Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Am Not An Atheist!
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 93 of 382 (497754)
02-06-2009 2:54 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Buzsaw
02-05-2009 7:29 PM


Re: We Have an Answer Courtesy of ICANT
No, it is not "preposterous".
About a decade ago I received this in an email. It was the first time I had heard it, but apparently it's made the rounds, as was apparent from his not being able to discuss it. And believe it or not, that he had put that "(sic)" in himself; one normally only does that when quoting somebody else:
quote:
I am a Christian, and I believe God to the creator, but I don't see how it can always be conclusively supported with given data. Now given, data doesn't lie, but I do not think that all data is intrinsically pure. In other words this: it has been tampered with by supernatural beings, namely satan himself. satan's (sic) main concern is that he takes as many people down with him as possible. If he can convince us that God doens't exist by "tampering" with geological data and other findings, then we will think that we are alone in this universe with no spiritual meaning, and that when we die, we are worm food. Has anyone ever expressed this view towards you before? How do you respond to it? I know it sounds like an easy cop-out, but God has given satan the power over the earth and spiritual warfare does take place every day. What are your thoughts? I know that you have had a bad experiance with some other Creationists, and that makes us look bad.
This was part of my reply:
quote:
An interesting view. No, I don't recall having heard it before. Of course, since it is impossible for us to know anything about the supernatural, we could come up with any number of supernaturalistic conspiracy theories to explain anything we want to. One that immediately comes to mind is Maya; all of our physical existence is just illusion anyway.
However, if it is a trick of Satan's, then it is a far more subtle and deadly trick than you think. At the end of my Quotes Page [site not currently hosted], I wrote from memory what a Christian had told me on CompuServe's Science Forum, circa 1997:
quote:
In order to ensnare Christians, Satan, the Great Deceiver, knows that he cannot fool them with single lies, so he always creates lies in pairs. The first and lesser lie is intended be alarming and to scare Christians and to drive them to embrace the second and more pernicious lie, trapping them there. That Christian viewed both creation science and evolution as lies, but evolution was the lesser lie which Satan uses to frighten Christians and to drive them to embrace the truly pernicious lie, creation science.
Think about it, Matt. You are trying to explain away the "lesser lie", but you do not see the "greater lie", even though it forms the basis of your entire argument.
Tell me, Matt, why would Satan's tampering with geological data convince us that God doesn't exist? Think about it. What assumptions have you made there? Haven't you embraced the "greater lie", the lie that science disproves God? The lie that forms the heart of creation science? Sneaky devil, isn't he? He snared you and you didn't even know it. And he didn't even have to tamper with the physical evidence; all he had to do was to trick you into believing that the evidence would convince you that God doesn't exist and then just let the universe do the rest.
. . . {I offered a discussion of the nature of theology, that it's the fallible efforts of fallible humans to try to figure out the supernatural and that each follower of a given theology actually has constructed his own theology out of his misunderstanding of his teachers' misunderstandings } . . .
Now somebody comes along, reinterprets what a lot of other fallible humans have reinterpreted and taught him, and proclaims that certain things must be true about the physical universe or else EVERYTHING we believe about God must be false, we are alone in this universe with no spiritual meaning, and when we die, we are worm food. For example, John Morris of the ICR at the 1986 International Conference on Creationism: "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning." Then, sure enough, those certain things end up not being true.
What's your next move?
1. Accept that God doesn't exist, flush your faith down the toilet, and embrace yet another fallible reinterpretation that as an atheist you can run naked down the street, do anything you want to, and party constantly until it kills you.
or
2. Deny, deny, deny the scientific evidence that "disproves God" and campaign relentlessly to keep others from hearing about it too.
or
3. Realize that that fallible human reinterpretation, that those certain things being false would disprove God, was flawed to begin with and was just plain wrong and should be either corrected or discarded.
or
4. ____________________________________________(fill in the blank)
Which answer would you choose?
