Why Atheism Is Morally Bankrupt - A thought since we are celebrating Christs birth...

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

It's true that there where hundreds of Jewish rebels at the time. Jesus is about as
well documented as any other Jewish rebel. There isn't any particular reason to
doubt his existence, but nor is there any reason to get especially excited about it
out side of the context of the start of the Christianity cult.

Cult it is not. Look up the definition.

Also, Jesus happens to be the most documented person in history, even more so that Julius Caesar himself.

I like how you belittle things to try to move the point in a particular direction.

-S

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Also, Jesus happens to be the most documented person in history, even more so that Julius Caesar himself.

Anything to back that up?

The two books written by Caesar tend to swing things in his favour, I imagine.

[LobsterBoy]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Perfect proof that you are labeling without knowing. Thanks for pointing that out.

-S

Yet you title the thread "Why atheism is morally bankrupt" This makes a general statement that labels atheists as morally bankrupt. Yet I see no proof or logic in an article that makes a claim without evidence to back it up.

You labeled me first and assailed my character without knowing me. I understand that people believe things that I do not. It's a free country and I respect their desire to do so. I don't claim to be right because I have no proof. I simply request that, if you wish to discuss the topic, you leave blanket statements behind.

I wonder what response I would have received had I started a thread with the title "Christianity is Morally Bankrupt" and posted an opinion piece :hmm:

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Letum

It is clearly not the case that nothing exists.

Wait a minute, I thought nothing did exist. Isn't that what a vacuum is? No, not a Hoover either

[Letum]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Cult it is not. Look up the definition.

Also, Jesus happens to be the most documented person in history, even more so that Julius Caesar himself.

I like how you belittle things to try to move the point in a particular direction.

-S

Cult it certainly is not now, but cult it certainly was back in <100 AD. Or perhaps
'Jewish sect' is a more accurate description. The rise of Christianity as something
different from Judaism was not instant and nor was it's rise in popularity, although
it was very quick to expand for several reasons.
Jesus is poorly documented by contemporary, secular sources, but that was the
norm for most lower class Jewish rebels in the corners of the empire at the time.
It wasn't until the rise of Christianity that he became of wider historical interest.
All secular sources where written after his death.

[LobsterBoy]

Perhaps Christianity is just recycled Egyptian mythology......

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

[Iceman]

Faith the grain of a mustard seed unlocks unlimited power ... E=MC2
God is light = infinity and speed of light accomplished...hence time does not apply nor exsist.
Time has a begining,middle and end...so Einstein concluded...rightly so.

Prove me wrong...but heck sure fits better than a big bang idea in the sense evolutionists present anyways..

Thousands of years of stories and writings passed down by the ages to lend creedence to the "Creation theory" are a safe bet.

Where's the "Dead sea bing big bang badaboo Scrolls" ?..there is nothing, but theory's created by man in the last few hundred yrs...good luck with dat.

[Task Force]

The truth is, there is no right or wrong, We really don't know if there is or isn't a god. In the past, gods were used to put a meaning to things we don't understand. and we don't understand death.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Task Force

The truth is, there is no right or wrong, We really don't know if there is or isn't a god.

Well, yes, but only in the same way that we can never know for sure that there isn't a
chocolate teapot orbiting the sun and therefor there is no right or wrong answer about
the teapot.

[Aramike]

Skybird - that's why I said "in the popular terms" when referring to atheism in my argument. I, like you, believe that "atheism" and "antitheism" have become operatively interchangable terms. I don't neccessarily disagree with your points, but my arguments were kind of rested upon that usage of the term.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in deities. It's the same as not believing in astrology. It's just that there is no word "nonastrologer" that can be unfairly stuck with all sorts of negative connotations.

Humanism, skepticism and antitheism can go along with atheism, but it is not necessary to hold those beliefs to be an atheist.

I don't disagree with this at all. But, my point (which you quoted) was regarding the fact that, in order for an argument (atheism) to be a true statement, it clearly implies that its opposite would be a false statement.

Like I said when I originally posted in response to Skybird, it was kind of a semantic argument.

Where are the atheists who claim to be the sole dispensers of The Truth, based in some way on The Book, and who retreat to the impregnable fortress of the Sanctity and Mystery of Faith when questioned?

This question is kind of loaded, don't you say?

There are plenty of atheists and antitheists who believe that their "truth" is the only truth (as is the nature of any argument), and I've questioned many atheists regarding the origins of the universe. Not in the temporal sense, but they can seemingly go only as far back as theists can (the point of creation, not prior). To accept anything beyond that as solid truth is a question of faith.

