• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why I Am an Atheist

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Part 1

“But how can you be an atheist?” That’s the question I am most often asked when I’m discussing my non-religious views with religious acquaintances. This is usually followed up with some variation on, “how do you know right from wrong if you don’t believe in god?” Another frequent question is, “where do you go for help when it’s all too much?”

And yet, to answer the question, “why am I an atheist,” seems to presuppose that I had some choice in the matter. That, for the record, is simply not true. William James and Pascal’s Wager aside, one cannot really will oneself to believe. One either does or one does not. Certainly one can pretend (lots of church-goers do that), but at the core of one’s being, what one believes about god does not feel as if it’s a matter dependent upon the will. Not if one is honest.

So the real answer, the only one that actually answers the question “why am I an atheist,” seems to be, “because that’s the way I’m made.” This is hardly a satisfying answer, of course, and doesn’t seem to answer the question that is so often asked. The intent of that question, if I understand it correctly, is rather more “how is it possible you gave up god?”

I Did Not Give Up God

I cannot recall a time, ever in my life, when I believed in a god, a soul that survived my body, or a “spirit realm” called either heaven or hell. I was certainly told about all of those things, of course – along with Santa and the Tooth Fairy – but I simply and quite honestly thought it all equally silly nonsense for kids. The Tooth Fairy and Santa didn’t take long to dispense with, as I’m sure it doesn’t for most kids, but it seems as if, somehow, I just applied the same kind of thinking to god.

I went to Sunday school and heard the Bible stories specially prepared for children. I was told that “Jesus loves me,” though nobody else at the time seemed to, and that “god sees the little sparrow fall.” I noticed, though, that god didn’t hold out a single deified digit to prevent that fall. Then I checked out those Sunday school stories – I read the book (yes, that book, the Bible), from beginning to end, before I was 11 years old.

What horrors I found there! And what nonsense!

Now, as it happens, I was also a big fan of National Geographic (the only place I could see naked bodies back then), and everything I could find on dinosaurs and as much science as I could understand. Even as a little kid, I was happier with books and quiet time than on the playing fields. Peaceful walks in natural surroundings, hours with a magnifying glass (and later microscope) examining the wonders of the pond, under rocks, around the roots of trees – these were the things that occupied my mind.

The Bible didn’t come close to being as believable as any of my other reading material. The god I found there was not, most assuredly not, the god I heard about in Sunday school.

What Did Other People Believe

And then, I discovered (perhaps I should say intuited) quite early on that most of the people around me who thought of themselves as believers – and who were supposed to be my role models in religious belief – didn’t seem believe much either. Or rather, I should say that they may (I couldn’t tell) have held some belief about the existence of god, but they most assuredly did not give much evidence of believing any of the Christian dogma that I was learning about.

“What an astonishing statement,” I hear you say. “How can you possibly know what somebody believes or doesn’t believe?”

Well, I know that people “believe in” gravity when I see them step back from the edge of the precipice, or that fire burns as they quickly draw their hand back from the little explosion in the fireplace. Their actions give them away. I know that people believe that they actually have a chance at winning the lottery, else they wouldn’t buy a ticket, which given the actual odds is pretty much exactly like tossing your two dollars over that precipice. Beliefs inform actions. Where the action is inconsistent with a stated belief, I must assume that the action is informed by some other belief, unknown to me and perhaps even to the person performing the action. But what I do know is that the claimed belief cannot be strongly held internally, or it would prevent the action that is inconsistent with it.

Let me provide a couple of examples.

There is wildly inconsistent use of Bible texts. Leviticus is used to label gay people as sinners worthy of death (or at least hell, perhaps), but seems remarkably ineffective in getting its message about the evils of pork chops, bacon and shrimp out to the masses. I for one (and I knew I was gay before I was ten) couldn’t see why one verse was dutifully adhered to, to my cost, while others right around it were studiously ignored. That seemed to have a whole lot less to do with believing anything at all about god, and was more reflective of personal tastes. In other words, hypocrisy.

And I was told that faith, not good works, was needed to please god. Except, of course, when it was good works, not faith. I decided early on that good works couldn’t be what people believed guaranteed entry into heaven, because those works were in remarkably short supply. And, of course, it doesn’t take much actual observation of people to see how routinely the commandments are broken. I saw a graven image in practically every church I was in, but if you’re going to flout a commandment, I suppose church is the place to do it.

