Why are people afraid of atheism?

[gadgetlady 4]

Young earth... heh... bet'cha you think it's flat too, eh?

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time:

I will quote from one of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl: Ridicule and scorn are not evidence. Simply labeling an idea as silly, simplistic, or unsophisticated does nothing to disprove the idea itself.

[gadgetlady 4]

So.... who created your God?

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time:

First, if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation.

Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

[gadgetlady 4]

It's pretty easy to disprove that the world was created in 7 days and is less than a million years old too.

I haven't seen any birth certificate for the earth, have you? There are certain assumptions you have to make to get to the "million years" number. Without those assumptions (e.g. the constancy of the earth's atmosphere), it's not "pretty easy" at all. The reason it's "pretty easy" to disprove the theory that the earth is flat is because we can see it (from space) and we can experience it (taking a boat or plane all the way around the earth). You can do neither of those things with an attempt to date the earth or determine how long its inception took.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Just in case you didn't catch it the first time:

First, if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation.

Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

Oh, I caught it the first time. Now, who created your god? It that one is a toughie for you feel free to say so. It's okay to say, "I don't' know," sometimes.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadget, I'm nitpicking.......but there is a difference in believing that Adam and Eve were the first people created, and believing (just because they were the only ones named) they were the only people created (which was on the site I saw). Again, believe what you like, that's cool. Personally, I have no problem believing God created the Earth and life on it (perhaps by the big bang? IDK.....probably never in this life will know). Seven days could easily be a metaphor (Because it would be extremely complex to convey the idea of "millions of years" to a man that couldn't even begin to imagine electricity. Talk about mind-blowing), But that's just me. One of the best things about Christianity is that we can afford to not sweat the details.

I have a lot of friends who are old-earth creationists and theistic evolutionists. I don't doubt their allegiance to Christ at all. The reason I brought this up with you is because I believe people need to see the face of those who believe with intellectual integrity that Creation Science is a legitimate theory of origin. Of course I know atheists (and others) will ridicule me and make every attempt to denigrate the theory; it's not like it hasn't happened before. It happens within my own (extended) family, so I don't expect any different from people on a posting board.

[gadgetlady 4]

Oh, I caught it the first time. Now, who created your god? It that one is a toughie for you feel free to say so. It's okay to say, "I don't' know," sometimes.

Gosh, I thought I said that with An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation for the explanation.

In the absence of a better explanation, I believe God is infinite, has always been, and transcends time. He calls Himself "I Am." There are mysteries I believe the human brain will never fully understand, and I'm fine with that.

Without a God, we're still left with "where did the STUFF that evolved into the STUFF that we are now come from?" No matter which direction you go, you still have a question mark at the beginning. I've seen Dawkins posit that we might have been seeded by another entity, which of course begs the question where did the other entity come from, or who seeded them (or it)? I find it rather funny that Dawkins, when asked where they came from, falls back on the same flimsy "lightening in goo" theory. Where the heck did the lightening and the goo come from? I can ask you endlessly where the first cell came from, and you can ask me endlessly where God came from. It get us nowhere.

Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

[gadgetlady 4]

You know, it's interesting that when the whole world said the earth was flat, God said differently. 200 years before Pythagoras (generally accepted as the first person to posit the earth was round) came Isaiah 40:22 - "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth". This was an unheard of concept at the time. I know there are a lot of competing theories about this verse, but I'm just throwing this out there because I read it for what it says: before man knew the earth was round, God knew the earth was round.

[TommyO 5]

it is felt by many that that passage indicates that the earth existed inside the circle not outside, so oddly Isaiah does not refer to the earth as round but as a circle a one dimensional object.

[ELENATION 0]

FYI statistically crime rates and recidivism rates are only minutely affected by consequences, if at all. That is why, for example, states with the death penalty do not have lower murder rates. It is far more likely that you will find higher crime rates in the same places we find greater poverty. This would suggest that need is a far greater determination of crime then tough penalties. When people make claims like tougher laws are the answer to crime rates they make these claims because the solution seems obvious when in fact it is not. Just because we believe something doesn't make it so (See Creationism). So you can say that consequences work but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. It is most important that we are motivated to act a certain way because of the moral code we live by.

In short if you need hell to ensure that you don't kill someone I'm fine with that but please, please, please don't go backsliding on me now.

FYI I found statistics showing evidence of the contrary of what you just said, and compare harsher laws with creationism/hell is not accurate since hell applies only to religious people, and I was talking generally. And please, please ,please KNOW that I was not backsliding on you, simply made a comment that happened to have something to do with something you said, that was all, to avoid confrontation with you, I will not comment on anything you say again, it's not a problem for me at all, actually I think it will be a pleasure, please refrain from commenting on my posts as well. Thank you.

Edited May 7, 2008 by ELENATION

[TommyO 5]

P.S. You said " When the whole earth said the world was flat" When was that? You may have a sense of what the prevailing thought of western civilization may have been but I don't think you can surmise what the whole earth thought at any given time. Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't it the Christians who were adamant that the world was flat. Remember the Dark Ages, if I am not mistaken I think that was brought on by Christian's. Just another Christian movement that espoused backword ideals that impeded the advancment of mankind.

[Jennie1976 1]

Do you believe in purple flying monkeys? Or do you believe very strongly against believing in purple flying monkeys? If something does not exist, do you strongly believe in not believing in it? See how silly that sounds to us?

