How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[Dontaskme]

Why assume that one needs some sort of "absolute law" from a law giver in order to have objective morality? That's certainly not logically necessary. After all, we can observe conservation of energy without this being dictated by some law-giver. There is no reason to treat morality any differently from physics, that is, if one assumes that there is an objective basis for morality, like there is an objective basis for physical laws in physics.

But you wouldn't have any knowledge of physical physics without an absolute law giver which is synonymous to being observed.

The act of observation itself is behind every objective or subjective interpretation as to what's happening or not happening on a moment to moment basis. If there was no absolute witness, no objective or subjective conceptual idea would or could arise, as each idea arises, it is known in the instant it arises one with the knowing by the only knowing there is which is the absolute unchanging witness which is not subject to change, unlike subjective / objective ideas that are always changing, coming and going.

There is only the Absolute here, in which subjective experiences appear as and through the object of it's desire. The absolute is not an object, it's not a thing, it is no thing (Absolute)appearing as every thing (Relative)


.

[Seleucus]

Why assume that one needs some sort of "absolute law" from a law giver in order to have objective morality? That's certainly not logically necessary. After all, we can observe conservation of energy without this being dictated by some law-giver. There is no reason to treat morality any differently from physics, that is, if one assumes that there is an objective basis for morality, like there is an objective basis for physical laws in physics.

This is a question much discussed in anarchist literature. It brings to mind the words of Paul when he said, 'all sin is in the Torah', or the Ancient Greek view that 'those who need laws are not fit to be free'. Laws presumably predate Hammurabi, oral laws going back into the deepest per-historic past, unspoken laws go back into the pack early hominids and wolves. It's sorry to see someone get life in prison for their third strike in American law and get life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza. But if you have a better model, go ahead and share it...

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can: The passages most definitely concern atheists, as well as any non-Christian, as you stated. You cannot refute my position regarding atheists being demonized by such passages by arguing that the demonization also extends to non-Christians in general. That strengthens my position as it enlarges the list of people whom Christian doctrine has unfairly labeled as wicked for their beliefs.

You miss the point entirely, I'm afraid. First of all, it cannot be "wrong" to "demonize anyone," from an Atheist perspective. So you're not really in a position to criticize, if you stay consistent with the suppositions necessary to Atheism itself. You're acting like a moral objectivist by using terms like "demonizing" but then retreating into Atheism. But if Atheism's right, then NOTHING can be wrong.

But secondly, and more importantly, you're misunderstanding what's being said there. Let me put it to you as bluntly as possible. The Bible isn't "demonizing" anyone. It's indicting everyone. As Romans says, "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God," and again, "there is none righteous, not even one." Christians are simply those who have accepted this assessment of the human situation, and in response, have turned to God to forgive them for what they are, and out of His kindness, to make them what they could never be without His rescue.

It's that straightforward. Christians aren't those who think they're "better" than anyone else. They think they're morally the same as everybody else, at least in basic nature. But they've chosen a different path, and that path is a far removed from the path the rest of mankind chooses to take than the east from the west or the north from the south.

Now, if you and I live in London, and you are heading off to Brighton while I head off to Nottingham, just how long will we walk happily in each other's company? Yep, that's right: we won't be able to go any distance at all together. Either you would have to give up your ambition of making progress to Brighton, or I would have to go farther away from Nottingham: or worse, neither you nor I gets to go where we want to go, and we end up together, but in some place neither of us wants to be...or else we part company. The injunction that you mention is really common sense, if one understands how things really are: two people who have opposite ambitions are going to be nothing but a frustration to each other, and it will be unfair to both sides. Neither will live the life he or she wishes to live, or make any advance in the things he or she sees as ultimately important. So better not to make a bad partnership like that.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can: Your claim that atheists have no basis to even argue for morality is itself an irrational statement, and one that adds to the demonization of atheists.

