Whenever I question something in the Bible as being morally reprehensible the response I get is that because it is the word of God, and since God sets objective morality, everything condoned by God in the Bible is objectively good. Every person slaughtered and every woman raped is A-OK just as long as God says it is.
What can we assume is implied by this claim?
Well, it means any intuitive sense of morality I may have is egregiously flawed. I can look at the acts of Yahweh and hold reservations about the supposed goodness of his deeds and commandments, but it ultimately doesn’t matter.
But wait just one minute. Why doesn’t this pendulum swing both ways?
If my sense of morality is so faulty that I am unable to judge the God of the Bible as being evil, than how can we trust the moral sense of a Christian to be any better? How can they truly claim that the God of the Bible is good?
Can a Christian reconcile with this issue? I don’t see any means in which this is possible. They certainly couldn’t say that our innate sense of morality is objective. This would mean my claim about God is just as true as theirs. Additionally, they couldn’t use the Bible. The only thing that validates the Bible is the Bible. In order to reach the objective truths in the Bible, a Christian must first know independently of the Bible that what is stated inside is true. This is, of course, a gap in knowledge.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
What it Means to be an Atheist
John has this habit of identifying me as an atheist. I'm not offended, of course, and I can understand why he would categorize me as such, but I prefer to use terms like "agnostic" or even just "secularist" when describing myself.
In modern usage an agnostic is someone who sits on the fence when it comes to God's existence/non-existence. As such, agnostics are often criticized by both atheists and theists for being intellectually cowardly. Personally, I am not fond of this newfound definition. I prefer a more classical sense of the term – the claim that humanity has “no knowledge” of the existence of God.
Anyway, this blog is about atheism. Specifically, what does it mean to be an atheist? This is a question I tend to take into consideration whenever I hear the so-called “New Atheists” discuss their views on atheism. Furthermore, John’s constant need to label me as one has spurred me to write about my own opinions on the subject at hand.
From what I’ve seen, whenever an atheist is challenged to prove God does not exist they quite correctly emphasize the fact that this cannot be done. No atheist, at least not one who is a complete moron, is truly foolish enough to assert the claim that seems intuitive of their title. Doing so would be a statement of faith (God does NOT exist) and shifts the burden of proof onto them. Of course, any shrewd atheist is aware it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. What they can do is criticize the need for God and religion, and offer more rational alternatives.
If I may be frank, I think most atheists are better described as classical agnostics. They do not claim to have either positive or negative knowledge of the existence of God, nor do they accept the bullshit claim that other people do.
In modern usage an agnostic is someone who sits on the fence when it comes to God's existence/non-existence. As such, agnostics are often criticized by both atheists and theists for being intellectually cowardly. Personally, I am not fond of this newfound definition. I prefer a more classical sense of the term – the claim that humanity has “no knowledge” of the existence of God.
Anyway, this blog is about atheism. Specifically, what does it mean to be an atheist? This is a question I tend to take into consideration whenever I hear the so-called “New Atheists” discuss their views on atheism. Furthermore, John’s constant need to label me as one has spurred me to write about my own opinions on the subject at hand.
From what I’ve seen, whenever an atheist is challenged to prove God does not exist they quite correctly emphasize the fact that this cannot be done. No atheist, at least not one who is a complete moron, is truly foolish enough to assert the claim that seems intuitive of their title. Doing so would be a statement of faith (God does NOT exist) and shifts the burden of proof onto them. Of course, any shrewd atheist is aware it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. What they can do is criticize the need for God and religion, and offer more rational alternatives.
If I may be frank, I think most atheists are better described as classical agnostics. They do not claim to have either positive or negative knowledge of the existence of God, nor do they accept the bullshit claim that other people do.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
3rd Blog Event
Ok guys, just for the record, the correct and moral response is to tell God to establish World Peace. I don't know what you two chose yet, but I figured you guys would like to know you might be douchebags (SHAME ON YOU!).
Anyway, the fun and engaging response, as far as I'm concerned, is ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. This scenario is both terrifying and earth-shattering, but unlike other apocalyptic situations, which might involve WMDs or supernatural entities, a world-wide assault by zombies would at least allow humanity to remain more proactive about its survival.
A human can fight back against a zombie.
Anyway, the fun and engaging response, as far as I'm concerned, is ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE. This scenario is both terrifying and earth-shattering, but unlike other apocalyptic situations, which might involve WMDs or supernatural entities, a world-wide assault by zombies would at least allow humanity to remain more proactive about its survival.
A human can fight back against a zombie.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The Next Blog Event Topic
I've been juggling around several topics for a blog event, and I think we need to take a brake from these serious blogs and go with something a bit more fun.
Here is the scenario: God (we'll just go on the assumption there is one) approaches you and says "INSERT NAME, I've been far too quiet these last couple thousand years and feel like shaking things up on earth. The reason I'm telling you this is because I want you to decide what I'm going to do. It can be anything you want, hell, you can even start the Apocalypse if you wish. The only requirement is it must be BIG. So big that virtually no human being wont be affected by it in some way."
So, what would you pick?
Does this sound like an interesting blog topic?
I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week and pretty much all of next week, so how about we set the due date for Saturday the 17th around 1PM? Yeah, I know it's an awfully long time to wait, but too bad.
Here is the scenario: God (we'll just go on the assumption there is one) approaches you and says "INSERT NAME, I've been far too quiet these last couple thousand years and feel like shaking things up on earth. The reason I'm telling you this is because I want you to decide what I'm going to do. It can be anything you want, hell, you can even start the Apocalypse if you wish. The only requirement is it must be BIG. So big that virtually no human being wont be affected by it in some way."
So, what would you pick?
Does this sound like an interesting blog topic?
I'm going to be really busy the rest of this week and pretty much all of next week, so how about we set the due date for Saturday the 17th around 1PM? Yeah, I know it's an awfully long time to wait, but too bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)