Ah, the life of a pastor’s kid!
I grew up in Cambridge, Minnesota – a town of 5,000 people and 22 Christian churches. My father was (and still is) pastor of a small church. My mother volunteered to support Christian missionaries around the world.
I went to church, Bible study, and other church functions every week. I prayed often and earnestly. For 12 years I attended a Christian school that taught Bible classes and creation science. I played in worship bands. As a teenager I made trips to China and England to tell the atheists over there about Jesus.
I felt the presence of God. Sometimes I would tingle and sweat with the Holy Spirit. Other times I felt led by Him to give money to a certain cause, or to pay someone a specific compliment, or to walk to the cross at the front of my church and bow before it during a worship service.
Around age 19 I got depressed, probably because I did nothing but work at Wal-Mart, download music, and watch internet porn. But one day I saw a leaf twirling in the wind and it was so beautiful – like the twirling plastic bag in the movie American Beauty. I had an epiphany. I realized that everything in nature was a gift from God to me. Grass, lakes, trees, sunsets – all these were gifts of beauty from my Savior to me. I thought of this every time I saw something beautiful, and God delivered me from my depression (and my porn addiction).
I read Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy, a manual for how to fall in love with God so that following his ways is not a burden, but a natural and painless product of loving God. My dad and I read lots of this Christian self-help stuff. We shared our latest discoveries with each other and debated theology.
I moved to Minneapolis for college and was attracted to a Christian group led by Mark van Steenwyk. Mark’s small group of well-educated Jesus-followers were postmodern, “missional” Christians: they thought loving and serving others in the way of Jesus was more important than doctrinal truth. That resonated with me, and we lived it out with the poor immigrants of Minneapolis.
The seeds of doubt
By this time I had little interest in church structure or petty doctrinal disputes. I just wanted to be like Jesus. So I decided I should try to find out who Jesus actually was. I began to study the Historical Jesus.
What I learned, even when reading Christian scholars, shocked me. The gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death, by non-eyewitnesses. They are riddled with contradictions, legends, and known lies. Jesus and Paul disagreed on many core issues. And how could I accept the miracle claims about Jesus when I outright rejected other ancient miracle claims as superstitious nonsense?
These discoveries scared me. It was not what I had wanted to learn. But now I had to know the truth. I studied the Historical Jesus, the history of Christianity, the Bible, theology, and the philosophy of religion. Almost everything I read – even the books written by conservative Christians – gave me more reason to doubt, not less.
I started to panic. I felt like my best friend – my source of purpose and happiness and comfort – was dying. And worse, I was killing him. If only I could have faith! If only I could unlearn all these things and just believe. I cried out with the words from Mark 9:24, “Lord, help my unbelief!”
I tried. For every atheist book I read, I read five books by the very best Christian philosophers. The atheists made plain, simple sense, and the Christian philosophers were lost in fog of big words that tried to hide the weakness of their arguments.
I did everything I could to keep my faith. But I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t force myself to believe what I knew wasn’t true. On January 11, 2007, I whispered to myself: “There is no God.”
The next day I emailed my buddy Mark:
I didn’t want to bother you, but I’m lost and despairing and I could really use your help, if you can give it.
I made a historical study of Jesus, which led me to a study of the Bible, historical and philosophical arguments for and against God, atheist arguments, etc. It has destroyed my faith. I think there is almost certainly not a God…
I’m fucking miserable… I told my parents and they sobbed for 30 minutes. Can you help me?
As always, Mark responded with love and honesty. But he didn’t give me any reasons to believe. He said he believed mostly for the “aesthetics of belief” and his “somewhat mystical experiences of Christ.” He wrote, “In a way, I am a Christian because I want to be one, and the logic flows from there.”
I also wrote a defiant email to an atheist radio show host to whom I’d been listening, Matt Dillahunty:
I was coming from a lifetime high of surrendering… my life to Jesus, releasing myself from all cares and worries, and filling myself and others with love. Then I began an investigation of the historical Jesus… and since then I’ve been absolutely miserable. I do not think I am strong enough to be an atheist. Or brave enough. I have a broken leg, and my life is much better with a crutch… I’m going to seek genuine experience with God, to commune with God, and to reinforce my faith. I am going to avoid solid atheist arguments, because they are too compelling and cause for despair. I do not WANT to live in an empty, cold, ultimately purposeless universe in which I am worthless and inherently alone.
