I misread and stand corrected. The substance of what I wrote doesn’t change.
The next part of your post is no better:
You are wrong.
Atheism being a rejection of religion rather than a replacement for it doesn’t mean that atheists don’t have a replacement for religion. It means that atheism isn’t that replacement. Something else might fill that niche - utilitarianism perhaps, or secular humanism, or the Wiccan rede, or hedonism.
I didn’t say atheists don’t have a replacement for religion, just like I didn’t say some-one not watching football didn’t have a replacement for watching football. Non-football-supporters can be parachutists or philatelists or card-players or sculptors, and sculpt, play poker, look at stamps or jump out of aeroplanes at weekends. Similarly, atheists can be humanists or ascetics or pacifists or libertarians.
If you think atheism is itself a worldview, rather than just a rejection of a set of worldviews, you have a lot to learn - and what you say on the subject will be worthless until you do.
I don’t think you ever were an atheist, for the simple reason that you don’t know what atheism is.
If Christianity matches reality, death is not the end for everybody, Christian and atheist.
If atheism matches reality, death is the end for everybody, atheist and Christian.
What some-one believes about life after death does not determine whether there is one.
What on earth gives you the ignorant grandiose audacity to think that I don’t realise? Grandiosity which I detect, ‘nitpick’, throughout your comments.
I thought you had an intellect? I thought you must have. But no. Just a slave intelligence to passion..
And the leap of faith is derived from Kierkegaard, half a century before James, in and first attributed to him in the 1854 Churchman’s Monthly Penny Magazine.
’ For Kierkegaard, the leap of faith is not merely a transition from no faith to some faith—it is a qualitative leap from one existential mode of being to another, and it can occur both from outside faith and within faith, depending on the stage of the individual.’ GPT
Either way, it is, in his word, absurd. I.e. there is no other basis for it.
I took the leap in to faith and fell out the other side after over 50 years. There’s no leaping back. Nothing to leap to to fill my hand.
Apart from with gratitude and kindness. Which I barely grasp obviously. The leap didn’t make the grasp better. Worse in fact. Not that I made any leap. I knew. Falsely. It was just as absurd.
Or I have to correct your own dogma and limited definitions. You aren’t the sole arbiter or authority on what constitutes an atheist. Do you also want to be consistent and make the case that theism is not a worldview either, just a mere belief in (G)god or (G)gods? I would reject that the same
In the real world where I live, atheism and theism both carry far more connotations than believing and lacking belief in a deity. Sure, there is some variety but also a lot of commanlity. I have always maintained that I associate atheism with a form of materialism on this website. To think that atheism (or theism) might not be the sum total of one’s complete worldview Is one thing, but to maintain they are not a huge part of how people conceive the world is just incorrect.
Christian theism: life after death.
Atheism: no life after death.
Christian theism: supernatural realm exists.
Atheism: no supernatural realm exists.
Christian theism: miracles occur
Atheism: miracles do not occur
Christian theism: Bible Bible Bible
Atheism: rationality rationality rationality
Christian theism: worships triune deity,
Atheism: worship at the alter of science.
In the end, atheists and Christians are both driven by their beliefs or lack thereof, in how they see the world. Quack like a duck, walk like a duck, look like a duck…it’s a duck. If you want to try to hide behind definitions, that is your business but don’t be surprised if others can still see you.
The way I see militant atheists arguing about the problem evil is as follows: Let us argue there is too much pain and suffering and the world sucks thus God doesn’t exist. Then let us in the same breath argue the atheist worldview is better or more consistent with the facts, would make the world a better place to live, and let us drone on about freedom from dogma and being conquistadors of truth. Blah blah blah. When you figure out the antidote to eternal nothingness and when you find something of substance to offer that little girl stuffed in a barrel, let me know.
Vinnie
Sorry? 2345
Sorry. Quote mixed up. Happens sometimes when you switch from phone to laptop or jump threads. That was meant for Roy and I am not sure how to edit it without deleting and reposting.
Atheists do not choose to believe that death is the end. It is simply what we believe the evidence indicates. If we are having a contest for who can come up with the nicest, most hope and happiness inspiring world view then Christianity wins hands down.
The truth isn’t always pretty.
Where there’s no eternity, no transcendent purpose, no enduring self — then every “existential gamble,” “philosophical wager,” “cause,” or “moral stand” is just a transient chemical preference within a temporary configuration of stardust.
In that frame:
-
“Wasting one’s life” has no objective meaning.
Stardust cannot “waste” time any more than a wave “wastes” itself crashing on the shore. -
“Preparing for eternity” and “living only for now” are equally valueless motions in a purposeless cosmos.
-
“Facing reality” isn’t courageous — it’s merely what certain neurons happen to fire toward before entropy dissolves them.
1 Like
I was right. You don’t know what atheism is.
1 Like
Do theists think the evidence indicates their faith and belief in the afterlife is real?
Sounds to me like spreading correct facts around (as you perceive them), regardless of whether or not they are good or bad for people and society, is your religion.