Every believer seems more concerned about his own soul, its disposition after death, then about the condition of his fellow humans who are still alive. The Bible is chock-a-block with prohibitions and "though-shalt-nots," but how much better than “don’t get your hands dirty” might be the enjoinder to soil them dreadfully helping those in need?

And sex! Don’t even get me started on the religious view (at least the Christian one I grew up with) of sex. (Yet, as a science reader I knew that sexual reproduction was only one of the options god had open to him. Nature, however, needed sexual reproduction as the surest route to evolution and the continuation of life through changing conditions.)

It Started with My Upbringing

I was a battered child. Through all the torture of my growing up, I bore the pain and scars. Those who inflicted them went scot-free. I paraphrase David Hume in saying, if god could have prevented my pain but didn’t, then he shares the blame. If he wanted to help me, but couldn’t, then he was weaker than those who were hurting me, so I’d be better off bowing down before them than god. It was certainly clear to me that god was not simultaneously interested in and capable of my protection, or else I would not have been so horribly hurt.

And nothing I found, either in the Bible or in church, answered my questions about why that should be so.

And then I began to see that the world – supposedly the work and pride and joy of a loving god – while often beautiful, awe-inspiring, grand and mysterious, was also a world of unspeakable horror, visited without rhyme or reason upon the just and unjust alike, as were all its many pleasures. And I wondered how it was possible to lay all of the beauty – yet none of the horror – to god’s account. And there were no answers.

Ah, but then I was told about Satan! The Devil, eager to cart everybody’s soul off to Hell, which would be permitted for eternity for quite finite (often mild) indiscretions. Poppycock! Balderdash! Rubbish!

If god is omnipotent, then Satan must be nothing by comparison. Infinity is infinitely greater than anything finite. Therefore, Satan could hold no sway – there cannot be two omnipotent entities in a single universe – by definition – since both would be unable to best the other – a clear failure in the definition of omnipotence. Thus, if god exists and moves in the world, then he’s responsible for it all, including how ludicrously unfair it is.

Such a god, when I thought about it, was completely unacceptable to me.

Answering My Objections

No theist has ever actually answered my objections, although I answer all of theirs. Instead, when I raise what I consider to be a killer argument against god, they simply move on to another statement, usually unrelated. I’ve observed this many, many times in debates, for example between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Dawkins gives direct answers to Collins’s points, while Collins frequently rebuts with discourses on “god’s purpose,” and similar arguments which are irrefutable.

But the truth is, the counter-argument to “red and green make purple,” is not “yellow and blue make green,” no matter how true the latter statement might be.

No Answers From Scripture(s)

Answers from Judeo-Christian scripture are no better to me than answers from other scriptures, or from Shakespeare or any other fiction. In fact, every answer from scripture is easily refuted, and almost always by a different selection from the same book. If this were not so, there would be no need for the very busy apologetics industry.

Continued....
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Part 2

Religion, it seems to me, teaches that we should be satisfied without bothering to try and understand, to accept without questioning. All I ever have is questions, and magisterial answers, fully dependent on authority and nothing else, leave me completely unsatisfied.

God’s Greatest Creation

I’ve seen the human race at work. God’s greatest creation is responsible for a list of horrors too long for recitation here.

But it’s not just the evil that men do. It’s the sheer bloody stupidity of so much of the race. Watch the football hooligans in the stands, or in the streets after the game. See this creature, a little lower than the angels, this “piece of work...so infinite in faculty,” as it watches endless hours of “reality television.”

I’ve heard Joel Osteen, a “good Christian,” describe gays and lesbians as “not god’s best work” on Larry King Live on CNN. Yet Osteen seems unable, at least in this particular case, to follow the one thing that Christ is said to have really insisted upon – to love his fellow man without judging. Having failed at this single Christian duty, he still considers himself to be, one must assume, among “god’s best work,” and therefore competent to judge the “sins” of others.

Guessing Game

A universe with god, well actually, with all the gods that humanity has created, is an endless guessing game, with poorer odds of being right than the lottery. What does god want? You’ll never figure it out by observing and trying to make sense out of who suffers and who enjoys happiness. If we can’t tell here on earth, what hope have we of understanding the rules by which one merits “heaven?”

Confusion

No god worthy of the position could possibly have arranged to be so variously, and badly, misunderstood. One hundred thousand religions later, and still no agreement on who or what god is, and what He/It wants.

