Is Atheism a Belief System?

[Kenny]

Yes.

Fair enough; there is a big difference between some ancient guys from thousands of years ago writing a book claiming somebody named Jesus created the Universe, vs a voice coming from the sky in today’s time explaining who he is and how he created the Universe. The voice from the sky is a bit more convincing.

Ken

If everyone heard God scream in a loud voice that he indeed created the universe and you and thousands of others were so convinced beyond any doubt that indeed it was the creator. But the rest of us, the majority, believe it was a hoax. What then?

A voice coming from the sky witnessed by the entire world with today's technology can be proven to not be a hoax.

ken

God coming in the flesh, performing all kinds of miracles including dying on the cross and conquering death 3 days later, appearing to many, eating, drinking, conversing with them. Never mind hearing voices, these were direct eyewitnesses to these events and yet some did not believe. So forgive me if I think you are simply delusional to think you or anyone else would believe a voice from the sky. That's just silly.

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

[Hortator]

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

Kenny, this is rather broad, and I hate to answer a question with a question,

but is there any room for the supernatural in your mind?

[Kenny]

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

Kenny, this is rather broad, and I hate to answer a question with a question,

but is there any room for the supernatural in your mind?

Nothing that I can think of; perhaps much of what it believed to be "supernatural" is actual natural but just unknown at the moment.

Ken

[Kurieuo]

So for the sake of conversation; let's say the men who wrote the New Testament were 100% accurate in the message Jesus gave. How do you know Jesus was actually telling the truth? Isn't it just a matter of faith?

So to your second question: “Isn’t it just a matter of faith?” (this will be a three part post)

As mentioned in the end of my last post to you, how I define "faith" and how you define "faith" would be different. For, I’m sure you see “faith” as mainly something religious folk have, yet for me, I say everything in life that we believe, act upon, do or the like requires faith.

Now you might respond that you can accept such a definition too, "but belief in Christ being God takes matters of faith to a new level." Having faith in an apple that I see and pick up to eat is quite drastically different from belief in Jesus being God. Right?

I’d respond that seeing an apple and knowing that you have the possibility of eating it, well your faith is just more direct and immediate. You have a greater awareness since the apple is immediately present before you, but nonetheless you still have assumptions and smaller steps of faith being exercised that leads to you picking it up and eating.

For example, when you see that apple, you believe that you really are seeing what looks like a real apple, not one of those plastic or wax apples. Second, you intuitively believe you have the capability of picking up the apple and putting it to your mouth. You also believe you'll be able to bite it, your teeth and jaw will work and you'll be able to chew and swallow.

Similarly, I'd argue, there are smaller steps of faith that can eventually rationally lead one to accepting Christ is God. It's just that the steps are much more numerous and the substance of belief is not so direct and present before us.

[Kurieuo]

Now, I don’t want to leave my previous post just there. I’d like to explore this concept of faith a little. “Faith” I suppose describes us as conscious subjects having an ability to exercise belief in something.

You said elsewhere on this board that you believe we have free will. It seems “faith” and “free will” are related in some way. But, what does it mean to say someone believed or acted of his own free will? I’d like to explore “free will” which I believe will also be helpful here.

I’d agree with Atheistic philosopher Sam Harris who essentially says that “free will” means we must have been capable believing or doing otherwise than we did, and that our beliefs and decisions were not based upon some random influences over which we have no control, but based upon us as the conscious subjects and author of our beliefs and actions. Thus, Harris says: “No one has ever found a way of describing how physical processes could occur which would make sense of this claim.” (to become better acquainted with the issues I’d encourage you to listen this 15 minute video of his).

Now, you might still believe that we are each still in the driver’s seat to some degree, able to express our own will to do this or believe that. Free will is just intuitive and obvious to us, right? In fact, I’d hope you wouldn’t let go of our “free will” to deny what seems most clear to us that we all do in fact possess free will and such isn’t merely a mirage being cast by some physical construct and processes.

Now if Sam Harris is correct (and he’d be in very strong company since his is by far the popular opinion in secular philosophical thought), then our exercising of “faith” doesn’t really exist either. In fact, while “we” might be strangely aware and think we are in control, “we” are powerless over defining ourselves, defining our actions, defining anything about us including what we believe.

An important point here is, if we're merely atoms and those like Harris are correct, then in answer to your second question it isn't purely faith that we believe in Christ, but rather our being physically caused to. In which case, it isn't us who really do the "believing", belief is just in fact actually quite empty, a meaningless part of the mirage that we often believe to be our conscious free will.

