-
Subscribe
4,500 subscribers. 10,000 daily views.
Recent Comments
Tyler!: Sooooo who exactly are they taking our country back from??? And i am in the process of moving so... Here’s Some Teabagger Music For You
NoYourGod: Yerp – nuthin’ saiz “patriotic” like “love it or leave... Here’s Some Teabagger Music For You
LawnBoy: Gee.. when exactly was this golden age of pureness in politics and the reign of common sense? Here’s Some Teabagger Music For You
Daniel Florien: So why aren’t you out in Montana with a bomb shelter, stocked food, and tons of ammunition? Why capitalism must fail.
nazani14: Things that can’t go on forever don’t. Following the record heat, the power outages in the D.C.... Why capitalism must fail.
Nelly: my apologies for using “duplicate” way too many times………..I really wish... Mitchell and Webb – Moon Landing
Ty: Please. A moon hoaxer talking about good science? “I personally do not believe that we can prove that... Mitchell and Webb – Moon Landing
-
130 Comments
If there IS a God, He HAS to know that many of his followers are absolute, f’ing imbeciles.
Well, no one ever said that having an IQ above room temperature was necessary to get into Heaven.
*lays his head down on his desk and sobs, with an occasional giggle now and then*
@alphonsuspeck
Just watching the Glenn Beck & James Dobson show over at Pharyngula and these two seem to fit your description.
Heh.
And this is exactly why atheists concentrate on creationists – at least with Biblical literalists, both ’sides’ know what’s being debated.
So many modern ‘Christian’ thinkers seem to believe in this vague, abstract god of the gaps that can’t actually do anything. No claims are made for this ‘God’, it doesn’t have any attributes, no influence. Why bother worshipping such a thing?
As so many scientists have said, the healthy thing to do when faced with a mystery or a puzzle or the unknown is to try to explain it. Even if we don’t come close, even if the answers are wrong, even if all we’re doing is exposing how little we know.
Surrendering to the mystery isn’t what the Bible asks Christians to do, if it was a god that gave us these brains, it wasn’t so that we don’t ask questions like (for example) ‘why do we have these large brains?’.
Instead we get some nonsense stuff using words in ways that aren’t allowable by the definitions of those words.
A simple question for Christians reading this: do you think God can hear your prayers?
That would seem to be the absolute most basic thing He could do. Not ‘does he answer them?’ or ‘will he reward me in the afterlife?’, just ‘can he hear them?’. You don’t have to explain the mechanism, but if you pray, does God, at some point, even indirectly, somehow hear at least some of them?
A slightly more complicated question: do you accept that saying God can hear prayers is a scientific claim? If not, why not?
“A simple question for Christians reading this: do you think God can hear your prayers?”
And nevermind that “God” already knows what you need/want/hope for.
If you want to know the nature of God, why are you exchanging emails with believers, and not going straight to the source and finding out for yourself?
Tips:
Be genuine. There is no point in researching the nature of God if your sole purpose is to create a straw man argument for further debates with Christians.
Be humble. God never reveals himself to the proud. Ever. If you have a smug attitude, you will never find the proof you are craving. And make no mistake, if you weren’t craving proof, you wouldn’t be getting into debates with Christians.
Be diligent. Study always reveals answers, and brings more questions to mind. It’s a never ending study, yet a very fulfilling journey if you are studying with the first 2 tips under your belt.
Pray. You don’t believe in God yet, so what’s it going to hurt? Pray humbly for God to reveal himself to you, and He will. Key word is humbly, there’s no hiding from God.
Lastly, realize that God has already revealed himself to you through general and natural revelation. There is more, but only for those who are so in love with their own “selves” that they take the plunge. I’m not here to have you agree with me, or like me, I’m tell you all this because it is true, and as another human being who knows that God loves you even if you deny he exists.
1 Cor 2:14 says “For the natural [unbelieving] man is not able to take in the things of the Spirit of God: for they seem foolish to him, and he is not able to have knowledge of them, because such knowledge comes only through the Spirit [of God].” Brackets mine to clarify for for surrounding scriptural context.
God isn’t going to furthur reveal himself and his truths to a puffed up, proud heart.
Here is a good place to start. It will take about 1 minute to read the first chapter in Romans, which pretty much sums it up. You’ll either use it as a place for further study, or you will find it repulsive, and therefore will reject it. I’m not trying to convince you of anything.
http://nasb.scripturetext.com/romans/1.htm
I pray for God’s blessing upon you and for your eyes to be opened if you look for God with a humble heart. If you won’t do that, your conscience may have already been seared.
I said above “There is more, but only for those who are so in love with their own “selves” that they take the plunge.”
I meant to say “are NOT so in love with their own selves”
Sorry, and thanks for reading my comments.
Proselytizing would be so cute if it wasn’t so insulting.
Do you really think you’ll convert us by insinuating we aren’t genuine, humble, and diligent?
Instead of being a godbot, perhaps you should work on your evangelism tactics to fairly intelligent skeptics. We’re not going to believe without evidence. If you have some, let us know. If not, then please don’t resort to emotional pleas.
WotW: Have you not noticed how many of the commenters here are ex-Christians? (back up a couple of posts for a looooong autobiographical thread) We did all the right things — but in one way or another, we all came to realize there is no there, there.
Daniel,
I’m not proselytzing. I personally have no problem with you or anyone else choosing whatever it is they’d like for their own life. No insult intended. Take Care.
Eamon,
Perhaps the reason you are an “ex-Christian” is because you thought you “could do all the right things”.
It seems you missed the entire point of what it means to follow Jesus Christ.
God bless (and I mean no offense by that).
@Wisdom of The World
“Be diligent. Study always reveals answers, and brings more questions to mind. It’s a never ending study, yet a very fulfilling journey if you are studying with the first 2 tips under your belt.”
… and if you lived in a country with a different main religion you would have magically chosen a another religion. Strange that isn’t it?
Now of course if you have evidence of a god that just so happens to be the god that your believe in the please feel free to share it with the group as I for one would be most interested.
@WotW: You’re not proselytizing? Maybe you don’t know what the definition is. Here it is from the dictionary:
At least have the honesty to admit what you were doing. Please don’t insult us further by saying you were not trying to convert us when it’s clear that’s exactly what you were doing. You’re using classic laymen evangelism techniques. We’re not stupid and many of us have done exactly what you are doing.
Speaking of humility, picking a user title like “Wisdom of the World” seems kinda smug to me.
The shameless arrogance and condescension that oozes from every pore of these types of people never ceases to amaze me.
Apparently, all of you “ex-Christians” were just bad at Christianity. You weren’t doing it right. (read: there is something wrong with YOU personally, some sort of character flaw that prevented you from interpreting Christianity in the *correct* way). Oh and by the way, God bless and I’ll pray for you!!!
*BAAAARRRRFFFF*
This is exactly why I find it extremely difficult not to go into raging homicidal fits when confronted with ignorant passive-aggressive douchebags like Wisdom of the World (even his name is condescending and meaningless).
Sorry if that’s too harsh, Daniel. I know you want us to try and be civil. But this kind of ridiculous godbot idiocy just drives me nuts.
Hi Daniel,
I am a Christian. If I were trying to proselytize, the definition of which I am well aware of, and then claimed not to be, then I would be lying to you which would be a sin.
I made my intention clear within the post itself. I said “I’m not trying to convince you of anything.”
As a Christian, I don’t have to “try to convert” anyone. I will take an oppotunity to share my beliefs as the opportunity presents itself, as you do. I was responding in context to the content of your blog posting. Are you trying to convert me to atheism by sharing your beliefs here on this blog? I don’t think you are, but if you are I don’t mind your attempt, it’s your right. Sharing my beliefs is one thing, but Christians do not have to shove anything down anyone’s throat because salvation and belief is not what we as human beings do but what the spirit of God accomplishes himself.
I can’t convert you, it’s scripturally impossible. Now, as a “former Christian” you should know that! Because you reject God, you can’t blame him, so you must blame me. If something about my post didn’t strike a cord, it would not have gotten such a defensive, unwelcome, and haughty response.
Well, I don’t hold it against you, take care. :)
@WotW: I can’t speak for Eamon, but my leaving Christianity had nothing to do with thinking I “could do all the right things” (as you put it… a statement that I’m not even sure I understand. Perhaps you could elaborate?)
I was honest about what we (humanity) can and cannot know about certain things. I became aware that faith, while required for a commitment to Christ, is still informed by one or several reasons that drive said faith. There are (hopefully) reasons you’re a Christian and not a Muslim or Jew, for example. I came to the conclusion that (so far) there are no good *reasons* to place ones faith with Christianity, or any of the other world religions.
‘If you want to know the nature of God, why are you exchanging emails with believers, and not going straight to the source’
I’d talk to God direct, but I don’t have his email address.
Which sounds ridiculous, but isn’t prayer basically just the same as leaving God a voicemail message?
Now you’ve said …
‘God never reveals himself to the proud. Ever.’
But … he used to do precisely that all the time in the Bible. That’s even before you count ‘Jesus’ as God.
And, more to the point, *why the hell doesn’t He?’. God values truth and reason – it says that in the Bible, too – but he’s set up the universe to resemble just about the only possible atheistic universe that could support human life.
You’re the one who’s backed himself into a corner, the one with the limited worldview. You believe that God reveals himself to a select group of people including you, and *we’re* the ones who are guilty of arrogance?
You believe in something that only you can see and you can only see if you truly believe? That’s not God, that’s Mr Snuffleupagus.
And, as people have pointed out, there are people on this board who used to believe. How do you account for that?
A general response….
For those of you who are curious about my user name, you are actually mistaken about it’s meaning.
1 Corinthians 1:20-21
“Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”
As you said, the wisdom of the world is condescending, and meaningless. ;)
Also, let me be very clear that I am not claiming that “you didn’t do christianity right”. My point is that works have NOTHING to do with what it means to follow Jesus Christ. Works are a result of genuine belief, but they do not save a person. Unbelievers also do good works, because they are made in the image of God just like believers. You might have a differnt opinion, and that doesn’t make me mad, or hate you.
Let me ask some rhetorical questions.
Why do you hate me so much? You don’t know me at all. I don’t know you at all. I don’t hate you. I imagine every person posting here is a person who loves their children, spouse, pets. Has concerns about their families livlihood in this economy, health, and kids’ futures.
Why do you hate me then? Because we have a difference of opinion? Or is it that you hate the One I follow?
I am on no pedestal. In fact, following Jesus has caused me to see my own self more clearly. I know I naturally have a sinful heart and I count myself amongst those who’s hearts when bared before god are going to need a Savior. All glory and honor goes to God for saving me from myself.
And, I’m not a man.
Thanks for the discourse, I have to go now to prepare dinner for the kiddos.
Take care all….
You know what I miss least about Christianity? The smug self-righteous know-it-all attitude combined with the inability to admit when you’re wrong. And then shrugging off the rejection as persecution and hatred.
Steve Jeffers said: “You believe that God reveals himself to a select group of people including you, and *we’re* the ones who are guilty of arrogance? ”
No, that’s not what I believe.
God reveals himself to all, as I have already stated above, but here’s the scripture reference.
Unbelief and Its Consequences
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:18-23
Dinnertime for real guys, I have to go, thank you again for discourse.
