. I certainly do not think they should be tortured for eternity. If you were to place the worst mass murderer you can think of in a magic torture chamber where he would suffer the sensation of being burnt to death without ever having the release of death, where you could hear him scream in agony, how long would it take you to press a button that would allow him to die? Could you walk away and leave him there, screaming and suffering? For how long? If you gave in and pressed the button that allowed him to die and put him out of his misery, would it be everything that is weak, corrupt, and sinful in you inciting you to press that button? Or everything that is kind, merciful, and good?
2. I believe murderers should be locked up for life. However, I don't think that anyone should be locked up for life because he or she said to the President or the King or the Prime Minister, "I don't believe that you are a legitimate ruler. I refuse to belong to your party. I refuse to sing songs in your honour, go to rallies to praise your government, and show you all the love, respect, and obedience that you think you deserve." A person who is locked up for life for doing that is not a criminal, to my way of thinking: he or she is a political prisoner, and the person who has inflicted the punishment is a Dictator of the worst kind. I suspect you would agree.
3. What is the crime that I have committed in God's eyes? As far as I understand it, the reason that I will go to Hell unless I accept Christ as my Saviour is because I was born with Original Sin. It doesn't matter how good a person I am: I can be the kindest, most loving, most charitable person on earth, and without Christ in my heart, all my righteousness is as filthy rags. So my true crime, the crime for which I deserve eternal torture, is a crime committed by my ancestors, Adam and Eve. Now, imagine that my grandfather committed a heinous murder, back before I was born, and was locked up for life because of it. How many generations of his family do you think deserve to be locked up after him in order to atone for his crime? What would you think of a Ruler who arrested you and threw you in prison for a murder committed by your grandfather before you were born?
4. In other matters, Christianity usually expects that we can use our human reason to understand good from bad. Most people can understand why it is good to keep the Ten Commandments (even if they don't do it) or good to love thy neighbour as thyself (even if they don't do it). Murderers, when they murder people, usually understand that murder is not good and that laws against murder are good for society, even if they're not keen on the idea of life in prison when they're caught. Your analogy relies on the assumption that murderers have entirely different concepts of good and evil than law-abiding people, which I don't think they do. I don't think you could find many people who would argue that our torturer, our dictator who imprisons his political opponents, or our ruler who makes grandchildren pay for the crimes of their grandparents, is "good" by any normal definition of the concept. I do not see how I can be expected to reverse my concepts of good and evil when it is God, rather than man, performing similar actions.
You've transitioned to a slightly different subject now. Let me wrap up the first issue before answering the rest. You originally asked for an explanation of how God can be good even though He punishes sin. You admit that it's good to punish murderers. More generally, you admit that punishment can be a good thing in the right circumstances. Therefore you acknowledge that "God is good," and "God punishes sin," do not logically or morally exclude each other. Both can be true at the same time.
Delete1. You are indicting God for being too severe in His punishment. But really, what law or ethical code do you appeal to when you accuse God of being cruel? Certainly if I invented arbitrary moral standards and tried to impose them on you, you would laugh and ignore them, and that's just between two humans -- two relative equals. How much more ridiculous is it to suggest that a human (inferior) can judge God (supreme) and hold Him accountable to some arbitrary ethical standard? He is the creator; you are the creature. He is the judge; you are the defendant. God is the definition of good and the standard of goodness. Whatever He does is defined as good, and whatever He hates is defined as evil. Any other standard of good and evil is demonstrably irrational.
2. Again, you are indicting God for making supposedly unreasonable demands of His creatures. On whose authority do you judge Him? "Who hath directed the Spirit of the Lord ... and taught him in the path of judgment?" The reason earthly rulers are not permitted to demand worship of their subjects is that God is jealous and will not share His throne with anyone. "I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another." You wrongly assume that because earthly rulers cannot require absolute submission from subjects, neither can God. Non sequitur.