I hope that I find a real, true God in my journey of blind faith. I do not need to convince you of that God, since you seem satisfied as an atheist. But I need to convince myself of that God.
Matt responded to my every sentence with care, understanding, and reason. But I still tried to hang onto my faith. For a while I read nothing but Christian authors. Even the smartest ones just made lots of noise about “the mystery of God.” They used big words so that it sounded like they were saying something precise and convincing.
My dad told me I had been led astray because I was arrogant to think I could get to truth by studying. Humbled and encouraged, I started a new quest to find God. I wrote on my blog:
I’ve been humbled. I was “doing discipleship” in my own strength, because I thought I was smart enough and disciplined enough. [Now] having surrendered my prideful and independent ways to him, I can see how my weakness is God’s strength.
I’ve repented. I was deceived because I did not let the Spirit lead me into truth. Now I ask for God’s guidance in all quests for knowledge and wisdom.
I feel like I’ve been born again, again.
It didn’t last. Every time I reached out for some reason – any reason – to believe, God simply wasn’t there. I tried to believe despite the evidence, but I couldn’t believe a lie. Not anymore.
No matter how much I missed him, I couldn’t bring Jesus back to life.
Later…
I don’t recall how it happened, but eventually I found out that I could be more happy and moral without God than I ever was with him. I “came out” as an atheist to my family, friends, and church. They were surprised, but they still loved me. They were much more concerned when two elders of my church decided they were Catholic. I bonded with them briefly because the three of us were suddenly outcasts.
I had stubbornly resisted my deconversion, but these days I am excited to accept reality, no matter what it is. I remember when I finally realized the problems inherent to my precious Libertarianism. I was not dismayed or resistant; I was thrilled.
This comfort with truth unleashed my curiosity about Christianity and religion in full force. In my studies I uncovered lots of false facts and dishonest arguments from Christians and atheists. Each discovery only deepened my hunger for knowledge, but also my realization that humans know very little, and with little certainty.
Looking back
In many ways I regret my Christian upbringing. So much time and energy wasted on an invisible friend. So many bad lessons about morality, thinking, and sex. So much needless guilt.
But mostly I’m glad this is my story. Now I know what it’s like to be a true believer. I know what it’s like to fall in love with God and serve him with all my heart. I know what’s it like to experience his presence.
I know what it’s like to isolate one part of my life from reason or evidence, and I know what it’s like to think that is a virtue. I know what it’s like to earnestly seek the truth but still be totally deluded.
I know what it’s like to think that what I believe, or what my loving pastor says, or what my ancient book says, is more true than what reason and evidence say. I know what it’s like to think faith is a strength, not a gullible weakness.
I know what it’s like to be confused by the Trinity, the failure of prayers, or Biblical contradictions but to genuinely embrace them as the mystery of God. I know what it’s like to believe God is so far beyond human reason that we can’t understand him, but at the same time to fiercely believe I know the details of how he wants us to behave.
That was my experience for 22 years, and I am grateful for it. Now I can approach believers with true understanding.
Previous post: What Do You Mean, “Common Sense” Atheism?
Next post: The History of Historical Jesus Research



{ 757 comments… read them below or add one }
Hey, I had been waiting awhile now for your new site, looks good so far. Just wanted to say hey, and to tell you to keep up the good thought provoking work.
matt(Quote)
Great. Thanks for sayin’ “hey.”
lukeprog(Quote)
Just to clarify, while I indeed do believe that “I am a Christian because I want to be one, and the logic flows from there” I believe that everyone’s logic flows from desire. Aesthetics conditions everyone’s belief. We encounter truth because we long for truth (longing being a category of theological aesthetics, it seems to me), and that longing conditions our encounter of truth. I believe in Christ because, in my longing for truth, I haven encountered his glory and presence in ways that I believe are every bit as valid as other sensory perceptions. So, when I speak of the aesthetics of belief, I am saying that just as many materialists only believe in what can be experienced by the senses, I believe that my aesthetic encounters with God condition and shape my perception of reality.
