Zone1 A christian-atheist compromise?

[ding]

Isn't concordist a rather neutral term? It just means a Christian who doesn't find discord between the creation account in Genesis and scientific theories on evolution, the age of the earth, the age of the universe etc. I would think you'd ascribe to that?

I was fairly sure that the label carried a different implication for you concerning my beliefs.

 

[SweetSue92]

I have a simple suggestion for a "middle-ground" on which atheists and christians might reach some compromise.

As it is, atheists have no interest in being christians, let alone in teaching christianity to their children, and christians have no interest in giving up christianity and want it to still be passed down the generations. So what if we agreed to all tell our kids stories of god and christian tales, to enchant youngsters in the magic of it all, but then tell them when they're old enough that god and the biblical legends are myths - but myths that they can one day teach to their children. It's true that Christianity would no longer be a religion, but it would join the ranks of beloved children's folklore alongside Kris Kringle and his slay, the storks who deliver babies, the sandman who visits us in our dreams and the like. While Christianity is dying out, notice how these traditional children's tales remain told, and cherished, from generation to generation.

Wouldn't this be a wonderful way to honor age-old christian traditions while still allowing ourselves to grow up and let go of the myths and legends of our intellectual and spiritual adolescence? I understand that the religion elements might be hard to let go of for some, but just imagine some day having "the talk" with your kid when you tell them the truth about god and they roll their eyes and say, "I knew he wasn't real, dad!" and forgive you for your trickery because of the magic you instilled in their heart. This I think could be a cool thing. Give it a chance?

Wanna hear a great myth?

All of this came from nothing...from cosmic accidents.

Heh

 

[ding]

So is Jesus resurrecting and walking on water not literal in your account? Is his being the son of God not literal? Is God not literal either? Clearly the earth being made before the stars and the sun, plants preceding ocean life, the moon being made at the same time as the sun and after plants and animals and such werent literal either but they weren't even in the right order. Have you considered that the dark age writers of genesis could have invented any account to describe where the sky, the earth, water, and life, the only things they knew about, came from, and you'd still find a way to fit it in with science? It sounds like the half of the brain you've been using to read the bible is your highly creative, imaginative side.

What difference would my answers to your questions make to you?

That the universe began is no longer a question. Neither is how it was created. It's just science.

 

[john54]

I was fairly sure that the label carried a different implication for you concerning my beliefs.

Elaborate? I find admirable traits in both concordists and biblical literalists. The concordists are willing to acknowledge scientific theory. Literalists are consistent and correct in their belief that without the literal creation account Christianity will fall apart.

 

[ding]

Wait, you started here by saying that there's no formal atheistic dogma, and then you proceeded to assign it a number of well-defined, dogmatic positions. And interestingly your definition of it is a nearly spot-on definition of most fundamentalist theism...

Yes, that's correct. There's no formal atheistic dogma. It's not something atheists own. It's something we have to observe for ourselves.

 

[ding]

There's no uniform dogma of atheism that makes atheists materialists.

By definition atheists are materialists. That should be self evident.

 

[ding]

I'm not defining my views by critiquing yours, I'm critiquing yours based on my own defined and partly-defined views.

I hope you don't mind if I see it differently.

 

[zaangalewa]

Wait, you started here by saying that there's no formal atheistic dogma, and then you proceeded to assign it a number of well-defined, dogmatic positions. And interestingly your definition of it is a nearly spot-on definition of most fundamentalist theism...

• Vague rosy notion of something good and just (God, Jesus, the holy spirit)
• Advent of euphoria (heaven)
• Social order beyond reproach (kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven)
• Seeks Equality through uniformity and communal ownership (everyone in Christian community must be uniform in worshipping God/Jesus)
• Incites/inflames adherents (christian crusades, inciting social causes like abortion, gay marriage)
• Dismiss defeats, ignore incongruities (dismiss genesis being factually wrong, ignore biblical contradictions between gospels)
• Desire big government to institute relativistic social policies (Christians want national abortion ban, ban on gay marriage, and more Christianity in government policy)
• One rival religion over another (Christianity vs Islam vs Judiasm.....)
• Primitive instincts and deification of man (taps into primitive need to have personified parent figure in charge of everything)
• Moral relativity (bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, slaves should be obedient to their masters, women should be submissive to their husbands, that divorce is wrong, while failing to condemn pedophilia, gambling, animal abuse...)
• Multiculturalism (don't many cultures practice Christianity? And what's wrong with multiculturalism?)
• Cultural Marxism (the original Christian enclaves literally had the rich abandon all their wealth and divided all money between the community members)
• Normalization of deviance (Christianity has normalized hate speech, homophobia, divisiveness, and poor standards for critical thought)
• Worship Christianity but are first to reject it when it suits their purposes (how many Christians give 10% to the poor? How many show mercy for liberals, gays, transgenders and other they hate? How many forgive?)
• External locus of control (Christians literally believe an external God created the universe and has a plan for them)
• Abolition of private property (Go, and sell that thou hast [...] and follow me. - Jesus )
• Abolition of family (I came to turn sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers [...] - Jesus)
• Abolition of religion (since Christianity isn't a religion but is the 'Truth')
• No critical thinking (since the Bible is full of factually incorrect statements, the credibility of the gospel writers and bible compilers is null, and there is no evidence for a God anywhere)