“Wisdom of the World” says:
“Because you reject God, you can’t blame him, so you must blame me.”
To “reject” something at least implies its existence. Most if not all former Christians don’t believe in “God”. So, in that sense, you are right—we can’t “blame him”. That would be…well, just silly.
If you feel “blamed” for something you haven’t done, then you know precisely how I felt for being blamed for something *I* didn’t do. Besides, I don’t even like apples.
@WotW: I don’t hate you at all… not even a little! :)
I’m just genuinely curious what specific *reasons* drive your faith… as to overcome the rather extraordinary claims/miracles found in the Bible (and nowhere else) which common sense might drive one to doubt initially. How do you *know* you’re faith is placed properly… or that the Bible is truly the inspired/literal word of God?
@WotW: We don’t hate you. I bet you’re a nice person. For all I know, we’ve attended church together.
What we hate is being talked down to. Being quoted scripture at. Told we weren’t sincere. Told we need to read the Bible more, when many of us have more memorized than most Christians do. Told that we have proud hearts. Told that you’ve got it all figured out and we’re left with “seared hearts.”
And then, to top it all off, you don’t admit you were preaching to us, hoping you might influence us in some way to forsake atheism and embrace Christianity. I think for me that’s the worst of it. To act like that wasn’t your purpose, and then to justify it with metaphysical “I can’t convert you, God has to convert you” mumbo-jumbo makes it even worse.
It’s insulting.
So we don’t hate you, and we don’t hate God. We don’t even believe in him. He doesn’t exist. I don’t hate God anymore than I hate pink unicorns.
I’m not even sure why I’m trying to explain this, because it’s very unlikely you’ll listen. But I don’t want you to misunderstand or twist what’s going on here into a persecution complex or a “atheists hate god” complex.
Most of us are friends with many Christians. We have intelligent conversations with them.
What we’re frustrated with is not your God or your person, but your method and attitude.
‘I will take an opportunity to share my beliefs’
Would you mind answering a few questions, then?
You’ve seen the cartoon that kicked off this thread. Is that the God you worship? If not, would you describe an attribute you think God has?
How confident are you that God exists and what would you accept as an argument or evidence that there might not be a God?
How would the universe look different if there wasn’t a God? Do you modify your behavior because you believe in God?
She’s simply taken a grain of truth and pushed it beyond its logical conclusion. If asked I’m sure she would admit she knows something of God, by what He has revealed to in His Word.
What’s bad is in trying to be godly, some people sound more like a Taoist……”the Way that can be named is not the way”…….
‘Why do you hate me so much?’
I don’t hate you. I think you’re wrong that God – in any meaningful Christian sense – exists. I don’t know you, I have no strong feelings one way or the other. The closest word, though, is probably ‘pity’.
We know roughly how the universe works, and the more we find out the less room there is for God. We know beyond any doubt, that the traditional Christian belief that God was involved in the sudden, special creation of mankind and furnished the universe so that we might live here is not just wrong, it’s *the exact opposite* of observed reality.
We know that there’s no correlation, at all, between religious belief or observance and life outcomes. Again, this is directly contrary to what all forms of Christianity teach.
By the way, according to your own holy book you are wrong. God blinded Saul — the dreaded Christian killer — and revealed himself to him. He certainly wasn’t humble! And God sent Jesus to a world that was supposedly so proud they crucified him.
@ Barry – What’s bad is in trying to be godly, some people sound more like a Taoist……”the Way that can be named is not the way”…….
LOL. This is true. Why is it people think it is so much more illuminative to talk around the subject, rather than speaking plainly? Maybe they think it sounds intellectual.
‘His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen’
OK … now, in a previous post I said that instead of proper argument ‘we get some nonsense stuff using words in ways that aren’t allowable by the definitions of those words.’
And that’s a prime example.
If I say 2+1=9, that’s not me being clever or amazing or revealing some divine truth that you all need to ponder for a moment, that’s me being *wrong*.
‘Invisible’ means we can’t see it.
It isn’t possible to for something ‘invisible’ to be ‘clearly seen’.
That’s simply what the word means. Words mean things and are important. In the beginning was the word. But what you’ve just described there is impossible – not amazing or miraculous or unknowable or transcendental – it’s something that is simply *not allowed* by the English language.
So, ‘invisible’ in that sentence either has a special meaning or that sentence is gibberish.
You understand what that sentence means, you think it’s important and valuable.
Explain what ‘invisible’ means in that sentence.
@WotW You’re the latest in a long line of Christian proselytizers to this site, who insult us with your smug arrogance, avoid our genuine questions, and then say we hate you and scuttle away because you’ve got a ‘real life’ to attend to.
We don’t hate you or even your god. Your god doesn’t exist and you live in a world of delusion trying to contort your life to a book that makes no sense about a being that is the figment of the collective imagination of a small tribe of desert dwellers.
What we do hate is the way your beliefs are forced upon us: the way people who share your beliefs demonise some people for their sexuality, or beat their children because god told them to, or rejoice in the idea of unbelievers suffering an eternity in hell etc (don’t believe me? read PZ Myers’ emails), or scare kids with threats of damnation, or prevent vital medical research etc. And even if you say you don’t ascribe to some of those things–you’re beliefs perpetuate the system.
And, personally, I hate the way all you godbots talk like you are intellectually challenged. Find God, sound like a dork. Let me kick the list off–does anyone want to add more?
‘The Lord has laid a burden upon my heart to witness in China.’ (I’ve had an idea for a good holiday. Now you’re going to pay for it.)
‘God has blessed my womb with a quiver full of arrows.’ (My husband keeps wanting to bang me, but he won’t use contraception)
‘I left your problem with the Lord.’ (Fucked if I know what to do about it)
‘Be ye not of the world, my daughter.’ (Don’t have fun as a teenager, all those boys are just after one thing–believe me I KNOW)
Oh, wait! I just remembered that Daniel has already done a fantastic job of that: http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/05/29/a-guide-to-christian-cliches-and-phrases/
WotW replis to me:
Perhaps the reason you are an “ex-Christian” is because you thought you “could do all the right things”.
It seems you missed the entire point of what it means to follow Jesus Christ.
Good grief. You post a whole comment telling us to do certain things (I refuse to split hairs about “be” vs. “do” vs. whatever other verb you care to use). I reply directly to that point — yes I did, many of us did all that stuff.
And you reply in a way that utterly, obtusely, and condescendingly, misses that rather simple point. And you miss it because you can’t bear to admit that there are “Real Christians” who come to reject the faith on good, reasoned, conscientious grounds; because that irresistibly suggests that the fault is not in us, it is in the message you preach: that it is false, that there is no One out there to respond to the prayers, the humility, the study, the whatever; that those who “experience” God — including us, and (most disturbingly!) including you are fooling themselves.
And that prospect terrifies you, doesn’t it?
@Atheist at 40: Hey, those are pretty good. I might add them to the list. :D
Boy, I was late to this party.
You guys rock.
WotW:
I have no idea who you are, so I don’t hate you.
But the attitude you display in your posts in repulsive to me. Mostly it’s repulsive because I used to do the same shit you’re doing now, and I remember how smugly arrogant I was about the whole thing, and it fills me with shame.
If you are not yet filled with shame, then you are repugnant. It’s possible to fix that.
Thanks Daniel, if I get time I’ll send some more. Better still, why don’t you get everyone to contribute their favorite bits of ‘crazy christian-speak’ and we can all annotate them. heh heh
My *fav* was when they used to tell me there were A+ christians and D- christians. So being a christian wasn’t enough, you had to strive to be an A+ christian.
Oh, I should also include “Put it on Jesus.”
I have a problem and I want some advice. You don’t have a friggin clue how to help me so you tell me to “put it on Jesus.”
What does “putting it on Jesus” involve?
For example, an angry teenager is struggling to make sense of his father’s alcoholism.
“Don’t worry, hon. Just put it on Jesus.”
>wotw wrote:
>It seems you missed the entire point of what it means to follow Jesus Christ.<
That might be true, if there was a Jesus Christ. It seems wotw missed another crucial point: there is no Jesus Christ.
It’s always disconcerting, on a blog site about atheism, to have someone lead off with:
"When Christ was walking on water…." or "Remember, it was Peter who said…"
It’s as if I went onto a Christian-themed blog site and announced my coming by writing, "As Bertrand Russell pointed out so cogently and correctly…"
‘A+ Christian’ This is actually a belittling descriptor used by a Christian with greater longevity to describe a newby Christian blindly following the proscriptions of the particular sect/denomination into which they have been indoctrinated, before they start to question some of its more bizarre tenets like virgin birth, resurrection and the non-consumption of shrimp (it’s a little like a teacher telling you you’re an A+ student—you’re doing well, but you’ll never know everything he or she does). Grades tend to fall as familiarity breeds contempt and reason begins to assert itself. A ‘D-‘ Christian lurks guiltily around ‘Unreasonable Faith’. ‘E’ Christians hang out at ‘Pharyngula’ and ‘Stuff God Hates’. [NB Not to be confused with the good ‘A’ for ‘Atheist’]
‘Put it on Jesus.’ Charitable commentators will tell you that this means to lay your burdens upon the Lord Jesus Christ and he will take them away. In fact, it is simply an exhortation to dissimulate, but badly punctuated. More correctly it should read: ‘Put it on! Jesus!’ which can be translated as ‘Pretend to have faith like I do! What the hell’s wrong with you!’ It is also a statement that has been heard by many a startled Christian parent who has blundered into their teenage son’s bedroom, only to discover that the poor lad has been learning to commune with Onan. The reference here tends to be towards clothing: ‘Put it on! Jesus!’ This last usage is bizarrely appropriate, as ‘Put it on Jesus’ is also, unfortunately, an anagram for ‘Penis juts out.’ Christianity’s hidden meaning are worse than anything you’ll find in ‘Hotel California.’ [NB 'Put it on! Jesus'—has also been heard to be muttered by an occasional abstinence pledger in the back seat of her boyfriend's chevy, while the randy young fool struggles to fit a condom using nothing but touch and the dim flicker of a halogen streetlight.]
One might also observe that if you are desperate enough to want to put your burdens on anyone, then you’d be better of putting them on Dr Phil (or Dr Melfi if you’re homicidal). You won’t get much return out of putting your burdens on an itinerant Nazarene carpenter’s son by another man/god/being, particularly as he’s been dust for close on two millenia (assuming he ever existed). But Dr Phil you can see and believe in, and if he opts to take up your burden you can be sure of at least five minutes of internationally syndicated humiliation, and perhaps a follow-up two-week contract advertising facial hair removal cream. So ‘Put it on Dr Phil!’ people. He may not have died and been resurrected, but any man that profits from going on Oprah must have something supernatural about him.
Atheist @ 40-
That was great!
@cello
“Speaking of humility, picking a user title like “Wisdom of the World” seems kinda smug to me.”
What it sounds a lot snappier, although much less truthful, than Ignorance of the World don’t you think?
Here’s how I see it – sorry for the long post but you know I started writing and I couldn’t stop…
I can’t be certain, because I’ve not spoken to everyone, but it does seem that most of us are persuaded that the finer details of the origin of humanity is largely inexplicable. That while scientists and creationists argue what seems to be clear is that we can’t be certain of why we’re here, how we got here or what we’re to do now we are here. Given that then our job is to muddle through and make the best of what we can.
