-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
What do Christians think of Atheists?
- Thread starter Ana the Ist
- Start date
- Status
My bad, it was not Mencken, it was Aldous Huxley. It's from his book Ends And Means, here's the passage:
For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries,
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was
simultaneously liberation from a certain political and eco-
nomic system and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it inter-
fered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political
and economic system because it was unjust. The sup-
porters of these systems claimed that in some way they
embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted)
of the world. There was one admirably simple method of
confuting these people and at the same time justifying our-
selves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny
that the world had any meaning whatsoever. Similar tactics
had been adopted during the eighteenth century and for the
same reasons. From the popular novelists of the period,
such as Crebillon and Andrea de Nerciat, we learn that the
chief reason for being * philosophical* was that one might
be free from prejudices above all, prejudices of a sexual
nature. More serious writers associated political with sexual
prejudice and recommended philosophy (in practice, the
philosophy of meaninglessness) as a preparation for social
reform or revolution. The early nineteenth century wit-
nessed a reaction towards meaningful philosophy of a kind
that could, unhappily, be used to justify political reaction.
The men of the new Enlightenment which occurred in the
middle years of the nineteenth century once again used
meaninglessness as a weapon against the reactionaries.
The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so
great that, during the period when they were formulated,
neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification
for sexual indulgence.
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was
simultaneously liberation from a certain political and eco-
nomic system and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it inter-
fered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political
and economic system because it was unjust. The sup-
porters of these systems claimed that in some way they
embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted)
of the world. There was one admirably simple method of
confuting these people and at the same time justifying our-
selves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny
that the world had any meaning whatsoever. Similar tactics
had been adopted during the eighteenth century and for the
same reasons. From the popular novelists of the period,
such as Crebillon and Andrea de Nerciat, we learn that the
chief reason for being * philosophical* was that one might
be free from prejudices above all, prejudices of a sexual
nature. More serious writers associated political with sexual
prejudice and recommended philosophy (in practice, the
philosophy of meaninglessness) as a preparation for social
reform or revolution. The early nineteenth century wit-
nessed a reaction towards meaningful philosophy of a kind
that could, unhappily, be used to justify political reaction.
The men of the new Enlightenment which occurred in the
middle years of the nineteenth century once again used
meaninglessness as a weapon against the reactionaries.
The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so
great that, during the period when they were formulated,
neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification
for sexual indulgence.
(I edited the post so no one needs to call me on it if they catch the mistake.)
You'd have to ask Mr. Huxley, But I think atheists don't believe in God or gods.
Upvote
0
Soyeong
Well-Known Member
- Mar 10, 2015
- 12,706
- 4,688
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Messianic
- Marital Status
- Single
Evidence is information that indicates something is true and if there were no information that indicated that something is true, then there wouldn't be anyone who held that belief. So the issue is not whether or not there is a lack of evidence for the existence of God, but whether or not we have been given sufficient evidence. All the beliefs that we hold we do so only because we consider there to be sufficient evidence, while all the beliefs that we don't hold we don't do so only because we have have not been given what we consider to be sufficient evidence. So the issue of why someone doesn't believe in the existence of God is essentially why they do not consider there to be sufficient evidence. This is where factors that influence how we interpret evidence can come in, such not wanting to be accountable to a higher authority or emotional reasons. This is especially true of ex-theists who can't turn around and say that there is a lack of evidence when if that were the case, then they would never have been a theist in the first place, but rather they no longer consider the evidence to be sufficient. This again can be influenced factors such as being hurt by theists, some sort of trauma, or a combination of factors.
Emotions are part of who we are and while there are many steps that we can take to mitigate the influences of our biases, we can't remove them. People often believe something or don't believe something for emotional reasons and and then seek to justify their position by seeking intellectual reasons, but this can be just a smoke screen to distract from the true reasons for their decision. In my time on online forums, I have run across many atheists who have a never ending list of contradictions of the Bible, where when I explain how they have misunderstood it, they just move on to the next supposed contradiction, but I've come to realize that the contradictions are just a distraction and not a core issue because even if I somehow managed to convince them that there were no contradictions in the Bible, then they most likely still wouldn't believe. So as much as they would like to frame it as intellectual objections, I have often found that the core issue is an emotional objection.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
Ahhh...ok...Satan again.
It's not as if they teach you that god exists in grade school or high school though...at least not in the schools I went to.
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,428
- 7,165
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
As I think back, I never really did believe in any kind of god. My family wasn't especially religious, but we'd go to services occasionally. And I was sent to the usual Bible school for a time. But even as a child, I always had the feeling that the supernatural goings-on in all those Bible stories were made-up fairy tales. Kinda like Greek mythology. I've never had any kind of religious experience. And I could never connect with claims of gods, angels, spirits, devils, talking donkeys, voices from burning bushes, and dead men coming back to life. After age 13 or 14 or so, I can't ever remember going to church again unless it was for a wedding, or funeral, or something similar. I think it's the way my brain works. I honestly don't think I'm more rational or intelligent--I just process information differently. I suspect I was born that way. Like they say, it's in my DNA. 
Upvote
0
Radrook
Well-Known Member
- Feb 25, 2016
- 11,539
- 2,726
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
Well, Satan is said to be the culprit for instigating the fall of mankind and roaming around seeking to do as much damage as possible. One way is to convince people that God doesn't exist.
True, the schools tend to teach the popular atheistic viewpoint.
That's why the religious view is considered ignorant and undereducated by many who place their total trust in science.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
What a strange thing to say...surely you realize people hold all kinds of false beliefs without any real evidence, right?
