ANOTHER DOUBTING THOMAS (HOME PAGE)
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” – Thomas Jefferson
*NOTE: Main Page revised 07/29/08
Once upon a time I was a member of the Church. My faith was as strong as anyone’s. I received 90% of my education from Private Christian Schools. I was baptized. I converted people. I protested outside of clinics that provided abortions. I prayed in rapturous ecstasy, gently rocking side to side, hands raised overhead. I tithed. I spoke in tongues (well, I mimicked those who pretended to speak in tongues). I owned four bibles with my name emblazoned in gold on each (my current tally is eleven). I considered missionary work. I dated only my fellow Christians. I pitied the people who worshiped all those other false gods. I knew my god was the real deal. I believed. I had no doubt.
So what happened? Sorry to disappoint, but my progression from die-hard Christian to Skeptic and Atheist wasn’t the result of some dramatic/traumatic event. It was a gradual evolution. Once I was free of the church and its constant reinforcement of Christian dogma, I received an incredible gift; the ability to think for myself. With this newly open mind I began to discover that the real world didn’t match up with the one represented by the church. It’s an amazing thing to no longer be wrapped in the comforting embrace of religious delusion and be forced to confront reality on reality’s terms. It was with this newly open mind that I decided to revisit my bible and let me tell you, reading the bible with a fresh mind, one no longer clouded by fantasy, but clear and hungry for truth is quite an experience. The Bible may be the most available and most purchased book in the world but it is also certainly the least read. Allow me to clarify; by read I don’t mean skimmed through during family bible study or reviewed specific favorite passages during the Sunday sermon. I mean really read it, front to back, absorbing every depiction of God encouraged genocide, God-ordained rape, constant, primitive sacrifices to a god whose bloodlust seems insatiable, rampant sexism, unbridled racism, countless contradictions, superstitious nonsense, sexual depravity, inhuman cruelty, petty jealousy, blatant lies and obvious, revisionist mythology. If only more people would take the time to truly read the “good book”, surely more people would, like me, no longer be able to worship the god depicted in its pages.
This site is really just an attempt to create an online catalog of the many observations and questions I’ve accumulated during my evolution from believer to skeptic (click on the Categories listed at the top right of this page). Christians may find them to be irritating, obnoxious, silly, eye opening or troubling, but my desire to understand how they can continue to believe when confronted by the very same issues that resulted in me losing my faith is sincere. This is why I created it in blog format; to allow those who wish to comment a way to do so. But please, only intelligent responses. I don’t need to be told that I’m going to burn in hell because I refuse to worship your particular god or don’t follow your particular concept of Christianity. And please, please try to refrain from simply regurgitating scripture or religious dogma. If these are the only types of responses you’re capable of coming up with, you might as well remain silent. Remember, the bible no longer holds any authority for me, so these standard, comforting, oft repeated, oh so familiar tenants all have the same subtitle: “Because The Bible Tells Me So.” Also, if you are unable to come up with a reason or an answer, simply shoving “faith” in the resulting gap serves no purpose other than to comfort yourself. Faith is merely a synonym for hope; providing an answer only for the desperate. And just so we’re clear; I’m not trying to ‘convert’ any Christians into Atheists. I don’t even believe it’s possible. For an individual to abandon the practice of worshiping gods (your god, their god, his god, her god), they must come to some very personal revelations and make some very personal choices. No one can turn someone into an Atheist.
And before any Christians come at me with the tiresome issue of why Atheists waste our time studying and discussing something we don’t believe in, let me direct you to my article – “Why Atheists Are NOT Wasting Their Time” that the good people over at www.PathofReason.com were kind enough to publish. AND before anyone decides that they have me figured out just because I embrace the label Atheist, they might want to read another of my articles – “Why Our Labels Always Fail To Define Us”. It would be as foolish for someone to assume that they knew my position on the Theory of Evolution, or the Origin of Life, or the Big Bang, or abortion simply because I refer to myself as an Atheist as it would be for me to assume that I knew a person’s opinion regarding these same topics just because they called themselves a Christian. If history has taught us anything, it’s that many of those who have referred to themselves as Christians, if judged on actions alone, would not have been labeled as such by anyone else. I could gather a hundred different people, all of whom consider themselves to be Christian, and ask them all if they thought anyone in heaven would be more beautiful than another and why, and I would very likely receive a hundred different answers.
One of the most irritating things I encounter with Christians is how they constantly speak for all Christians as if there were a universal mindset in what is arguably the most divided and divisive religion in the history of mankind. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by a Christian that Christians don’t think this or believe that or encourage this or tolerate that, etc. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe the flood depicted in the bible was caused not by rain but by the fabled water canopy (a dome-like shield of water supposedly covering the earth) collapsing all at once. But do ALL Christians believe this? Let’s hope not. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that there are no innocent children or even babies as we are all born sinners and that God sends babies and children who die to heaven or hell based on what they would have done in their lives had they not died. Do all Christians believe this? Of course not. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible, free of any man made errors or historical inaccuracies. But these people are understandably in the minority. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that only they are capable of morality. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe the age of accountability begins at age 5, others have said age 8, others have said age 12, others have said age 18. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that a man’s freewill can not be overcome by anything, not the influence of drugs (legal or illegal) or alcohol, not mental disorders (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, etc.), not traumatic experiences, nothing. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that the earth is a few thousand years old and those who believe that it is a few million. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that the story of creation depicted in the book of Genesis is fact and those who believe it is allegory. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that sinners are sent to hell to burn in eternal hellfire and those who believe that death is the punishment for sin, not torment in hell. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that the sixth commandment states that Thou Shalt Not Kill and those who believe that it states that Thou Shalt Not Murder. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that it took 120 years for Noah to complete construction on the Ark and gather up all the animals and those who believe it took only a few years. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that Noah gathered 7 of every ‘clean’ beast & 2 of every ‘unclean’ beast & 7 of every fowl of both sexes, and a male & female of every ‘creeping thing’ and those who believe that he only gathered a few of various species and that these species eventually ‘became’ all the rest (I believe that’s called evolution). I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that we will all be equal in heaven, in other words when you arrive in heaven you will equally love the spirit of your daughter, who was raped and murdered when she was just nine years-old, and the spirit of the scumbag who raped and murdered her but accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior the day before being executed on death row. Then again, I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that people will be rewarded differently in heaven dependant on their deeds here on earth, in other words, there will be a hierarchy in heaven; the fellow who was born into wealth and chose to spend it all on orphans will have a bigger mansion than the fellow who was born into poverty and did little more than live a clean and decent life. I’ve spoken to Christians who believe that with death comes the dissolution of marriage; a husband and wife are no more. In other words, a woman whose first husband beat her, cheated on her regularly and left her bankrupt, will find herself in heaven standing beside his repentant, Christ accepting spirit feeling no more or less for him than she does for the spirit of her second husband who was devoted to her for fifty-two years and died of heartbreak just days after she finally succumbed to the devastation of Alzheimer’s. In heaven, your beloved is no more special to you than a complete stranger. Just so we’re clear, heaven is a destination I’m supposed to strive for, yes? To reiterate – There is no Christian authority. Please speak for yourself, not for all believers.
Like almost all other religious people I was indoctrinated into my religion as a young child. At the exact same time I was being told about the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus, at the exact same time my innocent, naive mind was certain the dark interior of my closet and the recess under my bed became passages to some nightmare world whenever the sun went down, at the exact same time that in my ignorance I was absolutely certain that if I left my bedroom window open at night the tree outside would crawl inside and eat me while I slept, at the exact same time that my foolish, child’s mind believed everything my parents told me, they told me about Jesus and God. I would argue that one of the most harmful things a parent can do to their child is teach them theory as fact, regardless of how wonderful they think that theory may be. Once myth has been established as fact in a child’s mind, it is very difficult, even as an adult, for that person to shake that belief. If a child is surrounded by people who believe in Santa Claus, isolated from those who don’t, and has this belief continually reinforced (presents arrive miraculously, cookies and milk are consumed, hoof prints on roof, magical tales recounted nightly, etc.) throughout their life, guess who still believes in Santa Claus as an adult. Religious indoctrination of a person who lacks the ability or has yet to develop the ability to reason for themselves is the equivalent of brainwashing. The followers of David Koresh and Jim Jones taught the delusion they accepted as fact to their children. Many of those children paid the ultimate price for their parent’s gullibility. For every Christian who is 100% certain in their faith, so feels perfectly justified in teaching their child the ‘absolute truth’ of Christianity, there is a Muslim, a Scientologist, a Mormon, a Hindu, a Buddhist, etc. who feels just as certain in their faith. Until there is only one god and one religion in this world, teaching a child a theory as an absolute must be discouraged. I find it unethical for anyone to teach a child that what you hope and pray to be true is in fact undeniably, unquestionably true. Teach a child what you believe to be true but also teach them that there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of other people who believe in something entirely different and that it is up to them to come to their own conclusions. Teach your child absolutes as absolutes, theories as theories, faith as faith, science as science, hypotheses as hypotheses, etc.
All visitors are welcome on my site and no one’s comments will be censored (that is unless you are one of those irritating parasites whose only comment is to direct me to a place to purchase cheap boner pills). Feel free to place as many links to other sites in your comments as you like but understand that this wordpress site has its comment filtering settings on default. This means that it will automatically hold any comment that includes more than one link for moderation (my approval). I usually click the approve button the same day the comment is left but if it takes me a few days, please be patient. Also understand I did not create this site to have a continual back and forth with those who do or don’t agree with what I say in my posts. I look forward to reading all comments but unfortunately I don’t have the time to reply to very many. And if anyone can offer any advice on how to make this site better, more convenient, easier to navigate, etc. please speak up. It’s still a work in progress.
Let’s try and keep it courteous, people (wishful thinking, right).
DoubtingThomas
January 6, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I am 40 and this year has been all about finding the truths in life.. Religion etc.. I have found a balance of Atheism and Tibetan Buddhism that suits me. i am happy with that and absolutely nothing could change my mind at this point. I do hate the term Atheism though, it is such a 70’s word .. like KKK or the N word or Nazi’s etc.. It just carries a bad wrap..as sam Harris has said.. we need a new word or non at all.. Rationalists but nobody would google that one! I linked you by the way.. have a lovely day!
January 6, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Totally agree about the whole title thing, Disgustipated. Most ‘atheists’ are far more complex than their label would define them. Thanks for visiting my site. Please check back often. Already linked your site as well. Keep up the good work!
January 6, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Get a life, then suicide.
January 6, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Get a life, then suicide. Then you’ll prove your point. The important part is not us getting it, but you. So, let my advice be your last. I wish you good luck, please stop writing meaningless things, they are quite redundant.
January 6, 2008 at 4:34 pm
If by redundant you mean they keep proving the same point again and again; that god doesn’t exist, religion is bunk and the bible is a disgusting piece of fiction, then I completely agree with you.
Thanks for the comment, dedude! Feel free to review the rest of the site.
January 6, 2008 at 4:37 pm
And, dedude, I’m curious, which religion influences its followers to encourage the non-believer to kill themselves? I’m making a list, you see.
Thanks!
January 8, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Glad I found your site.
January 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Hello
Yep – an interesting site which will no doubt cause much controversy. The irony being that the one who make the biggest, most agressive statements will probably be the ‘christians’ who just cannot understand the importance of questioning. I remember once asking a nun at school whether reincarnation was a possibility and I was put in detention for a week. Haha! I think anyone who is questioning should yes, read the bible but if that makes your belief even stronger, then read the Life of Pi (by Yann Martell) – the questions that it asks and the answers it gives are an interesting and rewarding brain excercise to show just how maleable our beliefs are no matter how fantastical the story and *then* imagine an extra chapter on the end of the bible. Just a thought…. 
January 8, 2008 at 4:29 pm
The most harmful thing a parent can do to their child is teach them theory as fact, regardless of how wonderful that theory may be. Once myth has been established as fact in a child’s mind, it is very difficult, even as an adult, for that person to shake that belief. How true. My journey out of religious indoctrination has been a long process & I am almost 50! I keep finding I still hold ideas over from my childhood.( I was raised in a religiously fanatic Pentecostal environment) Just recently I got a book about the origin of the OT from the view of what has actually been unearthed by the science of Archaeology.( My blog discussion on the book here
) The truth is way more interesting then the myth & much more productive.
Speaking of…I found your blog from looking up that ridiculous House resolution 888
January 9, 2008 at 6:58 am
Well, I have actually read the Life of Pi, and it is a pretty well-written book, except for the parts where the island eats the people and animals decapitate each other (the tiger was very amusing). But anyways, you were talking about you as a former Christian was forced into attending Church, bible studies, etc. by your parents. The fact is that, we always do have a choice. The fact is, you were never a Christian. You were doing all the things people believed Christians must do; go to Church, read the Bible etc. The thing is that you have to want to do these things, but you did it out of obligation. Those around you were doing it therefore, you decided to try it. And when you didn’t like what you read in the Bible, you decided it wasn’t for you. Those who told you that the Bible was a self-help book were wrong; that is absolutely false. There is a misunderstanding that once you become a Christian, everything will be so much easier; that your life will magically be problem-free, suffering-free. This is not the case; in fact your life may even seem harder. (I assume you know about the trials and persecution) Well anyways, tis late and I really must sleep! So Guten Abend (German for Good night! Oh and I’m not German by the way).
January 9, 2008 at 8:18 am
teabagstone – *rubbing my hands with GLEE!* you have just perfectly disproved your own point by not understanding the premise I was putting forward with the Life of Pi. haha! ‘You were never a Christian’ is based on the fact that I did it out of an obligation? No, I did it because of indoctrination and I did not turn away from the story of the Bible, I just recognised that it was a man made product which has been abused by thousands of years of power-hungry organisations. I suggest that my theories are more ‘Christian’ than yours as I have taken them to the higher level than you have and I trust the values that are within me, rather than those that are preached to me. Organised religion kills the soul. ‘God’ would reject religion, as I have.
January 9, 2008 at 9:11 am
Well put, as usual, Narnie. So nice to have another rational thinker visiting my site. I don’t understand how teabagsforme misunderstood your point about Life of Pi.
And, teabagsforme, I will ask you one of my favorite questions for Christians, one which always provokes a different answer. First, you state that Narnie was never a Christian (still not clear how you came to that odd, willful conclusion), so I ask you, what is a legitimate ‘Christian’? Someone who reads the bible every day? Someone who has read the entire bible? Someone who picks and chooses which biblical laws to obey? Someone who takes every word of the bible as absolute fact and obeys it as such (guess your rebellious son should be stoned to death – Deut. 21:18-21)? Someone who is incapable of finding a single passage in the bible that they would describe as vile, revolting or disturbing? Someone who believes Christian dogma should be imposed on all cultures? Someone who believes the United States government should be a Christian one (thereby excluding the millions of legitimate Americans who worship a different deity or none at all). Someone who believes that Pat Robertson genuinely just returned from his annual vacation with the Lord, where the Lord informed him what would be happening in America in the upcoming year (What, no lottery numbers?!)? Someone who believes that everyone who comes to this country (U.S.) to become a citizen should be required to pledge their allegiance to it as well as an allegiance to ‘our’ Christian god, regardless of what religion they belong to or god(s) they may worship? Someone who believes that mention of the Christian god should appear on EVERY piece of currency we have? Just what, exactly, are the prerequisites for being a ‘real’ Christian?
And another thing, teabagsforme, whenever religion is indoctrinated into a child, in other words, when theory is taught as fact (see Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, etc.), the child is not given a choice. They blindly and innocently believe what their parent tells them. The children of the Branch Davidians (David Koresh) did this, as did the children of the ancient Greeks, Aztecs, etc., as do the children of Mormons, Scientologists, the Enawene Nawe (Amazonian Tribe), etc. And, also, I’ve never met a Christian, and I doubt Narnie has either, who believed that –‘everything will be so much easier; that your life will magically be problem-free, suffering-free’—by being part of that religion, nor did Narnie suggest such a thing.
I know it sounds like such a cliché, but The Truth Will Set You Free! I know it did for me and it sounds like the same is true for Narnie.
Thanks for your comments!
January 9, 2008 at 9:31 am
And for anyone interested, the name of the book handmaiden is referring to (and OT stands for Old Testament, btw) is — The Bible Unearthed: Archeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts”
Written by by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (Amazon.com’s Best of 2001)–. It’s one of those books that can only benefit humanity if read. Why aren’t books like this part of our children’s curriculum? Every bible believer should be required to read this, if for no other reason than to test their faith, something religionists are, sadly, rarely willing to do. Check it out here. The future of humanity depends on our species no longer relying on superstitions to guide our lives and shape our laws.
January 9, 2008 at 9:39 am
Well, the hyperlink didn’t work for the book so here is the link.
http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199871506&sr=8-2
January 9, 2008 at 5:24 pm
That comment by teabagforme The fact is, you were never a Christian. really peeves me. I have also been told by Christians that I never was one because I am not not one now. It infuriates me. I consider it the height of arrogance for them to presume they can validate or invalidate MY life by telling me what I am, am not, or have been. It’s the same bullshit I had to put up with as a child, when i was indoctrinated, brain-washed, filled with Bible propaganda… whatever you want to call it, by adults who should have known better. I became born-again my self as an adult & struggled for 10 years, trying to reconcile myself to Christianity. I’ve been baptized three different times in my life. I sure as heck don’t want some smug Christian who doesn’t even know me passing judgment on me just so he/she can justify their own twisted Christian logic…
When people like teabag & other Christians answer your question “what is a legitimate ‘Christian’?” You notice it always includes themselves & leaves out other people who also call themselves Christians. Now that is a good example of Christian logic!
January 10, 2008 at 3:12 am
Hi….? What is your first name? To state the obvious, mine is Jeromy.
Thanks for inviting me over to your blog. You have been busy! I have only read a few so far, but I am really intrigued by your questions. I honestly feel that part of the problem is that most churches do not provide a place or atmosphere to ask tough questions. Can I ask a few?
Are you put off by God and Jesus? or by church, religion, and Christendom? I personally believe the two are separate. For instance, there is this book, “I like Jesus but not the Church.” Would that be a fair statement for you?
Was there a breaking point where you said enough is enough? What was it?
I like what you said, “What is more moral, a Believer that assists someone in need with the expectation of a special reward in the afterlife, or an Atheist who helps simply because they feel this is the right thing to do?” Jesus seemed to mention a lot of about the fruit is what makes a person. I would say both are. After all, goodness is goodness; kindness is kindness. The heathen Samaritan was praised for his kindness and mercy…I’m sure the others would have been too if they would have stopped to help. I despise the equations that go: Person + Jesus = can do good / Person – Jesus = cannot do good.
January 10, 2008 at 3:41 am
One more…do you mind if I add you to my Blogroll?
January 10, 2008 at 4:44 am
Hey, dt.
Like the site, you should set up the RSS feed link I think your format would suit it perfectly. These little nuggets of rationality you have are great, will check back to work my way through it all.
I put a link to you on my site, hope you don’t mind. You should also check out the http://skepticum.com/ blog if you haven’t already.
January 10, 2008 at 6:05 am
I’ll be quite honest, Scepticon, I’m fairly new to the blog world (this is my first attempt at a site) and I have no idea what an RSS feed link is or how it works or how it would benifit me. Can you explain it and perhaps give me some pointers?
January 10, 2008 at 7:24 am
It’s not about me, you, or us. It’s supposed to be about God. And no, there is no legitimate Christian but to be as much like Jesus as possible. I’m not saying that we have to perform miracles and preach nationwide, or to force others who don’t want any part of God into Christianity. But to at least try tell others. We all know that no matter what we say to some people, they still refuse to listen. No one is a perfect Christian, just as no one is perfect.
January 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Thomas – RSS allows you to have new blog posts and comments “fed” to you so you don’t have to keep going back to the site to check for new stuff. You’ll need to find a feed-burner that you like, such as http://www.google.com/reader (or just Goolge Burn-feeder and pick one). Some mail software (such as Mac Mail) have the ability to add RSS feeds so they show up in your email. To add feeds from WordPress:
For Posts: Add “feed” to the address line (feed://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/feed) then copy and paste the address to your feedburner.
For Comments: Add “comments/feed” (feed://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/comments/feed/) and repeat. This will feed you all comments posted on a blog.
Hope this helps…
January 10, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Do you think you could add the recent comments widget? I can’t remember all the questions I replied to…
January 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm
Ok I am also very new to the blogging world so if I put this comment in the wrong spot then I really do appologize.
I was also raised in a Christian home, but I remeber at a very early age questioning everything that my parents tought me and what the Church taught me. My parents always encouraged questions and told me that if I didn’t know why I believed what I did then there was no point in believing it. Some people are raised in Christian homes and feel brainwashed, others like me, are encouraged to make our own decissions about Christ. The question I would pose would be, does our upbringing, or our experiance with the church or other Christians, have any effect on reality? Does the way your Sunday school teacher taught you make God real? Does someone teaching your about Christ from birth make it false?
As to your oposition to the God of the Bible, well I’ll try to keep this a short and maybe clarify as we go along. When we read through the bible, do we question if God was justified in condeming the Angels that fell (satan and his buddies) to eternal condemnation. Do we think that it is unfair for them to spend an eternity in Hell without hope of redemption? Yet we think that we are so much better. The problem is we fell, we sinned, and God did not have to have His son come to this earth to die for our sins. He could have let us all join Satan in hell, but He provided a way for us. If God is God, then we have no claim to heaven, and it is only by His grace, for His glory, that we are saved. Not because we’re all good people and this world should be happy and full of sunshine. By his grace and His glory alone. God does not owe us anything. He gave us a perfect world, without pain, without death, without suffering, and we’re the ones who mucked it up.
January 10, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Laurel Esser said:
I have a hard time accepting this at face value. I don’t like the term brainwashing, but indoctrination is certainly a very good term to use to describe what parents do to children. Teaching them not to cross the street without looking both ways is also indoctrination, at that age.
If you live in a household that assumes the existence of god, even if you are told to make up your own mind as to your beliefs, that, in and of itself is a form of indoctrination, and certainly more insidious, because it’s unintentional.
The proof is in the pudding. If you are raised in Iran, you will most likely believe in Allah. Why? Because that’s what your parents believe in, regardless of whether they partook in any form of indoctrination. If you’re a Christian, I would bet, 99.999999% of the time, your parents were Christian.
You for instance. Why aren’t you a Muslim, if you had such an open upbringing? Or Hindu?
It certainly has an effect on your perception of reality.
No. Nothing makes God real. You can talk and read your Bible and get your Sunday School lessons until you’re dead, and god won’t be any more real as a result.
No. Doesn’t make it true either.
January 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm
How we were raised and what we were taught as children does effect our perception of reality, but as you agreed it does not affect reality itself. You compare it to the tooth fairy or Santa Clause and said, “…and grows up never encountering anyone who informs him that Santa Claus isn’t real, guess who still believes in Santa Claus as an adult” I disagree. I think at some point they would question when there was no proof that he existed. Santa Clause brings presents every year, so every year someone would have to trick a grown adult and make him think that present came from a guy who fit down your chimney. Now I know your going to say that people are just continually tricking us into believing about God, but I think we can agree it’s a silly comparison. God does not leave us without the proof and the evidence that we need to know Him.
My parents both came from atheist homes that did not include God in the diner conversation. Why do my parents believe in God? God works in the lives of people who were raised in Christian homes and ones who were raised in Buddhist homes etc. (Although God does promise to bless from generation to generation). You no longer believing in God is proof that your upbringing did not affect you ability to think things for yourself.
The way parents raise or don’t raise their children does not affect reality. Either there is a God or there isn’t. I believe there is. You believe there isn’t. And someone else believes something else. Now we can all be wrong, but we can’t all be right.
“they can offer some sort of enlightenment that could possibly renew my faith,”
I am in no way trying to convert you, or renew your faith, only God can do that. But I really do enjoy talking to someone who has real reasons for not wanting to believe in God, and who is willing to talk about it.
January 11, 2008 at 3:00 pm
quick sorry – I applogize if I am mixing up quotes from doubtingthomas and the spanish inquisitor (to many blogs going at once)
January 12, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I added the Recent Comments Widget, Nicole, thanks for the suggestion. A very good idea.
January 12, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Spanish Inquisitor, thanks for your comment, I couldn’t have said it better myself. BTW, can you give me a tip on how you separate your comments from the ones you’re replying to the way you do (colored boxes). I certainly makes it much easier to tell the two apart. Thanks.
January 12, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Laura Esser, you said the following — “You compare it to the tooth fairy or Santa Clause and said, “…and grows up never encountering anyone who informs him that Santa Claus isn’t real, guess who still believes in Santa Claus as an adult” I disagree. I think at some point they would question when there was no proof that he existed. Santa Clause brings presents every year, so every year someone would have to trick a grown adult and make him think that present came from a guy who fit down your chimney. Now I know your going to say that people are just continually tricking us into believing about God, but I think we can agree it’s a silly comparison. God does not leave us without the proof and the evidence that we need to know Him.”
Laura, first, NO, we can not agree that it is a silly comparison. It is a PERFECT comparison. The story of Santa Claus is a myth, taught to children by their parents. The feats Santa achieves are nothing short of miraculous, which, of course, means impossible. They completely defy reality. There is no factual evidence to support any of the achievements depicted in the stories told of Santa Claus’. If a child indoctrinated to believe in the reality of Santa Claus was isolated from those that didn’t believe in him and continued to be taught that he was real, was surrounded by others who also believed, was regularly confronted with ‘evidence’ that he was real (presents every Christmas, cookies and milk gone next morning, reindeer hoof prints on roof, etc.), you’re telling me they wouldn’t be likely to grow up still believing? You’re telling me a child indoctrinated in into the Christian religion, practically forbidden to associate with anyone who wasn’t a fellow Christian, who is dragged to church every Sunday to have his indoctrination reinforced, and where he is often confronted by ‘evidence’ of the reality of these teachings by lunatics pretending to speak in tongues, fake faith healings, passionate stories told of first hand experiences with the miraculous (never with an type of proof), is put into a private school where everyday he is reminded of the ‘truth’ of the bible, you’re telling me this is a silly comparison?
You state both your parents were raised in atheist homes and ask so why do they both believe in God? Good question, please answer it. When did they ‘find god’? Who did they meet? What was happening in their lives? The reason people who aren’t religious ‘find’ religion is always different but always has a few disturbing similarities that always reveal the self-centeredness of their reason. You say God works in Christian homes and Buddhist homes. What does this mean? God is actively trying to convert those that worship other gods or belong to other religions into Christians? Why does he suck so bad at it? And which of the 80+ sects of Christianity is God leaning toward? And you say that God promises to BLESS from generation to generation? Try again — Ex 34:6,7 – “… and that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children & upon the children’s children, unto the third and fourth generation.” AND Jer. 13:13, 14 – “Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings… and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness. And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the Lord: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.” AND Jer 11:22, 23 – “Behold, I will punish them: the young men shall die by the sword; their sons and their daughters shall die by famine: And there shall be no remnant of them: for I will bring evil upon the men of Anathoth…” AND Jer 15:5, 7, 9 – “For who shall have pity upon thee, O Jerusalem? or who shall bemoan thee? … I will bereave them of children, I will destroy my people since they return not from their ways … and the residue of them will I deliver to the sword before their enemies, saith the Lord.” AND Nahum 1:2 – “God is jealous, and the Lord revengeth; the Lord revengeth, and is furious; the Lord will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies.” AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON.
And my no longer believing in your god doesn’t prove that my upbringing didn’t affect my ability to think things through. If I had never escaped the suffocating religious establishment that had me in its snare I would still be a believer, just as many of those from my private school days still are. What it proves is, that once you are no longer surrounded (suffocated) by a religious reinforcement of theory you win the ability to think freely and with a clear mind. The clouds depart and the scales are lifted from your eyes. You begin to see reason and logic and realize that TRUTH is never a ‘claim’, it is always a fact.
[[[The way parents raise or don’t raise their children does not affect reality.]]]