Spirituality Needs Art, Not god

Spirituality is not aided by unwarranted fear nor unjustified hope, but rather by deeper understanding of ourselves and our universe. For true spirituality, put aside your scripture and turn instead to art – any art. And having done so, recognize that scripture is likewise art, able to provide us with new perspectives on ourselves and our world, worthy of similar (but not greater) respect.

Too Many Beliefs, Too Little Reason

I do not believe in god for the same reason that I do not believe in ghosts, the Yeti, Sasquatch, Loch Ness Monster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, fairies, gnomes, ogres, gremlins, banshees, naiads, dryads, jinn, fairy god-mothers or spontaneous human combustion, among a rather longish list of other nonsense routinely held to be reasonable by far too many people.

· Every “fact” of science can be demonstrated again and again in controlled experiments. Every theory makes predictions which can be tested for. Not a single “fact” of such pseudo-scientific or religious nonsense ever has been, nor ever can be, tested, and none makes predictions that I’m aware of (or when they do, as is sometimes said of astrology, they are either to general to be useful, or turn out to be wrong a statistically correct number of times).

· When a theory of science is finally shown not to fulfill some criterion or other implicit in itself, then the theory is either corrected or discarded. Pseudo-science and religion are immune to that sort of self-correction, since there is never going to be any evidence to “disprove” their assertions anyway.

· If anything must exist, it might as well be the universe as god. Is a naked singularity so much less likely than a consciousness without any other sort of existence, (or means to support itself)? Why propose a middle-man, which only complicates matters?

Morals and Ethics

Throughout my entire atheist existence, I’ve managed to behave both more morally and more ethically, with more concern for my fellow man of whatever condition, than many of the religious people that I’ve known. I am in myself proof that morality needs no god – Torquemada, for example, is proof that believing in god does not guarantee moral behaviour.

What a tragic notion must be held by the faithful that if, by some calamity, they lost their faith in god, they would suddenly be unable to restrain themselves from theft and murder. The atheist is in no doubt at all that – should he suddenly believe in god – he should continue to behave as morally as he did before.

The problem with morality guided by religion is that religion (at least the human ones that I’m familiar with) is manifestly unintelligible. If this were not so, there would not, could not, have arisen about 100,000 of them in the course of human history.

God’s Infinite Mercy

I could never believe in both Hell and a merciful god. Mercy is not needed at all except by those who are not worthy of it. It is completely wasted on those who don’t need it.

Religion Gone Bad

I have seen human nature – that good people do good things and bad people do bad things. But to get a whole church or mosque panting for the deaths of the homosexuals, the idolaters, the “sinners” of every sort – yes, that takes religion.

Original Sin

Few things offend me as much as the idea of “original sin” – that I (the child abused by those most accountable for my security) inherit guilt along with their genes. The Bishop of Hippo would excuse god for deformed and still-born children on such a vile supposition, but I will not.

Conclusion, My Purpose, Not God's

Mostly, I am an atheist because I think, and none of my thinking led me to any notion of god. Nothing led me to understand that there was any other purpose to my existence than what I chose to make of it. My parents gave me life, but it is mine to live, not theirs. They can hope anything they like for me, but I will go my own way.

I am not interested in being the object of “god’s purpose,” whatever that might be (and I challenge anyone to tell me what it is). I’m the object of enough other purposes over which I have little control. Regarding a meaning or a purpose for my life, I prefer my own. And at the, least I have some hope of knowing what it is.

Post Scriptum

I was mentioning this the other day to a friend, who said to me my analogy of winning the lottery and belief is flawed with respect to belief. She said,"I play the lottery because I hope to win, not because I believe I will win."

Point taken. And it is true that I, too, play the lotteries. I also hope to win. But you know, if I believed that I could not win, I would not play. So, what does that suggest about my beliefs (even though I actually do know the odds)? Beliefs can, in fact, be much stronger than knowledge, for reasons that are so completely human. It's funny, but it's also a bit endearing sometimes -- as long as it doesn't get destructive!

Another point about my original post. I said "I am an atheist because I think." Someone I know told me that was pretty arrogant, and that many intelligent, thinking people believe in a deity.

For my comment, then, I must apologize, because of course there are intelligent people on this forum who also believe in a deity. My thought perhaps didn't read as well as it could, and I can see how it looks.

Ah, well, this is a work in progress, and I'm open to change. Still, I did not mean that believers don't think and atheists do. I meant that I have always spent a lot of time thinking, and every avenue of thought that I traversed led me to a different conclusion than the vast majority of other people.