Mark Van Steenwyk(Quote)
Thanks for clarifying, Mark.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi, I came across your site while trying to find good audiobooks I can download. I am sad that you have to turn from God. I can see that you are such a brilliant man, an intelligent one, and I believe God will speak to you (or have already been speaking), I jsut pray you will find it in you to listen to Him. I am not going to start a discussion, or any debate, as I know I will never win, but I will be praying for you, Luke.
You are loved.
Michelle(Quote)
Hey Luke
What an interesting piece. Man you real deep. Well i guess i can share a few of your thoughts coz we lived together through some of these times and im sure we all had our moments where we faced a crossroad and we had to make a choice based on belief or anyother reason. Personally im still a christian who is trying to fight the good fight. I stumble, i fall, i complain, i wonder, i despair, i almost quit, i quit sometimes, i have problems believing somethings (eg like whether the sabbath is really on saturday or sunday try and figure that one and let me know what you find out)and so many other things bro. But i get up cry before God almighty, deal with my guilty conscious coz of what i believe God has done for me and whether im anywhere near deserving of how he continues to love me, and i move on live to fight another day. There is so much out in the world that has us thinking and i know it can get to a point where you just fill like doing your own thing coz its so mixed up but thats where faith comes in. Chrisitans like me and others have put in our fare share of not living our lives like christ did (for example by not loving those gay people you where with in the movie but continously rideculiong them)and this has done more harm than good, but one thing im sure of is that we know our hearts and God is the other being who knows them. We know our convictions and God is the other being who knows them and sooner or later God and those two areas of our live will seat down and have a meeting just the three of them, no aethism, no new age stuff, no nothing and we shall be still and know that God is God. I still love you bro always have and always will no matter what. You guys really left an imprint on my life. Let me leave you with two things to think about:
“if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything”
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
Later
YOur bro and a believer who is struggling to live like christ and never wants to be seperated from the love of God. Hell aint got nothing on that kind of seperation.
kenneth Omoding(Quote)
Kenneth,
If you live like Jesus you will do the world a favor. Don’t let me dissuade you from that!
“if you dont believe in something you will fall for anything”
I disagree. I try not to “believe” things in general unless they are well-evidenced. That is exactly what keeps me from falling for everything.
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
Yes, and that is exactly the problem with faith. It is wishful thinking and invisible (non-)”evidence.”
Kenneth, you’re a great guy and becoming greater. So was Gandhi. But he was wrong about the Hindu gods existing. And you are wrong about the Christian gods (Yahweh and Yeshua).
P.S. I’m pretty sure the Sabbath is Saturday. That’s what it was for hundreds of years before Christians moved their Sabbath to Sunday sometime in the 3rd century C.E. :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Wasup Luke
Thanks for the reply well im not really trying to do the world a favour by trying to live like jesus. That would end in utter misery!I think its more about a relationship. about faith thats the reason that has been given a lot, tangibility and evidence hard facts for the eye to see etc well then it wouldnt be faith at allthen right, i think feeling insecure is one of the hardest things to accept or live with and the we try to feel that hole with evidence, facts etc not to feel vulnerable unyet the idea behind a relationship with christ is to yield ones life to him. Once you do that you begin to experience change. Well personally i dont think im much of a great anything, i just have a great God who continues to love me and show me grace when im down, tired and weak. Well evidence will not prove whether i am wrong about God. Im right about one thing, the christian faith has taken a lot of heat (like no other) about a lot of things whether they are factual, spiritual, traditional and all. Something has to be right for it to be such a threat. about the sabbath i think i agree with you. Tradition (not necessarily christians)changed a lot of things that we may be following sheepishly. God help us. I’ll approach a friend of mine with that could you direct me to some resources (bible related) that touches on that topic?
I remain your bro
Ken
P.S. i like the pics man what are you eating you are growing taller unless im dwarfing lol!!!!!!!