So we see that what "creation science"-style creationism teaches and accomplishes is exactly the same that they accuse Satan of trying to do. And indeed, the only way that Satan's "false evidence" could work is if creationism has already taught its lies about what that evidence would mean. Until creationists teach that "If the earth is more than 10,000 years old then Scripture has no meaning," there is no reason to believe that evidence for an old earth disproves God.
But it doesn't stop there. Creationism also causes Christianity to fail the Matthew 7:20 test: Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. The plethora of persistent false claims (AKA PRATTs) and deceptions, along with other dishonest conduct, only serves to discredit Christianity -- and the persistent creationist witness that they themselves believe that all they have at their disposal to support their religion are lies and deceptions doesn't help matters any. In accordance with the Matt 7:20 test, they prove that theirs is a false religion when Jesus is quoted as commanding to be hewn down and cast into the fire (Matt 7:19).
IOW, creationists are doing Satan's work for Him.
Edited by dwise1, : cleaned up indirect quote from CompuServe

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Buzsaw, posted 02-05-2009 7:29 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Buzsaw, posted 02-06-2009 7:02 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 260 by Stile, posted 02-19-2009 3:40 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(3)
Message 314 of 382 (670189)
08-10-2012 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:40 PM


I think the one thing that has recently brought this out more than anything else is the immediate, widespread rejection throughout the scientific community of the concept of Intelligent Design. Anyone who is the slightest bit religious, anyone but the most militant of atheists, should show some interest, however slight, in Intelligent Design. There’s always the chance that Intelligent Design could show some type of evidence of the actions of whatever Deity they believe in. Their total disregard of it logically indicates that they probably show no real belief in any type of religion.
The scientific community would take notice of ID if it were at all scientific. Rather, ID is a political/social/religious movement, not scientific; a major founder and leader is a lawyer. Instead of doing scientific research, the ID movement, spearheaded by the Discovery Institute, has dedicated itself to a long-term plan for social change whose goal is to reshape both society and science itself by requiring science to incorporate the supernatural -- I started a topic, So Just How is ID's Supernatural-based Science Supposed to Work? (SUM. MESSAGES ONLY), asking for some kind of ID plan for how such a science was supposed to work and in a total of 396 messages no suitable answer could be given. Instead of conducting scientific research, their efforts go into trying to affect public opinion, befitting a purely social/political movement, but not a scientific one. And then in the wake of Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), in which the courts found that "creation science" is sectarian religion, the creationists shifted their decades-long game of "Hide the Bible" into a new game of "Hide the Creationism" by adopting ID as a new front with which to deceive the public and the courts. And in addition to all that, ID is firmly based on the false theology of The God of the Gaps which teaches that proof of God is in the gaps of our scientific knowledge, which is a primary source of the false idea that advances in science attack and disprove God, thus feeding the false belief, that you have advocated vehemently, that there is a war between science and religion -- any such war is purely in the minds of mistaken extremists on religion's side. BTW, God of the Gaps thinking is endemic among creationists.
If ID wants to be accepted by the scientific community, then it needs to do science!
Also, creationists are aware that conflicts, such as the creation/evolution conflict, are almost always a disagreement between TWO opposing forces. It’s a rare conflict that has three or more equally opposing forces. I’ve never seen the creation/evolution controversy labeled as the creation/deist/evolution controversy, for example.
In the rare conflicts that do involve three or more, I can’t imagine any that have two extremes, along with one or more central ones that don’t heavily favor one extreme or the other. We all know which side Deism and/or theistic evolution favors.
No, the world is not black-and-white, despite the fundamentalist that you and Dan Barker (pre-salvation) shared. Not only is the world mostly gray, but there are many more than just two "polarities". Hopefully, one day the scales will fall from your eyes too and you will no longer be blind.
