Why I Am No Longer An Atheist Part 2

[theculturewarrior]

The problem of human suffering.

 

 

The question "why does a just God allow evil to exist" ignores the foundation of Christianity and what it means: the Cross.  To understand that, we have to put the Cross within its historical context.  The Roman Empire used crucifixion as a means to intimidate the general population.  The carrot was bread and circuses.  The stick was Crucifixion.  It was very difficult way to die, and it was done in a way so that people would see it and be traumatized.  There was a highway in ancient Rome with 3000 crucified revolutionaries.  It was a very calculated form of execution.  It was to make the citizen and slave cower.

 

When the Church began its mission in the Roman Empire, they worshipped a Crucified King.  They looked at this one very extreme kind of evil and said "I will not fear."  Rome had no reply.  How can we intimidate them, when Christ has sanctified our cruelest evil?

 

So, Christianity from the beginning did not ignore the problem of human suffering.  It was a very frank admission that evil is very real, and refusal to live in fear.

[Fidei Defensor]

I'm presently reading "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. I highly recommend it!

[stevil]

I know some people tout the problem of evil as being inconsistent with Christianities belief in a perfect and loving god creator but whether this is a real problem of Christianity or not, what has this got to do with you not being an Atheist?

[theculturewarrior]

When I was an atheist, I entertained the idea that a perfect, loving God would not allow evil to exist.

[stevil]

When I was an atheist, I entertained the idea that a perfect, loving God would not allow evil to exist.

So for you in the past it would have been an inhibitor (or challenge) with regards to choosing to believe in the Christian god.

So are you saying that if you can remove all the challenges with regards to believing in god then you will definitely believe?

So this means that for you the burden of proof is on the atheist side of the argument?

[theculturewarrior]

Apart from mathematics and physics, proof doesn't really mean much to me.

[stevil]

Apart from mathematics and physics, proof doesn't really mean much to me.

Fair enough.
I'm just trying to understand your position, not necessarily challenge it.

[theculturewarrior]

I am presenting this as a talking point, since the problem of evil is often discussed here as an argument against the existence of God.  I have moved beyond proof and disproof in my faith, and I am presenting this as just a reason why I am no longer an atheist.  I am open however to answering questions about it if anyone has any doubts.  I do hope that what I have written will not be accepted without question.

[Anastasia13]

The problem of human suffering.

 

 

The question "why does a just God allow evil to exist" ignores the foundation of Christianity and what it means: the Cross.  To understand that, we have to put the Cross within its historical context.  The Roman Empire used crucifixion as a means to intimidate the general population.  The carrot was bread and circuses.  The stick was Crucifixion.  It was very difficult way to die, and it was done in a way so that people would see it and be traumatized.  There was a highway in ancient Rome with 3000 crucified revolutionaries.  It was a very calculated form of execution.  It was to make the citizen and slave cower.

 

When the Church began its mission in the Roman Empire, they worshipped a Crucified King.  They looked at this one very extreme kind of evil and said "I will not fear."  Rome had no reply.  How can we intimidate them, when Christ has sanctified our cruelest evil?

 

So, Christianity from the beginning did not ignore the problem of human suffering.  It was a very frank admission that evil is very real, and refusal to live in fear.

The problem with a refusal to live in fear is that sometimes fear is a good thing. I am afraid to touch a pan straight out of the oven. Why? Because I will burn myself. My fear of being burnt like that keeps me from doing dumb things. Rejecting all fear like that makes us do dumb things that harm us.  Therefore, Christianities refusal to live in fear creates a self-destructive way of life, be it early death of cognitive failure to develop critical thinking skills and thus fulfill ones true potential.

 

When I was an atheist, I entertained the idea that a perfect, loving God would not allow evil to exist.

 

 

If you really love someone, you don't want to see them in pain. A "loving" God would rather we reject Him and fall into more suffering than act enough to stop our suffering.

[Anastasia13]

So for you in the past it would have been an inhibitor (or challenge) with regards to choosing to believe in the Christian god.

So are you saying that if you can remove all the challenges with regards to believing in god then you will definitely believe?

So this means that for you the burden of proof is on the atheist side of the argument?

 

Where there is room for faith, there is room for doubt.

 

In the absence of proof, how can one really be held accountable for one's lack of faith?

[Anastasia13]

 I have moved beyond proof and disproof in my faith, and I am presenting this as just a reason why I am no longer an atheist.  I am open however to answering questions about it if anyone has any doubts.  I do hope that what I have written will not be accepted without question.

So the mature thing is to no longer care if your faith is reasonable? If proofs are nothing, then you can believe whatever you want.

 

It seems to me like you are more looking for a debate, or perhaps working out your own thoughts. Perhaps you are in fact seeking to test your faith's ability to stand up to reason, which is as much a matter of proof as one gets doing geometry.

[theculturewarrior]

Ooooh!  Thank you for stirring the pot.  I might have to sleep on this one.

[Anastasia13]

Ooooh!  Thank you for stirring the pot.  I might have to sleep on this one.

 

Glad to. I just came from the modesty thread and thought you could use something. :saint2:

[theculturewarrior]

So the mature thing is to no longer care if your faith is reasonable? If proofs are nothing, then you can believe whatever you want.

 

It seems to me like you are more looking for a debate, or perhaps working out your own thoughts. Perhaps you are in fact seeking to test your faith's ability to stand up to reason, which is as much a matter of proof as one gets doing geometry.

 

 

Let me just take a moment to tell you what I am trying to do here, in regards your last point.  People reject Christianity and theism for very good reasons.  Whether it becomes irrelevant on an emotional level, which for many is what the problem of suffering really is (nothing wrong with that), or whether they may have very valid intellectual objections to the basic premise, that God created the Universe, they may looked for answers in the Church to only find people who were unable to respond in a satisfying way.  So then you have me, who did the same thing in reverse.

 

I am not trying to convert people.  I just want to come to that one moment when I was walking into the Church and they were walking out, and shake hands and say hi.  Why?  Because it is intellectually stimulating, and because we all might discover new things that will supplement our faith, our lack of faith, or what have you.  My goal here as a Catholic is to demonstrate that there is an intellectual backbone to Christianity, not easily dismissed as intellectually vacant or superstitious.  Why?  Because I believe that.  I will always respect anybody's decision to leave the Church or to stay, before, after, or during this conversation.

 

In regards to using philosophy to prove the existence of God, I can do it if everybody really wants me to but to me it is like listening a song that has been played on the radio way too many and I am even clenching my teeth just trying to type this.

[stevil]

Where there is room for faith, there is room for doubt.

 

In the absence of proof, how can one really be held accountable for one's lack of faith?

 

I disagree with this.

 

As far as I am concerned faith means optimistically refusing to consider plausible alternatives.

 

E.g. a person involkes faith to choose the most optimistic option (for some this means choosing to believe in god). They then invoke faith in order to discount any evidence in support of the pessimistic options. Those of strong faith won't consider alternatives at all, those of faultering faith will investigate the alternatives.