3. So your argument is that you're perfect except for original sin? You've never violated any portion of God's law in thought, word, or deed? If you believe that, then you have no knowledge of God's law or no awareness of yourself (or both). Sit down and spend 30 minutes reading Questions 98-148 of the Westminster Larger Catechism (available online). Read that and tell me you've followed God's law perfectly and completely for your entire life. Just within this conversation, I can assure you that your paragraphs numbered 1 and 2 are highly blasphemous. I say that in humility as a fellow sinner, because I'm guilty of those same thoughts. Nevertheless, to think or speak in that way is a significant violation of God's law. This attitude that you know better than God, that you are more righteous than Him, that your sense of justice and goodness is better than His -- that is your "true crime," as you termed it. It's the same crime that Eve committed when she decided to redefine good and evil because she knew better than God.
[continued in the following post...]
[...continued from the previous post]
DeleteI think you misunderstand original sin. It's not that we're innocent but unjustly get punished for the sin of our ancestors. It's that our ancestors declared war on God, and God cursed them for it. He imposed immediate spiritual death and eventual physical death on them. As their descendants, we inherit every aspect of their nature, including their hatred for God and the curse that goes along with that. We were born into the war against God, and we willingly participate in it. Without Christ, we are incapable of doing even ONE thing that is pleasing to God, because our very essence is abhorrent to Him. "The carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be; so then they that are in the flesh cannot please God." It's not that they sinned and we inherited their punishment despite our innocence and perfection. No. It's that they rebelled and genetically passed their rebellion on to us. (To be accurate, it's the father that transmits the sin nature to his children.) We come into existence with a rebellious hatred for God. That's why we're guilty, and that's what damns us.
4. This argument is invalid because you have inverted the authority chain. You claim that because it's wrong for humans to torture each other, it must be wrong for God to torture someone. Again I ask, what law can possibly indict God? In fact, the only way we know it's wrong for humans to torture each other is because God tells us so. Why does He not allow it? Because He reserves that right for Himself. "Avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
You've taken a restriction that God has placed upon man and tried to restrict God with it. That doesn't work logically or pragmatically. God has every right to say, "Don't do [fill in the blank] because I will take care of that." We have no right to say, "Hey, if I can't do that, then neither can you, God." God can do whatever He wants. He answers to no one and is constrained by nothing but His own good pleasure.
Many thanks, Eric. That is pretty much the argument that I expected, and probably the only one that is unanswerable by anyone trying to stay within its logic. If your starting premise is this-- "God is the definition of good and the standard of goodness. Whatever He does is defined as good, and whatever He hates is defined as evil"--then there is nothing whatsoever that anyone can argue to convince you otherwise.
DeleteI do take strong exception to your assertion that I think I am perfect except for original sin. I think no such thing, nor did my argument at any point rely on such an assertion. My argument in point #3 was positing a hypothetical case: even IF there could be such person, that person would still need Christ to be saved, as no human goodness is sufficiently good for God. Your point, that the existence of such a person (given the effects of original sin) is an impossibility, is well taken.
I wish you the best. Be kind to the people around you. I sincerely hope that your belief in the God you believe in brings you peace and joy in this life, as well as hope for eternal bliss in the next. For my part, I'm willing to gamble that there is no next life, so that I can find a modicum of peace and joy in this one. I used to believe pretty much what you believe, and all it gave me was torment. And yes, I know that what one feels in this life is pretty much irrelevant to you, except perhaps as a tool for diagnosing one's standing with God. It was nice talking to you. I'm going back to the secular world now.
If you can provide some other starting premise that is logical and consistent, I would be interested to see that. What is your ethical standard that defines good and evil? Where did it come from? Whom does it apply to? What makes it authoritative?
DeleteThanks for the clarification on point 3. I apologize for misunderstanding that the scenario was hypothetical. However, if God does not exist (as you hope), there can be no law of God to condemn you, so you must be perfect. "I had not known sin, but by the law.... Without the law sin was dead."
Best wishes to you, too. If you ever want to discuss further, feel free to look me up.
Oh, okay, one more time. Just in case you genuinely want to know. My answer is extremely straightforward, and I'm going to keep it short.
DeleteMy ethical standard that defines good and evil--for human behaviour--is more or less the same as yours, minus, probably, some of the specific taboos that you may uphold based on Christian doctrine (e.g., a complete ban on pre-marital sex) . We were both raised (I assume you were) in Judaeo-Christian cultures, but most cultures, whatever their religion, have the same broadly defined ethical standards: things like stealing, lying, and cruelty are bad, while honesty, kindness, and treating other people as you would like to be treated are good. No rocket science here.