[Kurieuo]

So now, having explored "faith" and "free will" and even answered your question in two different ways, I'd like to try illustrate how one might logically arrive at Jesus being God.

Much has been said about an Atheist belief system in this thread, but let us here define some thought in the Christian belief system. Of crucial importance according to Christianity is what must one do in order to be accepted by the Father (i.e., God). Think John 3:16 and the many passages like it:

• “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.”

Belief, is of crucial importance right? You can’t have Christianity unless it is possible for us to believe in Christ? This entails that we are able to freely exercise belief in some respect.

Jesus says in John 14:1, “Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me” soon after declaring, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.” (John 14:6)

From passages it is clear that for the Christians belief system, “belief” and indeed our ability to have “faith” in this or that, all these concepts are central. If it could come down to one thing being advocated in these concepts it is this: Free Will.

So then, with your belief in “free will” (heck belief even in "belief" as my last post covered), well I too believe such concepts are most obvious and intuitive for us to embrace. You know, they're as clear as the Sun to me that such are true. With this in mind, which belief system in most logically coherent with accommodating such truths?

1) A Christian, Judaist view, where God imparts and allows for our free will so much, that He places decisions in our path to consider so we can decide to go this way or that (like the tree of knowledge of good and evil found in the Genesis story, whether one takes such as real or allegorical – the principle of “free will” absolute saturates Judeo-Christian theology).

2) An Atheistic view where the material/physical world just is. A world wherein our beliefs and decisions are based upon random influences and physical processes over which we have no control, rather than us being the conscious subjects and author of our beliefs and life.

Now given I accept “free will”, I opt for #1. Right? The choice seems obvious to me. Now, with this comes a whole host of other beliefs that I also just intuitively believe in, they seem obvious to me. For example, love, true love, can only be had when one is free to express themselves for another in thought or action.

As a side, this is one main reason why I believe God created humans as free intelligent agents, having the real possibility to commit the most atrocious and evil acts. Without the real option for us to choose evil, then equally we could not choose love. Creatures who cannot make a decision from at least one of two ways would merely be robots, even if acting in accordance to some sophisticated set of random principles. What is necessary is the ability as truly conscious subjects to author ourselves, otherwise any “love” is merely a pseudo-love.

So now given I accept “love”, I opt for #1 again. Right? Now there are a host of other beliefs too, including concepts of fairness and justice, good and oppositely evil, responsibility and the irresponsibility and the like that all fit in with #1 where such can’t really fit in with #2 once true “free will” is cancelled out.

Now you might be asking how this all gets us to Christ being God? Well, understand what I'm doing here. Rather than a purely foundational approach to truth, which I believe is beneficial for giving us some first obvious truths, Coherentism is also very beneficial. You know, I intuitively accept free will, it fits well with a Christian belief system along with a host of other beliefs. In saying it fits well, I mean it is logically coherent with and doesn't contradict other beliefs within that system.

IF we settle upon a Theistic belief system as the more fulfilling of foundational truths that we accept, then our next task is to work out which one seems most correct. Now there might be other tests which make Judaism appear weaker to its Christian offspring (or vice-versa). One might also want to consider Islam, or get more particular within subsets of each belief system (i.e., the Catholic Church or this or that Protestant denomination). Just working forward however, I'd think one should initially just deal with the broadest representation of such belief system, particulars can come later.

So now Judaism and Christianity, I think for you Kenny given your previous response, that the answer is quite settled. You respect Christ and his teachings of love, and identify Israel's God as one of war. You believe in the truth of Love so much, that Israel's God seems preposterous to you. Perhaps so much, that Christ just seems a better fit. You may not be able to understand why Christ points back and claims to represent Israel's war-like God, but nonetheless His teachings ring true, true enough to garner closer attention perhaps? (or re-attention)

Now this reasoning seems a little emotionally driven rather than logically driven, right? To base it upon which belief system represents "love" the best. This is though your own foundational truth, and if Love is a foundational truth that you embrace as true, then any belief system that denies your understanding of such -- to be logically coherent with yourself you must deny too! Nonetheless, Christ still points back to Israel's God right? So you might need to explore other aspects.

Others like Stan Telchin (who authored a great book called Betrayed!) used a similar process of elimination as I'm here describing, and eventually converted from Judaism to Christianity. You might find you go the other way, I guess that's where our freedom comes in right?

