A Manual For Creating Atheists

reply to post by charles1952


They are however entitled to ask for some sort of empirical evidence as a rational basis for a Supreme Being, which I think it did a pretty good job providing on the last page (before this one. Edit: er, page 7 i mean).

In response, it was called something like "uncorrelated google vomit".


I myself was a rebel against religion, had to be, and for me I just have to know WHY and HOW things are what they are, and if there's to be any faith in God, it cannot be blind faith, there must be something in our experience or in the physical world to suggest it, but one must be open minded if such evidence is to be had, not biased.

"There is a principal which serves as a bar against all information and proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man (person) in everlasting ignorance. That principal is called - contempt, prior to investigation."
~ Herbert Spencer, Scientist

So when we hear another atheist saying something about the foolishness of the religious or how man's historical quest to try to find something of the nature of God is nothing but a "fairy tale" which would have to include, presumably the logic and reasoning of Jesus Christ (Yeheshua Messiah), please see it for what it is - ignorance, and a contemptuous bias rooted in nothing but ignorance.

They don't even know or have the first clue about what it is they oppose or claim does not exist, and seemingly would be prepared to argue for their own non-existence if required to avoid the implication of a loving God, and, to make matters worse, for them, if they ever did come face to face with the living, loving God, many would deny him to His face, their contempt is so ingrained, so conditioned and so very biased, that they would flee from God's presence to hell itself just to avoid admitting that they were wrong!

If however they had a strong faculty for irony and humor (that isn't merely sarcastic and cynical) then there's definitely hope for them.

If I were an atheist I would call myself a soft atheist, meaning that while I do not hold to the belief in a supreme being, that I'm open to persuasion, to evidence or in other words that I sure wouldn't mind being proven wrong and am open to all possibilities, which is more agnostic, but that kind of fence sitting is just too wimpy although it's probably the only truly honest position to take.

Atheists are intellectually dishonest, imho, and they must know this, which is why when they try to take their potshots at religion and people of faith/belief (gnosis?) they are so aggressive and defensive, so rude, so spiteful, so ridiculously ignorant, not only in regards to what they don't know but in what they presume to know with certainty.

I've tried to figure out a way to bridge the divide and befriend them on the basis of Christian principals of love and brotherhood, but they're viscous and prone to biting when a loving hand is extended.


Best Regards,

NAM

charles1952
reply to post by Grimpachi

 

-- snip --
He also confuses the meaning of the word faith. He seems to think it is belief in something there is no evidence for. That's one definition, perhaps, but it's not the one religious people would use. In fact, that is not the first definition that dictionaries give (at least in my quick search) the first definition is usually "Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing."
-- snip --
With respect,
Charles1952

Well said! I'm always amused by someone that looks down their nose at anyone considering themselves spiritual or a person of faith. As long as their belief system doesn't harm anyone else, why care? One really big example that comes to mind is the Large Hadron Collider. The amount of money, natural resources and man hours that went into building that thing and working out the kinks makes my head spin. And for what?? A tiny little particle that under just the right conditions Might or Might Not exist long enough to measure it!

If that's not faith, I don't know what is. It's just that some people choose to worship at the alter of Science. (I don't say that sarcastically, btw...)

As a type of antidote to "the manual for creating atheists", I'd like to offer the following for people's reading pleasure, wherein a well reasoned argument and philosophical, metaphysical and experiential basis for the Christian faith is imho, illuminated, even to a very high degree.

Warning: You will need a strong faculty for humor (however grave) and a great appreciation of irony, to really appreciate it.

NewAgeMan

Re: Glory

The Weight of Glory, by C.S. Lewis

NewAgeMan

This story, which is a great allegory with wonderful insights. It's a very enjoyable and humorous, if not gravely humorous read. Hope you like it.

The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis - Amazon

Free Download!

readanybooks.net...

NewAgeMan
reply to post by new_here

 

NAM Quote: That's what I see then is a bunch of idiots battering away at the door of God's kingdom, as if it will yield under the sheer pressure of their supreme arrogance, pride, vanity.. see again how there's a great joke in all of this yet to be told at the devil's expense.. or perhaps I should say at the expense of human stupidity and the pride of man..?