What a luck that you don't suffer prejudices about us evil Christians. The word "fundament" is by the way not an empty phrase if someone likes to build a cathedral ... in stones and music.

 

[ding]

As I said, yesterday, I agree with most of the scientific points you're making. There's just no reason whatsoever to conclude from what you've said that there's a God. Current quantum theory is making it seem like there is this unusual observer effect and let's say that consciousness's ability to 'observe' does produce this unique quantum effect. Ok. Where does God enter in?

There's plenty of reasons to conclude there is a Creator; the implausibility of a life filled universe that produces beings that know and create, the universe popping into existence being created from nothing, the laws of nature existing before space and time itself, physical laws of nature, biological laws of nature, moral laws of nature and the historical account of Jesus Christ to name a few.

Where does God enter in? God supplies reality.

 

[ding]

As to our universe's seemingly-auspicious life-conducive properties, there's one obvious and likely reason for that. Where else would a conscious being expect to find itself? It's like if you dropped quintillions of pickup sticks and one landed pointing straight up, at a perfect 90 degree angle, you could expect all the sticks around it to be unusually placed and conducive to hold it in that unlikely position. From that pickup stick's perspective it might seem miraculous but that's just its subjective bias. A lot of sticks were dropped, just like a lot of universes, maybe infinite, could have formed, enough for one auspiciously conducive to life to arrive - exactly where we might expect to find ourselves. Why would we be in a universe unconducive to life?

But you wouldn't expect to find one perfectly balanced on it's longitudinal axis being unsupported by any other stick. That one would have to be placed there. That's our universe.

The first miracle is a universe filled with matter and radiation and not just radiation. The second miracle is a universe filled with matter and radiation that produces life and intelligence.

The question isn't why would we be in a universe unconducive to life? the question is why would a universe exist that wasn't just filled with radiation and is conducive to life? And the answer is it was placed there intentionally because mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

 

[ding]

It's an open door. Like you said there's no official dogma of atheism. You can go wherever you want with it.

None that they would ever admit to. Atheists don't have beliefs. They have arguments against beliefs. There's no intellect required for that. It takes intellect to examine the only evidence we have available which is creation itself - and how it evolved - to answer the question was the universe created intentionally or was it just a happy coincidence of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do. Which is the approach I took; I examined the only evidence that was available.

What was YOUR approach?

 

[zaangalewa]

Wanna hear a great myth?

All of this came from nothing...from cosmic accidents.

Heh

How came the whole cosm from cosmic accidents?

(By the way : When Christians say: "God made everything from nothing" then we think about a real nothing. For example: "The universe expands into nothing". Such "imaginations" are by the way not an essential question for Christians - that's just simple an explanation and placeholder for something what we don't understand - for something what's a mystery for us. We are not able to say anything about than "nothing". Nevertheless physics found out that this is perhaps not far from reality in physics.)

 

[ding]

Elaborate? I find admirable traits in both concordists and biblical literalists. The concordists are willing to acknowledge scientific theory. Literalists are consistent and correct in their belief that without the literal creation account Christianity will fall apart.

Why? Because the tone and tenor of your comments belie your statement that you find anything admirable in Christians. In fact you just proved that with your last statement. The functional advantages of Christianity do not hinge on interpreting the creation account literally. Darwin would roll over in his grave at your statement. So regardless of their beliefs about creation, the practical application of their beliefs lead to happiness.

 

[ding]

All of this came from nothing...from cosmic accidents.

Whereas I believe it was no cosmic accident but an intentional creative act by the creator for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create. For we are dust, And to dust we shall return.

 

[SweetSue92]

How came the whole cosm from cosmic accidents?