Kenneth Omoding(Quote)
Kenneth,
Some Sabbath learning comin’ at you:
http://www.sabbathtruth.com/history/sabbath_history1.asp
http://www.giveshare.org/HolyDay/historysabbath/
http://www.amazon.com/Sabbath-History-William-Congdon/dp/881669999X
But don’t trust anything you read. :)
lukeprog(Quote)
I believe the distinctives of Christianity, as described by Paul in Athens as recorded in the book of Acts, are well characterized as hypotheses that cannot be verified in their truth value in this life-time.
I don’t believe there would be any cause to remember them if Jesus had not died and rose again and that the concrete referents of this stem from the witness of followers of Christ. I believe once we control for the impact of the Constantinization of Christianity that the effects are pretty impressive. It is mainly when monotheism is coupled with imperialism that tragedy strikes, this has been exacerbated by virtue of how our progress in understanding of the physical world has not been matched by progress in loving our neighbors. I also think the Bible’s aesthetics are absolutely wonderful and under gird much that is good in our world. I love how it is the only religious book that requires people to understand the geography of a place. I think it contains the roots of our understanding of History and much else…
Here’s where I describe my views at Recovering Evangelical.
http://www.recoveringevangelical.com/profile/dlw
peace out.
dlw(Quote)
Hey i just read your story…actually religion need not be so mysterious..
God has given us the ability to reason and understand…
I have gone through some of the same situations in life as you have gone through and I returned back to my religion (islam) the same way you returned back to christianity.
But i didn’t find anything mysterious in my religion, everything was clear and i had better understanding of other religions and it had been corrupted over time. so why don’t you try out researching on this religion, islam which i believe to be the true religion of God, which was preached by noah, moses, abraham,solomon, jonah, other prophets and finally by muhammad.
This religion is based on reasoning and wisdom and not on blind faith
rashid(Quote)
Thanks for making this incredible resource. From your story it sounds as if we have very similar upbringings. I feel as if I was raised in a bubble of insular Christian thinking, and all bubbles pop. Because I was raised with so much theology, now that I’m on the other side of the fence I thirst to balance all the arguments and knowledge. 80% of my reading in the past year has been books about atheism and the origins of religion. I feel like I’ve stumbled upon an incredible secret, but nobody seems to care about it.
Thanks for the resources, good luck with your book,
Matt
Matt M(Quote)
Luke, I read your story and also your link about your studies of Jesus. Lots of information there. In your story you seem to be curious about the experience of others who leave fervent Christian religion. You might be interested in exChristian.net. I’m not sure how this software works so I’ll type out the address and hope it posts:
http://www.ex-christian.net
There’s a Testimonies section where people who used to be Christians can post their life stories if they want to. Many people find that section helpful when they first arrive. The purpose of the website/forums is to support exChristians and provide resources for people who have deconverted. Anyone is welcome to read but certain sections are not open for Christians to post.
rsmartin(Quote)
rsmartin,
Thanks, I did post this story verbatim to ex-christian.net as well. There are many good testimonies there.
lukeprog(Quote)
hi luke. just read your story. just a question, on your quest for truth about the historical jesus, what’s the strongest evidence you’ve met that caused your ‘deconversion’?
jared(Quote)
jared,
It certainly wasn’t one single fact, but hundreds and hundreds. Basically, Christianity looks very much like just another religion invented by ancient, ignorant, superstitious people. Its claims about the universe are numerously false – until they are reluctantly rewritten to keep up with science, which has only made God smaller, less active, and more hidden.
In regards to the historical Jesus, one of the most disturbing things for me AT THE TIME were the contradictions between the mission of Jesus and the mission of Paul. Christianity should be called Paulinism. Paul and his followers killed the Jesus movement in the 1st century.
Another major problem is that the gospels are the only evidence for the resurrection claim, and yet they are hearsay upon hearsay – literally, a double hearsay. It wouldn’t even be admitted in court, and yet it is not just supposed to be the “strong” evidence for something that happens all the time (theft, murder, whatever), but instead it’s supposed to be the “strong” evidence for something that NEVER happens, contradicts everything we DO know, and postulates all kinds of unnecessary and unknown assumptions: the magical resurrection of Jesus into a new magical body that can walk through walls, appear and disappear, and fly off into the sky!