Don’t be silly. Of course it does. A child’s reality is FAR, FAR from the real world. Only when you become an adult is there an opportunity to shed the fables of your childhood. The problem is, many don’t because they never allow anyone in their lives that would suggest that what they believe isn’t the truth. Do you have any idea how many 18 year-olds truly believe that if, during intercourse, the girl is ‘on top’, she can’t become pregnant? If no one ever told them different they would continue to believe that fallacy until they saw the plus symbol in the little box. Oops!
[[[we can all be wrong, but we can’t all be right.]]]
On this we can agree. The problem is you are CERTAIN that, of all the thousands of gods that have been invented and worshiped, of all the religions that have existed, YOU somehow found the ONE real one. Your certainty that you are right and the rest are silly, made up nonsense and your unwillingness to scrutinize your own beliefs is what’s so troubling to atheists. You see, we are so alike, only I dismiss just ONE additional god, the one you worship. That’s all.
January 12, 2008 at 4:56 pm
once you are no longer surrounded (suffocated) by a religious reinforcement of theory you win the ability to think freely and with a clear mind. That is it in a nut shell.
January 12, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Laura Esser said: “The problem is we fell, we sinned, and God did not have to have His son come to this earth to die for our sins.”
Laura, first of I am not nor ever was a Christian. I was raised a Jain, but am now an atheist.
If Adam and Eve sinned, why does that automatically mean that I have sinned too? I find this one of the most perplexing doctrines in Xtianity. To me it is akin to hanging a child for the murders her father committed.
Would anyone be willing to be called a criminal for the crimes of someone else? Would you be willing to be labeled a child molester? If you aren’t than why are you willing to consider yourself a sinner without any judgment of your own actions or thoughts?
Also, hi to doubtingthomas426, i am enjoying your blog.
January 13, 2008 at 11:25 am
Hey, JayS, glad to have a fellow rational thinker stop by. You asked some good questions but I fear the answers will be typical religious dogma. You might want to check out the comments from the believers on some of my others posts to get an idea of the never ending battle of dogma I’ve been dealing with. See the links below.
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/i-also-require-proof/
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/if-the-statement-is-true-your-religion-is-vile/
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/09/hornets-from-god/
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/so-unnecessary/
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/as-man-evolves-so-do-his-worshiping-practices/
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/god-punishes-more-innocent-people-than-guilty/
Keep checking back.
January 14, 2008 at 5:51 am
This is a very strangely setup site. I keep wanting to just hit the home page, scroll down, and read more!
I think your evolution is an intriguing one, and your point about the transfer of faith onto children falls upon sympathetic years, although that particular bit of decency is well ahead of its time.
Keep up the good work!
January 14, 2008 at 6:37 am
Greetings. You have an interesting story to tell. I don’t have the time to respond to all your points but I can see that we probably will disagree on most things. But one thing you said is sadly true. The Bible isn’t read to the degree that one would expect of a best seller. I don’t know about it being the least read book. However it’s at least true that we live in a culture where many professing Christians are biblically illiterate. If you have any studies you can point me to, I’d like to see them.
Not every Christian however is biblically illiterate and many Christians, including myself, have read the Bible completely through – more than once. I don’t agree that if more people read it completely that they’d come away as atheists (as you say you did.) We’re all different. Some have come to faith by reading the Bible. It’s impossible to generalize.
I look forward to perusing your site as I have time.
January 14, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Good points about Christians not really studying their Bible enough. And you are probably right that most people don’t explain the purpose of the Bible. It isn’t a “joyous life-guide encouraging love and happiness” guide, though it can lead to true joy.
Yes, it includes all those awful things you mention because life is messy and sinful humans do those things.
I went to church my whole life (except the college years) but rejected the beliefs until my late 20’s when I finally took the Bible seriously and studied it. If kids are being “indoctrinated” then the parents must not be doing a very good job of it, because it sure ain’t sticking very well.
I examined the evidence for the life, death of resurrection of Jesus and the truth claims of other religions as well. I am most grateful to be a follower of Jesus and to have all my sins forgiven by what He did for me.
Good points re. Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. I think those are a waste of time and can’t see why Christians, of all people, would emphasize them so.
I always remind Christians that one bad argument can undermine ten good ones. So if I were you I’d drop the “Hitler was a Christian” bit. It is a popular but poor argument atheists use, and I’ve never seen it advance a conversation. I could call myself a Muslim, but the pesky facts that I think Allah is a fiction, the Koran is false, Mohammad was false, I like Jewish people, I love bacon, etc. would give people reasons to doubt that assertion.
January 15, 2008 at 11:40 am
Whiteman0o0, I deleted your comment regarding the Origin of Life and created a new post to address your excelent question here:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-origin-of-life/
January 15, 2008 at 1:00 pm
[[[Yes, it (the Bible) includes all those awful things you mention because life is messy and sinful humans do those things.]]]
Neil, you’ve read the bible, right? Then you know that the majority of the atrocities I mention on this site are done by your god and those that are done by man are done under the command of your god. Please click on my THE CRUELTY OF THE CREATOR category on the left for just a few examples.
IF kids are being indoctrinated, Neil? IF? Are you suggesting that this isn’t occurring?
————————————
[[[I examined the evidence for the life, death of resurrection of Jesus ]]]
You’ve examined the EVIDENCE? I would love to see it. Can you direct me to this evidence? I ask because during my studies and investigations I found only the opposite, hence how I lost my faith.
———————————–
[[[if I were you I’d drop the “Hitler was a Christian” bit. It is a popular but poor argument atheists use]]]
Neil, I’m not sure I understand what you mean. First, I wasn’t making an argument but asking the common question of who Adolf Hitler would have become if he had been an Atheist instead of a Christian. I understand that Christians HATE being reminded of this fact but it IS a fact. His anti-Semitism was a direct result of his religious upbringing. All I was suggesting was that it is an interesting idea to ponder. What if? And the notion that his ACTIONS weren’t very Christian therefore he wasn’t a REAL Christian is absurd. The pages of the bible are filled with atrocities that would make those Hitler was responsible for pale in comparison.
Thanks for your comments. Please keep reviewing my other posts categorized at the top of the page on the left.
January 15, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Nicole, I deleted your comment and moved it here as it didn’t really fit here.
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/nicoles-comment-i-moved-it-here/
I’ll try to reply to it tomorrow
January 15, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Yeh, it’s not that Christianity is bad in itself. It’s the people that twist scripture to fit their own purposes.
I’m by no means defending any sect of Christianity. Personally, I’m pretty much a lapsed Catholic, so I cannot criticize anyone else, and I am tired of defending my own faith.
But I always enjoy looking at the world through others perspectives, so I’m looking forward to perusing your blog.
January 16, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Hi Doubting Thomas, Keep watching my blog, because I am going to be writing about some amazinghidden secrets and mysteries that are coming to light here in the end times. I know you’ll be interested because if there wasn’t some deep seated belief within you, you would not be trying to surpress it by writing against it.
It amazes me that people who call themselves atheist, feel so compelled to write about religion, especially Christianity. Why do you care itf someone wants to believe in, what you call, “a fable?” It’s not like your trying to save me from anything. If what you believe is true wouldn’t your time be much better of doing soimething else????
January 16, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Hi,
God created this world for his pleasure and put Adam in the garden. Adam and Eve sinned by disobeying God and their fellowship was cut off from God. All their children were born in the spirit and likeness of their parents (Gen. 5:3), that means all of us, the descendants of Adam, were cut off from God. Rom 3:23 – all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Rom 3:10 – there is none righteous, not even one. Rom 6:23 – the wages of sin is DEATH, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Christ Jesus our Lord.
Jesus said: ‘I am the Way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father EXCEPT THROUGH ME. The whole purpose of Jesus on His sinless life on this earth was to DIE on the cross. Because He never sinned, as the Son of God, He was the only one who was qualified to take away the sins of the whole world. He died, was buried and on the 3rd day rose again, because He had conquered death. Hebrews 9:22 – without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. That is why Christ had to die.
God loved the world so much that He gave His Son, to redeem the whole world. He gave His Son and raised Him up again. God is holy, and no sin can come near Him, that is why the world had to be redeemed before it could come to Him John 3:16 – for God so loved the world that He gave His son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but should have everlasting life. That everlasting life is in heaven, where God is and longs for us to be with Him. Jesus will come again, this time to gather those who are His to His side in heaven, where the streets are made of gold.
A admit that you are a sinner
B believe that Jesus died on the cross for YOU
C choose Jesus as the Lord and Saviour of your life, to save you from your sins and redeem you.
Acts 16:31 Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you WILL be saved
January 16, 2008 at 12:58 pm
[[[pbt777 SAID - It amazes me that people who call themselves atheist, feel so compelled to write about religion, especially Christianity. Why do you care itf someone wants to believe in, what you call, “a fable?” It’s not like your trying to save me from anything. If what you believe is true wouldn’t your time be much better of doing soimething else????]]]
pbt777, did you even read my introduction page above? My focus is Christianity because that is the religion I was indoctrinated into. As to why Atheists write or discuss religion at all, it’s really very simple. We’re bewildered as to why you believe. We are curious to learn how people are capable of such willful ignorance and self delusion. The truth is out there. It isn’t hiding from the faithful. The faithful are hiding from it. And think about it, pbt777, what if you knew of a whole group of people who believed in the existence of unicorns. These people worshiped these imaginary creatures. Your teenage daughter had hooked up with a guy who was part of this group and was now deeply entrenched with them as well. Would it be a waste of your time to discuss or write about how you know this religion to be false and offer evidence for your beliefs? Were those who tried to fee their loved ones from the thrall of David Koresh wasting their time? Is there a more noble endeavor man can partake in than the attempt to reveal the truth to those that only know the lie?
And to clarify (again), all the posts on this site existed LONG before the site ever did. I have been studying the bible and religion for a very long time. Over the years I made massive catalogs of notes. Eventually I transferred them to my computer, and at the urging of a friend, I created a site to categorize them all and give others a chance to read and respond to my conclusions and questions. Strange how only religionist think I should be doing something else with my spare time.
And, pbt777, please save the end times rhetoric. I heard the ‘any day now’ garbage when I was a kid, as did my father, my grandfather, my great grandfather and on an on since the first words of Jesus’ return were first written. And don’t forget, Jesus predicted that he would return to earth within a very short time, BEFORE his generation should pass away. The apostles actually believed they would be the first.
January 16, 2008 at 1:00 pm
And, amber, thanks for proving nothing other than that you can copy and paste your religious dogma on my site.
Biblical passages are not evidence of truth.
January 16, 2008 at 1:23 pm
The word of God, the bible is the truth. It is God’s love letter to mankind. God’s word is true. If I dictate a letter to my secretary to type out, is it me or my secretary who wrote the letter? It’s the same with God and how he gave His word to men. He has many attributes. He is a righteous judge as well as a loving Father.
January 16, 2008 at 1:24 pm
The word of God, the bible is the truth. It is God’s love letter to mankind. God’s word is true. If I dictate a letter to my secretary to type out, is it me or my secretary who wrote the letter? It’s the same with God and how he gave His word to men. He has many attributes. He is a righteous judge as well as a loving Father.
January 16, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Amber.. I need to tell you something as one xian talking to another. You will not win over any atheist by spitting scripture at them. It just makes you come across as arrogant and narrow minded. !)avid
January 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Hello, I am another person who bumped into your blog, and find it interesting as peculiarly Christian sort of Atheism ( perhaps the most normal sort found on the web, but reading your blog pointed it out to me).
Most Christianity and especially the fundamentalist sort seem to me to revolve around two basic principals.
1). that the bible is an encyclopedia, and the final word on what can be discovered from it
2) that there is an all powerful God who is an actual critter, made everything and micromanages to an absurd degree, but has such a weak ego that he will rearrange reality to suit the requests of a properly sincere sycophant.
Upon discovering that either of these dubious propositions, are unlikely or outright false, chucks out the baby, bathwater, bassinet, crib etc. to the point of dumping the concept of children altogether.
Santa Claus is indeed a good example. The actual reality of a crazy old man several hundred years ago who brightened the lives of local children in the coldest and bleakest part of the year with bright gifts is quite immaterial. Or perhaps he was real and a pedophile, that part is quite irrelevant. What is relevant is the Idea of kindness and consideration and the positive effect it has on everyone despite the apparent illogic of just giving stupid gifts away without normal cause.
Of course what was also done to that story is instructive as well, as people with ulterior motives warped it into an unrecognizable orgy of tossing money at corporations and the competing cacophony of religious, and semi religious groups shoring up their base.
And so it is with most religions, pretechnical people, often very brilliant, trying to make sense of life, sometimes in an honest search to understand, sometimes to achieve a political end that itself might have been honest or nefarious, and every generation after taking what they found and trying to reachieve all that in their own lights.
In doing so many good ideas, bad ideas, silly ideas, and irrelevant ideas have accreted to all the religions so that while none can be taken literally, all have valuable ideas hidden in the dross. Since the Churches they cam from were often unaware of these insights, even in their own religion, much less others, is is not surprising that a rejectionist of that religion might miss the actual treasures they inherited as well.
Because most of Christiandom has historically been so anti-intellectual, it’s own cupboards are barer than most, but there are many religions that have no “God” and many others that the gods are concepts and not critters (except to the dullest observer). All of these have much to teach, without trying to be an encyclopedia, or fantasy father figure.
I once thought of trying to put all this into another new religion, but a cult of intellectual foment, with a lively array of opinions, seems to go against its own nature.
January 16, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I have been reading all of the things that you don’t believe, and I was wondering what you do believe. (I don’t mean that sarcastically or rhetorically at all, I am very curious as to what you believe). For example, do you believe in evolution, if not where you think the world came from, or was it simply always here. What happens to us when we die? Do we just go into the ground, or do you believe similar to the Buddhist who thinks that we all become part of this life force that continues? Do you believe that there may be something that created us but he(or they I suppose) is unknowable or that the universe has always been there? Where did we get a sense of good and evil? How do you explain the complexities of our own bodies, minds and souls? Since there are a lot of questions there I suppose I am mostly interested in the big 3 – where did we come from, why are we here and where do we go when we die?
January 17, 2008 at 1:54 am
Thanks, David (whiteman0o0), for your comment to amber. I think it helps to hear it from another believer. It’s so very frustrating when a religionist, upon hearing/reading your opinion, simply responds in a knee-jerk fashion by spewing scripture. If an atheist doesn’t believe in the validity of your holy book, quoting passages from it isn’t going to make much of an impact.
January 17, 2008 at 2:39 am
Hi, Laurel, welcome back. I appreciate your interest in discovering where I’m coming from, but truthfully, I don’t think who I am is very relevant. You see, as odd as this may sound, this blog/site isn’t really about me. As I’ve stated before, I created this site simply as a place to categorize all the observations/questions I’ve accumulated over the years as I studied this religion (Christianity) I once so passionately believed in. I decided to create it in a blog format so that those who agreed or disagreed with my posts could feel free to respond.
However, since you asked so nicely; I believe in the EVOLUTION of evolution. As a theory I believe it is supported by proven fact more than any other theory. I believe that the more we discover about the history of our planet the more evolution makes sense. But it is far from perfect. Where do I think the world came from? Simply put, I have no idea. I’ve never been satisfied by the ol’ Big Bang Theory. However, I DON’T believe that the explanation given in the bible has ANY basis in reality. The Origin of Life is one of the greatest mysteries we will ever be faced with. This very subject is currently being discussed on another of my posts – http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-origin-of-life/ . What happens to us when we die? We return to the earth. That’s all. I don’t find this in any way depressing. It’s just life. I do not require an AFTERLIFE to be happy while alive. I do not believe in good and evil. I DO use the words good and evil to describe the behaviors of man but these are simply dramatic ways to declare approval and disapproval of another’s conduct. I do not believe morality is exclusive to the religious. I do not believe in astrology. I do not believe in the supernatural (ghosts, psychics, etc.). I believe in science. I believe in what has been proven. If I can’t see evidence of the reality of a thing, I can not believe in it. I do not believe in FAITH. I believe in proof. I believe in truth. I believe in reason. I believe in scrutiny. I believe we must never stop seeking knowledge. I believe that none of us should be satisfied by an answer given to us by another.
I’m sure this hasn’t answered your questions completely but it should give you a little peek behind the curtain.
Take Care.
January 17, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Sorry, I know that was off topic from your site but I really did appriciate that. I also beleive in science and what can be proven. I’m going to be busy for the next few weeks but then I’ll be posting some scientific evolution vs creation questions on my blog (and I’ll jump back into the conversation). Thanks again and I’ll be back in a few weeks
January 18, 2008 at 5:13 am
Hey Thomas – I’m enjoying the read here from another person of little (to no) faith. =).
you wrote:
“Once myth has been established as fact in a child’s mind, it is very difficult, even as an adult, for that person to shake that belief. ”
Ain’t that the truth!! Thank gawd, or the powers that be in our heads, that some of us CAN and DO shake some of these stifling beliefs…
Loking forward to readning more from you….
~smj
January 18, 2008 at 10:27 am
Hey “Thomas”, My name is Derek Jones I am the co founder of the Atheist/humanist website pathofreason.com. I would like to ask you a couple of questions about your writings and your blog. I really like your work but wish to discuss this via email if thats all right with you. Feel free to send me an Email at Pathofreason@yahoo.com. Thanks man
January 19, 2008 at 6:42 am
“or an Atheist who helps simply because they feel this is the right thing to do? ”
So where do atheists get this notion of right and wrong?
January 19, 2008 at 10:13 am
[[[In refference to my question of what is more moral, a Believer that assists someone in need with the expectation of a special reward in the afterlife, or an Atheist who helps simply because they feel this is the right thing to do, Papa asked: So where do atheists get this notion of right and wrong?]]]
Papa, your question truly saddens me. You reveal yourself to be one of those religionists who believe that the notion for understanding right and wrong comes ONLY with ‘faith’, and that atheists aren’t actually people who don’t believe in god but instead, are simply denying their belief. This is such a willful assertion. It simply has NO basis in reality whatsoever. And I feel I must ask you, if ‘faith’ is required to be moral and know right from wrong, exactly which god must I have ‘faith’ in? Only the Christian god, meaning only YOUR god? Are Scientologists incapable of knowing right from wrong? Buddhists? ANY of those who worshiped the thousands of gods that have been worshiped in the history of our civilization? In other words; To understand right from wrong, must I belong to YOUR religion, Papa?
Morality and ethics do not come from a god, it is the result of an evolved, higher functioning brain that is capable of understanding the consequences of an action. It is really that simple.
January 19, 2008 at 10:30 am
Derek, I checked out http://www.pathofreason.com and like what I’ve seen so far. I sent you an email, though you might want to check your junk mail folder in case it got filtered.
January 19, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“‘or an Atheist who helps simply because they feel this is the right thing to do? ‘
So where do atheists get this notion of right and wrong?”
Raising, reason, logic, emotion.
Do you honestly think that right snd wrong has to come from a supernatural bing? Think about it!
Ideas of right and wrong come from evolution, social need and emotion.I can easily think of 4 main explanations for morality. 1. Humans are social animal and social animal instinctual have rules. 2. Humans a social animels and for humans to survive as social animals we need rules. 3 No one wants people to bad things to them thus we all agree not to do bad things to each other. 4. People are born with a conscience, compassion and empathy.
Of course these don’t tell us what is right or wrong but it gives us a framework to categorise things as right, wrong and gray (nether or a combination of the 2). It is through logic,reason and emotion (though only logic and reason should be used but people are emotional creators) that we categorise things as right, wrong and gray.
January 19, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“No one wants people to bad things to them thus we all agree not to do bad things to each other.”
This is just one example of where materialistic explanations for morality always fail. They bring some concept of “good and bad” in the back door, and imply that survival is a “good.”
Of course we think surviving is good, but materialism can’t explain why. Under its theory, countless species died out before humans got here. Why was that “bad?” Why would it be bad for the universe if the whole planet died out?
If it is all about survival (an unproven “good” to begin with), then helping my neighbor could be good, or killing him and taking his stuff could be good.
Laws require a lawgiver.
January 19, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Hmm, I like your point about survival, Neil. How about that, WE AGREE ON SOMETHING! Reason to celebrate?
January 19, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I’m always looking for common ground, so I’ll take it!
Enjoy the weekend.
January 19, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Your thinking is just a product of random, purposeless processes. So where did this idea of morality come from? If from understanding the consequences as you suggest, then if the consequences of killing favor the killer, that is moral in your definition.
Or would you agree that killing an innocent person is morally wrong? How about stealing if I can always get away with it? Then the consequences are I get material goods or money for free. That sounds like a fair deal to me. Is it still wrong to steal even if I don’t get caught or is stealing wrong on the face of it?
January 19, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Neil: You completely ignore the point and then take 1 small thing I said and try to say its wrong by a completely that dose not actually disprove it then make a completely false statement that I already beaten beyond reasonable doubt.
You do not need a god to explain morality,
Papa: Our thinking is not part of random processes.
January 20, 2008 at 12:28 am
I am lurking on here – I need to think a bit, and post in a few days….
January 20, 2008 at 4:59 am
Lone Wolf ….it’s thinking on morality. And atheism cannot account for it.
January 20, 2008 at 6:12 am
Papa, I gave 4 explanations for morality that beyond any reasonable doubt prove that there is no need for a supernatural bind to explain morality. In fact God dose not explain morality.If God say “Do this” or “Don’t do this”, That dose not make “this” moral or immoral. Thats nothing but authoritarianism.
January 20, 2008 at 6:33 am
Authoritarianism may not be the best or most accurate word but right now I can’t think of another.
January 20, 2008 at 7:33 am
Appeal to authority, thats a better.
In fact God dose not explain morality.If God say “Do this” or “Don’t do this”, That dose not make “this” moral or immoral. Thats nothing but the appeal to authority fallacy.
January 20, 2008 at 11:11 am
[[[Papa said the following: Your thinking is just a product of random, purposeless processes. So where did this idea of morality come from? If from understanding the consequences as you suggest, then if the consequences of killing favor the killer, that is moral in your definition.
Or would you agree that killing an innocent person is morally wrong? How about stealing if I can always get away with it? Then the consequences are I get material goods or money for free. That sounds like a fair deal to me. Is it still wrong to steal even if I don’t get caught or is stealing wrong on the face of it?]]]
—————-
Papa, since you seem unwilling to acknowledge the questions I asked you in my last post, I will repeat myself.
–Papa, your question truly saddens me. You reveal yourself to be one of those religionists who believe that the notion for understanding right and wrong comes ONLY with ‘faith’, and that atheists aren’t actually people who don’t believe in god but instead, are simply denying their belief. This is such a willful assertion. It simply has NO basis in reality whatsoever. And I feel I must ask you, if ‘faith’ is required to be moral and know right from wrong, exactly which god must I have ‘faith’ in? Only the Christian god, meaning only YOUR god? Are Scientologists incapable of knowing right from wrong? Buddhists? ANY of those who worshiped the thousands of gods that have been worshiped in the history of our civilization? In other words; To understand right from wrong, must I belong to YOUR religion, Papa?
Morality and ethics do not come from a god, it is the result of an evolved, higher functioning brain that is capable of understanding the consequences of an action. It is really that simple.–
And, Papa, your interpretation of my statement on morality in the non religious was bizarre and VERY revealing. The idea that I was suggesting that someone who gains benefit from killing or stealing is behaving morally is just absurd. These people KNOW what they are doing is wrong, not because your god told them that but because the law told them that. They chose to do the crime anyway, thus they chose to behave immorally. This example doesn’t even REQUIRE any consideration of a personal moral or ethical belief as these people are basing their decisions on an external set of moral standards. And as Lone Wolf stated, people are born with compassion, empathy and a conscience. Granted, some seem as if they aren’t but this is always a matter of someone’s will overcoming these qualities. Understanding the consequences of your actions and using logic and reason to judge whether it would be right or wrong has far more to do with individual morality than faith. No matter how adamantly you insist that this isn’t the case, understanding of right and wrong DO exists outside of your chosen religion, Papa. And it could be argued that the religious don’t do what is right (when they do) because of their morality but out of FEAR. And fear of burning in eternal hellfire because you worked on the Sabbath is not a basis for morality.
Finally, Papa, I insist you make a statement on where YOU think morality comes from. I think you’ve made it pretty clear but I want you to put it in words. In black and white. WHERE DOES MORALITY COME FROM?
January 20, 2008 at 11:14 am
Also, for a very good article on the topic of the existence of morality outside of religion please visit
http://humanists.net/avijit/article/does_religion_define_morality_aparthib.htm
January 20, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Papa: If God will forgive any sin (no matter how bad it is) if you believe and except Jesus as your savorer, whats the motivation not to sin? Cause not madder what you do, you’ll be forgiven, you could go out and rape and murder 6 year old girls every night, God will forgive.
Theres no real motivation not to sin.
January 20, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I didn’t read all of Papa’s comments so I’m not sure how he characterized it, but it is not Biblical to say that you have to be a Christian to understand morality. On the contrary, read Romans 1-3. God wrote the law on our heart, so everyone knows it is wrong to murder, steal, etc. This actually agrees with your statement that, “And as Lone Wolf stated, people are born with compassion, empathy and a conscience.”
My point is that human laws don’t determine what is moral (though they may make someone think an act is moral). Regardless of your position on abortion, it is either moral or it isn’t. The change in laws didn’t take it from being moral to immoral or vice verse.
So from a Christian worldview it is no surprise that most people have a basic set of morals. The problem is that we are sinners and violate our own codes of conduct all the time.
Lone Wolf, as I noted just this week ( http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/grace/ ), that is a common misunderstanding of grace. The Bible addresses this here and in other places. If you have a true understanding and acceptance of grace you won’t sin on purpose. But God’s grace is indeed so vast that murderers and rapists can be forgiven.
Romans 6:1-2 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer?
Romans 6:15-18 What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Don’t you know that when you offer yourselves to someone to obey him as slaves, you are slaves to the one whom you obey—whether you are slaves to sin, which leads to death, or to obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God that, though you used to be slaves to sin, you wholeheartedly obeyed the form of teaching to which you were entrusted. You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to righteousness.
January 20, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Neil, I felt obliged to comment on your statement that regardless of your position on abortion it is either moral or it isn’t. I would argue that the moral question here is whether it is moral to embrace your own ego and demand that YOU should be making the decision for the woman that is considering abortion as an option.
Also, can you please refrain from quoting scripture to defend your beliefs. I ask for personal explanations, reasons and motives, not dogma. If an atheist believes your holy book is a bunch of nonsense, then spewing quotes from it will do very little to impress us. Not scolding you here, just asking. And before you come back with the expected retort that I use scriptural references throughout my site, remember, I use them as an example of what is WRONG with the book and the Christian god, NOT because I believe in them. Your quoting the lovely passages of the bible doesn’t make the ugly ones go away.
January 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Re. abortion, as you noted I deliberately made my point regardless of which side of the aisle one was on. If the gov’t decides what is “moral” then it isn’t true morality – it is majority rules (democracy) or fiat (other forms of gov’t).
Your nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview strives to explain why true morality could arise, but it always has to bring something in the back door. Your link made the same errors that others always do when attempting this feat.
Your pro-abortion reasoning has the same flaw as virtually all their sound bites: It assumes that the unborn is not a human being. If the unborn isn’t human, no explanation for abortion is necessary. If the unborn is a human being, no excuse is adequate (except to save the life of the mother, which is consistent with the pro-life ethic). I teach pro-life reasoning (always distinguishing between Biblical arguments and secular – I don’t need the Bible to annihilate the pro-abortion position). Feel free to stop by my blog for that.
Your contention that it is my “ego” and that I “demand” that I make decisions for others is a tired old ad hominem. Since I didn’t even take a position with my example I found it odd that you would jump in with that attack. BTW, I addressed this myth here – http://4simpsons.wordpress.com/2006/12/18/pro-lifers-dont-care-about-kids-after-they-are-born/
I use scripture to explain the Christian worldview. Lone Wolf misunderstood an element of it, so I was answering his point. I wasn’t trying to make anything “go away.” I thought that would be a logical way to show how he misunderstood the Biblical concept of grace.
