The Fatherless Athiest

[Overman]

The Fatherless Athiest (http://millinerd.com/2007/02/psychologizing-atheism.html) appears to be the main theory of this book.

Has anyone read it or does anyone have more information...Is the author really backing the idea that All of Most of Athiests have had unhealthy realtionships with their fathers?

[ImaginalDisc]

The Fatherless Athiest (http://millinerd.com/2007/02/psychologizing-atheism.html) appears to be the main theory of this book.

Has anyone read it or does anyone have more information...Is the author really backing the idea that All of Most of Athiests have had unhealthy realtionships with their fathers?

I asked my dad to tell me about it, but he hit me instead.

[Mr Clingford]

I asked my dad to tell me about it, but he hit me instead.:D . Very good.

[Jekyll]

Has anyone read it or does anyone have more information...Is the author really backing the idea that All of Most of Athiests have had unhealthy realtionships with their fathers?

Well there's an 80 minute talk of it here.
http://www.veritas.org/3.0_media/talks/196

Perhaps someone with more patients than me wants to have a look at it?

[Cosmo]

Perhaps someone with more patients than me

Or, apparently, more parents... :D

[ImaginalDisc]

So, let me test this theory. Was the guy who allegedly said this an atheist:

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

[Achán hiNidráne]

I've heard all this before from other religionists. However, given the history of male dominance and violence in Western faith, I would go out on a limb and claim that it's abusive fathers who have created religion.

[Mr Clingford]

I've heard all this before from other religionists. However, given the history of male dominance and violence in Western faith, I would go out on a limb and claim that it's abusive fathers who have created religion.That's bollocks - we all know it's the fault of womankind.

[Mr Clingford]

So, let me test this theory. Was the guy who allegedly said this an atheist:It appears that Jesus has a wobble here, but after that doubt continued to have faith in himself so he still believed there was a God, so wasn't an atheist.

[ImaginalDisc]

From the article.

When I first came to Princeton I worked at a coffee shop, where the village atheist (of which there are a few), explained to me over the whir of the milk frother, that my faith was something that could be fixed. With the proper counseling, he repeated week after week, I could be made to see that it was all a psychologically motivated illusion. But couldn't, I wondered, the same be said of him? With the proper counseling, couldn't he be made to see that his atheism was a mere illusion that could be psychologically explained?

Ok, is Atheism a delusion? Since this is allegedly about psychology, let's look at what the DSM-IV has to say about delusion.

http://www.clevelandclinic.org/health/health-info/docs/3800/3840.asp?index=9599&src=newsp
What is delusional disorder?
Delusional disorder, previously known as paranoid disorder, is a type of serious mental illness—called a "psychosis"—in which a person cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.

Delusions are classified into various types, so maybe it's worth seeing if any apply to atheism. Is Atheism erotomanic? Do atheists believe a distant and/or powerful person is in love with them? Sounds more like theists to me. Is atheism grandiose, do we believe we have a higher degree of worth than others? Nope. Oddly though, thinking that there's a magnificently powerful being that shaped the universe for your needs strikes me as grandiose. Is atheism jealous? I don't think a concerns about sexual infidelity are relevant here. Is it persecutory? Well, maybe we beat our breasts over how we're marginalized, but none the less, that pales before the belief that one is being persecuted by the lord of Hell. Is it somatic? Again, not relevant.

The idea that atheism is a delusion caused by one's poor relationship with one's father is a non-starter. Atheism can't even be classified as a delusion.

[Jekyll]

Or, apparently, more parents... :D
Hey, I have more live parents than average.

[Cosmo]

Hey, I have more live parents than average.

If you have two legs, you also have more legs than the average. :)

[Patsy]

Aren't at least the Judeo-Christian religions based upon a giant, invisible, omnipotent father figure? Perhaps my lack of need for this particular emotional crutch is because my real life father was an excellent one!

[Achán hiNidráne]

Let's take my case for instance, as many people here know, my father is a jerk. He's overbearing, mentally abusive, bigoted, and intimidating. He's also a stalwart Roman Catholic who dragged me into the church of his choice until I was in my mid-20s.

