₦airaland Forum

Bobbysworld28:
The title of this article risks overstatement. Consequently, I hope the reader will do me the courtesy of not regarding it as a cheap ploy for attention. My aim is simple: I wish to examine an aspect of atheism’s imaginative appeal. Christians are frequently accused of wishful thinking, of retreating to the church in the face of a vast and pitiless universe. Though this is clearly a double-edged sword (wishful thinking works both ways), my reason for focusing on the “glamour” of atheism is not so much to craft a rejoinder as to train a lens on a frequently overlooked issue.

 

Atheism, like any belief system, makes a loud appeal to the imagination, and if we overlook this striking fact we turn a blind eye to one of the key sources of its persuasive power. Specifically, I want to suggest that death is atheism’s ultimate appeal, and that death lends atheism its special glamour. It is in the arena of popular culture in particular that this glamour frequently announces itself most vocally. My hope is that this thesis will seem less controversial and even less outrageous as we progress.

Atheism is a zero-sum game, a philosophy of death that can offer nothing but death. This is why the rising tide of secularism in the Western world is fostering an indefatigable culture of death. Forged in a crucible of nothingness, we wander as cosmic orphans back to the yawning void from which we were so tragically ejected. In such a stark context, anything more than death, or on the side of life, or even minimally optimistic must be regarded with either pity or callous derision because it is obviously deluded, naïve, or dishonest.

 

The existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre said “existence precedes essence.” In other words, we have no stable or fixed identity that precedes us. The burden of identity, selfhood, and meaning rests solely on our shoulders. But, again, if we came from nothing and are returning inextricably to nothing, life is a temporary accident, and death is the only authentic currency at our disposal. Why is death authentic? Because it is life that is artificial and nothingness that is essential. It is not that this worldview tries to be especially morbid—in many cases it makes a valiant attempt to be life-affirming—it’s simply that it has literally nothing else to offer, or, rather, it has precisely nothing to offer.

 

Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying that it is impossible for atheists to lead exemplary and even noble lives. Clearly, many do. What I am saying is that, from the standpoint of scientific naturalism, such behavior is an anomaly because naturalism, devoid of any and all metaphysical underpinnings, can provide neither the motivation nor the justification for a truly selfless life. Such values must be borrowed, or smuggled in, so to speak. In a provocative article, the journalist Matthew Parris, himself an avowed atheist, reluctantly concedes that removing Christian evangelism from the continent of Africa would be disastrous. Why? “In Africa Christianity changes people’s hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.”[3] My point is not that atheists can’t be good people. My point is that it is manifestly impossible for atheism to “change people’s hearts,” to inspire transformation and rebirth on its own steam. Those wishing to find the ethical resources for such an undertaking must look elsewhere.

The apostle Paul tells us that the mind set on the flesh is death (Romans 8:6). An honest materialist will agree with this statement. If the material universe traces its lineage back to a cosmic accident, then life cannot be regarded as anything other than alien, an intrusion where emptiness will ultimately prevail. So, the materialist mind is set preeminently on emptiness and death.

 

Part of our unique and pastoral mission as Christian men and women is to revive in people a love of life in a culture of death. We need to work carefully to restore the appeal of life in all of its vital glory. We need to remind this culture of death that life, not emptiness, is essential, primal, and original. In fact, we have value and purpose precisely because we have been created by a personal God in his image, fashioned for intimacy and joy with God as well as with others. We can preach nothing less than eternal life, because anything less than eternal life is simply a temporary loan from a bankrupt universe. Indeed, the poverty of atheism is so total that it is powerless to offer anything more than death.

 

It is this life offered by Christ that stands in stark contrast to the materialist mindset. As RZIM colleague Os Guinness says, “Comparison is the mother of clarity.” My intent has not been to isolate those who resolutely deny any kind of divinity. Rather, my honest hope is that the radical nature of the life that Christ offers us might come into sharp focus when set against the unsparing backdrop of consistent materialism.

 

David Bentley Hart has said that we have only two options at our disposal: Christ or Nothing.A casual survey of our cultural landscape makes it abundantly clear that our love of life is in desperate need of resuscitation. I believe Christ alone can accomplish this resuscitation.

