Why I am not an atheist …
September 22nd, 2008 by HankBut, before we get to that, a brief introduction:
My name is Hank & I run a blog called Ethics Gradient (which, it should be noted, may - does - contain some coarse language. In my mind, it’s all perfectly justified but I realise not everyone digs the sailor-talk). I also go by “Mandrellian” on various threads on various blogs, youtube videos and forums. After a few comments on a recent DI thread, Erich Vieth did me the honour of inviting me to be a contributor here at Dangerous Intersection. For my first post I’ve shared one of my previous works from my personal blog and edited it very, very slightly to improve the flow and readability [permalink]. Hopefully it will give people an idea where I’m coming from (besides Melbourne, Australia).
Many thanks to Erich for his faith in me. I shall attempt to justify it with my future posts. OK, let’s get on with it.
Why I am not an atheist …
… and why I am.
I am not an atheist because:
- I hate God
- I prayed to God and my prayers weren’t answered
- Militant/fundamentalist atheists converted me away from God
- I worship science and the works of man instead of God
- I’m rebelling against God like I rebelled against my parents & teachers in high school
- I think I’m better than God
- I had a bad experience with a priest or church or religious person
- I can’t decide which religion to subscribe to
- atheism is my religion
- I think religious people are idiots
- I worship Batman
- I worship Satan
- I’m immoral/amoral and would rather do what I want
- I want to destroy religion
I distrust and criticise (sometimes strongly) certain organised religions because:
- they are human inventions and many seem to be preoccupied with obsessively controlling aspects of peoples’ private lives instead of improving them
- many Christian churches seem primarily concerned with attracting money and then keeping it rather than using it charitably
- many holy books get descriptions of the world & nature completely wrong, which you would not expect had they been dictated by the omnipotent creator of the universe
- many holy books contain descriptions of human events that cannot be historically verified and in all likelihood never happened (eg. Exodus)
- many holy books contain numerous laws, acts & stories of a morality that modern, free societies find repugnant; these societies have passed many of their own laws contradicting such biblical “morality”
- as well as innumerable separate religions; there are so many separate & often violently opposed sects of each religion that it is more likely that none of them are correct than just one of them being so
- many religious groups demand special treatment such as the right not to be offended by statements, artworks, songs or anything else that may criticise or disagree with their dogma; their protests quite often run contrary to ideas such as free speech, beloved by most modern democratic societies
- religious groups frequently try to have laws passed which unfairly impose their narrow standards of behaviour, based on interpretations of specific holy commands, onto the rest of society
- religious people often tend to pick & choose from, or “interpret” their holy texts, discarding what does not conform to modern standards of morality, law & political freedom; they then bizarrely imply that modern morality, law and political freedom rests on the foundations of their particular religion
- there is such a wide spectrum of religious belief & adherence to dogma, ranging from light, barely-existent deism to the kind of rigid fundamentalism that oppresses and kills many, many people in its name, that it leads me to conclude that either their God wasn’t clear enough with his message, didn’t spread it to enough people or that humans have basically made their religions and associated rules up as they went along and have been in conflict with each other about them ever since
- many religious people & groups wilfully mis-characterise atheists as immoral, empty beings with no appreciation for beauty or mystery simply because we prefer natural explanations for the universe’s phenomena rather than defaulting to “God did it”; they believe that any explanation, even a wrong one, is better than “we just don’t know yet”
- many religious groups continue to deny long-accepted scientific facts such as the divergence of species through evolution and the verified age of the Earth; some wish their particular mythology taught as fact in science classes and go to extraordinary lengths to accomplish it; some even insist there’s a huge, dark Scientist Conspiracy quashing “academic freedom”
- many religious people & groups attempt to cherry-pick science (as they do their scriptures) for those parts which conform to their belief system while actively denying others, e.g. creationists agreeing with “microevolution” while denying “macroevolution” (which is like believing that matches cannot start bushfires) or attempting to use the Second Law of Thermodynamics to debunk the theory of evolution (which is like ajudicating a baseball game with a cricket rulebook)
- some religious groups deny the efficacy of modern medicine in favour of treating an ill person with prayer, a practice which has led to many preventable deaths, often of children
- they all make extraordinary claims based on their scriptures, provide no evidence beyond referring to their (unsurprisingly) self-confirming scriptures and then insist that the onus is on non-believers to disprove their claims
- many religions have become inextricably intertwined with the laws of the patriarchal or tribal cultures which spawned or adopted them, leading to divine justifications for such horrors as female circumcision and “honour killings”, which more often than not punish women, already under the thumbs of domineering males, for seemingly minute transgressions of law
- when it comes to the hot-button issue of sexual abuse by priests, many religions seem more concerned with good public relations, shielding themselves from culpability and keeping numbers in churches than with compensating victims and being active about either punishing perpetrators or preventing further abuse
I am an atheist because:
- any & all claims of and explanations for the existence of God or any other gods have thus far fallen far short of my standards of evidence
- my understanding of the natural universe is that it functions in such a way that doesn’t require (or indicate) the presence of any supernatural entity intervening in either the laws of nature or selected peoples’ lives
That’s it. They are the only two things that I can say I absolutely have in common with any other atheist. In matters of sex, politics, architecture, gaming, interior design, pets, music, clothing, hobbies, language, philosophy, education, sports, typing speed, preferred drugs, affinity with beagles & frogs and any number of other categories I may be diametrically opposite to any (or every) other atheist in the world. To label one atheist with the same attributes you label another atheist is ignorant at best, flat-out dishonest at worst. As such, I try not to do the same thing with religious people.
But what could steer me in the opposite direction? Probably the same things that could steer any atheist …
I could be converted to theism if:
- God, or a god, showed himself or performed an act that unambiguously proved his existence as an immortal, omnipotent being. As to what that proof would constitute: that god himself would be the perfect arbiter of what would conclusively prove to six billion people that he existed.
Such things as tortillas depicting blurred, apparently Mary-shaped silhouettes do not count. If you’re there, God, you’re on notice! Any time is fine. But no tricks - and come alone (if indeed there’s only one of you, otherwise, bring the whole parthenon).
—
In hindsight, there are quite a few things I left off both of those two longer lists, but I haven’t added them here. To add a large amount of new content to a re-post in the hope that a “special edition” would make it heaps, heaps better might (a) make me feel a total hypocrite, like I’m pulling a George Lucas (may he drown in his money-bin) and (b) turn people off, TL;DR style. I also believe that excessive after-the-fact editing takes a bit of the “blogginess” away from what I write. I like the sort-of “stream of consciousness” aspect of blogging, in that it provides a snapshot of my mindset at the precise time I was writing a post, warts & all, as opposed to being a considered, well thought-out post that took a very long time to compile. I don’t do many drafts. If I can’t finish something the day I start, it simply never gets published. Suffice it to say that philosophy didn’t serve me well at school!
OK, that’s enough of that. Keep enjoying the DI experience, readers. I hope to get into some serious/thoughtful/entertaining dialogue with some of you soon.
Hank
September 22nd, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:03 pm
You want proof for the existence of God, here are a few:
1. Israel - God said that they will always be a people once He brought them into existence and they have been. They are here today even though many atheists have tried to destroy them (Stalin as one example).
2. The over 300 Old Testament prophecies (some written 1500 years before His birth) of the first Advent of Jesus Christ. Could not be a coincidence because we do not have a number large enough to show the odds against all of them being fulfilled in One person.
3. The resurrection - yes the one with Christ Himself but also the one that I experienced. I was spiritually dead in my sins (a slave to sin) and God brought me to life (changed my life and set me free from slavery to sin).
Three real proofs, now go ahead and hit your knees in repentance (agree that God is right and you are wrong).
By the way God does not hear the prayers of non-Christians (with the exception of their first prayer of repentance).
September 22nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Erik Brewer, meet Hank. Hank, meet Erik Brewer.
Somehow, I feel a bit responsible for what’s about to happen . . .
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:10 am
Much obliged Erich - I wasn’t getting any work done anyway.
Now, Erik old chap, what I do NOT want to deal with around here are the usual scripturally-derived “proofs”, which pretty much deals with 1 and 2.
I categorically REJECT the Bible as a true document (and did so long ago), much as I find it fascinating anthropologically. If you want me to address any of your arguments, it’s a good idea to refrain from quoting scripture or using scripture as truth. Why? Well, don’t assume that because I’m not religious that I never have been. I know the Bible. I’ve read it. I’ve lived it. And I’ve rejected it. “It’s true because I read it in the Bible & the Bible is true because the Bible says so” is not an argument, it’s copy+paste spam.
