Why are people afraid of atheism?

[brandyII 9]

Oh, TommyO, some of these peeps are waaaaay past backsliding!!

[plain 12]

No, I think I wrote that "many" are afraid of Christians.

Yup, I went back and looked. You're right, my bad. Nobody could possibly fear me, anyway. I'm a big jolly goofball

Many assume the same thing. But the concept of an afterlife existed long before Christianity so the two concepts (afterlife and Christianity) don't necessarily go hand in hand.

I realize that. I thought atheism was defined as a belief that there is no God (whether it be pagan, the gods of Olympus, nature,etc) at all. I'm not aware of any belief systems that have an afterlife without belief in some "guiding force / (s)", but it's been awhile since I've taken any religion classes.

Gadgetlady, I don't think you're a nutjob for believing in a young Earth. You can believe whatever you want...I'm okay with that. I meant to say (and did a poor job of expressing myself) that I was on a nutjob website that happened to espouse young Earth. There were plenty of other oddball things on that site such as dinosaurs living with people, and Adam and Eve populating the entire Earth. It was the culmination of several things that prompted me to label them as nutjobs.

[gadgetlady 4]

Gadgetlady, I don't think you're a nutjob for believing in a young Earth. You can believe whatever you want...I'm okay with that. I meant to say (and did a poor job of expressing myself) that I was on a nutjob website that happened to espouse young Earth. There were plenty of other oddball things on that site such as dinosaurs living with people, and Adam and Eve populating the entire Earth. It was the culmination of several things that prompted me to label them as nutjobs.

Nutjob here, reporting for duty. Yup, I believe dinosaurs lived with people and Adam and Eve literally were the first man and first woman. Have you ever seen petroglyphs of dinosaurs? The cavemen didn't reconstruct from fossils and figure out what the dinosaurs looked like; they must have seen them. Did you hear the news story several years ago that some scientists believe everyone descended from one woman (I think it was produced into a documentary called "The Real Eve" -- which was NOT a pro-Creation Science production)? Things that make you go hmmmm . . .

[gadgetlady 4]

I've been looking for a while for that study that I had read about the Founding Fathers, Bible quotes, and Christianity. I didn't find the exact study (still looking for a copy of it online) but I did find a synopsis of it here: Restoring Our Heritage - Recapturing the American Spirit

This conclusion was proven in an exhaustive ten-year study conducted by Dr. Donald Lutz of the University of Houston. Lutz's study focused on the writings of the Founding Fathers, so as to ascertain those political writers and theories that guided them in establishing our unique form of representative government. The researchers looked at over 15,000 documents from the Founders, written between the years 1760 -1805. The results were published in 1983, Volume #78, of the American Political Science Review. The study concluded that the most often quoted source of the Founding Fathers, over a third of the time, was the Bible, especially the Pauline writings. However, the study didn't stop there. They discovered that another 60% of the time, they were quoting others who were quoting Scripture or Scriptural principles. So, the most often quoted source in the Founding Fathers' writings was the Bible. In fact, 94% of their writings were references to Scripture or quoting someone making references to the Bible. So, who influenced the Founding Fathers most? The writers of the Old and New Testaments: the Bible.

I'm not going to reproduce the ton of quotes to document this, whose authors include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, George Washington, and John Adams, but anyone is free to read it here: Restoring Our Heritage - Recapturing the American Spirit.

Just a tidbit, though, from James Madison: "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government; upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

[MacMadame 81]

Gadgetlady, I mean intelligent design is not a "scientific" theory because it can never be absolutely proven (although it can never be dis-proven, either). You either believe it or you don't.

Actually, that's not what a scientific theory is. In science, there are things we know through experimentation. Those are laws or facts. They can be directly observed. Then there are scientific theories which are things that can't be proven via experiment. However, they still have to employ the scientific method to be a scientific theory. They have a lot of weight of facts and empirical evidence behind them as well.

Evolution is a scientific theory and will always be a theory because you can't set up an experiment to duplicate evolution. However, that doesn't mean it's "just a theory". There is a lot of observation and experimentation and scientific method that went into and continues to go into as we refine our understanding of it.

Intelligent Design is some people's attempt to dress up the Christian Creation myth as a scientific theory. People used to try to get "Creationism" taught in school and when that was rightly rejected as religion, not science, some Christians decided to try to create a scientific theory out of it and hope they could get that slipped into science class.

So people write papers on it and employ a psuedo-scientific method on it and do all sorts of things with it that *seem* scentific. But there are many aspects of the theory that directly contract the body of science that we've built-up over thousands of years. On top of that, much of the "scientific" papers that are written about it could not pass the rigious vetting that a scientific paper is supposed to go through to be considered science. It's what we call junk science.

Of course people perform junk science in all sorts of arenas, not just religions ones. But scientists are not supposed to do it and when they do, they get in professional trouble. If they are Christian Scientists who are doing junk science in order to try to prove their religious beliefs scientifically, they cry persecution and try to pretend that they are this century's Galileo who are being tortured for telling the truth that no one wants to hear. But in reality they are just crappy scientists doing a bad job of science.