Also, there is no "creation/evolution controversy" nor "creation/evolution conflict", except purely of creationist manufacture. And the reason for such a false fabrication is the fundamentalist theologies that form the basis of creationism that insists that certain contrary-to-fact (and hence false) claims must be true or else there is no Scripture and God either does not exist or is not worthy of worship and you should all become atheists. Which is, of course, why so many of your children, raised on those false teachings, are becoming atheists. Your own stupid fault, not that of science.
Looking at the Dover transcripts, (or searching the internet) I can’t find any details about exactly what he and his wife teach/taught in Bible class and Bible camp.
. . .
Maybe they do know him better than he thinks! Because the Bible warns them about his type.
. . .
It would be interesting to know if his teachings in school are compatible with his teachings in Bible class, or if he teaches conflicting things depending on where he is
Well, of course you are extremely concerned as you need to be! After having raised your (pl) children on a pack of lies that will be exposed as soon as they learn any science, it is very much in your interest that they never learn any science! You realize full well that they must all be kept in abject ignorance their entire lives. Their very souls depend on it!
But wouldn't a far better idea be to stop lying to your children? Teach your children the scientific truth from the start, along with an actual harmonization of their theology with reality instead of the massive denial of reality and pack of lies that you now teach. If you were to do that, then you would never have anything to fear from science. But as long as you continue to teach your children lies, including the Grand Lie that their very faith depends on those lies, then you must forever fear science. How pitiful! And stupid!
Also, as you want to paint the Rehms as "atheists", please tell us exactly what an atheist is! Give us a definitive definition of "atheist," so that we can determine whether the Rehms are atheists.
Is somebody who believes in a god or gods other than YHWH (AKA "Yodh-Hah-Vav-Hah", AKA "the Tetragrammaton") an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.
Is somebody who believes in YHWH, but is not a Christian, an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.
Is somebody who is a Christian, but is not of your particular sect, an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.
Not every Christian believes nor teaches fundamentalist and creationist lies. Does that make them atheists? But True Christianity should be in harmony with reality, shouldn't it? (If you disagree, then explain why!) Since your sect is in conflict with reality every which way it turns, wouldn't that make your sect the "atheists"?
Define your terms!
Evolution has nothing to do with atheism - that’s been the standard scientific talking point for many decades now, but repeating it over and over doesn’t make it any more true. Just because countless man hours over the past 150 years have shown more and more scientific detail in biological change over time, it doesn’t magically erase the atheism that originated, promoted, and continues to promote the enthusiasm that the subject of evolution inspires. Without the atheism, it wouldn’t get near the attention and public spotlight that it gets. Biological change over time — what could be more boring? If it had nothing to do with atheism, these forums wouldn’t exist, popular books wouldn’t be written about it, court cases concerning it wouldn’t exist, on and on.
And yet, as I have solidly established, it is fundamentalism and its reliance on "creation science" that that is the cause of atheism. Not evolution, which does not conflict in any way with Divine Creation. Not science, which does not conflict in any way with Divine Creation. But rather fundamentalism and "creation science" which teach lies about how the world must be in order for God to exist.
Stop teaching lies! What part of that is so impossible to understand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:40 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 316 of 382 (670191)
08-10-2012 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by marc9000
08-09-2012 7:54 PM


Probably largely as a response to being on the receiving end of derogatory and inapplicable labels made to them by atheists. How many times does the term flat earther get a mention on these forums?
I do not recall having ever called a "true Christian" a "flat earther". Please provide us with examples of this having happened. For once, try to be honest (as much as that goes against your theology).
Now, flat-earthers, few though they may be, do base their position on religious beliefs. Religious beliefs that they stubbornly hold against all evidence. Religious beliefs that they absolutely refuse to compromise on. Exactly like you. Different beliefs, but absolutely the same mind-set.
Perhaps you are also thinking of how people don't seem to like you very much, and as a result you lash out that they hate you just because of what you believe (I'm not sure whether you have personally articulated that, but foreveryoung and others most certainly have). In response to foreveryoung, I quoted from memory from a Bob Newhart show (the old one where he was a psychologist):
quote:
Middle-aged black patient, very hostile: Everybody hates me because I'm black.