 

Cameron McAllister is a member of the speaking and writing team at RZIM.

http://www.rzim.org/just-thinking/the-glamour-of-atheism/

I on the other hand, believe Christianity is empty because it casts/focuses its gaze away from life to something after life. Life might exist between nothingness, yet it doesn't dissuade the fact that Life itself is not nothingness. Christianity's obsession with the afterlife deprives it the joys and enjoyment of life.

MizMyColi:

See? that's the issue I have with Christians.

If I get a revelation that is not explicitly written in the bible, then it must be discarded.
The bible, instead of Jesus has become the standard for their lives.

Honestly, do you really think you can box God in some One thousand pages of one book, written by humans?
Fallible humans at that?

Owh maybe God spoke more actively in those days, maybe he created them specifically to write the bible and after that he closed his portal of revelations.

So if I do not have a bible verse to back up a reveation that resonates as VERY true in my spirit, then I must go for a psych eval of sorts or admit being under the influence of satan?

Talking about what informed my decision, isn't it written somewhere in the bible that as Jesus Christ is, so am I?
Isn't it also written that I am a god?
As human as Jesus was, there is not a single iota of doubt about his Divinity. Why doubt mine?
Am I not SEATED with him in heavenly places, far above principalities and powers..........

I mean!?
What other proof do you need of how divine, how powerful, how limitless and boundless I am?

FYI
I am
A Student of Jesus
I want to be courageously human, a powerful expression of love, acceptance, peace, beauty, goodness, freedom and compassion in this world, and live without separation from myself, God, others and life… as I see Jesus did.

Y'see,
Honestly, these days, I don't even enjoy quoting the bible.
What do I need it for anyway, since the word of God lives in me.

Owh, I refer to it once in a while though - it's not utterly bad.
Whenever I'm led to pick up the bible again, I definitely will. I doubt that'd be anytime soon though.

I guess that's my punishment of sorts for elevating the bible above the creator himself.
For not realizing that the bible is a POINTER, not the POINT.

I would love to talk to you about my journey, how I got to where I am now - I mean "my confused state".
But I'll spare us the stress.
I sense that it'd be an exercise in futility.

And where is the line that separates you as a Christian from other spiritual occultists?

I attacked your lack of courage because the walls of Christianity which were once relied on, have crumbled. You have called the credibility and authenticity of the Bible is called into question, yet you believe the 'Christian journey'continues without a point of reference.

MizMyColi:


This is a very serious matter o.
As a matter of fact, well, lemme keep mute for now.
Do read on, with pleasure

Sometimes I hear the concern from critics that those who advocate for the non-violent nature of God are just projecting their own ideas and desires onto God.


But, here is the thing. Left to my own nature and personality, I definitely AM an eye-for- an-eye guy. I grew up wrestling in school and fighting in bars. I both drew blood and lost blood. So, my own natural bent toward reactionary violence is quite honed, hostile and ever-ready. And, engaging in the verbally
violent cross-examinations that practicing law demands has done nothing but show me how
to even more effectively shred people who are attacking my clients.


But, when I first recognized 25 years ago that
Jesus lives within me, and that He wanted to
transform my heart, things changed. The God
who turns the other cheek at my sin-- bar
none, has also called me to do the same
toward all others-- bar none. And by turning
the other cheek, He doesn't ignore the sin at
all. Rather, Jesus deals with it directly by
overcoming all-evil with all-good.


"Turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile,
give the extra garment, love your enemy,
pray for those who despitefully use you, THAT
you may be sons of your Father in Heaven,
for our loving God sends bountiful rain and
replenishing sunlight on both the good and
the evil, the just and the unjust, THEREFORE
be ye perfect AS as your Heavenly Father is
perfect." Matthew 5:38-48.

My point is that it's counter-intuitive and contrary, at least in my case, for my nature and personality to project non-violent attributes onto God. For me to advocate a non-violent image of God is not projection at all since I am not that way by inclination.


[color=#00099]Projection is a psychological transference of our OWN qualities or faults onto our image of another. In fact, in a way, its Jesus who is
projecting His own divine qualities ONTO and
INTO us. And that's a good thing.[/color]


[url=https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=766610300065689&id=100001501787231&refid=7&_ft_=qid.6070088052228151496%3Amf_story_key.3119425117691731511&__tn__=%2As]Richard's Page[/url]

^^^ See the above?
Those are my thoughts exactly.
If I were to write on this, the only difference would be my choice of words and my own experiences

Sometimes we shape and mould God into the image we wish to see him as. For the Father role, God supposedly plays, a ruthless streak of violence isn't ideal. The Saviour is tender, loving image towards those he redeems, whilst the Devil must take up all those bad characteristics we do not see in a father. The Devil is the antithesis of the Father, and a necessary danger through which God gains relevance.