The only difference is that as I understand it, these ethical standards were developed by human beings over the course of human civilization because they ensure that the individual, the group, and the species as a whole will thrive. (Very basic example: you're not going to get far in propagating yourself if you're so greedy or cruel that you continually snatch food away from the female nursing your helpless infant.) Over the course of time, these ethics were codified by various civilizations and (often) assumed to be the will of, or otherwise ascribed to, various supernatural deities. Why it was--and often still is--useful for humans to believe in supernatural deities who wanted them to be good and might punish them for being bad is a question too various and complex to get into here.
The answers to your last two questions should by now be evident. These ethical standards apply to humankind. They are authorized by millennia of human understanding of how one can live in a way which is conducive to the well-being of oneself and the people around one, and minimize behaviour that is not conducive to human well-being.
Of course, all ethical standards have ideals. Individual human beings, having as much capacity for bad as they do for good (and some individuals, for a variety of complex reasons, more capacity for one than for the other), are most probably incapable of reaching any ideal of "perfect" goodness, although they are capable of conceiving of such ideals. I am not as compassionate as my ideal of compassion, nor as generous as my ideal of generosity. I try to be as honest as my ideal of honesty, but sometimes I fall short and reproach myself. I do not need to believe in a supernatural deity and a divine definition of sin to realize that I am far from perfect and to strive to be a human being who reduces rather than increases the unhappiness of those around me.
Finally, I'd like to add that belief in a supernatural deity who is exempted from human standards of ethics and goodness (i.e., the belief that what God does and wills must be good because he is God, even though it would be evil if one human were to do the same to another), is, to my mind, potentially dangerous. For some people, it is a small step from believing in such a God to exempting some of their own behaviour from human standards of ethics because they firmly believe that they are acting in this God's name and in service to his will. Christianity, like all religions, has examples both large and small of such behaviour, from Protestants burning Catholic heretics at the stake (and vice versa), to the evangelical husband who rules his wife with a rod of iron in the belief he is enacting Godly headship.
And now I shall go, and reproach myself for not living up to the ethical ideal of not wasting time when one is meant to be working!
Just wanted to say, anonymous, how refreshing it is to read an atheist argument that is free from vitriol and condescension. I really appreciated the way you conducted this debate.
DeleteIt sounds like your ethical standard is something you make up on the fly. You just declare things to be good whenever you want them to be so. If you get to decide good and evil for yourself, surely I have as much right to decide for myself. You've decided that premarital sex is good. I, on the other hand, have decided that atheism is evil.
DeleteYou admit to being your own standard -- you have some ideal of compassion or honesty. If you live up to that ideal, you are perfect. If not, you reproach yourself. Now, if I get to make up my own ideals, then I can always be perfect. I just set my ideal low enough that my actions are always above it. Therefore, by atheistic standards, I am perfect (and I can't be wrong in believing that atheism is false).
Your ethical standards were developed by human beings. Which human beings? People disagree about what's right and wrong. Some people say it's wrong to get married; some say it has to be one man and one woman; some say one man and multiple women; some say men and men. Who's right? Which culture created the perfect standard? How do you know it's perfect? And what is the standard? (Did they write it down somewhere? How can I get a copy?)
Who gets to decide what is conducive to human well-being? Some people say abortion is *good* because it's conducive to the well-being of the mother. Some call it *evil* because it's not conducive to the well-being of the baby. So is abortion good or evil? If human understanding is the final authority to answer this question, why do humans disagree on this? Shouldn't there be one unified answer? Your source of ethics is inherently self-contradictory and irrational.
Believing in a system of ethical standards that were created over time by human reason and continue to evolve (e.g., slavery went, in the mind of most reasonable people, from morally neutral to morally abhorrent) is complicated, and involves a great deal of thinking things through on a case-by-case basis. This is not really the same as "making it up on the fly," although it may seem that way to someone who believes that all the answers to human dilemmas have been written down by an infallible God.