Still, I wonder sometimes if it isn't true that most people don't really spend a lot of time and effort really thinking about the things that they take for granted, and if they actually did stop and examine more closely, they might arrive at different conclusions. This might be especially true, not so much for belief in god, but for rigid adherence to the particular dogmas of most formal religions. It would still be possible, I think, to believe in god and the message of Christ without believing that Mary was a virgin, that water turned into wine, or that the dead got out of their graves and wandered around town, and nobody thought to actually write a memo about it. Or that Jesus actually and literally died for our sins.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
I think when laymen religonists try to have a philosophical discussion (which require academic style answers) atheists feel nobody can answer their questions. More importantly when personal biases such as "nobody can prove me wrong" get in the way of open-mindedness nobody can prove you wrong.
 

KelseyR

The eternal optimist!
Bear in mind that three of the four belief classes are atheistic, so rejecting God will at best only slightly move you towards the answers you seek.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Answering My Objections

No theist has ever actually answered my objections, although I answer all of theirs. Instead, when I raise what I consider to be a killer argument against god, they simply move on to another statement, usually unrelated.

Of course, going through a childhood that you went through -- well, there are no words that I can express that can change that and no amount of "I'm so sorry" can really do justice to the pain and suffering.

I would, however, rephrase your quote as the following:

"No theist can answer my questions to my satisfaction (although that doesn't mean they didn't answer it satisfactorily because it does satisfy others), just as my answers didn't satisfy them (although that doesn't mean I didn't answer it satisfactorily because it does satisfy others).

When they explain about may argument about a killer god, and they answer it, it doesn't satisfy me so they move on to another statement, usually unrelated because they know it is at an impasse.

I am happy that you were able to move forward with your life.

I understand why you came to your conclusion based on your statement.

t Started with My Upbringing

I was a battered child. Through all the torture of my growing up, I bore the pain and scars. Those who inflicted them went scot-free. I paraphrase David Hume in saying, if god could have prevented my pain but didn’t, then he shares the blame. If he wanted to help me, but couldn’t, then he was weaker than those who were hurting me, so I’d be better off bowing down before them than god. It was certainly clear to me that god was not simultaneously interested in and capable of my protection, or else I would not have been so horribly hurt.

And nothing I found, either in the Bible or in church, answered my questions about why that should be so.

Joyce Meyer equally had a battered childhood and yet found that Jesus was the answer and that the Bible had satisfied her questions.

Interesting how people arrive to different conclusions.
 
Last edited:

RedDragon94

Love everyone, meditate often
William James and Pascal’s Wager aside, one cannot really will oneself to believe. One either does or one does not. Certainly one can pretend (lots of church-goers do that), but at the core of one’s being, what one believes about god does not feel as if it’s a matter dependent upon the will. Not if one is honest.
Mmm. I think people can change, they just don't do it often.
I went to Sunday school and heard the Bible stories specially prepared for children. I was told that “Jesus loves me,” though nobody else at the time seemed to, and that “god sees the little sparrow fall.” I noticed, though, that god didn’t hold out a single deified digit to prevent that fall. Then I checked out those Sunday school stories – I read the book (yes, that book, the Bible), from beginning to end, before I was 11 years old.
Yeah, that's what I don't understand. Even though I know I have believed in God in the past, the idea that God is all powerful and all loving but doesn't intervene is kind of irrational.
 

usfan

Well-Known Member
Good thread. You layed out your path very succinctly. I'm sure many can relate, and learn from your journey, to this point.

I'm not sure it was necessary to demonize Christianity so much, but I accept that as your personal experience, even if it is presented as a stereotypical scapegoat.

But one thing is clear from this, and other testimonies of philosophical belief:

Everyone has to do two things:
1. Their own believing
2. Their own dying
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
You didn't answer the question in your title. "Why I am an atheist" is answered by "Because I don't believe in any gods". Atheist is just a characteristic descriptor. You actually answered "Why I'm not a mainstream Christian", which is an entirely different concept.

Conflating "not Christian" and "atheist" only serves to add to the confusion, misinformation and negativity surrounding the whole field.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You didn't answer the question in your title. "Why I am an atheist" is answered by "Because I don't believe in any gods". Atheist is just a characteristic descriptor. You actually answered "Why I'm not a mainstream Christian", which is an entirely different concept.