MizMyColi:
Honestly?
This thread isn't meant for Atheist, Agnostics, or even Christian Agnostics/Atheists like me
There is twice as much that I don’t know, than I do know. The mystery of it all cannot be cloaked in certainty.
IT IS MEANT FOR CHRISTIANS.
To help their faith.
To propel their journey.
I stopped reading a bible many months ago.
My knowledge of it is soo rusty now.
I hate religious arguments btw, especially the retrogressive kind.

This is similar to walking down a path and lacking the courage to stop and retreat in order to find a better path.

It is not a bad idea for the clergy to be taxed on their income. It seems even a Christian thing to do.

SNCOQ3:
Their is no "whose intention"; That is why He is God.

Is perfection good?
Is love good?
Is justice good?

If you had been careful to 'listen' to Anony1, he defined 'Good' as what 'ought to be' done in line with its purpose. But reading that into 'God is good' creates an absurd meaning. How is it possible for God's being itself to be prescriptive?! That sounds like an existential conundrum.

In other words, something is not just right with your beliefs.

JEITO:
that is where you are missing it. God is not a "thing" or "concept" that you can "adequately" define. You can't define God. You speak of God based on the revelation you have about him. So don't expect me to tell you God is dis, having that, doing those.

That would be limiting the infinitness of God's ability.

Ah! That bangs the nail on the head. I have no revelations from a vague being called God and I'm therefore justified at discountenancing his existence.

italo:
It's a "yes" or "no" question.

The kind that you dodge by all means to hide the giant flaws in your thinking.

I hate the child as a thief, hence I try to change his/her behaviour. Nonetheless my hatred is directed at the child's person.

SNCOQ3:
God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

God is good in accordance to whose intentions?!

MacCantStopMe:
Consensus? When did I argue for concensus morality?

I don't even know how he got to that conclusion.

JEITO:
you see, dis is the challenge. It is good that it is only in your terms that God is meaningless. That means you have work to do.

Why not take out time to investigate if God truly exist? I mean the over 4billion people that believe in God, can't all be wrong na! Atleast they are not all illiterate.

But you have been unable to adequately define who God is.

italo:
If your child steals from you, would you hate both him and his crime?

It seems like you Atheists just deliberately shut down a part of your brains when you want to criticize religion.

I punish the child. If a man commits murder, the State punishes him with the death penalty! The murderer loses his own life for his actions.

SNCOQ3:
God is Morality.
Anything He does is in agreement with Himself.

In other words, God commands and obeys himself?!

SNCOQ3:
OK.


I believe in Objective Morality therefore, I agree with Anony.


A peacemaker is not necessarily a pacifist. A pacifist is out of touch with the reality of the human condition in regard to evil: therefore, a fool.


Wrong. think about it.
It is the user that is good or evil, not the tool.

In the light of your agreement with Anony1 on morality, does God's intent for mankind have a moral value?

^^

Isn't God's opinion limited to Christian marriage?!

MrAnony1:
If this is true, then there is no such thing as a good or a bad life and consequently there are no good or evil actions.

Logicboy didn't lay any assumptions for you to imply such. The conclusion flows from your own assumptions, not logicboy's.

