I don't believe I am but if you need to believe that about me to try to make it personal because what I say upsets you, go for it.
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?
That's interesting. I've probably forgotten more science than you ever knew. I'm a degreed engineer who practiced engineering for 37 years. What's your background in science?
Unfortunately just an arts major and casual student/fan of science...and recipient of 32 years of scientific factoids from a retired Boeing atf engineer-of-39-years-dad. I've had the humbling honor of being surrounded by people infinitely smarter than me. I did score 99th percentile in science on the ged? Felt more like a trivia quiz, of course. Like I said I'm a fan.
Actually it makes me happy to discover truth. I don't see how anyone who has half a brain would choose to read accounts literally that were clearly written in an allegorical fashion. Which is why you probably abandoned your faith. You read them literally. I wouldn't have believed them either if I read them like you did.
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.
Now it's my turn,
john54 ....
Atheism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of atheism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Atheism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Atheism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Atheists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Atheism is a religion. The religious nature of atheism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
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)
I'll give you that Christianity preaches immaterialism and teaches that there is good and evil, and places value on things beyond pleasure. There's no uniform dogma of atheism that makes atheists materialists. I'm a minimalist and can store everything I own in a backpack. Materialism is worthless. I believe in good and evil. I think pleasure pursuits are ultimately a dead end.
As for this critical theory, as you defined it as coming to your conclusion just by criticizing others, I have plenty of my own views based on scientific literature and philosophy (mostly eastern) that really has naught to do with Christianity. I'm not defining my views by critiquing yours, I'm critiquing yours based on my own defined and partly-defined views.
It drives atheists crazy when Christians know more about science than they do.
There are an infinite number of combinations of structure of matter to produce a lifeless universes. There's only one structure of matter that is capable of producing a universe that is capable of producing life and intelligence. So we live in an unnatural universe that just so happened to be created in an unnatural way; nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter. It can't be an accident. It had to be intentional.
The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is physicists who have expressed most clearly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind. Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality." If I say, with Eddington, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff,” that has a metaphysical ring. But if I say that ultimate reality is expressed in the solutions of the equations of quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, and quantum field theory -- that sounds like good, modern physics. Yet what are those equations, indeed what is mathematics, but mind‑stuff? -- virtually the ultimate in mind‑stuff and for that reason deeply mysterious. 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.
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?
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?
Atheism is an intellectual dead end.
It's an open door. Like you said there's no official dogma of atheism. You can go wherever you want with it.
www.timesofisrael.com