In that time, I was on my way to becoming an arch-Catholic of the Mel Gibson/Bill Donahue/Pat Buchanan school myself (only without the raging antisemitism). In high school, I once called a girl a "whore" for defending pre-martial sex in Health Class, and I'd rage against abortion and homosexuality at every opportunity.

Just like my father would.

Of course, the fact that we agreed on many things didn't stop him from being a jerk to me whenever I fell short of his impossible-to-meet expectations. (He was infinitely kinder to my younger sister, whom dear-old Dad admits he gave emotional support to because "she's a girl." I was expected to "be a man" and take whatever life threw at me with no help whatsoever.)

By the time I got about half-way through college, a couple of philosophy courses and some experience with people outside outside of the small town where I grew up, started to make me doubt the whole religion thing. I actually read the portions of the Bible they didn't read to us during Mass, the bloody, murderous, hateful stuff that modern Christians claim they are against. That more or less did it for me. I renounced religion and I'm proud to report that I no longer believe in God. (Of course, it's impossible for me to be an open atheist since I'm forced to continue living with this man due to financial reasons. While he has his suspicions, I'm sure he'd literally kill me if he found out I no longer believed in his God.)

Now, my father didn't leave me or die (unfortunately), but he has treated me rather poorly over the years. I'm sure that Vitz will claim that my atheism is due to this dysfunctional relationship and claim that it's all in my head and if I had a happy loving father, I'd still be a good Christian, just like him. Of course, he's leaving out the fact that despite his rotten treatment of me, I more of less believed in exactly the same things as he did and it wasn't until I had new information that made me begin to doubt religion.

So what is the cause of my atheism? My rotten dad, my education, or both?

[Achán hiNidráne]

Aren't at least the Judeo-Christian religions based upon a giant, invisible, omnipotent father figure? Perhaps my lack of need for this particular emotional crutch is because my real life father was an excellent one!

Correct, and if their Bible is anything to go on, Yahweh is rather abusive to his children himself.

Even if Vitz is right, can you blame people who have been in abusive parental relationships to doubt a religion where the deity in question treats the people of the Earth the same way?

[Orangutan]

Yup, Good relationship with my father, and he with his, Both of us are atheists. my (half) brother had an abusive father, He's pretty much an atheist too, maybe a little wishy-washy on the whole subject as I don't think he has even considered spending much though on it. I'd say his theory stinks, Did he even do any research?

[Jekyll]

If you have two legs, you also have more legs than the average. :)

:p Your qualifiers completely removed any chance I had of making a smutty comeback.

[Mr Clingford]

Aren't at least the Judeo-Christian religions based upon a giant, invisible, omnipotent father figure? Perhaps my lack of need for this particular emotional crutch is because my real life father was an excellent one!So if there are Christians who have/had an excellent relationship with their fathers surely that means that their faith in God is not a crutch either?

[Patsy]

Correct, and if their Bible is anything to go on, Yahweh is rather abusive to his children himself.

Even if Vitz is right, can you blame people who have been in abusive parental relationships to doubt a religion where the deity in question treats the people of the Earth the same way?

Yeah, if there was ever a father that needed to have child protective services called in on him, it would be the mythical "heavenly father" of the Judeo-Christian religious.

[Patsy]

So if there are Christians who have/had an excellent relationship with their fathers surely that means that their faith in God is not a crutch either?

I can't speak for what their personal issues are. And honestly, I don't give a darn what they believe, as long as it doesn't affect me and as long as they give me the same courtesy. My issues are with nutters like the author cited in the OP, and anyone who thinks that we all should, by default, live by their faith based morals and guidelines.

[Mr Clingford]

I can't speak for what their personal issues are. And honestly, I don't give a darn what they believe, as long as it doesn't affect me and as long as they give me the same courtesy. My issues are with nutters like the author cited in the OP, and anyone who thinks that we all should, by default, live by their faith based morals and guidelines.It just struck me that you were saying that this very basic shoddy psychoanalysis was bunk with regard to atheists but true with regard to Christians - trying to have your cake (mmm) and eat it. It is fair enough not to wish to have someone try and ram their viewpoint down your throat, and in a discourteous way. I'll add that there are some very good guidelines to be found in these religions too.

[ImaginalDisc]

It just struck me that you were saying that this very basic shoddy psychoanalysis was bunk with regard to atheists but true with regard to Christians - trying to have your cake (mmm) and eat it. It is fair enough not to wish to have someone try and ram their viewpoint down your throat, and in a discourteous way. I'll add that there are some very good guidelines to be found in these religions too.

