Atheism And "Lack Of Hope"

[Rob Osborn]

From my definition of atheist, the atheist does not have faith in the existence of God -- or in other words a belief that God is true. Our late President's analogy is a poor one. We can test whether there is a cook or not. We have past experience that can tell us that food is not automatically prepared, but needs a cook to prepare it. A delicious feast is strong circumstantial evidence that someone prepared it.

One cannot draw upon circumstantial evidence to prove Gods' existence. All of the evidence put together can also support the existence of no God but some fortuitous, unlikely events that created the universe and everything in it.

A number of atheists would agree with the biblical passage that the fool denies the existence of God. God could exist, but we are not in a position to believe in his/her/its existence.

One can choose to walk around blindly in complete ignorance of God's many works. For believers its entirely obvious there must be a Creator, and a very intelligent one at that! Life, nature, spiritual manifestations, miracles,the solar system we live in, our galaxy, and the universe itself all conclude with resounding truth that it is not just some random process.

Much work has been done with mathematical probabilities for life to spring into existence. The "evidence" clearly shows the mathematical improbability for even the simplest of life forms to be randomly generated outside of a planned intelligent process. Not only that, biologic studies in labs also prove the same phenomenon- life can only come from an intelligent process. They have spent 65+ years in the lab trying to show just how life comes from random events in nature. They havent been able to even create the smallest, simplest form of anything intelligent with their theories in the most controlled ideal conditions. And yet, we have sent a spaceship millions of miles into space, landed on some distant lanet, and remotely do test and take pictures and send them back to us. Lets be perfectly clear, we are the end product of intelligent planned processes. The evidence is completely overwhelming. If one cant see it, its because he is blindfolded.

[RobertAC]

Your post seems to indicate that you have a very specific definition of "evidence." When you say that "we are not in a position to believe in" God's existence and "all the evidence together can support the existence of no God", are you taking into account personal experience and personal revelation - the strongest form of evidence in my opinion? And who is the "we"? You should speak for yourself. Many people have had experiences and revelation that definitely put them in a position to believe in God's existence - quite reasonably and rationally.

I think this has been touched upon by subsequent posts, but personal experience can be fallible. We all know of people who have strange, incredible stories that they believe have occurred to them. (Alien abduction being one of them.) However, anecdotal evidence, while evidence, and while it may be profound to the person who experiences it, is not necessarily conclusive proof.

When someone receives a revelation -- regardless of their religious background or belief -- it is often a personal experience that can be explained by many things, including God. Of course, this does mean that a spiritual revelation has no value. It just means that one cannot empirically test the source.

Oh and the "we" was a general reference to mankind.

[RobertAC]

One can choose to walk around blindly in complete ignorance of God's many works. For believers its entirely obvious there must be a Creator, and a very intelligent one at that! Life, nature, spiritual manifestations, miracles,the solar system we live in, our galaxy, and the universe itself all conclude with resounding truth that it is not just some random process.

Much work has been done with mathematical probabilities for life to spring into existence. The "evidence" clearly shows the mathematical improbability for even the simplest of life forms to be randomly generated outside of a planned intelligent process. Not only that, biologic studies in labs also prove the same phenomenon- life can only come from an intelligent process. They have spent 65+ years in the lab trying to show just how life comes from random events in nature. They havent been able to even create the smallest, simplest form of anything intelligent with their theories in the most controlled ideal conditions. And yet, we have sent a spaceship millions of miles into space, landed on some distant lanet, and remotely do test and take pictures and send them back to us. Lets be perfectly clear, we are the end product of intelligent planned processes. The evidence is completely overwhelming. If one cant see it, its because he is blindfolded.

Your comment suggests we should choose to believe in God. I think that is an interesting way of looking at the issue. An atheist could simply deny God's existence until proven, or on the other hand at least entertain the notion of God's existence and allow oneself to enjoy spiritual experience.

Personally, I have tried to take the latter road rather than the former. While the likelihood is that once we die, we die, and that there is no God or heaven, it sure is no fun dwelling on that notion. I may not be able to choose to believe in God's existence with sincerity, but I can at least tell myself "why not, what's the harm."

P.S. A great book touching on some of these issues is Mary Roach's "Spook: Science Tackles the Afterlife." http://www.amazon.com/Spook-Science-Afterlife-Mary-Roach/dp/0393329127/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1358217370&sr=8-5&keywords=mary+roach

Edited January 15, 2013 by RobertAC

[wolfcall]

i hear alot of enforcing the divine again. the idea that atheism is against the norm is like saying anything other than catholicism is against the norm. numbers can only hold so much. many people join a religion from an experience in their life that made them choose god. who is to say the atheist did not have an experience that made them not choose god. to say their personal experience is wrong would also make your experience finding god invalid as well because you just cant have it both ways...

[go_utes01]

Does the fact that personal experience may not be empirically testable make it any less "real" evidence?

