Ravi Zacharias On Atheism

[debrand]

http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/gods-dupes/

 

I thought some of you might find this interesting. It is an article on RC Sproul's site by Ravi Zacharias

 

 

Quote

Along with Christopher Hitchens and a few others, these atheists are calling for the banishment of all religious belief.

 

I'm not certain if Zacharias means that Hitchens wanted religion outlawed or if he means that Hitchens hoped that rational thought would eventually make religion obsolete.

 

 

Quote

I have news for them — news to the contrary. The reality is that the emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself

 

This is not an uncommon criticism of atheism. Some religious people assume that not believing as they do results in depression and emptiness. It does not. As far as denying evil, I'd like to see any proof that he has that atheists are less likely to acknowledge that hurting innocent people is wrong.

 

 

I am not done reading the post so I'll comment on the rest of it when I'm done.

 

edited because I thought the article was by RC Sproul.

[Witsec7]

Quote:

I have news for them — news to the contrary. The reality is that the emptiness that results from the loss of the transcendent is stark and devastating, philosophically and existentially. Indeed, the denial of an objective moral law, based on the compulsion to deny the existence of God, results ultimately in the denial of evil itself

I really wish these asswipes wouldn't attempt to tell me what I think and feel.

[Conuly]

I really wish these asswipes wouldn't attempt to tell me what I think and feel.

Yeah, really. I had no idea religious beliefs gave you mad psychic skillz!

[Witsec7]

Yeah, really. I had no idea religious beliefs gave you mad psychic skillz!

They don't. I've yet to see one of these pompous sin shouters from new zion get it right.

[debrand]

I wish that I had Burris genius for breaking down statements and logically showing what is wrong with them.

In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral lawgiver) by introducing terms like “evolutionary ethics.â€

How does explaining where we got our morals equal trying to 'dance around the reality of a moral law"?

The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists.

Okay, I need this statement explained because I don't understand it. How does questioning god's existence equal playing god?

Now, one may wonder: Why do you actually need a moral lawgiver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral lawgiver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood. This means that an intrinsically worthy person must exist if the moral law itself is to be valued. And that person can only be God.

If I understand him correctly he is saying that in order to discuss moral laws, you need someone to do the discussion? Well, of course. However, I don't get the leap from having a moral law-which humans invent-to needing a law giver. My answer would be that humans are the law givers.

[Daenerys]

I always find it slightly concerning that so many religious people think that only a belief in God prevents evil. So if it wasn't for their fear of a being for whom they have no objective proof, then they would be raping and killing all over the place? To be honest I think it says much worse things about them than about me.

[debrand]

Is it all right, for example, to mutilate babies for entertainment? Every reasonable person will say “no.†We know that objective moral values do exist. Therefore, God must exist. Examining those premises and their validity presents a very strong argument.

I would argue that protecting the youngest members of society evolved to help not only individuals but societies survive. It would make little sense for a culture to destroy it's future.

Still, there are examples of infanticide throughout history so I am not certain if he can argue that rational people would agree with him. Even in the bible there are cases of infanticide. Basically, Ravi's religion tells him not to kill children unless god decides to break that rule. That is one reason why I think that a literal reading of the bible is dangerous

1 Samuel 15:3

King James Version (KJV)

3Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

Edited because I wanted to add this. The bible has some beautiful poetry and wonderful stories in it. I love the story of David and Goliath and the woman who drove the spike through a man's temple. However, the bible also has some dark passages that make it difficult for anyone to pretend that following it will make an individual more moral.

[QAF_Rocks]

It's all about his god from his religion. What about all the other deities from all the other religions? Atheists don't believe in any of them, either.

I really don't understand the mindset. It's like Zacharias is trapped in this box that only allows him to perceive the world one way. It's not just fundamentalists like him; it's the majority of religious people I've encountered. Atheists, too, tend to fall into the same line of thinking. It's like most people who are raised in our Western monotheistic culture fall into the trap of only entertaining the notion of a particular deity and only ever consider the tenets of our society's most popular religion.

[Gizmola]

Okay, I need this statement explained because I don't understand it. How does questioning god's existence equal playing god?

I think what they're trying to say is that for an atheist to declare that God does not exist is to state that the atheist is therefore omniscient and knowing of all in the universe. And, according to the theist, only God can know all ultimate truth in the universe. Hence, the atheist is playing at being God.

[mirele]

I always find it slightly concerning that so many religious people think that only a belief in God prevents evil. So if it wasn't for their fear of a being for whom they have no objective proof, then they would be raping and killing all over the place? To be honest I think it says much worse things about them than about me.

Well, considering how many so-called "Good Christians" (including priests and pastors) are indicted every year for rape and murder and beating their kids, I think that the belief in God is obviously not instilling some sort of moral compass in them. I'm agnostic but I know that you don't beat, rape or murder people. Jeez.

[Conuly]

Ah, but what you don't get, Mirele, is that these people aren't "real Christians". If they were "real Christians" they'd be wonderful people!!!!!

And if you believe that, I have a true Scotsman to sell you... or wait, I think I got my expressions mixed up a bit there.

[debrand]

I think what they're trying to say is that for an atheist to declare that God does not exist is to state that the atheist is therefore omniscient and knowing of all in the universe. And, according to the theist, only God can know all ultimate truth in the universe. Hence, the atheist is playing at being God.

You explained that well. His statement was unclear. Thanks.

[debrand]

Ah, but what you don't get, Mirele, is that these people aren't "real Christians". If they were "real Christians" they'd be wonderful people!!!!!

And if you believe that, I have a true Scotsman to sell you... or wait, I think I got my expressions mixed up a bit there.

The phrase 'true or real' Christian drives me up the wall. It is a way for Christians to deny that any of their members actually do bad things.