We must learn to laugh at the devil, which shuts him up and makes him go away, which in turn frees us up to laugh ever more and still harder!

I hope someone get's this and that it's not just me. (end quote)
-----------------------------------------------------


"The best way to drive out the devil, if he will not yield to texts of
Scripture, is to jeer and flout him, for he cannot bear scorn."—Luther

"The devill . . the prowde spirite . . cannot endure to be mocked."—Thomas More

So opens Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters (Download Here) which he dedicated to his friend and the one person he credits with his conversation from a reluctant atheism (he was made at God for not existing), J.R.R Tolkein.

THE SCREWTAPE LETTERS

by

C. S. LEWIS

Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford

TO

J. R. R. TOLKIEN

www.truechristianity.info...

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Dear NewAgeMan,

There is so much in your post that I admire and approve of. Just in the first paragraph you point out that skeptics, indeed any human, is entitled to ask for evidence of God.

(Oh, and the "Uncorrelated Google vomit?" I feel cheated. I think AfterInfinity may have a very good mind, but it's become twisted somehow. I'd like to have a lengthy conversation with him, but it never seems to work out.)

if there's to be any faith in God, it cannot be blind faith, there must be something in our experience or in the physical world to suggest it, but one must be open minded if such evidence is to be had, not biased.

And this is very good as well, but we have to be a little careful.

If you want to know the precise mass of an object, we have many sophisticated devices which will report the figure to us. Same thing with the precise wavelength of color or sound, the speed of an object, how fast it's decaying, etc.

But what scientific measure should we try to apply to God? We have no tool, indeed we can't have a tool, that will measure any of His attributes. We have to rely on individual, or sometimes group, experiences.

The obvious, quick source to find out about these experiences is the Bible, especially the New Testament. various scientific disciplines have told us that the Bible we have is remarkably similar to the original writings, a conclusion which has more scientific support than for any other ancient document.

As far as the writings in the Bible, literary comparisons tell us that either the Gospel writers put down what they saw, or these common Jewish men invented a hitherto unknown style of realistic fiction. You can decide which is more likely.

Then there are the experiences of writers and great minds through the centuries. When someone asks "Who was "The Philosopher"?" the correct answer is Saint Thomas Aquinas. Mystical experiences have been recorded by the thousand, God as an inspiration in everyday life and trials are even more plentiful. And for stark experiences one can read about faith in the WWII camps, the torture of Rev. Richard Wurmbrand, and thousands of martyrs, ancient and modern. Miracles have also been recorded by the hundreds, even in modern times.

Is all of this absolute, scientific proof? Of course not. That can never be obtained because what we are trying to analyze is beyond the reach of Science. Is it believable? Oh, goodness yes. Billions of people are, or have been, Christian.

Near the time of Christ there were several Jewish revolutionaries who declared themselves "the Messiah." They lived, gathered some followers, and died. Only researchers even know their names now. Jesus was entirely different. That fact alone is, I believe, an interesting piece of evidence.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. They have different styles, but in addition to Lewis (Do you know how he got the nickname "Jack?"), I'm a real fan of Peter Kreeft and his logic, often Socratic in tone, and G.K. Chesterton. Give me their complete works, throw in a Bible and P.G. Wodehouse, and I could be set for life. - C -

reply to post by charles1952


I agree, and I like your author recommendations.

For me, with regards to proof of intelligent design, I'm entirely satisfied that it's a legitimate proof and a pointer, which isn't a tool to measure God by any means, only to demonstrate, with evidence, that there IS a God or infinite intelligent Creator or Supreme Being.

It CAN be proved that there IS a God, in other words, and I think I've done it, with the earth-moon-sun configuration and moon-earth geometrical relationship as the basis for life as we know it, something that can only have taken place by design and by anticipation or from an original intent. It's logically consistent and holds together.

There is nothing wrong with a rational basis for knowledge OF God i.e.: that the invisible power of God even the very Godhead can be seen by what is made.

I'm not looking for my own glory in offering this proof mind you, it just is what it is, that we have God's fingerprint or signature right in front of us right here on earth, and as to what's out there in the unknown unknown who knows and if THIS is possible, which it is, then it's anyone's guess as to what other creative tricks from a first cause God might have up his longggg sleeve.