[mfbukowski]

I won't speak for RobertAC, but regarding "personal experience" as evidence, I have read numerous accounts of humans who allege that they were abducted by aliens and were experimented upon by aliens during their abductions. These abductees claim to have had this very personal experience, and in fact can recount some of the details quite vividly, yet I personally do not consider their "personal experiences" to be proof that aliens are in fact abducting people and performing experiments on them.

These people are certainly convinced that they were abducted and experimented upon by aliens, with only their "personal experience" as their evidence or proof. Personally, I don't see their accounts as evidence that aliens are abducting and experimenting on humans. Is the burden on these people to prove that aliens exist and are abducting humans for experimentation, or is the burden on the rest of us to prove that aliens don't exist and are not abducting people for experimentation?

You are presuming that personal experiences must agree to be true. I don't share that presumption. There is no burden of proof here because no proof either way is possible.

[thesometimesaint]

I recognise where you got the quote from... but let's remember that's not a documentary but an allegory to teach principles (sorry, broken record). I can also claim to to be the fastest runner in this world, but it won't make it so.

The source doesn't have to be a documentary, as in literal fact. All religious writings suffer that fact. We accept on faith that certain events while they may not of literally occurred as described. The principle invoked is of greater worth.

As for the devil, given that this is the day of his great power. For all intents and purposes he is a deity. Albeit the antithesis of God.

Edited January 15, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[canard78]

The source doesn't have to be a documentary, as in literal fact. All religious writings suffer that fact. We accept on faith that certain events while they may not of literally occurred as described. The principle invoked is of greater worth.

As for the devil, given that this is the day of his great power. For all intents and purposes he is a deity. Albeit the antithesis of God.

I guess some dictionary definitions of 'a god' would fit this. "a powerful ruler" - "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality"

[wolfcall]

i thought that was what quantum physics was for?

[MichaelH]

What love and beauty can an atheist express, In poems that touch the hearts distress?

In death and pain a council to whom? Nothing hereafter but darkness and doom?

Upon his death as an atheist falls; His heart cries, "Lord is this all?"

For I will not believe because of written books; In religion I found diversity! Crooks!

But the Lord says he, "Why did you deny?To suppress your feelings time after time?"

For I did call and thou didst hear; Regardless diverse religions so near

The stars up above, the earth beneath Yet thou would not because of books that you read?

Though on deaths bed the deny of me I love you son come home and ye shall see me

[volgadon]

What love and beauty can an atheist express, In poems that touch the hearts distress?

In death and pain a council to whom? Nothing hereafter but darkness and doom?

Upon his death as an atheist falls; His heart cries, "Lord is this all?"

For I will not believe because of written books; In religion I found diversity! Crooks!

But the Lord says he, "Why did you deny?To suppress your feelings time after time?"

For I did call and thou didst hear; Regardless diverse religions so near

The stars up above, the earth beneath Yet thou would not because of books that you read?

Though on deaths bed the deny of me I love you son come home and ye shall see me

Eh. Mediocre verse at best.

[changed]

Studies like this are interesting:

http://www.leaderu.c...es/johnson.html

"inmates who were most active in Bible studies were significantly less likely to be rearrested" ... it seems the message of the atonement gives people more hope than any secular message... at least I don't know of a secular message that offers the degree of forgiveness and hope that the atonement offers.

studies like this are interesting too:

http://ajp.psychiatr...rticleid=177228

"CONCLUSIONS: Religious affiliation is associated with less suicidal behavior"

O, and there's this:

http://usatoday30.us...lumn15_ST_N.htm

It seems religious people are more charitable...

religious people have also killed fewer people...

Apparently it was just an amazing coincidence that every Communist of historical note publicly declared his atheism … .there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm … These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao …

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined.

The historical record of collective atheism is thus 182,716 times worse on an annual basis than Christianity’s worst and most infamous misdeed, the Spanish Inquisition. It is not only Stalin and Mao who were so murderously inclined, they were merely the worst of the whole Hell-bound lot. For every Pol Pot whose infamous name is still spoken with horror today, there was a Mengistu, a Bierut, and a Choibalsan, godless men whose names are now forgotten everywhere but in the lands they once ruled with a red hand.

Is a 58 percent chance that an atheist leader will murder a noticeable percentage of the population over which he rules sufficient evidence that atheism does, in fact, provide a systematic influence to do bad things? If that is not deemed to be conclusive, how about the fact that the average atheist crime against humanity is 18.3 million percent worse than the very worst depredation committed by Christians, even though atheists have had less than one-twentieth the number of opportunities with which to commit them. If one considers the statistically significant size of the historical atheist set and contrasts it with the fact that not one in a thousand religious leaders have committed similarly large-scale atrocities, it is impossible to conclude otherwise, even if we do not yet understand exactly why this should be the case. Once might be an accident, even twice could be coincidence, but fifty-two incidents in ninety years reeks of causation

- http://creation.com/atheism

I'm sorry, but by their fruits you can know them... I don't hate atheists, but I do see the philosophy as very destructive...

read through this list:

http://listverse.com...ism-a-bad-name/

yes there are Christians who have done evil things too, but at least we can say they were not really Christians, that they were acting against what they professed to believe... you cannot say that of atheists. I'm tired of people trying to deify atheists, trying to pretend they haven't killed people, that they are all happy/honest/humble/charitable noble smart intellectuals... when they seem not to be.