Bob: No, maybe they hate you because you're not a likeable person.
Patient (touched, perhaps having a break-through): Do you think so?
Conservative Christians (which includes fundamentalists and evangelicals) continually try to seize political power and destroy constitutional guarantees and to attack science education and to attack everybody else's rights, including religious liberty. And they have a long history of aggressive and extremely distasteful proselytizing; in the decade following the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa 1970, you couldn't turn around without being accosted by a fundamentalist. And after having made yourself so unlikeable, you actually have the gall to pretend to be amazed that nobody likes you?
It is a wonder that you are treated with so much courtesy!
And that’s the No True Scottsman fallacy isn’t it? Creationists are accused of that one all the time it seems.
Now, in the restrictive example you gave where one's claims could be immediately compared with obvious contradictory behavior, then you would be right. But that's not what we are talking about.
There are virtually countless accounts of true believing Christians who have since lost the faith, many of them actually becoming atheists. When those accounts are presented to you and your confederates, the invariable response was "well, obviously they weren't true Christians." That is what we're talking about.
The truth of the matter is that whenever the situation is brought up of an actual true believer who then became an atheist, the fundamentalist reaction we get is "well, he never was a true Christian anyway", because according to your theology, no "true Christian" could ever leave the faith. But it does nonetheless happen, regardless of what you would want to believe.
True Christians do indeed leave the faith. It happens all the time. It's happening in droves as your (pl) children, raised on that stuff, are fleeing it in droves. If they never were true Christians, whose fault is it anyway? Given that you (pl) were the ones who raised them all their lives.
Instead of trying to deny the simple and plain facts, you need to address them and to come up with a real solution.
Creationists tend to remember the Biblical phrase by their fruits shall ye know them.
Oh the irony! Yes, everybody other than creationists do remember that phrase and they do invoke it. Rather, it's the craetionists who try so very hard to forget the Matthew 7:20 Test:
quote:
7:15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
7:17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
7:18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
You've heard of my friend, Gary, from church. He had been a fervent fundamentalist for so many years, having to constantly turn a blind eye to the everyday realities that contradicted his fundamentalist beliefs. Finally, all that self-deception became too much for him, so he applied the Matthew 7:20 test to Christianity. Yes, Christianity did do some good things, but it also has done and continues to do so many bad things. Christianity fails the Matthew 7:20 test.
BTW, as a "complete atheist and total humanist", Gary feels much more spiritually fulfilled than he ever did as a Christian.
So when Deists and other religious evolutionists look and behave like atheists, they share a large part of the blame when some other members of society determine them to be no different than atheists in their political views, including a desire to weaken the hold of traditional religion.
Err, "traditional religion"? Just what exactly are you talking about? Fundamentalism only goes back about 100-110 years ago, hardly "traditional". Fundamentalist theology's dispensationalism only goes back to some time in the 19th Century, hardly "traditional religion". Marionism and papal infallacy only goes back to some time in the 19th Century, so hardly "traditional religion". The Rapture? 1830's.
Obviously, that's all new-fangled BS that post-dates the founding of this country. Nothing traditional about it!
OK, marc9000, here's the gouge, the straight skinny. The USA is not a Christian state; whether or not it is a Christian nation depends on the beliefs of the whole of the USA population. According to the Constitution of the United States of America, religion has no hold over the government, even though the officers who have served in that government since is inception have not always held true to that ideal. If the populace of the country decides to be Christian, then by that percentage the nation could be considered Christian (even though most of those Christians you would declare to not be such -- you cannot have it both ways, you should know). And if, as you say, "the hold of traditional religion" weakens, then it is because the populace as a whole has become less convinced. Which is to say that the "traditional religion" position (whatever that is supposed to be!) has been unable to win out against reality. Is that supposed to be because of the opposing positions have been able to present a better argument? Or because your position has demonstrated that it's completely contrary-to-fact?
