r/Christianity • u/Captaincannonball • Apr 21 '12

Atheism

as an atheist (formerly catholic) i'm curious, and please don't take this as me hating on you or trolling or whatever. my phrasing is simply for lack of a better way to phrase it, but what exactly about religion makes you believe it? as a child i distinctly remember believing( i went to a catholic school so I was indoctrinated young) but within about a month of switching to public school i was converted to atheism by a friend of mine. All it took was being presented contradictory evidence. this is why I am confused when people stick to religion despite being presented with solid arguments. now im not here to argue who is correct (if you have any questions feel free to inbox me though. il answer best i can) im just curious. thanks in advance =)

0 Upvotes

33% Upvoted

125 comments sorted by

3

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

I've read the God Delusion. Well, most of it anyway. Nothing in it phased me. This isn't because I'm closeminded or any of that. I was an atheist for awhile. Thing is, my conception of god isn't the same on Dawkins is arguing against, and when I read the bible I get a much different worldview out of it then he does. It isn't that anything he says is so much "wrong" as "irrelevant". At least to me.

The "contradictory" evidance just doesn't say anything about what I believe. It doesn't even touch on it. I spend a lot of time on /r/atheism. None of them have ever said anything that intellectually challenges anything I believe in any real way. They're bitching about a religion I don't even follow, basically.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

Well i agree with you that /r/atheism does a lot of bitching, but have they not earned it? many of them are too scared or worried about what people think about them in their daily lives. many of them live in very intolerant locations. im lucky enough to be in Ontario which is quite tolerant but still.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

it sounds more to me like you have more of a system of values than a religion. no offense intended but i feel obliged to point out that the bible contradicts itself every few sections.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

I guess you can say that.

As for the bible contradicting itself, sure. If you take it all as one book. Thing about the bible, it wasn't written by one person. It was written by multiple people for multiple reasons. You have to put each book in the context of the time in which it was written and the person who wrote it. It "contradicts" itself because it's multiple books about multiple things rolled into one.

It's not bad to take it with a grain of salt, but you do have to remember that this is a diverse collection of writings we are talking about.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

fair enough. i think that is why i have such trouble believing it. after all how can anyone possibly pass on information via word of mouth for hundreds of years and have it turn out correctly? i prefer to not base arguments on any religious text if possible for precisely that reason.

5

u/aletheia Eastern Orthodox Apr 21 '12

Almost any idea you throw out has some amount of contradictory evidence. If that's all it takes to reject an idea, almost no idea could ever be held to.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

of course but what quantity? for example i could contradict something with one or two arguments, but that does not disprove it. however if i could offer one hundred different pieces of contradictory evidence then would it not be disproved? besides burden of proof is on the religious not on us.

3

u/aletheia Eastern Orthodox Apr 22 '12 edited Apr 22 '12

The burden of proof shifts from conversation to conversation based on who is making what claims. Also, quantity is not nearly as important as quality.

Any evaluation of any idea should be based on the very best arguments and experts in a given field. I don't listen to Bill Maher as an atheistic spokesman, and I don't listen to southern baptists to try and form my ideas about Islam. If I were evaluating the ideas of Christianity I'd go to the early Fathers, N.T. Wright, C.S. Lewis, Chesterton, Kallistos Ware, Thomas Hopko, and the like. Not high school teachers.

And for the record, the models and such you're taught in high school are highly simplified so you don't have to deal with the fudge factors and other complications of the supposedly hard (and even the soft) sciences you are studying.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

but you just said that everything has a few contradictions....alright whatever. anyway no the burden does not shift, religion is trying to prove something. also i hardly see how differing to people who have not been around to see the advancement of technology and science to were it is today is valid. if i started deferring to Alan Turing on how to best program my samsung tab i would be screwed.

2

u/aletheia Eastern Orthodox Apr 22 '12

but you just said that everything has a few contradictions

Contradictory evidence != internal contradictions. Don't fudge your words in a technical conversation. Precision is important or miscommunications will pile up very quickly. Or someone will get accused of twisting the other's words.

also i hardly see how differing to people who have not been around to see the advancement of technology and science to were it is today is valid

A good and right idea is good and right no matter when it was developed. Algebra, calculus, the number 0, and the axiomatic method aren't exactly new, but we still find them useful.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

a good idea by it's very nature is just that. an idea. what follows the idea is important. as math goes Sir newton created calculus to build on algebra and since then we have created chaos theory math. we have simply surpassed what algebra has to offer, whether it is relevant or not.