Could you unpack that accusation of hypocrisy?

[Patsy]

It just struck me that you were saying that this very basic shoddy psychoanalysis was bunk with regard to atheists but true with regard to Christians - trying to have your cake (mmm) and eat it. It is fair enough not to wish to have someone try and ram their viewpoint down your throat, and in a discourteous way. I'll add that there are some very good guidelines to be found in these religions too.

I was really only speaking to myself, the relationship I had with my father, and how it might affect my need for faith, in opposition to how the author tries to broadly paint all atheists.

To be honest about my own opinion, I feel that the good guidelines in various faiths are firstly, not original or unique to the faiths that contain them, and secondly, outweighed by extremely violent, immoral, and irrational and inaccurate stuff contained therein as well. I personally cannot understand how anyone can actually read the entire Christian Bible, for example, without being appalled by the contents.

[fuelair]

My relationship with my Dad was fine when I became an atheist - I was about 7 at the time.

[Foster Zygote]

Yup, Good relationship with my father, and he with his, Both of us are atheists. my (half) brother had an abusive father, He's pretty much an atheist too, maybe a little wishy-washy on the whole subject as I don't think he has even considered spending much though on it. I'd say his theory stinks, Did he even do any research?

I'm guessing it's the same sort of "research" that could be employed to "indicate" that theists had bad relationships with their mothers. Or maybe it was their pets...

[jimlintott]

The problem with many of these things is that they start with an assumed premise that there is something wrong with being atheist. Then they look for reasons why atheists are 'broken'. What is upsetting to many of us is that we know full well that the premise has no basis in fact.

[Patsy]

I'm guessing it's the same sort of "research" that could be employed to "indicate" that theists had bad relationships with their mothers. Or maybe it was their pets...

Indeed, there are "lies, damn lies, and statistics." Each theist or atheist is a human being with their own level of rationality, irrationality, issues, strength, or weaknesses. Individuals like the author in question appear to be so heavily invested in the need not only to hold their own beliefs but to force everyone to share them that they do not care what kind of misinformation and/or downright lies they use to do it. I would suspect that most of the theists I am friends with would be as appalled by this person as I am, and would see him as a poor example and ambassador for their faith.

[Malachi151]

I have always had a great relationship with my father, that's who provided me with science books, took me to museums, let stay home when mom wanted to go to church, taught me about evolution, etc.

I do know of several atheists, though, who had a bad relationship with their parents because their parents were fanatic religious fundamentalists, so perhaps that did drive them to atheism....

[Madalch]

That's a stupid premise.

I know a woman who has had a very bad relationship with her father, and is borderline insane (bipolar). She's also a devout Mormon, and (while trying to convert me), explained that she needs to have a father figure in her life, and her real father isn't good enough.

As far as I'm concerned, she admitted that her entire faith is due to her mental instability. Her real daddy isn't enough of a father figure, so she dreams up one from fantasy.

[Malachi151]

It's very interesting that the recent study on the demographics of religiosity found that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are both heavily female. Like 70% or more of the members of those sects are female.

If I were going to infiltrate a religion, it'd have to be one of those two :p

[Tanstaafl]

It appears that Jesus has a wobble here, but after that doubt continued to have faith in himself so he still believed there was a God, so wasn't an atheist.

You know, a conundrum just occurred to me. Assuming that Jesus was/is divine, he must have not had direct access to the other parts of the trinity when he was in human form, otherwise any such doubt would be completely impossible. And any doubt he may have had shows he was capable of error.

So how can his sayings be taken as flawless? Presumably he didn't have a hotline to the other 2/3 of the trinity then either?

I'm not sure what your beliefs in general regarding the trinity might be, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.

[ImaginalDisc]

It appears that Jesus has a wobble here, but after that doubt continued to have faith in himself so he still believed there was a God, so wasn't an atheist.

That wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus had a horrible relationship with his father. His father conspired to have him born just so that he would be sacrificed to force himself to forgive humanity rather than just, you know, forgiving them. God made Jesus a pawn in his own deeply schizophrenic mind game. That totally trumps my not getting a pony when I was eight years old.