(Where the heck was Jesus going, anyway? The people at the time thought heaven was just above the clouds, but we’ve checked now and it’s not there. Did Jesus fly off into the sky for a good show, and then when he got into the stratosphere he said, “Okay, now is far enough,” and then he vanished into that magical other-realm called heaven?)
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke thanks for the response.
On paragraph 1, you say Christianity was an invention. What made you think so? If you can recommend me a good reading about it, that would be fine. With regards to Christianity keeping up with science, what about the consensus among the philosophers of science that “modern” science is built on the Christian framework and that “mostly” if not all of the pioneer for modern science are Christians?
On paragraph two, i would like to share with you this link http://www.christian-thinktank.com/muslix.html by glen miller. Maybe you’re already familiar with him.
And the third, supposed miracles are possible, how do you find the “evidences” and conclusion being presented by Habermas, Licona and that of Craig?
jared(Quote)
What do I recommend? Hmmm. Perhaps “Deconstructing Jesus” by Robert Price.
I love Miller’s site. Of course I’ll have to write some posts about Paul vs. Jesus, when I have time.
Habermas, Licona, Craig. I’m sure I’ll eventually write hundreds of posts responding to their claims. For now, I’d point you to:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi Luke, welcome to the club. Congrats on making it through it. It’s a tough journey; I know, because I went through so much of the same thing you did. And since letting go of my blind faith, I’m a much happier person.
Jeff
p.s. There’s a huge community on Facebook of people like us. You’re welcome to add me at tinyurl.com/FormerXianFB.
Jeffrey Mark(Quote)
By the way, to respond to Jared’s question, I devoted about 70 pages of my book about why Christianity was an invention. It’s called Christian No More and you can find it here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0981631304
Jeff
Jeffrey Mark(Quote)
I thought you might enjoy the William Lane Craig/Richard Carrier Debate.
http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/Craig-Car…
Bob(Quote)
Yeah, it was alright. I am subscribed to Brian's “Apologetics 315″ blog, of course.
lukeprog(Quote)
Do you believe in love?
Joe Allen(Quote)
Wow lukeprog. Your story makes me very sad, I'm not gonna lie. But the Atheist Experience is not what I'd call deep-thinking atheism (given the numerous interactions I've had with them in their own comboxes), to be perfectly honest, but I guess it's better (by “better” I mean more thought-provoking) than listening to Dan Barker, though he's closer to you, up in Wisconsin. If I may ask, when have you subjected your new faith to the same scrutiny (selective though it was) to which you subjected Christianity? How did you go about doing so?
Rhology(Quote)
Interesting story, I can relate to most of it. Born into a nearly 100% evangelical family, I grew up in a communist country, so there was always a tension between the “official” life and the closest friends and family but I´m thankful for the experience of living in a smaller group that´s convinced of having a certain truth and is under pressure from people who think differently and are just as well convinced of having discovered fundamental truths everybody should believe in.
I always thought that my faith should be logical and backed up with evidence, so, even during the long time I was a very sincere christian, I usually hesitated to use the backdoor provided by gods almighty powers and our limited knowledge of his ways to explain things in the bible or in theology that seemed contradicting or strange to me, but since I didnt question the foundations of my believes I could cover everything up in the end.
Still, research on different religions, churches and sects brought me step by step to a more liberal view on faith. I still was absolutely sure that the christian god existed and Jesus was his son who died for our sins, but since there were so many different faith systems dealing differently with what to think and belief beyond that, all relying on the same sources I kind of created my own interpretation. One reason for that: as I said before, in contrast to probably most amercan readers of the blog, I was “surrounded” by atheists or at least nonbelievers, knew several of them very well and the were childhood friends. I found them to be basically just as “normal” and “good” or “bad” as the christians I knew and I had problems believing that an just god would sent them to hell for all eternity just for nor believing.