And I agree, the end result of a universe where atheism is true is ugly. Emptiness and nothingness are what await everyone and everything for all eternity. No justice, no reprieve, just a lot of unredressed wrongs with no one to worry about them.
So by your own admission, and based on your actions here, you are hell-bent on spreading ugliness in the world. Got it. I’ll stick with the Gospel.
Vinnie
Interesting question @jpm . I first wondered about this maybe 5 years ago and, within the framework of the “fullness of time” (Galatians 4:4), thought about combining it with some research on the historical rise of what scholars call “Big Gods” or “moralizing gods.”
The sociological context:
Recent research has explored why belief in moralizing supernatural beings emerged when and where it did. The first map shows where earliest evidence of different moralizing god traditions appeared geographically.
The second graph shows the rise of “Moralizing Supernatural Punishment and reward” (MSP) across different cultures over time (the x-axis shows years BCE/CE, with 0 being Christ’s era).
There’s scholarly debate about whether Big Gods preceded complex societies or emerged alongside them, but what’s clear is that by the first century CE, much of the ancient world had developed frameworks for understanding:
-
Deities who care about human morality (not just ritual)
-
Accountability beyond the tribe or city-state
-
Universal moral principles
-
Divine judgment and reward
Why this matters theologically:
This isn’t trying to reduce the Incarnation to sociology. It could suggest God sovereignly prepared human cultures through history for a message that could spread effectively across them. The gospel didn’t just happen to appear when these concepts existed—God was working through cultural development to create the conditions where Christ’s message about a universal, morally concerned God who judges justly and offers grace could be understood and transmitted across diverse societies.
Other convergent factors:
This is one lens among several. The first century also brought:
-
Political: Pax Romana enabling travel and communication
-
Linguistic: Koine Greek as a common language
-
Infrastructure: Roman roads and trade networks
-
Religious: Jewish messianic expectation and diaspora communities as launching points
-
Sociological: The frameworks described above
Each reveals something about divine providence working through—not against—historical processes.
The pattern we see elsewhere:
This parallels how we understand God’s creative action in nature—working through natural processes over deep time to bring about intended outcomes. Similarly, God worked through cultural and historical development to prepare humanity for the fullness of revelation in Christ. The timing wasn’t arbitrary; one could even say it was providential.
2 Likes
As a moderator, I feel you should know that we are not allowed to post things on topic here.
I think the extant sacrificial system at the time would play a role as well. I suppose that could fall under the religious rubric of messianic expectations. It would seem human sacrifice had largely waned and with domestication and agriculture being long-time practices, animal sacrifice was the norm. Jesus, our pascal lamb, is absolutely stepped in sacrificial language at every step of the tradition. I think this also ties into the looming destruction of the temple and ending of animal sacrifice as @jpm suggested. Of course, how Jesus and/or the Jewish rejection of him may or may not have played an actual role in that coming about is another matter. God plays the long game and is always working.
Vinnie
The bad news about atheism: this life is all you have.
The good news about atheism: no one is going to suffer for eternity in your god’s torture chamber.
I personally would give up eternity in heaven to prevent even one person being sent to eternal suffering in Hell.
1 Like
There is only heaven. Unfortunately, heaven is hell if you don’t want to be there.
1 Like
Jesus was incarnated when He was so that the world would have opportunity to hear the Gospel. Had he come earlier, the world would not have been united so the Gospel could spread. Alexander the Great and the Pax Romana made that possible. Had Christ come today, there would have not been opportunity for the church age and for the fullness of Christ’s inheritance, the full number of the elect that God is waiting for before He wraps up history and inaugurates the eternal state.
Daniel 9 is a good passage to examine for reasons for Christ’s coming when He did. While the 70th week of Daniel is controversial, one thing is clear: Messiah had to come before the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. Only one Messiah endured after His death, and that is Jesus. That’s why we can be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus is Who He claimed to be.
It’s also interesting that the vast majority of the world’s people have lived after the incarnation, which is a big step toward answering the question about what about those who have never heard the Gospel.
The issue I have as an atheist is the bad logic which in this case is an argument from consequences.
The truth may be an unfortunate reality. What the problem of suffering has led me to believe is that I live in a universe that is indifferent to our suffering. Any meaning or purpose we find in this world is up to us. Any alleviation of suffering is up to us.
And yet we can find plenty of meaning and purpose while we are alive.
Ouch, yes.
We call Abraham the father of faith. And he is an EXCELLENT example.
Why is he the father of faith?
Because he always had faith? No.
It is because he finally learned it in the end.
Yes the Bible is a long story of people without faith… but to be sure, it is also a story of learning faith. And that is kind of the whole point I was making. That long history was needed because they needed to learn faith. And it wasn’t a need for a rare person to learn faith, but the need for many people to learn faith.
Who was it that derailed this thread away from Jesus’s time of birth and onto atheism? Follow me as I backtrack upwards: