Job Discussion Forums

[furiousmilksheikali]

[EdwardJamesOlmos]

Rusmeister, I think the existence of atheists in the most literal sense of the word is greatly overstated. A lot of so-called atheists are willing to accept the idea that there may be a Prime Mover, but that it is otherwise irrelevent to the evolution of the universe. I don't see how the quote "If there were no God, there would be no atheists," proves anything of value. It's an argument over semantics, not substance.

[Sheikh Inal Ovar]

I didn't call Chesterton smug ... in it's original context I'm sure the quote is quite interesting ... as most original thoughts are ... it's when others start waving them around as slogans of revelation that ...

[rusmeister]

Actually, I can agree with some of that!
EJO - quite right about the literal sense of the word. It's just that from the POV of Christianity, there is no practical difference between atheism and agnosticism (in the popular sense of the words) and far more would, if pressed identify themselves as agnostics than atheists. As to Chesterton's quote, it is an end result of a long chain of logical, common-sense thinking. Since that thinking is lengthy and complex, I have to be satisfied with one small but important conclusion from that thinking. I can only hope that curiosity about how he came to say such things will lead to reading (at least one of) his (or CS Lewis' adult) works.

Thanks, SIO, for the clarification. We often come across to others in ways we don't intend in this electronic format (just as people with signatures may want to state things they think profoundly true without it being thought of as 'waving' them).

FMS: Great comments! That is exactly the mindset that can lead you to Truth (believing that a philosophy can be right and that a faith or lack thereof should stand or fall on its merits). The thing for us folk native born in a native-English speaking country is that Christianity enjoys special prejudice in people's minds, and most, as I said earlier, wind up being exposed early to a rabid in-your-face version of it, and themselves develop a 2nd-grader's version (straw man) that they subsequently reject, while remaining completely open to other faiths/beliefs, such as Islam, Hinduism, atheism or whatever. For those people, the playing field has been tilted unfairly against Christianity.

I myself was raised fundamental Baptist and seriously practiced it until I joined the military. Door-to-door, backing people into corners...I know about that. Then I spent 20 years as an agnostic. I know quite a bit about that.

It's just that few begin to think about what their lives really mean until death stares them in the face. At that point, believing in no purpose or reason IS despair and futility. I, personally, didn't want to wait for that to happen.

Thanks again for the thoughtful posting!

[gaijinalways]

Sorry WE, that doesn't quite answer my question . You are beginning to sound like a Japanese . In other words, do you have a religion ( and if so, what is it labeled as)? If you don't have one, that is fine too, but please just state so.

As to being an agnostic, I'm not sure if my god would approve of me being one !

[White_Elephant]

[White_Elephant]

[rusmeister]

Look, I'm terribly sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm not aiming barbs at anyone. In all my experience, when people explain why they reject Christianity as truth, they generally list reasons that show a limited understanding of theology (such as , "How could a loving God create man and knowingly in advance consign him to hell?", "How can a loving and omnipotent God be reconciled with all the pain and suffering in the world?" etc etc... questions that I had asked when I left the Baptists at the age of 19) . I was not specifically describing your understanding. I had no intention of insulting you, believe me.

Also, you might agree that it is actually a minority that experience the kind/amount of nastiness that you have experienced. You would simply be among those who have given serious thought in the face of that.

In this electronic format, it is very easy to misunderstand. No body language, no tones of voice, nothing to go on. People don't always lay out the context around their thoughts successfully. Please forgive me for upsetting you in any way.

I asked an atheist friend who works in Moscow to recommend to me the best defense he knew of on atheist thought. He recommended Bertrand Russell, and I read "Why I Am Not a Christian". In there I found the same limited understanding of Christian theology that most people share. He had a lot of reasonable thought, but the arguments against Christianity were largely meaningless - I found that even I, with my limited powers of logic, was able to find some huge holes in his arguments against Christian theology. I think a lot of people get childhood Sunday School, escape church as soon as they can, and never learn more about their faith. Something that is true is going to have to be complex enough to explain the world, but having escaped the church environment with only that childhood 'Sunday School' level of knowledge, which of course they later successfully debunk, they never learn the wisdom and learning of a faith that has been passed down for 2,000 years.

I'll recommend Lewis and Chesterton for top-notch Christian apologetics. That said, I'll add only that I would rather live all my live believing in God and die having it turn out that God isn't, than live all my life not believing, die and find out that He is.

[furiousmilksheikali]

[rusmeister]

No, because the consequences would be far worse.

[gaijinalways]

I posted

[Sheikh Inal Ovar]