Please bear in mind that, despite any scriptural motivations, the creation of Israel was a human act, carried out in 1947/48 in the aftermath of the Shoah (Holocaust) by displacing the indigenous population and re-drawing the original, human-created borders. It’s no miracle at all that Israel exists. It was the result of a combination of the hard, often deadly work of a large number of people and, let’s be honest, histor. You have Hitler to thank, partially, for this “miracle” of Israel.
And the old “Stalin was atheist therefore all atheists are evil” argument can take a flying leap too. Stalin was a power-crazed madman with - now get this - a concrete, unflinching ideology (eerily similar to a fundamentalist religion) ostensibly based on neo-Marxism but which more closely resembled fascism in many peoples’ opinions. Stalin took on ANYONE who he thought could pose a threat and the church, being very good at organising large numbers of people, was one of the clearest threats in his field of vision. Did I mention he attended the seminary before his career in politics? Doesn’t mean anything, really … I guess.
Now, here’s the thing about European anti-semitism: it was around centuries before Stalin (and, of course, Hitler) ramped it up and used it to his own political ends. And it wasn’t based on atheism, surprise surprise: the roots of European anti-semitism (especially in Germany) stretch right back to (and before) Protestant godfather Martin Luther, who wrote among other things a famous treatise called “On The Jews And Their Lies”, and up to WWII much of Europe barely tolerated their presence. The one thing the Vatican and the Protestants could always agree on was their loathing of Jews. Christian anti-semitism - it was a long-held, irrational fear, easily manipulated by expert propagandists. And don’t raise Hitler as an example of “atheist evil” either, I’m well-armed for that one.
However, even if both dictators did use their alleged non-belief as motivation, that would actually make them “anti-theists” - people actively opposed to theistic religion, as opposed to “a-theists”, who simply don’t believe in gods. You can’t base an ideology like that of Stalin or Hitler on your LACK of belief on one single issue.
Your third piece of “evidence” isn’t evidence of anything. See my comment about the truth of the Bible. That you yourself were “spiritually dead” and then re-born isn’t proof of anything either, it’s hearsay. Any “argument from personal experience” is untestable and unfalsifiable and here, as in any court of law, simply doesn’t count as evidence of anything. How is anyone meant to know you’re not fabricating it? I could sit here, invent a religion based on talking to murdered politicians and tell you that MINE is the path to salvation “because JFK & Ghandi told me” and that would have the same evidentiary weight as your conversion.
Clearly you didn’t read my piece that closely; otherwise you would be able to fully comprehend why I don’t believe in gods, fairies, talking JFK ghosts or pink unicorns and you’d realise the usual fundamentalist pamphlet-speak won’t bloody well wash with me. That you seemingly just skimmed the entire body of my post and responded to the little bit at the end speaks volumes about your motivations. I’ll happily debate people and discuss differences of opinion & philosophy, but I will not encourage obvious trolls with nothing to contribute. I’m not here to endlessly debunk the usual religious strawmen or respond to demands that I convert.
On that topic: lastly, I will NOT get on my knees & repent to your god or anyone else’s god. Shove your arrogant, offensive little demand up your trouser-leg. I will not tolerate having orders barked at me.
I’m not your whipping boy, Erik Brewer. If you want to discuss this stuff with me, fine. Just do it like a grownup. Falling back on scripture/standard strawman arguments/crying “repent!” or lumping me in with Stalin like some ol’ school fire n’ brimstone country preacher is childish & pitiful. I can disagree with someone quite happily & respect them too, if they’re adult about it, but if you’re just trying to convert me, consider this my last response to you.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 am
while you guys argue (I assume, as i don’t read your drivel) endlessly and mindlessly, I am still believing - apparently along with peoples of long ago generations - that God is a rock. Please see:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/22/uk.stonehenge.healing.ap/index.html
Please do not give me a long diatribe about how God cannot be a rock. My beliefs are set in stone.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:05 am
Well now, that’s that. Great post, and very good dismissal of the current antagonist. Looking forward to your next words of wisdom.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:14 am
Welcome Hank! Great first post. I see you’ve met Erik.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:15 am
Hank, Erik….
Erich, you have done something which….
Erik tends to not “see” questions for which he has no answers. I asked him two pointed questions which he ignored completely. I’ll repost them here, just on the off-chance that in the heat of so many demons to slay he simply didn’t notice them.
1: If, as fundamentalism suggests, the universe was created in a spurt of divine inspiration 6000 or so years ago, created to operate as it does now, then where did all the heat go?
2: What is Erik’s definition of Etymology?
For some reason, he seems to have not noticed either question.
But welcome aboard, Hank.
BTW, I reposted an old blog on my own website that deals with the issue of sex ed and so forth, since the election is coming up, and all the hoary old knives of right wing Republican hysteria will be unsheathed soon.
http://www.marktiedemann.com/wordpress/
Might be fun for folks to have another looksee and who knows, even Erik might read it!
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:17 am
“By the way God does not hear the prayers of non-Christians”
Are you serious about that Erik?? What a petty, small-minded God you have. Just one more reason why I wouldn’t want to be on His team.
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:47 am
Hank: Welcome to DI! Good to have you. Your post intrigues me.
Here are two two things, though, that might complicate most “I am an Atheist” analyses; I’d be interested on your reaction to them: Consider one of Einstein’s writings defining his God:
My first question to you: What do you think? Is a person who labels this “lawful harmony” of the world (but who doesn’t give any credence to allegedly sacred writings and doesn’t think that there is any ethereal sentient being) a theist or an atheist? I suspect that there are many folks out there who refuse to call themselves “atheists.”
My second question (this is related to the first question): How does the continuum of beliefs affect your analysis? Yana Kanarski wrote a well received post that convinced me of the importance of recognizing a wide spectrum of belief, with non-doubting theists at one endpoint and non-doubting atheists at the other. Through the many thoughtful and civilized comments to Yana’s post, terms like ignostic were stirred into the mix. Lots of good stuff to be had there. As I see it, that post (and that discussion) dovetail well with your post, because both posts take some care to parse apart the wide spectrum of belief to avoid cartoonish definitions that so often engender fruitless and unnecessary argument. But I’m wondering: when you get to the point where you actually write “I am an atheist because . . . ” wouldn’t that also cover agnostics and ignostics?
I find that I’ve never really found a label that fits me well. I buy into Einstein’s “God,” but I don’t call myself a theist. I also shy away from the word “atheist,” because it means such different things to different folks. To many believers, when I call myself atheist, I might as well call myself immoral, selfish, all-knowing potentially violent person who doesn’t give a crap about anything but me. I shy away from calling myself an agnostic because, to too many people, it means that I haven’t done my homework and I’m trying to become a Christian. I once used the term “bright,” but it sounds condescending. Not many people know what ignostic means, but I’m often tempted to use it. The word “naturalist” seems to work pretty well and avoids most of the conversational difficulties. It’s not offensive. It’s basically saying that I don’t believe in all of the tenuous claims put forth by those who clutch the sacred writings. For me, it conveys that I value my time here on the planet, intermingled with all the other critters in one vast ecosystem. At core, it means that I recognize and am in awe of the natural laws that deeply affected Einstein.
Maybe it’s a cop-out and I should just use the word “atheist,” because I would be an atheist by your definition. But over the years, I’ve had so many productive conversations with “theists” when I avoid the term “atheist.” One on one, in a non-threatening environment, most “theists” will eventually admit enough to me to prove that they would actually qualify as agnostics or as Einsteinian theists. I don’t yell “Aha!” “Gotcha!” because it would undo all of the careful work. Instead, I value that moment because it is a connecting point with which we can have further productive conversations.
Then, of course, there are also a lot of fundamentalists out there, for whom conversation is almost always fruitless, as we have seen so clearly at this site. I have to think that something (is it fear or is it the conservative measures of morality) has locked them into a sacred-scripture-clutching and pontificating mode. I take it as my personal journey to help all people question their beliefs. Although it exhausts me and often annoys me, I keep hoping that I will somehow, someway, figure out a way to help free the fundamentalists from their narrow-focused living hells. And that is also my answer to “Huh?”, who has made clear that, to him, all (or at lest most) of this work is mere chattering. I won’t deny that I’ve often had that same thought.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:08 am
I just had a miscue on the spam filter. I just deleted hundreds of spam comments in one swipe–I meant to delete only the first 50, but the whole bunch was deleted. It is POSSIBLE that there was a real comment or two somewhere in the mix. If you sent in a comment in the past 24 hours and it isn’t showing up, please resend. Thanks.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/20/post-biblical-morality/
Just thought I put this up again for the convenience of those who might have missed it lo these many years ago. I been writing ’bout this a long trime.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am
• Hank
I never said that the Bible is True because the Bible says so. I gave you 3 visible proofs that the Bible is true. Please do not dress up your answer in rhetoric and not deal with the subject at hand (liberals are masters at that).