To say concretely that there is not a creator, but then to exist in a universe clearly created by SOMETHING, but to not be able to identify that thing, is to stand on belief purely.

As for me, I personally find the idea of a god unlikely. The data clearly supports the moment of creation as being what is known as the "Big Bang". However, the data does not support my coming out and making the statement that "there is no god".

I just don't know. I doubt, but I can't say for certain. My problem is the presentation of such things as a certainty.

Your argument goes a little further, though. It implies that religion presents its conclusions as certainties. You're right, they do. That is the nature of their belief system. However, that's NOT the nature of the belief system of an atheist. My entire point is that many atheists (using the modern terminology) violate this nature by spreading their beliefs.

We can talk about religion.

Not saying you can't.

What you're talking about is antitheism, which one can accept or reject based on evidence. And by your logic, only adherents of a faith can criticize elements of that faith. Which is a bit difficult to accept after 9/11.

You have completely misinterpretted my logic if this is your conclusion. I mean, like WAY out of the ballpark.

My logic was that atheists prosyletizing makes no sense as there is supposedly no belief to share. I have no problem whatsoever with any member of any belief system criticizing any other.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Where's the "Dead sea bing big bang badaboo Scrolls" ?..there is nothing, but theory's created by man in the last few hundred yrs...good luck with dat.

You haven't taken a look at the evidence for the Big Bang, have you?

First of all, we know that the universe had to have a "beginning", if you will.

Second, galaxies are moving away from us at speeds relative to their distance. This is known as "Hubble's Law". This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.

Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725* kelvin CMB which pervades the observable universe. This is absolute proof that the Big Bang occured (note that Penzias and Wilson were given the Nobel Prize in 1978 for their discoveries and achievments in physics).

Finally, the abundance of the lighter elements hydrogen and helium found in the observable universe do support the basic ideas the Big Bing Theory proposes.

Originally Posted by Iceman

Faith the grain of a mustard seed unlocks unlimited power ... E=MC2
God is light = infinity and speed of light accomplished...hence time does not apply nor exsist.
Time has a begining,middle and end...so Einstein concluded...rightly so.

Prove me wrong...but heck sure fits better than a big bang idea in the sense evolutionists present anyways..

My god, the man must be a genius. Get me Switzerland. We've got to relay this information to Zurich ASAP.



Kent Hovind proposed similar comparisons in his video series that shows "evidence" for creation. I hope you can think more logically than Mr. Hovind can...

Originally Posted by Iceman

Thousands of years of stories and writings passed down by the ages to lend creedence to the "Creation theory" are a safe bet.

Then we should all be following the Mesopotamian views on religion. Lets all make monthly sacrifices to praise Gilgamesh and his supreme god-father.

Seriously, you believe in the idea of creation, which proposes that Earth and the universe and everything in it was created 6,000 years ago by an, invisible magic man in the sky?

I have no trouble with people believing in this invisible, magical sky-man (I certainly am skeptical of it and oppose the idea when people try to force it in places that it doesn't belong... like in schools), but the idea that everything is 6,000 years old is preposterous. We've known for half a century that our planet is 4.5 billion years old, not 6,000...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Letum

That is where you have lost me.
I believe I have a perfectly good concept of the infinite. Why wouldn't I?
There is nothing magical or mysterious about an infinite length, volume, set of numbers
or any other boundless value.

Well, I've met people who felt the same, and that's perfectly acceptable. Perhaps it's just people like me that can't wrap our heads around infinity.

Honestly, I can't quite put my finger on it, but something seems wrong with it. As far as I know, pretty much everything can be quantified in some way. Sometimes, the calculations needed to do so would be impossibly complex, but they can be done, given the right data and algorithm. The span of the universe (or space, rather) is infinite, supposedly, but that doesn't tell us anything. You might as well say that the space is "green" light-years wide.

If space is infinitely large, then the universe, which does not have infinite mass or energy, is infinitely dense, relative to the infinite size of space. It cannot be otherwise, because space is infinite, but it is otherwise, suggesting that space is not infinite.

After all, if space were infinitely large, the universe would always be infinitely dense, and since space is nothing, the universe would remain a singularity, of infinitely increasing density.

It's possible that space is only increasing in volume at an infinite rate,(Boyle's laws come into question here) or increasing at the same speed as the universe, but then there must be something beyond it. It can't be nothing, or it would already be infinite.

True, we can identify an infinite quantity, but we can't ever really understand it. Just try to think of the highest number you can. You can never succeed, because there is always a higher number.

There may be no God in infinty, but there are no answers, either.

@ Letum, you are welcome to stop reading at this point, should you wish to
skip the religious portion. I invite you to read on, and offer your opions, though.