[Mr Clingford]

That wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus had a horrible relationship with his father. His father conspired to have him born just so that he would be sacrificed to force himself to forgive humanity rather than just, you know, forgiving them. God made Jesus a pawn in his own deeply schizophrenic mind game. That totally trumps my not getting a pony when I was eight years old.I know it wasn't your point but your point had little to do with Christianity and its idea of the trinity and the post above continues that. Seriously, it has such a wrong idea of the trinity that it's nuts.

[ImaginalDisc]

I know it wasn't your point but your point had little to do with Christianity and its idea of the trinity and the post above continues that. Seriously, it has such a wrong idea of the trinity that it's nuts.

Please explain why it was necessary for an omnipotent god to have his only son brutally killed in order to forgive humanity for the sins of their distant ancestors.

[Jimbo07]

Yeah, if there was ever a father that needed to have child protective services called in on him, it would be the mythical "heavenly father" of the Judeo-Christian religious.

A lot of misogyny is justified in the name of both religion and 'cultural norms.' I suppose that's why Wicca is popular. It's still 'spiritual,' but somewhat anti-authoritarian.

...

These are the same people who spout garbage like, "I can't lie, I'm a Christian." (usually in the middle of telling a whopper).

:mad:

[Mr Clingford]

You know, a conundrum just occurred to me. Assuming that Jesus was/is divine, he must have not had direct access to the other parts of the trinity when he was in human form, otherwise any such doubt would be completely impossible. And any doubt he may have had shows he was capable of error.

So how can his sayings be taken as flawless? Presumably he didn't have a hotline to the other 2/3 of the trinity then either?

I'm not sure what your beliefs in general regarding the trinity might be, but I'd be interested in your thoughts.Interesting points.

Unlike me, some Christians do think that Jesus was ominscient; it doesn't make sense to me that someone can be fully human yet know everything. I'm not sure, though, that doubt equates to capable of error - I would like you to unpack your reasoning here. The doubt expressed in the story appears to me to reflect Jesus's humanity. (I think I am pretty much orthodox in regard to the trinity, with the proviso that it is probably inaccurate to some extent).

As for Jesus's sayings being flawless or not, I see him as having solely the knowledge set of a 1st Century Jew so things he might have said about science, history, etc might be wrong. As for moral/religious stuff, that is more difficult and first off I'm not sure. He spoke in a particular socio-historical context and that has to be taken into consideration (as doess everything in the Bible). Sorry, a bit vague.

[Mr Clingford]

Please explain why it was necessary for an omnipotent god to have his only son brutally killed in order to forgive humanity for the sins of their distant ancestors.As I don't believe that to be the case I don't see why I have to.

[ImaginalDisc]

As I don't believe that to be the case I don't see why I have to.

You just said my interpretation was "crazy." My interpretation being that god knowingly chose to have his son brutally killed for no good reason at all. The alternative is that god was ignorant of what would happen or unable to forgive people for the crimes of Adam and Eve without having his son killed. That undermines the power of god.

So, how exactly is my interpretation "crazy?"

[pgwenthold]

Let's take my case for instance, as many people here know, my father is a jerk. He's overbearing, mentally abusive, bigoted, and intimidating. He's also a stalwart Roman Catholic who dragged me into the church of his choice until I was in my mid-20s.

In that time, I was on my way to becoming an arch-Catholic of the Mel Gibson/Bill Donahue/Pat Buchanan school myself (only without the raging antisemitism). In high school, I once called a girl a "whore" for defending pre-martial sex in Health Class, and I'd rage against abortion and homosexuality at every opportunity.

Just like my father would.

Of course, the fact that we agreed on many things didn't stop him from being a jerk to me whenever I fell short of his impossible-to-meet expectations. (He was infinitely kinder to my younger sister, whom dear-old Dad admits he gave emotional support to because "she's a girl." I was expected to "be a man" and take whatever life threw at me with no help whatsoever.)

By the time I got about half-way through college, a couple of philosophy courses and some experience with people outside outside of the small town where I grew up, started to make me doubt the whole religion thing. I actually read the portions of the Bible they didn't read to us during Mass, the bloody, murderous, hateful stuff that modern Christians claim they are against. That more or less did it for me. I renounced religion and I'm proud to report that I no longer believe in God. (Of course, it's impossible for me to be an open atheist since I'm forced to continue living with this man due to financial reasons. While he has his suspicions, I'm sure he'd literally kill me if he found out I no longer believed in his God.)