Just because you do not believe something, that does not make it correct or incorrect. That argument is a result of the demented idea of moral relativism.
Israel became was allowed to come back to its land (just as God promised). God allowed the “human act” to implement His will (see the Babylonians in the OT, God promised to use them to punish Israel for their disobedience, and He did just as He said He would, “human act” led by the hand of God). Hitler was also a fulfillment of prophecy (God told Israel that they would suffer immensely for their disobedience). There will be another time of suffering for Israel (much worse than what Hitler did). Be sure that it will happen because God will uphold His Word (every jot and tittle will be fulfilled).
I know lots of people who go to seminary and loose their faith. Do you know why? Because they do not study the Bible in many seminaries, they just study about the Bible (there is a big difference). At the core of atheist religion there is no god (although atheists worship, they worship man). When you reject God you develop a depraved mind (useless). Depravity only gets worse over time. I do not hate atheists, in fact I want to help them, and the only way that they can be helped is by having a changed mind/heart (life).
As to Antisemitism, it is a result of not listening to the Word of God (the Bible that you reject). God clearly teaches that the Hebrews are His special people and that those who persecute them will be punished and that those who bless them will be blessed. The reason that there has been so much persecution on the Hebrews is a two-fold answer. God said that it would happen because of their disobedience (please study the OT).
Secondly, man has hated the Hebrews because people do not know the Word of God or they do not believe what it says. You can argue against that all day long but it is written in black and white in the Bible. Maybe you have read the Bible but I am wondering if you had one eye closed when you did it or were you influenced by what other people say that the Bible says instead of being influenced by the Bible.
You never covered the second piece. Fulfilled prophecy. Just ignoring the facts does not make them go away.
I was a slave to sin, you cannot disprove that but I can prove it by the way that I lived my life. You cannot see into my mind (God does not allow that). Again, you cannot disprove my conversion but I have many witnesses who knew how I was before and how God changed me. I have proof of my argument when you just have dressed up rhetoric (good liberal quality). I was a slave to sin and I no longer am, you cannot deny that.
Again, my job is not to convince anyone. My job is to share the Truth and let God do the rest. You have every right to reject God but keep in mind there are consequences (whether you believe it or not). Again, I do not demand that you convert; God does not need you (although He wants you). He is happy and content without you. It is for your benefit that you follow Him.
With the repentance thing I was playing off of what you said. If you do not understand jokes then I am sorry for you. I did not mean that as a barking order. I will be clearer next time (no offense intended and I apologize if you were offended). I do have a sense of humor (as does God).
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:12 am
• Mark Tiedemann
First of all you assume that the world was created the way that it is now. Bad assumption. Two major things have rocked this earth since its creation some 6,000 years ago. 1) The Fall of mankind into sin. Sin caused the earth to be cursed and that changed just about everything that was created (actually everything). The way that you see it now is not the way that it was created. 2) About 4,000 years ago there was a world wide flood that changed the landscape of the earth. So your question must be re-asked keeping those two things in mind.
I have answered every question thrown my way. Maybe I did not see one or two of them but if I am aware of them then I will answer. You guys jump to conclusions too fast. Also I am having to respond to many different people while they are all writing to me. Please be patient.
Ok, if you do not like etymology, I will say the original Hebrew word which was translated into the English language. Is that better? Things always make more sense in the original, I know because I do a lot of translating.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:15 am
Mike Pulcinella
So you are almighty and have the power to say what God can and cannot do (as I said, people who reject God worship themselves, it is written like that in black and white in the Bible but you guys refuse to see it). If you act just like the Bible says that you will then does it not cross your mind for a second that you yourself are making a case for the Bible’s authenticity.
John 9:31
“We know that God does not hear sinners; but if anyone is God-fearing and does His will, He hears him.
God’s very words on the above subject of prayer.
September 23rd, 2008 at 11:50 am
Are you Erik?
He really posted many many comments recently.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I think someone missed his medications.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I don’t think Erik is for real. I think he is someone masquerading as a fundamentalist for LOLZ. No one could really be that single-mindedly stubborn and really mean it. He knows too well what buttons to push to get a rise and is repeating the same exaggeratedly narrow fundy concepts over and over. I know we’ve all seen that before with avid religiosos, but this is subtly different. He’s too smart to be that stupid.
I smell a troll. He is playing with us.
September 23rd, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Erich, I consider myself an agnostic for the simple reason that I developed my analytic skills before I developed speech. Since the absence of proof in a particular idea does not qualify as proof against that idea, I am agnostic because, I honestly admit that I cannot claim knowledge of that which is unknowable.
Erik, I have observed that those that seek to dictate their beliefs on others, do so because they are not self confident in their beliefs and seek approval by consensus. If this be not the case, you should at least give references to the scriptural passages that support your remarks. It may prove that you know your bible and are not simply reciting church dogma.
Hitler and Stalin, as well as the founding fathers or the U.S. recognized that the church had become more of a governing body than a religious institution. Hitler and Stalin banished the church and religion in an attempt to prevent the emergence of a shadow government that would seek to reseat a king to power.The founding fathers of the U.S., however, decided to acknowlege the church while limiting as much as possible any political power the church may have. Note that by “church” I am referring to the organization, not the religious faith.
September 23rd, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Mike
I assure you that I am one person. I am passionate about what I say because I have lived life apart from God (thinking that I was the center of the universe, not wanting to admit that I was a follower, I was convinced of my uniqueness). My eyes were opened to the reality of everything when I began to study the Bible (not about the Bible, I had lots of practice in that field). My entire world was turned upside down. I do not want people to be led astray like I was by people who do not understand the Bible. I want to challenge people to study the Scriptures.
As regard to being stupid, I think that it is sad that so called free thinkers can dish out their arguments but they cannot receive any kind of criticism. See Heather Mallick for a good example of that.
September 23rd, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Thanks for the warm welcome, everyone.
Mr Brewer, I don’t need (or appreciate) your pity, your offer of assistance or your assumptions that I’m depraved. Keep them in a safe place if you like, but I have no need of them. If you’re looking for a conversion target, forget it. Like I said: been there, done that.
300 fulfilled prophecies, then…well, you can call them true if it’s never crossed your mind that the humans who wrote them weren’t simply fixing the facts to fit what was already written down (humans, dishonest? Really?). Humans still do that, even religious ones (Downing St memo?). As one example, please explain Genesis 26:4 to me, where God says to Abraham: “I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these countries; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed…” Did he mean the Hebrews would spread across the world and be blessed straight away or that they’d have to wait a few thousand years? Or perhaps they’re being punished because they’re not that great at following the commandments? They’re still a very small minority in the world and still unfortunately hated in many parts. There are probably more atheists/unaffiliated spiritualists in my country than Jews (my very small number of Jewish friends are pretty much atheist anyway, as it happens). Is the God of Abraham allowed to break his promises so blatantly or is he just misunderstood? If so, couldn’t the supreme being have been a bit clearer in the first place? It’s a moot point anyway, as I view Biblical prophecy with the same skepticism as I view Biblical history, genealogy, creation myth & the rest. Genesis, Revelations, Exodus, the Gospels and everything else - trust me: I read it, understood it & followed it until I could no longer do so without seriously compromising my intellectual honesty. I arrived at atheism through objective thought processes & self-reflection, not some infantile rebellion against authority - you can’t rebel against something you don’t believe is there.
Simply put: it was reading the Scriptures closely in the first place that set me on the path to being an atheist. No amount of re-reading is going to unwind that process. You can’t un-bake a cake!
I know you didn’t say “the Bible’s true because the Bible says so” in as many words, but that’s what any debate of this kind inveitably & necessarily boils down to. There is no objective or corroborating evidence (e.g. contemporary historical accounts) of the Bible’s veracity (Exodus being just one excellent example). The only claims of the Bible’s truth are in the Bible. Therefore The Bible, being the one source of Abrahamic religious belief & practise and philosophy, is its own sole witness. So regardless of whether you quote the Bible directly or use its words as ammunition in a debate, you are conforming to the statement that “the Bible is true because the Bible says it is”. There’s no way you can escape that, no matter how many theological twists & turns you attempt.
Look, it’s not my job to disprove your conversion. I can no more disprove that than you could disprove my claim of having a chat with Martin Luther King Jr in my breakfast nook this morning. You made a positive claim, therefore the burden of proof is on you. Having said that, it’s a moot point as I’m honestly not interested. If it makes you happy, all well & good. That’s what matters more than anything. To me anyway.
Maybe you should employ smilies. Your “repent” command didn’t look at all like humour (I’m not used to evangelists using humour - generally they’re not very good at it. Ken Ham? Not funny. Ray Comfort? Actually really funny, but not in the way he thinks he is). No apology necessary though. ‘Tis but a scratch. I’ve had worse.