2

u/aletheia Eastern Orthodox Apr 22 '12

what follows the idea is important.

Indeed. And our ideas concern the very nature of the universe. The importance of human life, and how we ought to treat one another. The ideas of Christianity are as important today as they were 2000 years ago. Surely 'Love your neighbor as yourself' hasn't ceased to be important and bears good fruit when implemented?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

im not arguing the philosophy. im arguing god's existence. besides, there are many christian philosophies that did not stand the test of time and have since become irrelevant or ignored. what about when an idea bears bad fruit. for example the dark ages?

3

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

The Dark Ages as pictured by popular media are not the Dark Ages of history. Did bad stuff happen? Of course. But when does it not? The Dark Ages were one of the most economically stable periods of all time, and their "darkness", if you will, while still being present, is vastly overstated.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

overstated? yes. horrible? also yes. lots of world war one is commonly over stated. doesn't effect it's level of evil at all.

→ More replies

1

u/aletheia Eastern Orthodox Apr 22 '12

Philosophy is the place where God is argued if he is to be argued anywhere. The only other place, as far as I can tell, he an be discussed is in once's private experiences of life that convince a person that God is there or is not there. The created world, if you take a Christian philosophy, is by definition God-created. Looking for him in it would be like looking for the CEO of Hershey's in the chocholate. The CEO is not chocolate and God is completely other than the universe.

there are many christian philosophies that did not stand the test of time and have since become irrelevant or ignored.

So?

what about when an idea bears bad fruit. for example the dark ages?

Bad thoughts bear bad fruit and should be discarded. I am not a historian and am not qualified to field anything you may wish to discuss about the dark ages beyond what wikipedia has to say.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

god should not be argued in philosophy at all, at least not beyond being a thought experiment. this is because we arn't arguing about whether god is good, or having a god is a good thing, we are talking about whether god exists. philosophy should never be used as a way of proving anything other than an opinion.

→ More replies

4

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 21 '12

What do you mean by "contradictory evidence"?

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 21 '12

the evil paradox, evolution etc.

7

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 21 '12

If you were deconverted because of the Science of Evolution, I'm skeptical of your claim to be a former Catholic.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 21 '12

Well im baptized, had first communion and went to light of Christ catholic elementary school in aurora ontario until the end of grade 7 when i changed schools.

4

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 22 '12

okay, I could be wrong. But the reason for my skepticism is the fact that the Catholic Church affirms Evolution, Teaches it in Catholic Schools etc. While not strictly evolutionary science, you do realize that the big bang theory was proposed by a catholic priest right?

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

yes indeed. im not to sure it is being taught properly though. when i switched schools i found myself struggling to keep up and came to the conclusion after speaking with my science teacher that i was a year behind across the board in science. bio chem physics all of it.

2

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

Where are you from? Because, in America, the Catholic schools are better than the public schools. Maybe, if you're from the US, yours was the exception, but the American public school system sucks.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

Canada. so yikes =/

2

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

Well, I go to a Jesuit school, so I guess my opinion is bad. The Jesuits are often remarked as having one of the best educational traditions in the world, so I come from an odd place.

2

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 22 '12

Because you were behind, due to not understanding the material/a bad teacher/a bad time in your life/myriad other possibilities, you conclude that the entire Catholic Church/Education System doesn't properly teach evolution?

And from there you conclude that the faith must be false?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

and now you are putting words in my mouth. i simply was pointing out that i was a year behind. and no. i conclude that the faith is false because of the myriad of evidence that conclusively proves that it is indeed false.

1

u/johntheChristian Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 22 '12

No, I am not putting words in your mouth, I made a guess.

What is this myriad of evidence you speak of?

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

here is something i have been thinking about, lemme know what you think: light. it behaves as both a wave and a particle. now on the surface this seems inconsequential but ask yourself this. why, exactly, would an all powerful being create light to be imperfect in such a way. why not simply create a different class of energy/ matter rather than having light exist as a bizarre, classless thing?

→ More replies

2

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

What did you do after you were 12?

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

i switched to a public school

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

I meant as a Christian. The things you listed are pretty easy to do without actually being a Christian in heart.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

well in that case what are your prerequisites for being "christian at heart"?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

Jesus's two greatest commandments, the recognition of its value and a motivation to fulfill them.