Edited January 24, 2013 by changed

[MichaelH]

The Atheist says, "How can you reconcile that belief is a good thing when so many lives have been lost due to the differing opinions of religious views?"

"While the atheist are often crying over the crimes of religion, what about the vastly greater crimes atheist regimes committed in our own lifetime, in the last century and still going on? If you take Hitler, Stalin and Mao alone; the three of them collectively in the space of a few decades killed close to 100 million people. And that's the tip of the ice berg. What about Ceauşescu, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot! Lets look at this fairly and not blame religion for crimes when there are vastly greater and more recent crimes committed by atheist regimes!" (Dinesh D'Souza debate against Christopher Hitchens...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8&feature=context-vrec)

[volgadon]

The Atheist says, "How can you reconcile that belief is a good thing when so many lives have been lost due to the differing opinions of religious views?"

"While the atheist are often crying over the crimes of religion, what about the vastly greater crimes atheist regimes committed in our own lifetime, in the last century and still going on? If you take Hitler, Stalin and Mao alone; the three of them collectively in the space of a few decades killed close to 100 million people. And that's the tip of the ice berg. What about Ceauşescu, Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot! Lets look at this fairly and not blame religion for crimes when there are vastly greater and more recent crimes committed by atheist regimes!" (Dinesh D'Souza debate against Christopher Hitchens...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V85OykSDT8&feature=context-vrec)

To be fair, neither Hitler nor Stalin were exactly atheist, and the 20th century has seen dozens of religious atrocities.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The only reason religious wars of the archaic past weren't as destructive as those of the 20th century is because guys like Joshua didn't have access to, y'know, atomic bombs.

[go_utes01]

The only reason religious wars of the archaic past weren't as destructive as those of the 20th century is because guys like Joshua didn't have access to, y'know, atomic bombs.

Like Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Polpot, etc. did?

Edited January 24, 2013 by go_utes01

[thesometimesaint]

Stalin had the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.

[go_utes01]

Stalin had the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs.

The Soviet Union tested its first atomic bomb in August 1949 and its first hydrogen bomb in August 1953. Stalin died March 5, 1953. Furthermore, in Robert Conquest's, The Great Terror: Stalin’s Purge of the Thirties(Macmillan 1968) appendix on casualty figures, he reviews a number of estimates of those that were killed under Stalin, and calculates that the number of executions 1936 to 1938 was probably about 1,000,000; that from 1936 to 1950 about 12,000,000 died in the camps; and 3,500,000 died in the 1930-1936 collectivization. While these figures do not include all of the deaths under Stalin's regime, it does show that a large number of people were killed by Stalin before the Soviet Union had nuclear capabilities. Moreover, Stalin's victims were not killed by use of a nuclear bomb and he did not come to power/stay in power because of that capability.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

My point was that industrialized weaponry can be used by both religionists and atheists, and we therefore can't blame the vast number of deaths in the 20th century on "atheism", since religious people have used whatever technology was cutting-edge (note the pun) in their day to slaughter as many infidels as was technologically feasible. The obscene number of casualties in the Standard Works alone should warn us about the hypocrisy of judging atheists as inherently more warlike; look at the death tolls when the Nephites and Lamanites were just fighting with macuahuitls or whatever, and then picture them armed with machine guns.

[MichaelH]

To be fair, neither Hitler nor Stalin were exactly atheist, and the 20th century has seen dozens of religious atrocities.

I agree with you about Hitler not being exactly and atheist but Stalin was indeed an atheist. "He followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions, discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion." -Wikipedia

[Walden]

I agree with you about Hitler not being exactly and atheist but Stalin was indeed an atheist. "He followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions, discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion." -Wikipedia

I think this misses the forest for the trees (or however that expression goes).....the "atheistic education" and resulting terror campaign against religious followers that was promoted in totalitarian Russia was not necessarily a reflection of the personal views of Stalin, nor a necessary requirement for communism (as evidenced by the numerous believers within kibbutz societies in Israel), but rather, a tool used by a totalitarian regime to ensure loyalty to the state. Just like the Catholic church waged a terror campaign in the middle ages against those who questioned it's authority, the terror was a tool used to promote allegiance to the cause, not a result of any particular belief system.

[Nemesis]

Godwins Law violation. Thread closed.