Conflating "not Christian" and "atheist" only serves to add to the confusion, misinformation and negativity surrouYou nding the whole field.
That's not quite correct, which suggests you didn't read everything I wrote. Many of my statements are with respect only to the notion of "God," but not the Christian one. Every religion makes claims to moral precepts. You didn't read what I wrote about any "purpose" by any supposed "god," not necessarily the Christian one, nor any other.

Certainly, the religion with which I am most familiar is Christianity, and it is the context in which most of my life, as a North American, is lived, and that means that of course it will figure largely in what I write. But throughout my posts, there were many, many much more generalized arguments, which I presume you didn't read. That's okay...long essays are not de rigueur or very welcome on forums such as this, and I appreciate that. I just wrote what I did because I wanted to get it out. If you don't want to read it, that's okay.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I think I'll accept Hell or permanent death on the basis that the qualifications for getting into heaven if the doctrine of Faith Only, or even in some cases Faith & Works, is believed.

Even with long narratives explaining how it's man's fault to be on the path to destruction, I still see it as God came to the Earth as a man, to save us from Himself, and asserted that we should worship Him on that basis, or have no afterlife or a horrible one.

I just find it hard when told about conservative Christianity to take things seriously. I zone out even if I owe the other side much better.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I see you have kept that philosophy well and ignored many things that Bible tells. I hope people don’t take your version as what the Bible tells.
Do you accept everything the Bible says, or do you rely on your own judgement and reason when you need to?

For example, consider Exodus 20:5: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

I'm sure you're a reasonable person, and don't think that children should be punished for the sin of their fathers, but this verse is very explicit: God will do exactly that. And yes, I know that we can find other verses that say exactly the opposite, that only the sinner pays for his sins, and it is not transferable. Thus, Ezekiel 18:20 says: ""The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

But isn't that, then, a contradiction, directly contradicting Ex 2:5? It certainly seems so to me.

How do you rationalize the difference, and still maintain that the Bible is always to believed in what it tells?
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
That's not quite correct, which suggests you didn't read everything I wrote. Many of my statements are with respect only to the notion of "God," but not the Christian one. Every religion makes claims to moral precepts. You didn't read what I wrote about any "purpose" by any supposed "god," not necessarily the Christian one, nor any other.
I did read it all and accept that you made some more generic statements but I feel the specifically Christian theme runs too strongly throughout to be ignored. I’m not saying that makes your writing any less interesting or significant and you do make a lot of very valid points I entirely agree with. My only issue is with the title and only because it risks inadvertently feeding the false “Atheist vs Christian” stereotype that is all too common on this forum and beyond.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Do you accept everything the Bible says, or do you rely on your own judgement and reason when you need to?

I believe what the Bible tells and if I accept what the Bible tells, it is based on my own reason and judgment. I think same is with all people. I don’t think things can be accepted without own judgment and reason.

For example, consider Exodus 20:5: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

I'm sure you're a reasonable person, and don't think that children should be punished for the sin of their fathers…

I think you should notice the end part “of them that hate me”. It is not about all children. Only those who hate God and those who hate God, do all kind of evil things, which is why I think it is ok, if they get what godless life brings.

In Bible, love God means that we keep His commandments. So, person who hates God, doesn’t keep His commandments, which basically are in “love your neighbor as yourself”.


For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.

1 John 5:3

So, if one hates God, he hates also his neighbor. And if one hates his neighbor, he does all kind of evil things.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I believe what the Bible tells and if I accept what the Bible tells, it is based on my own reason and judgment. I think same is with all people. I don’t think things can be accepted without own judgment and reason.



I think you should notice the end part “of them that hate me”. It is not about all children. Only those who hate God and those who hate God, do all kind of evil things, which is why I think it is ok, if they get what godless life brings.

In Bible, love God means that we keep His commandments. So, person who hates God, doesn’t keep His commandments, which basically are in “love your neighbor as yourself”.


For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. His commandments are not grievous.

1 John 5:3

So, if one hates God, he hates also his neighbor. And if one hates his neighbor, he does all kind of evil things.

You belueve in Noah's ark, based on reason?

Surely you're joking.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Why I Am an Atheist?

How could one subscribe to Atheism, when any ignorant person can subscribe to it, please?
Regards
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
It Started with My Upbringing

I was a battered child. Through all the torture of my growing up, I bore the pain and scars. Those who inflicted them went scot-free. I paraphrase David Hume in saying, if god could have prevented my pain but didn’t, then he shares the blame. If he wanted to help me, but couldn’t, then he was weaker than those who were hurting me, so I’d be better off bowing down before them than god. It was certainly clear to me that god was not simultaneously interested in and capable of my protection, or else I would not have been so horribly hurt.