What matters are relationships and emotional integrity – loving others, being true to ourselves and preserving the planet for future generations. While we’d be pushed to give specific reason for these things they’re just taken as read and that’s okay. What’s obvious from the fragments of information we have is that looking after yourself while not hurting others seems to work the best. So in the words of Google, do anything but ‘Don’t be evil’.
The end game of all this is as unclear as the origins. So there’s probably nothing post death because all the people who think there is are religious types or nut jobs – or, commonly, both at the same time!
This view of the world has obvious problems. It can’t account for, or really give any hope in suffering. Pain is random, ruthless and basically bad luck. No-one can deny that in the face of suffering people show great stoicism, deriving strength from the love of friends and family and clinging on to possible medical breakthroughs but the bottom line is hopelessness.
I guess though the big issue with our view of the world – which we’re kind of only finding out as we go along – is that it’s basically unsustainable. The planet, our communities and our families can’t cope with us looking out for ourselves first, it seems that without trying putting myself first hurts others. So credit crunches, global warming and community breakdown are all evidences of weaknesses in our view of the world. We just can’t recycle enough or carbon offset enough to account for our selfishness. Nor can we really understand why young people hang out in groups and cause a menace and stab each other when they fall out. Why do that when they could sit at home and shoot people on the Xbox 360 bought them for Christmas by a parent they hardly know?
What I’d like to suggest is that there is another way of looking at the world. Specifically the view taught by the Bible, because contrary to popular myth what the Bible offers is not a different lifestyle in the midst of the muddle, nor a blind faith that hopes for something better. Rather the Bible teaches us a new way to see our world and understand ourselves and after all in an uncertain universe I have no less reason to believe the Bible than anyone else.
So the story begins by telling us that we’re not here by accident but were made for and by our creator – the one who didn’t need to be made who was there in the beginning – not simple matter or a complex combination of chemicals but a personal God.
Accordingly sickness, suffering and wickedness are in our world not by chance or bad luck but because we live in a world where the creatures have mutinied against the creator. So to show us the error of our ways and to point us back to himself God has handed the world over to us, and frankly, taking a look around me, we all know we screw it up.
However the stories continues by telling me that God hasn’t left us on our own to work all this out nor has he removed hope that our present situation can be resolved. Rather in an act of extreme kindness God took on a body, became a man and lived with us. So that what we can know about God is not the result of conjecture or wishful thinking but a matter of revelation as this God man offers to rescue us from our darkness and restore our relationship with the one who didn’t need to be made.
There is however an obvious flaw with all this. The simple fact is that to take on this view of the world I have to accept that I’m a creature and that the greatest good is not to live for myself but is to to live for God. Basically if this view is right I owe God more than an apology rather I owe him my life, I belong to him like a creature belongs to the one who made it.
Really though that’s not as easy as it sounds. Evidence suggests that I quite like pretending to be in charge. In fact so strong is my impulse to mutiny that I construct a view of the world which supports it. More than that even faced with God in a body, well I’d take my chance and kill him, just like those people did I the first century thinking it to be the end of the matter.
Good thing is that God knew we hated him that much and uses our murderous wickedness as the means of providing forgiveness for anyone who’d turn back to him.
So according to the Bible’s view of things there are two ways to live my life, and it’s not religiously or irreligiously or morally vs immorally neither of those things go far enough. Rather the choice is mutiny or submission.
Isn’t it funny how when we ask for evidence of God, we’re told that
a) we can’t find physical proof
b) knowing God isn’t supposed to be easy (response – he actually makes it impossible)
c) if you’re wanting facts and evidence he won’t be revealed – you’ve got to open your heart
And essentially to be able to know God, the steps are this:
a) pray
b) accept his existence
c) accept Jesus’ divinity and the virgin birth
d) enter into a relationship with Jesus
So basically, in order to know God, you’ve got to believe first. That’s the point of faith. It is also what is called self-delusion.
To know, you must first believe.
Excuse me?! This is a feedback loop – when you believe in something before having evidence, you will get confirmation bias, framing problems (seeing the world using false assumptions), outcome bias, ostrich effect, and so on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases.
Believing in someone without evidence of their existence – especially a supposed supernatural, invisible, mind-reading one – leads to invisible friend syndrome. Self-delusion. It’s not a logical trap but a human one.
Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to…
a. Believe that the amazing world around me is a function simply of chance x time.
b. That the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is fabricated and unreliable. (http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/advanced/explaining-away-jesus-resurrection-the-recent-revival-of-hallucination-theories.htm)
c. That my feelings of affection for my wife and children are nothing but the groans of my genes wanting to be passed on.
d. That despite the fact we think, behave and build differently we’re nothing more than advanced animals.
e. Accept that the logical consequences of my world view are anarchy and evil but hope against hope that we don’t end up there.
I guess atheist or Christian you’ve got to accept that either way it’s a faith decision. I think the point of this is to argue whether it’s reasonable faith or not.
So if atheism is a reasonable faith then you also need to provide some answers.
Steve
Valid point. However…
So is all religion and spirituality just stupid? Millenia of sheer stupidity and airheads staffing the divinity schools at, say, Harvard, Princeton, Chicago?
Seems like you’d need a better theory of religion than “A bunch of people are stupid.”
That’s about as realistic as the notion that atheists are immoral.
@Steve P
Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to…
a. Believe that the amazing world around me is a function simply of chance x time.
No, to be an atheist you just have to withhold believe in any gods due to there being neither evidence nor reason.
It’s not that difficult to actually understand is it? So why do some religious people consistently get this so completely wrong?
It also helps to realise that when trying to answer questions about ‘the amazing world around me’ postulating the existence of an un-evidenced entity to which you can grant immunity from questions which can be asked of that which is evident does not help the situation, it actually makes it more difficult as you have one extra unknown to explain.
Surely
“withhold believe (sic) in any gods due to there being neither evidence nor reason”
necessarily equals
“Believe that the amazing world around me is a function simply of chance x time”
Regardless of any suggestion as to which is the more likely this first statement has to imply the second.
‘Millenia of sheer stupidity’?
No.
And no one’s saying that. One of the problems with discussing ‘religion’, particularly when the whole of human history gets invoked, is that it’s far too easy to generalise.
You’re talking about the intellectuals and scientists who were religious, and that’s a very specific group of people. Some very, very smart people believed in God throughout history, and one of the reasons they believed was that they thought God was the best scientific explanation for things like the creation of the universe and how man arrived on the planet.
But the thing is … the more those scientists looked, the fewer gods they saw. By the time of American independence, scientists like Franklin had basically boiled God down to ‘the prime mover’, because logically there needed to be a ‘prime mover’. We now know we don’t *need* a prime mover.
Very smart people – much smarter than anyone here – believed a lot of things that everyone here now knows aren’t true. That’s the *point* of science. It’s a system for assessing rival claims in light of evidence, and for recording all those various claims, and it’s a force for progress.
@Steve P
You either forgot to read, ignored or completely mis-understood the final paragraph of my post.
@ Steve P
“e. Accept that the logical consequences of my world view are anarchy and evil but hope against hope that we don’t end up there.”
First, I’ll give you props for your first post. Definitely more interesting and original than 99% of conversion posts, if a bit long. I take issue with your comment e though. To call the world inherently evil is straight-up *Christian* theology.
I would say (and this is JMO) that a secular worldview says there are physical and natural laws of cause and effect. This is decidedly not anarchy. If you don’t want to get fat, layoff the cheesecake. If you want to live in a prosperous society, you need a rule of law. It isn’t beneficial for us as individuals to live with mayhem and most non-believers recognize that. You set up a false choice that order and goodness only come with religious belief. Stop thinking only in dualities. There is more than one way to look at the world.
@ Steve Jeffers
Are we in danger of a bit of chronological snobbery?
Essentially “If they lived when I live they would have thought like I think.”
But if that was true we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
‘Regardless of any suggestion as to which is the more likely this first statement has to imply the second.’
No.
This is a misuse of the word ‘chance’. You’re offering a false
choice between ‘completely random’ and ‘consciously guided’.
Traffic, for example, isn’t consciously guided. There’s a set of rules, which people more or less follow. But each car and truck is an individual reacting to individual events. No one entity is ‘guiding’ traffic in a godlike, unified way. Nor is it completely random. Yet we get where we’re going.
@ cello
Thanks, perhaps point e. was a bit too simplistic and I agree the first post was too long!
It’s a whole other debate about ethics and atheism and may be one for another time.
@ Steve Jeffers
Thanks for that point. Not thought about it like that.
So if I understand you what you’re saying is that we ‘intended’ to evolve in the same way I intend to drive my car to my house?
Is there evidence that human ancestors had an end game in mind. Because if they didn’t doesn’t that rob the traffic illustration – which I like! – of meaning?
‘Are we in danger of a bit of chronological snobbery?’
No.
If Leonardo lived today, he would not hold, unaltered, a set of fifteenth century beliefs.
Because of centuries of people like Leonardo, we know more now than we did then. We understand how the world works.
Instead of ’science’ think of ‘medicine’. Do you seriously think that it’s ‘chronological snobbery’ to say that medical knowledge now is more extensive and accurate now than it was in Leonardo’s day, or Newton’s, or Darwin’s, or even Einstein’s?
In some fields of science, the progress has gone far further and faster than medicine. It’s not ’snobbery’ to say that I know more about DNA or Pluto or viruses than Leonardo.
‘So if I understand you what you’re saying is that we ‘intended’ to evolve in the same way I intend to drive my car to my house?
Is there evidence that human ancestors had an end game in mind. Because if they didn’t doesn’t that rob the traffic illustration – which I like! – of meaning?’
No … this is a very, very common misconception about evolution (partially because it’s what scientists centuries ago used to think and it ‘feels right’). As it’s a common misconception, there are loads of books that will be able to offer a better explanation than I will.
There’s no ‘endpoint’ to evolution. If the world gets colder, then over generations mammals will get furrier. If it gets hotter, they’ll get balder. We know that because that’s what happens locally.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_finches
The point is that the birds don’t ‘know’ what they are doing there. The ones best suited to survive survive and pass on their traits to their children, and so on and so on and so on.
@ Steve Jeffers
I agree about your examples but can you really apply the same to morality, nature of belief, love, family, sexuality, culture etc.
I think it’s reductionist to think that you can put the whole world in the test tube.
@ Steve Jeffers
So if they don’t know the end point – and in fact there isn’t one. Then evolution is only ever reactionary to a set of randomly changing stimuli (temperature, habitat etc) and therefore ultimately directionless.
Which means the place we’ve ended up is pretty close to being chance x time.
Which was my point.
So if atheism is a reasonable faith then you also need to provide some answers.
It isn’t.
A faith, I mean. Atheism is actually the exact opposite of faith. I realize you may be having trouble with that concept – a lot of Christians do. But if you open your heart to logic, and kneel down and think really hard and keep your mind humble, you too can understand this very simple and revolutionary idea.
‘I agree about your examples but can you really apply the same to morality, nature of belief, love, family, sexuality, culture etc.’