In an open market of ideas, for your ideas to prevail they must demonstrate some kind of superiority to the other ideas available.
Good luck!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by marc9000, posted 08-09-2012 7:54 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 328 of 382 (670226)
08-10-2012 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 317 by Tangle
08-10-2012 3:49 AM


Without a small section of religious believers - the fundamental creationists - making a fuss about evolution because they, and only they, feel it threatens religious belief, evolution would indeed be just another boring science topic in the curriculum.
I remember one anti-creationist professor who said that he actually enjoyed having creationists around. It gave him the chance to lecture on evolution to an audience that was interested in what he had to say, instead of the usual roomful of bored students.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Tangle, posted 08-10-2012 3:49 AM Tangle has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 329 of 382 (670228)
08-10-2012 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Taq
08-10-2012 12:08 PM


As dwise can attest, the YEC underpinnings were clear from the start. ID supporters continued with the same refuted arguments that they had used as YEC's. They claim that there are no transitionals, that there is no evidence for evolution. Of course scientists rejected ID. It is based on lies.
Actually, even though the end result is as described, ID has a different origin that "creation science", nor was ID born out of "creation science". The only real connection between the two is that the IDists have been selling ID to the fundamentalists who have adopted it in their new game of "Hide the Creationism", since their old game of "Hide the Bible" has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).
As far as I can tell, the ID movement has its origins with lawyer Phillip Johnson and his book, Darwin on Trial, whose thesis was that evolution fails courtroom rules of evidence. My initial reaction when I first heard him present that in an episode of Nova was: "What an idiot! Science isn't a courtroom procedure, but rather a police investigation. It doesn't follow courtroom procedure, but rather hunts down clues and gathers evidence." Upon further investigation, I find that my initial reaction was right on the mark. Later I read an essay by Johnson where he shared the reason why he opposes evolution: "It leaves God with nothing to do." Pure God of the Gaps thinking, which lies at the root of ID: if we can't explain something, then that's proof of God. Oh, they'll say that the Designer doesn't need to be the Christian god and could just as well be aliens (LGM), but it keeps coming back to being their god, nominally the Christian god but in reality the puny impotent God of the Gaps.
ID itself is different from "creation science" in that it is not wed to bibilical literalism nor a young earth. That makes it a harder opponent since creationism's young-earth lies are so easy to refute. IDists are also much better educated than creationists and are usually professionals in their fields, so they are able to write much better sounding bullshit claims. Of course, part of creationists having adopted ID as their own is that they just slap the ID label on their own lies and cheapen the product immensely.
So then, ID itself is a bit of a different animal than creationism, but in creationists' hands it's just the same old BS as you described.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Taq, posted 08-10-2012 12:08 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-10-2012 6:41 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 331 by GDR, posted 08-10-2012 7:06 PM dwise1 has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 367 of 382 (670288)
08-12-2012 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by GDR
08-10-2012 7:06 PM


Did Johnson happen to prattle on about materialism? And about how this materialism prevades science? And how we must remove this materialism from science?
Well, that's a fundamental problem of ID.
Consider two different types of "materialism"
There's philosophical materialism. This is a philosophical position that the supernatural does not exist. This is the position that creationism describes as the belief that only "man and molecule" exist. The supernatural does not exist nor could not exist.
There is also methodological materialism. This is the realization that science is limited. The material is all that science is able to deal with. This view does not say that the supernatural does not exist nor could not possibly exist, but only thatscience cannot deal with the supernatural.
Science deals only in methodological materialism. Out of pure necessity.
ID accuses science of philosophical materialism. Completely falsely. As a lie.
We have already learned to not trust the lies of creationism. Less so should we trust the lies of intelligent design!
