Isn't the problem with Atheism is that it is too esoteric?

Question

Don't get me wrong, you don't have to be a genius to figure out that it is possible that christianity could be a myth, its just that it takes too much effort to effectively sort through all the christian apologetical counter-arguments.

Basically it works like this: First you have the various arguments against christianity. Let's say for example, the issue of god having odd arbitrary OT laws. God created various laws concerning what was kosher too eat. God absolutely demanded that a man could not work on the sabbath. God acknowledged slavery (even making laws pertaining to the institution of slavery) yet didn't speak a word condemning it as "bad". He reinforced the view that women are lowly property (rapist must marry victim).

This is where christian apologetics come in. They certainly have answers for most every contention put forward by skeptics, it just that they are not "good" answers. And that, unfortunately is the “game” played by apologists: They don’t have to quell the skeptical objection, they just have to “say something.” As long as lay-christians think that the apologists have answers for atheists, all is well.
Now, to be fair, i don't think that most apologetical answers are "bad", its just that in their attempts to defend the truthfulness of Christianity, they most often leave an issue wildly contentious, yet have the balls to pretend that the issue is no longer a moot point.

Now, lets look at the apologetical answers for the contentious OT laws. Most all Christian theologians offer that the “diet laws” of the OT were to protect them from diseased food. To them, it only “seems” arbitrary because god didn’t explicitly give the jews the actual reason why they must follow these laws, but that can be explained by the primitive era in which the jews lived. They wouldn’t understand the relatively complex medical reasons why they couldn’t eat those things, so god didn’t bother spelling it out. Now, I can certainly empathize with this line of reasoning. On the surface, it has least some merit. But in the end, it really is just a stab in the dark. It really doesn’t nothing toward making the point any less justifiable. There are just too many things that leave this argument contentious.

I am going to skip the Sabbath argument because few Christians offer that it was justified that god commanded death for working on the Sabbath. I guess if there is anything to say about that subject, it would be just to take a second to personally thank Jesus for “paying the price for that one”. (LOL)
Kidding aside, lets take a look at the slavery contention. No ifs, ands, or buts about it, god “condoned” slavery when he was quite capable of “condemning” it. I really have less patience for the apologetics offered on this one. Basically it goes like this: Slavery was a cultural thing, as was concubinage, that god had no part of. And that’s about it. They say that it is not that god was “condoning” slavery when he made laws that pertain to slavery, it’s just that it was a cultural thing that was basically an immutable part of human behavior.

Now, I am going to skip the easy answer for that (Immutable? Isn’t god all powerful?) and take it from a different angle. The problem with saying that is that it never even closely answers a very important question. Couldn’t god at least give the condemnation of slavery at least a try? I mean, god demands death for homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, and all sorts of things less inhumane as taking all of someone’s rights away and making them your servant for life. As one Christian told me, it’s very similar to how smoking cigarettes are bad for us, and certainly the government makes laws that attempt to curtail and discourage it, but people will still smoke anyways. And then that same Christian told me that if anything, it was a testament to god’s grace that he didn’t punish them for doing it. Hmmmm….

And that’s how the cookie crumbles. Few apologetical answers have enough merit to be palatable for an objective mind.
For the most part they serve as a barrier system, keeping out skepticism by making the skeptic go through too many “hoops” to get to the settled issue, that few can even get that far. I mean, look at Pascal’s wager. Even after months of experience on the R/S section, many Christians don’t realize that it is just an application of game theory to religious exploration. Every day it is offered glibly by Christians that fail to realize that Blaise Pascal himself admitted that it was not a “good” reason to believe, but that it was at least a reason for people who have never even taken a slight attempt to take it seriously before, to at least take a minimal effort to do so.

If tons of Christians can’t even get past such superficial arguments, how could they ever get through all the other “loops” to understand that Christian theology is unsound?
Oh, wait, I forgot, it has nothing to do with “man’s understanding” anyways. It’s all about “spiritual discernment” that only god can give and I will never understand unless I stop seeking god on my own terms and truly approach god on a truly earnest and sincere level. Jeez.

If tons of Christians can’t even get past such superficial arguments, how could they ever get through all the other “loops” to understand that Christian theology is unsound?
Oh, wait, I forgot, it has nothing to do with “man’s understanding” anyways. It’s all about “spiritual discernment” that only god can give and I will never understand unless I stop seeking god on my own terms and truly approach god on a truly earnest and sincere level. Jeez.

Answer 1

Ancients summed up the whole of human wisdom in the maxim, know thyself. I believe there is for me no more important as there is no more difficult knowledge, than knowledge of myself and I express this knowledge of myself by building my model of self and world. Some negativists fail to see the importance of answering the grand enigmatic questions surrounding existence in a manner that produces the most powerful emotional responses of joy, faith and love imaginable. When confronted with their own mortality or the mortality of a loved one negativists may wind up feeling sad, depressed, anxious, frightened, angry, and or alienated, losing hope and faith, turning to drugs and behaving badly. I expect that having no answer to the grand enigmatic questions surrounding mystery of existence could lead negativist to a spiritual dead end. I expect that spiritual dead end would interfere with their need and aspiration to achieve and maintain good health and happiness.

Answer 2

Well, I'm not sure I'd consider it a problem. For one thing, there is a sort of self-selection process. Christianity uses the metaphor of a shepherd and sheep, doesn't it? Do you really want to consider yourself a sheep?