You have the right to believe what you want as well as the right to blast it over the mountain tops to all & sundry. Go for it. Just know that with me you’re wasting your keystrokes. You’ve spread the word, now do me a favour and leave it up to your god.
Now, if nothing else, I hope this shows you that freethinkers can indeed take come criticism without flying off the handle. Please just drop the evangelising and we can all get along just fine.
.h.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Erik wrote: “First of all you assume that the world was created the way that it is now. Bad assumption. Two major things have rocked this earth since its creation some 6,000 years ago. 1) The Fall of mankind into sin. Sin caused the earth to be cursed and that changed just about everything that was created (actually everything). The way that you see it now is not the way that it was created. 2) About 4,000 years ago there was a world wide flood that changed the landscape of the earth. So your question must be re-asked keeping those two things in mind.
I have answered every question thrown my way. Maybe I did not see one or two of them but if I am aware of them then I will answer. You guys jump to conclusions too fast. Also I am having to respond to many different people while they are all writing to me. Please be patient.
Ok, if you do not like etymology, I will say the original Hebrew word which was translated into the English language. Is that better? Things always make more sense in the original, I know because I do a lot of translating.”
Yes, you do do a lot of translating, just not from one language into another.
You still didn’t answer either question. Did you understand them? I didn’t ask about the Earth, I asked about the Universe—you know, stars, galaxies, quasars, black holes, pulsars, all that stuff? So you ducked that one.
Secondly, I asked for your definition of Etymology. Instead you decided to change the nature of the debate.
I can only conclude that you (a) do not intend to answer my questions (and don’t tell me you did—you did not: look at the questions, look at your answers, they are not connected) or (b) you really didn’t understand them, in which case don’t bother looking at the questions again, you’ll only get it wrong—again.
If you could read archaic Hebrew, good for you. Most of the Bible comes from Aramaic or Greek. And if you can read those, then you already know that most English translations contain flaws. Yet you rely on those translations to argue with us. I repeat, you do not know how to argue. Hence you keep tripping over yourself here and getting insulted as a result.
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Erik I apologize for calling you stupid. It was a poor choice of word, you are right about that. However I must add that in my experience, most of the intelligent religious people I know will admit to some small inkling of doubt. It is the uhhh…”less than smart” ones who will not.
I will amend my previous post and say without hesitation that though you are not stupid you are conceited. It’s the conceit of ALL of the deeply religious people I have met.
Your conceit is this: You think that everyone is like YOU. You take your own weaknesses and apply them to the rest of the world.
You wrote: “I do not want people to be led astray like I was by people who do not understand the Bible.”
I understand your desire to spare me what you have gone through but I don’t need you or the bible to save me. I’m perfectly fine just the way I am. Everything’s cool, bro. Can you accept that? Will your conceit allow you to see past your own suffering and transformation to realize that there just might be a few people on this planet who are just fine without god, thank you very much?
Maybe you were a drunk or a drug addict. Or you were gay or a thief and then you found god and you are better. Yay for you! Can you see that that was YOUR experience, not mine?
September 23rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Erich,
I’m not sure what I’d call Einstein. Definitely not a theist, perhaps not even an atheist as we’d define it. A soft deist, maybe? Seems the great man just wasn’t sure but still couldn’t totally justify a god-belief. I do know that he became incensed when people assumed, by his writings, that he was a literal theist.
As for how to define yourself, maybe don’t even bother until it comes up - like you said you’ve have plenty of good, productive discussions with people when labels weren’t involved. I’d keep to that if I were you. I usually just say “oh, I’m not religious” in real life chats. Here in Oz, a person’s religion generally doesn’t matter and it rarely comes up. On the interweb - in the circles we move anyway - it’s clearly a different matter (and I assume the same for the in-person US). Still, I take people as they come and will talk to anybody provided they behave like grownups
“Bright” is certainly a term I find a bit arrogant as it gives the impression that we think we’re smarter than theists. “Ignostic” is clumsy
“Freethinker” comes across a little aloof and I think would be quite vague to some people. I reckon, if it comes up, simply say you’re not religious. As you’d know, “atheist” (and even “secular”) seems to be quite a loaded word in the States and seems to have been for quite a while. My hope is that it’ll eventually just be another word and people won’t judge others so harshly for it! I don’t judge theists until I meet or talk to them; my only desire is that they do the same.
The point about a spectrum of belief is a good one. I guess people like Mr Brewer are on one end and people like you & I are on the other - then you have Christopher Hitchens slightly farther along than me, being something of an anti-theist - someone actively opposed to religion. I’m simply a non-believer (though I do enjoy a good scrap).
I think the main thing is that people just talk to each other like adults first and whatever religious position they hold second - even if it’s a religious discussion! People should be able to discuss their beliefs or lack of them maturely regardless of their differences. Some religious people can and some can’t, resorting to counter-productive ploys such as pasting blocks of scripture or condemning or pitying people. Some atheists can argue quite well also, but quite a few can’t and seem to go out of their way to be offensive instead of presenting a reasoned case (see youtube comment threads for great examples from both sides). I try and respect people and their right to believe what they choose, even if I wholly disrespect their beliefs. Maybe more on this later, work calls (dammit).
September 23rd, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Hello Hank,
Was your quest for intellectual integrity tempered by values different than those espoused in the Bible which you tried to live by, or was the cognitive dissonance with the modern scientific worldview just so antithetical that you saw no hope of ever believing in anything supernatural?
A radical rejection on one’s spiritual heritage is often also connected with the cognitive dissonance that is fueled by a desire to maintain morality along with an acceptance of internalized values in the face of ideas and alternative world views that are not compatible with each other. Choosing a worldview that minimizes the cognitive dissonance is the usual outcome. Is that how you arrived at your decision to be an athiest?
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Hank
I guess you did not read what I wrote (or you did not pay attention). God says that those who reject Him are depraved and you prove it by trying to fight against God (you will always loose that battle), hence depravity. He will be here long after you are gone so you fight in vain.
I never said that I was trying to convert you (that is not my job). My job is to present the Truth of the Word of God and God will do the converting.
The OT was a complete work before Jesus Christ came on the scene, so if it were not God then those so called people made an awful lot of “good” guesses. Sorry but your argument does not hold water. You are fighting against proven facts my friend and well, that again is a sign of depravity.
As far as Abraham goes, there is a two-fold response, 1)the literal children of Abraham have been multiplied as the stars of the sky and spread out to the ends of the earth. 2) there are also the spiritual children of Abraham (the father of the believers) so all born again Christians are children of Abraham and they are everywhere (the Apostle Paul explains it quite well, do you need the reference since you have already “read” the Bible?). One day the Hebrews will rule with Jesus Christ. Also the entire world has already been blessed in the “seed” of Abraham because again the Apostle Paul explains that the “seed” (singular/masculine) is Jesus Christ. So the whole world has the chance to become the children of Abraham. Now, as far as the suffering goes, I have already explained that so if you will read what I have written a little more carefully then you will have your answer. By the way, the promise to Abraham came in chapters 12 and 15 as well (but I guess you knew that). God never breaks His promises. Do not blame God for man’s ignorance (I know that is easier than admitting that you are wrong).
Here is why you could not continue to follow it, without a transformed heart you are wasting your time. This was the problem for the Hebrews in the OT. They had the Law but they had a heart of stone (stiff-necked people, hardheaded we would say). So, even though they wanted to be obedient they could not. God gives us an opportunity to receive a new heart (mind/way of thinking) in the New Covenant with Jesus Christ. Obviously you were trying to be obedient to God with a heart of stone, you need a change. I was like that too. I tried to do what the Bible said but could not, then God changed my heart when I repented (admitted that I was wrong and He is right and I need Him) and I began to live according to the Word of God. He gives me the ability and strength every single day. He would do that for you too but obviously you do not want it.
I would challenge you to retrace the steps of the Exodus and at the Red Sea there is quite a lot of evidence that an army was destroyed there (like the Egyptian army). Documents are being excavated that prove that the stories of the Bible are true even down to the names. You can try to deny the facts but again that is depravity.
Also my argument cannot be boiled down to “because the Bible says so”. The Bible says so and there is actual physical proof, I know it is hard to accept defeat.
By the way, you are telling me that I cannot use the Bible to prove the Bible but you are using the Bible to disprove God, can we say double standard? I have evidence of my conversion, you just have words of a chat with MLK, I have witnesses to my conversion, you are the only witness to you talk with MLK. Do you not see the difference? You are comparing apples to oranges (a very liberal tactic might I add).