Well … that’s the million dollar question, isn’t it?
The twentieth century was full of people who said ‘yes’, and very clearly psychology, psychiatry, sociology and so on can help come up with models of how societies and individuals work.
That’s clearly all a work in progress, though.
The problem with the ‘there are things science is not meant to know’ argument is that … well, it used to be applied to all sorts of things science now knows really well.
The weather, for example – we used to think it happened at the whim of a thunder god, then that it was an unchanging natural cycle. It’s clearly an immensely complicated system, but even in the last generation we’ve come up with better ways of measuring it and computers that can model it.
@ Steve P
[i]I agree about your examples but can you really apply the same to morality, nature of belief, love, family, sexuality, culture etc.
I think it’s reductionist to think that you can put the whole world in the test tube.[/i]
Well I don’t know what putting the whole world in a test tube means but to your first point, to the extent to our talking about our inner emotional life, that could be true. I think there is science on chemicals and emotions but I don’t know enough about it and don’t know that anyone has drawn any conclusions from it But to the extent you are talking about physical expressions of those emotions, I disagree with you. Does anyone stone their kids for disobedience or whatever it is the Bible says to due in the OT? I’m sure parents still get mad at their kids and maybe that emotion is the same through time but how we act on those emotions changes. Do we generally look favorably on sleeping with your father like Lot’s daughters’ did? The Bible is rife with situational ethics. And sometimes ethics do change based on new information or a new understanding of how the world works.
@ cello
Loving the examples!!
Not sure stoning your kids is really a Bible image! And Lot’s daughters are hardly commended for getting their Dad hammered and using his equipment to get pregnant!
I do agree OT ethics are interesting, but what I would say is that the OT is written not primarily to give examples to follow but rather to tell the story of God’s plan for the world as per my rather too long post.
Now this has all been very interesting but I must get on with some work and I feel I might have over-posted on this particular thread!
Thanks for your comments I will keep reading.
‘Which means the place we’ve ended up is pretty close to being chance x time.’
It depends what you mean by ‘chance’. It’s not loads of random, unconnected events.
It’s not *consciously directed*, either by the participants or some outside entity.
Another example. Imagine a big box of Lego pieces. Imagine that there are some magnetic pieces in there that stick together, and that they’re in a box which rattles around.
Eventually, you’ll end up with all the magnetic pieces stuck together in a big ball.
It’s *possible* to imagine a hand coming in and sticking them together. It’s even possible (less possible, but bear with me) to imagine that all those piece ‘want’ to be together and are consciously doing that.
But it’s not necessary. All that’s necessary is that there are a couple of conditions in place – they can stick together there’s a way of swirling them around.
Pretty quickly, it looks exactly the same as if someone had stuck them together or as if they *really wanted* to be stuck together. There’s no ‘random element’ to this, it’s just rules being followed.
Not sure stoning your kids is really a Bible image!
Actually, I’m pretty sure that’s what Leviticus tells parents to do with a child who gives them the smart mouth.
Steve P, thanks for your comments – a couple have already been dealt with and I don’t need to repeat.
“b. That the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is fabricated and unreliable. (http://www.bethinking.org/resurrection-miracles/advanced/explaining-away-jesus-resurrection-the-recent-revival-of-hallucination-theories.htm)”
There is little apart from the NT itself to back up the resurrection story.
c. That my feelings of affection for my wife and children are nothing but the groans of my genes wanting to be passed on.
No, proximate vs ultimate cause confusion there – your affection for your wife/children is real, and not connected to your/your genes desire to procreate (they have no ‘desire’). Your genes contain the instructions for the ability to love as this helped your ancestors to procreate better.
“d. That despite the fact we think, behave and build differently we’re nothing more than advanced animals.”
Do we think, behave and build differently? If you think so, then I can accuse you of being a bigot. Ants, termites, beavers, bees, spiders and many other creatures build fantastically complex structures with compartmentalisation, thermal regulation, structural integrity features, foundations and so on. We think incredibly similarly to chimpanzees, bonobos and gorillas as well as mice, dogs, cats in many areas. We behave exactly as we should for animals – instinctively, emotionally, thoughtfully, socially, intelligently. We are animals. I’m sorry, but you’ll just have to accept it – that’s what you do with the truth.
“e. Accept that the logical consequences of my world view are anarchy and evil but hope against hope that we don’t end up there.”
Yawn. A million conversations have already refuted the ‘can’t be good without God’ argument. Please get a new stuck record.
“I guess atheist or Christian you’ve got to accept that either way it’s a faith decision. I think the point of this is to argue whether it’s reasonable faith or not.
So if atheism is a reasonable faith then you also need to provide some answers.”
Atheism means not to believe in God or Gods. There are hundreds and thousands of alternatives to your god, why do you reject all the others? No – every child is born atheist and then acquires religion absorbed from culture. Atheism is the logical default state, and anything that is, as Hitchens says, “asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”.
Thank you.
Nicely done, BarelyEvolved, nicely done. Perhaps you’re more evolved that you think. ;)
Every single theistic argument boils down to arguing from incredulity, seasoned with Pascal’s (thoroughly debunked) wager.
It’s amazing to me how many words a proselytizer will add to the recipe to hide the taste of those two arguments, but they are always the main ingredients.
And they wonder why we yawn and roll our eyes.
@ BarelyEvolved
Lots of things I could pick up on. Here are a couple of things…
“There is little apart from the NT itself to back up the resurrection story.”
This is a meaningless argument really. After all in it you concede that there are other historical documents that mention the resurrection – which is true, and that it is most talked about by Jesus’ followers does not make it untrue – or true, rather it’s kind of what you expect – like saying most holocaust witnesses are Jews!
Finally
“every child is born atheist and then acquires religion absorbed from culture.”
I find this incredible and wonder if we live on the same planet! It seems to me both historically and globally that everyone is a ‘worshipper’ even you guys (but I no you don’t like that idea).
One quick thought @ Ty
If the world is such a simple one and you’ve got it all boxed off then why bother commenting. If however even the great minds in our world disagree then we all might have a few things to learn from each other.
‘I guess atheist or Christian you’ve got to accept that either way it’s a faith decision.’
No, I don’t have to accept that at all.
There will always be small print and sophistry that means that there’s a linguistic quirk that might allow a god to exist. Particularly when – as the cartoon that kicked off this thread demonstrated – the best definition of God nowadays is ‘well, God’s this thing I can’t describe’.
That’s what Christianity has been reduced to. A couple of centuries ago, it was the best explanation for how the universe worked. Now it doesn’t even *pretend* that’s what it is.
A modern Christian has to take a faith position. There is no evidence for gods, and worse than that modern Christians spend their whole time agonizing about why the universe acts like there isn’t a god.
For an atheist, there are absolutely no theological mysteries. Why doesn’t God save the innocent children hit by a tsunami? For the exact same reason *Superman* doesn’t.
It would be lovely if there was Superman. There isn’t. Even though I’ve seen pictures and movie footage of him, I know there’s no Superman. That’s not a ‘faith-based decision’ I’ve made in saying that. Or do you think it is?
I trust the scientific, atheist model of how the universe works for a number of reasons. Chief among those is that it accurately predicts what we see. A close second is that science is not dogmatic – as we learn more, the models change and improve. Some Christians see that as weakness. They are wrong to, simple as that. Many Christians see science as a ‘belief system’ – but it’s only as ‘faith based’ as believing that water is wet or that heavy things will fall to the ground.
Steve P: “Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to…”
False dilemma.
To be an “Atheist” is to not harbor a belief in “God”/gods. The words “have to”, above, implies “necessitates”, and has no place in the definition of “Atheist”.
For instance, the charge is that, in order to be an Atheist, I “have to”….
“a. Believe that the *amazing world around me is a function simply of chance x time.”
False. I can lack a belief in “God”/gods – including a creator-deity – and simply concede that, as far as “absolute certainty” goes, “I don’t know(or care)” how this “amazing world around me” got here.
The statement “I don’t know”(as in, absolutely) is completely honest. Conversely, the words “God did it!” is not honest, because, a) there’s no objective evidence that a deity “created” the Universe, and b) even if there was such evidence, the Theist still has no explanation in the end, because they don’t know *how* “God did it!”. They are essentially attempting to answer a great unknown with another unknown.
*BTW, the word “amazing” is completely subjective. The world probably doesn’t seem so “amazing” for those who are born where there isn’t sufficient amounts of the bare necessities..i.e..food, water, sheltor.
Steve P: “Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to[believe]….
b. That the historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is fabricated and unreliable. ”
Again, when you say “have to”, I hope you don’t mean as in “no choice”. I’ve decided, of my own free will, to not believe the “historicity” of the Bible as fact, that is, if that historicity includes claims of the supernatural. I decided this, for the same reasons that I decided not to believe the supernatural claims in the Book of Mormon and the Holy Qu’ran. The Christian, on the other hand, must compartmentalize when it comes to the latter two religious documents.(the Book of Mormon even has the actual signatures of the “eyewitnesses”)
Steve P: “Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to[believe]….
c. That my feelings of affection for my wife and children are nothing but the groans of my genes wanting to be passed on.”
Fallacy of composition. You are essentially implying that something is true of the whole, from the fact that it is true of part of the whole. Example: Hydrogen isn’t water. Oxygen isn’t water. Therefore, H2O isn’t “wet”.
Steve P: “Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to[believe]….
d. That despite the fact we think, behave and build differently we’re nothing more than advanced animals.”
Yet, despite the fact that we can do all those things, I presume that you believe that we are “nothing more than” wreched, untrustworthy, “sinful” humanoids—beings made out of dirt, no less. Is that a fair assessment?
Steve P: “Or to put it the other way round to be an atheist I have to……
e. Accept that the logical consequences of my world view are anarchy and evil but hope against hope that we don’t end up there.”
Firstly, “evil” is a Christian concept. Now, if you want to talk “ethics”, it seems that the societies who extol “ethics” are not those who extol “God”, but those who extol things like education and freedom of belief(including freedom to not believe something)
Steve P: “I guess atheist or Christian you’ve got to accept that either way it’s a faith decision. I think the point of this is to argue whether it’s reasonable faith or not.”
I disagree with your conclusion. “Atheism”, again, is lack of belief in “God”/gods. Non-belief is default; it doesn’t require “faith”. And hopefully, as I’ve shown, you can now see that being an “Atheist” doesn’t necessitate, by association, all of the things that you have suggested it necessitates.
Good day.
‘It seems to me both historically and globally that everyone is a ‘worshipper’ ‘
Then you’re really, really going to have to define ‘worshipper’ for us.
A genuine and sincere request for you to do that, because I think this is a real stumbling block when religious people discuss atheists. A lot of religious people seem to think that atheists are just ‘differently religious’ – the wackier end of creationism seems to genuinely think we swear oaths on The Selfish Gene and lay offerings under statues of Darwin.