I mean...under that assumption, any beliefs anyone holds has supporting evidence...including conflicting beliefs.
I would say that people don't generally hold beliefs without having a reason...but those reasons don't necessarily amount to "evidence".
I see...while I'm not sure that's necessarily the case...I do agree that people often hold beliefs for emotional reasons, and then seek evidence or intellectual arguments to confirm their beliefs.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
As I think back, I never really did believe in any kind of god. My family wasn't especially religious, but we'd go to services occasionally. And I was sent to the usual Bible school for a time. But even as a child, I always had the feeling that the supernatural goings-on in all those Bible stories were made-up fairy tales. Kinda like Greek mythology. I've never had any kind of religious experience. And I could never connect with claims of gods, angels, spirits, devils, talking donkeys, voices from burning bushes, and dead men coming back to life. After age 13 or 14 or so, I can't ever remember going to church again unless it was for a wedding, or funeral, or something similar. I think it's the way my brain works. I honestly don't think I'm more rational or intelligent--I just process information differently. I suspect I was born that way. Like they say, it's in my DNA.
I think there's some science that supports the notion that belief in god or the supernatural is a biological predisposition...so it's not unthinkable that a certain percentage of people lack that predisposition as well.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
That doesn't feel like a..."convenient" explanation to you?
Well...again this is just a reflection of my experience in school...but I don't recall being taught any viewpoint on the matter. There were classes which briefly touched on the history of religions and certain aspects of them...but certainly no teaching on which might or might not be correct.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
C'mon...you don't really think atheists exist through some failing of religious people do you? It's ok if you do...that just sounds like a very diplomatic answer.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
My bad, it was not Mencken, it was Aldous Huxley. It's from his book Ends And Means, here's the passage:
For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries,
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was
simultaneously liberation from a certain political and eco-
nomic system and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it inter-
fered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political
and economic system because it was unjust. The sup-
porters of these systems claimed that in some way they
embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted)
of the world. There was one admirably simple method of
confuting these people and at the same time justifying our-
selves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny
that the world had any meaning whatsoever. Similar tactics
had been adopted during the eighteenth century and for the
same reasons. From the popular novelists of the period,
such as Crebillon and Andrea de Nerciat, we learn that the
chief reason for being * philosophical* was that one might
be free from prejudices above all, prejudices of a sexual
nature. More serious writers associated political with sexual
prejudice and recommended philosophy (in practice, the
philosophy of meaninglessness) as a preparation for social
reform or revolution. The early nineteenth century wit-
nessed a reaction towards meaningful philosophy of a kind
that could, unhappily, be used to justify political reaction.
The men of the new Enlightenment which occurred in the
middle years of the nineteenth century once again used
meaninglessness as a weapon against the reactionaries.
The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so
great that, during the period when they were formulated,
neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification
for sexual indulgence.
(I edited the post so no one needs to call me on it if they catch the mistake.)
You'd have to ask Mr. Huxley, But I think atheists don't believe in God or gods.
Well no...I don't agree with Mr. Huxley...but I can understand his viewpoint and probably why he held it. As an intellectual, he would've been pretty heavily exposed to Sigmund Freud and his work...essentially giving birth to modern psychoanalysis. Freud himself had a rather heavy tendency to view and describe things in terms of sexuality...so someone attempting to analyze "freedom from religion" within such a framework probably did the same.
Modern psychology doesn't lend the same kind of weight to sexuality as Freud did. Nonetheless, Huxley lived through a time where conservative sexual values were beginning to seriously be breached...so it's not hard to imagine that he saw similarities between the changing times he lived in and other things.
The very concept itself is flawed though...if one doesn't believe in god, then certainly one doesn't believe in the "sins" god objects to. I don't think anyone seriously stops believing in god...so that they can engage in behaviors god disapproves of. If one was concerned at all with what god "disapproves of"...then clearly they hold some kind of belief in god.
Upvote
0
- Feb 21, 2012
- 39,990
- 12,573
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
My bad, it was not Mencken, it was Aldous Huxley. It's from his book Ends And Means, here's the passage:
For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries,
the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an
instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was
simultaneously liberation from a certain political and eco-
nomic system and liberation from a certain system of
morality. We objected to the morality because it inter-
fered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political
and economic system because it was unjust. The sup-
porters of these systems claimed that in some way they
embodied the meaning (a Christian meaning, they insisted)
of the world. There was one admirably simple method of
confuting these people and at the same time justifying our-
selves in our political and erotic revolt: we could deny
that the world had any meaning whatsoever. Similar tactics
had been adopted during the eighteenth century and for the
same reasons. From the popular novelists of the period,
such as Crebillon and Andrea de Nerciat, we learn that the
chief reason for being * philosophical* was that one might
be free from prejudices above all, prejudices of a sexual
nature. More serious writers associated political with sexual
prejudice and recommended philosophy (in practice, the
philosophy of meaninglessness) as a preparation for social
reform or revolution. The early nineteenth century wit-
nessed a reaction towards meaningful philosophy of a kind
that could, unhappily, be used to justify political reaction.
The men of the new Enlightenment which occurred in the
middle years of the nineteenth century once again used
meaninglessness as a weapon against the reactionaries.
The Victorian passion for respectability was, however, so
great that, during the period when they were formulated,
neither Positivism nor Darwinism was used as a justification
for sexual indulgence.
(I edited the post so no one needs to call me on it if they catch the mistake.)
You'd have to ask Mr. Huxley, But I think atheists don't believe in God or gods.
Thanks for digging up the quote though....it's interesting.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