Regardless, I think intelligent design should at least be mentioned (that term covers every conceivable religion, past and present, right?)

Actually Creation Myths and/or Creationism covers every conceivable religion, past and present. Intelligent Design is one particular creation myth dressed up in psuedo-scientific language. But it's not science and so it shouldn't be presented in science class.

I have no issue with a science teacher presenting the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory to an elementary class and saying "we don't know where the stuff that formed the universe came from" because we don't.they can even point out all the holes in these theories -- because they don't explain everything. Though most of the holes are probably beyond a typical elementary school class.

But I do have a problem when you start saying "some people believe ...." because a) just because some people believe it, doesn't make it true and if you start saying what some people believe, you have to say what EVERYONE believes and that would take up several weeks of time that should be spent on science and not listing all the different things that people believe that have no science behind them.

Wasa, there has to be a "start point" to creation, no matter how you believe it started, right? I mean, where did the cosmic dust and radiation come from before it all collided together to form the universe?

I'm not Wasa, but I believe it was always there and wasn't created.

What ultimately gives you a sense of peace, Wasa? MacM? (BTW, not a "loaded" question. I really want to know)

My work, my family, reading a good book, giving back to the community, working out, etc. Peace is everywhere. You don't have to belong to a religion to have peace.

There are a lot of people who believe it.

There are a lot of people who believe the earth is flat too. Numbers doesn't make something scientific or a fact. If you believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth during human times, you believe something that there is no scientific evidence to support and quite a bit of scientific evidence to refute.

The Baha'i Faith believes that religion and science are two ways of knowing the world and that they should be in harmony. I can buy that. I know a lot of people who are Christians who think ID is a big joke. They do believe that God created the universe and, you know what? There is no scientific evidence to contradict that belief. So have at it! You can even believe that Adam and Eve where the first man and woman. Someone had to be and it's not like their names got written down so maybe they were called Adam and Eve -- I'd be very surprised, but it's not really science's job to worry about that sort of thing, so I don't really care.

But don't tell me that dinosaurs roamed the earth with humans and then tell me this is a scientific theory. It's not.

[gadgetlady 4]

Anyone ever heard of Anthony Flew? He was a famous atheist . . . until 2004, when he renounced atheism in favor of theism.

Here's a good synopsis of what he says, from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? - Antony Flew Renounces Atheism

(A)theists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for. However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it." In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution: atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."

"It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."

In Flew’s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads." Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big bang cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife. According to Flew, "...it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."

For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. As a former agnostic, I followed a similar path through my undergraduate studies in biology. I became a deist in 1973 after realizing that the naturalistic theories on the origin of life were not plausible. Today, the evidence against abiogenesis is much stronger than even at that time. Therefore, I believe that, at a minimum, deism is the logical choice regarding the question of God.

You can also find interviews:

Catholic World News : Famed atheist concedes: evidence points to God

Biola > Page 1 : Biola News & Communications

Belief

[gadgetlady 4]

Actually, that's not what a scientific theory is. In science, there are things we know through experimentation. Those are laws or facts. They can be directly observed. Then there are scientific theories which are things that can't be proven via experiment. However, they still have to employ the scientific method to be a scientific theory. They have a lot of weight of facts and empirical evidence behind them as well.

I understand science and scientific theory. Ummm, any experimentation you can point to that demonstrates macro-evolution? Not changes WITHIN a species, but changes FROM one species to another?

There is a lot of observation and experimentation and scientific method that went into and continues to go into as we refine our understanding of it.

In other words, the theory keeps changing as the evidence contradicts or constrains the theory. Many scientists (who used to believe the theory but now do not) have abandoned the theory because of the gaping holes.

But I do have a problem when you start saying "some people believe ...." because a) just because some people believe it, doesn't make it true

Ain't that the truth.

There are a lot of people who believe the earth is flat too.

I don't know what you call "a lot", but that's a belief that's pretty easy to disprove. You shouldn't lump idiocy with a legitimate belief system and then proclaim the whole lump to be idiotic because of your lumping methods.

I will quote from one of my favorite authors, Greg Koukl: Ridicule and scorn are not evidence. Simply labeling an idea as silly, simplistic, or unsophisticated does nothing to disprove the idea itself.

Edited May 7, 2008 by gadgetlady

[gadgetlady 4]

WasABubbleButt, you keep bringing up the "but who created God?" argument. Greg Koukl puts it so well I dare not paraphrase (found at www.str.org):

But who made God? Richard Dawkins thinks theism has “utterly failed”

because apparently there is no answer to this question. Sam Harris shares this conviction. The utter failure, however, is with the objection, not with theism.

First, if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation

for the explanation.

Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is

no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

Moreover, God Himself is not “complex” in the way the universe is. Philosopher William Lane Craig notes:

As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts….In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas – it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus – but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.

The “Who designed the designer?” objection misses the mark widely. It creates no logical, rational limitation to the argument for God based on the existence of the cosmos, design, or morality.

[MacMadame 81]

In other words, the theory keeps changing as the evidence contradicts or constrains the theory. Many scientists (who used to believe the theory but now do not) have abandoned the theory because of the gaping holes.

