Category: philosophy/religion topics
So yet again another atheist post on the philosophy / religion board. But I hope not only atheists will respond but Christians.
An oft-overlook thinker, Robert G. Ingersoll, participated in a debate which is transcribed here for posterity.
Not only is Ingersoll instructive, but his debate opponent Jeremiah Black, like many modern Christian apologists a lawyer, a philosopher and a clergyman.
If you click the above link you will find on the bottom of the page 3 links, Ingersoll's treatise on the Christian Religion, followed by Black's response, followed by Ingersoll's rebuttal.
This is a 19th and early 20th-century debate, so some modern form is absent, also the ideas about the Jews having killed Christ wwent out of favor in Christianity after World War II, and today Christians by and large accept the historical, that Romans and not Jews performed crucifixions.
Barring those inaccuracies, I think it's a very thoughtful and informative presentation, whether you're a person of faith or not.
You know, when I came here, I thought it was a posting of someone's death. All the boards I've seen with names, are about memorials to the dead.
What I'm saying, is your board is misleading. Of course, you say Christians are too. However, I as a Christian who doesn't know that much about your faith, I've not said one word about your topics.
I wonder if I'm the only one who thought someone died?
Since this is your topic, and you don't believe, I won't say my usual sign off.
Auntie Hot Wheels
I have no faith, as it were. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel. You may recall, as an evangelical Christian American, that during the faith-based initiative debates under President George W. Bush, Mr. President was asked whether or not atheists could benefit from the faith-based initiative. He replied that atheists have no faith, have no religion, and so cannot benefit from anything preserved for the faithful.
I agree with that, so do many other Libertarian-leaning atheists, people like Price. So one who is greatly admired among evangelical Christians agrees with atheists, that we have no religion at all. So without a religion, we can't retreat behind any notion that you must "respect our religion" any more than I can use a handicapped sticker when I can damn well walk for myself.
However, Christianity is by and large the most popular religion in the world. 2.3 billion adherents, 40,000 different sects.
Ingersoll is in fact dead, but I think the subject line typically says "In memory of," or "memorial" for one who has passed from this site.
I apologize if this was misleading.
But I meant what I said: this is not my thread per se. I hope Christians / people of other faiths, or fellow atheists, will check it out and respond as they wish. There would be no point in me pposting a topic on the religion board, and then avoiding critique by religious people.
It's entirely possible to respect the honor and personhood of participants and still find their claims untenable.
I absolutely love his writings. I first heard of Ingersoll years ago when I was searching for something on Google, I forget what it was now. But I came across his essay entitled "Why I Am Agnostic." Excellent reading with a lot of good points. Also his Mistakes of Moses is quite good. Also heard a voice recording of him from when the phonograph was in it's infancy. Kind of high-pitched, but he might have had to shout in order for the cutting stylus to vibrate in the recording medium.
Appology accepted. It did look a bit odd.
Anyway, the reason I don't argue, is I don't have all the big words that are out there. And Christianity might be the most popular faith out there, but how many who go to church, really believe what they hear? I do. But, I've seen people treat church more like an event, than what they believe.
Big medical terms I can understand. I just didn't grow up with big words like Catachism, and I know I botched that one. Sorry. And I never thought the big words meant that much. But, people out here use them, so I don't get half the picture.
So, yes, I'd love to put my ten cents in, when it's something I can comprehend.
Imprecator, what's instructive is to read the rebuttal by Jeremiah Black. Not terribly different from modern apologists, just a little more frank.
Bertrand Russell did his treatise on "Why I Am Not A Christian." In his, the interesting thing to note is he never deals with the question of Hell, because as far back as the 30s Hell was not part of the doctrine of the Church of England.
To be a Christian in North America, for the most part, I think Hell; has to be pretty central. Hell is a pretty important part of empire building, Manifest Destiny and religious tribalism.
Ingersoll takes on Hell as perhaps the worst doctrine ever invented.
While certainly I find it morally reprehensible, I struggle to see how Christianity as we know it could have survived without it.
I know many former Christians who still struggle with the nightmares and aftereffects of a fear of Hell.
For many people, the notion of Heaven may be elusive, but the notion of Hell is quite believable. It is the pipe dream of groups llike Isis.
Neither Ingersoll nor Russell ever addressed annihilationism, the doctrine that the nonbelievers are simply wiped out.
That doctrine, while a more moral system, is still not precisely adequate enough for empire building. Even among today's Christians, the more Evangelical find it repugnant. More true to form is the notion of keeping a "soul" alive, conscious and in torment. As Jonathan Edwards put it, lively to the experience, and lively to the fact the experience shall never end. That is the most resplendant protection racket that could have ever been invented.
Even us atheists, those with a heart, are appalled at the notion that when we die, some Christian friend or family member could very likely be haunted by the notion that their loved one even now is in agony.
You read the likes of St. Thomas Acquinas on the topic, or the book of Revelation for that matter, and it's clear the Christian observes the torment of nonbelievers.
I don't know a single Christian immoral enough to be anything less than terrorized by such an experience.
Satan is the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these centuries.
I really hope some Christians on this site will read the debate and respond to it. Terrance and others might be the loudest on here, but many are on here who are smart and well-spoken, and could really put forth their thoughts. Ingersoll is not common reading material for people on either side these days though. Not scandalous enough, or not given to enough ad hom retorts, I suppose.
Ironically, that is what I find most appealing.
Oh I don't know about that, he tended to use words like absurd, idiotic, ridiculous, to describe things he disagreed with.
To describe things, yes. Things, not people.
While Jeremiah Black played the part of the moral policeman, Ingersoll played the part of the respectful dissenter, respecting the personhood of the opposition.
It's a tragedy of our time that people who are strong on a narrative are desperately feeble and weak when it comes to the ability to separate things from people.
People of faith on this site have long decried the youthful zealous reactions of some millennial atheists on here. Even going so far as to long for a civil debate.
It is this civil debate, or at least civil discussion, that I present. It is completely possible to have no respect for an idea, while maintaining respect for the autonomy and personhood of they who hold it.
Forgive me, Papa Leo.
Leo, you say in post three, "I have no faith, as it were. Atheism is a religion in the same way that not collecting stamps is a hobby, bald is a hair color and off is a TV channel."
Your examples are funny, creative, and wrong as hell (forgive the pun.)
As an atheist you do have faith that God does not exist. You can present all the misleading examples you want to, but, you can't know that God does not exist, any more than the Christian can say that God does exist. You and he/she can believe it with all your hearts, but it's still faith--no ifs ands or buts about it.
Since atheism relies on faith, I maintain it is a religion just like Christianity or Budhism etc.
That's why I call myself an agnostic today.
Bob
Simply believing something something does not make that something a religion.
Atheism is not a belief, it's a lack thereof, or not being convinced. It's dealing in probability instead of possibility. It's not just an assertion that the evidence doesn't lead to a deity. But even if there is a deity, but how would one know which one it is, and if or what it even wants.
Most peple, including atheists, have a very specific god concept given to us by the culture of our upbringing. But that doesn't make it more or less likely to be the right god concept.
Ingersoll debates using the Christian god, because in the world of his time that was the only god that exists. I refer to the Christian god because that's the god I am most aware of. I can to a certain extent understand the Muslim or Jewish god, because all three are related.
And even as late as Ingersoll's time, the god of the Protestants and the god of the Catholics were seen as so disparate from one another that one could not be called Christian and acknowledge both.
The positive claim that there IS something is the claim that needs proof. Otherwise, one is simply not convinced of the positive claim. To be unconvinced doesn't require faith.
Indeed