Coming home . . .

[Haven]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

To everyone who's spoken with me here over the past few months, thanks, I really appreciate it. To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction. If you want more details, just ask.

Thanks

Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

[His Name Is John]

I don't really see much difference between the modern Christian and the modern atheist. The difference I see mainly is that the modern Christian believes there is a God of some sort, but has doubts about it, and the atheist believes there is no God, but has doubts about it.

Perhaps intellectually they are not as polarised as they once were, but there is still a rather large difference in how you approach morality and many other different issues.

[Moses Yoder]

I don't really see much difference between the modern Christian and the modern atheist. The difference I see mainly is that the modern Christian believes there is a God of some sort, but has doubts about it, and the atheist believes there is no God, but has doubts about it.

Perhaps intellectually they are not as polarised as they once were, but there is still a rather large difference in how you approach morality and many other different issues.

We have discussed morality here at length, and there is very little difference in the moral viewpoint between the atheist and the Christian. In fact, from what I have seen most of the atheists here treat people better than the Christians do.

[JCviggen]

The three points that were most convincing for me were:

1) The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem invalidating an eternal universe / multiverse

2) The inability to account for a coherent view of morality on atheism / naturalism / non-theism

3) The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the ineptitude of all other naturalistic explanations. Only a presumption of naturalism and a devaluing of the prior probability of miracles kept me from believing since discussing this topic with a few Christian academics (who shall remain nameless).

First of all I wish you the best with your new direction of faith, it doesn't bother me in the slightest if someone wishes to swap sides for whatever reason.

However, this is a debate forum after all about the 3 points you mentioned...would you agree that in fact you did not reach a logical conclusion? That perhaps you found the scientific explanations unsatisfying on a personal level, rather than that the other explanation you've now gone to is fundamentally better?

Point 1) I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're saying there...the fact that the universe is not eternal doesn't appear to support any argument for or against.

Point 2) Reality and morality are quite different things... but I suppose if you changed for personal reasons rather than rational ones, that's fair enough.
Either way there is a strong case that morality and religion are not particularly connected.

Point 3) You'd have to presume the resurrection was real, in order for naturalistic explanations to be inept at explaning it (by definition of course, something supernatural cannot be properly explained naturally)
Again, the presumption part is what makes it slightly irrational. As it stands, there is no evidence of a resurrection.

I suppose I could have remained with that position for the rest of my life and have been intellectually honest, but I'd find constant undecidedness banal.

If it makes you feel better, I'm all for it. Life's too short not to enjoy it and if religion improves your quality of life then that's enough justification.

[His Name Is John]

We have discussed morality here at length, and there is very little difference in the moral viewpoint between the atheist and the Christian. In fact, from what I have seen most of the atheists here treat people better than the Christians do.

I totally disagree. Most atheists and Christians disagree on a huge number of different moral issues.

I disagree about atheists treating people better than the Christians. But I can only talk about my experience, not yours. Christians who do not love others are not doing what Jesus commanded them to. Atheists on the other hand have very few logical / rational reasons for loving other human beings (but yes, many do anyway).

I am not going to get into a debate about this here, but lets just agree to disagree

[Bust Nak]

I totally disagree. Most atheists and Christians disagree on a huge number of different moral issues.

Abortion and gay marriage are the two that springs to mind. Can't really think of anything else.

Atheists on the other hand have very few logical / rational reasons for loving other human beings (but yes, many do anyway).

How many logical/rational reasons do you need for loving other human beings? I only need one - loving others encourage others to love me back.

Edit: I thought of another issue, extramarital sex.

[theopoesis]

Though I've just recently officially met you, I've been a lurker here for about a year and have always appreciated your posts and honesty throughout your time here. Happy to have you as a brother in Christ, and hope we get the chance to talk more in the future.

As a side point...

I do not believe that rational theism is possible. Let's start with the word god. Surely you agree with me that it is not rational to claim to believe in that which you cannot even define. What is it that you mean when you use the word god? Please be as complete and precise as possible.

I know the question wasn't directed to me, but I was recently reading some theology by Karl Rahner which was quite interesting, and based on the premise that the word "God" was meaningless. I can't say whether I agree with him just yet (few hundred pages yet to go in his book, but I am so far suspicious), but I thought it could contribute to the discussions. Here's what he has to say:

The word 'God' exists. This by itself is worth thinking about. However, at least the German word says nothing or nothing more than that about God. Whether this was always the case in the earliest history of the word is another question. In any case the word 'God' functions today like a proper name. One has to know from other sources what or who it means. Usually we do not notice this, but it is true. If we were to call God 'Father,' for example, or 'Lord,' or the 'heavenly being,' or something similar, as happens all the time in the history of religion, then the word by itself would say something about what it means because of its origins in other experiences we have and in its secular usage. But here it looks in the first instance as though the word confronts us like a blank face. It says nothing about what it means, nor can it simply function like an index finger which points to something encountered immediately outside of the word. Then it would not have to say anything about what it means, as is the case when we say 'tree' or 'table' or 'sun.'