Now, my father didn't leave me or die (unfortunately), but he has treated me rather poorly over the years. I'm sure that Vitz will claim that my atheism is due to this dysfunctional relationship and claim that it's all in my head and if I had a happy loving father, I'd still be a good Christian, just like him. Of course, he's leaving out the fact that despite his rotten treatment of me, I more of less believed in exactly the same things as he did and it wasn't until I had new information that made me begin to doubt religion.

So what is the cause of my atheism? My rotten dad, my education, or both?

Interesting. My story is very similar to yours with two differences:

1) Dad never treated me poorly. He was fairly strict when I was younger (although being the youngest of 6 helped, because he softened), but never a jerk or anything. He was equally as religious as your dad, and in my youth, I was religiously similar to you. Good RC kid, catholic school, altar boy for 8 years.

2) I changed significantly in college, as well, but never had a philosophy class. The class that probably had the biggest impact was a Religions of the World course, but that was not anything directly. It just made me realize that there are lots of religions, and they aren't all right. In fact, more or less all of them must be wrong (at best, one is right). The kicker for me is the whole "God of Abraham" part. There were other gods for other tribes, but Abraham's ended up writing the history. To think that this is because their God is the true god who wanted them to win is about as meaningful as the quarterback thanking God for the great victory over State U.

But in the end, no one ever taught me to question God and think about the philosophy.

So no father problem, no direct education. So what makes me an atheist?

Yet, I am an atheist.

[Lonewulf]

You just said my interpretation was "crazy." My interpretation being that god knowingly chose to have his son brutally killed for no good reason at all. The alternative is that god was ignorant of what would happen or unable to forgive people for the crimes of Adam and Eve without having his son killed. That undermines the power of god.

So, how exactly is my interpretation "crazy?"

Okay, let me get this straight... one of these is true:

1) God chose to have his son brutally killed for no reason at all. This would make God unjust, unmerciful, and not benevolent (though he's supposed to be omnibenevolent).

2) God was ignorant of what would happen. This means he was not omniscient.

3) He was unable to forgive people for the crimes of Adam and Eve. This follows the idea of "inherited sin" (which is ludicrous; do you arrest someone's son because their father committed murder?), and he was not merciful.

Does this sound about your argument?

[ImaginalDisc]

Okay, let me get this straight... one of these is true:

1) God chose to have his son brutally killed for no reason at all. This would make God unjust, unmerciful, and not benevolent (though he's supposed to be omnibenevolent).

2) God was ignorant of what would happen. This means he was not omniscient.

3) He was unable to forgive people for the crimes of Adam and Eve. This follows the idea of "inherited sin" (which is ludicrous; do you arrest someone's son because their father committed murder?), and he was not merciful.

Does this sound about your argument?

Modify three to include it limiting his power, meaning he is not omnipotent, and that's it.

[Mr Clingford]

You just said my interpretation was "crazy." My interpretation being that god knowingly chose to have his son brutally killed for no good reason at all. The alternative is that god was ignorant of what would happen or unable to forgive people for the crimes of Adam and Eve without having his son killed. That undermines the power of god.

So, how exactly is my interpretation "crazy?"

Regarding this:
That wasn't my point. My point was that Jesus had a horrible relationship with his father. His father conspired to have him born just so that he would be sacrificed to force himself to forgive humanity rather than just, you know, forgiving them. God made Jesus a pawn in his own deeply schizophrenic mind game.This is not the Christianity of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican or possibly of any denomination. It is mixed up, "nuts". It is definitely not what I believe. I do not think that Jesus had to die in order for humanity to be forgiven.

[ImaginalDisc]

Regarding this:
This is not the Christianity of Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican or possibly of any denomination. It is mixed up, "nuts". It is definitely not what I believe. I do not think that Jesus had to die in order for humanity to be forgiven.

I assert that it sound and valid reasoning which merely follows through on the logical implications of the narrative. The idea that god is infinitely wise, all-powerful and benevolent is irreconcilable with the narrative of Jesus.