It isn’t dogma, it comprises the “personal explanations, reasons and motives” for my views.
Your aversion to proper interpretion of scripture reveals much.
I thought you wanted dialogue, but your rules that you can use scripture to attack Christianity but that I can’t use it to defend / clarify it are a bit one-sided for my tastes. I require my commenters to avoid straw man arguments and personal attacks, but I don’t insist that they not critique the Bible.
I seem to offend you regardless of how I put forth my views. Since I don’t want to polarize you further, I’m going to bow out. Enjoy the last words!
Peace,
Neil
January 20, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Neil, you stated that you won’t be back but I have a feeling you are reading this so I will respond to your last comment. And please don’t take my irritation with certain comments you made as me being offended. I assure I wasn’t.
First, on the abortion issue, you missed my point (on top of making some ugly accusations that, one, I am pro-abortion, and, two, that I don’t believe the fetus inside a woman is human). Whether the living thing inside the woman’s body is a tumor or a human fetus is not the issue. The issue is WHO decides what this woman can do with the living thing inside her body. And just so we’re clear I am an atheist, a registered independent, am pro-life, AGAINST abortion AND pro-choice. This issue is FAR from black and white. My position is this; the living thing inside the woman’s body, whether it’s a tumor or a human fetus, is not capable of making a decision. On this we can, no doubt, agree. So it comes down to WHO gets to decide. I say, first, NO MAN should ever get to make the decision for the woman, EVER. Not the father, not the priest, not the doctor, not the President. Man simply has no ability to understand. It seems to me, that if someone MUST make the decision on whether or not to destroy what resides inside the woman’s body (whether tumor or fetus), then the ONLY logical person would be the person whose body it resides in. Are you saying you don’t agree with this? If not, then please explain just WHO you think has more ‘moral’ authority over this woman’s body? And until God can come down and sign a legal waver, I really can’t accept him as the answer. And finally, my use of the words YOU and EGO were not directed specifically at you, Neil. My comment was a general one, where YOU was referring to those who believe they know better than the woman herself. Same with reference to EGO.
Neil, you wrote – “Your nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview strives to explain why true morality could arise”. Where, on ANY of my posts or comments have I stated that I have a ‘nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview’? If anything, I’ve stated that Evolution does NOT have all the answers and is indeed just a THEORY and that I have major issues with the ol’ Big Bang Theory as well.
As to the use of scripture, when someone tries to use scripture in an attempt to legitimize a position that is ONLY supported by scripture, I get very bent out of shape. It is such a waste of breath (or time typing) to do so with someone who doesn’t believe the book you are quoting HAS any legitimacy. It seemed to me that was what you were doing. I apologize if I was mistaken. I (obviously) have a quick fuse on this particular issue. And to clarify, the definition of dogma; An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true. So I stand by my use of the word.
Neil, you said – “Your aversion to proper interpretion of scripture reveals much.” You’re right, Neil. I DO have an aversion to ‘proper’ INTERPRETATION of scripture. WHY? Because it is YOUR biased opinion that makes it ‘proper’. It is your biased opinion that DEFINES it as an interpretation. You and your fellow believer interpret the stories of the bible the way you were taught to or, worse, the way you choose to. The other 80+ sects of Christianity interpret it differently than you. So how should I interpret it, Neil? Like you do or like they do? I think the majority of the posts located throughout the various categories listed above will reveal that I interpret the bible pretty literally. The reason for this is that it makes no sense to me that an all powerful god would allow the book that represents him and his religion to be filled with misinformation, fairy tales and outright lies.
Finally, I will ask again, if either you or Papa or ANYONE will please explain this assertion that atheists can’t be moral or understand morality. What religion and which god must I worship to be moral, understand morality and know right from wrong? YOURS? Does this mean Christianity? Which version? On this issue, Neil, you once again resorted to using scripture to support your stance, saying – “read Romans 1-3. God wrote the law on our heart, so everyone knows it is wrong to murder, steal, etc.” I think I made it clear on why this (scripture) isn’t a valid explination. It explains why YOU BELIEVE but not why I should believe. If your sole explination is “For the bible tells me so” then few who don’t believe as you do are going to have much use for your opinion. And I don’t mean just atheists. Are Buddhists capable of morality? Scientologists? Mormons?
In other words, does Christianity own the patent on morality? If so, which sect?
Also, Neil, did you ever read my January 15th reply to your comment? It’s about halfway up the page.
January 20, 2008 at 9:42 pm
“In fact God dose not explain morality.If God say “Do this” or “Don’t do this”, That dose not make “this” moral or immoral. Thats nothing but the appeal to authority fallacy.”
Maybe I’m missing something here, but why would the Creator of the Universe not be a credentialed authority to decide what is moral and what isn’t?
January 20, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Uh, DoomRater, what are you talking about? The morality discussion is refering to whether or not NON Christians are capable of understanding right from wrong, or capable of being moral. You might want to scroll up and read some of the other comments. As you can see, we’re kind of all over the place on this particular post (my main page).
January 21, 2008 at 2:57 am
“Your nothingness-to-molecules-to-man worldview strives to explain why true morality could arise, but it always has to bring something in the back door.”
First of all, no one says existence came out of nothingness. secondly; I explained where morality comes from, an explanation that dose not involve a supernatural bing. third: what is “true morality”
“Maybe I’m missing something here, but why would the Creator of the Universe not be a credentialed authority to decide what is moral and what isn’t?”
No, just cause someone says something even if its God, that dose not make it true. If God told you to sacrifice your child to him to prove your faith, would that be morally right? No.
January 21, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I dunno, a God that can declare light into existence sounds like he could declare actions right and wrong. And exactly what authority would be greater than that?
I’m beginning to wonder if you understand logical appeals to authority.
January 21, 2008 at 7:55 pm
DoomRater, you get that I don’t believe your god exists, right? I mean THAT IS the whole point of this site. So to defend you position by stating that your god is an all powerful super being and THAT’S why he can do the things he does, does absolutely nothing to convince me. And I do understand logical appeals to authority, if you are referring to the law, the government, or the boss, etc., but NOT if you mean the god of YOUR chosen religion. Your god has no more authority over the decisions I make in my life than Zeus, or Ra, or Baal, or Lucifer, or any of the multitude of gods mankind has invented over countless generations.
January 22, 2008 at 6:05 am
Light is a thing, morality, wright and wrong are concepts. No one, not even God can say “this fits into this concept and that fits into that concept” with out some logical and reasonable argument to back it up.
And how do you know God created light? Cause the bible says it? That as well is an appeal to authority. God could have lied, the writers of the bible could have made it up or it could just be mythology.
January 23, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Wow…. This is actually making me hurt on the inside lol.
I would like to say one thing. If you are an xian and you are simply going to come on to this site and spit scripture and get ticked off if something doesnt go your wany and then never post again because you cant think of an answer or find it on some xian argument site, then please please PLEASE do NOT! post on this blog ever again, this is not a good way to inspire thought in an atheist it will simply make them think that you have nothing to say other than what you have heard all your life from preachers, and the occasional seminar. So i reiterate DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT! sry for the harsh words guys but im getting really tired of it. And just for the record and in case you havent read my other posts I am a xian, however I am also open minded to the arguments that I hear on this site, and I also do my own research on the topic and question my own faith as well as atheism to see if my faith can stand up in the fires of reason.
Anywhoo, now that I have that out of my system I will post in regard to Lone Wolf’s posts as I very much enjoy hearing what he has to say.
Morality is indeed a concept, however for every concept there has to be an origionating factor, In my mind that origionating factor for morality came from a perfect moral source(God), in your mind that source of perfect morality came from ourselves. So I ask how do you know that morality from “reason” is correct? Because if you state that morality and right and wrong are concepts, the Hitler could well have been on the right road. He believed quite strongly that he had the correct view on morality, and how do we know that he wasn’t just the next stage of moral evolution?
I look forward to hearing back from you all on this I have found this site very intellectually stimulating. Thanks doubtingthomas, even though I may not agree with you I appreciate you putting up this site and keeping an open mind.
!)avid
January 24, 2008 at 5:39 am
um, amber
spitting scripture out and telling atheists some random guy died for their sins isn’t going to make reformed believers out of us – to me, at least, the bible is a conglomeration of highly outdated stories, told by highly out-dated and politically motivated men – i am not in the habit of listening to advice given several centuries ago by a bunch of “over-moralizing ignoramuses – i am a former Christain/Catholic – indoctrinated by my parents – yes, i have read the Bible – too many times – and have studied it as well – to my great horror – frankly, i never want to open the poisonous things again
i have this to say to you – in spite of all the study, all the indoctrination, all the Sunday school, etc. – i have come to realize
“Nothing makes God real. You can talk and read your Bible and get your Sunday School lessons until you’re dead, and god won’t be any more real as a result.”
– thanks Spanish Inquisitor
in conclusion, it’s all drivel to me
—————-
Another Doubting Thomas – excellent blog, btw:)
January 24, 2008 at 6:12 am
Hey Thomas I am just letting you know I have dropped by. I see you have had the odd very ‘compassionate’ Christian comment, what a shame that they defile their own religion with their own words of hate.
As one of the people who left a reply said, “I am so sick of having to defend Christianity”. Honestly if more Christians actually lead the life of compassion, love, humility, acceptance and you know all of those good qualities that are supposed to represent Christianity and humanity, the religion wouldn’t need to be defended to the same degree because its reputation would stand as its defence.
I think it should be mandatory that all Christians should read the Bible from front to back and then back again.
Also when people quote scriptures to demean and pass judgement on other people (a very Christian thing to do), it might be useful if the scriptures were actually put in their actual historical context and the whole passage was quoted and not just the bit which passes judgement on a selected individual, because as you know DThomas I have discovered that they ‘conveniently’ leave out the rest of the passage which also points a finger at themselves!
Peace to all.
January 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm
evilwit, thanks for your words. Your story is an all too familiar one, to me and, I’m sure, to MANY others who stop by to peruse this blog. You quoted part of Spanish Inquisitor’s earlier comment. I don’t know if you’ve visited his blog but it is an excellent one. You can find it on my list of links at the top of the page or just click here: http://spaninquis.wordpress.com/
And in case you haven’t already, feel free to check out my other posts contained in the categories located at the top left side of the page.
Take Care.
January 24, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Hey chezzag, yes I have had a number of those believers stop by who only seem capable of informing me that I’m doomed to burn in eternal hellfire and I must repent to save my soul OR simple repeat the mantra “Because the bible tells me so” as their defense. BUT there are also those who attempt to defend their belief in a very intelligent, thought provoking manner (bitterhermit and whiteman0o0 ((someone I had earlier unfairly shoved into the other category and, it might be added, is the one whom you quote in your comment)) just to name a few). Granted I have yet to read a comment that has managed to sway me from my belief that my observations are valid ones, but I still enjoy the debate when the person on the other side isn’t trying to win with empty dogma and scripture.
I like your mandate that ALL Christians should be required/forced to REALLY read the bible, front to back. As I already stated, if more did so, there would certainly be fewer who would want to follow a religion based on this book.
My only issue with your comment is the part about context. I was actually surprised to see you use it, as ‘context’ is one of the most commonly repeated complaints from Christians when a non-believer uses passages from the bible to reveal the ugliness of the Christian religion. It’s clear that theists (god worshipers) are MASTERS at picking and choosing which passages from their holy books they want to follow/accept. But then I’m pretty adapt at ‘picking and choosing’ the ones I think are most revelatory of the contemptibility of their god and belief systems. Now I would argue that their selective preferences are the result of a careful, stubborn, WILLFUL naivety, while mine are the result of a determined desire to reveal the REST of what their holy books have to say. In other words, I wish to bring to light all the ugly stuff they purposefully ignore or even refuse to acknowledge/accept. So their out of context argument never holds any weight with me. I thought I’d address this issue before all the ‘haters’ jumped in with “HEY, HEY, HEY, DoubtingThomas has biblical passages taken out of context all over his site!” This simply isn’t the case. VERY FEW of my posts could be argued as being taken out of context as I VERY CAREFULLY chose passages that were blatant, obvious and as black and white as they could be. Nothing written before or after could possibly ‘redefine’ what they were saying. But Christians just HATE it when you confront them with the undeniable truth that their holy book clearly depicts a god that can only be described as a monster. Yes, there are many beautiful passages in the bible as well, but I REFUSE TO IGNORE the ugly parts. I just wish more Christians would take a more honest look at this particular book. Especially if they are going to dedicate their whole lives and every decision they make in their lives on its words.
Thanks for your comment and I hope you will keep perusing the rest of my site.
Take Care.
January 25, 2008 at 2:59 am
“Morality is indeed a concept, however for every concept there has to be an origionating factor, In my mind that origionating factor for morality came from a perfect moral source(God), in your mind that source of perfect morality came from ourselves. So I ask how do you know that morality from “reason” is correct? Because if you state that morality and right and wrong are concepts, the Hitler could well have been on the right road. He believed quite strongly that he had the correct view on morality, and how do we know that he wasn’t just the next stage of moral evolution?”
First: What is “perfect morality”?
Second: I didn’t say morality came from our selves, I said it came out of social necessity and enforced by evolution (those who fallowed the rules to a certain point had a grater chance of survival (and thus grater chance of reproduction) and made more friends and allies who could take care of there offspring if something happened to him/her) and it is through us having big brains and abstract thought that rules developed in to morality.
Thread: Why do you goto one of the worst people in history? There are going to be bad people no matter what morality comes from. Somethings messed up in there brain, there daddy liked to tuch him/her in bad ways or some combinations of things. I don’t know why but there are going to be bad people. And when these people get power, they do bad things.
There has to be a willingness to brake the rules when necessarily. For insistence a terrorist plants a nuke in New York, now torture is wrong but if there was a nuke in New York, do what it take to find and disarm it even it it means some one has to be torture. There are allot of things that are wrong but in certain situations you must bend and even brake the rules. Now add into that a bad person, a mentally ill person, plus the dehumanisation of the people he/she dose not like.
January 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Wolf: I haven’t had much sleep for the past few days so please forgive me if my comment is not the most legible thing on this site. But i’ll try anyways
Perfect morality, is the standard by which we get our, views of right and wrong, It is the thing we look to and say. “that is perfect and this is how this thing measures up to that standard”.
I am sorry for my misconception of your view on morality, However, A society is formed by people, people make laws, laws are based on morality, hence people make their morality.
As far as using the worst people in history, I used that because it is a common occurence, There are always bad people that kill because they believe they are doing the right thing, Nero, Salazin, Hitler, Saddam, It is a never ending cycle. And when they do what they believe to be morally right, who are we as a country to tell them that it isn’t right? It is the social construct that works for them, so how is it right for us to impose our morality on them?
!)avid
January 25, 2008 at 4:03 pm
There is no “perfect morality” then, cause morality changes depending on the situation. A good example is the nuke in New York scenario.
There have been many people killed in the name of God and the bible contains many genocides many instigated by God.
Morality is not perfect and there are crazy people and bad people out there and when they attain power bad things happen. But to such people morality is not really a factor and all those have one main thing similar to theistic morality, authoritarianism. Do as your told, kill who your told, do as I say, I am the leader. Do as your told, kill who your told, do as I say, this is what God wants. Do you see the similarity’s there?
The problem with the people you mentioned is not morality but systems where too few hold power and people do as there told. The system in which the people you mentioned where in have manyof the same problems as theistic morality.
January 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Wolf: You say that many people have been killed in the name of the Bible, However, how many more genocides have been instigated outside of the bible?
The Hittites, Amorites, Cannanites, Muslims, Asian dynasties, Rome, Brittain, Vikings, Indians, Germany, Italy, Russia, France…. and the list goes on and on and on.
And the “do as your told” mentality is true of any countries armed forces.
And I am curious as to how too few people held power in the roman empire.. please explain. !)avid
January 25, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Going back to a question asked previously, here is my definition, for what it’s worth:
Christian = A person who believes in, accepts and follows, Christ and His teachings.
That could be construed as a very “wordly” definition and could aso humanly exhibit itself in many “religious” ways, but for the sake of argument, if one truly believs in Christ and accepts Him as their personal savior and redeemer, then their relationship with Him will be paramount. Does this mean they won’t make mistakes, moral or otherwise? Of course not, we are imperfect after all, but He remains the center of all things including discussions, so it would be impossible for a Christian to have a heart to heart without God being part of it and that includes scripture since it is His word.
In order for something to be measured there has to be a “rule” or “fuler” by which to compare. That is why common morality by people of different beliefs is impossible. If Hitler and I could sit down and compare our beleifs, I can gaurantee you that we would hold different views even if we both call ourselves “Christian.” Perhaps we view Christ differently, or His teachings differently, of we follow Him differently, but does that mean that Christ should be measured by man? Absolutely not! That is a backwards equation. Whether you think He exists or is a myth of the human mind does not affect Him. He is who He is and always will be. The real question is, what are you going to do with Christ?
In my humble opinion, people who chose not to accept Him are people who do not want to be accountable for their actions, thoughts or deeds and therefore follow the religion of self. In the Bible, they are called fools. I operated as one for many years, but God is faithful and He didn’t give up on me. This doesn’t mean that I cannot be foolish and let myself get in my own way, it only means that He never leaves me there. He has begun and good work. I am continually grateful . I am also grateful that somehow I stumbled onto the site and have opportunity to listen and share. Perhaps in that same “somehow” someone will be positively moved for Christ, not by my words, but by His Spirit through honest and open discussion. . . that is my prayer right now.
In Him . . .
January 25, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Oh, and just FYI regarding the supposed quote ( “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.”) attributed to Thomas Jefferson, please read the following:
This quote appears in the 1906 book Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, which is archived on the infidels.org website. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_remsburg/six_historic_americans/chapter_2.html
[excerpt]
In the following significant passage we have Jefferson’s opinion of the Christian religion as a whole:
“I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies” (Letter to Dr. Woods).
Could a more emphatic declaration of disbelief in Christianity be framed than this?
[end excerpt]
Remsburg included this alleged quotation of Jefferson in his second chapter on Thomas Jefferson.
The quote may also be found at http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/jefferson.htm#PHONYJEFF which quotes it as follows:
I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Woods (undated), referring to “our particular superstition,” Christianity, from John E Remsburg, Six Historic Americans: Thomas Jefferson, quoted from Franklin Steiner, Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents (1936), “Thomas Jefferson, Freethinker”
This quote has been presented in two different ways–one that it is a letter from Jefferson to a mysterious Dr. Wood, and other is that it is a letter from Jefferson to Peter Carr, but no dates or other source identification in either case. There are also two versions of the same quote–the version that appears above and a second version that includes a portion of some of Jefferson’s actual writings from his “Notes on Virginia”. So far, nobody has been able to trace this quotation back to any actual primary source material. The trail of evidence begins and ends with Remsburg’s book. No other reference to this “Letter to Dr. Woods” can presently be located.
We suggest no version of this quote be used and that it be considered bogus.
January 26, 2008 at 2:28 pm
whiteman0o0: First of all the point about people killing in the name of God, my point was people kill and even commit genocide in the name of God so theistic morality dose not stop bad people from doing bad things and in fact it can give a divine reason for it cause the bad people can rationalise it by saying God wants it to happen or its God will.
Morality is not perfect, bad things happen and people do bad things, thats a fact of life. And theistic morality can’t help that, it make it worse by adding divine justification.
January 26, 2008 at 5:08 pm
I absolutely enjoy the responses to your blog as well as your own writing.
It’s a little bit of a microcosm which reflects the many reasons our culture is in the state it is in.
I respect that you research your opinions.
Would it be that we all spoke with such a foundation about the canons we use as an excuse to start wars, harm others, and stand atop mountains of proclamations!
Thank you.
January 27, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Hi Again, DT:) – i didn’t get any notification that you’d responded to me, so i just got on your blog to see and you did:) – i am checking out Spanish Inquisitor – you are right – fantastic blog – i must say, your blog has generated some very interesting comments! – i must check out some other of your posts – now, to get down to business – very swiftly, because it’s 2:30am down here in NZ and i can barely focus
Five4Him:
you wrote: “In my humble opinion, people who chose not to accept Him are people who do not want to be accountable for their actions, thoughts or deeds and therefore follow the religion of self.”
i find that to be an extremely bothersome statement – i mean – are you kidding? – people who “chose not to accept Him…” have no choice BUT to be accountable for “actions, thoughts or deeds” – if, by following “the religion of self”, you mean we can only be accountable to ourselves, that is absolutely correct – those of us who do not “believe” can only be accountable to ourselves for our own actions good or bad – there’s no demons to blame, no gods to praise, no benevolence to count on for help – all these things we must look to ourselves (and, if we’re lucky, in certain cases, family and friends) – but, for the most part, WE are in charge of OUR destinies – and for all the wonderful things we do and the horrid things we do – we hold such enormous power for accountability within ourselves that when we are fools, we realize that we are only fooling ourselves – and that, my friend, is how we chose to live our lives
January 27, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Amber is actually quite correct, Lord bless her. Rom 1:19-21 says creation is evidence of God’s divine attributes. I’ve found in dealing with atheists, that it really doesn’t come down to an intellectual problem (I’ve read work by very intelligent Christians and atheists), but a problem of the heart. Take a look at the wold; not difficult to see it’s broken. Why does God allow such suffering? Our free will is obviously very important to Him and WE INFLICT MOST OF IT ON EACH OTHER! Contrary to Bertrand Russel’s quote on this site, Christianity is the religion that calls for us to act AGAINST our base instincts. We who commit to Jesus are taking on an internal battle that demands MUCH work and development.
Those who reject theism are accepting another faith (or perhaps ignoring other important questions) — atheism requires one to accept the eternality of the universe on faith. How did we get here? Problem: we know by empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning. Now if you say you ignore such things and deal only with the CURRENT observable phenomena of your environment, you can circumvent this argument, but have already made a choice that it’s not important and has no bearing on the present or future.
God is our loving Father who, contrary to many atheists apparent perception, WANTS every one of us to be saved (2 Pet 3:3-9) I know the Old Testament seems to portray God as barbaric and genocidal — please take the time to study the reason for it, because it does indeed harmonize with the foregoing. Are you aware that the tribes destroyed were committing abominable acts of atrocity (sacrificing children in fire, etc.)? God is inviting you; not waiting to squash you; not desiring to deprive you of “fun” many perceive sin to be. I bid you please wake up from the “Matrix”.
Lord bless you,
Bit
January 27, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Bit Atheism dose not require faith. First atheism does not mean require you to have to except an eternal universe, there are other possible explanations for the existence of the universe. And 2; theres nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know”, I don’t know where the universe came from (if it came from anything), in fact I don’t know anything at all and nether do you. I have beliefs, I have lack of beliefs and there are things that I do not have enough information on to come to a conclusion (origins of the universe).
A belief is not a fact nor is it a truth. Beliefs can be based on many things, emotion, memory and a mantel illness called faith (faith is belief in something with out or despite evidence, thats mantel illness) but the best basis for belief is evidence (real evidence, scientific evidence).
What in the bible makes you think that those murdered by God (or people he told to commit murder) makes you think that they where doing such evil acts? The bible usually gives 2 reason for genocide in it, the people where sinful (which is vague and could mean anything) or they warship another god(s).
January 27, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Bit: you the one in the Matrix, I have taken the red pill.
January 28, 2008 at 12:29 am
Lonewolf,
I admit that what I know is small, but there are some things we can conclude without further evidence through logic, which is a function not materially explainable. Example – All Spaniards are Europeans and John is a Spaniard, therefore ______________. How is it you know what to put in the blank? Evidence? No; it’s not a material explanation, but logic; the reasoning faculty God gave us all, in His image.
Applying this deductive process to the universe through the Kalaam Cosmological Argument:
It began or did not begin.
If it began (and there is empirical evidence suggesting that it did), it was caused or caused itself. I find it logically inconsistent to suggest “nothing caused something”, quantum fluctuations included.
If it was caused, that cause is either personal or impersonal.
We can even conclude that time itself has a beginning, because only a potential, rather than actual infinite can exist. Think of it this way; if time goes infinitely back in history, then we could not have gotten to this moment.
In addition to the logical propostions, it’s important to study the Bible with an open mind and regarding things that appear to contradict, ask ourselves is there a way this harmonizes in a consistent way? If we have a desire to disbelieve, we will look at it with a premature conclusion that it is false and convince ourselves of such. Take a look at A.S.A Jones’ site, Ex-atheist.com and she explains how she became aware she was doing this very thing.
Something I want to emphasize is that what we decide to do with Jesus is the single, most important decision we will ever make. Is there a source outside the Bible that mentions Him as a historical figure? Actually there are ten. Were the prophecies written about Him, hundreds of years before His birth and fulfilled with such precision (no Nostradamian quatrain ambiguity), falsified after the fact? Dating the documents says no. Can we rely on what the witnesses wrote about Him? Legal analysis of their testimony in 1846 by Simon Greenleaf, Dane Professor of Law at Harvard, indicates we can and that they would corroboratively hold up in court.
I write these things, not to win an argument, but out of love. He loves us more than we can comprehend. What will you do with Jesus?
Respectfully,
Bit
January 28, 2008 at 12:56 am
Five4Him,
You are a very well-written, and thinking person. I appreciate so much your statement, “it would be impossible for a Christian to have a heart to heart without God being part of it and that includes scripture since it is His word.” I also appreciate your suggestion (if I take it correctly) that calling oneself a Christian does not make one so. If Hitler ever called himself one, surely it must have been for political manipulation. General William Donovan’s research for the Nuremburg trials showed the Nazis intention to destroy Christianity. Review if desired at http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/98/10.29.98/Nuremberg.html.
Thanks for sharing and for your faithfulness,
mike b.
January 28, 2008 at 1:09 am
DT,
I have indeed tested my faith with much research and it stands stronger than ever. I have read attacks by critics and so far, they have offered no compelling reasons for abandoning my current convictions. I am also more grateful to the Lord than ever. I do not follow Him out of compulsion or sense of obligation (my parents were not churchgoers as I grew up), but because He loved me first. Fear may be a good STARTING motivator (loving parents use it for young children’s safety), but it must, as 1 John 4:18 indicates, give way to love.
RS,
Bit
January 28, 2008 at 1:16 am
Neil,
You also, are extremely well-written and offer very sound arguments. Really appreciate those on morality.
In Jesus,
mike b.
January 28, 2008 at 7:40 am
Bit: A quontom fuctuation isn’t something from nothing (see vacuum energy and virtual particles) and I don’t feal like going into the multiverse thing again so look here.
The bible has centedition, you could try to bind and twist to harminise them but in the end you just end up with faulty logic and interpritation or parts of the biblr that where clearly never ment to be interprited that way.
I don’t choose to disbelieve, I see no evidence of God and evidence against God and the bible. Now I can’t say with certainty that there is no god but if there is a god, its not yours and is most likely deistic in nature.
There is only 1 contemporary mention of Jesus (Josephus) and that universally considered a forgery.
I will never choose to except a man that said that we came to bring war , that he came to set family’s against themselves and that you should abandon you family.
January 28, 2008 at 8:56 am
I hate it when I forget things.
All things have a material explanation. Whether it be the way our brains way of processing information to matter and energy. Even if the supernatural and paranormal exist there are material explanations for them. Even if God exists, his existence and ability’s have a material explanation.
Whether we know of the explanations or not there are material explanations for everything.
January 28, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Doubtingthomas, take a chill pill. I wasn’t addressing you.
Lone Wolf, you’re saying the (hypothetical) creator of the universe cannot simply create morality as right or wrong if that same creator can create light? Such a powerful being needs no logical or persuasive argument- what that creator says is what goes. And yes, the argument IS dependent on the existence of such authority, but to claim it’s fallacious simply “because God said so and didn’t back it up” is a failure to realize that his power would be what’s backing it up.