It evolves. That's not the same thing as saying "eat margarine because butter is evil, no wait, margarine is bad for you." The theory has refined and evolved. It hasn't flipped completely over and back or changed drastically.

I don't know what you call "a lot", but that's a belief that's pretty easy to disprove. You shouldn't lump idiocy with a legitimate belief system and then proclaim the whole lump to be idiotic because of your lumping methods.

It's pretty easy to disprove that the world was created in 7 days and is less than a million years old too.

[plain 12]

Gadget, I'm nitpicking.......but there is a difference in believing that Adam and Eve were the first people created, and believing (just because they were the only ones named) they were the only people created (which was on the site I saw). Again, believe what you like, that's cool. Personally, I have no problem believing God created the Earth and life on it (perhaps by the big bang? IDK.....probably never in this life will know). Seven days could easily be a metaphor (Because it would be extremely complex to convey the idea of "millions of years" to a man that couldn't even begin to imagine electricity. Talk about mind-blowing), But that's just me. One of the best things about Christianity is that we can afford to not sweat the details.

Actually, Mac, if you think about it, Einstein developed several "theories" without using the strict definition of "the scientific method". He famously used "thought experiments" to develop a number of early quantum ideas. And if you really want to get philosophical, there are few facts in science. Just by definition, most things are theories. All it would take is one time, under any circumstances, to disprove any theory. If a theory is validated 1 million times, there can be no scientific guarantee it will happen 1 million and 1.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

The main "perk" I get from my Christianity is peace. What ultimately gives you a sense of peace, Wasa? MacM? (BTW, not a "loaded" question. I really want to know)

Doing my thing in life. Friends, family, my dogs (heh), my job, taking care of my patients.

I have this concept that nobody knows all the answers. Some are searching, some are content that they found the answers to the world, others don't care about what they cannot control. It's all individual.

Life is good!

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Take morality and faith completely out of the question. Murder is illegal. I teach my children not to do it because they will go to jail. I teach them something because of the consequence.

In Christianity, the consequence is hell. I will teach my children that anything except Christianity is wrong because, to me, there is a very real consequence.

Wow... is this really the difference between xtians and atheists? You don't murder because you'll go to jail then hell? I don't murder because it's wrong and without morality. I don't worry about the consequences because I wouldn't do it to begin with.

If you do not believe in hell, you do not believe in that consequence; therefore, you have nothing to teach your children. If they believe as you do, great. If not, oh well.

You can't be serious, this entire post is a joke, right? Morality is not a xtian concept, morality existed long before xtianity.

And I know not all atheists are that way. Many believe very strongly against believing in any type of religion. And I'm sure they have their reasons. But that is a different situation. In this situation, Christians are trying to avoid the ultimate consequence: hell.

Do you believe in purple flying monkeys? Or do you believe very strongly against believing in purple flying monkeys? If something does not exist, do you strongly believe in not believing in it? See how silly that sounds to us?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

Plain, I believe in a young earth. I'm not a nutjob, I'm not uneducated, and I'm not anti-intellectual. While I appreciate that there are those who disagree with me (and some vehemently), I would appreciate it if you don't write off the theory as crackpot or nutjob. There are a lot of people who believe it.

Young earth... heh... bet'cha you think it's flat too, eh?

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

I have a question, does one need to practice Athiesm to be an Athiest or does the fact that I do not believe in God/s make me an athiest. I ask because I do not believe in God/s but I also do not want to be part of a group or be identified as practicing any organized belief system.

I don't think one *can* practice atheism. If you don't believe in flying purple monkeys, do you have a practice of not believing in purple flying monkeys?

See what I mean?

One practices something they believe in. I lack belief in a god/s, there is nothing to do to practice or do.

[WASaBubbleButt 41]

WasABubbleButt, you keep bringing up the "but who created God?" argument. Greg Koukl puts it so well I dare not paraphrase (found at www.str.org):

But who made God? Richard Dawkins thinks theism has “utterly failed”

because apparently there is no answer to this question. Sam Harris shares this conviction. The utter failure, however, is with the objection, not with theism.

First, if you see shoeprints in the sand, you don’t need to know the manufacturer of the shoe in order to know that shoes made the imprints, not the accidental collision of seashells in the surf. An explanation can be a good one even if you do not have an explanation

for the explanation.

Second, the objection commits the straw man fallacy because it mischaracterizes our argument. Our main premise is not, “Everything has a cause,” but rather, “All effects have causes.” Though there are many empirical reasons to believe the cosmos is an effect, there is

no reason to think that an eternal, self-existent God who exists outside of the natural world and physical time is an effect. If everything must have a cause, we are pushed into a regress of infinite causes with no ultimate beginning.

Moreover, God Himself is not “complex” in the way the universe is. Philosopher William Lane Craig notes:

As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts….In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas – it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus – but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity.

The “Who designed the designer?” objection misses the mark widely. It creates no logical, rational limitation to the argument for God based on the existence of the cosmos, design, or morality.

So.... who created your God?