Atheism entails that this is not bad, even if it were true. So there's no criticism entailed by that claim. Good and bad, as concepts, are eradicated by the suppositions of Atheism itself. See below.

To falsely claim that atheists have no concept of morality is itself a false claim, as well as an immoral one.

I never said Atheists don't make claims of morality, or even act in ways another kind of person can consider "moral." Those are words you will find I never said, and an implication I never sought there. Let's be clear on that.

But Atheists have no logical reasons for believing or behaving in moral ways. Atheism has no morality. Atheists are better than their creed, sometimes; but that does not make their creed either moral or rational. In fact, Atheism is inherently irrational, as can be seen by the very basic fact that it can never justify its own essential claim -- namely, that there is no God or gods. That's not an empirically-demonstrable claim, so Atheism itself is a belief, a creed, a wish...not a scientific or rational postulate.

[Immanuel Can]

...falsely claiming atheists are incapable of making any moral claims.

I didn't say that. I said they can't rationally justify their claims.

In fact, I think God has given every person a sense of morality. But Atheism logically is obliged to deny that that intuition corresponds to any objective reality.

Let's put it this way: show me any one moral claim that an Atheist must believe. Just one. Any one. Pick anything.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't have to be a moral objectivist at all. Christians certainly aren't.

A "moral objectivist" is someone who believes that right and wrong are real entities, independent of belief. They believe that murder would be wrong, for example, even if everyone on Earth decided it were right.

Are you arguing that Christians do not believe that that is how morality is? Then you're objectively incorrect.

God is not and cannot be a source of morality anyway, as Plato revealed thousands of years ago.

Show it. Quote Plato. Because I've read rather a lot of him, and I've never found any such passage. But I'm prepared to be shown it exists...if you have it.

What is known, however, is that God could not be a source of morality, without making morality completely subjective, a rule of force.

Au contraire: unless morality is grounded in God, it cannot be "objective" at all. It would then have to be a contingent human construct, subject to radical change or revision at the whim of humanity (collectively or individually). It could never be obligatory.

[Immanuel Can]

Why assume that one needs some sort of "absolute law" from a law giver in order to have objective morality? That's certainly not logically necessary. After all, we can observe conservation of energy without this being dictated by some law-giver. There is no reason to treat morality any differently from physics, that is, if one assumes that there is an objective basis for morality, like there is an objective basis for physical laws in physics.

Faulty analogy. The laws of physics are measurable and testable. How do you "test" to find out whether or not, say, abortion is good or evil?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

I love the way psychopaths agonise over 'morality' and what it is. It must be terribly confusing for them. Interesting too how they naturally gravitate towards each other.

[Gustav Bjornstrand]

If anyone sins deliberately by rejecting the Savior after knowing the truth of forgiveness, this sin is not covered by Christ's death; there is no way to get rid of it. There will be nothing to look forward to but the terrible punishment of God's awful anger, which will consume all his enemies." (Hebrews, 10:26-27).

It obviously would apply to ancient Jews, but also applies to any modern-day atheist, as well as modern-day Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Pagans, etc. At least for people who are made aware of Jesus and reject him, which I have, this passage literally means that even if I accepted Jesus, right now, I am still headed for hell. So, are you saying that this Biblical passage is in error, and should be rewritten so that the word "anyone" is replaced with "ancient Hebrews"?

It seems to me that this passage hinges on the specific phrase 'after knowing the truth of forgiveness'. A good deal of that is clarified at 19-25. The most important part seems to me to be: "A new and living way which he hath dedicated for us through the veil, that is to say, his flesh".

To be a candidate for the condemnation at 10:26-27 one would have to have come intimately into a very specific knowledge and understanding ('a new and living way') which is known only through understanding of 'the veil' which is the specific sacrifice upon which the foundation of Christian understanding is built, and its metaphysic. And that is a tall order...

If one did come to that understanding and yet still did choose to 'sin willfully after having the knowledge of the truth', according to the passage one would then be a candidate for perdition.