Also this claim about contemporary evidence corroborating the gospel accounts- quite wrong; there are NO contemporaries. The Tactitus and Josephus references are long past gospel events, but so what? Are you going to argue that they can’t be sure of anything else they wrote about because it was before their time as well?
January 29, 2008 at 9:16 am
Yes God would have to make a logical argument for it. I don’t care if there how powerful any one or anything is, any statement of fact has to be based on evidence (if evidence is available), logic and reason. Power does not come into play. To say that because something is powerful then it must be right is an appeal to authority and an authoritarian idea.
I didn’t say Jesus didn’t exist. A lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus doesn’t mean he didn’t exist. Through the Jesus story mirrors allot of other mythology’s. Healing people, virgin birch, coming back from the dead, ascending into heaven. Those where common in mythology’s.
But my opinion is that Jesus is a composite character. The Jesus story is a combination of multiple story’s and mythology’s with some of the story’s based actual people.
January 29, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I apologize for the tardiness of my response(s), been busy. I also recently switched themes for the site in the hopes it would provide simpler navigation and would allow visitors to read my various posts (categorized, now, on the right) in their entirety without having to click on the title first. Let me know if this is a better or worse set up.
January 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Let’s begin with ‘He who never seems to get the point’, AKA DoomRater.
DoomRater, you told me to take a chill pill because I responded to your two previous comments (both left on my main page) neither of which was addressed to a particular person. First, this is my site, I will respond to ANY comment I feel like responding to, as can anyone else. Get used to it, this is how a blog works. If you make asinine statements on an atheist’s blog insisting that the reason why all these amazing and impossible things are true and actually happened is because your god is an all powerful super-being and the bible told you so, so there, well you really can’t expect the host of the site to just sit back and say nothing, can you? If you or any other believe wishes to debate myself, Lone Wolf, or any other non-believer, please, please, please, refrain from using the simplistic, willfully naive, and utterly empty argument that it is all true ‘because the bible tells you so’ or because your god is all powerful.
And can all the theists (god worshipers) remember what whiteman0o0, a fellow Christian, said a few posts back:
“Wow…. This is actually making me hurt on the inside lol.
I would like to say one thing. If you are an xian and you are simply going to come on to this site and spit scripture and get ticked off if something doesnt go your wany and then never post again because you cant think of an answer or find it on some xian argument site, then please please PLEASE do NOT! post on this blog ever again, this is not a good way to inspire thought in an atheist it will simply make them think that you have nothing to say other than what you have heard all your life from preachers, and the occasional seminar. So i reiterate DO NOT POST IF YOU ARE AN IDIOT! sry for the harsh words guys but im getting really tired of it. And just for the record and in case you havent read my other posts I am a xian, however I am also open minded to the arguments that I hear on this site, and I also do my own research on the topic and question my own faith as well as atheism to see if my faith can stand up in the fires of reason.”
January 29, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Five4Him, you stated – “He (God) remains the center of all things including discussions, so it would be impossible for a Christian to have a heart to heart without God being part of it and that includes scripture since it is His word.” Congratulations, you have just made an argument FOR a believer BY a believer. Your words are utterly meaningless to anyone who DOESN’T ALREADY THINK THE WAY YOU DO. This is why Bit (mike b) finds your words so appealing. It’s the same regurgitate dogma he has been listening to and repeating his whole life. Empty but comforting words the faithful wrap themselves in like an old thread-worn blanket.
You go on to say – “Whether you think He exists or is a myth of the human mind does not affect Him. He is who He is and always will be. The real question is, what are you going to do with Christ?” Five4Him, who are you speaking to? Are you only addressing those who ALREADY believe as you do? Because I assure you, those who don’t believe in your specific god, whether they be Atheists or Hindu, are going to see your words as nothing more than meaningless gibberish.
You conclude with – “people who chose not to accept Him are people who do not want to be accountable for their actions, thoughts or deeds and therefore follow the religion of self.” Five4Him, on what example are you basing this belief? Atheists don’t want to be accountable for their actions?! It is BECAUSE we don’t’ base our behavior on some twisted concept of reward/punishment after death that we are accountable. Accountable to ourselves, society, friends, family, coworkers, etc. Who we AREN’T accountable to is YOUR god. Nor are we accountable to Ganesa (Hinduism), Buddha, Baal, Zeus or ANY of the thousands of gods mankind has invented over countless generations.
As for your complaint about my Thomas Jefferson quote, I understand Christians hate the numerous examples revealing that, arguably, one of our greatest Presidents, had either lost his faith or was at least extremely critical of Christianity, but just because they stomp their feet and insist that it’s possible the letter this quote was contained in wasn’t really from Thomas Jefferson doesn’t make it so. As your links show, the evidence is hardly compelling. But I will agree to remove the quote, I just insist you choose one of the following to replace it:
“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man. … perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind … a mere contrivance [for the clergy] to filch wealth and power to themselves.” — Thomas Jefferson
“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty, he is always in allegiance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own. … History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. … Political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves [of public ignorance] for their own purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson
“The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma.” – Abraham Lincoln
“The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.” — George Bernard Shaw
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” — Steven Weinberg
“The Bible is “what fools have written, what imbeciles command, what rogues teach.” – Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet)
“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.” — Henry Mencken
“Our hope of immortality does not come from any religions, but nearly all religions come from that hope.” — Robert G. Ingersoll
“The most ridiculous concept ever perpetrated by Homo Sapiens is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of his creations, that he can be persuaded by their prayers, and becomes petulant if he does not receive this flattery. Yet this ridiculous notion, without one real shred of evidence to bolster it, has gone on to found one of the oldest, largest and least productive industries in history.” – Robert Heinlein
“I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. It is not meet to take the children’s (Jews) bread and to cast it to dogs (Gentiles).” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 15:24-26)
“Go not into the way of the Gentiles … but rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:5&6)
“For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.” – Jesus Christ (Matthew 10:35, 36)
“No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God.” — Jesus Christ (Luke 9:62)
“Let the dead bury the dead.” — Jesus Christ (Luke 9:60) This is in response to a disciple asking if he may go bury his recently deceased Father.
“Woman, what have I to do with thee?” – Jesus Christ (John 2:4) speaking to his mother, disregarding the 5th Commandment.
“Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.” – Jesus Christ (Luke 21:32) referring to the apostles and his second coming.
January 29, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Bit (mike b), wow, where to begin. First, I must ask you to please refrain from trying to ‘save’ me or anyone else by posting dogma on my or anyone else’s blog. An utter waste of time. Let’s keep the debate free of empty, meaningless, religious rhetoric. And do your fellow Christians really need all the pats on the back and ‘good jobs’? You stated that – “atheism requires one to accept the eternality of the universe on faith. How did we get here?” Atheists don’t accept things on faith, Mike. Our Atheism allows us to QUESTION the eternity, origin, make-up of the universe. Atheism ALLOWS for the unknown. Only religion requires one belive in something based on nothing but hope (faith). Only religion requires that they have all the answers to all the questions. And that answer is God. It isn’t Atheists that are ‘ignoring (the) important questions’. It is those who believe that ONE god out of the thousands of gods mankind has invented and dismissed over countless generations is the genuine article. How did we get here? THAT’S THE QUESTION. We are seeking the answers, answers that require proof. Faith requires NOTHING. That is not acceptable to an Atheist. Some Atheists believe in the Theory of Evolution 100%. Me, I question some of evolutionists assertions. Some Atheists believe in the Big Bang Theory 100%. Me, I believe it is the most realistic explination but hardly a perfect one. You stated – “Problem: we know by empirical evidence that the universe had a beginning.” Everything had a beginning, how is this evidence that your god had anything to do with it?
You state that – “Our free will is obviously very important to Him (God).” On what, exactly, do you base this assertion? Is this based on the fact that man commits so many atrocities against one another (many in the name of their god) and God does NOTHING?
You state – “God is our loving Father who, contrary to many atheists apparent perception, WANTS every one of us to be saved.” Mike, how many millions are dying, have died and are destined to die, ALL doomed to burn in eternal hellfire through no fault of their own. Did your god WANT all the Aztec Indians to go to heaven? Then why are they all in hell? Why didn’t God ever reveal himself to THEM? I could give a thousand examples of a thousand different cultures who worshiped a thousand different gods, all of whom, according to your religion, are spending eternity burning in the bowels of hell. Free will is not an argument against this as these people were never given a choice to worship your god. Is your position that your god WANTS everyone to join him in heaven but is just too LAZY to help this to occur?
And you state — “I know the Old Testament seems to portray God as barbaric and genocidal — please take the time to study the reason for it, because it does indeed harmonize with the foregoing. Are you aware that the tribes destroyed were committing abominable acts of atrocity (sacrificing children in fire, etc.)?” First, the God of the Old Testament is not the same God of the New. These are two different religions, improperly joined by certain sects of Christianity. But to claim that all the people that the God of the Old Testament commanded to be murdered DESERVED IT and HAD IT COMING is an absolutely willfully ignorant assertion. The god depicted in the Old Testament is a merciless, bloodthirsty warmonger. Period. Whether or not the stories depicting him as such ‘harmonize with the foregoing’ changes nothing. And if you insist that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament are one and the same, then you are saying that your god changed. Which, according to ALL Christian teachings, is impossible. God is perfect and unchanging. And, Mike, I’ve been studying the bible, in its many variations, for so many years it leaves my head spinning when I think of it, so please don’t patronize me by suggesting that if I studied the bible I would be enlightened and finally see the truth. And I’m not an Atheist because I want to sin and have fun. I’m an Atheist because I am no longer capable of denying reality in order to comfort my fears with fairy tales and superstitions. Instead, I require proof before I place my belief in something or dedicate my life to something. Your typical, ignorant, implication that an Atheist is some sort of amoral heathen is as insulting as it is pathetically erroneous.
You also state, astonishingly, that LOGIC “…is a function not materially explainable” but is, instead, “… the reasoning faculty God gave us all, in His image.” Again, a completely willful assertion with absolutely NO basis in reality whatsoever. Mike, I’m begging you, PLEASE stop arguing your points with ‘because my all powerful God made it so, that’s why’. We don’t believe in Zeus, Baal, Ra, Ganesa, YOUR god or any other. To defend your position by touting the powers of your particular god only WEAKENS your argument.
And this one left me on the floor. Bit (mike b) said – “It’s important to study the Bible with an open mind and regarding things that appear to contradict, ask ourselves is there a way this harmonizes in a consistent way? If we have a desire to disbelieve, we will look at it with a premature conclusion that it is false and convince ourselves of such.” In one sentence you state one should read the bible with an open mind and then encourage people to willfully manipulate the stories found within to suit their purposes. Now I agree that one should read the bible with an open mind, as you should do with ALL things, and not have your mind made up before doing so. But, Mike, what about when someone reads the bible with a desire to BELIEVE? Don’t they make premature conclusions as well? Aren’t the VAST majority of those who are given a bible assured that it is a book of truth? Remember, Mike, I was raised in the Church and attended Private Christian Schools the majority of my life. Bible study was a daily thing. Only back then questioning of the holy doctrine was a big no-no. Only once I was free to think for myself did I take the bold step to reread the bible with an open mind, a mind full of questions. The answers, of course, led to my atheism.
And, Mike, the fact that someone named Jesus (not really) is mentioned in other ‘historical’ sources proves nothing other than someone with that name existed and was worth mentioning. It CERTAINLY doesn’t prove that he was the son of God or had any special powers. And exactly what prophecies that Jesus fulfilled are you referring to?
And can one of you believers please explain to me why the common, regurgitated dogmatic comment “I love/follow him (God) because ‘He loved me first’ is an acceptable explanation or makes any sense at all.
January 30, 2008 at 2:06 am
on the “survivor” thing (Neil):
except it’s not really in your interest to kill you neighbor – once you do that – other people see you as a threat and may want to kill you – consquences and survival
January 30, 2008 at 2:16 am
oh – and DT – i like this quote you cited:
“The Bible is “what fools have written, what imbeciles command, what rogues teach.” – Voltaire (Francois Marie Arouet)
January 30, 2008 at 12:33 pm
whiteman0o0, commenting about ‘perfect morality’, you stated – “There are always bad people that kill because they believe they are doing the right thing, Nero, Salazin, Hitler, Saddam, It is a never ending cycle. And when they do what they believe to be morally right, who are we as a country to tell them that it isn’t right? It is the social construct that works for them, so how is it right for us to impose our morality on them?” — I felt compelled to ask if you truly believe ‘perfect morality’ exists at all. Let’s face it, in addition to those you use as examples, there are many who share your religion that couldn’t behave less morally if they tried. You seem to suggest you believe that ‘perfect morality’ comes from God (your god), even that the CONCEPT itself comes from God. It seems to me that everyone’s idea of what is moral, regardless of what religion they were raised in or currently follow, is one shaped by personal bias. So the question is whose concept of God’s perfect morality idea is the right one? Yours? Do you trust yourself to have the ‘right’ impression? If not, who do you trust to have it right? Can a Muslim have it right? A Hindu? A Buddhist? None of them? All of them? If our concept of ‘perfect morality’ was put there by God (your god), why do so many of us have it so wrong? Can there be ‘perfect morality’ if MAN is always the one translating God’s influence? In fact, isn’t it mankind’s belief in a god that often results in our most horrific acts, acts done as a result of our belief that we are justified by ‘divine’ morality?
Also, in response to Lone Wolf’s mentioning the many people killed in the name of the bible, you state – “…how many more genocides have been instigated outside of the bible? The Hittites, Amorites, Cannanites, Muslims, Asian dynasties, Rome, Brittain, Vikings, Indians, Germany, Italy, Russia, France…. and the list goes on and on and on.” — You’ve responded this way before, as have other theists on this site, so I have to clarify that the atrocities committed outside of the bible are irrelevant. The point isn’t that mankind is capable of atrocities; it’s that no matter which god you claim is real or which religion you dedicate yourself to, none of them prevent man from committing these heinous acts. Religious morality, if anything, seems to exist only to justify a believer’s terrible behavior. When we (atheists) mention the appalling things man does in the name of god or did in the pages of the bible, it is simply to show that Christians DO NOT have the moral high ground.
The Bible CAN’T be used as a soap box.
January 31, 2008 at 6:44 am
I’ve got a question for you doubting Thomas. I’ve been reading through these posts but I do not believe I know about how you think to form any argument. So you know clearly where I am coming from. I am what you would call a Christian, as I follow Christ. I’ve stated my position clearly.
My questing is simple. Do you believe in an objective truth that stands on its own outside human perception?
Ill rephrase it in an attempt to clarify understanding.
Do you belive in Absolute Truth that exists outside of human subjectivity?
I see you are very logical, and Im curious as to what you might answer. Curiosity, nothing more, nothing less.
January 31, 2008 at 6:52 am
Its late and I missed some words so I’ll repost what I was trying to say in a more clear manner.
I’ve got a question for you doubting Thomas. I’ve been reading through these posts but I do not believe I know enough about how you think to form any argument that might point you to my understanding of God. So that you know clearly where I am coming from, I am what you would call a Christian, as I follow Christ. I’ve stated my position explicitly. I’m curious how you might answer this question, I don’t know many athiest but I am fascinated by them!
My questing is simple. Do you believe in an objective truth that stands on its own outside human perception?
Ill rephrase it in an attempt to clarify understanding.
Do you belive in Absolute Truth that exists outside of human subjectivity?
I see you are very logical, and Im curious as to what you might answer. Curiosity, nothing more, nothing less.
January 31, 2008 at 7:21 am
“dedude” is a pure example of how religion has completely corrupted the minuscule good of religion..( I say this with a bottle of wine in me) Obviously his religion has not lent him morals as they so ofter tote as a bi-product of their dogma!
January 31, 2008 at 7:24 am
dedude, i look forward to death in a way, As Stephen Hawking has discovered no information is lost in this universe, I just might be the volcano that erupts and sends you to your fiery hell you deserve and believe in.
February 1, 2008 at 12:02 am
Jared, I don’t understand why, in order to form an argument that might point me to your understanding of God, one would need to know ANYTHING about the person they’re speaking to. I also don’t understand how declaring that you are a Christian and follow Christ states your position explicitly in ANY sense of the word. Randomly round up a hundred different people who call themselves Christians and you will always have a hundred people with different ideas of what a Christian is. As to your VERY loaded question about absolute/objective truth, I believe you are trying to start a philosophical debate on the idea of Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth. I don’t think this is the place or really even the site for such a debate. I’m sure you’ll agree most of those visiting this site would find it mind-numbingly dull. However, if you like I would be happy to start a new post on this site to address the subject. You and anyone else that would be interested could comment on it to their hearts content.
However, to put it simply, seeing that I don’t believe in a god, and Absolute Truth is ONLY required if there is a god, then, no, obviously I don’t believe in Absolute Truth.
Thanks for visiting my site. Please let me know if you would like for me to start an Absolute Truth vs. Relative Truth post. Or you could start one yourself and drop me the link and I’d be happy to stop by and put in my two cents.
DoubtingThomas
February 1, 2008 at 4:14 am
I brought it up just to find out what your perspective was on the question at hand. Its not really about relative vs absolute truth but it could be taken that direction. I could tell you why know you makes a difference, but its not the point. I want to cut to the chase.
I simply find in my life I am forced to come to an absolute truth. It is fair that my absolute truth could be “there is no truth” but I still fill trapped by the neccessity to have an absolute truth. I can’t seem to escape it as it seem to be an invisible ceiling to my thought. Therefore I am forced to constantly reconsider what that meens to me. I was wondering if you, being a thinker and inclined to higher levels of thought, might perhaps have a different view on the subject and could refresh my mind.
You see when I read that you dont believe in Absolute truth, which is typical of athiest, that to me becomes your absolute truth, that there is none….am I reading to much into it?
Ultimately this debate does have to apprach the concepts of truth vs falsehood and if humans have the ability to distinguish the two. Otherwise we would only entertain a vast array of human knowledge systems that would surely lead us full circle every time, as human knowledge changes on a moment by moment basis.
February 1, 2008 at 4:21 am
Truth be told Im fascinated on how you can be athiest. It seems so distant to me but I truly do want to understand it. Could you give me any resources to explore the subject? Credible ones? There is so much crap to sift through on the internet.
February 2, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Jared, first, the most common retaliatory response by someone who believes in Absolute Truth to someone who doesn’t is to say that our belief that there is no absolute truth is, in fact, a statement of absolute truth, therefore it disproves our opinion. This is simply not the case. You see, we state ours as an OPINION, not a fact. An opinion can’t be an absolute truth. I FEEL there is no such thing as Absolute Truth as I see no need for it, as I don’t believe in a god (the only thing that would necessitate such an idea). This is the reason why you find that most Atheists share my opinion on this subject. It’s really just a matter of necessity.
You ask if humans have the ability to distinguish between truth and untruth. A good question. The problem, of course, is the definition of ‘truth’ and more importantly, WHO is in the position to accurately define it. Truth seems to be a fairly relative term. No two individuals on this planet will agree on the truth of every subject. So who is right on the ones they disagree on? Who’s to say?
You state that “I find in my life I am forced to come to an absolute truth.” What do you mean by this? Can you give me an example or two?
As for helping you to understand how I or anyone can be an Atheist; you must understand, becoming an Atheist is a very personal decision. No one can ‘convert’ another into Atheism. It is not like a religion, you can’t be indoctrinated into it. The VAST majority of Atheists were once religious and each will have a different story of how they came to leave their faith. I am hesitant to direct you to any specific site or resource as they are all, naturally, biased. Instead I would encourage you to simply always keep an open mind about ALL things. Never allow someone else to decide your opinions. Never dedicate yourself to ANYTHING without fully scrutinizing it first. Remember, nothing true ever has anything to fear from a little scrutiny. Always look as deeply into the opposition’s side of a topic as you do YOUR side. Never shun those who disagree with you. And if you really want to see into an Atheist’s head, simply keep checking out their blogs. On any blog host site you can click on the topic RELIGION (they always have one) and you are guaranteed to find some posts by Atheists. But remember, our society isn’t divided into Christians and Atheists. There are thousands of gods currently being worshiped in this world and very few of the followers of those gods put any faith into the legitimacy of any other’s god. I’ve stated this before but I will do so again here; we are ALL Atheists. I simply dismiss ONE additional god than you do.
Good luck in your quest for knowledge, Jared. There is not a more noble endeavor. And feel free to continue to peruse the various categories I’ve listed at the top of this page (now on the right) to get a better idea of how I came to be an Atheist.
Take Care.
DoubtingThomas
February 3, 2008 at 4:41 am
I suppose what I meant to say, is in my mind I feel I can’t escape having an absolute truth. Lets suppose I am thinking, and I come to the conclusion life is meaningless. Thats my “absolute truth” and I will act accordingly. Similarly, I might come to the conclusion morality and goodness is the meaning of life. In which case I will act out accordingly (ask Opera about this one
) I might come to the conclusion, “Aliens planted us here,” and I’m going to spend alot of my time reading books on abductions and staring at the nighttime sky. I might chance my opinion constantly….which I did for many years of my life, and that might lead me to the conclusion, its all relative to my circumstance in life. I have believed that before by the way, and I lived accordingly, I created my reality during that stage of my life, believeing I could be anything I wanted to be because truth was relative, and what I made it. Still, that was my truth.
I guess what Im saying is I dont find it possible to be positionless in life. It seems that in order to live I must have something to grasp (be it my thoughts alone) yet I have yet to master not thinking. I suppose if I truly wanted to not be dictated by thought I would quit thinking, but you know, sleep doesnt last more than a night typically, I tried drugs and I woke up feeling horrible every morning, and suicide….well I just didnt want to take that chance at the time. All of this led me to God. It was obviously a much longer process, but having a “Loving” and “Righteous” God is the only thing I find that can sustain me.
Does this make me less of a man? Does it make me primative?
Well, I’m sure me saying there is a God is strong opinion supported by stronger conviction, and I call it faith, but its human opinion none the less. I FEEL there is a God, in the same human way you FEEL there is no Absolute truth, so can you explain to me the innate difference? And you saying there isnt a God is the reciprical situation. So I don’t think there would be a difference there.
Is it safe to assume you have faith in your athiesm? I like this definition from Websters:
Faith
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
I’m trying to pull the human condition our of our conversations and find where we are “alike” as opposed to “different”. In my experiance it has been difference that causes most religious people to lash out and act ridiculous and condemn others for their convictions. I tend to focus on the similarities. This is because I believe in a human condition. I believe that humans are….human, and therefore have to all act “human” no matter the internal dialogue they use to define their subjective existence.
February 3, 2008 at 7:31 am
I am liking your site and this post. I relate very strongly to it.
The only difference in our questioning and re-evaluation of Christianity is you are and atheist and I still believe in a God or Creator.
I can understand your being an atheist, but is it possible, you were so angered by the untruth that was fed to you that you closed off the possibility of a God or Great Spirit or Creator?
I am just curious is all. I discovered that after leaving the “faith” so to speak, it takes time to let it all go right out the window. The Nicene Creed I had no trouble dropping, as a bunch of other things. However there are a couple of items in scripture that are not bad. like the last one or two paragraphs in Ecclesiastes. Short, simple and to the point, and that basically covers the whole old testament for me.
I am surprised those words are even in the bible.
February 3, 2008 at 11:37 am
Jared, you stated – “Lets suppose I am thinking, and I come to the conclusion life is meaningless. Thats my “absolute truth” and I will act accordingly.” – This is not an example of Absolute Truth. Remember, an opinion can never be considered an Absolute Truth.
You also said – “…what Im saying is I dont find it possible to be positionless in life.” That’s understandable. I don’t believe it is even possible TO BE ‘positionless’ and BE alive.
You also said – “God is the only thing I find that can sustain me. Does this make me less of a man? Does it make me primative?” Did I give you that impression? If I did, I apologize. Of course it doesn’t make you ‘less of a man’ or ‘primitive’. In your troubled life you found something that gave you peace. Only an asshole would tell you this is a bad thing. What would be a bad thing, in my opinion, is if you were satisfied and no longer sought answers. We are all confronted with new questions every day of our lives. The danger that can come with religion is that too often the religious refuse to seek out the answer to these questions; they purposefully avoid seeking ‘new’ knowledge, and instead shove any new/strange/uncomfortable question into that always comforting box with -God Is The Answer- stamped on its lid.
Regarding your question of the differences between our ‘faiths’, yours in God, mine in Atheism; first, you chose to define faith as a belief with a strong conviction and applied that definition to Atheism. You’re failing to consider a major distinction here, Jared; an Atheist requires evidence in order to believe in a thing. A person of faith does not require evidence. It isn’t faith that supports our belief that the stories contained in the bible are fallacious, it is evidence. I prefer the definition of Faith in my dictionary: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
You say you are interested in discovering the ways we are alike instead of the ways we are different. It’s rather simple to do so, Jared, just ignore our different opinions on religion and god (the ONE way we have established we are different) and I would wager there are a hundred ways we are similar. Atheists aren’t aliens, Jared. I am a man like any other; I have a job, a home, friends, family, like some TV shows, hate others, LOVED Juno, hated Cloverfield, drink Pepsi not Coke, Rock not Country, PC not Mac, anti-abortion but Pro-Choice, and on and on. Jared, we all have more similarities than differences. A Christian and an Atheist are just as likely to be compatible as friends as two Atheists would be.
Your belief that all of humanity should “act ‘human’ no matter the internal dialogue they use to define their subjective existence” is an admirable one. Sadly, the only way this could ever occur is if we were ALL of the same religion OR if we were all free of it. I’m sure you’ll agree that neither of these scenarios are likely to occur. And please keep in mind when pondering the constant conflict between different religious groups/people; it can’t be helped and it can’t be avoided. It is simply unrealistic to think that these different people with different cultures and different societal norms would invent gods that are going to be compatible with each other’s religions. And let’s face it, Jared, you’re no more likely to concede that all of these other people’s gods are real any more than they are likely to allow that yours is.
This is our world. These are our fellow man. Our brothers all. Whether we like it or not.
DoubtingThomas
February 3, 2008 at 12:04 pm
I am the son, my Atheism isn’t retaliatory. My loss of faith was a gradual one. My reason for not believing in a god (yours or any of the thousands man has invented and dismissed over the years) is the rather boring and standard explanation; I see no evidence as to the existence of one nor the NEED for one to exist. Yes, our world is a complex one and we are a complex animal and No I don’t think I or any other Atheist has all or even most of the answers. I am also in no way satisfied with any of the Origin of Life theories. I don’t seek to provide answers, I seek to find them.
DoubtingThomas
February 3, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Hi Doubting Thomas;
I appreciate your reply and understand it. I suppose what we are all curious about is life and how it came to be.
I don’t think you or I will ever know in this life, or anyone else. Everything we know to date, are theories that are formulated by people like ourselves.
To me, God is life itself. But you are right insofar as many if not all have a different concept of God.
At least mine is not sitting on the throne in heaven waiting for the armored car to drop off the loot
Have a Great Day my friend
Robert
February 4, 2008 at 2:31 am
Wow, some hilarious responses, first with Lone Wolf STILL not getting appeal to authority and why God’s power would be more than enough for him to back up any decision he would make about morality (assuming his existence, which I’d get to except for someone else hilariously claiming I’m using circular reasoning!) and of course DoubtingThomas for continuing to complain about how I’m not getting the point or whatever, but can’t even figure out what I said initially.
My point was simple- Lone Wolf doesn’t (or can’t) grasp a logical appeal to authority and claims that even if the God in the Bible existed that he wouldn’t have the power to decide right from wrong for everyone!
Let’s demonstrate this point with some sort of analogy- an artist draws a picture, but decides that he doesn’t like the framework halfway through finishing up the details. So he scraps it. Another person thinks that framework was perfect, but does this matter? No one else’s opinion on the matter can stop the artist from publishing (or shredding, for that matter!) his own work.