Here’s the analogy I use (I’m going to assume you’re American). Which cricket team do you support? What, you don’t follow cricket? Right, well, I’ll put you down as a supporter of India, then, they’ve got the most supporters. What? You don’t watch cricket at all? You support *no team*? You sit around all day watching no cricket, when you’re in the practice nets you don’t use a bat or a ball? When you play cricket do you just sit there or eat the stumps or bowl with the bat and bat with the ball, because if you don’t respect the laws of cricket what’s to stop you doing that? They’ve played cricket for hundreds of years. Darwin and Shakespeare played cricket. You know who didn’t play cricket? Hitler. So you’re like Hitler. And why do you call yourself an ‘acricketer’ anyway? Can’t you see that even your name makes no sense? Cricket’s a great game, and everyone secretly is a ‘cricketer’.
On a different note have any of you seen this
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article5400568.ece?Submitted=true
what did you make of it?
@ Steve Jeffers
Thanks for your comments – will post a reply to the worshipper definition just as soon as I have got these kids of mine to bed.
The analogy breaks in that I’m an English cricket fan! Now I’m trying to work out if I’m more worried about being considered a loopy Christian who’s lost their brain or an American!
Will post back soon!
‘as far as “absolute certainty” goes, “I don’t know” ‘
The other thing to note is that this is a really, really rubbish argument for God. It’s one step up from ‘I smell, but you smell, too’.
‘what did you make of it?’
I make of it that a lot of Africa’s current problems are directly caused by lots of nineteenth century Christians believing in the White Man’s Burden.
It is possible to educate and provide medical care to people without also providing religion. The Red Cross (despite the name) and WHO are both secular organizations.
I’m all for people helping each other. I’m all for the last six commandments.
I’m also pragmatic – if donations from US churches build African schools, good for those churches. But it’s the money, not the prayers that have the effect. One atheist donating one pint of blood does more good than a billion Christians saying their prayers.
But I think it’s immensely patronizing and probably very dangerous to say that religion’s OK for the poor, stupid and primitive people if it keeps them happy.
Okay worshipper.
I would say that everyone is a worshipper in that everyone has the inbuilt desire to give adoration and respect to something/someone.
I would say that even the atheist ‘worships’. Sometimes themselves, sometimes science – of which for example you Steve Jeffers have a much higher view than I do.
Now I know you don’t agree with me – I can hear some gaskets blowing from here – but let me just run through my argument so you know where I’m coming from…
Basically if God is the creator of the universe who sustains it and who created us to be in relationship with him – then it follows that he made us with an inbuilt worship function. We might repress it or worship in the wrong direction but we will worship. It has to follow from my view of the world.
So I look at the world and the number of religions and the nagging feeling in lots of atheists hearts and it’s exactly what I’d expect to find.
I’m not saying that’s an argument for the truth of Christianity rather just trying to show how my view of the world works out.
You see the bottom line is I disagree with the reasons you think I’m a Christian. It’s not because of the gaps in the science it’s rather that I think it’s a more convincing story of what we see, experience and live.
I know I’m not going to persuade you to agree with me – but I at least hope you understand better where I’m coming from.
Thanks
@Steve P
Basically if dogs only have three legs – then it follows that they can’t run very fast. I’m really sorry but starting with the if god exists is really poor.
“You see the bottom line is I disagree with the reasons you think I’m a Christian. It’s not because of the gaps in the science it’s rather that I think it’s a more convincing story of what we see, experience and live.”
Well please post why you think that it’s more convincing. If you just want to say because I have faith but there is no logically or resonable position for this then just say so.
@ Steve P – Regarding Christians in Africa.
Yeah, I saw that article when it came out. The author thinks that native African tribal traditions and superstitions encourage status quo while the elevation of the importance to the individual (relative to the tribe) found in Protestant Christianity encourages change – which is necessary for the economic advancement of Africa. Now,
1) Do I find this offensive? No. I am all for the elevation of the individual versus tribal tradition. But then I’m an American and that’s part of my cultural DNA.
2) A change in thinking will encourage a change in behavior. This is true for anything.
2) IMO, different belief systems are suited to different environments. In hunter/gather societies, tribal structures are important for survival. You all eat together or you all die together. Individual thought better suits technological societies.
I would point out that the author (an atheist) obviously has a sense of taking care of his fellow humans. Putting to rest the atheists only want to care about themselves canard. As well putting to rest the all atheists hate Christians canard. :-)
@ steve p
“I would say that even the atheist ‘worships’. Sometimes themselves, sometimes science – of which for example you Steve Jeffers have a much higher view than I do.”
mark bey: How would you know this, can you provide any evidence supporting such a statement? Show me were in anyones statement on this thread, you get the impression of atheist worshiping themselves. Otherwise you are just rambling.
“Basically if God is the creator of the universe who sustains it and who created us to be in relationship with him – then it follows that he made us with an inbuilt worship function. We might repress it or worship in the wrong direction but we will worship. It has to follow from my view of the world.”
Mark: You have provided zero proof for your god being the creator of the universe or the one who sustains it. I could make a statement that says the same thing except exchanges god for ” invisible pink unicorn” . For example basically it is the invisible pink unicorn that sustains us and the universe, but that wouldnt make it so, you are making claims that you wont even provide an argument for? Sigh!
As far as worshiping in the wrong direction goes, dosent your god who allows thousands of different religions to exist in the first place have something to do with that.
Exactly why would your god allow lies (all non christian religions ) to exist if he wants everyone to know him through christianity? Why would your loving god allow lies to exist that if believed will result in people going to heaven? That dosent make any rational sense to me.
“You see the bottom line is I disagree with the reasons you think I’m a Christian. It’s not because of the gaps in the science it’s rather that I think it’s a more convincing story of what we see, experience and live.”
mark: Oh is that so, so do you find the story of genesis and god creating the earth in 6 days convincing, do you find talking snakes convincing, what about the two different creation stories are both of them convincing and are both of them convincing at the same time?
The problem I have with your argument is this, all religions can make similar claims, all religions can claim that the world was created by their own special god who will only allow folks who think like them into his unique version of heaven.
@ Steve P I would say that even the atheist ‘worships’. Sometimes themselves, sometimes science – of which for example you Steve Jeffers have a much higher view than I do.
(Sorry if you have too many people coming at you, I know that that can be annoying.)
I don’t really think I’ve seen anyone worship science but…..for the sake of argument…..the advance, or worship, if you must, of science has produced great results. (end of polio, electricity, increased life expectancy, etc.) Better results than worshipping any god that I’ve seen.
Skepticism rocks.
Steve P, imagine a child abandoned on a desert island at a young age. Imagine this child learned to survive and grew up. Would this child be a christian when he didn’t have the slightest amount of christian ‘education’ rammed into his head? This little thought puzzle has been brought to you by REALITY. The child was not born christian. The child was born without any supernatural beliefs, without any beliefs at all. The child was born with no opinion on who should win the superbowl. A blank slate, if you will.
Children are not born religious. Not any religion. Remember this, so that you don’t make those kinds of silly claims in the future. Honest people don’t repeat things they know to be false, and this little concept of your has been shown false. So remember this. Remember that children are not born as followers of any religion. And if you ever do say that again elsewhere, you will know that you are lying.
“If the world is such a simple one and you’ve got it all boxed off then why bother commenting. If however even the great minds in our world disagree then we all might have a few things to learn from each other.”
The world is anything but simple. I comment because I want to comment. I owe you no explanations.
And as soon as you have something new to say, I might learn something. So far, you’ve just recycled a lot of old and debunked arguments, though admittedly you use a lot more words.
Hmmmm.
Let’s accept for sake of argument that every human being has the capacity for respect and adoration.
You seem to be implying that that capacity is there specifically *to* connect up with God, and that I’m basically misdirecting it by not doing so.
If this is god-given, it’s a bit odd – it’s tuned to slightly different channels in different regions, for one thing – Muslim FM in Muslim countries, Shinto Classic Rock in the Shinto countries. It behaves exactly as we’d expect something *cultural* to.
But what if it’s the other way around? What if we evolved a worship function (and there are plenty of obvious reasons why we might do that), and then had to create something to sate that?
The thing is … I genuinely and honestly don’t feel it. If I had a ‘nagging sense’ of gods, I’d presumably know and I don’t. It’s possible that something’s wrong with me. But I’m not a lapsed anything. I wasn’t brought up in a religious tradition. I keep being told I ‘must’ have this sense of the divine, that I must be misapplying it to something else in my life. Honestly, no, I don’t think I am. I like stuff, I respect stuff, I admire some things … but I don’t think I ‘worship’, even in the way you described. I certainly don’t think I’ve missed out on anything, either.
Thanks for the definition, by the way.
Do people worship science? I don’t know, I guess it sort of resembles religious worship in the dedication, pride, and sheer joy it provides a number of people, including myself.
But at least I can point to libraries of books, a flag on the Moon, the bottomless network of information sitting in front of you, and the lives of a couple billion healthy people as the good works of the “god” of science. What’s Yahweh done lately that can even compare?
Well, there is that line in Josephus that pretty much all historians was added by 4th Century Christians, and brief mentions by Pliny and Tacitus that Christians existed in the early 2nd Century (and that said Christians believed that Jesus had died and been resurrected), and that’s it for non-Christian historical references.
As for Christian references, you have the Gospels, which were written some time between 50 and 150 years after the crucifixion was supposed to happen, and represent two accounts (after all, the synoptics all draw from the same source), with a few changes. The earliest Christian author, Paul, didn’t seem to believe in a flesh-and-blood Jesus who’d been resurrected.
Fell free to point out any other sources I’ve missed, but that’s not a very long list. In fact, we have more evidence that Pontius Pliate existed…
@Aor-
You said “The child was not born christian. The child was born without any supernatural beliefs, without any beliefs at all”
Have you heard the one about????
The 5 year old little boy welcoming his newborn baby sister home from the hospital…when the parents leave the room he bends down and whispers to her, “quick, tell me what heaven is like again…I’m starting to forget”.
————————————————————————-
Has it ever crossed your mind that there remains a possibility that there is…more? More than you have yet experienced? More than you know? Where is the natural wonder, the curiosity, the awe that we are all born with? How can you be certain, I mean positively beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no other realm than the one that you can currently perceive within the natural? You cant. So, blasting people who live with hope and faith is very…unreasonable.
This is why we are told that if we want to “see” this kingdom realm we must become as little children. Why are you so threatened by people with hope? With faith? With awe and wonder? You’re right, kids aren’t born “religious” because love and innocence are still the dominant faculties. Religion and spirituality are two polar opposites. Children are very, naturally spiritual being that God is love and God is Spirit. They are trusting…gentle and sensitive.
When we lose these qualities then we are all grown up.
Hey, look, we went straight from….
“Where is the natural wonder, the curiosity, the awe that we are all born with?”[questions]
to……..
“Children are very, naturally spiritual being that God[Yahweh] is love and God[Yahweh] is Spirit.”["answers"]
i.e..NON-sequitur.
@BoomSLANG-
Mock, ridicule, mock? How about a high level dialogue? Some candid discourse without all the other???
Too much to ask?
John C.,
Please review some of my previous responses to your previous posts. I’ve tried the “high level dialogue” approach with you, but sadly, and quickly, I have learned that you simply show no indication that you are willing to entertain any view that opposes your own, let alone adopt it. Of course, that’s precisely what “faith” is supposed to do……..keep you a believer, even when it’s not reasonable to do so.
~ The tobacco industry has ‘faith’ that smoking won’t kill too many people this year.