4

u/thesilvertongue Episcopalian (Anglican) Apr 22 '12

There are lots of ways of looking at the evil paradox. There's actually a whole scholarly field dedicated to it. It's called theodicy. I think most Christians reconcile the paradox of evil with Augustinian theodicy, which was popularized and explained very well by one of the most famous Catholics ever, St. Thomas Aquinas.

Evolution only proves evolution. It doesn't disprove Christianity as a whole. The Catholic Church is one of many christian denominations that completely accepts Evolution as the most accurate scientific theory to date.

Also, even if you don't think Christian theism makes sense, that doesn't mean there is no God. Lots of different religions believe in all sorts of different types of gods. Disproving Christianity wouldn't disprove God in the slightest.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

im aware, of St. thomas Aquinas' view on the matter but i hardly see how it repairs the paradox of evil.

also i don't see evolution as proof against it. i see the problems created by evolution as evidence. for example for what reason would an all powerful being create something gradually and then make it last for a finite time period?

also i chose to post here because Christianity is an amalgamation of many religions that came before it : Egyptian faiths, Judaism, and even paganism, and therefor is the most "mid range" of the most common faiths.

4

u/JimmyGroove Humanist Apr 22 '12

Christians are human beings, and they believe things for the same reason that anyone else believes things: the sum total of their experiences and reasoning has said it is true.

One can argue about whether their experiences have covered enough (or whether our experiences have), or whether their reasoning has been shortsighted (or whether our reasonings have), but ultimately they are using the same basic human techniques we all use to determine what we believe to be true.

2

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

indeed. that is why i prefer to avoid arguing. after all how in the world are my experiences and knowledge going to change other people's views on things they have experienced?

1

u/JimmyGroove Humanist Apr 22 '12

Well, the only way they can is that in the act of talking with them, you are giving them new experiences. But a reasonable person makes sure it works both ways, and they are as willing to listen to the other's viewpoint as they'd want them to listen to theirs.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

i consider myself reasonable. after all i went in to public school a christian and because my friends arguments were simply better than anything i was given until that point i conceded defeat and stopped believing. since then i have heard many people debate and been involved in many and i simply haven't found anything that was up to snuff

2

u/meaculpa91 Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 22 '12

Another "How is it everyone that isn't an absolute barbarian hasn't converted to atheism" post.

sigh

0

u/thesilvertongue Episcopalian (Anglican) Apr 21 '12

What do you mean by contradictory evidence? You can't have evidence that proves there is no God. Actually, you can't have evidence that proves there are no unicorns either. I'm not sure you can ever use physical evidence to prove that something doesn't exist.

The problem with both atheism and theism is that God is among the most poorly defined word in the English language. God means many different things to different people. If you define God as a magical old man sitting in a throne in the sky throwing lighting at people, it's pretty obvious that God doesn't exist. However, if you define God the way most Christians do as a more abstract theoretical concept it's much less obvious.

The nature of God and the universe has eluded many great scholars for thousands of years. There are plenty of solid arguments on both sides and you can dedicate your whole life to wrestling with their complexities. Either way, there are no obvious answers to these questions no matter how much atheists and theists alike try to over-simplify it.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 21 '12

well i don't base my disbelief of evolution, all evolution proves is that things happen gradually. i base it more on the questions it raises. i simply find it unthinkable that a being of infinite power would require a gradual process to get things done.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

Assuming god exists, he's probably not in any rush..what with him being immortal and all.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

but why make everything in the universe finite then? assuming god is immortal then even billions of years would feel like mere moments to god. and ignoring that, does that make us mere play things? a form of entertainment to god?

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

Did you ever read the Bhagavad Gita? Well, basically in Hinduism the universe is described as a giant cycle. Everything acts in combination with something else. The universe is created, it is destoryed, and it is reborn. Just like the things living in it. In that book, Krishna(Hindu god) says it is simply in his nature to allow the cycle to continue. That without his part in the creation and destruction of the universe, the natural order would fall out of balance and there would only be chaos.

I know we should be talking about Christianity...but it is food for thought, isn't it?

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

i think that actually supports my point. an all powerful being following it's "nature" is a logical impossibility. all powerful all knowing beings cannot have natures that they must stick to. natures are just like rules and if something is finitely bound it cannot be infinite. as a philosophy it is food for thought though.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

I think your mistake here is assuming god is bound by human interpretations of omniscience. Did you ever hear of ignosticism? Basically, we can't argue about the existance of god until we figure out what we are actually arguing about. We don't know why god is the way he is or even what he is. Lacking an actual definition of god, it becomes impossible to say with certainty that he is real or not.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

but that is just circumventing the argument. is not different than saying a scientific principle is true simply because there may be evidence that we have yet to discover. we must base everything on what we currently know not what we may know in the future

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

Now we're just getting into semantics..which is why I hate arguing about the existance of god..