I think in a lot of cases atheists have not read the apologists, but have simply reasoned it out on their own, and recognize that any counter-argument would be based on the Bible. If you consider the Bible to be fiction, the whole thing falls down.

I was a philosophy major in college, and probably studied more about religion than most people who believe in it. But I was studying the logic and basic principles, not attempting to analyze what was too evidently myth. I never could get how someone can worship a God as vindictive and cruel as the one shown in the Old Testament, nor as contradictory and irrational as that described in the New Testament.

My mother was a Methodist Sunday school teacher, and she did her best, but it was no go.

Answer 3

I think you can bring these points to any religious break with what one was raised as. I'm an agnostic monotheist, but I agree with every point you've made here. It isn't easy to sort through it all and then decides what you believe and what is a bunch of hooey. It's much easier to say "here is something that is infallible. I will believe what it says and not worry about it."

However, I don't think everyone believes it just because it is easier. I think it just doesn't occur to many to question it. It's just always been accepted asa true, so it's anathema that it might not be. I remember the first time someone tolf me that she didn't believe the virgin birth... I was really taken aback, but ten I thought about it and, well, when I got right down to it, I didn't either and probably never had. I knew it didn't make sense and was a physical impossibility, but it hadn't reallt occurred to me to question it. (Hey - gimme a break - I was young!)

Answer 4

No.

I know you want a full blown discussion but the answer is a simple 'no'.
It's not too esoteric at all.
It's a very simple thing.
Is there evidence for a supreme being? No.
If that's too hard ... are innocent children abused and starved? Yes.
Do tsunamis disappear people and places for no apparent reason? Yes.
Do hurricanes destroy towns and kill people for no apparent reason? Yes.
If you answered 'yes' to the last three questions that's as deep as you need go.

After that you seem like you’re squirming in the gaps with their gods.

Seneca: Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

Epicurus: Either God wants to abolish evil, and cannot; or he can, but does not want to. If he wants to, but cannot, he is impotent. If he can, but does not want to, he is wicked. If God can abolish evil, and God really wants to do it, why is there evil in the world?

Stephen Roberts: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

The poets were not alone in sanctioning myths, for long before the poets the states and the lawmakers had sanctioned them as a useful expedient.... They needed to control the people by superstitious fears, and these cannot be aroused without myths and marvels.
— Strabo, (ca. B.C.E. 58 to C.E. 24), Greek geographer

There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dares not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.
— Bertrand Russell
.

Answer 5

No, the problem with atheism is that people like the idea of gods, it feels good to them, and belief in a god and god creation is easier than not being positive of one' s origin

Answer 6

good after school and taking all of those categories, there have been plenty of humans who received in combination and made up our minds what's God's phrase and the priest who wrote the phrases down. to me i could simply take the ten commandments and the sayings of Jesus(positioned them into what context you prefer) and pass off that. God made the legislation and they're programmed in our brains...we all know what's proper and improper and we all know slavery is improper, and whether it is healthful for you and now not going to kill ya then consume it. i feel there are plenty of dictating "christian" and different devout leaders who use a name to dictate translations of the Bible and what's the Truth. like being in opposition to Gay marriage...Jesus Never spoke in opposition to it and it isn't within the 10 commandemtns. Jesus additionally claimed that guys are same , and females are same to guys. there were plenty of documented evidence of a writer and lifestyles after demise even via scientist. so i feel that we will be able to feel what we desire to feel atheist or follower of christ and now not pass judgement on each and every different and are living via the loose will God gave us.

Answer 7

The Hovind technique when debating against evolution is to make simple statements that take longer than the audience's attention span to refute. Repeat ad nauseam.

The WotM style is similar, mostly because it's not focused on the skeptic, but rather the believer. I suspect they've already figured out who they're not going to get, but that's who they have to argue with, so it's again essentially for the benefit of the audience.

Answer 8

Yes, I think critical thinking skills should be taught in the schools and is even more important than the teaching of "facts" is. I think a few courses in stage and slight of hand magic would help too.
People are not taught how to deal with propaganda or deception and seem to be taught to accept authority telling them what to believe instead.
That might be good if you want a society of easily lead slaves but it is not healthy for a society based on a democracy of free people.

Answer 9

Unfortunately, many people are lacking the time, intelligence, or training (or a combination) to do rational thought to deal with these issues, and simply go along with what their parents believed. Considering the ill effects of religion on society, this is decidedly a bad thing. For details:

Answer 10

umm... you have made a tactical mistake by dividing world up into two camps( Atheists and christians. )

I am not christian, so it doesn't matter to me what atheists say about christianity. Hell! I don't care what they say about my faith anyways. Christians don't like us heathens much anyways. Atheism is just another faith, a faith that believes everyone else is an idiot (Such an endearingly Christian trait!), and my mind can deal with anyone deriding my beliefs cos they think they have a better idea.

And ateism is not esoteric, if you take it in a non-christian way. It is just a tribe of naysayers. As simple as that. Some people are pro choice, some are against abortions. some are against death penalty, some are for it. Atheists don't believe in God, theists do.

Answer 11

No, the problem is that atheism requires effort. It's HARDER.

Fear is endemic to the human condition. It can be dealt with in one of two ways. Education or denial. Education allays fear through illumination while religion allays fear through denial. Education always requires more effort than denial.

At present, certain aspects of life can not be explained rationally (death, origins, etc.) Many people can not tolerate "I don't know", or "I'm trying to find out" as answers because those answers do not alleviate their fears, hence we have denial via religions, which provide nice, tidy (albeit absurd) answers to everything.