Moving on…
John C.,
The fact that children are “curious” by nature doesn’t point to the existence of invisible, conscious beings who dwell in our cardiovasular organs. This isn’t a “mock”, or caricature, or strawman, because it’s precisely what you are suggesting, and again, your premise is a non-sequitur, just as I said previously.
@BoomSLANG-
“by nature doesn’t point to the existence of invisible, conscious beings who dwell in our cardiovasular organs”
Did I say cardiovascular organs? is this some kind of “jesus lives in yer heart” slam??? I did not say that.
You have so many pre-conceived notions about “religion” that you are missing the proverbial forest for the trees.
The biggest challenge atheists seem to have is that they are unable to make a distinction between religion and spirituality. This, in part is due to the many well-meaning but wrong “religious” people in the world who claim to be “christians”. It becomes your main reference as opposed to the truly spiritual man which is rare.
This is why I say there is a life. But I do respect you and your right to not appreciate the things I have shared about this spiritual life.
John C, you completely ignored my point so I would be an idiot to give any credence to your continual arguments from ignorance. I am aware that you are willfully remaining ignorant, no need to remind me.
PS. Are you going to admit you are the same species as us? Please.
John C: “The biggest challenge atheists seem to have is that they are unable to make a distinction between religion and spirituality.”
The biggest challenge we have is dealing with superstitious people who have zero evidence for their subjective, nonverifiable, fantastic claims.
John C: “This, in part is due to the many well-meaning but wrong religious’ people in the world who claim to be ‘christians’.”
So let’s be clear—this is an admission on your part that there are “well-meaning” people who profess to be “True Christians”, and yet, these people can still be “wrong”, nonetheless?
Yes…or, no?
‘The biggest challenge atheists seem to have is that they are unable to make a distinction between religion and spirituality.’
Please define ’spirituality’ for me. Again, it’s a genuine request, I don’t mean it to be sarcastic. Because, again, that cartoon sums up what it seems to mean to most people ‘a vague religious sense that celebrates ignorance’.
Because I’m with Douglas Adams – I think that the garden is really beautiful, I don’t need there to be fairies at the bottom of it.
I strive to understand the universe that modern science is revealing. And it’s bigger, stranger and more challenging to human arrogance than *anything* *any* religion ever came up with. And this isn’t ‘reducing things to a test tube’, this is being able to look at, say, the Pillars of Creation and feel an awe that could swallow up the solar system. This is the ability to look at the Grand Canyon and not just see the beauty, but the *deep time* that’s laid out solid in front of me, one that places all the ‘years of Our Lord’ in just the dust at the top. Not just see the pretty bird but understand just how those feathers refract that light and how those wings were sculpted from a dinosaur’s arms by millions of years of life on a changing world.
There’s plenty more – and my worldview allows me to truly explore and try to understand, not to tap a book from the Bronze Age and smugly assert that the answers are all in there. I’ve read it, they’re not. You think atheists are ’self centred’ or don’t approach the world with enough humility – try ‘God created the universe for us, created us in his image, sent his only son to die for us, answers individual prayers, has sent a guardian angel to watch over me, and has a personalised, micromanaged afterlife plan for me’.
I approach the world feeling humble and awed by it. The thought it was knocked up in less than a week by a supernatural tyrant so that He can mess with our heads and we better watch every waking thing we do or he won’t let us lodge in his house when we die isn’t ’something more’, it’s nasty and cheapening. Above all else, it’s *wrong*.
‘Have you heard the one about? The 5 year old little boy welcoming his newborn baby sister home from the hospital…when the parents leave the room he bends down and whispers to her, “quick, tell me what heaven is like again…I’m starting to forget”.’
Ah yes, ‘The Story of the Brainwashed Five Year Old’.
Here’s some more sweet and endearing children demonstrating their innate sense that there must be a God:
http://nyc.indymedia.org/images/2006/07/73370.jpg
http://grannygeek.us/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/phelps-followers.jpg
http://lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/14_expel_arabs.jpg
As Wisdom of the World points out:
Aside from a couple of capital “W”s we agree completely.
@Steve P:
I agree with so much of what you’ve said in your first post. It seems a shame that we come to such vastly different conclusions:
The Bible is both wrong and self-contradictory, unless one takes it so metaphorically as to deprive it of meaning entirely.
However, we needn’t go to the text. Why should you credit the Christian god over the many, many, equally acceptable divinities. Why not Thor or Zeus?
Science is at least self-correcting when it’s wrong. Sometimes it takes a while. But it’s also usually good at admitting where “we don’t know.” Religion tends to gloss over such areas, or provide ludicrous explanations.
Morality is possible without god, without religion. In fact it is more possible without those things, for religion cannot command an atheist to do something that is not moral. It cannot encourage a world view that treats others as somehow lesser because they don’t share a faith. I’m not saying that’s what you do, but it’s certainly what some do.
One cannot mutiny against, nor submit to, something that doesn’t exist.
Outright wrong. I tend to feel the world is getting better. Would you prefer to have lived at any time prior to 1900? When the human condition was usually “ill”? When we didn’t have World Wars, we just scuffled with the neighbours all the time?
@John C:
Um, seems to me you’ve been saying that pretty much since you arrived.
You’ve claimed on other threads that god lives “inside of us”, though you freely admit that there’s no way to know that unless you dispense with the thought process and simply believe.
@Steve Jeffers:
You could have stopped with the Phelps following kids. The other two don’t have anything to do with god/s.
‘The Bible is both wrong and self-contradictory, unless one takes it so metaphorically’
That’s true, of course, but even *metaphorically*, it’s a load of rubbish a lot of the time. The universe we live in took billions of years to reach its present state; the only place within at least half a dozen light years we can live unaided is on a fraction of the land of the surface of one planet (and not all year round in most of those places); we developed slowly from animal ancestors.
How is ‘the universe was created almost instantly, just for us, and then we were specially created from clay’ a *metaphor* for that?
How is ‘there’s a God’ a metaphor for ‘no, seriously, there isn’t a God’? or ‘Jesus died for our sins’ a metaphor for ‘no, he didn’t’.
I think we’ve got to be very careful about using ‘it’s a metaphor’, because it’s a platitude or an excuse (again, like the cartoon at the top of this thread) unless the metaphor is carefully explored and thought about.
There’s meaning and poetry and history and stuff in the Bible. But, to quote Colin McGinn, ‘it’s a story that people take way too seriously’. Some of my best friends are Star Trek fans, some of them see a great, optimistic philosophy in there that’s worth following. They ‘take the story too seriously’, in those terms.
If Christians just admitted that’s exactly what they do, too, then that would be a constructive start. There’s no shame, these days, in taking fictional characters way too seriously.
“Here’s some more sweet and endearing children demonstrating their innate sense that there must be a God:”
Everyone is born an atheist, you have to be taught about god.
That one made me chuckle. No one is born an atheist. We are born innocent lovers who get indoctrinated by a hardened, Godless society to believe that Love (God) is…not. You are still confusing the spirit of love (God) with religion (beliefs).
Why do you think we love children so much? They are not jaded, cynical, adults are.
This is why we must become like children again so the true light (of love) can break through our darkened consciousness and bring a warm…sunny day.
@BoomSLANG-
Not everyone who claims to be a “christian” is one. God has no grandchildren. What is it that makes someone a “christian” after all? Do you know?
What is it that makes someone your child? He or she has your DNA right? So, what is the DNA of God?
@Metro-
Perhaps an old C.S. Lewis quote is appropriate here for our discussions:
‘you dont have a soul, you are a soul, you have a body’
One of the greatest revelations that can come to us is that you are not your body, or your body is not you. So when the atheists on the forum say ‘jesus in yer heart’ it doesnt do justice to the point I am trying to make.
Yes, Christ IN you…just as I have been saying all along.
Thanks Met
@Aor-
As I have previously stated…I dont mind being ridiculed, laughed at, etc. But lately, you have taken an increasingly inaccurate approach by flat out misquoting and twisting out of context my words.
Be as stern and direct as you desire, I can take it. But please, when you quote me give me the same treatment you want me to afford you…quote me accurately.
Thx Aor
‘One of the greatest revelations that can come to us is that you are not your body, or your body is not you.’
… and ’soul’ is another one of those vaguely-defined words that get bandied around, like ’spirituality’.
By ‘revelation’, do you mean like a scientific revelation – something where a careful series of inquiries, logic, evidence, a precision when it comes to method and definition all leads to a conclusion.
Or do you mean ‘I think God tells me’?
Again, a genuine, sincerely-asked question: Define what you think my ’soul’ is. Tell me how you think it works, how it interacts with my body, where it is and what it’s made of. You use the word, you must have a sense of what it means. You must have thought about this, if it’s important to you.
There’s more to me than my body. I know that. There’s a whole set of things I’ve done, memories people have of me, things I’ve affected. I’m also aware there are abstractions – things like ‘my country’ or ‘love’ or ‘money’ that are mainly ideas and can’t be weighed or measured.
But what are you claiming my ’soul’ is? An actual, supernatural, thing like a ghost that’s living inside my body or a metaphor for sum of what I am?
I don’t think I have a soul in the first sense, but I’m happy for you to explain a method of locating it or detecting it. If you’ve got a soul detector, that would be great, but a thought experiment’s a perfectly valid method, too.
I have a ’soul’ in the second sense, but it’s such a silly thing to call it that I’d never call it that.
@John C
I did quote you accurately. That is why you stopped responding to those many posts where you got caught lying. Odd, isn’t it? Why did you run away if I didn’t catch you at something? Was it just a repeated coincidence?
Your words, John. You claim we are literally two different species. Want the link? Want the date and time?
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2008/12/29/believers-make-your-best-case-for-god/#comments
January 7, 2009 at 9:03 pm John C
Rather than run around pretending those aren’t your words yet again, you could stand up for the truth you claim your god is and admit that you said them. If you don’t agree with your own words, then retract them and correct them.
Instead, you compound your lies with more and more lies.
‘What is it that makes someone your child? He or she has your DNA right?’
Wrong.
What makes someone someone’s child? ‘Cultural norms’ – you can adopt a child that you don’t share any DNA with; a man can raise a child as his own never knowing that it’s actually the milkman’s; a couple can accept fertility treatments, surrogacy or whatever that mean that the child doesn’t have both sets of DNA; we’re not far off being able to edit out bits of DNA that would otherwise lead to genetic disease.
What makes someone a Christian? We know the answer, because it’s been studied. Christian parents, on the whole. A Christian role model at a formative (or vulnerable) point in someone’s life. Living in a Christian country.
A child born to Christian parents who is adopted as a baby by a Muslim family and who is raised as a Muslim does not have ‘innate Christianity’. Frequently, people with a particularly bad case of religion who get disenchanted with their religion just switch to another one (more frequently, they accuse people who’ve chosen to become atheists of doing that).
‘So, what is the DNA of God?’
You’re using a scientific term there, not a theological one. As such, it actually means something. Presumably, by your definition, He has DNA, as He managed to mate with a human being.
But, no, it’s a nonsense question. To have DNA, you have to exist. The question you’re asking is like asking what blood group Peter Pan is or what Mr Darcy’s sperm count was.
