5 reasons atheism is irrational

[Theophilus]

Further, some Christian denominations teach that there is nothing a specific human can do to find heaven.

Just spotted this.

All mainstream Christian doctrine teaches that God must call first as Christ very clearly taught that (John 6:44). But I think you're thinking of Reformed (Calvinist) theology which teaches that the calling is restricted to the elect, in comparison to Arminianism which teaches a general calling goes out to all and it is up to individuals whether whether they follow or reject that calling.

[Coito ergo sum]

You too rarely exegete any detail

In depth exegetical discussions on an atheist forum? I can't see that world be productive as there is no common frame of reference.

The point is that I find most religious folk equally vague and general in their explanation of their beliefs.

What are the internal inconsistencies?

In a message that teaches (effectively) that you'll get everything you want in this world by following Christ? I would say that is inconsistent with the source of his claimed authority (such as in Luke 16:19-31 and Mark 10:17-24). O.K., we don't meet up to those standards, but to actually preach seeking and attaining financial prosperity through following Christ seems a tad off-target to me. Still, if you find no inconsistencies with Olsteen's message then fair enough.

I find no less or more inconsistency with his message than any other Christian message.

But I accept I may be wrong about Olsteen's beliefs; I have not looked into them in detail but I find the tag-lines he uses (such as here and here) rather out of kilter with my understanding of scripture.

P.S. If you're interested in Olsteen then there's a documentary here from Premier Christian radio on a couple of US mega-churches, including Olsteen's.

P.P.S. I assume you know Premier also run a forum that is intended for mixed Christians and non-Christians to interact. That's here, though it does tend to get bogged down in creation debates.

You miss it. This isn't about Osteen or not Osteen. I have watched him on television many times and he strikes me more of a motivational speaker who also calls himself a minister. He doesn't have crosses or traditional Christian symbols around. He has his own symbol. His beliefs have no more (or less) evidentiary or rational basis than yours. That's my point.

[Coito ergo sum]

Further, some Christian denominations teach that there is nothing a specific human can do to find heaven.

Just spotted this.

All mainstream Christian doctrine teaches that God must call first as Christ very clearly taught that (John 6:44).

Not all of them.

But I think you're thinking of Reformed (Calvinist) theology which teaches that the calling is restricted to the elect, in comparison to Arminianism which teaches a general calling goes out to all and it is up to individuals whether whether they follow or reject that calling.

Yes, that is basically what I was referring to - that god chooses who goes to heaven irrespective of what a person says or does. Calvinism is very predestination oriented. Presbyterians, for example, are Calvinist.

[Theophilus]

Yes, that is basically what I was referring to - that god chooses who goes to heaven irrespective of what a person says or does. Calvinism is very predestination oriented. Presbyterians, for example, are Calvinist.

Yes, but we need to be careful to acknowledge that reformed theology does not teach anyone is rejected against their will. In reformed theology the natural state of a person is that they will naturally choose to reject God. The elect are those in whom God will act, with grace, to replace their heart of stone with a heart of flesh. I know it's quite a subtle distinction, but I think it is an important one.

I am not a 5 point Calvinist myself (though I have respect for their position and I think they have a lot to teach other Christians), but I often see non-Calvinists misunderstand what they are trying to say.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, that is basically what I was referring to - that god chooses who goes to heaven irrespective of what a person says or does. Calvinism is very predestination oriented. Presbyterians, for example, are Calvinist.

Yes, but we need to be careful to acknowledge that reformed theology does not teach anyone is rejected against their will. In reformed theology the natural state of a person is that they will naturally choose to reject God. The elect are those in whom God will act, with grace, to replace their heart of stone with a heart of flesh. I know it's quite a subtle distinction, but I think it is an important one.

It may be important to you. But, some are not "reformed." Once again, there is no objective reason that you are right and the non-reformed Calvinists are wrong, or vice versa. They both have arguments based in their scripture that leads them to believe what they believe, and I've got to tell you, one makes as much sense as the other. We wind up with a debate over how many angels can dance on the point of a needle.

Thomas Aquinas, quite the Biblical scholar, wrote tomes as part of his Summa Theologica that tried to glean out the nature over angels from "pure reason." The result was, of course, mountains of nonsense. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/ - Isaac Disraeli put it this way, "Aquinas could gravely debate, Whether Christ was not an hermaphrodite [and] whether there are excrements in Paradise."

I am not a 5 point Calvinist myself (though I have respect for their position and I think they have a lot to teach other Christians),

You must be right then, and the 5 point Calvinists wrong. They just don't get it.

but I often see non-Calvinists misunderstand what they are trying to say.

I'm sure non-Calvinists, quite often, misunderstand things.

[Theophilus]

I'm sure non-Calvinists, quite often, misunderstand things.

Yep, I'm sure we all misunderstand things.

It may be important to you

And I can see how the Calvinism-Arminianism debate would appear strange to a non-believer. Though I think even non-believers would see the historical significance and importance. It is fascinating how these debates weave into our history. I was only this week discussing the Diggers and the Levellers whose Calvinism (in a puritan and "communist" form) played an important role in the enclosure riots and in the English Civil war. Theology matters; many world events are decided as much (if not more) by theology as by politics.

[Coito ergo sum]

I'm sure non-Calvinists, quite often, misunderstand things.

Yep, I'm sure we all misunderstand things.

It may be important to you

And I can see how the Calvinism-Arminianism debate would appear strange to a non-believer. Though I think even non-believers would see the historical significance and importance. It is fascinating how these debates weave into our history. I was only this week discussing the Diggers and the Levellers whose Calvinism (in a puritan and "communist" form) played an important role in the enclosure riots and in the English Civil war. Theology matters; many world events are decided as much (if not more) by theology as by politics.

Of course theology matters. Theology motivates a lot of behavior, like the liturgical issues underpinning the English Civil Wars (Catholics vs Church of England), Hindu Buddhist vs Tamil war in Sri Lanka, and 9/11/01. That makes them very important indeed, but that doesn't make those theologies true, does it?

Also - see this thread: http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 23&t=10327

[Theophilus]

Of course theology matters. Theology motivates a lot of behavior, like the liturgical issues underpinning the English Civil Wars (Catholics vs Church of England), Hindu Buddhist vs Tamil war in Sri Lanka, and 9/11/01. That makes them very important indeed, but that doesn't make those theologies true, does it?

That's cool, I misunderstood your previous post to suggest that theology was unimportant. Apologies.

[Magicziggy]

No i haven't read all 20+ pages and will gladly be pointed in the right direction.
I've been pondering RDs "evolution of gratitude" since last Sunday.
What about "love"? How many of us true non-believers have experienced this debilitating "emotion" and have done irrational things. Love has gene survival value and with it irrational behaviour comes along for the ride. Its not just about getting laid. Haven't you ever adored someone so much that you just want to be near them. And the more it remains one-sided, the more intense the emotion. And don't we fantasise that it's real even if it's not. Aren't we true believers in the face of no evidence. And even if we don't truely believe, don't we secretly hope. Surely that can misfire in to love of a god? and Irrational belief?

That's my thesis (I've just decided). Misfiring love emotion hits target (imaginary friend) who never responds so we just invent the reponses the way we want them to be.

I wish I'd thought of this on Sunday. Then, when I got I my copy of The Selfish Gene signed in the production line queue, I could have looked him in the eye confidently and said "Richard, you and I need to work on this thesis of yours". Instead, I just told him I'd love to stop and have a chat but I had a plane to catch.(I did)

Like I say, point me in the right direction. Head full of GAC. First post outside of fun and frolics.

[MrFungus420]

Oh, you are a tease Ces

It's not meant in a teasing manner. It's quite serious.

It is quite a good example of the point I've made.

His view is no more (or less) unverifiable than yours. There is no special reason that what you believe is more credible than his. He has the same evidence for his beliefs as you have for yours. It's no different to "buy into" Osteen's belief as it is to "buy into" yours.

Except that Olsteen claims authority of the bible, and many have pointed to the flaws in his exegesis (when he does exegete in any detail, which is rarely). I would say, from what I have seen of his views, that his is a theology with internal inconstancies.

And how does that differentiate it from any other religion (including the different sects of Christianity)

His is not the view of the Christian who must take up his cross.

"No True Scotsman" much?

[MrFungus420]

But I accept I may be wrong about Olsteen's beliefs; I have not looked into them in detail but I find the tag-lines he uses (such as here and here) rather out of kilter with my understanding of scripture.

So what?

Are YOU the final arbiter of what is and is not the correct interpretation of scripture? Are YOU are the only one who has a true and correct understanding of scripture?

[Theophilus]

Goodness Mr Fungus, if I ever thought anyone considered me to have absolute authority I'd become a mute (though it could be useful with the kids sometimes). No, please take anything I write as just my musings.

[JimC]

Goodness Mr Fungus, if I ever thought anyone considered me to have absolute authority I'd become a mute (though it could be useful with the kids sometimes). No, please take anything I write as just my musings.

One day soon I will put my musings together on a subject that has interested me; whether it is possible to be a "christian agnostic", a sort of ultimate liberal christian who takes some form of inspiration from the teachings of christ, without building a metaphysics or model of the universe from them, and without any desire to project any moral conclusions they may draw from their musings onto others...

[J.A.Poisson]

Read half the OP and the last couple of posts. Can someone tell me if it's worth reading that little bit in the middle?

[Surendra Darathy]

Read half the OP and the last couple of posts. Can someone tell me if it's worth reading that little bit in the middle?

The only occasions on which atheism is irrational are those such as attending the Spanish Inquisition. Well, OK, even then, it wouldn't be entirely irrational, just suicidal. It's up to you to decide whether or not suicide is irrational in a theocracy.