In any case, we do enough deducing and eliminating, then we reach via reasoning an eventual logical conclusion. Such a conclusion might just seem odd and strange. But as Sherlock Holmes is famously quoted of, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Therefore, eventually, I arrive at Christianity.

Now looking at my end beliefs, it would only look absurd to someone who also doesn't hold them. It leads many to think such beliefs can only a matter of pure faith that any rationally sane person would believe Christ to be God incarnate. Yet, any well-reasoned person who reached such, didn’t just wake up one day saying, “Ahh makes so much sense, I now believe in Christ!” No, it is a process, and indeed there is often emotion attached too (humans are after all both logical and emotional creatures), but there can be (and I'd obviously argue "are") also rational reasons.

Before ending, I don’t want to present such a cold picture of Christianity, that one would arrive at this position via merely a process of reason alone. That such methods of verification can be had and gone through, doesn’t mean it is what many do indeed go through. There are some who in overcoming their intellectual objections, did follow a process of elimination if you will to Christ (like Telchin previously mentioned).

However, the other part of the Christian belief system is that we believe in a living God who can touch lives, even our own. You know of that which many Christians speak, that which makes them look deluded, some more so than others. Consider John Newton who sung in Amazing Grace, “I once was blind but now I see.” Really, blind to what? The truth of God, truth of Christ? Now you see, how, what are you talking about, I don’t see anything? Right? You think us bonkers, and no doubt that's often the way it looks looking at the resulting end beliefs.

But, then consider whether it isn't bonkers to deny beliefs like "free will", even that "we" believe? "Love", "fairness", "justice" -- are all these just shadows being cast and mirages at best? I can't bring myself to believe such absurdities.

[Nessa]

....Now given I accept “free will”, I opt for #1. Right? The choice seems obvious to me. Now, with this comes a whole host of other beliefs that I also just intuitively believe in, they seem obvious to me. For example, love, true love, can only be had when one is free to express themselves for another in thought or action.

As a side, this is one main reason why I believe God created humans as free intelligent agents, having the real possibility to commit the most atrocious and evil acts. Without the real option for us to choose evil, then equally we could not choose love. Creatures who cannot make a decision from at least one of two ways would merely be robots, even if acting in accordance to some sophisticated set of random principles. What is necessary is the ability as truly conscious subjects to author ourselves, otherwise any “love” is merely a pseudo-love..

This reminded me of a clip from Ravi.

https://youtu.be/7jNX2rS7K4A

[Byblos]

God coming in the flesh, performing all kinds of miracles including dying on the cross and conquering death 3 days later, appearing to many, eating, drinking, conversing with them. Never mind hearing voices, these were direct eyewitnesses to these events and yet some did not believe. So forgive me if I think you are simply delusional to think you or anyone else would believe a voice from the sky. That's just silly.

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

The resurrection proves it, yes. And the resurrection is as historically scrutinized and equally as historically accurate as any other historical event. Do you deny the historicity of Napoleon or Alexander The Great? You should, if you deny the resurrection. At least you'd be consistent in your world view.

[Kenny]

God coming in the flesh, performing all kinds of miracles including dying on the cross and conquering death 3 days later, appearing to many, eating, drinking, conversing with them. Never mind hearing voices, these were direct eyewitnesses to these events and yet some did not believe. So forgive me if I think you are simply delusional to think you or anyone else would believe a voice from the sky. That's just silly.

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

The resurrection proves it, yes. And the resurrection is as historically scrutinized and equally as historically accurate as any other historical event. Do you deny the historicity of Napoleon or Alexander The Great? You should, if you deny the resurrection. At least you'd be consistent in your world view.

Evidence we have about Napoleon include documents with his signature, official records of things he did in various countries all over the world,

Evidence of Jesus resurrection include some guy claiming that some guy claimed that someone saw Jesus rise from the dead.

Call me crazy but IMO countless official signed documents carries a little more weight than 2nd and 3rd hand information.

Ken

[Kenny]

So for the sake of conversation; let's say the men who wrote the New Testament were 100% accurate in the message Jesus gave. How do you know Jesus was actually telling the truth? Isn't it just a matter of faith?

So to your second question: “Isn’t it just a matter of faith?” (this will be a three part post)

As mentioned in the end of my last post to you, how I define "faith" and how you define "faith" would be different. For, I’m sure you see “faith” as mainly something religious folk have, yet for me, I say everything in life that we believe, act upon, do or the like requires faith.