So atheists are encouraged to share their beliefs but a Christian is asked to stop (“free thinking”?)
September 23rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
• Niklaus Pfirsig
I am not dictating my beliefs. I am simply sharing what the Bible says. You can choose to believe it or not. I do not need approval from anyone. I want people to have a chance to hear the Truth. If none ever believe it then that is ok, it is there choice. I am just sharing the message. What references would you like? I have usually quoted an entire Scripture. Are you paying attention to what you read? The whole idea of Separation of Church and State (not mentioned in the Constitution of course) is that the State would not have control over the Church. It was never intended to keep the church out of the state.
I do not hold to church dogma. I live by what the Bible says. There are many whose church dogma is quite different from what the Bible says.
September 23rd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Erik, I think you are mistaken on the meaning of John 9:31.
Chapter 9 of the book of John, describes the reaction of disbelief the Pharisees in the synagogue express toward the restoration of the eyesight of a blind man. Verse 31 details an argument of the Pharisees in their attempt to prove Jesus a fraud and a charlatan.
It is interesting that you should choose this verse to support your point of view, because referring this verse in this manner is an excellent example of how many fundamental Christians support their beliefs by quoting individual verses and passages form the scriptures, taken out of content and implying a different meaning.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 pm
• Niklaus Pfirsig
If you have paid attention to anything I have written then you would no that I am an advocate of the context of Scripture (something that those who say there are supposed contradictions know nothing about). Now you try to use the argument that I promote against me. Why would I contradict myself? I know the passage in its chapter context and book context. The thing with the Pharisees is that they did not recognize Truth even though He was standing among them. They spoke of Truth (even spoke Truth as in the verses I quoted) but did not know (recognize) It (Him). That is the irony with many who claim to be against God, they use His Word even though they do not understand It. So your argument falls short once again!!! Good try though. Keep on studying the Scriptures (even if it is for the purpose of trying to prove me wrong). Many have been converted during the same process.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:39 pm
• Mark Tiedemann
I know a loaded question when I see one so I was helping you unload it a bit. Suckers are born every day but I am not one of them.
I know how you guys try to trap people by latching on to words of phrases outside of the context so I am watching my back (I have dealt with you guys before, different group but same tactics). I studied the etymology of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek words used for the English word “fear”. Is that detailed enough for you. Etymology from Wikipedia Etymology is the study of the history of words — when they entered a language, from what source, and how their form and meaning have changed over time.
Many English translations have some flaws but not all of them and in the good translations the mistakes are minor. There are some translations that are more interpretations than translation but that is a different story. With the NASB (New American Standard Bible) the translation is word for word from the original and it is very accurate. So in your words, going to the original for information is bad arguing, seems illogical to me on your part but if that is how you feel there are plenty of books that do the translation of the original for you even if you do not know the language. Don’t take the easy way out, be a scholar (I thought free thinkers boasted in their ability to learn. It is not my fault that you guys have to revert to insults an name calling when you loose the argument.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
• Mike Pulcinella
How can you doubt what is a proven fact that keeps proving itself day after day?
How is sharing what the Word of God says conceited? If it were my own argument then their might be room for conceit but it is not my argument. I am just sharing what God says.
We, as people, are all the same. We are born into this world as slaves to sin. We live as slaves to sin until God sets us free or we die in our sins. That is what God says. I know my story. I know countless others with the same story. Every new country I visit I see the same story played over and over again. That is reality.
You need Jesus Christ to save you. Whether you want it or not is your choice. Please do not confuse need with want. We do not always want what we need. All I am saying is that either you are a slave to sin or you have been set free. Sin or vices that urge your everyday decisions are what enslave you. You know what they are (whether you admit it or not) usually denial is the first sign (like in AA, until you admit to yourself that you have a problem you will never get well, everyone else knows/sees your problem already).
No one is fine without God. If we do not worship God then we worship other things (mostly ourselves but also other things like money, sex, stuff, jobs, power, position, spouse, child, the list goes on and on). All of us have a god or the God. When you realize/admit that then you will be ready to understand life. Look around you, whatever a person dedicates the most of his time, efforts, energy, thoughts etc, to, that is his god, I do that for the God.
September 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Be careful, Niklaus! You are risking conversion!
September 24th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Thanks Karl
I arrived at atheism without even knowing it to begin with. First I lapsed from theism (I really don’t think my heart was in it to begin with, despite going through all the motions); travelled briefly through mild spirituality & deism and eventually worked out that I didn’t actually believe in any gods (or any supernatural phenomena) of any kind. My desire to avoid cognitive dissonance & protect intellectual integrity is sort of a byproduct of both my non-belief and my desire for objective truth.
As for my spiritual heritage, there really isn’t any. My parents aren’t religious (though my primary and high schools were, a little bit) and I became a “strong” Christian through a personal choice. Eventually I came to the decision that a person doesn’t need to adhere to dogma or take the word of ancient scriptures (or their priestly interpreter) to be a good, honest & just person, which I hope I am. This post at my home blog might be interesting to you (http://generalsystemsvehicle.blogspot.com/2008/06/speedbumps-on-road-through-theism.html).
Cheers
h
September 24th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Erik
Your assertion that I was using the Bible to disprove God is incorrect. I was pointing out events in the Bible which aren’t true, can’t be verified, didn’t happen (at the very least didn’t happen the way they’re depicted) and other inconsistencies that undermine the foundation of Abrahamic religion. This fallacy that actual physical evidence exists which confirms the story of Exodus is trotted out every so often, but the sources of this information are never trustworthy or objective. No serious historian, archaeologist or anyone in related fields accepts this “evidence”. Besides, most rational people see Exodus as an allegory rather than literal truth. Hell, most Jews don’t even believe in Exodus these days and it’s one of the cornerstones of the faith.
My private chat with MLK’s ghost over some Coco Pops obviously wasn’t literal, it was meant as an illustration that you simply can’t take someone’s else’s word that something extraordinary happened. Hearsay and second-hand testimony is not evidence. I’m sure many people saw your conversion and I’ve no doubt that it affected you profoundly, however: your personal, subjective experience is absolutely no guarantee of the truth of the Bible, the existence of God, hell, Satan or anything else in the Christian scriptures.
The rest of your post, though coherent & intelligently written, is so rife with pasted Christian buzzwords & catchphrases it was, quite frankly, difficult to take seriously. I’d like to hear something from you which didn’t sound like the kind of brochures I remove from my car’s windscreen or my letterbox every so often. While I appreciate the positive impact your faith seems to have had on your life I don’t need to hear about it in discussions such as these - nor do I wish to hear about how my heart was “made of stone” when I was a Christian, that I’m “depraved” for daring to question the veracity of Exodus or any other such insulting bullshit.
You also seem to have used the word “liberal” as some kind of slight on my character, revealing much about your own prejudices. One broad definition of “liberal” is: “having political or social views favoring reform and progress.” If you consider having a wish for the advancement of humanity through progress and reform in the political, scientific, technological, medical, religious arena and in every other issue in the public domain to be something negative, that’s your prerogative but it’s difficult to sympathise with. Clearly “liberal” means something a lot more sinister in your country & your culture than it does here in Australia.
Now, to conclude, I’m through with responding to you for now and won’t be looking for any of your responses. Though I disagree with you strongly, I respect your right to believe what you want & I’ve never once called you deluded, or a wishful thinker or insecure for needing divine intervention for your happiness ( or any other common insults levelled at religious people, which I like to avoid when engaging them in direct conversation). You simply haven’t extended the same courtesy to me. You may think it’s okay to label me “depraved” because your faith and scriptures justify it or for whatever other reason, but I won’t tolerate it or encourage it by continuing this conversation. You say you’re not out to convert me, but it doesn’t seem to have stopped you insulting me in the name, and with the approval, of your religion.
Bye
H
September 24th, 2008 at 3:48 am
I didn’t read Mr Brewer’s replies to the other commenters before but now I have it seems we have a bona fide young-earth creationist on our hands (and I thought he was just a very religious guy). Oy vay….while I respect anyone’s right to believe what they choose, I certainly can’t respect the choice - made in the face of an alarmingly large & inescapable mountain of evidence - to believe that this entire planet, including all its natural history, evolution and countless civilisations, is only 6000 years old. Religious belief is one thing and I can accept it - but creationism? Well, that really is a delusion.
H
September 24th, 2008 at 6:39 am
Erik wrote:—”I know a loaded question when I see one so I was helping you unload it a bit. Suckers are born every day but I am not one of them.”
Neither question was loaded, so I conclude you didn’t understand them. And since you misunderstood Erich’s arguments over the translation of the Hebrew word for fear, I conclude that, while you may know what these concepts mean, you don’t know how to apply them.