DeleteFor instance, did I say, as you claim I did, "that premarital sex is good"? I did not. Show me an individual instance of premarital sex and I will consider whether it is good, bad, or morally neutral. Another person may come to another conclusion, and we could argue about it. And ultimately, I hope we would realize that as long as the sexual act in question involved consenting adults in private and did not produce unwanted babies or diseases, that the only people whose understanding really mattered in that case were the people actually having the sex.
Human understanding provides no "final authority" and some complicated moral questions will probably never have "one unified answer." This does not mean that the system of ethics itself is self-contradictory or irrational.
Christians, I should point out, also often disagree with each other concerning the interpretation of the Bible and while one group may think it has the "one unified answer" to a certain question, other Christians may disagree. Does this make Christianity inherently self-contradictory and irrational?
Many people find it more comfortable to believe in a simplified moral universe where what is good and evil is dictated by an infallible deity, at least insofar as they interpret the word of this deity. I do not believe that these people or their religion(s) are evil. What I do think is bad or wrong (evil seems too strong a word here, though in some cases it would apply) is when people who believe in this simplified moral universe try to use the laws of the state to impose it on people who don't share their beliefs. Now, before you go jumping off into abortion and same-sex marriage, consider your statement: "I . . . have decided that atheism is evil." You absolutely have the right to decide that for yourself. However, since you believe that atheism is evil, would you like to see the state enact anti-atheism legislation under which I would be punished if I refused to publicly confess that God exists? How about anti-blasphemy legislation? You called me a blasphemer earlier, and you believe that blasphemy is evil. Would you like to see a federal law under which I would face a fine, or jail time, or worse, for blasphemy? If your instinct is to say no to anti-atheism and anti-blasphemy laws--but, perhaps, you would not object to legislation against abortion and same-sex marriage--then you yourself are making moral distinctions based on human reason about what is conducive to human well-being.
Finally, you seem a bit fixated on this idea of human perfection, which is baffling to me. Yes, to some extent, each individual does set his or her own ideals of honesty, compassion, etc. But anyone who set them low enough that he or she would be able to meet or surpass them and thus consider him or herself to be perfect would be a delusional narcissist and probably a sociopath. I imagine such people might exist, but I sincerely hope I never have to meet one. The logical leap, however, from this supposed ideal of moral perfection to a concept of therefore having perfect KNOWLEDGE--"Therefore, by atheistic standards, I am perfect (and I can't be wrong in believing that atheism is false)"--is utterly incorrect. If a (hypothetical) morally perfect being believed that the world is flat or the blood is pumped by the brain, he or she would still be factually wrong. And if by "atheism is false" you mean "God exists," then you just might be factually wrong too. Just maybe.
Let's consider your ideas about sex. You require (1) consent, (2) adulthood, (3) privacy, (4) no pregnancy, and (5) no disease. First of all, where did you come up with all those rules? Those are amazingly restrictive. Second, what gives you the right to force those rules on other people? According to you, ethical standards evolve over time, so maybe you're just unevolved in your sexual ethics. Maybe a rapist is more evolved and has shed the prejudice you have against non-consent.
DeleteHuman understanding is the source of your ethics, yet you deny it as a final authority. If it's not final, then there must be some higher authority it has to conform to. What authority is that? Who or what, in your opinion, makes the final, ultimate, unquestionable determination that something is good or evil?
Christians disagree on how to *interpret* the Bible. That doesn't imply the Bible contains contradictions. But "human understanding" (which is the authority you appealed to) certainly does contain contradictions. The entity itself cannot provide consistent answers, much less authoritative standards.
If you're referring to the anti-blasphemy laws given in the Bible, then yes, I advocate such legislation. Blasphemy is a capital crime. Your previous comments that I labeled blasphemous would not be worthy of death. What makes it capital is a public, profane, persistent, unrepentant violation.
Let me restate my comments about perfection. From atheistic standards I can reason that I am morally perfect. I'm the judge of my own perfection, so I simply declare myself perfect and it's true. Now I assert that atheism is evil. That's a moral judgment from a morally perfect being, so the statement is true. Incidentally, I can make the same argument about factual perfection. (Just go back through and replace "moral" with "factual" and you get the same result.)