Now you might respond that you can accept such a definition too, "but belief in Christ being God takes matters of faith to a new level." Having faith in an apple that I see and pick up to eat is quite drastically different from belief in Jesus being God. Right?

I’d respond that seeing an apple and knowing that you have the possibility of eating it, well your faith is just more direct and immediate. You have a greater awareness since the apple is immediately present before you, but nonetheless you still have assumptions and smaller steps of faith being exercised that leads to you picking it up and eating.

For example, when you see that apple, you believe that you really are seeing what looks like a real apple, not one of those plastic or wax apples. Second, you intuitively believe you have the capability of picking up the apple and putting it to your mouth. You also believe you'll be able to bite it, your teeth and jaw will work and you'll be able to chew and swallow.

Similarly, I'd argue, there are smaller steps of faith that can eventually rationally lead one to accepting Christ is God. It's just that the steps are much more numerous and the substance of belief is not so direct and present before us.

That’s why I think a different word should be used. Everybody agrees in math 5>7 is wrong; everybody also agrees what happened in Treblinka in Nazi Germany was wrong. But nobody is going to suggest they are equal; that’s why we use different words to describe them thus less confusion; 5>7 is incorrect/inaccurate, what happened in Treblinka was evil.

IMO to use the same word to describe my belief that I am capable of eating an apple vs believing in Jesus divinity causes just as much confusion. I think a different word should be used. The divinity of Jesus should be called faith; my ability to eat an apple….. anything other than faith; evidence, proof, reason, etc. etc.


Ken

PS Daaay-ummm put a lot down bro; I’m going to have to respond to your other posts when I get a little more time

[Byblos]

God coming in the flesh, performing all kinds of miracles including dying on the cross and conquering death 3 days later, appearing to many, eating, drinking, conversing with them. Never mind hearing voices, these were direct eyewitnesses to these events and yet some did not believe. So forgive me if I think you are simply delusional to think you or anyone else would believe a voice from the sky. That's just silly.

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

The resurrection proves it, yes. And the resurrection is as historically scrutinized and equally as historically accurate as any other historical event. Do you deny the historicity of Napoleon or Alexander The Great? You should, if you deny the resurrection. At least you'd be consistent in your world view.

Evidence we have about Napoleon include documents with his signature, official records of things he did in various countries all over the world,

Evidence of Jesus resurrection include some guy claiming that some guy claimed that someone saw Jesus rise from the dead.

Call me crazy but IMO countless official signed documents carries a little more weight than 2nd and 3rd hand information.

Ken

Funny you should zero in on Napoleon but not Alexander The Great or any other ancient historical fact for that matter. What direct evidence do you have for their historicity? None. Yet you consider them historical. Telling, don't you think?

PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?

[Kenny]

God coming in the flesh, performing all kinds of miracles including dying on the cross and conquering death 3 days later, appearing to many, eating, drinking, conversing with them. Never mind hearing voices, these were direct eyewitnesses to these events and yet some did not believe. So forgive me if I think you are simply delusional to think you or anyone else would believe a voice from the sky. That's just silly.

Do you have actual proof that Jesus was God? Or is this just a matter of faith?

Ken

The resurrection proves it, yes. And the resurrection is as historically scrutinized and equally as historically accurate as any other historical event. Do you deny the historicity of Napoleon or Alexander The Great? You should, if you deny the resurrection. At least you'd be consistent in your world view.

Evidence we have about Napoleon include documents with his signature, official records of things he did in various countries all over the world,

Evidence of Jesus resurrection include some guy claiming that some guy claimed that someone saw Jesus rise from the dead.

Call me crazy but IMO countless official signed documents carries a little more weight than 2nd and 3rd hand information.

Ken

Funny you should zero in on Napoleon but not Alexander The Great or any other ancient historical fact for that matter. What direct evidence do you have for their historicity? None. Yet you consider them historical. Telling, don't you think?

Truth be told; I know very little about Alexander the Great. When Napoleon invaded Russia, the details of that war are consistent with what is believed in Russia even today; even with the many wars he had with Britain or other countries; as a matter of fact, the entire world agrees on the details of the wars Napoleon was involved in, as well as the signed documents that resulted from his accomplishments and failures.
The same can’t be said about Jesus; depending on who you ask you will get a totally different story of his death. Ask a Muslim, you get one thing; ask a Jew; another. Ask a Christian; you get something else

PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?

