But, 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
Aussie! Aussie! Aussie!
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).
Erik Brewer, meet Hank. Hank, meet Erik Brewer.
Somehow, I feel a bit responsible for what's about to happen . . .
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.
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.sto…
Please do not give me a long diatribe about how God cannot be a rock. My beliefs are set in stone.
Well now, that's that. Great post, and very good dismissal of the current antagonist. Looking forward to your next words of wisdom.
Welcome Hank! Great first post. I see you've met Erik.
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!
"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.
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.
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.
http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/12/20/post-…
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.
• 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).
• 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.
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.
Are you Erik? 😀 He really posted many many comments recently.
I think someone missed his medications.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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).
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?