tolusaliu:
I give glory to the Almighty God who gave me the privilege to share this great experience. But surely not all people will believe my testimony,but blessed are you who believe the word. I was right on my bed lying down to take a sleep when i saw myself in the spirit been carried away by chariot of horses with different colours ( white, black )and i was on the chariot moving in the atmosphere, taken away in the sky outside the earth and as i was going i saw outside of the earth, the sun and also the stars, moving in speed with the chariot of horses. And it got to a point when i got to a place where the chariot now stopped which i then stopped and came down a and behold i saw a mighty gate before me which is whiter than snow written on top of it "city of angels"This gate was opened and i saw the street very clean and also whiter than snow and of a sudden i saw angels moving to and fro in speed in white garment as people so busy with what they are doing and immediately i saw an angel stood before me to attend to my presence, and we begin our journey while he began to show me several places in heaven. He showed me father Abraham's house in heaven.......this house is really a mansion which i cannot compare anything with it and he also took me into a mansion that is so beautiful which i saw several things in that house with the living bed too that no one has ever seen before and also a standing mirror with golden design and is glass was so clean and clear like a crystal which made me to move closer and touched the glass and as i touched it with my finger the glass was now soft and moved in as if i touched a cushion and it moved in and also came out back when i removed my finger and i was scared immediately because have never seen anything like that before in my whole life.
Beloved, i must confess there is nowhere you can compare heaven with on this planet..............ohhhhhhhh,what a lovely and beautiful place. And the angel that stood beside me now made me realise that i will have to return back to the earth which i refused that i was not going to return but of a sudden he showed me the earth where i saw a whole lot of crowd calling my name to save them, and as i see this mighty crowd i began to have compassion on them.......... immediately i found myself back on my bed on earth.
Brethren please i beg you in the name of JESUS CHRIST don't let anything make you to miss heaven.Give your life to JESUS today and he will save you,
Say after me, dear JESUS am sorry, pls forgive me for all my sins, i confess to you today that am a sinner pls forgive me.Am born again.Thank you Lord, in JESUS NAME, Amen.

There has to be gravity in Heaven for chariots to be used.

@ubenedictus

I hardly understand how you able to separate an individual from his actions when his actions are what defines the individual's identity. Let me break down a bit, a true Christian proves his faith through his actions. His actions are his fruits by which he is known. Equally a sinner is known to be a sinner by his sins. So it is an abstract to love a person and then hate his actions; to persecute his crimes without persecuting his person. The Catholic Church in he past, has burnt heretics for their heresy, hence it is misplaced to love a heretic and burn his person for his heresy.

SNCOQ3:
First, what is the difference between "good" in "good vs bad" and "good vs evil"?

For the purposes of this thread both shall be regarded as synonymous and must be construed in a moral context.

God's intent for man's design is good.


God is the standard.

Can I assume you have a different standard of morality from Anony1, because Anony1 believes morality is predicated on an 'ought' proposition and the basis of which is in the intent and therefore the source of morality is the intent of man's design.

"the moral standing of the intents of the design" of AK47 is: ...simple and reliable weapon to defend the borders of my fatherland - Mikhail Kalashnikov

...simple and reliable... (good in a design sense)
...defend the borders of my fatherland. (good in a moral sense)

Funny enough, don't you believe that to a pacificist, an AK47's barest purpose is to kill, and therefore evil?

Your turn:
What is the moral intent behind the invention of scissors?
Is the design good or bad?
If you think their is necessarily a moral intent, is it good or evil?

I personally believe a pair of scissors can have both good and bad value depending on who is using it and against whom it is being used against. However it is Anony1's idea that God's intent creates morality.

MrAnony1:
You heard and understood my answer yet you are asking me to answer as if God's intent necessarily has a moral value. What makes you think that God's intents must necessarily have a moral value?


You are still assuming that all designs are necessarily moral. You will need to justify this assumption first.


I do mind because it is important to me to ascertain that we are arguing in good faith and you are not just making up charges. I cannot clarify what I don't know if I have said or not just because you claim I said it. So please provide where I accepted what you claimed I did.

I will re phrase my question, does God's intent for man's design have a moral value? Note that you have defined and weighed good/bad according to the intent of design.

Homosexuality is a private sin.

MrAnony1:
Not necessarily. The design of a pen, a spoon, a car e.t.c. don't necessarily have moral or immoral purposes yet every designed thing is good or bad depending on how well it functions according to the design intent.

A car is a good or bad car depending on whether or not it functions according to the intents for its maker, A man is good or bad man depending on whether or not he acts according to the intents of his maker. If man has no maker, then there is no objectively right way he ought to be or function.

I know what you are trying to say, but my contention is whether the intent behind the design has a moral value, and your answer in that 'not necessarily' however in the case of God's intent for man's design, was it good or bad?! and by what standard is that decided?

It is illogical to say that "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the intents of the design". The intents of the design is exactly the same as the design.

"Airplanes are designed to fly" can be equally expressed as "the design intent for airplanes is flight"

Sorry I think I didn't express myself as clearly as I would have wanted. I actually meant this: "anything is good for staying true to its design irrespective of the moral standing of the intents of the design"

I didn't ask you to take it as a No, I asked you to show where I accepted those premises. There is a reason you thought I accepted them, I want you to point to it so that perhaps I can clarify. I don't want to believe that you made those claims for no reason.