It didn't. Like I said, it's a myth

 

[john54]

But you wouldn't expect to find one perfectly balanced on it's longitudinal axis being unsupported by any other stick. That one would have to be placed there. That's our universe.

The first miracle is a universe filled with matter and radiation and not just radiation. The second miracle is a universe filled with matter and radiation that produces life and intelligence.

The question isn't why would we be in a universe unconducive to life? the question is why would a universe exist that wasn't just filled with radiation and is conducive to life? And the answer is it was placed there intentionally because mind, rather than being a late development in the evolution of organisms, had existed always: that this is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so.

You haven't refuted the validity of my analogy at all. Who's to say how other universes may have effected the existence of our own, and acted as those 'supporting sticks'? In our local solar and galactic neighborhood, we have a number of those 'supporting sticks' in the form of our ideal distance from our galaxy's supermassive black hole, our ideal distance from the sun allowing for liquid water, Jupiter's convenient role as an asteroid shield. Just like with the sticks, it's only because so many stars and planets exist in the universe, enough for the happy accident of earth's life-conducive environment to occur. And I'd wager if we could see other universes (if there is such a thing), we'd find they're conveniently affecting ours in some way, again only because so many universes exist, in that scenario. There's absolutely no reason to jump to 'it was placed there intentionally.' Your logic just doesn't follow.

Why? Because the tone and tenor of your comments belie your statement that you find anything admirable in Christians. In fact you just proved that with your last statement. The functional advantages of Christianity do not hinge on interpreting the creation account literally. Darwin would roll over in his grave at your statement.

I do find admirable things in Christians - enough to have dated a devout Christian in fact. I just don't generally attribute those admirable things to Christianity- I attribute them to the person. Like I find you generally intelligent and able to hone in on and address key points in an argument, but the closer we get to talking directly about Jesus and God, the less logical your arguments become. I know a brilliant, kind, deeply thoughtful and well-renowned engineer who I love to talk to about other topics, but bring up his Lutheran beliefs and he just stops using the same level of logic and critical thinking. I think Christians who are admirable are largely admirable in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

By definition atheists are materialists. That should be self evident.

I'm open-minded to the possibilities that matter isn't all that exists. There could very well be any number of things we couldn't call matter, universes or things we couldn't even call universes...it's just that the evidence against 'God' as one of those things is just...overwhelming. There's no guiding hand apparent in anything and ancient holy texts show no special knowledge of the universe and are filled with incorrect assertions. That doesn't mean there aren't endless possibilities beyond what science has discovered, just that the 'god' hypothesis hasn't earned a rank above the Santa hypothesis in terms of likelihood, that's just the reality of it.

 

[zaangalewa]

It didn't. Like I said, it's a myth

What is a myth? You spoke about "cosmic accidents". Cosmic accidents are not a myth. It exist different reasons why something happens. Not everything is an accident or a pure natural probability.

 

[dblack]

I have a simple suggestion for a "middle-ground" on which atheists and christians might reach some compromise.

It's called the First Amendment.

 

[ding]

You haven't refuted the validity of my analogy at all. Who's to say how other universes may have effected the existence of our own, and acted as those 'supporting sticks'? In our local solar and galactic neighborhood, we have a number of those 'supporting sticks' in the form of our ideal distance from our galaxy's supermassive black hole, our ideal distance from the sun allowing for liquid water, Jupiter's convenient role as an asteroid shield. Just like with the sticks, it's only because so many stars and planets exist in the universe, enough for the happy accident of earth's life-conducive environment to occur. And I'd wager if we could see other universes (if there is such a thing), we'd find they're conveniently affecting ours in some way, again only because so many universes exist, in that scenario. There's absolutely no reason to jump to 'it was placed there intentionally.' Your logic just doesn't follow.

There are an infinite number of ways that matter can be structured that would allow our universe to be created in exactly the same way it was created that would lead to a lifeless universe. There's only one way matter can be structured that would produce a life filled universe.

 

[ding]

I do find admirable things in Christians - enough to have dated a devout Christian in fact. I just don't generally attribute those admirable things to Christianity- I attribute them to the person. Like I find you generally intelligent and able to hone in on and address key points in an argument, but the closer we get to talking directly about Jesus and God, the less logical your arguments become. I know a brilliant, kind, deeply thoughtful and well-renowned engineer who I love to talk to about other topics, but bring up his Lutheran beliefs and he just stops using the same level of logic and critical thinking. I think Christians who are admirable are largely admirable in spite of Christianity, not because of it.

I hope you don't mind if I see it differently.