[Mr Clingford]

I assert that it sound and valid reasoning which merely follows through on the logical implications of the narrative. The idea that god is infinitely wise, all-powerful and benevolent is irreconcilable with the narrative of Jesus.But it doesn't understand the trinity so is not valid. Anyway it is not what I believe so I don't see why I should have to defend it - it is a big enough job for me to understand and try and work through what just myself thinks.

[ImaginalDisc]

But it doesn't understand the trinity so is not valid. Anyway it is not what I believe so I don't see why I should have to defend it - it is a big enough job for me to understand and try and work through what just myself thinks.

What does understanding the trinity have to do with it?

Why do you believe god knowingly caused his son to be killed?

[Mr Clingford]

What does understanding the trinity have to do with it?Everything. Because then you would frame statments about the Father and Son differently.

Why do you believe god knowingly caused his son to be killed?Here, as well as elsewhere, is the taking of the metaphor of Father/Son in too literalistic human terms.

[ImaginalDisc]

Everything. Because then you would frame statments about the Father and Son differently.


Here, as well as elsewhere, is the taking of the metaphor of Father/Son in too literalistic human terms.

Please explain how your superior understanding of "the trinity" caused you to solve this dilemma.

[Mr Clingford]

Please explain how your superior understanding of "the trinity" caused you to solve this dilemma.Just read a bit about the trinity - I should go and watch Ugly Betty as the Significant Other is calling.

[Tanstaafl]

Interesting points.

Unlike me, some Christians do think that Jesus was ominscient; it doesn't make sense to me that someone can be fully human yet know everything. I'm not sure, though, that doubt equates to capable of error - I would like you to unpack your reasoning here. The doubt expressed in the story appears to me to reflect Jesus's humanity. (I think I am pretty much orthodox in regard to the trinity, with the proviso that it is probably inaccurate to some extent).

As for Jesus's sayings being flawless or not, I see him as having solely the knowledge set of a 1st Century Jew so things he might have said about science, history, etc might be wrong. As for moral/religious stuff, that is more difficult and first off I'm not sure. He spoke in a particular socio-historical context and that has to be taken into consideration (as doess everything in the Bible). Sorry, a bit vague.


Well, as I suspected, I'm asking you to clarify positions that aren't really yours anyway!

But if Jesus had doubts about his father's mission for him on earth, then he could have drawn the correct conclusion about it, or he could have drawn an incorrect conclusion. It seems to me anyone who is incapable of error would be sure of his conclusions, any doubt would represent an error in itself.

Reminds me of a saying a co-worker had years ago. He said:

"I only made one mistake in my life. Once I thought I was wrong."

[ImaginalDisc]

Just read a bit about the trinity - I should go and watch Ugly Betty as the Significant Other is calling.

Read whose explanation of the trinity? Ask any three Christians and you'll get four different opinions on the subject.


ETA:

Ok, I'll play your game, because I'm inclined to let you cop out with the mysteries of the trinity.

Assuming god and Jesus are "consubstantial" or what have you, then:

God, who was also Jesus, conspired to kill himself to force himself to forgive us for crimes he judged as sinful committed by Adam and Eve which he was strangely unable to simply forgive.

Now god's a bad father and a masochist. How is this an improvement?

P.S. They made an America version of Yo soy Betty, la fea? And you're watching it? Pity.

[Hokulele]

This all makes me wonder how the author of the book feels about polytheists (and I am not talking about the trinity here). Do they feel that people who are practicing Shinto or Hindu have serious family issues as well? Why do so many of these so-called psychological theories only look at the christian/atheist perspective? Belief and non-belief is really not that simple.

[Jekyll]

Please explain how your superior understanding of "the trinity" caused you to solve this dilemma.

Well the whole point of the trinity is that the three are one, so god did choose to forgive us by picking up the tab for our sins himself.

Quite why he's meant to have chosen to do it in such a dramatic manor is beyond me, but I imagine it must get quite dull being the supreme being.

[ImaginalDisc]

Well the whole point of the trinity is that the three are one, so god did choose to forgive us by picking up the tab for our sins himself.

Quite why he's meant to have chosen to do it in such a dramatic manor is beyond me, but I imagine it must get quite dull being the supreme being.

But if god has successfully killed himself to make himself forgive us for the sins of distant ancestors, he did a crappy job. Apparently, people risk going to Hell anyway.