And I do believe, and know, from research, that Jesus noticed it as well and saw it, the celestial order, giving testimony to him, and to his Great Work.

Philosophical arguments cannot sway the atheist, but a hallmark or a SIGN in the manifest material creation ought to cause them to take notice, as a starting point, and at the very least to show them that we're by no means fools.

Anyone who goes back through those links I offered and who traces the whole thing through cannot help but recognize it, unless they are willfully blind.

God gave us a sign as a wink and a nod intended for our recognition, in the divine order, which also contains embedded an allegory about reflections...

Next I would ask them to read Jesus and try him on for size in regards to the nature of his reasoning and logic.

As to the Gospels, those were not written to be taken exclusively as historical accounts only, but were written as Apocrypha, and by that word I don't mean untrue, but to both reveal and to hide, and they reveal as much by what they hide as what they reveal..

Best Regards,

NAM aka Bob
Your brother in Christ.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

Dear NewAgeMan,

You've been around these religion threads for a while, how does your guess compare with mine? I suspect that the argument against the celestial bodies will be either in the form of "But there are Umpty Gazillion planets, it's just chance that one was formed like ours." Or, alternatively, "We live in just one of the infinite number of parallel universes. Any kind of arrangement you like will be found in one of the universes."

Every now and then I'm reminded that Christians don't have to convert anyone or prove anything. We are, however, told to spread the Word. Some seed will flourish, some will fall on rocky soil. That's not really our worry.

What we have to do is have a firm faith in our own hearts. I'm glad that the Sun - Moon - Earth configuration adds to your certainty, and I applaud you for seeing that relationship. It probably opens doors for you that I haven't yet found. Will others accept it? We can present it and pray, but the rest is up to Him.

Mind an old joke?

Why can't atheists find the solution for exponential equations? They don't believe in higher powers.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by NewAgeMan


NAM why don’t you ever volunteer the truth about your earth moon triangle assertions. The fact that until it is brought up you present it as a perfect fit says more than going through the numerous erroneous posts on here bit by bit. In fact you had a thread where you presented all of that and it was picked apart with factual info.

Fact the earth isn’t a sphere it is pear shaped bulging at the middle the diameter from pole to pole is shorter than the diameter at the equator.

Fact the triangle does not line up as you presented it is off by many many miles.

If the Earth was larger or smaller by millions of metric tons to compensate as a sphere then the triangle configuration would work maybe. Considering everyday meteors deposit more on earth maybe it will then again the moon is constantly moving away from the earth at a slow pace.

Oh well I know you will say that doesn’t matter because it seems close enough to you. Fact is if the earth moon configuration actually did fit as you portray life on earth would probably be much different from what we know. That said if it was much further off than what it already is the same can be said but the thing to take note of is that in both those scenarios life would still probably exist on earth just in a different configuration.

Anyway it’s sad to see how this thread has diverged away from the OP but it was expected to a degree.

You should have a read about this since you brought it up earlier in the thread.
No Faith in Science Why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods.

Not looking to debate you again on the subject but I had to interject some facts that you were not forthcoming with about your little theory that you claim is proof.

Atheists of morons. They think that everything actually hard and physical as we experience it, when science has proven that all matter is just energy. How could they be so dumb. Nothing is what it seems. There forever this big VR simulation has to come from some higher power. Not just some stupid evolutionary theory.

reply to post by charles1952


Ah you're right - see the post after yours.

People see, or do not see, what they want to see or not to see, it's absurd.

But if this smaller glory (even though it's at this end of an entire cosmological framework) doesn't satisfy the curiosity about the existence of God as a Supreme Being and, quite obviously (as far as I can tell) an infinitely intelligent one at that, how will they react and respond to the REAL THING when it becomes plainly obvious. If they cannot or are not willing to bear witness to the lessor glory, will they see and recognize the greater one?

Jesus said that we are doubly blessed who do not see, but must infer from the word of others, and deduce therefore his true character, nature, reasoning, logic and love, etc., and like you I have found him, but these are in their worldview nothing but words on a page, and a "fairy tale" at that or so they say.