Wow! Wake up on the wrong side of the bed much? I was using a very simple metaphor to explain a very complex idea. I guess the "metaphor" part of it wasn't clear to you.

I was just trying to explain why belief in God to Christians is VERY different than belief in nothing (or something that doesn't exist to them) to atheists. The original poster asked a very simple question and I replied with a very simple answer. Your response was rude and condescending. I do not, and never will, agree with you. But I didn't feel the need to be rude or ridicule you.

And Gadgetlady: I agree with everything you are saying. I saw a bumper sticker quite awhile ago that made me laugh out loud. Paraphrasing it (as I don't have the picture to show you) it said, "Right now, even Darwin believes in Creationism". Just thought you'd get a kick out of it :-)

[TommyO 5]

Elenation, FYI I wasn't talking to you at anytime in this thread and I was unaware, until your last post, that you were talking to me. I think if you read through the posts that preceeded my earlier post that this is in fact the case. I can see how you would be upset but you must keep in mind that there are a number of people participating in this thread. If you beleive that they are speaking directly to you all the time not only would you be upset you are probably somewhat confused.

BTW I was not comparing Creationism to harsher laws I was discussing belief versus reality, as a matter of fact it was a little jab I was making for some fun. You may want to stand up some of this stuff seems to be going over your head (Another jab and this time at you)

[VegasGrace 1]

NPR was doing a segment this morning on a very large Christian movement to have the new movie, The Golden Compass, boycotted. Of the three Pullman (a professed rejector of organized religion and atheist), this one (based on Northern Lights) has the least occurence of "anti-religion" themes - the last having the most. He is seen as being anti-Christian and anti-Catholic, but if you're familiar with him, he is much more anti-religion in the most general sense.

People are trying to stop their children from seeing this movie, out of fear that interest in the movie will generate interest in the books and *gasp* expose their children to themes of anti-religion.

I really don't understand this.

Why would someone be afraid that their child might learn that there's such a thing as atheism or agnosticism?

Why does the Harry Potter series terrify parents? Is it horrible if children know that there's a fantasy world of magic, or IF they can make the more cognitive connections, that witchcraft is out there?

As an atheist, I would not prevent my child from reading books which presented religion or a diety as a good thing, or books that presented atheism as a bad thing, or books that taught about ideas outside of whatever. If my child wanted to go to church, I would not prevent it. If they wanted to read the bible, I would buy them one. I would hope that my child understands there are different things that are right for different people, and eventually gathers the information needed to make the decision that is right for them... whether it aligns with my personal beliefs is irrelevant. What's right for me isn't right for everyone, and everyone includes my own family.

Afraid of it? Never heard about that...don't know of anyone who is aftraid of Atheism. Might not agree with it, but afraid? I don't think so.

But unlike you, if my child (being a child) wanted to be exposed to something that I didn't agree with...I wouldn't let them. I don't agree with MTV so it doesn't come thru our house. I don't agree with smut magazines so it doesn't come to our house. I pitched a fit when a Victoria Secrets catalog came. Parents should monitor what their children are exposed to. I guess if my daughter came home and asked me to see something like SAW or some other horrible flick, I'd say no. There is no benefit. Now, if she said she wanted to learn more about the holocaust and wanted to watch Schindlers List or something....I've have to seriously consider it as it would add to and enrich her life.

What I'm getting at is personal preference. Just because I don't want my children exposed to certain things as a child doesn't mean I'm keeping them from things that would make them a better person, on the contrary, it's about responsible parenting.

And those movies you mentioned, we didn't see them because they didn't look interesting. Another movie with talking animals and war...haven't we done that enough? My kids think so.

So, afraid, no.

[ELENATION 0]

Elenation, FYI I wasn't talking to you at anytime in this thread and I was unaware, until your last post, that you were talking to me. I think if you read through the posts that preceeded my earlier post that this is in fact the case. I can see how you would be upset but you must keep in mind that there are a number of people participating in this thread. If you beleive that they are speaking directly to you all the time not only would you be upset you are probably somewhat confused.

BTW I was not comparing Creationism to harsher laws I was discussing belief versus reality, as a matter of fact it was a little jab I was making for some fun. You may want to stand up some of this stuff seems to be going over your head (Another jab and this time at you)

Unless I missed other posts, I was the one talking about consequences, so yes I thought you were talking to me, if you werent, then I apologize, keep your "jabs" at me to yourself because frankly they are not welcomed by me, I'm sure other people would LOVE them... you think I may be "somewhat confused"?? with your posts I am at times... I will say this politely, as I already said, I don't care to engage in any type of debate with you particularly, or conversation, or pretty much any interaction, you are free to keep addressing my posts , there is nothing I can do about it, so if yet that's what you want, then knock yourself out, but know that I won't be answering , not interested, but please don't take it personally. THank you.

Edited May 7, 2008 by ELENATION

[Gone4Now 4]

I just have one question: Why is there so much hostility towards Christians?

I get the need for separation of church and state. I want that, too. But, after reading all these posts, it seems the sarcasm and anger issues are coming from the athiest side of the table. That's not to say that it hasn't been flung from both sides, but the majority of the name calling is coming from athiests.

Why is that necessary to get your point across?