All this makes for interesting reading and media attention, but it's hard to see that the average American will see this new approach as reassuring. The fact remains that atheism, by definition, is a worldview based on the denial of God's existence. Atheists may attempt to create rituals, ceremonies, and practices that mimic Christian traditions, but this serves only to point to the infinite emptiness at the heart of the atheist worldview.
I think I can understand why atheists are concerned about public relations. A kinder, gentler atheism might sell better in the public square. But it remains what it is -- a worldview that denies the existence of a divine Creator, Redeemer, or Judge.
Quote taken from here.
First of all, there is a God, and he is known.
ReplyDeleteSecond, your question is meaningless as it suggests that apart from God one could know or possess certainty of ultimate reality.
Again, you borrow from Christianity (even the basics such as knowledge, truth, certainty, faith, etc.) but then try to use them to undermine the very foundation you borrow from.
"your question is meaningless as it suggests that apart from God one could know or possess certainty of ultimate reality."
ReplyDeleteI didn't buy that line the last time around either. But I assume from your answer that you consider it sin to consider the possibility that gods might not exist.
JC said: "Christianity is based on much more than faith in that we have fulfilled prophecy, an empty grave for skeptics to explain, historical and archeological verification, etc."
ReplyDeleteYou have your justifications for believing, but my question had more to do with *if* gods did not exist, would you rather know the truth or remain with your faith.
"The naturalists only have the magical nonsense of matter popping into existence from nothing!"
I'd be lying if I said I understood the theory you're referring to, but I have heard about it. I don't know how commonly held the theory is, but it *has* been and will continue to be subjected to peer review and further testing before it is accepted as fact.
For the world's religions, though, you're not really supposed to question them once you've joined one. Since, at best, only one of the world's religions could be on target, that means that religions generally equate skepticism with sin to keep believers from seeing the truth. It's possible that one or the other religion may be more right than others, but why would any religion that holds the truth have such a problem with people rigorously testing its claims?
Puritan said: "it seems to me as if their thought process is held prisoner by their naturalistic worldview. The Spiritual world is off limits to "free thought"."
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for all skeptics, but I don't consider the spiritual world off limits. From what I've seen, many (if not most) skeptics have seriously considered at least one, if not several religions or sects.
I think the atheism vs. Christianity PR battle that Christians should put a greater focus on is the internet battle. I suggest that Christians produce hard hitting articles against atheism such as this atheism article.
ReplyDelete