If we can find the spirit of Jesus and of God via the words on a page, why can't an "atheist" recognize in the face that in the relationship whereby the moon eclipses the sun and the shadow of the earth the moon, during the epoch in evolutionary history when there are sentient observers to notice it, never mind the pyramid geometry of the moon and earth (and whether the earth bulged makes no difference, and the phi ratio reduced representation of that was only off by 17 km's for the circumference of the moon)- is something which, because it has given rise to this very life, cannot be written off as a mere "coincidence" or the byproduct of a random occurrence (see hypothesis of lunar formation)?

It's hard to fathom that kind of willful blindness. Your feigned argument at least was a meaningful attempt to try to address it, and there's a reasonable argument that can be put forward for either the infinite universe theory or astronomical random coincidence or "fluke". I could address that in a reasonable and logical way, but I digress...

G'night all.

Best Regards,

NAM

As far as a manual for creating atheists (are they offended if it isn't capitalized?), this bit of news niggled away at the back of my mind for a couple of days... The people at this soup kitchen and I all consider ourselves Christians, but I certainly don't agree with their stance. While there is always the possibility that we aren't given the entire story, it still saddened me to see volunteers turned away. What about an atheist mother with two small children who were hungry? Would it be just as reasonable to turn them away...?

Spartanburg Soup Kitchen Refuses Atheist Volunteers

Spartanburg, SC — A soup kitchen in Spartanburg, South Carolina, denied a group of atheists from volunteering at the facility.

Upstate Atheist president Eve Brannon told the Spartanburg Herald Journal that the Spartanburg Soup Kitchen refused to let her group volunteer.

“I told [the Spartanburg Soup Kitchen] we wouldn’t wear our T-shirts. We wouldn’t tell anyone who we are with. We just want to help out,” Brannon said. “And they told us that we were not allowed.”

The soup kitchen’s executive director, Lou Landrum, told the SHJ that allowing atheists to volunteer would be a “disservice to this community.”

Landrum said, “We stand on the principles of God. Do [atheists] think that our guests are so ignorant that they don’t know what an atheist is? Why are they targeting us? They don’t give any money. I wouldn’t want their money.”

Landrum also said the Upstate Atheists could set up across the street from the soup kitchen. “They can have the devil there with them, but they better not come across the street,” she said.

It was that kind of attitude that led me to remove my family from the last church we attended.

I truly enjoyed the intellect and wit of Christopher Hitchens. I miss him. When I saw Christians hatefully gloating about his throat cancer, it hit me particularly hard because I lost my father to the same disease. It wasn't just Hitch, other reasonable atheists have convinced me that lack of belief in a Creator need not automatically mean one is any less moral or conscientious than anyone else.

There is far too little Love in the world. I've come to the opinion that living your faith is the best first step. My goal every day is to invest at least one smile or thank you in a total stranger. While I may never see the dividends, I know in my heart they are never wasted.

reply to post by charles1952


If you have something to say to me, then say it. Your passive aggressive approach is not the appropriate one.

reply to post by spartacus699


And that post was the paragon of intelligence. I am in awe of your eloquence and humility.

/sarcasm

Grimpachi
NAM why don’t you ever volunteer the truth about your earth moon triangle assertions.

I suppose he didn't bring it up because it makes less sense than two of every animal on an ark.

Anyway it’s sad to see how this thread has diverged away from the OP but it was expected to a degree.

You should realize by now ANY thread which might question the existance of god will attact the same host of characters who honestly believe their imaginary omnipotent friend needs to be protected at all costs from the nasty atheists. He only created the universe...sticks and stones don't break his bones but apparently names are his kryptonite.

You should have a read about this since you brought it up earlier in the thread.
No Faith in Science Why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods.

It's typical.
Ask them for facts, they give you theories.
Ask them for truth, they give you parables.
Ask them for commonsence, they give you "creationism".
Present them with facts...they feel threatened.
Present them with the truth...they'll spout nonsence.
Present them with commonsence...they'll get defensive.