How do I know those are his actual signatures? I have no actual proof, but I see no reason to assume they are frauds the countries of the entire world are in on.

Ken

[Byblos]

Truth be told; I know very little about Alexander the Great. When Napoleon invaded Russia, the details of that war are consistent with what is believed in Russia even today; even with the many wars he had with Britain or other countries; as a matter of fact, the entire world agrees on the details of the wars Napoleon was involved in, as well as the signed documents that resulted from his accomplishments and failures.
The same can’t be said about Jesus; depending on who you ask you will get a totally different story of his death. Ask a Muslim, you get one thing; ask a Jew; another. Ask a Christian; you get something else

Actually there's a remarkable concordance among historians on the the historicity of Jesus, and many are non-Christian (if theists at all).

PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?

How do I know those are his actual signatures? I have no actual proof, but I see no reason to assume they are frauds the countries of the entire world are in on.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, maybe a simple myth perpetuated by the followers of Napoleon and believed by the entire world. You believe that's exactly what happened with Jesus (even though many historians actually disagree with you).

Bottom line is you choose to believe one way or the other according to your whims, not according to what history shows or according to some rationally consistent method. It certainly is your prerogative to do so but you can't come here and peddle it as some sort of common sense approach.

[Kenny]

Truth be told; I know very little about Alexander the Great. When Napoleon invaded Russia, the details of that war are consistent with what is believed in Russia even today; even with the many wars he had with Britain or other countries; as a matter of fact, the entire world agrees on the details of the wars Napoleon was involved in, as well as the signed documents that resulted from his accomplishments and failures.
The same can’t be said about Jesus; depending on who you ask you will get a totally different story of his death. Ask a Muslim, you get one thing; ask a Jew; another. Ask a Christian; you get something else

Actually there's a remarkable concordance among historians on the the historicity of Jesus, and many are non-Christian (if theists at all).

There may be some historians who believe Jesus was a historical figure, but they don't agree he rose from the dead after 3 days. There isn't even an agreement with religious folk; only the Christians believe that claim. Ask a Muslim and they will tell you he never even died, that Allah took him directly to Heaven after the religious leaders of that time conspired against him to have him killed

PS, how exactly do you know those documents bear Napoleon's actual signature?

How do I know those are his actual signatures? I have no actual proof, but I see no reason to assume they are frauds the countries of the entire world are in on.

It doesn't have to be a conspiracy, maybe a simple myth perpetuated by the followers of Napoleon and believed by the entire world. You believe that's exactly what happened with Jesus (even though many historians actually disagree with you).

Most of the people who agree on Napoleon were not his followers. In 1812 Russia was invaded. the leader of the enemy forces was Napoleon. What happened during that war is a part of Russia and French history. the same for when he invaded Spain, Britain, and all the other countries he was involved in
The idea of a military leader doing what military leaders do does not take a leap of faith; the idea of a religious leader regularly committing actions outside the laws of nature does. As they say, astronomical claims requires an astronomical amount of evidence

Bottom line is you choose to believe one way or the other according to your whims, not according to what history shows or according to some rationally consistent method. It certainly is your prerogative to do so but you can't come here and peddle it as some sort of common sense approach.

Are you seriously trying to make that argument? Are you seriously trying to compare the historical accounts of Jesus with the historical accounts of Napoleon?
Napoleon
Napoleon was a military leader who went to war with a lot of countries. He never did anything outside the laws of nature, all of his success and failures were documented during the event and have been in the archives of those particular countries from the time it happened to current day.

Jesus
Jesus was a religious leader who taught, and was eventually killed. He never wrote anything down, he never instructed his followers to write anything down, then years after his death various people began to write what they could remember of him. Then many, many years later a group of religious leaders (Cannon) came together and voted on which of these ancient writings should be considered authentic and which ones should be dismissed in order to make the Bible.
Why on Earth would you expect a non-religious person to see these historical claims as equal?

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

The historicity of jesus is, quite frankly, disputable only by those that have no clue how historical figures are attested to.
I don't think you even find educated atheist that fall for that silliness anymore.

The historical acceptance that Jesus existed has nothing to do with the claims of His divinity ( other than the fact that he existed and was human and was killed).

The historical account of the resurrection is attested as well as most historical events and is ONLY disputed because, quite simply, it is a supernatural event.