February 4, 2008 at 2:08 pm
You will find more joy in the New Testament. To be frank, I was also turned off when I read the bible (Old Testament) the first time. Like what you said, “inhuman cruelty, violence, vengeance, threats, petty jealousy, incest, curses, injustice, murder, rape, depravity, death, anger”
http://privateincest.com
February 4, 2008 at 4:47 pm
DoomRater your the one who still doesn’t get it. We are not paintings, we are living sentient beings, If I built a robot and gave it a super powerful computer and made it intelligent and sentient, just cause I tell it something, that doesn’t mean I’m right, even if I built a kill switch into it and could destroy it by simply bushing a button attached to my key chain, that wouldn’t mean anything I say is right.
It doesn’t madder if God made the universe or not, It doesn’t madder if God made humanity of not, it does not madder how powerful God it. None of that madders. We are nit paintings, we are not sculptures, we are living inelegant beings and no madder what God says, it does not means he’s right. If God wants people to believe things, he better but up the evidence or if there is none, he better make a logical argument.
God gets no special treatment, in fact if God exists and is as powerful as you believe, than he should be held to a far higher standard than people are.
February 6, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Ah yes, I love your responce doubting Thomas. Thank you for taking the time to give me such detail. Sorry I’ve been absent but I have quite a load of work/schoolwork I am involved in.
“I would wager there are a hundred ways we are similar. Atheists aren’t aliens, Jared. I am a man like any other; I have a job, a home, friends, family, like some TV shows, hate others, LOVED Juno, hated Cloverfield, drink Pepsi not Coke, Rock not Country, PC not Mac, anti-abortion but Pro-Choice, and on and on. ”
Im with you there on everything, except for the Pepsi and the pro-choice (If a woman doesnt want a baby, she shouldnt be having sex, thats the purpose of it). I also have to go with Coke on this one, but I am from the south so I’m sure Im conditioned. The similarities I was refering to were more “internal”. We all have external preferences, but those preferences are made based on who we are inside. Lets suppose I didnt exist, or recognize my existence…then I would have no way to make a choice. Therefore my internal existence is a pre-requisite for my ability to make a choice.
As far as evidence is concerned, I do demand it. But I don’t demand in in the way that you might demand evidence. I believe Aristotle looked outward, but Plato looked upward. I am more concerned with my internal workings than the external world I see. This is because, one is the thinker and knower, and the other is out of my control. I find it far more logical then to be careful in my internal workings, and truly understand how I think, and why I think that way, laying little evidence on the physical circumstances of my life. If I were going to lay the evidence on what I have seen….I perhaps would trend towards athiesm, but instead I have a deep rooted knowledge of how and why I think certain ways, and that knowledge is the overrideing evidence.
There have been times when I felt “jealousy” or even “anger” towards people in my life, a sin according to my faith. However, I was able to subdue the feeling and not act out of this jealousy or anger because I recognized it as part of my human condition.
Had I believed in physical evidence alone (that these feeling are chemical reactions in my head that drive me to act certain ways for the purpose of survival) than I would have certainly acted according to my feelings. However, I chose to submit those feelings of my humanity to my God, and that has made all the difference.
I do appreciate you telling me your opinion, as I want to go into Christian Apologetics, so I do benefit from our conversations as I learn more about how and why you think the ways you do. I only hope that you could say the same, because I do come with a perspective that is perhaps different than yours, and perhaps you could learn something from me as well.
Talk to you later.
- Jared
I’ve got another
February 9, 2008 at 7:08 am
The manifestation of reality becomes a consequence of our own internal dialogue. This dialogue is made possible by something that is innately immeasurable but we have labeled as intelligence for a lack of a better word. We humans have attempted to define and understand this intelligence, but because it is the very thing itself by which we attempt to anylize it, it forever seeks to be proveable outside of itself. Therefore we rationalize, by creating more words.
The nature of reality moves outward, and it is forever becoming more explicit from a subjective viewpoint. That is, as humanity progresses, we find that the langue we use to define existence itself progresses. I do not seek to contradict myself, but this is a false intuition that cannot be supported. Because the intelligence by which we anylize has not innately changed, then the outward manifestation, no matter how much more progressive it appears is thus still flawed. It may seem on the surface and based on the linguistic value to be of a different matter, but the truth is it is of a more explicit matter.
As the world goes on in the subjective state, we will find that a more explicit definition of what we see, we do, and understand is not neccessariy a better definition, and therefore we are forced to again fall back onto the intelligence by which this derived itself.
Therefore, as it is written, There is nothing new under the sun, only in our imagination. Only in the depth of the human heart can we create something that is not and claim it as our own. The rules of reality do not allow for the creation of something difinitively new by humans, therefore all manifestations must be the abstraction of subjective minds, still being subject the the greater laws of existence, again known as intelligence.
You see, in the end we must be humbled, whether it be through the creation of our own abstrations falling before our own eyes (intelligence) or through the genuine process of relation to that which manifest himself in us, called God.
I said it how I see it.
February 9, 2008 at 7:18 am
I have read books on athiest, I have read the complete bible in several different translations. I have done every drug under the sun. I have read Plato, Aristotle, I have read socrates and others. I am versed the the Bahagadvita, I would like to read the Koran, but havnt gotten there yet. I have read books on the science of the mind, and quantum physics, I have read much. I am only 24, and my mind cannot stop. I am a product of that which drives me, and to recognize that as the Spirit of Christ puts an incredible burden on my soul, as I become responsible for my words, and their implication in the lives of those whom I speak to. Therefore, my human brother, I do hope you see that I do not seek to drive you to an unintelligent conclusion, but to the conclusion that is of the utmost intelligence. The conclusion that allows us to lift the veil of subjectivity and see things through new eyes. Through eyes that arent blinded by the desire to be the reality in which we live, but to effect it by the way we live. To hope that will be enough is all I have, because there is something great that waits in the end, and that one that waits is relational, otherwise all I am is of the greatest vanity, and I should be pittied above all men.
February 9, 2008 at 7:23 am
I seek to represent my lack and my poor decisions I’ve made (drugs, depression, prison time)….and tell you that I am redeemed…..you see, my opinion is useless, but it is my opinion none the less, and to not post it, would be to deny my redemption. Mine is a beautiful letdown, and in that I found God.
God Bless you Doubting Thomas, I do believe that the truly inquiring mind must find the one I call God in the end, because he states that if you seek him with all your heart you will find him. If, we do not seek that truth that exists outside of ourselves, then we by default become the measure of our own reality, the anchor of our existence, and for me that is destruction. Thats me though.
You have told me you believe in the principle of seeking truth and knowledge with all you are. Therefore I believe that you will find that great truth in the true Word. In the Living and Breathing word, that even now sustains existence itself for the sake of Love and Glory.
February 9, 2008 at 11:39 am
Jared, a very well put explanation of where you stand and why. However, no matter how intelligently or carefully stated, it does not change the fact that EVERY SINGLE THING YOU SAID can be defined with one word; it was an OPINION. Your opinion. And one I do not share.
Jared, you said – “I do believe that the truly inquiring mind must find the one I call God in the end,” – Again, I must ask for a little more detail here. God worshipers, whenever urging others to bow down before their god, always seem to forget the thousands of gods currently being worshiped by our species or that have previously been worshiped by our species. I assume you are referring to one of the versions of the Christian God. But clearly I need to pick the ‘correct’ sect of Christianity as none of the 80+ sects seem to ever agree that any of the others are as legitimate as their own. So if I were to choose to join you in belief, Jared, which man made division of Christianity should I will myself into believing is the ‘right’ one?
Jared, you said – “because he states that if you seek him with all your heart you will find him.” Do you know how many people have sought to believe in something false, something wrong, something awful, with all their heart and succeeded? More than 900 people who sought with all their heart to believe in Jim Jones’ teachings met their deaths as a result (300 of those were children). And consider those who followed Charles Manson, David Koresh, Adolph Hitler, Marshall Applewhite (Heaven’s Gate), etc. If humanity has proven anything, it is that we are capable of believing ANYTHING. Once upon a time we believed the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth, thunder and lightning were results of the gods wrath, people suffering from an epileptic convulsion were actually possessed by demons, a cat could steal the breath from a baby, and on and on.
Jared, you said – “If, we do not seek that truth that exists outside of ourselves, then we by default become the measure of our own reality, the anchor of our existence, and for me that is destruction.” I would argue that this is exactly what Atheists do, Jared; seek the truth that exists outside of ourselves. Honestly, Jared, couldn’t I define FAITH as a truth ONLY found within oneself? I will continue to seek the truth with all my heart, Jared, and if some day this results in my discovering that your god is the real and genuine article, I’ll be sure and let you know.
Again, thank you for your comments.
DoubtingThomas
February 11, 2008 at 6:09 am
Ah, how beautiful. You will definately have to let me know. I am seeking to break down the nature of human language is all. Lets think about this for a second. Why is it that when we reason, when we consider, certain worlds can have explicit definitions while others become clouded in vague generalizations. If I tell you I want an banana, and I have a banana, and I’ve found a banana, then odds are you are going to understand me completely, and even relate on a near perfect level. If you know me you could imagine me looking, and finding that banana and holding it in my hand. Noone cares about the banana. Its a banana and there is no reason to debate it. Banana, its a noun. Its a noun! Pay close attention because I am seeking to break down language here, as it is our greatest barrier in one hand, and our greatest gift on the other! The true double edged sword. Now If I tell you I want God, I have God, and I’ve found God, then we become clouded with something vague! Yet the God I refer to is a NOUN! He is a noun! A pronoun to be exact, surly different from the other gods you refer to. Ahhh! You might think, well God can’t be seen like a banana and therein lies what makes the concept so vague! But the truth is different, you see, the truth of why it seems vague is in the debate of the noun and not the noun itself.
Let me explain, If, thoughout history we had debated extensively the existence of a banana, and some had denied a banana was a banana, and labeled an apple a banana, and others had labeled an orange a banana, while still others had labeled a grapefruit a banana, and millions of words and books had been written on why each is a banana and the others arent, then we might be throughly confused on having any sort of logical conversation about that banana! How would we relate except by coming from a similar sect of belief on the banana! It is my belief, when I state that those who seek God with all their heart will find him, are those who seek God with all their heart. Not god the vague and uncertain and changing adjective! But God the absolute and dynamic pronoun.
You see, it becomes a natural lesson in life, and I say a natural one because you in seeking knowledge I am sure can see this, that anything that is true will be debated the most extensively and completely, thus complicating the issue and making it more difficult to relate on an absolute level. You have witnessed this I am sure! The second you claimed athiesm as your opinion, God knows (forgive the humor
,In your case I suppose your mind knows) that you were probably hit by so many different opinions on how you were wrong! Even on this blog we can see what I talk about taking place!
Im really not going anywhere with this, its just an interesting thought to me and something to consider! Talk to you later Thomas, have a great week. Ill be busy and dont know if Ill have time to post again until this weekend. Cya!
February 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Jared, you said – “If I tell you I want an banana, and I have a banana, and I’ve found a banana, then odds are you are going to understand me completely, and even relate on a near perfect level. If you know me you could imagine me looking, and finding that banana and holding it in my hand. Noone cares about the banana. Its a banana and there is no reason to debate it. Banana, its a noun. Its a noun! Pay close attention because I am seeking to break down language here, as it is our greatest barrier in one hand, and our greatest gift on the other! The true double edged sword. Now If I tell you I want God, I have God, and I’ve found God, then we become clouded with something vague! Yet the God I refer to is a NOUN! He is a noun! A pronoun to be exact, surly different from the other gods you refer to. Ahhh! You might think, well God can’t be seen like a banana and therein lies what makes the concept so vague! But the truth is different, you see, the truth of why it seems vague is in the debate of the noun and not the noun itself.”
Jared, your analogy is very bizarre and very flawed. Banana and God may both be nouns but it is the DEFINITION of these nouns that divides them. A banana is real. Its existence can easily be proven to anyone, whether they are familiar with one or not. The same can not be said for God, yours or anyone else’s. I’m sorry, Jared, but your god has absolutely NO distinction from the thousands of other gods mankind has invented. The truth isn’t different, it is always the same. What we allow to be categorized as such is the only thing that changes. You don’t allow ANY of these other gods to be categorized as true but you do classify YOUR god as truth. I simply see no means of distinguishing your god from the rest.
Jared, HOW DO YOU manage to justify your position that man has invented all of these thousands of different gods, that hundreds of millions of people have worshiped and dedicated their lives to these gods, and ALL of these gods were man made inventions, none of these religions were legitimate, EXCEPT YOURS. Your god is the ONE TIME man hit the nail on the head and didn’t get even a single detail wrong. How can you or anyone justify such a belief?
DoubtingThomas
February 14, 2008 at 4:42 am
So does a noun derive its definition from what it is, or from our personal definition. Thomas, as a pronoun, are you who I say you are, or who you say you are?
February 16, 2008 at 1:06 pm
You allowed comments? Wow, brave! I remember how these J-Dubs came to my house and started talking to me about the Place of Women in Society and Religion. The irony! Since when does a religion that oppresses their rights wants to talk about them after so long? I regret that I didn’t keep the magazine given, otherwise I might be able to share some “God given” knowledge to you through my posts!
February 25, 2008 at 4:03 pm
I just wanted to give you my perspective. I was raised in a Christian (Catholic ) home. I went to church on Sunday and catechism classes from age 6 to age 14 and was “confirmed”. To me as a child, going to church and catechism, were something i just did because my mom said I had to. I got confirmed, dragging my heels, because that’s what you did in 8th grade catechism. I went away to college and stopped going to church. I felt like religion/God were just things people made up to fill in the blanks where science and the rational world had not yet discovered the answers. I didn’t know if I believed in God or not.
But, somehow I found my way back. For me I think having children was the defining moment. I just couldn’t rationalize away the miracle of birth. I started going to a nondenominational church. I started reading the Bible — something I had not done before. I just really sat down and said “Okay, I’m going to look at this with an open mind”. The more I read, the more life makes sense. I’m not saying it’s all crystal clear, some parts of the bible are confusing to me, too. But, I’m okay with that, because the more I read, and pray, and try to live my life a follower of Christ, the more I understand.
I’m not saying I have all the answers, but I do believe that God does.
February 26, 2008 at 11:19 am
Steph,
Thank you for your comment and welcome to my site. Your tale is a familiar one as I have heard it repeated by many ‘ex’ Catholics. It’s no surprise that once you became a parent you went back to religion. Religion is comforting and when you are responsible for something as delicate and precious as a child, you crave something that will ease all the fears that come along with being a parent. I even have an Atheist friend who has his daughter enrolled in a Private Christian School. But sometimes the things we use to comfort ourselves blind us as well. You don’t need to be a Christian (or any religion) to be a good parent.
You say that you decided to sit down and read the bible with an open mind but it sounds more like you decided to sit down and read it with willful mind, filled with the desire to believe. Why didn’t you pick up the Book of Mormon, Steph? Why didn’t you pick up the works of L. Ron Hubbard? Why didn’t you pick up the Koran? Why didn’t you pick up the Tipitaka (sacred book of Buddhism)? Why didn’t you pick up the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism)? Steph, your bias towards the bible and the Christian religion was established during your experiences with the Catholic church/school, regardless of how unpleasant they may have been. Did you even have to go out and purchase a new bible, Steph, or did you still have yours conveniently close by? I worry that you are only studying the passages that allow life to ‘make more sense’. I know it won’t be appealing to you but I urge you to confront yourself with the ENTIRE bible. Perhaps you will take the time to click on the categories on the right at the top of this page and read what I have cataloged there. Remember, nothing that is true has anything to fear from a little scrutiny.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
February 26, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Hi Thomas,
I have been reading over some of the posts on this site with interest, both those touting atheistic and christian viewpoints. I think exploring them can be helpful to all. Personally, i’m okay with being a “doubting thomas”. No question is a bad question, right?
You suggest that my coming back to religion after parenthood, was driven by fear or a need to seek comfort. While I agree, parenthood is scary at times, and I do now find comfort in the bible, my prayers, and in my growing understanding of god, i honestly do not believe it was fear or comfort-seeking that brought me back. It truly was the wonder and awe of the new little human that I was holding in my arms. Maybe that sounds totally sappy, but that’s the best I can explain it. I agree there are good (and bad) parents from all walks of life.
As to why I turned to the Bible (vs. Koran, Book of Mormon, etc)…I’m sure it was my catholic/christian upbringing! I think it’s natural to turn first to what is familiar. I wouldn’t characterize my upbringing in the catholic faith as entirely unpleasant. I just didn’t want to go to church or catechism. I thought it was a waste of time. I didn’t feel like I really got anything out of it. I don’t think my negative reaction to church attendance was much different than it was to cleaning my room or washing the dishes. I just felt there were other things i’d rather do.
I have not done any in-depth studies of any of the other world religions like you mentioned. I did date an atheist while i was at college.
Did a little research at the campus library on Madelyn Murray-O’Hair. Took a class on Eastern Religions (one of my favorite classes of my freshman year!). Although there are some major definitive differences among them, these religions all have similarities, too. I don’t think studying them is a bad idea, I guess I’d just like to concentrate on the bible right now.
And i did have to go out and purchase a bible!!! I personally never owned one! My mom had a beautiful one that sat on a table in our house. The only time my family opened it was to read the story of the nativity in Luke at Christmas or maybe to complete a catechism assignment. A shame really.
I have not read all of the bible. But, I’m also not afraid to tackle the tough stuff. I love to discuss what I’ve read with others. Scrutiny is good.
Take Care,
Steph
February 27, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I feel like I might have lost you on my last question about the noun. I was going somewhere with that, but it seems you have chosen not to answer it. So, I’ll attempt to answer some of your questions, just to be fair. You probably wont like my answers, because I make them independent of me, but they are how I have come to think and to know my God.
“Jared, HOW DO YOU manage to justify your position that man has invented all of these thousands of different gods, that hundreds of millions of people have worshiped and dedicated their lives to these gods, and ALL of these gods were man made inventions, none of these religions were legitimate, EXCEPT YOURS.”
- First, when anylizing things, as you have keenly pointed out, there are many different perspectives we can take. When I am asked this question, I chose to look at it from a “why” perspective. I ask myself the question, “Why have so many humans invented and worshipped thousands of different gods throughout history.” Then I come to the conclusion, uh oh, perhaps I have done the same, because I am a human and I am certainly seeking a god. So from going inward into myself I see the need, I see the need. So now, I have to ask myself “why” I have the need to seek God. If I am understanding you correctly, you think it is because of tradition / fear / the need to rationalize existence…? Well, if that is how you think, then I agree with you. But if we go by that logic then we have to ask why we have that need? To rationalize existence? In the end it comes down to the fact that we exist. We exist, and therefore we think, therefore we come to conclusion. (am I on par with you so far?) Now following the logical process, we now must ask, why do I exist? Here is where we might split in agreement.
I believe that God created us to seek him, and in that process the need arises to seek, and from the misuse of that need we have created “false gods”, which Thomas, is the first of the 10 commandments. Very ironic indeed.
With that said, I’m going to give you 2 bible verses that I find amazing and incredibly descriptive of this delimma of thought I have described above.
Ecclesiastes 3:11
He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end.
He has set eternity in our hearts….If that doesnt cause us to seek something at least like god, I don’t know what will.
Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, ” I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, “Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’”
Again, no other book on gods has a statement so profound as the one that God states here. I pulled the question back to existence itself, and here in an ancient text, written long before modern humans existed with all their science. (by the way I love science, it is an amazing way of learning about things) is God claiming that he is existence itself, but not just existence, but also the creator of it. Now, if God is existence, and he is infinite like he says, and eternal, than perhaps that would explain why in our existence we seek gods? But we were created to seek God.
I AM < —- A pronoun.
I am Jared <—– A description of being followed by a pronoun.
Again, I’m very philosophical in thought. Ill continue.
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”
-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787
Here, he is saying, if God is real, he must value reason over blindfolded fear. Here, he is defineing the pronoun, instead of letting the pronoun define itself.
Yet, the God of the bible says, “I AM WHO I AM” , and not “I AM who you say I am”.
So could you answer my question about simple language?
In english. Does a pronoun derive its definition from who/what it is, or from who we define it as?
March 1, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Jared,
Thanks for addressing my questions.
[[You said the following – “We now must ask, why do I exist? Here is where we might split in agreement. I believe that God created us to seek him, and in that process the need arises to seek, and from the misuse of that need we have created “false gods”, which Thomas, is the first of the 10 commandments. Very ironic indeed.”]]
Jared, we split in agreement at the point where you assert that we now must ask, why do I exist. Why do I exist is one of the most foolish and unnecessary philosophical questions there are. The real question should be why do I need a reason to exist? And the idea that a supreme being would create us “to seek him” is just depressing. And you wonder why I have such a low opinion of the Christian concept of a god. And again, in your assertion that mankind has created “false gods” you willfully place YOUR god outside of that category.
And I’m afraid I have to nit pick here as you have chosen to use the American Standard translation of the bible when quoting Ecclesiastes 3:11. I have very little respect for the ASV as it is such a blatant cleaned up version of the bible that attempts to retranslate many parts in order to sit more comfortably with certain sects of Christianity. You see, Jared, in the KJV you will not find your quote – “He has set eternity in our hearts…”
[[Jared, you said – “no other book on gods has a statement so profound as the one that God states here.”]]
How do you come to this conclusion, Jared? First, your opinion of what is profound is clearly a PERSONAL one. And I would argue that the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the works of L. Ron Hubbard, the Tipitaka (sacred book of Buddhism) and the Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism) all have some equally profound statements but that doesn’t make them any more legitimate.
[[And then you go on to say – “here in an ancient text, written long before modern humans existed with all their science.”]]
Wow, Jared, were you trying to make my point for me? You do understand that there are TONS of ancient texts written before modern humans and all their science existed that speak of THOUSANDS of other gods, right? And yet only your ancient texts contain profound statements in reference to nature of god? Your entire argument is based on the willful assertion that your CONCEPT of god is the only real god.
And Jared, your desire to have a debate on the noun/pronoun definition of man/god is one of semantics and, frankly, not one I am interested in participating. You appear to be seeing some depth to this idea that simply isn’t there. You are simply asking the exact same question in two different ways; Is something its definition or what we define it as? Um, yes.
Jared, I am eager to hear your opinions on a few of my most troubling issues with Christianity on my post:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/christians-%e2%80%93-an-atheist-is-seeking-answers-can-you-supply-any/
Perhaps you’ll take a minute to check them out and leave a comment.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
March 2, 2008 at 9:45 pm
OK, you make some very good points. I have questions totally unrelated to your posts, though, so I don’t know if this is where you want my comment or not…
1) Why do you call yourself a “Born-Again Skeptic Seeking Answers”? As far as I can see, you already know what you beleive–and why, which is even more important–and, as a person raised Christian, you must know what being “Born-Again” means and totally reject the idea. Yaaaa…that’s probably the farthest from “a “deep” question you’ve ever been asked on your blog, but for some odd reason really got my curiosity.
2) Well, this isn’t really a question, but it sounds like something you might like (whether to debate it or agree, I have no idea). It’s just a link my agnostic friend sent to me once upon a time. I thought it interesting, but some think it bunk.
http://www.cracked.com/article_15663_10-things-christians-atheists-can-must-agree-on.html
Have a great day….and oh, thanks for making legitimate points. Nothing is more frustrating to me than someone spouting off their beliefs “just because”. I have the utmost respect for anyone who can just say why they–in your case–are against Christianity.
~Emily Grace
March 4, 2008 at 9:55 am
Emily,
Thanks for stopping by and checking out my site. And this page is the perfect place for ‘off topic’ comments and questions.
1) The Born Again Skeptic thing is just a play on words. I view the ‘born again’ label as essentially meaning ‘returned to’ OR ‘rededicated to’. So it is basically me saying I am one who has returned to open minded thought, that’s all. And please don’t think one must ask only ‘deep’ questions on this site. If I’ve made a statement or asked a question that provokes one from you, please ask it. As long as a question isn’t too personal I’ll usually try my best to answer it.
2) I checked out the site you recommended. Interesting stuff but nothing new. More than a few of the author’s conclusions were naïve and more than a bit willful. However, it is a good site to visit if for no other reason than to read the almost 400 comments it received. I find the comments are always more interesting than the actual post (and this goes for this site as well).
Anyway, thanks again for stopping by and please feel free to check out my other posts categorized at the top right of this page. I’m particularly interested in receiving comments on this recent post:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/christians-%e2%80%93-an-atheist-is-seeking-answers-can-you-supply-any/
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
March 8, 2008 at 11:38 pm
DT,
That list of questions is quite extensive, and will definately give me alot to think about, so thanks for pointing it out. I may give them a gander one day when I have some time off.
Let me explain myself, I’m simply trying to start at square one. For example, as far as “thought” is concerned, and all things from our viewpoint are defined through our “thought”, I find square one is
“I am” or “I exist”. This “I” gives me identity, which I can then build an extensive cognitive nueral network from. Be that solid facts or only opinions, I still need the recognition of “I am” to build any worldview, whether coherant or not. To me, thats what makes God’s name being “I am” so profound. It seems to me that any rational human being, must rely on this recognition of “I exist” to even form thoughts or opinions. Sure, its down there deep in our subconcious, and I doubt we can even remember when we first recognized our own existence, but it seems to me it is there.
“Why do I exist is one of the most foolish and unnecessary philosophical questions there are. The real question should be why do I need a reason to exist?”
We cant ask the question “Why do I need a reason to exist?” without first existing. Therefore, “Why do I exist?” is a prerequisite question.
There are only 4 possible answer to “Why do I exist?” though they may vary linguistically.
1) I created myself.
2) Another Existing being created me.
3) Naturalism. (Which actually defaults to (1) because thought nature moved me towards intelligence, it is not until humanity had the thought “I am” that all other thoughts then became possible, meaning my being was throught me having this initial thought.)
4) I don’t exist.
“And the idea that a supreme being would create us “to seek him” is just depressing. And you wonder why I have such a low opinion of the Christian concept of a god.”
I wonder no more
The ironic thing here is, that invigorates me! So it stands to be said that something that depresses you gives me joy. I doubt me or you will ever understand that.
March 8, 2008 at 11:40 pm
Supposed to say:
3) Naturalism. (Which actually defaults to (1) because though nature moved me towards intelligence, it is not until humanity had the thought “I am” that all other thoughts then became possible, meaning my being came into recogntion by me having this initial thought. Only then, can I start forming opinions.)
March 9, 2008 at 10:57 pm
To add to you lead about the Bible being the most purchased and least read book, you can also add the most shoplifted book ever printed.
March 10, 2008 at 2:16 am
Hey Thomas,
I’ve got a basic question. I find that sometimes I do “doubt” my God and even his existence. That my faith is not as absolute as I would like it to be. Then other times this faith feels very tangible and absolute.
Do you struggle with this and being athiest? That is to say do you sometimes doubt your conclusion that there is no God?
March 10, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Jared: Atheists do not have faith that there is no God, atheism is a lack of belief in a God or gods.
March 12, 2008 at 11:14 am
Jared,
God proclaiming “I Am” is hardly profound. ALL gods mankind has invented claim to exist, at least according to those who invented and worshiped them, which is all the statement “I AM” is, man’s claim of a gods words.
And, Jared, the “I” in the statement “I exist” is NOT what gives one their identity. And no one needs to ‘recognize’ that they exist before becoming a person. That is simply absurd. And the reason why we can’t remember when we “first recognized our own existence” is because it occurs at the inception of one’s consciousness. It is impossible for any conscious being to not recognize that they exist. And I’m sorry, but “Why do I exist?” IS NOT a prerequisite for asking “Why do I need a reason to exist?” And how exactly did you come up with your four ONLY answers to the “Why do I exist?” question (#1 & #4 don’t even make sense)? There is actually only ONE answer: We exist because we were conceived and were born. People who NEED every single person to have a reason to be alive make me sad. There is no rhyme or reason. This shouldn’t be a depressing thought. Just live your life. Some will live a moral life (regardless of religion) and some will not. Live a good life and leave the world a better place and you will be rewarded upon death with the knowledge that you lived a good life and left the world a better place. Why do people need more than that? Oh yes, the great inescapable EGO.