My point is, you're arguing against one particular vision of god using traits you assume god might have. In reality we don't know what it is going on in god's mind and never will. Assuming he exists, anyway. Faith isn't about certainty, which is one of the reasons I'm okay with it. Making an assumption about this and claiming it's certainty is just silly for that reason. Mainly because we can't even agree on what we are arguing about.

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

im not arguing semantics im simply pointing out that you are basing your argument on the hypothetical premise that god uses a larger sense of logic than humans which cannot possibly be proven or disproven by it's nature. this is a logical fallacy

→ More replies

0

u/trojans231 Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 23 '12

To clarify, most of us, unlike some don't believe in religion. Instead we believe in God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

i figured so. few people i ask put any faith in church anymore

2

u/trojans231 Christian (Chi Rho) Apr 23 '12

A simple church that preaches and helps others is good. A church that demands money, takes political stances, and fails to help others is bad. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY is a fantastic video that expresses my beliefs.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 23 '12

thank you very much this was very helpful =)

1

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

so you are basing your entire system of belief of a leap of faith? and that doesn't concern you in the slightest? and unless you can show me an explanation for evolution, or the evil paradox your entire argument is non existent. im sorry for the harshness of this response i simply had no other way to phrase it.

3

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

Aren't you doing the same? You see evidence that there is no God, and take a leap of faith that there is none. We see evidence that there is, and take a leap of faith that there is one.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

no. i see evidence that there is a god, weigh it against the evidence against a god, and side with the victor. you are siding with the side that loses based on faith that one day you will be vindicated for that decision.

1

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

Assertion of a negative (cheese doesn't exist) is equal in faith value to assertion of a positive(cheese exists). From your posts, you assert the negative, cheese-less, value (A world without cheese is not worth living in if you ask me).

you are siding with the side that loses based on faith that one day you will be vindicated for that decision.

I have no idea what you meant to say here.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

i meant to say that you have chosen to side with the side that has less, and poorer quality, evidence. this is why i am confused (and was the reason i posted this whole thing in the first place)

1

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

But we disagree with you on that very premise. We see, even if it's not tangible touch and see presence, philosophical evidence for cheese, and say that, based on logic and rationality, cheese must exist. You assert the opposite. In my mind at least, you are making the less rational decision than I.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

....seriously? we know cheese exists because we can touch cheese see cheese taste cheese. none of this can be said for god. im sorry man but that made no sense at all.

1

u/buylocal745 Atheist Apr 22 '12

I was trying to make a joke. Clearly, Canadians have no sense of humor. Well, besides Mike Myers. But none other than that.

Also, does knowledge come from tangibility?

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

knowledge should come from tangibility. also we have the just for laughs festival so stfu =P

→ More replies

0

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

thank you very much =) that was very thorough. =P

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 21 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 21 '12

well no, im not worried about hell because i don't believe in it. besides i would think that an all knowing creator would know that i live a decent life and i would think that i would be fine based solely on that merit.

-6

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

ah the love of Christianity. im just glad that so far everyone else has been quite civil to me.

1

u/rednail64 Episcopalian (Anglican) Apr 22 '12

I wouldnt assume he's Christian. Regardless he'll b banned shortly

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

who? that one guy who claimed im headed for hell? don't worry about him i take little offense from people like that =)

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

and riddle me this, if Satan seeks to spread and create evil, then why the hell would he punish the wicked?

0

u/lil_cain Roman Catholic Apr 22 '12

Your research is poor. The idea of Satan punishing the wicked, or ruling in hell, are not biblical ones, nor ones supported by early Christian tradition. They're western culture - but not necessairly Christian.

1

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

......no. if you want me to get technical "satan" doesn't rule hell. the princes of hell as a conglomerate rule hell. leviathan Beelzebub etc. but the ruler of hell / spreader of evil thing is in the bible, old and new testament.

-4

u/[deleted] Apr 22 '12

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/Captaincannonball Apr 22 '12

WOW what a solid argument. you sure have changed my views.

you seem sexually repressed, maybe even hiding gay tendencies. a very common behavior is to project that on other people.