[Jekyll]

But if god has successfully killed himself to make himself forgive us for the sins of distant ancestors, he did a crappy job. Apparently, people risk going to Hell anyway.

Well that's their own damned fault ;) .

[Mr Clingford]

Read whose explanation of the trinity? Ask any three Christians and you'll get four different opinions on the subject.Unfortunately some Christianities appear to take pride in lack of knowledge. Shame.

ETA:

Ok, I'll play your game, because I'm inclined to let you cop out with the mysteries of the trinity.My, how kind.

Assuming god and Jesus are "consubstantial" or what have you, then:The first and second parts of the trinity, right.

God, who was also Jesus, conspired to kill himself to force himself to forgive us for crimes he judged as sinful committed by Adam and Eve which he was strangely unable to simply forgive.No. No 'conspiring'. No forcing required. You don't understand. Some Christians do go for this Penal Substitionary atonement theory, but many, including me, do not because, as you also think, it makes God a bastard who somehow can't forgive anyway. There are other ideas of atonement which don't require God needing some sort of payment in order to forgive. I myself do not have a fixed idea as to why Jesus died. In non-Protestant Christianity there is more of an idea that the Son becoming the human Jesus was reconciliation of the divine and human, whether Jesus died or not.

Now god's a bad father and a masochist. How is this an improvement?Not at all. See above.

P.S. They made an America version of Yo soy Betty, la fea? And you're watching it? Pity.I'm really not sure why but I found Salma Hayak a much more attractive proposition than you; go figure.

[pgwenthold]

You folks have forgotten to mention that not only did God send himself to save us, he is saving us from a punishment that he implements.

It's kind of like a mafia don extorting money from one of his own mob to keep him from torching the neighborhood business.

"Because Guido has given me this payment, I will not have to burn down your laundry business."
"Oh thank you benevolent Godfather! You are so generous!"

This concept of God as "sacrificing his son to save us from the fires of hell" is nothing but a two-bit mob boss.

[Mr Clingford]

You folks have forgotten to mention that not only did God send himself to save us, he is saving us from a punishment that he implements.

It's kind of like a mafia don extorting money from one of his own mob to keep him from torching the neighborhood business.

"Because Guido has given me this payment, I will not have to burn down your laundry business."
"Oh thank you benevolent Godfather! You are so generous!"

This concept of God as "sacrificing his son to save us from the fires of hell" is nothing but a two-bit mob boss.Indeed. That's why I don't believe that either.

[Mr Clingford]

Well, as I suspected, I'm asking you to clarify positions that aren't really yours anyway!

But if Jesus had doubts about his father's mission for him on earth, then he could have drawn the correct conclusion about it, or he could have drawn an incorrect conclusion. It seems to me anyone who is incapable of error would be sure of his conclusions, any doubt would represent an error in itself.

Reminds me of a saying a co-worker had years ago. He said:

"I only made one mistake in my life. Once I thought I was wrong."I'll have to think about this further as it's time for bed. See you later.

[Lonewulf]

Modify three to include it limiting his power, meaning he is not omnipotent, and that's it.

Why would that make him not omnipotent, though? Wouldn't forgiveness mainly be about personal feelings over what he can do with reality?

I would say that it would call his omniscience into question, as he would know what we would have done before we did it... so he can't really be angry if he's deterministic.

[Beerina]

Please explain why it was necessary for an omnipotent god to have his only son brutally killed in order to forgive humanity for the sins of their distant ancestors.

Because God can do no wrong and will defend his position to the end (you know how men are). Hence only an infinite sacrifice could appease his infinite wrath, and thus "use up" the infinite punishment to be meted out.

Finally satisfied with punishing stuff, he can now not punish you without looking like he's backtracking on his ideas.

Logical!

Oh, wait. That reflects poorly on God, doesn't it?

[Lonewulf]

Oh, wait. That reflects poorly on God, doesn't it?

I don't think it's possible for it not to look bad on God.