Jared, I am glad to hear that you sometimes doubt your god’s existence. It says a great deal about your capacity to think reasonably. I simply have no respect for those who are completely unwilling to even CONTEMPLATE the idea that MAYBE the god they worship IS IN FACT a creation of man just like the thousands of other gods mankind has invented who they, themselves dismiss as fictitious. So thank you for your brave confession. My respect for you has increased as a result. As to your question as to if I sometimes doubt my conclusion that there is no god; No, I don’t. However, I am completely open to the possibility that I am wrong. I have just seen no evidence that YOUR concept of a god, nor anyone else’s concept of a god, is based on anything more than faith/hope or a feeling. This simply isn’t enough for me. ALL those who worshiped those gods you dismiss felt/feel the same feeling and were/are just as certain (faith) that they were/are right as you do. Also, please don’t misunderstand, I’m not suggesting that I have the answers. All I wish is that no one was ever satisfied. NEVER BE SATISFIED! It might as well be my motto. Scrutinize everything. Never allow someone else’s conclusion to become your own without careful consideration (study). No god worshiper really knows the truth regarding the origin of life. And neither does any Atheist. I am personally very unsatisfied with ALL the origin of life theories. Life is simply much too complex to accept it was all just an accident, but it is FAR too flawed to have been the actions of an all powerful god, yours or anyone else’s. I don’t claim to have all the answers, or even most of them, but I’ve yet to meet a god believer who had any (at least none that pertain to anyone besides themselves). They always have a nice, neat collection of conclusions, but don’t seem to realize that answer is not always an accurate synonym for conclusion. An answer must contain truth; a conclusion often contains nothing but theory.
And please remember what Lone Wolf said above. An Atheist doesn’t have FAITH that there is no god, we simply don’t believe that there is, nor see a reason for, a god, yours or any other. Faith is a synonym for hope. Hope is willful. Atheists are not willfully denying god, as many Christians suggest. Our denial of the existence of a god has NOTHING to do with a personal desire for there not to be one.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
March 17, 2008 at 5:41 pm
You and God agree on one thing Thomas, that all man-made gods are false and impotent. However He cannot deny His own existence as you can. I have told you His name. YHWH (I AM), I have described how it is ingrained at the core of your personal self and how all thoughts arise as a result of your own existence. Romans 1-2 talks about how all men know God and are therefore without excuse. If you would recognize that all you know is your own existence. That all you know is I AM, and that you are correct, everything else is opinion, than you would see that you have met the One True God, and then knowing he is revealed in the Word, could begin to learn more truth, truth beyond opinion. Truth that is a revelation and not an opinion.
I have explained how when God claims he is the One and only God, that the enemy of God is going to distort this truth by creating many false gods that claim the same thing. However these things arent real. The God of the bible is not a man-made creation, and it is of no accident that Christianity is the worlds #1 religion. I have given the example, that God is a noun, and is defined by Himself, and not by man. Which was the true answer to your question “How do you distinguish your God.” The truth is, I do not distinguish him, but he distinguishes Himself, through the revalation of Himself in his Holy Spirit, which has the power to reform the minds and hearts of those who only believe in Him. Also, he is not my God as in I have ownership of Him. Instead, I am his Man in that he has ownership of Me.
If He is not Real than there is no Risk. Believe in Him. And see if you are Transformed. I suppose if you arent, then you would have one more reinforcement of atheism, however, many athiests have gone down the path of knowing the Christain God, and few turn back.
I have been real with you, and explained my doubts. Though I still choose to believe through the doubts, because I believe that God is more real than even my personal doubts.
Even you, in trying to disprove God’s existence, fulfill prophecy in a book that was written before you existed. It seems to me logically, to disprove God’s existence would be to not fulfill prophecy written before you existed.
However I find myself still, fascinated with your worldview and it has been a pleasure hearing how you see things. I do hope you gain as much insight from our conversations as I do. And I thank you for being so open with your opinions.
- Jared
March 18, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Jared,
First, you haven’t explained anything other than what YOUR particular opinion of the Christian religion and Christian God are. You seem to believe that by saying God is a noun and his name is I AM and the bible says all men know YOUR particular god, that this makes it so. Perhaps it makes it so for you but clearly it means little to someone who doesn’t belong to your particular religion or worship your particular god. And you continue to state that YOUR god isn’t a man made creation like EVERY OTHER GOD MAN HAS EVER WORSHIPED but only offer meaningless dogma and the tired “because the bible tells me so” as your reasons. I must conclude that these are the only ‘answers’ you have to offer so regrettably I must accept them as such.
You also suggest that I would believe in your god if I would just give in and believe in him. You understand what a dangerous thing it is that you are suggesting, don’t you? What do you think every follower of Jim Jones, David Koresh and L. Ron Hubbard did? And, Jared, have you forgotten that I was once as passionate a follower of the bible and Christianity as you currently are?
Jared, do you believe in ALL the prophecies contained in texts written before you were born? Is that all that is required for them to be legitimate; that they were written before one was born? Were the fulfilled prophecies written by the Pharaoh’s sorcerers legitimate? Somehow I think you are a skeptic like me in regards to these ‘false’ prophets. But you would have me believe that the so called prophetic passages in your chosen collection of texts are right on and are even talking about me personally so I should cast aside my doubt and become a believer? I’m sorry, Jared, but I’m not convinced by such wishful and willful thinking. Please don’t be disappointed as you have made a greater and more interesting effort to help me understand than most who have visited this site and I truly appreciate it. The biggest obstacle appears to come from the massive division that lives within Christianity. There are now SO many different sects, all of which have differing views on so many aspects of the Christian doctrine, that it becomes quite difficult to get a clear answer on ANY particular issue. And yet I will keep seeking them. Apparently I am a glutton for punishment.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
March 18, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Bit Said:
“I know the Old Testament seems to portray God as barbaric and genocidal — please take the time to study the reason for it, because it does indeed harmonize with the foregoing. Are you aware that the tribes destroyed were committing abominable acts of atrocity (sacrificing children in fire, etc.)?”
Lone Wolf asked Bit:
“What in the bible makes you think that those murdered by God (or people he told to commit murder) makes you think that they where doing such evil acts? The bible usually gives 2 reason for genocide in it, the people where sinful (which is vague and could mean anything) or they warship another god(s).”
Bit’s reply:
I admit that what I know is small, but there are some things we can conclude without further evidence through logic, which is a function not materially explainable.
UNFLIPPIN’BELIEVABLE!!!!! Bit (aka Mike) just reaffirms my opinion that the faithful are ignorant. His god is repeatedly proclaimed infallible, therefore, Bit can “conclude” these tribes “were sacrificing children in fire”? Bit just can’t accept that a god he worships would kill people out of sheer jealousy and nothing more.
“…I cannot help remarking upon the overweening confidence with which the religious assert minute details for which they neither have, nor could have, any evidence.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Bit doesn’t have any proof that pagan tribes in the old testament sacrificed children, but we DO have evidence that Christians enslaved, tortured, hanged, torched and dismembered millions of men, women AND CHILDREN during the Inquisition in Europe, the Spanich Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem Witch Trials, the burning of Jewish synagogues in the 4th and 5th centuries….
Here’s a great list, which I found at http://coding.derkeiler.com/Archive/C_CPP/comp.lang.c/2004-03/0921.html:
VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
“WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD’S DIVINE GLORY”
**THE EXTENSIVE LIST PROVIDED BY ERYNN HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS COMMENT AND A NEW POST HAS BEEN CREATED CONTAINING THIS INFORMATION HERE — http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/victims-of-the-christian-faith/
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND REVIEWING IT. — DoubtingThomas**
March 22, 2008 at 6:46 am
” The biggest obstacle appears to come from the massive division that lives within Christianity. There are now SO many different sects, all of which have differing views on so many aspects of the Christian doctrine, that it becomes quite difficult to get a clear answer on ANY particular issue. And yet I will keep seeking them. ”
I absolutely love the way you put his Thomas. This amazing thing is, many a christian pastor will flee from giving you any answer to such a question, and odds are if they are willing will wrap it into a nice 30 minute super-segment and just expect you to get it. Thats not how it was meant to be, and I do live differently than some of my contemporaries because I belive Church “tradition” has done a great injustice to the message that is being explained in the Word of God. I;m thrilled your going to keep seeking answers, because honestly, thats alot better than many christians do. They accept the faith, and then shut off their minds….almost as if they are scared that if they think about the hard issues, they will turn from the faith. The interesting thing here, is you put a lot of credence on this in your argument against there being a “God”. As you mention if only the Christians would “read the bible” they would disbelieve. In their actions of not reading it, and letting it be more like something they “keep in the back pocket” as opposed to putting before the faculties of logic and the mind, they tend to support at least in theory your argument. This is not healthy to the church.
To be honest with you I have many athiest friends, and I often find myself enjoying their relationships more than my christian contemporaries. There seems to be an anti-intellectualism in Christianity, that says in a nutshell “Look, quit trying to be intellectual and quit asking questions, just believe with blind faith.” , and this drives me nuts as my experiance has been just the opposite. I didnt seek anything before I came to know God, now my passion for knowledge is explosive, so much so that I write dozens of pages a day on the subject. I cant seem to shut myself off. You are just one blog I visit and one person I talk with, but I have a passion for this and it makes it easy.
It is for this very reason that I want to go into the field known as apologetics. I’m sure you have heard of it? I want you to know that I read my bible every day. I get into the greek roots, the hewbrew roots, the context. I’ll study every place one word occurs in the bible to gain a “biblical” definition of that word. I also want you to know that I appreciate all your arguments.
You bring up many specific questions, and if you want me to go that direction I can start trying to answer them one by one, especially if you feel it will help you understand the “christian worldview” better. But I believe that the specific questions arise as a result of your existential witness of reality. They arise out of what you have seen, have heard, have touched, and have thus considered and concluded. What you have seen in the church, and the world, and other christians, produces in you a mind of skepticism, and rightfully so. I cannot say that it illigitimate, as I have experience the same thing.
So the direction I go in our conversations is more thought based. I have attempted to explain to you how God can be seen experientially, and how the bible explains this sight.
“I am” – Jared – The root word here that God’s name is derived from is Hayah, which basically means to exists. Or, existence itself. So, lets substitute Gods name for Gods name, according to the context of the scriptures.
John 1 – In the beginning was existence, and existence was God, and existence was with God. Existence was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through existence, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being.
That speaks wonders to me, and it is very coherent with science and modern though. Thats why I find God’s name ironic and unique to say the least. I could expand on this greatly, but don’t want to “waste” your time.
“Somehow I think you are a skeptic like me in regards to these ‘false’ prophets. ”
I am a skeptic, in the sense that I am skeptical of my own minds ability to interpret reality. I know that I must have a worldview, and I have learned in my experiance that any worldview have constructed has had inconsistencies that eventually led to pain and sorrow or sorts. So, when I became a believe, I decided to embrace it for all it was worth, at least until in my mind I could prove it inconsistent also.
Here is the thing, I believe now, after reading the Word consistently for about 6 years, that anytime a doubt arises, the doubt is fueled by my “old” worldview. If I just push forward a week and persue answers to that doubt from within the context of the Word, I am typically completely satisfied, and in many cases even invigorated when I find an answer. Most of the time the answer is found in the “Character of God” and not in an explicit passage about what someone did or didnt do. This takes careful analysis on my part.
How is the bible different? I look at it like this right now.
1) Truth as a categories does exist. I believe this, otherwise I would not seek it.
2) It is possible in a majority of the cases in philosophical and historical claims to verify the truthfulness of those claims. Through many methods…archeology, science, thought, etc…
3) There are existential realities from which I cannot die that drive me to seek a coherency in answering these particular “realities”. Such as the problem of evil as it expresses itself in “rape” “murder” and “hate”.
I believe the bible coherently fulfills these three requirements for me.
The bible does not affirm verbal perfection like the Koran. But it is coherent and complete. It has a supernatural element in it that is affirmed by the # of books, the dynamic of writings and the different authors, whom all point to one conclusion in the person of Jesus Christ and the atonement of the cross
This kind of documentation, that kind of person, and this kind of accuracy. Noone ever lived like him, noone ever spoke like him. Noone was as merciful. He set the law on a high plane, and he set forgiveness and mercy even higher.
Now, that I have laid a foundation. We can begin to discuss specifics. I will be happy to try to answer any specific question you have specifically.
Hope to hear from you soon.
- Jared
March 22, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Jared,
Your best comment so far. I really enjoyed the clarity of your perspective. It was refreshing. Let me reaffirm that I am glad to have your voice on my site regardless of how often or rarely we agree on an issue.
You said – “anytime a doubt arises, the doubt is fueled by my “old” worldview. If I just push forward a week and persue answers to that doubt from within the context of the Word, I am typically completely satisfied, and in many cases even invigorated when I find an answer. Most of the time the answer is found in the “Character of God” and not in an explicit passage about what someone did or didnt do.”
My problem with this is it reveals how you use your CONCEPT of what the “character of God” is. There are a great many concepts of what the “character of God’ is amongst the various sects of Christianity. This concept is ALWAYS a personal one shaped by personal desire. Depending on the issue your god may be all goodness and light or vengeance and wrath. But how do you keep your own personal desire to view him one way or the other from shaping him? This has always troubled me, even back in my days of a believer.
As for any specific questions I am seeking answers for, you can find most of them categorized on the right at the top of the page. Some are deep and important, some are philosophical, some or light and a bit silly. Feel free to dig in. You’re more than welcome.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
March 22, 2008 at 4:45 pm
My problem with this is it reveals how you use your CONCEPT of what the “character of God” is. There are a great many concepts of what the “character of God’ is amongst the various sects of Christianity. This concept is ALWAYS a personal one shaped by personal desire. Depending on the issue your god may be all goodness and light or vengeance and wrath. But how do you keep your own personal desire to view him one way or the other from shaping him?
And you said “is ALWAYS a personal one” – This is true when we attempt to define God and not let him reveal himself.
Yet another great question Thomas, and probably one of the most important question any Christian believer should ask himself. Knowing God is not unlike knowing a person. Before we come into a relationship with them we will define them by our natural prejudices. And metaphorically speaking, the looks of God in the world are quite ugly. The world paints him to be ugly, it paints him to be evil (perhaps this is just evil in the world trying to discredit goodness in its evilness). I think you and I can both agree that God, if real, would be neither ugly nor evil, it would short-circuit everything. So first, if “God” is real. He must be Good. Coming to this conclusion is of the utmost importance, for I think we all see that the world we live in is neither entirely good, nor entirely evil, but somewhere in between. And believing first that God is good will protect us from making horribly immoral decisions in reguards to representing his true nature.
This post is going to be from a biblical perspective, but I’ll attempt to frame it in a coherant way in which you can relate. First off, you point to a very real reality, and I believe the God of the bible forwarns us of men like these. So lets assume that YHWH (The God of the Word) is the one true God in spite of the others for the sake of understanding.
The very first commandment he gives us in reguards to himself is, “Thou shalt have no other God before me.”
This is a tough claim to hold to, as our minds naturally idolize things. Even if we dont realize it, it happens. We can idolize good things as well as bad things, such as family and friends, relationships, money, power, fun….etc.
God is claiming we are to hold him as the highest thought and belief in our lives. OK, fair enough. This immediately means I have to know “His character” otherwise I might be holding something that isnt him as the highest thing, and that thing could be a “false god” I have constructed according to my personal desire. Which, as you pointed out, is a question that has always troubled you. Perhaps in a deep way you see what goes on in the mind and you see clearly the human minds abilities to construct things according to its desires and opinions. Very wise observation.
“The development of the mind was preceded only by the surgery of the heart.”
You used the word “desire”. I’m glad, as this points to the heart, or desire. God has alot to say about the heart, and I could take up pages on the subject. Im going to post some verses and hopefully they will speak for themselves. Keep in mind that where the “desire of the heart” and the “Considerations of the mind” meet will be a worldview. And you are asking me how I make sure that it is “God” I am knowing and not who I want him to be. Its easy, I don’t consider my desires, but I consider who he is according to the book I read. I want to elaborate on the heart though, because if my heart is not reconciled then even if I read the Word I could only become another “Jim Jones” I guarentee you he never knew the Spirit of God, and his heart was the same evil heart he was born with…his persuit of God was wishful thinking, fueled by pride and lust for power. A true believer will produce Good fruit.
[[Deleted copious amounts of scripture that depict Jared’s god as glorious]]
When man is seen to take the initiative in the discovery of God,
even though seeming pietistic motives are expressed, or probing ritualistic forms are employed such as meditation concerning self or the universe, whatever he discovers will only fall within the realm of his cognitive and analytical capacity. How futile it is for finitude to discover infinity or mortality to attain immortality. However God revealed himself, because we werent capable of finding him…and that my friend is why I believe he is God, because that srikes a chord with me. I could elaborate more on this with verse if you like.
I believe he is God because he cant be found, but is revealed. And when we only accept that (which is a great definition of Grace) he can begin to work in us and through us. Hope that wasnt too long.
- Jared
March 26, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Dear Doubting Thomas,
Wow! I love the deep stuff!! Nothing wrong with these discussions. Obviously, there are those human questions that mankind will grapple with always, and it’s hard as educated and brilliant as some are, to be okay with not knowing or understanding how something works. We want proof. We don’t want to be fooled. We certainly don’t want people thinking we’re some kind of brain-washed robots who follow some idea that corrupt human beings fabricated in the first place. Is it the case?
If you’re familiar with Old Testament scripture, people thought the same way!! Even though they weren’t as educated as we are today, they wanted visual proof of the “UNKNOWN GOD” so much that they constructed images to pray to. Weird, but not too weird. It’s human.
According to scripture, they saw miraculous signs, but still did not believe there was ONE TRUE GOD. This was a HUGE problem. What did God do about it??
According to prophecy, God WOULD and DID reveal Himself to mankind.
Scripture and documented historical accounts agree that the ‘man’ JESUS of NAZARETH claimed to be God. Now. Right there, we either have FACT or FICTION. WHAT A HUGE CLAIM!! (Definitely not the first or the last)
Jesus Christ was either WHO HE SAID HE WAS, or THE BIGGEST FRAUD THE WORLD HAS EVER KNOWN!! Worst than Hitler. I mean, you can’t ride the fence on this one!! Why should we even say Jesus was a good man, or prophet, or whatever, if He has caused millions of people to be willing to die for Him??
This is the big stink. This is the BIG question. IT determines everything.
You and me and everyone else has to answer the question…WAS HE GOD?
IS THIS THE PROOF GOD PROVIDED FOR US??
The whole reason He was put to death was because of that claim. The Romans had ‘Caesar’ and the Jews had “THE UNKNOWN GOD.” It was ‘blasphemy’ to them to have someone claim to be GOD. And shocker, these were ‘religious’ people!!!
Everyone else who has claimed deity is rotting underground now.
Prophecy says that He would come back alive three days after His death. If that didn’t really happen, than my faith is so ridiculous!! Are ‘Christians’ serving a dead god?? If Jesus was a fraud, than Christianity is the biggest scam ever. We are still searching for the truth of the ‘UNKNOWN GOD.” If He DID fulfill all of those 400 some odd prophecies, then, UH OH!! The next conclusion is…He is God, He is alive now, and we can actually know Him. Pretty preachy I know.
The smartest people in the world could argue philosophy and theology ’til they’re blue in the face…but that doesn’t determine anything. If we need to get to square one in this whole “Let’s prove that there was never a god who revealed him self to us” thing, it’s simple…was Jesus God? What we believe determines everything.
Sorry so long…hopefully not boring. Some food for thought?
It’s certainly okay to be a ‘Doubting Thomas.’ But if you’ll recall in the biblical account, Jesus never condemned Thomas for his ‘doubt,’ but rather lovingly showed Thomas His proof. Thomas fell on his knees and called Jesus, “My Lord and my God!”
March 27, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Just browsing through your website…one question for the educated ‘atheist’. Please tell me that you have done your homework and have researched biblical evidence???
If you’re interested (I have a feeling you’re not), I’d be happy to give you a long list of resources.
Ton of folks smarter than us out there believing in what you claim has no evidence…
March 28, 2008 at 3:44 am
Here is a question for you… Would you rather live your life as if there were no God and then die and find out that there is? You have got nothing to lose believing in God and trusting in the Lord, well nothing but eternity if you don’t.
I’ll pray that you find peace and salvation.
March 28, 2008 at 8:01 am
The false dilemma fallacy.
The earliest mention of Jesus out side the bible was form Tacitus in the year 116 and before you brake out Josephus, the mention of Jesus in the Antiquities of the Jews is universally considered a forgery by scholars. So all you got is the bible but the problem with that is Mark Luke and John can’t agree on many things from the birth of Jesus to his death to his resurrection, they contradicts each other numerous time, big contradictions.
And the gospel where written decades after the supposed events in them and it wasn’t until century’s later that we got the bible we have today and in that time there could have been alterations to the gospels.
And another problem is Jesus’s story fits the story’s of the dieing and rising god mythos of many pagan religion including many mystery cults of the time.
So no, its not “ether or”, there could have been a historical Jesus who said the things in the gospels there could also been a historical Jesus that said few of whats in the gospels but through the distortions of time where attributed to him, there could have also been no Jesus and hes was complete fictional character or most likely (in my opinion) The Jesus narrative is a mixing of Pagan and Jewish mythology’s and the story of many first century self proclaimers Messiahs, traveling preachers and magicians.
March 28, 2008 at 8:08 am
He is Risen Says:
Pascal’s Wager, the problem with that is which God(s) of which religion? Islams hell is worse that the Christan hell so maybe we believe that? Or may be I should become Buddhist so I could escape the cycle of death and rebirth? Or maybe I should join some new age pseudo-spiritual crap religion and learn how to become god like and create my own universe?
Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work for 2 reason, 1. There are many religions and they all disagree with each other and 2 why live as if there is a god when you could live as if there isn’t one and live your life to the fullest?
March 28, 2008 at 8:12 am
Chad
Is it real evidence or evidence to a believer? Case there is a difference. Cause if its evidence to a believer, I can say with a some certainly that I have herd it and Thomas probably has too and probably full of holes and fallacy’s.
March 28, 2008 at 8:15 am
You claim to have studied and read the Bible, yet in just my brief perusal of your questions and “arguments” I have found many misrepresentations of what the Bible actually says and erroneous assumptions. When you encountered passages that caused you to lose your faith did you read any authors who write on those subjects? Have you read any authors who address your questions?
If you are really seeking answers, then why not allow faith as a response? It is impossible to separate Christianity from faith. It’s like asking a scientist a question and then saying, “But don’t use the scientific method.” It can’t, nor should it be done.
March 28, 2008 at 8:25 am
A furyjer espone to He is Risen.
A therd thing I forgot, Say you die and go to heavon, what then? Gods going to know you didn’t realy believe.
Paul Rivas: I see no misrepresentations in any parts of the bible Thomas talks about, the bible is an evil book full of evil things, saying its a misrepresentation when some one points out some of this evil doesn’t change what it says. When the bible says a rape victim has to marry the rapist, thats not a misrepresentation, when God or one of his prophets orders people to commit genocide, thats not a misrepresentations, when God kills innocent people, thats not a misrepresentation. Read the bible, all of it.
Faith is not an answer, its ignorance.
March 28, 2008 at 2:00 pm
1. There are many religions and they all disagree with each other and
The bible says that false teachers will arise and lead many people astray. It is prophesied. God says many times in the bible, believe, because look, I claim things before they happen. He is showing his trancendence to the “other” false religions. I’d be happy to provide scripture.
2 why live as if there is a god when you could live as if there isn’t one and live your life to the fullest?
The bible prophesied that you would use this argument to substantiate belief that God doesnt exist and to justify your own existence. Sinse you didn’t create yourself, you must at least acknowledge your own being and the choices you make, and then, it is a natural consequence that all humans seek to subsequently “justify” this existence. A believe is not “justified” withen himself but by the creator.
A therd thing I forgot, Say you die and go to heavon, what then? Gods going to know you didn’t realy believe.
In the OT faith comes from the word “em-oo-naw’” and it actually means “faithfullness”. If you were to go to a Hebrew and say, just have “faith” and it will make your paths straight. They probably would have misunderstood you. If however you were to say, Show “faithfullness” to God and he will make your paths straight it would have clicked in their mind.
The greek language came along, being versed in “thinking” and brought the split, thus seperating belief from the way of life. The word for faith became “pis’-tis” and most of the time it was translated as “faith” with the exception of when it referred to the “faithfullness” of God, because his faith is fully manifested. The bible defines faith as true spiritual sight. So to reconcile this split the New Testament describes the concepts “works” and “faith” come along. We are saved by “faith” alone. Yet later the bible says that faith without works is dead, thus reconnecting the two concepts into one powerful expression. “Faithfulness”. Thus him who does not believe fully may be saved by Grace, but that does not mean he lived like Christ on earth.
From the definition of the Greek word for Faith: pis’tis.
2. fidelity, faithfulness
a. the character of one who can be relied on
Thats the difineing characteristic of a believer. God sees their “faithfulness” in heaven, and yes, man sees it on earth.
Hope this clears up some misconceptions.
Therefore brother, if
March 28, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Response to Lone wolf
He does misrepresent. For example, under “Abuse of women: Women = powerless” he quotes half of a verse. The other half shows that men do not have control of their bodies, but their wives do. Furthermore, if read in context it shows that the verse is really about how to keep from sexual sin and keep your marriage pure.
Another example, in his questions section he claims the Bible teaches their were giants (giants in the fairytale sense) but in reality it teaches there were really tall people (9ft +). Since we know people can grow to be over 8ft tall, 9ft is hardly beyond the realm of possibility.
As for forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist, this only happened if the woman was not engaged to someone else. In that time a woman who was not a virgin might have a very hard time finding a husband, leaving her in poverty, shamed, etc. It was a matter of social justice to make the man take her as a wife.
BTW I have read all of the Bible. I’ve also studied a bit of the history of when it was written. If you are going to fault the Bible for perceived injustices, it is important to know the practices of the cultures at the time and how the Bible’s laws and rules effected that culture.
No, lack of faith is ignorance.
See, I can make statements, too.
March 28, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Jared: I was talking about Pascal’s Wager and how its its illogical and as an argument doesn’t work.
Paul Rivas: The bible does say woman are powerless, to the bible woman are nothing but property. And you trying to justify that unjustifiable, evil and ridiculous part of the bible that says a rape victim has to marry the rapist only make you look evil. There in no justifiable reason to force a rape victim to marry her rapist, it it makes it even worse that the only punishment for the rapist is he has to pay the girls father, it only shows that woman to the bible are property.
The bible does say there where giants and I’m talking about Galiath. They are ether translated as giants (Genesis 6:4 KJV “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”) or Nephilim (“The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them: the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.”)
March 28, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Mr. Rivas: I like your points. Undecided about where I stand on your assertions, but I find them very interesting. Thank you. I would also like to make a statement: ignorance is faithless. Also, I seriously doubt, and this doubt is based on evidence within the postings of his blog, that Thomas is at all uninterested in substantial evidence/answers. I mean: take a serious look at this blog! It’s no small opus.
Skinner
March 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Paul,
You were correct about the Women = Powerless post. I deleted the post as it was clearly a misrepresentation and I apologize for its listing. I’m sure I had more of a point to make regarding that issue, more than just quoting that bit of scripture, but it appears I never got around to finishing it. However, Paul, I STRONGLY object to your statement that you found ‘many’ misrepresentations on my site. I’m very careful to avoid doing so. Some may object to things being taken out of context but I try to never use a passage unless I feel it stands on its own. And I addressed your poor rebuttal regarding Dragons and Giants in my Christians – An Atheist is Seeking Answers. Can you supply any? Post here:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/christians-%e2%80%93-an-atheist-is-seeking-answers-can-you-supply-any/
And the reason I discourage believers from simply stating ‘faith’ as an answer is simply because it is not an answer. It is a cop out in place of an actual answer. It is a way for the believer to not challenge themselves. It is a given that the believer has ‘faith’, Paul. Now if I asked a scientist to explain why they believe in quantum mechanics and their reply was ‘science’ and nothing more, well, I would find this just as unsatisfying. ‘Science’ is no more an answer than ‘faith’ is. If I asked someone to explain why they believed in quantum mechanics and someone to explain why they believed Jesus rose from the dead and ascended bodily into heaven I would want more that a one word answer. UNLESS that is ALL they had to give. In which case I would have a difficult time respecting their position, whether it was a scientist using ‘science’ or a Christian using ‘faith’ or “because the bible tells me so”.