Science makes them panic and hypothetical situations are all religion will ever have to offer with respect to facts. Simply put, he was desperate to provide what he felt was factual proof. So desperate he only saw what he wanted to see instead of seeing the elephant in the room called "theory".
It's beyond me why the religious think a theory constitutes fact.
Most of them don't even care about living in the present. They're too psyched with the afterlife, like a teenager on monday who discovers there's an awesome party next friday. Tuesday through Thursday don't even register for them anymore.
Even on a spiritual scale, christians don't celebrate their spirituality...they collectively mourne it.
It's like trying to reason an a battered spouse out of their fear.
It just can't be don't with logic alone.

As for the OP, Atheism needs no manual.

Sleep.
Eat.
Learn.
Enjoy.
Repeat.

Any questions?

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes


It is "sense", not "sence". "Sence" is not an english word. You're killing me over here.

Grammar nazi out!

reply to post by spartacus699


Are you for real?

Belief in a higher power, particularly a benign, protective deity, may have helped the human species to survive. Man, after all, is the only animal that has to cope with the certain knowledge of his own inevitable demise. He alone has had to live with the potentially enervating insight that life itself is transitory. That awareness could, and no doubt did, traumatize many early sapiens into a neurosis of anxiety and inactivity. After all, loss of faith can be quite debilitating and unnerving even today, for all the worldly comforts. What greater reassurance could there be than an eventual "return" to the protective embrace of the Creator, to the surrender of self to a god of infinite love, at one with the cosmos? We believe because we want to believe.

It seems increasingly likely that normal gene mutations within the brain gave evolutionary advantage to individuals who could mitigate the evidence of rational thought and their own senses with a belief in an invisible world beyond the grave. By softening death into an afterlife, those humans retained hope in the face of adversity, gained an invigorated purpose in life and increased their chances of reproductive survival. In time all human survivors inherited the "God genes", predisposing humanity towards belief in a supernatural realm. Dreams appeared to confirm its existence, as did the discovery of psychotropic plants and herbs.

With the propensity to supernatural belief "hard wired" into the human brain religiously organized societies were a natural concomitant. Priesthoods arose that articulated and manipulated the "religious impulse". This ruling caste regulated and sanctioned communication with the spirit world and established control over the ceremonies of death.

Yet rationality and exploration of the natural world advanced man's understanding and provided immediate, tangible comforts. Less the focus of attention be directed away from protective tribal spirits, the priests intruded accentuated dangers and horrors of unbelief into the world of the living and concocted the notion of sacrifice. Ultimately, that sacrifice would be a perfect man, a god in fact, who would come from that invisible world and, in returning, guide those who die to an eternal paradise.

Scholars have known all this for more than 200 years but priestcraft is a highly profitable business and finances an industry of deceit to keep the show on the road.

reply to post by CornShucker


I held a fascinating discussion with a deist the other day. He believed in a creator, and when he explained it to me, he demonstrated that he had put in the time and energy to establish the beliefs he now holds, which happen to be grounded in decades worth of scientific findings.

I have no problem with his religiosity because of that.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


If you can't wait for me to fix my typos before posting this kind of stuff, then I can't help you.

-Peace-

You should have a read about this since you brought it up earlier in the thread.
No Faith in Science Why the Higgs boson is not like a sea of milk that sustains the gods.

Since I was the one who mentioned it (apparently), I went and read the provided link. Considering the almost certain fact that I'll never actually see a Higgs boson, guess I'll have to have faith they have been proven to exist.

Couldn't help but notice the linked article ends with an insult. Seems to be pattern here...

ETA:
I think that came out sounding other than I intended. I was talking about scientific rebuttals of faith, not you. You turned me on to Stefan Molyneux & for that I am grateful.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by CornShucker

 

I held a fascinating discussion with a deist the other day. He believed in a creator, and when he explained it to me, he demonstrated that he had put in the time and energy to establish the beliefs he now holds, which happen to be grounded in decades worth of scientific findings.

I have no problem with his religiosity because of that.

As the saying goes "We all must walk the path alone." That's why I genuinely like people. We are all just trying to find our place in the world and I would be bored to tears if we all thought exactly alike.

reply to post by Eryiedes


I didn't ask you to help me. But that's okay, no good deed...