[Glen.Nogami]

Then come the atheist case-studies:

1. David Hume's father died when he was two.
2. Arthur Schopenhauer's father committed suicide when Arthur was sixteen.
3. Ludwig Feuerbach's father left the family to live with another woman when Ludwig was just thirteen.
4. Sigmund Freud's father was a coward and sexual pervert who was a painful embarassment to the family.
5. Friedrich Nietzsche's father died when he was four.
6. Jean Paul Sartre's dad died before Jean Paul was two.
7. Albert Camus' dad died just before Albert was born.
8. Russell Baker's father died when Russell was five.
9. Madalyn Murray O'Hair tried to kill her father with a kitchen knife.
10. Albert Ellis' father abandoned the family early on.

Let me check something...
an·ec·dote -n

pl. an·ec·dotes or an·ec·do·ta (-dō'tə)

Nope, still not "data". Too bad. Maybe he was using "anecdota" and got mixed up.

[Lonewulf]

Well, my father beat my mother, so I guess that's +1 anecdote.

[Glen.Nogami]

Well, my father beat my mother, so I guess that's +1 anecdote.

Maybe once we break a certain number they turn into data. Let's re-check the dictionary once we've got like 30.

[Lonewulf]

Maybe once we break a certain number they turn into data. Let's re-check the dictionary once we've got like 30.

Though to be fair, I feel myself mentally balanced now, and I'm away from my father entirely; he has no influence on me.

Let me check... yeap, still an atheist. :D

Though to be fair, statistics relies on several anecdotes together. If you say that 10% of the population (which may be, say, 300 million people) do something, then you're relying on 30 million anecdotes. Just that I don't think that statistics of atheists would be a very good analysis of this particular claim.

[Glen.Nogami]

Though to be fair, I feel myself mentally balanced now, and I'm away from my father entirely; he has no influence on me.

Let me check... yeap, still an atheist. :D

Though to be fair, statistics relies on several anecdotes together. If you say that 10% of the population (which may be, say, 300 million people) do something, then you're relying on 30 million anecdotes. Just that I don't think that statistics of atheists would be a very good analysis of this particular claim.

The thing about that is unless you conduct a real scientific study and control for the influence of the father's relation, you aren't proving anything except coincidence. For all we know, atheism causes the father problems, or some outside factor causes both, or anything else, really.

This book doesn't appear to have any study of that sort at all, rather a bunch of empty sophistry that doesn't touch empiricism at all.

[Lonewulf]

This book doesn't appear to have any study of that sort at all, rather a bunch of empty sophistry that doesn't touch empiricism at all.

Most opinions that are spewed onto paper are like that, unfortunately...

[ImaginalDisc]

Why would that make him not omnipotent, though? Wouldn't forgiveness mainly be about personal feelings over what he can do with reality?

I would say that it would call his omniscience into question, as he would know what we would have done before we did it... so he can't really be angry if he's deterministic.

It makes his omnipotence subject to doubt only if you attempt to reconcile it with benevolence. Assuming Mr.Clingford's three-for-one thing applies, he forgave us in that spectcular way as a gimmick to convince us he was sincire, yet his crocodile tears act falls short of the expectations of a benevolent and omnipotent god. Kind of a lot of people reject Christianity despite the cute story. If he really were omnipotent, and benevolent both, he could have simply forgiven everyone without the soap opera.

[bruto]

I was amused to see that this thread has only one tag, at the bottom of the page, and it kind of says it all: "crap."

Some of us, you know, had fathers who helped teach us to think for ourselves. Of course by some standards such parents may not hold up well as "father figures," but that's just too bad. Actually much of my own lack of religious faith can be attributed to a couple of fine and upstanding Sunday school teachers I had, who encouraged us to think hard about what we believed and not just swallow it whole. Go figure.

I suppose, with regard to the trinity, if you can manage to accept the idea at all (good luck), you can manage to absolve God of cruelty to others in the case of Jesus, since the sacrifice and pain and all are in some way his own. Of course that in itself causes some problems if you actually try to think about it, so for economy of thought and response, I refer you to the above referenced tag.

[MondoAtheist]

I'm a fatherless Atheist. Also, Overman, once my ear infection+cold is done with (been over a week now) I'll be able to get that Cosmos things done for you. Haven't been able to go to the store since I got sick to get stamps. This is really pissing me off, sorry man. So don't think I forgot.

[bruto]

I also have to ask whether an "athiest" is really a such superlative specimen.

Mirror mirror on the wall, who's the athiest of all?