DoubtingThomas
March 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I don’t know why this dogma of faith has found its way into what it means to be a Christian. I am a Christian, and I have faith. But If I claim to be without doubt, I would be making myself a liar, and God calls me to be honest.
The Fact is having faith does not mean you are without doubt. You, the thinker, the person, just side with the faith as being the more tangible route to truth, and identify with the faith and not with the doubt.
Thats my small take on it.
And Skinner, I read this whole blog. Im totally into trying to find reasons to not believe, but at the end of the day I know God experientially, and logic just cant explain away the supernatural presence of him in my life. Ill admit thats purely subjective, and doesnt mean anything to you. But it is still my testimony. Another site I frequent is http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm . I figure if I throughly understand the mind of a skeptic, not in a simple way as to refute his argument, but If I become him, yet stay the course of faith, then what will come from that will have purpose beyond simple logical argumentation.
The bridge between faith and doubt is a narrow one, but by crossing over one gains a new sight that brings the joy and fulfillment I believe we all desperately want.
March 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I shouldnt say I’m into finding reasons to “not believe”. Its more along the lines of, I am fascinated by the reasons to “not believe”.
March 29, 2008 at 6:03 pm
DT
I’m glad you deleted it, but doesn’t your blog allow you to work on an entry before you post it? Is so, why post it before you were done?
I don’t have time to address all the misrepresentations I see. We may disagree on whether they are or not. In general I consider it a misrepresentation to base an argument on only the KJV, especially when newer translations give a better understanding as to what the original writers meant. An example of this is your question about dragons and giants. (I did reply to you btw). I also think it is a misrepresentation to say there are contradictions because one author (Mark, for example) mentions something and another one does not. Silence on a subject or detail does not equal contradiction. I also find it puzzling that you claim to have studied the Bible, yet seem ignorant of basic translation issues, historic context, and other issues that greatly effect some of your perceived contradictions.
And there are other places where you give part of a verse to make your point, but reading more of the passage clears up any seeming contradictions or doubts.
For example, Under “Abortion is a sin, right?” you say:
“II Kings 15:16 – ‘All the women therein that were with child he ripped up.’ Describing the actions of Israel’s King Meabem (Meahem). Abortion is a sin, right?”
The implication being that God condoned his behavior, but if you continue to read to verse 18 the Bible clearly says, “And he did [that which was] evil in the sight of the LORD: he departed not all his days from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who made Israel to sin.” He is shown as a king who did evil, so yes abortion is wrong and so is what he did.
2nd example, under “I need a little clarification” you claim a contradiction between John and James on the subject of belief, but if you actually read James in context, he is clearly defining what it means to have faith. Faith is more than just saying you believe, faith is acting on that belief. If I said I believe I can fly (i don’t actually believe this) yet refused to act on that faith you would be right to question my faith. This essentially is what James is saying. If you really have faith, then it effects your actions, or works. These works are not necessary for salvation, but an evidence of the faith.
Also, why are you so vague in some of your “contradictions” why not state exactly what you see as a contradiction?
My point about faith was not to suggest allowing just one word answers. I did not say that, in fact as an analogy I used the scientific METHOD, not just the word science. But, never mind, let me try to be clearer.
Many of the issues you address can not be explained in a logical way. Even Paul says that the gospel appears foolish to those who do not believe (1 Cor. 1:18). Faith is part of the equation of why I believe what I do. To not allow me to use it as an argument makes the argument meaningless. And lonewolf, I am not ignorant as you assume. Often my faith rails against what I “know”. I’m not saying you should be satisfied with one word answers, or even “because the Bible says so”. What I am saying is that sometimes there will be no meaningful answer if faith is not included.
March 29, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Lonewolf
First let me say that I think rape is a terrible crime.
But what I was trying to show is that in order to properly interpret how the Bible handles issues we have to understand how they were perceived at the time. What may look barbaric in our eyes may have actually been a step forward at the time. You see it as evil to marry a rape victim to her attacker, and in our society it would be, but back then it was a way to insure she and her offspring would not be left poverty stricken. May I suggest you read Women, Abuse and the Bible (kroeger and beck editors) and/or Beyond Sex roles by Gilbert Bilezikean (see cbeinternational.org).
Ah, the nephalim, there is much debate as to who or what they were, but if you know anything about biology you know that two different species cannot bear children who can procreate.The mule is an example of this. So, the very fact that these “giants” had children who had children shows that they were men. Very big men, but men and not our fairytale notion of giants.
March 30, 2008 at 12:31 am
Paul: The newer translations are allot less reliable than you think, the people who have translated these deliberately mistranslates and even rewrote part to make the bible match there beliefs. So older translation are actually more reliable even if some times confusing (note: thats nothing new, people have been altering the bible to get it to fit there beliefs for all of its history, why do you think there are so many different versions?)
While that argument may work for some parts of the bible but making a rape victim marry the rapist is barbaric for any time. But that argument only diminishes the bible and shows its mythology, if the bible is the word of God than it wouldn’t be in the standards of any time, it would be written in the standards of God. The standards of the times the bible was written are far different and far less than modern standards, in ancient times a story is all you needed, people where superstitious and would believe mythological story’s with out evidence. (Here Bob Price puts it better than I can but he says it on that’s minute so if you don’t want to listen to the whole thing just pause it wait for it to load then go to the last minute)
The bible is internally contradictory, there are many contradictions (SAB: Contradictions in the Bible A List of Biblical Contradictions) many big and mutually excursive.
March 30, 2008 at 10:34 am
Paul,
A quick explanation of how I made the majority of my posts; After years of studying the bible, my previous religion (Christianity), other religions and creating a large archive of my observations, objections, questions, etc. on my laptop I created this site to catalog it all, choosing the blog format so others, like yourself, could put their two cents in. This is my first site and my first blog. What I did was essentially copy and paste these various questions/observations into their own posts so each could be commented on individually. This was a lot of work and occasionally, such as with the post previously mentioned, what was copied and pasted was not a complete or even coherent thought but some partially considered bit of a biblical passage or some not yet fleshed out idea. I thought I had caught them all upon review of the site but clearly there are still a few fixes that need to be made.
Now onto the whole “I’m not using the correct version of the bible” dispute. I’m actually working on an article (I occasionally write for another site) about just this very issue and why it is such a frustrating one for the Atheist (I’ll create a new post here when it is completed). There are SO many different sects of Christianity and SO many different ‘acceptable’ versions of the bible. Five different Christians will not like something I write and will inform me that I’m not using the correct translation and proceed to claim that the version that they use is the ‘best’ one, each offering up a completely different version. And, of course, each believes that their preferred version was revised for accuracy alone and was in no way influenced by bias or to better suit a more evolved societal norm. My decision to try and use the KJV (just ONE of the ten I keep on hand) is not a willful one but simply an attempt to avoid as much of this tedious conflict as possible, understanding that there are numerous sects of Christianity that prefer a different version. But I can’t please everyone, and contrary to your biased opinion, using whatever version you suggest would serve me no better. You see I am quite aware of King James’ motivations for wanting a new version of the bible AND how in the end he didn’t get what he wanted, just as I am aware that each and every revision of the bible was affected and influenced by personal bias. Paul acknowledges Luke’s writings as authoritative, Peter acknowledges Paul’s as scripture, Clement of Rome acknowledged eight books, Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged seven books, Polycarp acknowledged fifteen books, Irenaeus acknowledged twenty-one books and Hippolytus recognized a whopping twenty-two (we have a winner!) books. Personal bias formed every decision. Even today you won’t find the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon (also called The Book of Wisdom), Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) and Baruch in the Protestant bible but you will find them in the Roman Catholic bible. Why? Because of personal bias. Constant biblical revisionism is a thorn in my side. Is it ‘kill’ or is it ‘murder’? Is it ‘rape’ or is it ‘intercourse’? Is it ‘dragon’ or is it ‘serpent’ OR is it ‘sea monster’ OR is it ‘whale’ OR is it ‘jackal’? You’ll just have to forgive me if the version I settled on is not one you approve of but I’m simply trying to avoid as many revisions as I can.
And, I’m sorry, but your protest that silence isn’t contradictory is wrong. If four people are each reporting on an incident that took place in someone’s living room and only two of the four mention that there was a enormous pink elephant (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.) in the room, the reliability and validity of all four stories must come into question.
And I’ve stated this before on this site but I will do so again, I will accept ‘faith’ as an answer from a believer but ONLY if they declare that it is the only answer they have. But to be clear, what I (and most Atheists) hear when I read this is “I believe such and such to be true because I HOPE that it is true”, hope being a synonym for faith. As long as you don’t expect us to be satisfied by your answer, feel free to use ‘faith’ and dogma and scripture. I’m just hoping for a little something more is all.
DoubtingThomas
March 30, 2008 at 10:40 am
Jared,
Let me commend you again for being willing to confront yourself with those who don’t believe as you do. It is very refreshing and admirable. The site you mentioned is a great one and one I wish both BELIEVER and DOUBTER would visit.
I’ll list it again here (add it to your favorites and to your blogroll (links)):
http://godisimaginary.com/index.htm
DoubtingThomas
March 30, 2008 at 2:12 pm
IS it wrong to say that, the bible is obviously a fictional fairy tale? I mean I believe that no powers or neither god’s ever exist, but damn why do people still believe in something so obviously not true?
March 30, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I know the answer to that, but it really confuses me that people still believe when there is no reliable fact’s out there that there were in fact god is real or not. I just want to tear my hair out!!! ARGGGHH!!! excuse me sorry!!
Why is it such a battle, like pulling teeth when ever a topic comes about, How was man created? Or did dinosaurs ever exist? I don’t know why i bother arguing the facts with a bible believer but i feel society is so ignorance
to say a non believer is evil and that I’m crazy, Well i can’t help but to retaliate at times with some harsh facts. Just one question Why was the bible created? I know so people can have faith or some kind of protection. But
why was was the bible created and written in the first place? reply fast
March 30, 2008 at 3:00 pm
1
March 30, 2008 at 4:42 pm
DT
You are missing the point on the whole translation thing. I am NOT saying to just use “my” preferred version of the Bible. I am saying that you need to look at various translations in order to better understand what the original writers meant. I am also saying that to claim something as unbelievable because ONE translation used a word we associate with fairy tales, is misleading.
As to your pink elephant thing, what if the room were full of strange creatures? 100s of them? What if you did not have time to write about them all? What if you wanted to focus on just a few that you knew would be significant to your readers? What if you knew that your readers had already heard other parts of the story?
If you say there is a “pink elephant” in the room and I say nothing, that is not a contradiction. A contradiction is when you say there is a pink elephant in the room and I say that there is not.
On faith — that you will not be convinced doesn’t bother me, that was kind of my point. There are some things that cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. We can look at the same evidence and draw different conclusions.
March 30, 2008 at 5:40 pm
What was the sole purpose of the bible? Anyone and everyone can argue if it’s false or not . I want to take my self away from those mind trap conversations. WHY WAS THE BOOK WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PLACE????????
March 30, 2008 at 5:52 pm
in you perspective ????
March 30, 2008 at 7:55 pm
?????????????????????????
March 30, 2008 at 9:05 pm
DT
More on the translation issue.
A while ago I got a book of Pablo Neruda’s poetry from the library. it included the original Spanish as well as a translation into English. One of the poems had the words,
“Tu corazone” the translator rendered that as “Your breasts”. After laughing hysterically, I showed it to a friend of mine from Spain. She said, “What idiot translated this.”
Now, I had a choice, I could believe the translator that this was a poem about breasts, or I could find a better translation. But if I believe the faulty translation I am in error as to the meaning and intent of the poem.
Or look at how some Japanese is translated into English
http://www.engrish.com/recent_detail.php?imagename=clean-and-protect-gel.jpg&category=CHINGLISH&date=2008-03-24
Do you think the intent of the person who wrote the Japanese is really to “remove horniness?”
The same applies to reading and understanding the Bible. If you are truly seeking to understand what the writer’s meant you have to look at different translations, or learn the original language yourself. You also have to know some about the culture of the time so that you understand what would have been obvious to the writers.
DT, you claim that it was your study of the bible that led you out of believing. you claim that if we who believe actually read all of it we would stop believing, too. But from reading your questions, all I have found is that you have not really studied it in even the most basic sense.
I do not care if you stick with the KJV, or read some other translation, but if you are going to honestly say you have studied something, you have to delve deeper than the obviously cursory reading you have done.
March 30, 2008 at 11:35 pm
updated 1:47 p.m. CT, Wed., Aug. 22, 2007
Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.
Indeed, some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet’s environment was stable enough to support it.
The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex — they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago.
But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.
“Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it’s hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists,” said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.
The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists’ understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.
Lots of ideas
Today, there are several competing theories for how life arose on Earth. Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. Some even say life might have arisen here more than once.
“There may have been several origins,” said David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. “We usually make ‘origins’ plural just to indicate that we don’t necessarily claim there was just a single origin, but just an origin that didn’t happen to get blasted by giant [asteroid] impacts.”
Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. According to this “RNA World” hypothesis, RNA was the crux molecule for primitive life and only took a backseat when DNA and proteins — which perform their jobs much more efficiently than RNA — developed.
“A lot of the most clever and most talented people in my field have accepted that the RNA World was not just possible, but probable,” Deamer said.
RNA is very similar to DNA, and today carries out numerous important functions in each of our cells, including acting as a transitional-molecule between DNA and protein synthesis, and functioning as an on-and-off switch for some genes.
But the RNA World hypothesis doesn’t explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.
“The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot,” said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. “To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky.”
The anthropic principle
But “astronomical” is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.
Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.
Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it’s nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.
As Dawkins writes, “There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack.”
Shapiro doesn’t think it’s necessary to invoke multiple universes or life-laden comets crashing into ancient Earth. Instead, he thinks life started with molecules that were smaller and less complex than RNA, which performed simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules.
“If you fall back to a simpler theory, the odds aren’t astronomical anymore,” Shapiro told LiveScience.
Trying to recreate an event that happened billions of years ago is a daunting task, but many scientists believe that, like the emergence of life itself, it is still possible.
“The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable,” said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. “It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years.”
March 31, 2008 at 12:31 am
“It ain’t those parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.”
-Mark Twain
Paul: Try reading the bible, it is full of evil, contradictions and stupidity. Read it. Really read it, cover to cover. Many, many atheists come to atheism cause they read the bible.
The bible is a barbaric book, read it all of it.
March 31, 2008 at 4:42 am
Lone wolf,
Maybe you missed my comment in a previous reply to you, but I have read the Bible — all of it (incidentally one of the times was in the KJV).
Given the flawed logic and poor study skills used to conclude that the Bible is full of “evil, contradictions and stupidity” I wonder if those who became atheist did so, not because they read the Bible, but because they misread it, misinterpreted it, and misunderstood it.
April 1, 2008 at 9:30 am
Paul,
It appears you are trapped in the same faulty logic. You constantly insist that I am not understanding the true meaning of some word or phrase in the bible or am misunderstanding some passage or description or am mistranslating it, that I don’t understand what the original writers meant (as if you do) but you don’t seem to realize that what you are suggesting is that all who have read the bible before these ‘modernized’ revisions took place were hopelessly misreading, mistranslating and misunderstanding the bible. What you are saying is that your all powerful God ALLOWED the book that represents him and guides his people to be filled to the brim with these mistakes. But perhaps your worst offense is that you deny that each and every one of these thousands of people making these ‘updated’ translations of the bible were susceptible to either personal bias or the bias of the person commissioning them to make the new version. To think that a particular translation of a word used in the bible, in ANY version of the bible, holds any authority is a willful position. The majority of these stories were handed down by word of mouth until someone who knew how to write decided to jot them down. To suggest that you are the authority on which word is the right word, that anyone knows which word even appeared in the ‘original’ text, is just absurd. And, Paul, do you have any idea how many CHRISTIANS would disagree with your preferred translation? Do you have any idea how many of these Christians would call your preferred ‘modern’ translation unacceptable? Each sect of Christianity picks the version of the bible they will embrace based on personal bias. You insist that your personal preferred translation of the bible is more legitimate, that finally, after thousands and thousands of years and thousands of attempts, someone finally got the translation right. But I would challenge that translator to show that they weren’t influenced and motivated by either personal bias or the bias of the person who hired them to make these changes. Do you really believe that these translators weren’t being urged to find new translations for certain no longer acceptable words and phrases (dragon, giant, kill, etc.)? And the fact still remains, Paul, that the VAST MAJORITY of Christians continue to embrace the versions of the bible that, according to you, are filled with these mistranslations (dragon, kill, etc.). Perhaps you should contact them as they are choosing their bible based on faith while I am merely attempting to avoid as many of the unreliable revisions as possible. And as for using the NEW King James Version instead of the original, perhaps you will visit this CHRISTIAN site to get an idea of why I do not.
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
DoubtingThomas
April 1, 2008 at 10:48 am
William,
Remember that this isn’t IM. People might not be able to get to your particular question right away.
William asked why the bible was written.
First, William, remember that this is not a book written by a single author but is a collection of writings by many authors (many of which are unknown or in doubt). Also remember that the books included in the bible were put there by man. In the Roman Catholic bible you’ll find the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon (also called The Book of Wisdom), Sirach (also called Ecclesiasticus) and Baruch but you WON’T find them in the Protestant bible. The reason? The personal bias of the men making the judgments. Protestants consider these books to be not inspired (AKA Apocrypha) so they don’t include them. The Roman Catholics disagree, referring to these books as deuterocanonical. They view them as a second inspired canon. It should, however, be noted that these books did not receive full canonical status by the Roman Catholic Church until AD 1546 at the Council of Trent, the Council even declaring (with typical arrogance) that their chosen canon was “the first infallible and effectually promulgated pronouncement on the Canon, addressed to the Church Universal.” The Council of Trent made the status of the deuterocanonical books clear when they declared “If anyone does not hold as sacred and canonical the books of Baruch, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, let him be ANATHEMA (cut off from the church and condemned to eternal fire unless he repents). Man invents God, man decides which man written words are God’s and which are not, man suffers accordingly. Also, let’s not forget that the Old and New Testament are completely SEPARATE volumes (they can even be purchased separately). They represent two different religions and, it could be argued, two different Gods. In fact, many sects of Christianity all but ignore the Old Testament, almost as an attempt to deny the God represented in its pages. To me, it seems that the Christian bible was simply an attempt by Christians to ONE; commandeer the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament) as their own (depending on the sect) and TWO; create a NEW bible containing all the approved writings regarding Jesus and the NEW Christianity. Obviously ALL religions are created by man to control man but I don’t necessarily believe that the bible was CREATED for that purpose. In fact it could be argued that it was created simply to allow the leaders of the church to have their holy scriptures collected together conveniently in one book. The CHURCH is designed to control our lives, but whether or not someone allows the bible to control their lives is entirely up to the person reading it.
DoubtingThomas
April 2, 2008 at 9:50 pm
I understand thanks !!!
On other hand I still feel empty looking for more answers !!!!! I guess I’m searching for answers that just can’t be explained like (example) Why is the bible so powerful? , Why certain people have dramatic events happen to them and to cause them to believe in god all the sudden, when before never have even had thoughts of that? What make people so determine, so over protective that god really exist????????? and goes on and on…………………………………
I my intentions was not for to answer my original questions, NOT ENTIRELY.
I wanted to collect informations and ideas or what not. I’m confused at times and really eager for a better understanding, but I’m really open minded so again THANKS U for replying!!! I’m very appreciative of that!!!!
April 2, 2008 at 9:51 pm
DT
I am not saying that the translations I use are any better than anyone else’s. Or that the translators did not have their own biases. I am also not saying that I ABSOLUTELY know the original writers intent.
That is why I have said over and over that to understand the Bible more than one translation is needed (or hey, learn Greek and Hebrew), and that knowledge of the times is needed.
But why do you insist on using only the KJV? Could it be because if you used a different translation you would have to remove your dragon question? Why are you unwilling to learn more about how the scriptures were perceived in the times they were written? Is it because then some of your assumptions about God and scripture would be proven false?
If you are correct in your many “questions” and views about God, then different translations and learning about the times they were written in will only strengthen your argument. But, I think, if you do some research you will find that some of your arguments are baseless.
As for, “What you are saying is that your all powerful God ALLOWED the book that represents him and guides his people to be filled to the brim with these mistakes.”
Yes, he did. You will remember (since you’ve read the bible) God doing similar things all through scripture. Parts of the law were even lost and forgotten by the priests at one time. Actually, I’m surprised it isn’t one of your questions.
April 3, 2008 at 1:10 am
Paul: You say you’ve read the bible but your replays disagree. You may have read the parts you like and the parts you can justify but not all of it.
The bible is self contredictory and its evil.
the KJV is the most used bible (at least in this country) and as I’ve said the older translations are typically better than the new ones.
April 4, 2008 at 3:29 am
Even if the core issue of understanding could be isolated and articulated, and it most certainly can be, that issue would be misinterpreted and ripped apart word for word by its skeptics. This is the nature of words. We believe we create something with words, we believe that we weave something into the existence of others minds with the things we say, when in truth we are only breaking down this thing inside of us called intelligence, and in breaking it down into explicit conversation we lay out a trail of thought for others to hopefully follow back to the very thing we mean with our words. If however the skeptic becomes thoroughly enthralled by trying to break down every single word of every single sentence than he could very well spend his reason and logic breaking down the the minute details of the explination, completely missing the theme and moral of the story.
This happens even more critically when the aspect of truth is up for grabs, as the very word has meaning beyond itself, as it points to an absolute that each subjective unit either a)wants to exist or b) doesnt want to exist.
However, what we truly seek is a unified theme in our existence, and this is sought by both skeptics and believers alike. It finds its way into our educational system, in that University means Unity in Diversity. It finds its way into our culture, in that on the U.S. coin is inscribed E Pluribus Unim, or out of the many, one.
You see, a book as large as the bible may appear to have many contradictions to the overlyanylitical mind, but then, I don’t think one book in history is without contradiction on the shallow level.
I ask you who seeks truth to look deeper than the surface of the Word, and to look deeper then the surface of your thoughts. Yes, there is much diversity in the Bible, but look for the unified message, because that message brings Life, and Life abundantly.
- Jared
April 4, 2008 at 5:37 am
Consider what I said in conjunction with the internal workings of the story of the bible. Whether you believe that Jesus was God or not, you must, on some level, admit that the writings of the new testament present a powerful argument for the sake of Jesus being something different than your average man. Even men far beyond our capabilities here, amoung this blog, on this internet found something in the mystery that existed in the plot of this story.
“Of all the dispositions and teachings of thinkers and ethicists, the one doctrine that I have no sufficient counter for is Jesus on that Cross.”
- Mahatma Ghandi
“I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene…… No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
- Albert Einstein
Consider all other religions emerged from one man writing down his individual thoughts, and then those thoughs recorded led the creation of a system akin to the church and the tradition that followed. Consider in the Christian religion Jesus’ actions led to creation of the Church first, which happened as a result of him living, and then the writings followed. What do you think about the Church existing before the scriptures were written Thomas? It stands in reverse of other world religions.
April 4, 2008 at 6:01 am
Also, about the argument of the many different authors of the bible. It is also unique amoung world religions for this fact. Other holy books were written by one author. You claim the many different authors are reason to believe that God was invented by men, but the God of the bible uses this to stand in contrast to other world religions, which for the most part of the manifestation of a single mind. It lends credibility and believability to the bible, being authored by many different men as opposed to one. I would most definately see things like you if the bible had 1 author, because even today, I cannot find one man that I am willing to follow blindly and completely. But, knowing that the bible came off the pen of many, and knowing that if God were real he would be omnicient, and omnipotent, I find myself seeking distinguishing characteristics in religions to identify how he might capitalize on these quality. Certainly using many men over a long period of time to write his story lends much more credibility to his cause then having one man puke the entire thing out himself. Just some thoughts to consider.
We must also conclude, that If God were real, and were going to reveal himself to us in a text, that that particular text would be capable of being read and (potentially) understood by all men. (again I stress the core story, we could spend a lifetime discussing specifics). The bible does not claim to be word-for-wrod perfect, it just claims to be the true revealation from God and seeks to teach us to be in relation to him.
Krishna – Bahagavita – claims you must be a Brahmin to correctly interpret the text, so for us westerners, and most easterners, we are rejected by the text itself. Pick your God here, of the many manmade gods your talking about this one probably encapsulates most of them. Consider Krishna wrote the bahagavita, but before it was the Vedas and Upanishads, which was a pick-your-god-a-thon.
Buddha – Rejected the Bahagavita, especially because of the caste system, that teaches you cant ascend into higher levels of society, you are stuck where you are born based on Karma, and He wrote the Buddhist texts. He preached that nothingness, or Nirvana, is the ultimate reality….sinse existence is suffering, quit existing!
Muhammud – Quran (need I say more?) Muslims take pride in the fact that he wrote it alone, and say that the book itself is miricle enough. But the book claims to be word-for-word perfect, so it cannot even be translated into english and be properly understood, that sucks for the rest of the world? Maybe if Allah is right we will all speak Arabic 1000 years from now?
The Bible – One God, One Purpose, All Men, His Revalation, Many Authors (some unknown), and One incredible consistent and coherant theme. And, BY THE WAY, I will say it again. His Name can be accurately translated into All languages, and it will always describe their own existence. (I AM)
Is not the point of religion to explain existence? I realize im more philosophical in my approach, but in a society so obsessed with the material world, I find sanity in jumping outside of the scientific method, and embraceing mystery. After all, it seems to me most great human achievements arose out of creativity and a propinsity to think outside of logic moreso than in.
Im done for tonight. By the way Thomas, thanks for having this page, it really gives me something to look forward to in a world of unthinking people.
April 4, 2008 at 6:23 am
Lone Wolf,
“And you trying to justify that unjustifiable, evil and ridiculous part of the bible that says a rape victim has to marry the rapist only make you look evil. There in no justifiable reason to force a rape victim to marry her rapist, it it makes it even worse that the only punishment for the rapist is he has to pay the girls father, it only shows that woman to the bible are property.”
It is important to understand, anything we seek to approach ethics and morality, where we come from in through. No doubt, when we look around we are in an imperfect world. God speaks of “heaven” in the bible, and he makes it clear that the only thing that is going to make heaven possible is us living in a new world with perfect “sinless” bodies. What this is saying is that we won’t have the some moral fallicies that we exist with now, but it will be Heaven, perfect and beautiful. Now, this is quite ideal. It is far from what we see with our eyes now. The Bible also presents something called “The Law” which you are citing here. This “Law” exists because of the fact that we live in a fallen world. If, in theory, the law could be followed to the T by every individual than theoretically, according to the Bible, the Kingdom of Heaven could exist right now, in front of our eyes. But the Bible also makes it clear that this is not possible…which seems crazy? If It isnt possible why even give us the law? The law was given to reveal somthing inside of us, so that we might accept Grace as the path to heaven.
So I will sum up my argument here. It a world where forgiveness, love, and mercy reign, a young woman marrying her rapist would speak wonders of the forgiveness, and reconciliation power of God. It wouldnt be easy, but then, if that young woman truly was with God in relationship, then she would be eternal, and if she truly would spend an eternity in joy with Christ after death, then this act would be easy and would demonstrate that to her rapist, and may bring him to repentence, which could bring another individual to eternal joy. Thus a temporal sacrafice for eternal joy cannot even be considered a sacrafice.