The bible teaches us to have faith. In other words, to believe when we can't comprehend, or understand. And we cannot understand infiinity. It teaches us to respect life, but especially life that promotes more life. Life that coexsists and cooperates and makes things that are greater than the sum of its' parts. Maybe the universe is so vast because that range of probability is required to produce intelligent life.

I choose to believe that there is a God. Maybe he is a God only because he understands things that are incomprehensible to us. Perhaps his comprehension of infinity is what seperates him from us the most. Maybe he is so intelligent that he designed a universal machine that would inevitable produce a species that would eventually ascend to his level of understanding.

Now, if you buy half of all that, you'll at least consider the possibility that infinity is as unsolveable by science as faith is by religion. Maybe there is a common element there. Maybe the pursuit of knowledge, under the principles of the Bible, could lead mankind to greater understanding than ever before. Perhaps we are meant to solve the infinite paradox.

I know that there are many who point to the fallacies of religious organizations today and in the past. They have lied, murdered, stolen, and committed other sins. Those are, of course, organizations created by men.
Many Protestant religions, and others I'm sure, believe in a more personal God that acts more as a conscience than as a judge. When God's teachings are your own, to follow as faithfully as you can, you rarely end up with a witch-burning, suicide-bombing, or heretic-smiting individual.

The teachings of Jesus and the New Testament are designed to promote order. Willful order leads to prosperity and understanding. Willful order requires freedom, and the alternative breeds revolution or war. Revolution and war breed chaos and destruction of life. All very simple concepts, you see. If social order is created and maintained by people who follow the freedom and conviction afforded by a personal God, in the Christian style, these harms are avoided. There is no central authority to corrupt other's beliefs, but there is an inviolable law set forth by God himself that is intended to prevent such authority from being corrupted. No wonder the Constitution is considered to be "divinely inspired". It ain't perfect, but it came as close as the limits of societal development and prevalent political issues would allow.

I think that science and faith are reconcileable. Science seeks answers through knowledge. Faith does not seek answers, but encourages the development of a society that is successful enough to seek them. Whatever the answer is, I believe that solving the infiinite paradox is the key, unique amongst all mysteries and more incomprehensible than any of them. To understand how the universe works is to understand the apparent infinity that we percieve. To find God and, for his will on Earth to be done as it is in heaven, we must understand his infinite power. Maybe only then will we know heaven on Earth, or wherever we may be.

There are also some beliefs concerning the "infinte" speed of light, in a relativistic sense I would like your opinion on, but those can wait. I also have a lot more to say on the topic, but I'll wait for questions, rather than attempt to answer every possible question. It's almost 0300 here, so I need to go to bed so I can be awake when my nephew and half-sister wake up in a couple of hours. And I still have stocking-stuffing and present-laying to do.

Whatever your thoughts on the topic, Merry Christmas all!

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

Well, yes, but only in the same way that we can never know for sure that there isn't a
chocolate teapot orbiting the sun and therefor there is no right or wrong answer about
the teapot.

See, this is where I disagree. I do know and respect where you're coming from having often used the phrase "purple unicorn" myself.

However, the concept of a god is a very logical conclusion to a very real question. One could even call it the "God Theory". I don't believe that it is the right conclusion, but the data doesn't invalidate the theory. In the case of the "Chocolate Teapot" or the "Pink Unicorn", these things are conclusions to nothing and we have data that would make such theories invalid.

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Aramike

See, this is where I disagree. I do know and respect where you're coming from having often used the phrase "purple unicorn" myself.

However, the concept of a god is a very logical conclusion to a very real question. One could even call it the "God Theory". I don't believe that it is the right conclusion, but the data doesn't invalidate the theory. In the case of the "Chocolate Teapot" or the "Pink Unicorn", these things are conclusions to nothing and we have data that would make such theories invalid.

I see it like this, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he must also be infinitely complex (and this idea is also argued by religious persons). Henceforth, it makes his spontaneous existence far less likely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has finite complexity. And what can explain complexity? Natural selection. What has evidence to support it? Natural selection. What can explain complexity but does not have evidence? God.

[Aramike]

I see it like this, if god is omnipotent and omniscient, he must also be infinitely complex (and this idea is also argued by religious persons). Henceforth, it makes his spontaneous existence far less likely than the universe simply coming into existence, which has finite complexity. And what can explain complexity? Natural selection. What has evidence to support it? Natural selection. What can explain complexity but does not have evidence? God.

I can't really argue this because I don't really disagree.

Heh, unless we want to get in a physics discussion using quantum string theory...