Children quickly adapt to what is around them. They have an innate ability to learn and to seek patterns and explanations. What they are told early on sticks. Which is exactly why religions hover over pregnant women like vultures and can’t wait to bless, brand, mutilate and otherwise sign them up. It’s why religions try to control schools. It’s why so many of them muscle in on perfectly nice winter solstice present-giving festivals and try to pretend it’s their God’s birthday.
Now … an interesting question is why do most (not all, but nearly all) societies we know of have religion and ritual? They don’t all have gods – the Buddhists don’t, most of the animist religions don’t really have gods. But they have ‘religion’, the sense of the ’something more’.
Personally, I think the answer is simple – humans like explanations and they like a sense of control. The world can be unpredictable and difficult to explain. Imagining that there’s a god that controls the crops and that if you behave in a certain way will make him happy is a way of coping.
But we’re past that. We know that gods don’t control the crops (you accept that, right?). God is an explanation … but it’s no longer a good one. It’s just an old idea that’s still stuck in our minds.
The thing about childhood is that, however much it’s idolized, it’s a period of vulnerability and learning and growth. The point of childhood is that it’s only the first stage in human development. You grow out of it. It’s just a pity that we can’t put away all the childish things, like the belief that there’s a big cosmic daddy there to tuck you in at night.
@Steve-
I have some atypical thoughts on the subject that are not necessarily common in “christian” culture so…beware…lol.
The traditional definition of the soul is one’s combined mind, will & emotions. Thats a fairly broad, all-encompassing brush and does not sufficiently answer your question.
I would say it like this…just as we are dressed in clothes, our inward man (spirit), wears an outward man (soul). Yes, the soul contains our intellect, will and emotions. We express to others what is in our spirit through our soul.
So from out to in…Body (temporal flesh garment), Soul (mind, will & emotions) and most inwardly…our spirit man. The spirit and soul “wear” the body. Man has lost his sensitivity to the spiritual aspect essentially through abdication of his true (spiritual) nature and origin (God is spirit). We “devolved” after the fall and now are mainly aware of our outer man…only. This causes us to live in a “lower” condition or state than that which we were intended.
The shell of the soul realm must be broken so we can live by the spirit (as many as are led by the spirit these are the sons of God) Romans 8:14.
The regeneration of the spirit of the living God (not religion which I define as endless rule-keeping devoid of love) infills our spirit man (he who is joined to the lord is one spirit) and the “new or spiritual rebirth” occurs within.
The soul representing the eternal (not physical) aspect of us. That’s why I quoted Lewis when we began this.
JC
@Aor-
No sir. You are fond of taking a snippet here of there that was originally part of a long post and then using it against someone out of context…you only want to argue and resort to name calling and constant accusations. You’ve done it a thousand times Aor.
You are like the forum watchdog who visciously defends the garrison at all costs. Being passionate about what you dont believe is fine, being ugly, mean-spirited and downright cruel is another matter all-together.
If you cared to discuss things like some of your peers do in a stern but civil fashion then I would accomodate our continued dialogue but since you do not…I no longer feel obliged to respond to you.
Respectfully,
JC
@Steve-
My answer would be something like this….The DNA is the Spirit (of God) itself.
If we dont have His spirit, we are none of His (we dont belong to Him) are not His “offspring”. Romans 8:9-11
&
As many as received Him (His spirit) He gave the right to become Sons of God…John 1:12
I know you disagree, I am just trying to answer your question the best I can and keep a good dialogue going forward…thx.
So once again you aren’t going to retract the words or change them in any way, just want to ignore the stupidity and pretend its my fault for pushing you to be honest.
If you don’t agree with your own words, retract them. Don’t blame me for what you said, fix your own mistakes. I refuse to accept the blame for your actions. If you simply said that you didn’t mean it that way you wouldn’t have to lie to cover for your mistake! How much simpler can it get? Fix your mistakes, but don’t pretend they don’t exist.
If you don’t think you are literally a different species, retract the words. Its that simple. Be honest.
Your comment that you won’t respond to me is just your latest way of trying to avoid the consequences of your actions. At this point nobody who is familiar with your behavior will believe you. Just another lie from a man with a history of lies about crazy things.
John C: “Not everyone who claims to be a ‘christian’ is one.”
Thank you for clarifying this matter.
So then, safely assuming that you claim to be a “Christian”, by your very own words, you really may not be one at all. You see, if you are qualified to determine whether or not another human being “believes correctly”, then by the same consideration, other human beings are then qualified to determine whether John C. “believes correctly”. Question: Would you accept the judgement of someone who came along and said that you weren’t a “Christian”? Until I hear otherwise, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there is no way that you would accept this. Thus, again—thank you for illustrating the subjectiveness of the matter, and of religious belief, in general.
John C: “What is it that makes someone a ‘christian’ after all? Do you know?”
As I just illustrated above, there IS NO objective way to determine such a thing. You would think that the standard would be, “one who professes to believe the Christian philosophy as truth”, however, you just made it perfectly clear that this standard is not qualifiable/not acceptable in every case.
John C: “What is it that makes someone your child?”
A good start is the fact that said child is the result of your sexual interaction with your significant other. From a legal standpoint, there are hospital records, like birth certificates, etc. From there – and more importantly – there is fulfilling the responsibilities of being a parent, like providing food, clothes, sheltor, and education.
John C: “He or she has your DNA right?”
Actually, no….not in every case. Many parents adopt, because they cannot conceive naturally, this, due to biological…um, flaws.
Bottom line: “DNA” does not a ” parent”, make. No, it is ACTIONS—specifically, interaction—that makes a “parent”.
John C: “So, what is the DNA of God?”
The question is nonsensical until you provide some objective evidence for a “God”. We *know* “DNA” exists; we do NOT *know* a “God” exists, nor are there cohesive definitions of its metaphysical byproducts…i.e…”souls”, “spirits”, “heavens”, “hells”, “sins”….and the list of goes on. As the article illustrates, these are words that describe nothing at all….you can only define them in terms of what they are NOT, which of course, is “negative evidence”.
‘So from out to in…Body (temporal flesh garment), Soul (mind, will & emotions) and most inwardly…our spirit man.’
First of all, thanks for answering. We’re not going to agree on very much, but I’m really hoping to understand. In that, ahem, spirit, I hope you’ll allow me to ask a couple more questions.
What you’re describing there, this system that (forgive me) sounds a little like those Russian dolls is actually quite similar to ancient Egyptian beliefs – from memory, they had a few more layers (seven, I think – it might have been nine). Is that a coincidence, or have you studied other religions?
I suppose my main question is … do you believe that literally? There are, to generalize, two ways of talking about these things – the absolutely literal and material, and then the poetic or metaphorical. Most confusion in the world, I think, is confusion between these two things. I suspect its origin is in that left/right brain psychology.
But when you say you think this, do you mean as some sort of literal, scientific model or as a sort of poetry?
@Steve-
Thx Steve, great points and discussion. If you are asking if I really believe that man is in essence a tri-partate being, then my answer is yes I do. Now, I leave room for the technicals to be varied from my limited perspective but yes we are (in mho) spirit, soul and body. I have at times spoken metaphorically, but I am speaking literally (hard to believe I know) in this case.
Btw…this is not some ancient egyptian-only view. We see it throughout scripture. It just takes some “piecing together”.
You admit yourself to some knowing that there is more than that which you can see (the body) and I am just going a little deeper with it. One of the great christian thinkers (yes there are christian thinkers…lol) was Watchman Nee. He wrote extensively on the nature of the spiritual man and presents a similar viewpoint as did CS Lewis, many others.
True Christianity is more spiritual than structural. By that I mean that spirit is substantive, not merely esoteric or ethereal, contemplative, etc.
Thanks for the excellent dialogue…what do you think? What are your suspicions about your true nature tied to your thoughts on the sensing of “something more” (I’m obviously paraphrasing you) regarding the soulish realm??
JC
@Steve-
Oops…typo…my bad. The part that reads “True Christianity is more spiritual than structural. By that I mean that spirit is substantive, not merely esoteric or ethereal, contemplative, etc.” Should be interpreted to mean that beliefs alone (doctrine, thoughts, etc) do not make up the christian, but rather he must have the substance of spirit indwelling him.
Sorry for the confusion.
@BoomSLANG-
True christian Sonship has both elements…adoption into the family of God and the substance of spirit (His) indwelling us.
So you are correct in that sense…
Thx…I’m doing my best.
John C: “True Christianity is more spiritual than structural.”
I’m sorry, but the term “True Christianity” is totally redundant and it ends up being an utterly useless term, *except for the fact that it lets Theists like you come along and define your religion by exclusing those who disagree with you.
Bottom line: “True Christianity” implies there is “false Christianity”, which of course, such a thing wouldn’t BE “Christianity”. And this is assuming you have an *objective* way to tell which persons qualify to be a “Christian”, and which ones do not, which…. you. do. not. have. Did you miss that part in my previous post? Or are you reading your opponent’s posts “a la carte”?
John C: “True christian Sonship has both elements…adoption into the family of God and the substance of spirit (His) indwelling us.
So you are correct in that sense…”
I’m “correct”. Thanks, yes, I believe I am correct concerning what I said in regards to your question, “What is it that makes someone your child?”, which was this…..
“A good start is the fact that said child is the result of your sexual interaction with your significant other. From a legal standpoint, there are hospital records, like birth certificates, etc. From there – and more importantly – there is fulfilling the responsibilities of being a parent, like providing food, clothes, sheltor, and education.”
Notice, I said nothing about virgin births, “Sonship”, or being “adopted into the family of God”. So, my being “correct” doesn’t make you “correct” when you come along and simply assert unfounded, unconfirmed, metaphysical concepts into the equation. And trust me on one thing—you have your work cut-out for you if you’d have me believe that a “good parent” would let its own “DNA” die of thirst, and/or, hunger.
Isn’t it amazing that someone who claims he isn’t religious can claim to be part of True Christianity? At least its not quite the other species thing.
Correction, above. It should have read, “…exclu[d]ing those who disagree with you.”
Okay. Got a photo?
I mean, as far as I know I have exactly the same spirit as you do. How does either of us know that I don’t. So what is it in your spirit that causes you to be religious and me to be irreligious?
@Metro-
The last thing anyone needs to be is “religious”. I understand that is your perception from the self righteous rule-keepers and pious long-robed ones. What we need is a nature change, a restoration of the true heart…in us. I have said before that religion (endless rule-keeping devoid of love) is not at all what Christ offers.
“he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him” 1 Cor 6:17.
You are correct, you have a spirit just like mine. I am no better Met, in fact I am the least deserving of all. I found myself to be poor, needy, lacking in spirit. I have (foolishly and childishly) invited (by faith) the spirit of God (love) to indwell my spirit within and to restore me to my original (created) nature which is made in the image and likeness of God.
Now He lives His (uncreated) life through me. I counted my own (inherited, ancestral, soulish) life as worthless compared to His spirit life within. I sold out to purchase the “treasure” (Him) found in the “field” (me).
Now I hear these words “as many as are led by the spirit, these are the sons (offspring) of God”. Romans 8:14.
This life is available to all who would…believe.