Now I understand, you, being athiest, dont believe in an eternal soul. And I will admit, it is truly critical to belive in an eternal soul to even begin to take the bible seriously. So I will ask a question. Being athiest….or agnostic or whatever your belief system is, what is your viewpoint on life after death?
Its late, if that doesn’t make sense, I’ll give it another shot later. Now I must sleep.
April 4, 2008 at 10:43 am
Jared, in response to the rape situation:
Perhaps I did not communicate my point well with the rape issue. A more accurate translation of that passage might read, “If a man SEDUCES a girl”. (See the Contemporary English Version) How do I arrive at that conclusion? First, look at the text around that passage. All the girl would have to do is say “I cried out and no one heard me,” and her rapist would have been put to death. Also, as I have stated. There is no biblical precedent anywhere for a woman ever being forced to marry a man against her will. Thirdly, yes I dug below the surface pulling out lexicons and dictionaries and cross-referencing to see the intent of the original writers.
I believe that the Deut22 passage was more a ban on “one night stands” (consensual) I know that that is an anathema to this post-sexual revolution age of free sex, serial monogamy, and oral sex is not sex, but I believe the regulations on sex stand as a public health policy that prevents the spread of STDs among other things and promotes social responsibility.
April 4, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Jared: The fact that the bible has many contradictions shows its not the word of God. The contradictions are not relatively few and small, there are many in comparison to the bibles size and some are huge, particularly between Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
Pertaining to the rape verse: None of that justifies or make the it less evil. A just and loving God would never make such a law. It is barbaric.
Mike: As I’ve said, the authors of the new translations of the bible have a tendency to sanitise the bible and make it fit a more modern version of Christianity. Its quite possible that the original Hebrew said seduce but the older translations are more reliable despite there problem and mistranslations. It is also possible that a single word meant seduce and rape in Hebrew and its meaning was dependant on how it was used (like “fly”) how ever looking at the wording
Young’s Literal Translation
Darby Translation
American Standard Version
The original Hebrew may not have used a single word than meant “rape”.
April 4, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Crap. The thread example is King James Version.
April 4, 2008 at 2:36 pm
It makes sense to me that it means ’seduced’ rather than ‘rape’. But, technically, some find them the same thing. If she’s underage, secuction equates to rape in the view of many people. If she’s of age and simply fell for a Don Juan, then I don’t really see any barbarity in making him honest. The King James version was notoriously bad about skewing translation to suit certain sexual politics – I don’t recall specifically what and where. I quit reading KJV when I found Shakespeare and the NIV; I needed the separation for peace of mind. Also, somewhere back in that long-ago day, I was convinced that the NIV was a better translation than the New American or the KJV. Again with the faith thing . . . I got that impression from someone else, and took it on faith that they knew what they were talking about.
Skinner
April 5, 2008 at 5:56 am
The rape/seduce word idea only works is the original Hebrew used 1 word but even then its a long shot at best. But given many of the translations say “force her and lay with her” in one way or another it may be that they did not have or use 1 word that meant “rape” but something more like “force her to have sex with him”.
And as I’ve said, the older translations are more reliable as the author tried to sanitise the bible.
April 5, 2008 at 9:31 am
Thanks, Lone Wolf. But I’ll tell you another way it works, and we don’t have to guess at the meaning of “fly”. In my original response, on GOT RAPED LUCKY YOU I posted a link to sam shamoun’s website answering islam, where he goes into detail about this passage. I posted it so everyone could check it out for themselves. But sam shamoun shows (say that 5 times fast) that the first several verses use a two word phrase,
“taphas” means to catch or seize. Then “shakab” which normally refers to a voluntary sexual act. so to seize and then have sex means rape.
But the final line in Deut 22:28, the Hebrew writer SWITCHES VERBS on us.(for whatever reason the English did not) Instead of using “taphas” to seize or catch. He says: “If a man PATHAH (meaning entices or lures) a virgin and she shakab (has sex with), then he shall have to pay the bride price etc. I’ll repost the link here
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ot_and_rape.htm
April 5, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Now I don’t know Hebrew and I don’t know anything about the guy so I can’t comment on what he said. But I can say this. Could PATHAH also mean rape? I don’t know if could or not.
I can leave you with this though, there is more rape in the bible
April 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Just found your website. Am always glad to find rational, reasonable people out in the world. The fact that people actually believe that horrible rubbish scares the ‘hell’ out of me.
April 5, 2008 at 11:55 pm
I did a quick googe search for deuteronomy 22:28-29 i found this which links to this which is a rebuttal Shamoun to Sam Shamoun.
April 6, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Welcome Melinda.
Lone Wolf, GREAT links on the rape in the bible issue. I hope others will check them out.
April 9, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Please pardon my hiatus from the discussionI haven’t really had the time to research and reply until now.
But, yes I had previously seen answering-christianity and I dismissed it for a couple of reasons. The site makes claims that the Bible says that Paul performed oral sex on Timothy after circumcising him. (among other things) This does not offend. I don’t believe in censorship. And if Sami Zataari wants to say that, well that’s his right.
But, in regards to our present (or recent) discussion, I find two (at minimum) problems with Zataari’s argument. 1) He’s simply ignoring the fact that taphas CAN mean something else. (as well as “anah” which can mean to humble or to humiliate and I’ll discuss this later). I think this brings us back to a statement you made earlier, Lone Wolf, about if one word can have 2 meanings. Taphas can definitely mean to capture or lay hold of. But, Strong’s concordance lists it as coming from a primitive root of “manipulate”. And Shamoun demonstrates it used in Jeremiah 2:8 as “deal”. The KJV of that verse says “those who HANDLE(taphas) the law. (Here, “handle is obviously figurative). Taphas is also used to refer to those who “handle the harp and lute” and “those who handle the pen”.
The other problem I have with Zataari is his reaction to the woman not screaming means she consents. I notice you use that “holding a knife” analogy on your site as well. But Glen Miller of Christian-thintank says that what we have in the Bible is not the ENTIRE Jewish law, and that judges of that time could apply the law as it fit on a case by case basis. As we do today in courts. So, reasonable people could conclude based on any number of clues whether a woman was consenting or not.
Which brings me to the other point. Zataari says that the woman MUST be raped because consensual sex would mean she would be put to death. That is not necessarily so. There is no law that says that if 2 consenting unmarried adults engaged in sex that they must die.(except adultery or homosexuality) Perhaps Zataari is referring to the “bloody sheet” law.
The thing about the bloody sheet is that it is as much about deception as anything else. In the OT, a marriage was an agreement between two families, not just two individuals. A bride price was negotiated partially based on whether the woman was a virgin. Now the bride price or “mohar” was given to the bride’s family, but was set aside for the bride in the event that her husband died prematurely or he divorced her. It became hers in place of alimony. Which is not really a bad idea. But, the bloody sheet was called into account if the bride was accused of deceiving the families (her own and the grooms). Just a note, but Miller also cites sources where one woman told the rabbi that women in her family generally didn’t bleed when the hymen was broken and another woman said that she lost her hymen having to continually climb her father’s steep stairs and these accounts were perfectly acceptable. My point is that by “humbling” (anah) this means that the act has lowered what she can negotiate for the mohar.
No doubt, you will find those who continue to translate the passage as rape. But I think at least we’ve got an “either or” translation. But if you insist on the rape meaning, before you say the guy got off easy, consider this. Societies create laws first as deterrents to prohibit unwanted behavior. And second to somehow compensate victims. The 50 shekels of silver is equal to FIVE YEARS WAGES. Plus the offender had to support the woman for the rest of her life, which would replace what he had taken from her to start with. ( A home, heirs, etc). So no, the “rapist” isn’t “getting off”. As far as actually marrying her. Well, like I said, the laws were judged on a case-by-case basis. I’m sure that there will be a response or 2 to this post. But, I will be out of town for a week and won’t be able to post any replies soon.
April 10, 2008 at 1:37 am
Mike, Lone Wolf (& anyone else),
For any further discussions on the ‘rape’ issue, please post your comments here:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/got-raped-lucky-you-bible-says-you-get-a-husband/#comment-1013
The Main Page isn’t really the best place for them.
Thanks,
DoubtingThomas
April 10, 2008 at 1:45 am
If that link doesn’t work for you try this:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/got-raped-lucky-you-bible-says-you-get-a-husband/
April 30, 2008 at 4:55 am
Hey Thomas,
I was just checking in to see how things are going as the website has been somewhat inactive lately… I am taking my last final tomorrow and perhaps I’ll be will to address more to questions with my newfound spare time. Hope all is going well with you.
Jared
April 30, 2008 at 10:29 am
Jared,
Thanks for the interest. I have been busy reading/researching for a new article and future post and have neglected the site as a result. It will be a few weeks yet before I can focus on any recent comments. I apologize to those who have been left hanging.
DoubtingThomas
May 2, 2008 at 6:11 am
Hey no problem. Ive been useing the time to really read over the site and look at all your objection. I have noticed you are quite educated and definately have many logical objections to Christianity and religion. I do look forward to your new article.
- Jared
May 27, 2008 at 4:43 am
For anyone, especially the Christian, who complains about Atheists who waste their time talking about the bible, God, or Christianity, I will direct you to a recent article of mine on the subject that the people at PathofReason.com chose to post on their site.
http://www.pathofreason.com/#/articles/4525423898
I will reprint the article as a new post here in the next couple weeks.
DoubtingThomas
May 27, 2008 at 4:46 am
I just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to finally find a decent piece of mind from the perspective of a raised Christian like myself. I spend a lot of time studying the Atheist and Christian perspective, it’s something after a lot of humiliation and mindless frustration brought on by forced attendance at numerous churches of all kinds, I have become very passionate on speaking up about. My fiance for example was never forced to believe in such things or attend any churches, so being so obsessed with these brain-washing tactics doesn’t really make much sense to him. But I will never forget the uncertainty I had even then and the regret I have now when I find myself praying even to this day, without thinking about it. Thank you for saying what, with as many skeptics as there are out there expressing their opinions, I don’t believe I’ve really heard someone make a solid point of. Keep truckin’.
- Jodi
May 27, 2008 at 4:52 am
Hey Jodi, welcome to the site. You’ll find as you peruse the categories located at the top right side of this page that I ask quite a few questions that many believers find to be irritatingly silly but I feel are important, if for no other reason than to better understand the Christian perspective.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
May 27, 2008 at 4:55 am
Jodi, I clicked your name to visit your site but got an HTTP 404 Not Found error message. Do you still have a page?
May 27, 2008 at 5:45 am
(Page fixed for this link)
I’ve been catching up on past comments here on the home page and the arguments really break more ground for me – things a lot of people don’t directly address.
I wanted to add that I found your blog via this post in an atheism community on livejournal:
http://community.livejournal.com/atheism/1746722.html
*Runs off to browse*
May 27, 2008 at 5:52 am
Sorry for spamming, but I also wanted to share this with you and the rest of the community:
http://pantoporcelain.livejournal.com/14931.html
May 27, 2008 at 6:35 am
doubtingthomas426 says,
“Someone who reads the bible every day? Someone who has read the entire bible? Someone who picks and chooses which biblical laws to obey? Someone who takes every word of the bible as absolute fact and obeys it as such (guess your rebellious son should be stoned to death – Deut. 21:18-21)? Someone who is incapable of finding a single passage in the bible that they would describe as vile, revolting or disturbing? Someone who believes Christian dogma should be imposed on all cultures? Someone who believes the United States government should be a Christian one (thereby excluding the millions of legitimate Americans who worship a different deity or none at all). Someone who believes that Pat Robertson genuinely just returned from his annual vacation with the Lord, where the Lord informed him what would be happening in America in the upcoming year (What, no lottery numbers?!)? Someone who believes that everyone who comes to this country (U.S.) to become a citizen should be required to pledge their allegiance to it as well as an allegiance to ‘our’ Christian god, regardless of what religion they belong to or god(s) they may worship? Someone who believes that mention of the Christian god should appear on EVERY piece of currency we have? Just what, exactly, are the prerequisites for being a ‘real’ Christian?”
That would be “no” to all of those, and I am not sure I know anyone who would give those as what it takes to be a Christian. But you really don’t think Christians think that, do you? Sounds kind of like a preacher who will start to pray and then continue to preach, just trying to get in some more info for those who he feels haven’t gotten his point. If you have read the Bible as carefully as you say, then you know what it takes to be a Christian, and therefore, you were not interested in engaging in dialogue but in a diatribe.
May 27, 2008 at 9:14 am
On the subject of Santa Claus and not possibly being able to fool a grown adult for life, you might wanna run “cargo cult” through Wikipedia and see what you get. One “miracle” can be stretched out for many years.
This thread is long, and I’m probably not going to be able to follow it.
May 28, 2008 at 4:32 am
Michael,
I was responding to teabagsforme’s statement that commentator Narnie was never a real Christian. So I asked teabagsforme what is a ‘legitimate’ Christian? The reason I asked was because there is SO much division among Christians and there are so many separate sects, each believing that THEY are the REAL Christians, that for any one to dismiss another is just an all too common combination of arrogance and ignorance. So if you can truly say “No” to all of the examples I list then I applaud you, Michael. I really do. But to suggest that my examples were in any way unrealistic is shocking. There are millions of people who call themselves Christians who would fit some if not MANY of those examples. You may not know any, and count yourself lucky, but only someone whose head is buried in the sand would not understand that they are out there. The days of the moderate Christian are way behind us, Michael. Surely you see that. Do yourself a favor and seek some enlightenment by reading the comments from Christians on this and ANY other blog site and you will quickly see many examples of the type of Christians I described. If all of these sects of Christianity are reading the bible to understand what it is to be a Christian, as you so condescendingly suggested I do, then how do they all seem to come to such conflicting conclusions? That’s all I wanted to know. I guarantee, Michael, if you were to detail what it is to be a “real” Christian, you would only be describing YOUR concept of Christianity. There would be millions who disagreed.
Thanks for commenting.
DoubtingThomas
June 1, 2008 at 9:55 am
If anybody is interested in the rough draft version of my article — The Mythological Origins of Christianity you can follow this link:
http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/2008/06/01/the-mythological-origins-of-christianity-pt-1-of-3/
DoubtingThomas
June 7, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Isn’t this one hell of a wonderful blogsite? So glad I “stumbled” upon it. Seems every day I find a new “friend”, someone with the same respect for good old fashioned comman sense that I hope I have. I almost wrote “horse” sense, but that really should be called “cow” sense. I love horses. Owned my own for all too short a time from time to time, and believe me, of all animals lacking “sense”, the horse takes the prize. If a herd of cows finds a gap in the fence and invades a neighbor’s field, those cows can be rounded up and they will head for the spot from which they escaped. A horse? forget it. He’d run himself to the ground before going for the gap in the fence. But how I miss a horse.
June 16, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Excellent information. Keep it coming. Have you considered torrenting/filesharing documents with this info? Spread it far and wide.
June 17, 2008 at 8:14 am
Jeff,
Thanks for stopping by. I’m not sure how to do the torrenting/filesharing thing or even how it would spread the word. Care to explain a little?
DoubtingThomas
June 19, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Though I am not really a blogger, I have several friends that are, and think you and I should talk about getting you some exposure, and how to go about doing so.
Great blog – I like sseing the discussion being brought out in it, and surprisingly very little vitriol aimed at the subject matter.
June 19, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hi Jerry, thanks for stopping by. I’m always curious to discover what brought my various visitors here. Frankly I’m not sure about how to get any exposure for my site. The wordpress.com setting doesn’t seem to connect to many outside of its own collective membership. A shame but I don’t know how to remedy the situation. If you have any suggestions I would be more than happy to listen.
Thanks,
DoubtingThomas
June 23, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Just a thought about your Blog name and maybe you’ve covered this before (there really is a lot posted here), but you know in the end of the story “doubting Thomas” did beleive, once he saw Jesus for himself and saw the scars. So the question would then be, are you waiting for someone to show you Jesus, or are you waiting to see him for yourself? I hope to go through some of the pages you have and start some good discussions, (which is why I assume this blog exists), but just a note that if you really are looking you have to go to the source. I know what it is to doubt, I know what it is to not believe, and peoples opinions on either side are not enough to answer all of your questions. (of course I’m still going to offer my opinions anyways…I really do love a good discussion). I mean this in the most non-condesending non-stupid little church girl way possible, that I will be praying for you (which since you don’t beleive has any power shouldn’t bother you much…lol)
June 25, 2008 at 4:12 am
Laurel,
Yes, the doubting Thomas of the bible comparison has been made before elsewhere on this blog. It’s understandable. But let us consider the story again. Thomas did not believe until he saw with his own eyes. He demanded evidence and until it was presented to him, until he pressed his fingers into the wounds of this man claiming to be his resurrected savior, he was skeptical of the fantastical claims of his fellow man. So, although I am not “waiting for someone to show me Jesus or to see him for myself”, if Jesus or God were to appear before me and impress me with his magic you better believe I would happily join your ranks. So, yes, like the Thomas of your bible, once the irrefutable evidence has been presented to me I will believe. As for your statement that “if you really are looking you have to go to the source”, well, Laurel, what if I was dealing with a Hindu, or a Scientologist? Wouldn’t they tell me, or any skeptic, the exact same thing? ALL religions have a “source”, Laurel, whether it be a religious text or a god concept. What you are really saying is in order to believe you simply have to believe. In other words, stop demanding evidence, cast aside your doubt and simply buy into whatever the religious person is telling you. But what if the Scientologist gets to me first, Laurel? What if a Muslim does? What if I cast aside my doubt and swallow what they are feeding me? No god or religion, and there are thousands, Laurel, has any more claim on the truth than any other. You worship yours, they worship theirs, I worship none of the above. Finally, the only time I am offended when someone states they will be “praying for me” is when it is an empty threat. Meaning, they make the statement as a final ‘smack’ with absolutely no intention of following through. Not that I want them to, it’s just that using that phrase as a sort of snide insult is just too common with too many Christians. It can be very irritating, which, I’m sure, is part of the point. I understand that yours was not meant in that way. So no offense taken.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
June 25, 2008 at 6:38 am
yeah – I’ve had people tell me they would “pray for me”, like they were somehow better then me and I needed them to intercede to God on my behalf – but I am happy that you didn’t take offence because I meant it in the most honest way.
My advice to go to the source in no way was to tell you to simply beleive and to stop demanding evidence. My dad will forever tell me that if I don’t know why I believe something then theirs no point in beleiving it. There are a few differant reasons why I said that though. The first being the most obvious in that the Christian faith is more then just knowing, “even the demons believe and shudder” it’s about coming face to face with yourself and with your God. I’m not sure if that sounds really corny but there’s a knowledge side to faith and theirs a heart side, and there’s a soul side. Sometimes you need a little faith to have a lot of understanding. But I would never advise to stop questionning etc. I have looked into a lot of religions, and done a lot of research – some of the greatest Christians started out by trying to disprove the Bible (my own dad being one of them), and I would never advise anyone to follow any religion without proof. The other thing would be though that some of the answers to your questions are coming from a very North American view of things, and I think that people who are being persecuted in China etc would have a very differant answer for you. Everyone is going to offer their opinions, but the answer to the questions about the Bible need to be explained from the Bible. I’m not talking about questions as to wether the Bible is factual/based on historical events etc because that is an outside arguement – but questions about God’s actions, His reasons for things etc needs to be found in the Bible and not just opinions. (I don’t know if that came out right). Anyways, I look forward to taking a look at some of the other pages you have going.
July 2, 2008 at 6:01 am
Laurel,
You said – “questions about God’s actions, His reasons for things etc needs to be found in the Bible and not just opinions”
I would love nothing more than for someone, anyone, to provide some answers regarding God, Christianity, and the bible that WEREN’T opinions, but that is all they can provide. Let’s face it, if ANY religion could offer proof that THEIR God and teachings were the real deal we would certainly have a lot fewer religions in the world. But they can’t. Not the thousand that exist today and not the thousands that have existed before. It is all opinion and conjecture. Religion is a concept completely influenced by personal bias. My seeking of answers isn’t an attempt to find enlightenment and finally find a reason to believe. My seeking of answers is an attempt to better understand how people continue to believe the way I once did, especially when confronted with the objections and observations I’ve catalogued on this site. I’m interested in YOU, Laurel, not your god (nor anyone else’s).
BTW, I appreciate your mellow vibe in presenting your side of things. It’s always so much easier to communicate when one doesn’t feel attacked.
Take Care,
DoubtingThomas
July 2, 2008 at 9:27 am
“It’s always so much easier to communicate when one doesn’t feel attacked.”
Probably why so many come at you with anger. Your site feels like a personal attack. It would be much easier to get what you stated your looking for from people without blogs essentially titled, why your belief is a myth, false, your God is evil, and those who believe are ignorant. Heed and use what you desire from people to your blog, you may get better results.
Also you’ve done nothing to prove my God false. Many of your accusations are completely false, poor scholarship, and taking things out of context(and of course you don’t let a believer put it in context, cause your don’t like the Bible being used). I’ve spend 1hour scanning through my many ancient myth encyclopedia’s and sources about ancient religions and found nothing remotely close to what you posted. The only people who should fear your site are the people who are gullible to any bit of information despite its source,do not study this sort of subject on a scholarly basis, or on their own using scholarly sources. My suggestion to you is check your sources…for what you use thus far are very poor studies.
July 7, 2008 at 10:11 am
I would personally prefer people attacking my faith directly and telling me in all thier colourful language what they beleive. I am much more able to respond to a direct question then to someone who says, “well you believe what you want and I believe what I want and we all end up in heaven in the end” The reality is that we cannot all be right. We cannot all have the answers. Either there is a God or there is not. I can understand how some people reading this site would feel as though it was a personal attack, and I can understand how people who support this sites views would feel attacked as well by christians, but when it comes down to it we actually have a mutual starting place for discussion in that we can all agree that there either is a God or there is not and if there is, is he knowable.
Anyways, I’m going to check out what you have to say about Demon and Angels and hopfully I’ll have some time to post some responses (time just flys during the summer)
July 8, 2008 at 1:07 am
To doubting thomas
I was wondering whats your thought’s about the religion pentecostal! more in particular SPEAKING IN TONGUE can you explain it to me in a simple way please? thanks man!!!!!!
July 8, 2008 at 1:11 am
OH YEAHHH JESUS CHRIST WAS GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YUP ITS TRUE!!!!!! TOO BAD FOR ANY ONE WHO FOLLOW HIM, SO SAD HAHA
July 8, 2008 at 5:52 am
Brooksrobinson,
If a Christian created a site categorizing all the various observations and reasons they believed that Jesus, the Bible and God were real, would you consider it an attack on Atheism or a PERSONAL attack on any particular Atheist who chose to stop by? Come on, brooksrobinson, be real. I’ve made a collection of all the reasons why I no longer belong to the Christian faith and questions as to how others still do. I understand why a Christian would be offended by what I have to say, but a PERSONAL attack? Please. No one is forced to visit my site. No one is forced to read what I have to say. Could I be accused of attacking Christianity and the Christian God, sure, guilty as charged. But how does that mean that a Christian who visits my site is being personally attacked? It’s absurd. And my issue with people citing a passage of the bible as their answer/reason has to do with the all too common habit of Christians responding with the vague, all encompassing, and utterly meaningless “because the bible tells me so” cop-out. I’ve grown weary of reminding them that I don’t believe in the truth of the bible so offering some passage in the good book as ‘evidence’ is meaningless.
You’ve made numerous comments on a number of my posts and I’ve disputed them all. You need to do more than simply claim my observations are false or out of context, and that my research is poor. You need to offer some evidence and yet as much as you have tried, you have yet to offer anything but dogma and personal opinion. You react as if this site is the first to suggest that religion is a farce. You reference my Mythological Origins of Christianity article and behave as if I am the first to put forth this idea. Nothing I state on this site or in that article is in any way original. I am not a pioneer in skepticism and doubt. You said – “The only people who should fear your site are the people who are gullible to any bit of information despite its source,do not study this sort of subject on a scholarly basis, or on their own using scholarly sources.” — Are you purposefully trying to describe the bible and those who believe it is truth? You say you spent 1 hour scanning your collection of books on ancient religions, while I spend YEARS researching my article (Mythological Origins of Christianity), but I should accept you as the authority? And I’m not even suggesting that I am, at all. In fact, I admit that some of the information in my article could be inaccurate as it is based on man’s translations and interpretations of ancient texts. Any one of these men could have certainly gotten it wrong. But are you willing to admit the same about those who translated the bible? Everyone should dismiss the information I’ve gathered but not yours, right? I guarantee that my sources would hold up under scrutiny far better than the bible would. Check my sources? I believe I have been advising you to do that since you first left a comment on my site. The bible is not a source of information, it is a source of fiction. It has never held up to scrutiny. How am I supposed to take you seriously when this is the entire basis for your belief? I’m sorry, I just can’t. I need more.
Take Care
DoubtingThomas
July 8, 2008 at 5:57 am
What are we, in grade 2? Well if that’s the best that you can come up then I’m not to concerned.
July 8, 2008 at 8:09 am
The problem is, and always will be, subjectivity and interpretation, education and cultural indoctrination.
I have my thoughts, they change, and they evolve.
I don’t carry around a static set of beliefs…I refuse to… I just can’t do it.
I consider and reconsider upon new facts and experiences.
But do I believe in myths and faery tales ?, huh, no.
Nice site, too bad most of the planet is beyond illumination.
Cheers.
July 8, 2008 at 8:28 am
Doubting Thomas:
Its not about the subject matter of your site, I can handle your reasons for not being a Christian. Its the approach you use, which is essentially God is a liar, God is this, God is that, the Bible is this or that, you approach it very mockingly, as if I’m ignorant and uneducated if I accept Christianity. Your research IS poor, I disputed your mythological origins, you have yet to dispute that comment back(I disputed your brief mythological origins when you posted it as a reply against someone). Most of what you had in that article is simply false rumors that tend to get stirred every so many years in the camp of skeptics. You have disputed almost all of my comments, but that doesn’t mean its a logical explanation, it just means you don’t accept my explanation. Its especially hard to put things into context with you because you don’t accept answers from the Bible.
I do have to wonder though, based off of your questioning some simple dogma’s in some of your blog articles or responses. What church denomination where you apart of? Also what do you do now?
July 8, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Thomas,
I’m afraid you’ve got it wrong. You seem to think that you have to make a leap of faith, rejecting all evidence in the process. This is inconsistent with your observable modus operandi.
Allow me to elucidate: You believe there is no God. That’s a belief. It’s a bit of a leap of faith, since you lack omniscience and cannot rule out the possibility of God’s existence with absolute certainty. But wait. How did you come to this conclusion? Did you just decide to believe God doesn’t exist one day, or did you consider the evidence?
That’s the inconsistency. You claim you came about your belief by an examination of the evidence, but you allege that a belief in God constitutes blind faith [ignoring all evidence]. Now I happen to be of the opinion that you haven’t fairly examined the evidence [I've accused you several times of painting the stained glass window black and then protesting that religion offers no light] but I do believe you’ve examined the evidence. I believe your bias has colored [skewed] the results of your investigation. But [at the risk of thatching a straw man] you surely aren’t implying that anyone who has a belief opposed to atheism is therefore someone who hasn’t examined the evidence [for surely they would agree with you!], right?
–Sirius Knott
July 9, 2008 at 8:35 am
NOTE: the comment of being in grade 2 was directed to the Gay comment (but another post was stuck in there before I could add it) I appologize if anyone with a reasonable arguement thought I was being rude.
July 10, 2008 at 12:57 am
What the fuck!!!!!! god is gay and you guys are ignorance LOL!!!! haha, arguing and debating “what” these are in the past!!!! Just live your live in harmony there is no god no supernatural freaks ever walk this earth, only in my dreams LOL!!!! just accept the facts that we are just here, no need for any discussions just kick back and relax, with some margaritas and friends!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!