I hope you do not mind if you just clarify it right here. It will stick into my memory better.

spotit:
^^don't humour yourself by twisting the meaning of my comment. it was meant to be ANOMALISTIC even though animalistic still does it justice. substitute BEASTLY/PERVERTED for animalistic. fåggots want the world to believe they're on a higher tether of human behavioural/intellectual evolution... then why be ridiculously deviant and suicidal? homosexuals, born by heterosexuals want to either stay as gay singles or partners and adopt the offspring of heterosexual humans/animals to add meaning to their confused lives. to me, this is selfishness on a whole new....transcendental level!!

It is natural for your prejudice to be unclear.

JEITO:
If your conviction is based on what I cannot do, then it is not valid. It should be based on what you have discovered that is APART FROM what me or any other believer say or doesn't say.

But like I said, how can zeus be the source of life when he had parent? His position was more like that of the president of Nigeria. Same with the other mythical gods- they were all positional leaders that's why they all have portfolios

In my view, the term God is meaningless. It is jargon. It is like asking for where Zebraia is.

With the right quantity of Faith, Zeus and other Gods can easily play the role of source of life.

MrAnony1:
I really don't see how your analogy helped in explaining what you claim it helped explain. Could you expand on it a bit more?

I don't think its my failing, that you don't understand the analogy. A design is predicated on an intent, and the intent subsequently has a moral value. wouldn't you find your self in a twist and a 'hairnet' by saying man is good for staying true to his designs irrespective of the intents of the design?

Where did I accept this?

Ok. let me take that as a No, that you don't think man sins because of his nature.

Where did I accept this?

I will apply same here.

AdeniyiA:
Did you ever ask if structural defects could bring down such a massive structure completely?

Do I have to ask? Do you have to ask where your left and right hands are?! That was a useless question you asked.

A building on an insufficient foundation will completely crash down.

alexis:
I am sure you believe in several things that have no identity - will you say they are abstract without meaning or basis?

So you accept God is nothing?

MrAnony1:
You have made a category error. An AK47 is not a moral being. An AK47 can be good or bad in the mechanistic sense of how well it functions according to it's design. Assigning a morals to something that has nothing to do with morality in the hope of scoring a point is ignorant at best and dubious at worst.

You missed the main point. I wasn't saying the AK47 is a moral being( because it clearly isn't), rather the analogy of the AK47 helps in explaining that the intent of design often carries a moral responsibility on its own! You act like the intent has no moral responsibility at all.

No it does not. "one is saved by repenting from their sins, believing in the Lord Jesus Christ (who forgives and cleanses us from sin), forsaking sin and living righteously (with the help of the Holy Spirit)."

We are likely to fall back into a vicious circle of counter argument upon argument. You have accepted the following:

1. Christians will always sin as a result of their human nature.

2. Christians need repentance to return to status quo.

So I will always encounter "true" Christians who preach righteousness, faith and goodwill and then turn round act unChristlike and sinfully and probably turn round again and see k for forgiveness.

AdeniyiA:
You could have at least wait for investigation to be rounded off before jumping into conclusion based on unverified reports or observation, would you love it if someone judges you from afar?

For you to be convinced it was a demolition, the clearest evidence is explosives remnants. Yet you have none! Since you have no evidence, the natural presumption that buildings do not collapse as a matter of course except for structual defects, remains.

AdeniyiA:
Mr Kay, i know a bit about structural defects and it eventualities, if it was, it couldn't have brought down the building like this completely . There was definitely an external remote

Where are the explosive remnants??

JEITO:
nah! Zeus, huitzilopochtli and all them other gods that you talked about cannot be the source of life because they represent a particular element: thunder, sun, fire, stone etc

Btw, the argument is not about different gods there are because you don't believe in any so why bother which I was refering to?

Because I know you cannot provide any. And that's my proof God does not exist.

It is important to note that the idea of God has a varied meaning amongst cultures. The prevalent idea of God we are used to, is the Western idea of God. It is ignorance that causes one to believe there is an harmonious perception of God.

Spiritual problems are otherwise known as imagined problems which need imaginary solutions. People are too afraid of their shadows to think correctly. Sometimes it takes courage to think.