I'm interested in this idea that the world is not flat, no matter what anyone says. You almost make truth sound absolute and transcendent. Does that work for ethics, too? Is it always wrong to murder and rape?
Okay, this debate is now just going in circles. I'm clearly not getting my point across, so I'm going to bow out of this conversation. For good, this time. I did not hope to change your mind. I did hope to show that reasonable people can hold the position that I've laid out here. My argument about anti-blasphemy laws, incidentally, relied on my (mistaken) assumption that you would not support an attempt by the government to curtail its citizens' right to freedom of speech. As you in fact would support a theocracy where the government executes its citizens for blasphemy, my argument that you too make distinctions based on human reason falls apart. Evidently, you believe that human reason is so incontrovertibly corrupt that you wish to distance yourself from it as much as possible.
DeleteBe good, Eric Mote. Don't let your certainty that you've grasped God's truth cause misery for the people around you. I find it funny that your name is Mote: Matthew 7:5 (King James or American Standard version) should show you why. And now you're perfectly free to have the last word, declare me vanquished, whatever you like. I won't be posting here again.
You say your goal was to show that atheism is reasonable and rational. In order to do that, you needed to unravel its logical contradictions. First you said your ethical standards originate from human understanding; then you decided that human understanding actually isn't the final authority. In fact, you can't identify your final authority. When you make a judgment that an action is morally good or bad, you appeal to *something* for the answer, but you won't tell me what that is. You want to force all kinds of rules on society (e.g., sex must be between consenting adults), but you don't know where those rules came from or why they have any authority. That doesn't make your position look very rational.
DeleteLet me just reiterate the fundamental question that remains unanswered. Who or what, according to atheism, makes the final and unquestionable determination that something is good or evil?
The problem with the anonymous aetheist is that he is under the mistaken belief that he is living, and therefore has no need to come to Jesus to receive eternal life. The real question is whether God is living, because if He is - and He is the one who saved me -He is the one that gives life, the aethist is not living.
DeleteYou cite the murderer: should he be eternally tortured. Ask a different question: should he be in heaven, where perfection is the standard (it doesnt matter what personal standard you have, our hearts deceive us - I mean how much love does an aethist have if he has never loved He who is love), and he has rejected the one who would give him life and who loved him - loved him enough to die even for a murderer and even for me.
ReplyDeleteI think christianity is the only religion, apart from islam, which talks of an eternal hell (I think islam teaches the same, but am not 100% sure. Perhaps Peter will know). Hell exists even in hinduism (and probably most other religions, if I am not mistaken), but it is for a finite period. The soul is punished, but given an opportunity to repent and reach God eventually.
I do not think Jesus ever said that those who do not believe in Him will be destined to go to hell. I think this is a gross misinterpretation by christians. After all, there are examples, throughout history, of people who believed but continued to commit heinous crimes against humanity (Of course the same applies to so-called devout hindus, etc.).
So it is not such a simple solution as Peter makes out.
I agree with and appreciate many of the things Peter raises in this blog, but his mind is closed like that of many other christians, when it comes to "doctrine". He will perhaps be surprised to learn that the Bible is not that different from the hindu scriptures in many ways. He should try and read the Vedas one day.
Actually, Jesus said, "... ye shall die in your sins if ye believe not that I am he. Ye shall die in your sins." I understand that isn't directly saying that an unbelieving soul is destined for hell, but knowing scripture-wise what dying in one's sins entails, one has to do some pretty complex mental gymnastics interpret that as something else.
DeleteRaghu, your statement about Christians grossly misinterpreting Jesus about nonbelievers being destined to hell is simply not true. What was the mission of Jesus? It was to redeem humanity to God by shedding his blood as a ransom for our sinfulness. In doing so, you and I could be rescued from the holy wrath of YAWEH. John 14:6-Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me. It would seem incredibly absurd to assume that Christ could have lived the life he lived, and died the death he died, while still allowing for nonbelievers to enjoy the reward of his sacrifice. If anyone could be saved and go to heaven apart from the Cross of Jesus Christ, then it would seem that it was necessary for Jesus to have suffered, and die such a brutal, painful death. It doesn't add up. And your statement about people continuing to believe while also committing heinous crimes against humanity must revisit the standard by which you qualify "belief."-James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
DeleteA true follower of Christ will have a transformed life and will demonstrate growth in holiness and deviation from the former life of sin. Those "believers" you speak of simply don't necessarily measure up to the biblical call put to death their flesh and take on the Spirit. It is not a sound, nor respectful interpretation of Jesus or the Bible.