Nevertheless, because this word is so very much without contour (and it is because of this that the first question has to be: What is this word really supposed to say?) it is obviously quite appropriate for what it refers to, regardless of whether the word may have originally been so 'faceless' or not. We can prescind, then, from the question of whether the history of the word began with another form of the word. In any case, the present form of the word reflects what the word refers to: the 'ineffable one,' the 'nameless one' who does not enter into the world we can name as a part of it. It means the 'silent one' who is always there, and yet can always be overlooked, unheard, and because it expresses the whole in its unity and totality, can be passed over as meaningless. It means that which really is wordless, because every word receives its limits, its own sound and hence its intelligible sense only within a field of words. Hence what has become faceless, that is the word 'God' which no longer refers by itself to a definite, individual experience, has assumed the right to be able to speak to us of God. For it is the final word before we become silent, the word which allows all the individual things we can name to disappear into the background, the word in which we are dealing with the totality which grounds them all.

Even if your strongest claim about the meaninglessness of the word "God" is true, Rahner might give us a theological loop hole. A way out.

[His Name Is John]

Abortion and gay marriage are the two that springs to mind. Can't really think of anything else.

Just war, euthanasia, capital punishment, punishment in general, social conscience, rights of the individual, rights of the state, worship of God ect.

This is only just scratching the tip of differences (or potential differences). Perhaps atheists and Christians agree on certain of these things, but usually their reasons for doing so are most defiantly not the same.

How many logical/rational reasons do you need for loving other human beings? I only need one - loving others encourage others to love me back.

So you love others for selfish reasons?

If so it isn't really love of others as much as love of yourself.

[sleepyhead]

Hi all,


Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

I don't think your crazy or have lost your mind. With regards to whether theism or atheism has the most evidence, I'm assuming your taking theisms side. You'll notice disciple of truth posted aspects of Christianity to challenge your belief in theism. Your then added your comment #3

3) The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus and the ineptitude of all other naturalistic explanations. Only a presumption of naturalism and a devaluing of the prior probability of miracles kept me from believing since discussing this topic with a few Christian academics (who shall remain nameless).

which brought Christianity into the debate. My advice is to keep the debate on theism vs. atheism because a rational theism is possible.

If I can put is a plug for my user group since you don't believe in hell, "leaning toward reincarnation" has room for more members. Many of the Complaints against Christianity can be answered with a belief in reincarnation

[Goat]

Hi all,

I don't know if this is the best sub-forum to post this, and I don't know if this will be well-received, but here it is: after months of research, agonizing, and attempted debunking, I've decided to leave atheism and return to the faith of my childhood, Christianity. I don't have the time to post a long diatribe (yet, I will tomorrow), but in a nutshell the evidence for atheism was illusory and the evidence for (non-fundamentalist) Christian theism was simply too strong to ignore. I have always placed the pursuit of the truth over the pursuit of atheism, and that pursuit -- though it originally took me in an anti-theist position -- is bringing me home. I'm sorry if this offends anyone, mods, if you want to move this to RR, then please do. However, I am hoping to foster at least some discussion on atheism vs. theism, naturalism vs. Christianity, so I think this is a good place for it.

To everyone who's spoken with me here over the past few months, thanks, I really appreciate it. To my theist "foes," I'm sorry that I tried to attack your views; I now recognize you were likely right. To my fellow atheists, I thank you for your support. This doesn't mean that I will become some raving fundamentalist lunatic, I'm still into rationalism, it just led me in a new (old) direction. If you want more details, just ask.

Thanks

Debate questions: Is Haven crazy? Have I lost my mind? Is the evidence for theism greater than the evidence for atheism? Does God exist? Is rational theism possible?

Crazy?? What is 'Crazy'?? Lost your mind?? From what I seen of your little movement into atheism, you were never emotionally comfortable with it anyway, and this seems to be an emotional choice, not a rational one. However, it is what you personally want and choose, and not what is rational or not rational. Religion, and in specific the Christianity of your upbringing seems to full fill an emotional need, and that's perfectly fine. I think your little diversion into an attempt at atheism gave you a different perspective on belief, and the lack of belief, and I don't think that perspective will disappear. From your posts, I don't see you retreating into the fundamentalist mindset as a reaction to your doubts, which I have seen happen before. "rational theism'?? Hum.. That's a tough one. I don't know if if I would call it 'rational' so much as 'flexible and accepting'. There is also the 'intellectual theism' verses the 'accepting what I am told' mentality.

I personally don't see you falling into 'this must be so, because the bible says so' mentality' either. Despite the return to belief, I don't see the self-questioning stopping, or the blind acceptance to authority being established.

The BIG questions are are you satisfied with your beliefs? and.. "How do you treat people who belief other than you, or who are different than you?

[McCulloch]

In the case of 'tree' or 'table' or 'sun', I can point to various items and say this is a tree, table or sun. This is not the case with the term god. As in the case of all abstract entities, a definition is required. Defining God as ineffable to me is useless. Sure there may be some ineffable entities out there. But, their existence is entirely moot due to their ineffability.

If God is truly ineffable, then you cannot say, "God want this" or "God has a Son" or even "God loves" without denying the god's ineffability.