Edited by dwise1, : minor mark-up clean-up

This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by GDR, posted 08-10-2012 7:06 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-12-2012 7:43 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 380 of 382 (671007)
08-21-2012 2:44 PM


Summary
As often happens, this topic is being summarized based mainly on the most recent discussions, the ones involving marc9000.
In Message 303, marc9000 started equating deism with atheism as well as denouncing as "atheists" practicing Christians who do not reject evolution. Then in Message 305 he came right out and said it:
marc9000 writes:
We saw the reference to the duck test in message 183, though that poster probably didn’t give any thought to the fact that it works more than one way.
Duck test - Wikipedia
It is a reasonable logic test, at least equal to, if not far beyond many of the logical fallacies that have been dreamed up in liberal universities to distract attention when a liberal/atheist is having trouble in a debate. Creationists tend to remember the Biblical phrase by their fruits shall ye know them. So when Deists and other religious evolutionists look and behave like atheists, they share a large part of the blame when some other members of society determine them to be no different than atheists in their political views, including a desire to weaken the hold of traditional religion.
In response to the former message, I asked marc9000 to define his terms, "atheism in particular":
DWise1 writes:
Also, as you want to paint the Rehms as "atheists", please tell us exactly what an atheist is! Give us a definitive definition of "atheist," so that we can determine whether the Rehms are atheists.
Is somebody who believes in a god or gods other than YHWH (AKA "Yodh-Hah-Vav-Hah", AKA "the Tetragrammaton") an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.
Is somebody who believes in YHWH, but is not a Christian, an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.
Is somebody who is a Christian, but is not of your particular sect, an atheist? Why? Please explain your answer.
Not every Christian believes nor teaches fundamentalist and creationist lies. Does that make them atheists? But True Christianity should be in harmony with reality, shouldn't it? (If you disagree, then explain why!) Since your sect is in conflict with reality every which way it turns, wouldn't that make your sect the "atheists"?
Define your terms!
"Atheist" has a very specific meaning, but marc9000, like so many of his brethren, has chosen to ignore that specific meaning and to apply it indiscriminately and broadly to tar everybody who doesn't agree with his beliefs. In doing so, he renders his accusations of science and scientists being atheistic completely meaningless ... not that those accusations had any meaning to begin with. And now that he is trying to get a new topic started based on those same accusations, the first thing he must do is to define his terms!
No, a deist is not an atheist. Obviously! Nor is any theist. Obviously! Yet again, marc9000 just has no idea what he's talking about.
We would perhaps do well to quote another well-known deist whom conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist Christians constantly seek to malign as an atheist: Thomas Paine, the Father of the American Revolution (and sometimes suspected author or co-author of the Declaration of Independence whose deistic wording and style matches Paine's), from his book, The Age of Reason. If anything, it might provide marc9000 some perspective, though he will doubtless ignore it:
quote:
I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.
I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.
But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.
I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe.
. . .
As to the Christian system of faith, it appears to me as a species of Atheism- a sort of religious denial of God. It professes to believe in a man rather than in God. It is a compound made up chiefly of Manism with but little Deism, and is as near to Atheism as twilight is to darkness. It introduces between man and his Maker an opaque body, which it calls a Redeemer, as the moon introduces her opaque self between the earth and the sun, and it produces by this means a religious, or an irreligious, eclipse of light. It has put the whole orbit of reason into shade.
The effect of this obscurity has been that of turning everything upside down, and representing it in reverse, and among the revolutions it has thus magically produced, it has made a revolution in theology.
That which is now called natural philosophy, embracing the whole circle of science, of which astronomy occupies the chief place, is the study of the works of God, and of the power and wisdom of God in his works, and is the true theology.
As to the theology that is now studied in its place, it is the study of human opinions and of human fancies concerning God. It is not the study of God himself in the works that he has made, but in the works or writings that man has made; and it is not among the least of the mischiefs that the Christian system has done to the world, that it has abandoned the original and beautiful system of theology, like a beautiful innocent, to distress and reproach, to make room for the hag of superstition.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024