*unnecessary
Delete
ReplyDeletePeter's mind is closed about very many things, not just other religions! HIS interpretation of biblical events and doctrine are the only correct ones, ever. If you don't believe me, just ask him - I'm sure he'll confirm that he's always right :)
Hell is the total absence of God. The possibility of hell is a consequence of our freedom. In this sense God does not send people to hell. Hell exists but we hope noone is there. If you are worries about Hell the best thing to do is abandon yourself in God's mercy. He will allay your fears. However much you are concerned about other people going to Hell, God is infinitely more concerned. He will give people every chance.
ReplyDeleteIf Hell exists, if someone is in there (God would know, right?), and if God is omnipotent, why doesn't God shut hell down and put whomever's in their out of his/her/their eternal misery?
DeleteHe would know. That person prefers to be on their own. Hell does not exist in its own right - only as an absence of God. As such it cannot be shut down.
DeleteCould you please explain further what it means when people say that "Hell is the absence of God"? I've heard it a few times recently, but it wasn't current (as far as I ever knew) back in my evangelical upbringing, and I honestly don't know what it's supposed to mean. I was taught that Hell was a fiery place of torment where the souls of everyone who hadn't accepted Christ as saviour would be tortured for eternity, along with Satan and his demons. Obviously, God was not in Hell, and would not take anyone out of it, so in that sense, Hell was also "an absence of God." But this doesn't seem to be the same thing that the commenters above are using the expression to mean.
DeleteHave a read of what John Paul ii send on heaven and hell http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2heavn.htm
DeleteAh. So it's more or less just the concept that people freely choose to go to hell by choosing not to believe in God (I assume that simple non-belief is included in "rejecting God's mercy," as I can't imagine what lunatic would believe in God and yet reject His mercy), and therefore God is not responsible for sending people to hell. Not a different concept of hell, just a slightly different take on how you get there.
DeleteWe can give no simplistic answers on this. It is certainly not the case that we can say such and such people go to hell. I think one of the reasons we have been told not to judge is simply that we are very bad at it.John Paul thought this.
Delete"The purpose of an open mind, like that of an open mouth, is to close it upon something solid."
ReplyDeleteI do find in daily life that those who say they have no faith are the most dogmatic in day to day affairs, politics, science etc. I find that believers generally are much more sceptical about these things. Non believers tend to take on uncritically the prevalent beliefs of their age e.g.
Many of these are not really arguments against God's existence or against the Christian faith. "The church is full of hypocrites," and "Christians cherry-pick". for example, may be true, but it could still be the case that God exists.
ReplyDelete#3 - People may think that God had no right to take lives in the Old Testament, but it could still be the case that God exists.
#10, that God is not necessary as an explanation. This could be true, but it could still be the case that God exists. God's existence is not contingent upon his being invoked as some explanatory hypothesis.
The one that I find most interesting though is "Christianity is true for you, but not for me." This sort of hearsay is becoming more popular. I dealt with this claim in my article Does Truth Exist? http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/01/does-truth-exist/
If you don't mind me doing a little "self"-promotion here, I have a blog series I'm working on that addresses #7 and #12 (more-so #7).
ReplyDeletehttp://rhindon.xanga.com/764917142/biblical-contradictions-series/
It's not a finished series - there are 46 points to answer and I only have 20% answered. I hope this helps. :)
I think I'll also add this article to my blog to-do list and start a new series to answer these 12 points many critics site. I constantly encounter them, myself. So it'll be good to work on a series of answers for other Christians to equip themselves with.
ReplyDeleteAre you sure the people claiming Jesus can't be the only way to God are actually atheists and not just nonChristians? This just doesn't sound like an atheistic claim.
ReplyDeleteI am a nonChristian because
1 God would have written a better book than the Bible
2 Concepts like the Trinity and atonement don't make sense.
3 I don't want to have a personal relationship with Jesus.
4 Church is boring.
I am a nontheist because
1the hiddeness of God
2 the wide variety of concepts about God leads me conclude that there is no all powerful being who cares whether humans actually know him.