I do not purport to be a scholar of these subjects, but I have studied them, and all I can say is that your take is wrong. Noe will you, evidently, go outside the bible to look at other evidence, hence once again you ignore my question about heat in the universe. It’s a simple physics problem, but you won’t even acknowledge the question.
As to your arguments about the depravity of those who reject what you say (or what you think god says)—it’s a political trick, and a nasty one. A politician stands up and says “I am an American! All that I say comes from what it means to be an American! And if you disagree with me, you are obviously not an American!”
We wouldn’t tolerate that kind of argument (though many do) and would call the politician what he is—a fraud. Why would we accept such an argument from you? (And before you misconstrue my meaning, you say “I am a christian because I believe in the bible! All I say comes from what it means to be a bible-believing christian! If you disagree, you are obviously not a christian—you are depraved!” Really, now—that’s insulting, far more so than being called names.)
September 24th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Hank,
You’re a Larry Niven fan?
September 24th, 2008 at 6:46 am
Hank,
Uh, scratch that. It’s early and I’ve only had two cups of coffee.
An Iain M. Banks fan?
September 24th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Once again Erik, your conceit knows no bounds and you are completely blind to it. You don’t know what “God says”. No one does. Many people would like you to THINK they do…but they don’t.
You conceit also leads you to assume that I am a sinner. You assume that because I reject the bible that I am a bad person. You don’t know that but you assume that I am like you and a slave to sin. I am not. But neither did I need God to help me with that and you can not accept that because that hasn’t been your experience.
I’d like to ask you a question. It is one I have asked many other religious people before and rarely have I gotten a good answer. Please try to answer without bible quotations. I want to know what YOU think.
Is it possible that God created some men and women who are complete and whole and don’t need Him? If not, why not? Don’t you think it is a rather insecure God who would intentionally create creatures who feel so lost without Him that they must implore Him for help?
September 24th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Mike,
Let’s assume for the sake of debate that Erik, though badly misstating it, doesn’t link “sin” with “bad”—that he has a more scholastic take on it, which means only that sin means corruption that leads to death. I don’t mean corruption in the legal sense, either, only in the sense that perfection is lost.
In “purer” forms of christian thought, this is not tied to evil, only to being severed from god, and is a tragedy, to be sure, but does not automatically mean the sinner is a criminal or incapable of morality.
As I say, just to drag this thing out of the pit of despond Erik has (perhaps inadvertantly) dragged it into.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:10 am
Mark, Hank: Jerry Pournelle?
Or maybe I was confused on that post and Pournelle fell for “Ebert’s Fallacy“
September 24th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Erik. The truth is that you referenced a single verse out of context and presented it as the word of god, while within its context we see that the verse contains the words of John, who is summarizing the opinions put forth by the pharisees. The pharisees were attemptimg to use the law to discredit Jesus.
Your rebuttal to this point is that you believe the statement true, even if the pharisees were using it to bolster their disbelief. I submit that the pharisees were using god’s name in vain, which invalidates the meaning in this context.
However, you did take quote out of context, which proves my original point.
Erich, I am in no danger of being “converted”. I don’t think any of the regular posters on this site are likely to convert, either. I find Erik an interesting subject of study, as his long posts give a particular insight into the thought processes of a close minded fundamentalist.
Also I think is a good idea for non-believers to read the Bible, as a work of literature. There are lots of juicy stories that you don’t hear the televangelists talk about. Like one guy whose wife gave him her personal slave (an Egyption girl !) to use for sex. Another story tells of two sisters who had sex with their father while he was sleeping, because there were no other men around. An there was another story about a man with 2 wsives and 2 sex-slaves…
September 24th, 2008 at 10:54 am
• Hank
The events that you put out there are true and you are trying to use the Bible against the Bible (why else would you use the quote?) You keep changing your degrees of truth (either it happened or it did not). Again, where are the inconsistencies? God promised that a nation would come from one man (Abraham) and the Hebrews whom we still have today are living proof of that promise. Maybe you should study some other serious historians other than the ones who agree with you. You think a serious historian is above an agenda? Get real man, that is like saying scientist do not have an agenda. Maybe Al Gore did not have an agenda with all of his half truths about global warming. Just because people do or do not believe, that does not change reality. I thought that you would be smarter than that. Again I gave you 3 proofs and you cannot argue against all 3 of them (not even one of them really). By the way, how important is an eyewitness in court? If I had only one witness of my changed life that would be different but I have hundreds (all of the people whom I knew before I became a Christian).
Again, if the Truth of the Word of God is convicting you please do not blame me. I just delivered the message. You opened yourself up to the message when you wrote what you did. If you do not want to be corrected then either do not write anything or write what is correct (not so much based on your experience, I had a bad experience with a taco once but that does not mean tacos are bad).
You still have a heart of stone (it is evident). Jesus says you can know a man’s heart by what is on his lips (ie his words) because what he says comes from the heart (mind) revealing what kind of heart he has. I am just stating reality (you can choose to accept or reject). I understand cultural differences and language (I have lived in Europe). Liberal in the USA has a negative meaning because of their negative way of thinking (promoting immorality and murder). Immorality and murder do no progress a society, they digress it. I want progress but what the liberals here preach is not progress.
I have been very courteous with you. I used the word depraved because that is what the Bible says and it is a reality. I do not use it to offend you but to show you the reality of things. Again, I am not here to insult or convert. If you were insulted on my behalf I apologize. If the Word of God has insulted you then you need to deal with God and not me. Have a nice day.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
• Mark Tiedemann
Here you are playing with words. Do not just blow off my argument saying that I do not understand. I answered the question about translation so do not even go there. Did you not ask that question in order to try and get a wrong answer from me so that you could disprove my argument? How about you explain the simple physics problem first and “enlighten” me. People say the same thing about the universal (worldwide) flood in the Bible. It would cook the earth if it rained that much. Well one the mountains were not there during the flood, plus subterranean water chambers opened up to let our much of the water and the firmament that surrounded the earth collapsed. So it did not cook the earth with heat because of all the rain in the flood during the days of Noah. Were you not trying to lead me into an answer similar to that? I do study outside sources. I have had physics (secular education let’s not forget). I have not lived a sheltered religious life like you seem to think. I was a grown man before I became a Christian.
It is not about “me thinking what God says” I know what He says, it is written in black and white for the world to see. The problem is most just do not look at it in an objective. I am not using trickery. You can disagree with me all day long (good for you). I am not sharing my ideas (you did try to set a good trap though it did not work). I am a Christian because I have been born again (total life transformation). I do not just talk about the Bible I live it daily. I have many witnesses to the way that God changed my life. Evidence is proof which I have, not just empty words.
September 24th, 2008 at 11:28 am
• Mike Pulcinella
If you want to know what God says (He has spoken) look in His Word which He spoke, moved people to write exactly how He wanted It and preserved It for the ages (It was here before you and will be here after you are gone, like it or not). If you want to plug your ears and sing la la la when I speak of the Word of God then that is your choice. We all make bad choices from time to time. Just because you do not believe something that does not change the reality of things (how hard is that for you guys to understand?).
If God spoke about the children of Israel and everything is coming to pass as He said and if He spoke about changing people from the inside out (being born again) and it happens on a daily basis then how can you say that His Word is not from Him? You think people just happened to make a lot of really really good guesses. That is impossible, do the math.
I do not assume that anyone is a sinner. I know that we are all born sinners. Denying that does not change reality (once again). We are all slaves to sin from birth (ex. You do not have to teach a child to lie or steal or be selfish and self-centered, you have to teach them not to do these things, we have already been over this).
If you are not a sinner then answer a few questions honestly 1) Have you ever hated anyone? 2) Have you ever dwelt on sexual thoughts about a person who was not your spouse? 3) Have you ever told a lie (even a white lie)? 4) Have you ever worshipped and served anyone other than the God of the Bible? 5) Have you ever taken God’s name in vain (said that He cannot do what He claims)? 6) Have you ever been disobedient to your parents?
In answering those question honestly, you will know if you are a sinner or not.
God created us with His Holy Spirit in us (the original creation) so that we could have direct communion (communication) with Him. From the beginning we were created to depend on His presence. He did not need us and does not need us. He was fine without us and would be fine today without us. We need Him. When sin entered into the world the Holy Spirit of God was taken away from us and we were separated from Him because of sin (He is Holy and cannot be in the presence of sin). Jesus Christ paid the price for our sins, making it possible for us to come into God’s presence again. Through repentance and faith in Christ, God gives us His Holy Spirit again and we are made complete again (like the original creation). We still live in a body of flesh that is corrupted by sin but when God looks at us He sees the blood of Jesus Christ which washed away our sins. So, God created us to need Him (all people). There are those who realize that reality and then there are those who do not. God did not have to create us at all but He chose to do it so we live with it.
