Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the point the guy makes, and it's a pretty good one.
Belief is not knowledge, whether you believe a metaphysical being exists or believe that one doesn't exist. No one knows. No one knows what happens when we breathe our last and the synapses in our brain stop firing.
If you believe that the NDEs reported of seeing long-dead relatives are really signs of going to the Other Side, that's great. If you believe that they are simply hallucinations caused by the brain's final neurological impulses, fine.
But, again, no one knows. Nor will we ever know for sure. Until we die.
Here's the point the guy makes, and it's a pretty good one.
Belief is not knowledge, whether you believe a metaphysical being exists or believe that one doesn't exist. No one knows. No one knows what happens when we breathe our last and the synapses in our brain stop firing.
If you believe that the NDEs reported of seeing long-dead relatives are really signs of going to the Other Side, that's great. If you believe that they are simply hallucinations caused by the brain's final neurological impulses, fine.
But, again, no one knows. Nor will we ever know for sure. Until we die.
No, this isn't true. We know from Jesus' example that it is possible to attain the Resurrection and the Ascension.
There are also ample writings about other realms and worlds/the afterlife in ancient Greek classics, theosophy, and various other world religions. Most people may go to some place called Devachan. You can learn more about it in a book called A Dweller on Two Planets.
I understand this author's point, which seems to boil down to "Just because you're an atheist, doesn't mean you have to be so antagonistic towards Christians." My temperament is such that, even as an atheist, I'm not inclined to get in heated arguments over someone's beliefs. And if you share my personality type, or live in a part of the world where religious belief is private, then you would rarely feel inclined to mock or insult Christianity.
But there are a few issues at play:
1) Some atheists are curmudgeons/cynics by nature, whose style tends to be too blunt or acerbic for most tastes (and, let's admit it, some of them are just jerks). The internet does empower antisocial types --- of all stripes --- to pile on anyone who disagrees with them. But even a reasonable criticism of a cherished belief is often perceived as a grievous personal insult.
2) Many atheists are passionate about the question of "What is True" and tend to get impatient with what they perceive as post-modernist intellectual dishonesty and laziness, i.e., "Whatever you believe is great, as long as you're happy." Their respect for science and critical thinking is insulted by the advocacy of creationism, no birth control, and other such dogmas.
3) Many atheists live in areas where being an atheist is viewed as being worse than a murderer. Christianity there is taken for granted, and believers go out of their way to promote their beliefs in the public sphere through education and the media at the expense of anyone who thinks differently. Christianity doesn't just encompass the liberal churchgoing social gospel ("How could anyone argue against that?"), but also a lot of retrograde, and sometimes mean-spirited beliefs, as well.
But this tendency to equate criticism of religious beliefs (which have essentially been beyond criticism for centuries) with some sort of "atheist fundamentalism" seems a bit of a stretch to me. When I see some of the misrepresentations of Sam Harris' or Christopher Hitchens' views, it makes me wonder if their critics really want honest dialogue at all.
No, this isn't true. We know from Jesus' example that it is possible to attain the Resurrection and the Ascension.
There are also ample writings about other realms and worlds/the afterlife in ancient Greek classics, theosophy, and various other world religions. Most people may go to some place called Devachan. You can learn more about it in a book called A Dweller on Two Planets.
I think you are myth informed, as there is no evidence of any of what you say...These things are not facts, they are only what you and some others believe...Most people don't believe any of it.
No, this isn't true. We know from Jesus' example that it is possible to attain the Resurrection and the Ascension.
There are also ample writings about other realms and worlds/the afterlife in ancient Greek classics, theosophy, and various other world religions. Most people may go to some place called Devachan. You can learn more about it in a book called A Dweller on Two Planets.
Did you witness it? Was it recorded? I mean, if you read the Synoptic Gospels, you realize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't agree on plenty of details in Christ's ministry, his crucifixion, and his Resurrection. They don't even agree on Christ's last words on the cross. Hey, I'm a Christian. But I have to believe rather than know, for the Gospels don't even agree on what the definitive facts are.
Did you witness it? Was it recorded? I mean, if you read the Synoptic Gospels, you realize that Matthew, Mark, and Luke don't agree on plenty of details in Christ's ministry, his crucifixion, and his Resurrection. They don't even agree on Christ's last words on the cross. Hey, I'm a Christian. But I have to believe rather than know, for the Gospels don't even agree on what the definitive facts are.
You don't believe, I do. What you need to do is start at the beginning and learn about God and the nature of Reality.
I understand this author's point, which seems to boil down to "Just because you're an atheist, doesn't mean you have to be so antagonistic towards Christians." My temperament is such that, even as an atheist, I'm not inclined to get in heated arguments over someone's beliefs. And if you share my personality type, or live in a part of the world where religious belief is private, then you would rarely feel inclined to mock or insult Christianity.
But there are a few issues at play:
1) Some atheists are curmudgeons/cynics by nature, whose style tends to be too blunt or acerbic for most tastes (and, let's admit it, some of them are just jerks). The internet does empower antisocial types --- of all stripes --- to pile on anyone who disagrees with them. But even a reasonable criticism of a cherished belief is often perceived as a grievous personal insult.
2) Many atheists are passionate about the question of "What is True" and tend to get impatient with what they perceive as post-modernist intellectual dishonesty and laziness, i.e., "Whatever you believe is great, as long as you're happy." Their respect for science and critical thinking is insulted by the advocacy of creationism, no birth control, and other such dogmas.
3) Many atheists live in areas where being an atheist is viewed as being worse than a murderer. Christianity there is taken for granted, and believers go out of their way to promote their beliefs in the public sphere through education and the media at the expense of anyone who thinks differently. Christianity doesn't just encompass the liberal churchgoing social gospel ("How could anyone argue against that?"), but also a lot of retrograde, and sometimes mean-spirited beliefs, as well.
But this tendency to equate criticism of religious beliefs (which have essentially been beyond criticism for centuries) with some sort of "atheist fundamentalism" seems a bit of a stretch to me. When I see some of the misrepresentations of Sam Harris' or Christopher Hitchens' views, it makes me wonder if their critics really want honest dialogue at all.
See, I disagree with you on this. It's one thing for two people to say, "I'm a Christian," and "I'm an an atheist," generally discussing their different viewpoints in a civilized way, and saying, "You idiot. How can you believe such total nonsense? There's no God or an afterlife" or "You don't believe in God? Well he is going to roast you in the fires of Hell for all eternity. Then you'll believe in him."
Because the first dialog is a comparison of opinions. The second dialog is absolute belief in one's own intellectual superiority over something which, in actuality, is unknowable. It takes a special lack of humility to look at an intelligent person who, incidentally, happens to believe in God and question his intelligence, just as it takes a lack of humility to look at an intelligent person who happens to be atheist and question his intelligence.
Again, the entire question is insoluble. No one truly knows. I don't. You don't. The Pope doesn't. Richard Dawkins didn't. All we are doing is guessing, no matter how highfaluting our language is and how carefully constructed our syllogisms are.
That is the point the author is making. One that I happen to agree with.
You don't believe, I do. What you need to do is start at the beginning and learn about God and the nature of Reality.
Actually, I do believe. But as St. Paul wrote, "We know that 'We all possess knowledge.' But knowledge puffs up while love builds up." God asks us to believe. He does not ask us to know.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