I would suggest that merely 'to be made aware' is not to have been given intimate knowledge and of understanding the meaning of salvation. If one really did have and if one really did internalize that meaning, one would have become, essentially, a Christian believer. Perhaps with a weak belief, perhaps with tendencies toward activities not in accord with one's innermost realization, and perhaps easily diverted. It is not at all hard for me to imagine a person who had come into this relationship but who yet fell away from it.

(My perspective in making this comment is somewhat different than the position I imagine is held by IC insofar as I am a student of Catholic theology).

[Immanuel Can]

If anyone sins deliberately by rejecting the Savior after knowing the truth of forgiveness, this sin is not covered by Christ's death; there is no way to get rid of it. There will be nothing to look forward to but the terrible punishment of God's awful anger, which will consume all his enemies." (Hebrews, 10:26-27).

(My perspective in making this comment is somewhat different than the position I imagine is held by IC insofar as I am a student of Catholic theology).

A little. But I like what you say about it. I think it's astute, and is well-put. Thank you for your input.

The difference between Catholic theology and mine would be the interpretation of what a "Hebrew" is, probably. Catholics see "Jews" as a late metaphor for "Church," whereas Protestant theology tends to hold that "Jew" continues to mean "a person of Hebrew descent." The former is known as "supersessionism" or "Replacement Theology," and the latter as "anti-supersessionism."

The key agreement between your exposition and mine would be this: that the Hebrews passage describes not a general Atheist, but someone who has special knowledge (in your version, complete knowledge of what salvation entails and belief it's the truth, with willful rejection nevertheless; and mine would be that the special knowledge in question would be a Hebrew relationship with the Old Covenant plus deep knowledge of what salvation entails, with willful rejection nevertheless).

Whichever understanding -- Catholic or Protestant -- that one takes, it is not close to the same as the much more general assumption that Science Fan is inclined to draw from it. So on that we agree completely.

[Science Fan]

Immanuel Can: You keep making insulting, unfounded claims regarding atheists. You are 100% wrong. Atheists can most definitely speak out against the immoral behavior of Christians and statements rampant in the Bible that demonize atheists. Your position is unjust, and by claiming that atheists cannot even formulate an argument against such abuse from Christianity demonstrates my point quite well.

[Science Fan]

If negatively charged particles repel other negatively charged particles while being attracted to positively charged particles, we can formulate physical laws regarding such interactions involving charged particles. This can be done without there being any law giver. If morality was objective, the same thing would be true --- morality would not require any so--called law giver. This is simply an assumption that theists make, without any rational basis for doing so.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can: You keep making insulting, unfounded claims regarding atheists.

Thank you for the permission; however, none of your adjectives is true.

I've provided the foundation for my claims, and I've made no insult. I'm speaking the simple truth, as Atheists themselves have insisted upon telling it to me. They have no moral precepts or obligations, they say. They say they follow only such temporary and contingent "morality" as they choose for themselves. Nobody else is obligated to it, they insist, and even they are not obligated to it, they insist. They choose it, if they do, purely for their own private or social reasons, and for as long as it suits them -- because, they say, ultimately, morality is not objective at all.

But you say differently? Let's see who's right.

You are 100% wrong.

Good. Prove it. Give me any one precept that Atheists are morally obliged to follow.

Just one.

Any one.

And you'll have showed I'm wrong definitively. In fact, I already asked you for this, but for some reason you forgot to answer.

I'm ready.

So where is it?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's quite scary to know that if ImCan didn't have his holy book of 'morality' he would be out raping and murdering every which way imaginable. Hardly surprising though. We had all better hope that he never loses the faith.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Many crimes have been done in the name of religion, explicitly or in spite of. The Crusades is a famous case in history. Being religious is no guarantee that crimes such as raping or murder won't occur, just less likely to occur.

PhilX