September 24th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Mark T: large fan of Banks. Is it that obvious?
September 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
• Niklaus Pfirsig
You wrote “The pharisees were attemptimg to use the law to discredit Jesus”
That is correct, they are trying to use the Word of God to justify their argument but their usage of the Word of God backfires on them because they were trying to use the Word of God against the Word of God (Jesus). This is what most of you guys do when you reference the Bible. Just like it back fired on them it backfires on you.
Your statement helps my argument, do you not see that? Not knowing what you are talking about does not negate the Word of God. Not using the Word of God correctly does not negate It either. I know that you want to justify your point but do not throw logic out the window in an attempt at justification. Keep studying though, God will use His Word in a powerful way. I am as open minded as the liberal “free thinkers” of this site. As I said, my job is not to convert you, my job is to share the message and let God does the work. There are stories of real people in real life situations that we are to learn from (ie sex is for one man and one woman in marriage). People have done some stupid things throughout history so let us learn from their mistakes and not let history repeat itself. Why promote immorality when the Bible reveals its destructive power? Learn something useful for a change.
September 24th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Sin is always bad because 1) it separates from God 2) it causes death
We will all die because we have all sinned. We have all sinned because we will all die.
The only person who had the choice was Jesus Christ. He had to sacrifice His life because otherwise He would not have died because He had never sinned.
September 24th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Erik, I’m sorry. I’ve re-read your post several times and I’m still not quite understanding your answer to my question.
If God is all powerful and could have created us as perfect in a world without sin…why didn’t he??
September 24th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
Last word to Mr Brewer:
Laying responsiblity at the feet of your god when it was you, personally, who had the nerve to label me “depraved” is childish - as is your presumption that you know me & my “heart” well enough to pass judgement on my entire being, simply because I don’t agree with your philosophy. Your apology is hollow & meaningless, as you only apologise for the secondhand effect of the word of your god and not your own actions. This gutless buck-passing of yours is, unfortunately, typical of religious fundamentalists of all stripes, regardless of the god to whom they pray. The worst part is it stains your moderate brethren - you know, the people who know when to leave others alone and don’t ram their faith down our throats at every opportunity - with your particular brand of over-inflated righteousness. If all you need to do is just spread the “Word” and leave it at that, I fail to see why you need to keep harping on it.
Now please, take your hollow, backhanded, cowardly & dishonest apology and do with it what you will. I have thus far responded only to your arguments (such as they are) and not labelled you with epithets or judged your character - you most certainly have NOT shown me that same courtesy. Additionally, you’ve elected to pass responsibility for what you personally chose to say on to your god and his word in an act of rank immaturity. You think my issue is with God? No, my issue is with dishonest & hypocritical Christians who hide behind God to absolve & excuse themselves when they’re out of line. It is beyond pathetic.
At least if I were to call somebody, hypothetically, a “mendacious blinkered ignorant hypocritical theocratic delusional dominionist creo-tarded fundamentalist stormtrooping evangeliar”, I’d bloody well take responsibility for it. Cheerfully.
But I wouldn’t do that. It’s just not nice.
September 24th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Erich, Et Al, I did a simple check and it appears that Erik Brewer is what he presents himself as. He is an evangelical Fundamentalist. Mostly harmless.
Erik Brewer. A belated congratulations on becoming a father.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
• Mike Pulcinella
God created a perfect world without sin. He gave mankind a choice to be obedient or disobedient. Man chose to be disobedient. It was/is not God’s fault.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
• Hank
I guess in your so called “Christian” days you never read Romans chapter 1. There you will find out about depravity and those who reject God get worse and worse in their depravity. I am sorry that it offends you but I cannot change the facts. I have nothing against you and hope for the best (you will truly repent) but that is up to you. I am not labling you as depraved, God does. Again, your argument is against Him and not me.
As to judging, I do not judge anybody. I am not the judge, God is. Now He does judge and has judged those who reject Him. You do not have to think like me, that is your choice. I once thought like you but I realized that I was wrong and God is right. If you do not want to receive my apology that again is your choice. I have not tried to ram my faith down anyone’s throat. I think that God is convicting you with what I write so to calm your mind you accuse me of trying to convert you and so forth. Righteousness is righteousness, there is no over or under inflation. It is like unique or dead (superlatives in themselves).
As long as you share your opinion then I have the right to write what the Word of God says. As I said, if you want me to stop then stop making false accusations about God and His Word.
With your language I can see that the Word of God has stuck a raw nerve (that is what the Word does) but then if you will allow It, the Word will heal that wound (I know, it has happened to me).
I am sorry that you have had bad experience with hypocrites but please do not put me into that category because I am not one. Again, your problem is with God (it is very evident in what you write). He would gladly resolve that problem if you would let Him.
September 25th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
• Niklaus Pfirsig
Thanks for the congrats. God blesses with the best gifts when we allow Him.
As to Fundamentalist, you can call me what you want but God calls me His child/disciple (Christian if you like).
September 26th, 2008 at 3:45 am
Let’s start a witchhunt on Erik. He’s dominating the comment preview section and my own brilliant replies just don’t show up anymore.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:59 am
“God created a perfect world without sin. He gave mankind a choice to be obedient or disobedient. Man chose to be disobedient. It was/is not God’s fault.”
But he KNEW beforehand that we were going to be disobedient, right? Or did we surprise Him?
September 26th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Mike Pulcinella
God was not surprised. He knew. I know where you are going with this flawed logic (heard it before). I am sure you want to ask, “then why did He create us if He knew that we would sin?” Good question. Would you put your child to death because you knew he may grow up and be a murderer (he would have to choose to do that but it is possible)? Would you put your child to death because you thought he may do things to cause suffering in his own life in the future?
I say that your answer would be “no”. Why? Because you want to give him a chance to do the right thing (even though you know your child will make bad decisions that will cause pain in his own life, he is human).
September 26th, 2008 at 10:25 am
So, once again Erik, I ask you to explain why he would purposely create creatures that could possibly stray from His way? This is not “flawed logic”, I know you’ve heard it before and it’s just common sense. What kind of a God are we dealing with here? Is he toying with us, or just incompetent?
To continue your child analogy, if you were like God and could create your own child to your exact specifications, would YOU include a propensity for thievery and drug addiction? I think this is a perfectly reasonable question to ask.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Mike: Your worthy question reminds me of one of Grumpypilgrim’s earlier posts: “God’s attractive nuisance: the Tree of Knowledge.”
http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/05/12/gods-attractive-nuisance-the-tree-of-knowledge/
September 26th, 2008 at 11:14 am
• Mike Pulcinella
So you are upset that God gave us free will. That is your argument. He could have made us like robots without a will but instead He gave us free will (like He has, we are made in His image). You guys scream out to be free thinkers (free will) yet your criticize God for giving us a free will to choose. Do you not see the irony in your argument? I sure do. God did not create sin, He created free will being who could choose to sin (there is a huge difference). So again, your argument falls short.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
• Erich Vieth
Your are looking at it backwards. God gave them a garden full of trees to enjoy. He also gave them free will to choose to be obedient to Him. Free will is a good thing. The problem is that mankind “chose” the wrong thing (not God’s fault). Again He could have created us to be robots without a choice or He could have forced us to be obedient but instead (free thinkers) He gave us the chance to analyze and make the right choice (is that not what you want people to do?). So the argument is not “why God” but instead “why man, did you choose so poorly”.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Erich: I know that post well and always think of it when I pose this question.
I think it’s the ultimate question. If you could create anything you wanted, why would you create THIS particular reality? If we or the universe is flawed in some way, what does that reveal about the God that created it?
To me it means that either He needs or gets enjoyment out of watching us suffer and plead for his help OR all of this stuff is out of His control which then brings into question His omnipotence.
I’m still waiting to hear a good third explanation.
September 26th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Erik Brewer wrote: “God was not surprised. He knew. … Would you put your child to death because you knew he may grow up and be a murderer (he would have to choose to do that but it is possible)? Would you put your child to death because you thought he may do things to cause suffering in his own life in the future?”
I have known of couples who wanted to have children, but because medical tests showed that they had genetic flaws that would cause any offspring to live difficult and terrible and abbreviated lives, they either chose to adopt or chose not to reproduce. Others, succumbing to their natural, insatiable “drive” to reproduce, had children anyway, with the predicted results.
According to my own value system, there is greater morality in the former example than in the latter. Did God succumb to his natural, insatiable “drive” to reproduce, resulting in “flawed” children? If his children are flawed, and he knew that they would be beforehand, then why did he have them? And is He a slave to His biological clock?
September 26th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Again, you are trying to look at our world today and assuming that it was always so. I have stated before, that would be like someone walking into a junk yard and saying that all cars must be created this way.