A photo? Blessed are them that believe and have yet not seen. Its a spiritual, hidden life (our lives are hidden with Christ in God) Col 3:3. But nonetheless very real for the spirit has substance…strange huh? So the only photo I could show you is the fruit of my life, how I now live, love, etc.
The only difference is my spirit is one with His…just like He said it would be. This is not because of me, or my being “good enough” to deserve it…but by His grace, His love, His nature which is Love Itself and His desire to restore fellowship with mankind.
Its a crazy kinda love…crazy kinda deal altogether and requires childlikeness, trust, innocence to enter into this wonderful life of…His within.
Revelation…is by the Holy (set-apart) Spirit for “we have not received the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is from God that we might understand the things FREELY given to us by God” 1 Cor 2:12.
As usual, all my best Met.
Crazy JC
Just as I suspected—an overflux of colorful, metaphysical jargon that attempts to describe the standard bare assertions(bare assertion fallacy) that we’ve grown accustomed to seeing from the Christian guests, which, in the end, means nothing at all….hence, “God’s Awesome Nothingness”…i.e…”our lives are hidden with Christ in God” !!!!!!
Outstanding! Bravo!
@BoomSLANG-
I didn’t say it, He did and He is incapable of lying.
There is a life BoomSLANG, and yes it is hidden from natural sight but nonetheless very substantial.
Didn’t mean to disappoint but what can I expect? You said yourself you refuse to believe and enter in.
What He did for me He did for you.
Spirituality not religion.
*Bare assertion fallacy: “The bare assertion fallacy is a fallacy in formal logic where a premise in an argument is assumed to be true merely because it says that it is true.”
(Ref: Wikipedia)
John C: “I didn’t say it, He['Yahweh'] did and He['Yahweh'] is incapable of lying.”
Bare assertion fallacy. You “know”[believe] that the Christian biblegod says things, because the bible says the Christian biblegod says things, and you “know”[believe] the bible is true, because the bible says so.
John C: “There is a life BoomSLANG..”
Yes; agreed….anyone reading this, is alive, and thus, involved in “life”.
John C: “…and yes it['life'] is hidden from natural sight but nonetheless very substantial.”
Yes, “life” is very substantial, but it most certainly is not “hidden” from “natural sight”.
John C: “Didn’t mean to disappoint but what can I expect?”
You evidentally “expect” people to believe your unceasing smatterings of superstitious jargon(since you keep posting here), but as pointed out to you innumerable times, you have not one scrap of objective evidence to substantiate these claims. Now, you cannot be so obtuse as to actually believe that you will convert/reconvert people with such tactics, so I can only conclude that you continue to post here to be deliberately provocative. How sad.
John C: “You said yourself you refuse to believe and enter in.”
Liar. Again, you do not know my thoughts. Stop pretending to know them.
Let’s review: What I “refuse” to do, is to worship any being who would promise to torture me for not reciprocating its supposed “love”. Contrary to your amateur, Cleo’ mind-reading session—I can very easily “believe” in something when I have credible evidence for its existence. And remember, where the biblegod that you pretend to worship is concenred, I can still employ my “free will” and reject what it has to offer, even if such a creature actually existed, which is why the Christian argument, “God must remain hidden!!!!!” fails miserably.
John C: “What He['Yahweh'] did for me He['Yahweh'] did for you.”
::Yawn::
Bare assertion fallacy. See here*, above.
So god is truth, but god can lie.
Nice! Its not quite a claim to be an entirely new species of human, but worthy of its own share of ridicule.
@boomSLANG:
Well said.
@Aor:
No, I think he just said his god can’t lie. Which means it’s not an all-powerful god.
@John C:
Actually, I learned that as “Happy are they who have not seen, and yet believe.” And it makes as little sense as any other theology.
And it’s exactly what I said you were saying in your first posts: “Abandon thought and rational argument, just believe.” God didn’t ask this of Thomas–why should he ask it of anyone else.
The thing you and your co-theists don’t seem to dig is that atheists are, in the main, people who started looking for good reasons to believe, and we haven’t found any. Is your god so cruel that he’d neglect us, and our spiritual welfare, souls, etc. in this fashion–leaving us under a misapprehension that He doesn’t exist?
(Cue: “You say you’re looking for reasons to believe, but you’re not, otherwise you’d have found plenty.” response?)
And I would take it that you might be a good man. Your life is not evidence of the existence of a god.
Point to this god, put a little salt on his tail. I think boomSLANG has excellently explained why your arguments aren’t arguments.
You keep coming back to the fact that mystical Jesus has transformed you somehow. Fine. Of course, it might be a demon in disguise. How would you tell the difference? Have you considered having yourself exorcised to see what happens?
John C is just trying to witness. He doesn’t care about reasoning, logic, or making sense in any way. He has declared in the past that he is not here to proselytize, but somehow denies that witnessing is the same thing. No logic will reach him, no reasoning will change his mind. He doesn’t care about any of that, he only wants a chance to publicly display his beliefs hoping someone somewhere will be easily impressed. His mind is closed to reason.
The witnessing approach is usually based on being artificially nice, avoiding confrontation in favor of luring people in with positive words. It is all about the show and the illusion. Present the show, create the illusion, and hope that there are easily victimizable people around who will fall for that illusion. This approach is useful to those who realize that telling the truth is secondary to converting people.
You want to tell that to King Ahab?
–1 Kings 22:21-23
Or was God lying when he claimed he’d lie to Ahab?
how do you explain the laws of physics?
For to have rules you need a rule maker? much like a senator or a president or whatever..
Or maybe The laws of physics were not rules but the other way around..
If the laws of physics are just random,, then it is plausible that we can defy the laws of physics because there is really no “rule” and everything is possible…
To live in a random universe, we wouldn’t follow any set of rules because everything is a mere chance.. so basically, we can defy every law of physics…
I dont really believe in all the bullshit of the bible.. i resent all the EVIL things that the bible teaches… The bible is pure fiction, I hope to believe in God….
oohh.. my nose bled…lol
how do you explain the laws of physics?
Physics is the natural consequence of matter.
For to have rules you need a rule maker? much like a senator or a president or whatever..
Why? That’s a purely human perception. It’s the only one we have, granted, but it’s still only human perception. Doesn’t affect reality in the least.
If the laws of physics are just random,, then it is plausible that we can defy the laws of physics because there is really no “rule” and everything is possible…
We’re bound to them because we’re part of them and one with them. We’re matter – chemistry, physics, biology. Random does not mean inexistent or powerless.
To live in a random universe, we wouldn’t follow any set of rules because everything is a mere chance.. so basically, we can defy every law of physics…
Why? As I said, random doesn’t mean powerless or even inexistent. Besides, for all we know, there are countless universes out there with countless varieties of physics, chemistry, everything. For all we know, we’re trapped in this bubble. How this bubble appeared, we don’t know, but we’ve a few clues.
And even if the universe *was* created by some sentient entity, it doesn’t follow this entity cares about us at all, or micromanages our existence all the time. We ain’t that special.
first, i want to start by saying i also am a christian, but i have no intentions of insulting anyone or anything like that, i just want to answer your questions with what i believe
first, to steve jeffers, i agree that the bible does not call christians to surrender to the mystery, i feel christians often say that it is “beyond our comprehension” which to some extent it is, but it is not sufficient to take that answer and throw it under the carpet without thinking it will never stink up the room, i know there must be an answer, and mine is yes, i do believe that God hears my prayers.. but i dont believe that its anything scientific, i believe its something supernatural.. something that requires faith in the bible, and if you do believe that is scientific, please inform me why..
second, to daniel florien, please tell me what questions you have… you talk about us having evidence but you havent said which questions we lack the evidence to, if you post those ill do my best to answer
third, to jabster, here is why i believe in God… first, i find that there is little evidence from scientist supporting their theory of the beginning of the world… it seems impossible to me for two larges masses of nothing to “bang” and form life.. now in order to form one strand of proteins to make an amino acid (in which there are multiple protein strands) the probability of that happening is 1/86trillion.. seems unlikely to me… also, i believe in God because of Jesus. the bible is not the only historic account of Jesus, there are many many more, also, there are 20,000+ manuscripts of the New Testament that so many people seem to disbelieve, but on the other hand there are documents that age back to the year 2000BC that we take as fact.. the new testament documents were mostly all written between the years 100AD and 1000AD, lastly i believe Jesus rose from the dead.. why? simply because there are 500+ firsthand accounts of people meeting Jesus after he died and rose.. now how do i know that whole thing isn’t a scam? well let me ask a question.. if you believed a breakfast cereal that claimed to lower your cholestorol by half in three weeks, but instead it doubled it.. would you continue to eat that cereal? i hope not.. the same concept applies here.. every single one of the disciples (save Judias Escariot) died a martyr’s death because of their faith in Christ.. not to mention thousands of others… please let me know if you have any more questions
fourth, ryan, this is short just to say why i believe christianity is true, along with the things above, christianity is the only religion in which someone claims to be God as i’m sure your well aware Jesus said that, but whats the big deal? he’s the only one in any religion to claim to be God, mohammad certainly never claimed to be God (Allah), cuz thats blasphemy, buddah didnt claim to be God either, the important thing to realize is that in the texts of other religions such as the qu’ran is that if you take out mohammad and the other prophets you still get the same message… but what if you take Jesus out of the bible? well then the bible is a colossal failure becuause everything in there works up to his life and death, the bible cannot support itself if Jesus is not central
again, to steve jeffers, i would like to no where in the bible God reveals himself to a proud person… but im not gonna sit here and say that God reveals himself to me everyday of the week, its not something that just happens, it takes time.. i dont know if you have kids, but if your child is playing in the kitchen near a hot stove and you say “hey bud, stay away from that, you’re gonna get hurt” but the kid (as kids do) goes ahead and touches it anyway… the pain of heat has been revealed to him… thats kind of a rough example, but my point is that things cant be revealed to us without some sort of experience, but i dont think God reveals himself to some special elite social class, thats ridiculous
agian, to mr. florien, i ask… when you were a christian… did you find yourself being “smugly self-righteous”? because if you were that’s the root of your problem, if not and what you meant was that you have seen other christians act that way… sure i totally agree.. thats not rare.. but the fact that so many do it doesnt make it right, its something all christians have to work on
to steve jeffers, you said there’s no way God could all of a sudden make humans.. but then how is it fair to say the big bang just all of a sudden made the world? also, to answer your questions
You’ve seen the cartoon that kicked off this thread. Is that the God you worship? If not, would you describe an attribute you think God has?God has a lot of attributes, many i dont know of, but the few i do know are that he is 1. loving, 2. all knowing, 3. all powerful, 4. sovereign… the list can continue, but for now ask any questions you have about those four
How confident are you that God exists and what would you accept as an argument or evidence that there might not be a God? I know that God exists… just as you know that he doesn’t so one of us is wrong.. the only question is who? the only question that i have about God honestly, is why there is suffering, but it’s something im trying to study..
How would the universe look different if there wasn’t a God? Do you modify your behavior because you believe in God? For this, i just think that if God didn’t exist we wouldn’t either… and yes i do modify my behavior… the funny thing is that i know there are probably atheists who lead a better life than i do.. who do more for others, but it’s something i work at to do, but yes, my behavior definitely is modified
wow.. sorry that was so long.. i just kinda wrote and didnt stop for a while haha