And nothing I found, either in the Bible or in church, answered my questions about why that should be so.

And then I began to see that the world – supposedly the work and pride and joy of a loving god – while often beautiful, awe-inspiring, grand and mysterious, was also a world of unspeakable horror, visited without rhyme or reason upon the just and unjust alike, as were all its many pleasures. And I wondered how it was possible to lay all of the beauty – yet none of the horror – to god’s account. And there were no answers.

As i look to this, I can understand how you came to your conclusion though I wouldn't agree with it.

Here is a battered child trying to understand and philosophically come to some sense as to "why" these things happen but, having no answers, the only end construct that would justify why you went through it is "there is no God" and for if there was a God, to blame Him for what happened. Perhaps, deep inside, you do blame God but it is covered with the denial of God. I don't know.

Understandable.

But I find it wrong to then take your position (as a child who really did not know the whole of the Bible) and then build a position of life on the basis of what you went through. Certainly making a blanket "no answers" doesn't mean there aren't any but rather "I couldn't see any" would be a better statement.

There are many books on "why bad things happen to good people" that give answers, answers that people found having been battered by life.

Not saying you can't have your position, I just don't agree with your conclusion or methodology.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Do you accept everything the Bible says, or do you rely on your own judgement and reason when you need to?

For example, consider Exodus 20:5: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them (idols), nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

I'm sure you're a reasonable person, and don't think that children should be punished for the sin of their fathers, but this verse is very explicit: God will do exactly that. And yes, I know that we can find other verses that say exactly the opposite, that only the sinner pays for his sins, and it is not transferable. Thus, Ezekiel 18:20 says: ""The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

But isn't that, then, a contradiction, directly contradicting Ex 2:5? It certainly seems so to me.

How do you rationalize the difference, and still maintain that the Bible is always to believed in what it tells?


Well.... it depends on how you want to read it.

First, we have Bible historicity where your view doesn't pan out. King Amon (second generation) was bad but Josiah (third generation) was good and wasn't visited as you interpreted it.

Second, it does say "Of them that hate me" which suggests the following generations hated Him also

Third, one commentary says "The third and the fourth generation. This is a typical Semitic phrase denoting continuity, not to be understood in an arithmetical sense. Further, it is applied to those who ‘hate’ God, who refuse to live their lives in accordance with his will. Since this is God’s world, and since we are all involved with one another, breaches of God’s law by one generation do indeed affect those of future generations to come. Slavery, exploitation, imperialism, pollution, immorality are all examples of this principle. What we call ‘natural results’ are just an expression of God’s law in operation, punishing breaches of his will."

Cole, R. A. (1973). Exodus: an introduction and commentary (Vol. 2, p. 164). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

Fourth, I understand that if you started, as a child, to interpret God in one way you wouldn't dig deeper to find the answers since your decision has been made. Not saying you can't have that viewpoint, but I don't agree with your methodology or conclusion.

Last, Ezekiel still stands with a deeper understanding.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
I did read it all and accept that you made some more generic statements but I feel the specifically Christian theme runs too strongly throughout to be ignored. I’m not saying that makes your writing any less interesting or significant and you do make a lot of very valid points I entirely agree with. My only issue is with the title and only because it risks inadvertently feeding the false “Atheist vs Christian” stereotype that is all too common on this forum and beyond.
But surely this is what you might expect me, raised in an almost exclusively Abrahamic religion world (Christianity, Judaism, Islam....and I include Baha'i). It is usually unwise to make deep analytical statements about beliefs you are unfamiliar with (though many do).

So, yes, it is true that my "concept of God" is the one that I inherited through the culture, the people, the literature and the history that I was raised into. And thus, of course, it is that concept that I reject when I say that I am an atheist. Would you care to give me another, totally different concept of a deity, provide me with the reasons that you think such a deity might exist, and ask me to consider it? By all means, propose your deity, and I will give it all the honest consideration I can muster.

The little I know of Buddhism, of course, suggests to me that it is much more a philosophy than a religion, since it doesn't actually seem to propose a deity of any sort. But it's not a philosophy that has ever seriously attracted my attention. I have tried, but I find mysticism to be trying...offering all sorts of unsupported, but presumably "deep," truths. But even if I were to accept something of Buddhism, since it proposes nothing about deities, would hardly have any impact on my atheism, now, would it?
 
Top