What we see today is not like the original creation. To assume that what we have today is what God intended is a big mistake. In fact that is why He wrote it down for us in black and white (so that we would not assume like you are doing).
Also, He did not have to provide a way out for us after we fell into sin. He could have said too bad for us but He did not. He sacrificed Himself in order to save us from our own problem (that is why He is gracious and full of mercy, not giving us what we deserve and giving us what we do not deserve). Yet if we reject the 2nd chance (Jesus Christ) there is no 3rd option.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
No Erik, I am not upset that we have free will, I merely question the intentions of a being that would toy with us in this way.
Continuing with the child analogy, what would you think of a parent that created a safe play room for a small child and then, noticing that there was a pile of knives and poison in the corner, decide to leave it there and only warn the child not to touch it? Is this not an analogy for the kind of universe you suggest exists?
I find your apologies for God to be very interesting. It’s never His fault, it’s always ours. Why do you defend a God who, to my mind, is so clearly negligent? Let me put it another way…
Why do you WANT to believe what you believe?
This is another difficult question for which I rarely get a good answer. We both know that you and I will never change each other’s minds about the subject of God or the bible one bit. Instead, I would be interested to hear if you could explore your own motivations for believing what you do. To clarify my question a bit more, consider this…
Would you act differently if it was proved tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no God and no afterlife? How would that make you feel?
September 26th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
“To assume that what we have today is what God intended is a big mistake.”
Then he f**ked up, pure and simple. I hold God to the same standards that I hold anyone. When a company goes down the tubes because of a decision made by the CEO, I’m sure the CEO didn’t intend for that to happen and for thousands of people to lose their jobs. So therefore he f**cked up.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Mike Pulcinella wrote: “Would you act differently if it was proved tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no God and no afterlife?”
It’s an interesting question, but one that can be turned-around on us nonbelievers: “Would you act differently if it was proved tomorrow beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was God and afterlife?” I’m not sure how I’d answer it.
September 26th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Comparing sharp knives with children and a tree with grown people (we have had this little talk about apples and oranges before). Good try though.
I am not defending God, I am relating to you what He has said in His own defense. Please stop confusing the two. I do not make up what I say through hours of long speculation. I am simply stating what God has already said/written in black and white for all to see.
If God does not exists then the world would not exist nor the universe so we would not have to contemplate that.
I do not believe blindly as you suppose. I am a rational person. I have put the Word of God to the test and It has passed the test every time. I have seen/experienced God work in my life. Others have seen it as well as experienced it. There is too much evidence for God to just “believe” that He does not exists.
Again, Truth is not Truth because I believe it. I believe it because it is Truth. I hope you understand the concept. I know that it is hard for someone who buys into the idea of relativism.
September 26th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Mike, I remeber a fabulous sci-fi book about a guy who “wins” a prize and spends the rest of the book running around the universe. In his trips he runs into God and there’s a hilarious description of how the Earth was made form scrap parts sold by a planet parts seller to a crazy old guy with a beard! Klarmann would probably remember it’s title, i don’t.
Still a practicing Catholic!
September 26th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
WORST non-answer to my question EVER! Erik, you have an imagination don’t you? You’ve read fiction? Watched fictional movies and TV? I’m sure you have. Speculate. Imagine for me for one minute that you wake up one morning, the universe still exists, you still exist and the newspaper headlines prove without question that God does not exist. It’s a thought experiment.
What would you do? How would you feel? Will you imagine that scenario for me? I am asking you to contemplate that.
Obviously what I am trying to get at is your inner, personal reasons for wanting to believe as you do, whether what you believe is true or false. I will accept for a moment that you have definitive proofs that God has spoken to you from the Bible. That’s fine. But close the bible. Set it down for a moment, imagine, and talk to me.
September 26th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Edgar, that is a good question and I’m a little disappointed that Erik didn’t ask it. I fully expected him to.
My answer is simple…no different. I wouldn’t change a thing.
However, I would be very excited to find that there is a God because MAN do I have some questions for Him!
September 26th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
• Mike Pulcinella
You wrote “When a company goes down the tubes because of a decision made by the CEO”
Here is the problem that I have been saying all along. You assume that God messed things up. The Bible says that God made the world perfect. Man’s choice to sin caused the catastrophe, not God. God warned man ahead of time what the consequences would be (as He always does) and gave man the choice. Again, please realize that what your saying is wrong. God did not mess up anything.
September 26th, 2008 at 10:36 pm
• Mike Pulcinella
You call it a non-answer because you cannot argue against it. The better thing would be to say “God is right and I am wrong” but that is impossible for you because that destroys your worldview.
Yes I have an imagination. Imagine saying that tomorrow what if we wake up and there is no oxygen (that is the problem, you would not wake up, it is impossible) It is the same way with God. It is impossible to prove that God does not exist so imagining it makes no sense (again, see the oxygen explanation).
I used to live in my own little world where I said that God did not exist. I woke up to reality after that and I saw how ridiculous my ideas about God were (before I knew Him personally).
I do not “want” to believe. I believe because of what I know (from the Word) what I have seen (in the world around me) and what I have experienced (my radical life transformation along with the lives of so many others). Again, it is not true because I believe it, I believe it because it is True (if you can understand that then you know where I am coming from). God has chosen to reveal Himself in Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ and the Word (Bible) are the same, therefore, asking me to close the Bible is impossible. My ideas about God are not worth anything. God’s ideas about Himself are what are important so I do not rely on my own ideas (understanding) but on what He has revealed in His Word.
September 26th, 2008 at 11:26 pm
I could have predicted and scripted the above answer. Erik, I think I know you pretty well at this point. Here’s what drives you:
It is obvious that god exists.
God is always right.
If ever anyone disagrees with you about God, they are wrong and you are right.
The Bible is literally true and provides the answers to all the important questions one might have, if one would only open one’s heart to God.
God is especially bothered by skeptics, sex outside of marriage, and homosexuals.
You’re not open to change or even doubt of any sort.
I can’t buy into any of these propositions. It seems like we’ve come full circle 18 times already. It doesn’t seem to be the basis for any meaningful discussion. Why don’t you just, from now on, indicate that you’ve already said everything that matters to you rather than writing it out again and again?
I’m not trying to be rude or insulting. It seems to me, though, that the willingness of all participants to consider something other than what they already believe is a prerequisite to having a meaningful conversation. Wouldn’t you agree?
September 27th, 2008 at 5:35 am
Mike Pulcinella wrote: “My answer is simple…no different. I wouldn’t change a thing.”
I thought about it overnight, and my answer would be different than yours. The situation would be rather like life under a cruel, sadistic dictator — I’d do whatever I had to do to stay alive; I’d do my best to keep from drawing attention to myself; I’d do everything I could to undermine his power, and I’d resent Him to the depths of my being.
“However, I would be very excited to find that there is a God because MAN do I have some questions for Him!”
More than questions; He could use a good dressing-down for allowing the world to become so messed-up.
Now back to the original, non-inverted question, though: What would Erik do differently? Absent the “moral” code of the Bible, would he go on a rampage of “immorality”? What would stop him? I know what stops me: a sense of right and wrong that exists without, or perhaps in spite of, the Bible.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:25 am
And so with Erik’s latest non-answer we hit the wall, as I knew we would. I too feel like we are on a carousel with this conversation, but I had to push it for my own benefit.
Erik counters all challenges to his worldview with the same argument. There is no development in his thinking, no change, no room for doubt. Everything has been figured out, put in its proper place and Erik refuses to even take an idea off the shelf and look at it from a fresh perspective.
Erik’s refusal to even CONSIDER answering my question is very psychologically revealing. He cannot consider a universe without God because everything will come tumbling down for him and he may revert to the “slave of sin” that he once was.
Earlier in this thread I called Erik “stupid”. (For the record, I didn’t call him stupid. I said he was obviously “too smart to be that stupid”.) I apologized for that but I won’t apologize for what I am about to say next. It is something I have thought about Erik and people like him for a long time but kept to myself because I was afraid it would come off the wrong way.
Erik is weak and I am strong.
It doesn’t matter whether God is real or not. That is immaterial to this point. What matters, and what Erik has stated over and over again, is that he could not live without his belief in God. I can. He needs something that I don’t in order to survive and therefore I am stronger than he is.
I’m not trying to insult Erik or anyone, and certainly there are worse things one can say about another. It is just the only conclusion I can reach after having had this same conversation with many staunchly religious people over the years. The vehemence with which they defend the absurdities inherent in their beliefs reminds me too much of the battered wife defending an abusive husband because she has nowhere else to go.
September 27th, 2008 at 8:48 am
• Erich Vieth </