3 the problem of suffering from natural causes undermines my belief in an all powerful and beneficent being.
1. Sounds like you have not really studied the Bible
ReplyDelete2. A man made religion would not have bothered with Trinity. It was an especially difficult doctrine for the early Christians to teach to the Jews. Why would they have made it up. It does make sense in cosidering God as a relational being, Love itself. Atonement does maksense even on a purely human level.
3It is certainly your choice, but have you tried to understand who he is.
4.Yes, it can be so. To go deeper you sometimes have to detach yourself from the things of this life. This can be boring but sooner or later you come closer to the reality of who you are and what you should do.
Is he hidden or are we blinded by his pervading presence?
There are a wide variety of concepts or maybe not, depending on how you consider it. It is true that humans cannot in words express what God is or describe him. He just is. That is why he revealed himself.
The problem of suffering is the one we find hard to understand. No philosophy or religion can explain it. Or did God himself hint at an answer in the crucified Christ?
“Christians believe in Christ largely for psychological reasons: because it comforts them, because they were brought up that way or because they are afraid not to believe in case they go to Hell.”
ReplyDeleteComfort just sounds ridiculous from anyone that has truly partaken in the Way. He is the Comforter, but it is a hard life.
Being “brought up that way" flatly denies the atheists that were raised amidst it and all of the atheists, Muslims, Buddhist, etc. that have some to the LORD.
Anyone that knows Orthodox doctrine knows that buying into the premise of Pacal’s Wager is not what keeps you from hell.
In fact a religious upbringing is more honest and gives the receiver a perspective that differs from the prevalent ones in society. He or she is therefore more conscious of the choice he or she has. A Catholic school for example is open about the doctrine it teaches. A secular school pretends to be 'neautral' and gives lip service to students thinking independently and making up their own minds whereas in fact it is actually teaching a series of doctrines. E.g. sex is fine as ling as it is between consensual adults and health risks are averted.
ReplyDeleteI followed the link to #7 but the article didn't actually offer a rebuttal. I'm curious about this number, #9 and #12 and what devout Christians offer as a rebuttal for these three entries.
ReplyDeleteI ask, how can Christians condone the killing of innocent children such as in 2 Kings 2:23-24 where God allowed a bear to maul 42 children for calling Elisha "baldy" and telling him to "get out of here"? Or in Psalm 137:9 (Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks).
Or Genesis 19:4-8 where Lot himself offers up his virgin daughters to be raped in the stead of his guests. (A similar story came up later in Judges 19:22-30 where an old man offered his virgin daughter to the rapists in the stead of his guests and after the rapists refused, the guest gave them his wife who they raped and murdered, and after he had gotten her home, he chopped up her body and sent it to different places in Israel as a lesson to the leaders.)
What do devout female Christians say when they are shown the passage 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.) or 1 Timothy 2 (A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.). Would that not make female readers/commentators and female teachers sinners?
How about Ezekiel 9:5-6 (As I listened, he said to the others, “Follow him through the city and kill, without showing pity or compassion. Slaughter the old men, the young men and women, the mothers and children, but do not touch anyone who has the mark. Begin at my sanctuary.” So they began with the old men who were in front of the temple.)
The bible contains entries that condone human sacrifices (often one's own children), genocide, misogyny, slavery, rape, infanticide, incest. It also contains less grave, but no less ridiculous entries that say we cannot eat shellfish and pork, wear mixed fabrics, plants mixed crops and other rules. It says women must be *sorry* for having committed the sin of having menstruation. It says women must give birth because this is practically the only thing they are good for.
It's no wonder Christians cherry pick.
But then here's the kicker: if you refuse to obey some Biblical rules, why should you obey the others, especially since Christians proclaim that there is *nothing* incorrect in the Bible? Could it be that the Bible is, in fact, fallible? Maybe because it was written by a bunch of poor shepherds who thought the Earth was flat?
And if, in fact, the Bible is fallible, would that not cast doubt on the existence of God whose only "evidence" for existence is based on this flawed book?
Enlighten me, please.