I liked the talmudic concept of the seven laws of noah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Laws_of_Noah because it provided the possibility for everybody to get into heaven whether or not he was the member of a certain religion. I just tried to be a good person and selected the bible quotes that seemed to encourage that and the rest of my views, just like everybody else did.
More research especially during my time at the university led me to read and write about different “quacks” and pseudoscientific systems. Thats when I learned to use the tools of science, logic and reason more systematically than before, to be able to tell good evidenve from bad evidence logical reasoning from unsubstantial claims and so on. There are basic problems with close to all that systems inculding religions (you described it here yourself) but I still somehow tried not to use that tools on MY beliefs, probably because I got told (like most christians) through most of my life that christianity is NOT a religion lik others even if it seems to be. But I got to a point where I couldn´t justify that special treatment anymore and had to question even the foundations and I found them to be the same as in any other system, coming to the conclusions that they are most likely all incorrent and that so far theres no real evidence for the existence of any of the gods.
Long story short: I share your basically positive experiences with my faith (there are a lot of different stories of course), and I didn´t “let god go” because I didn´t want to be controlled anymore or hated him because he didnt help me in a bad situation or because he was in my way to self-fulfillment. I just had to be honest to myself.
MountainKing(Quote)
Great story!
lukeprog(Quote)
Thank you. And congratz to your blog, I really like that you are trying to be fair to everyone and willing to kick bad arguing and easily self-satisfied atheists in the b… if necessary. We need to check and recheck our arguments and sources and the way we present them just as good as everyone else.
MountainKing(Quote)
Sounds kinda like me, except I wasn't a PK and I didn't read quite as much as you until after I deconverted.
Your blog is my new favorite.
John Mark(Quote)
I was wondering if you are a homosexual?
Jake Tasser(Quote)
Nope!
lukeprog(Quote)
I lived in Minnesota for 6 years and nearly stopped believing in God as a result. That is a Godawful, God-forsaken climate.
muddle(Quote)
Ha!
lukeprog(Quote)
Lukeprog,
Thanks for your informative website. I love atheist/theist debates and found your website a couple of months ago. In your review of the Craig/Hitchens debate, you wrote a question that you would like to have asked Dr. Craig and I’d like to take a crack at it. Your question concerned whether objective moral values exist apart from God (here you point to Craig’s answer to question 61 on his website regarding abortion) or whether they are grounded in God. In answering question 61, Craig writes that abortion is wrong because human life has intrinsic moral value. As you point out, Craig seems to imply that we know that human life has intrinsic value apart from knowing anything about God. But if this is the case, then in what sense are objective moral values grounded in God?
I think what Craig would say is that we do have knowledge of objective moral values independent of any knowledge of God. This knowledge includes the proposition that human life has intrinsic value. However, there is no foundation for this knowledge outside of God. In other words, while we know that human life has intrinsic value, we can’t explain why human life has intrinsic value outside of God. (Whereas, under Christianity, human life has intrinsic value because God has created humanity in His image in order that we might spend eternity with God in the hereafter). Thus objective moral values are grounded in God’s nature, although we have knowledge of these values independent of any knowledge of God. As a result, I don’t think there is any contradiction between Craig’s statement that we know human life has intrinsic value and his argument that objective morality has to be grounded in God’s nature. What do you think?
cato(Quote)
“Intrinsic value” is not about epistemology, but ontology. If something has intrinsic value, it’s value does not depend on anything outside it – like the opinion or nature of God.
lukeprog(Quote)
this is an excellent website Luke. Truth is everything, and your aching to find and only believe and drink from its fountain is admirable. i have gone through very similar doubts and have come to other conclusions, but i resonate completely with your refusal to believe in something that doesn’t correspond to reality. You are a critical thinker to be sure…i would think you might want to consider a masters or PHD in philosophy or philosophy of religion.
May the truth continue to run wild in your life!
-mark
mark almlie(Quote)
mark almlie, thanks for the encouragement!
lukeprog(Quote)
Thank you for sharing your story. I’m so glad you found happiness in atheism!
Keri(Quote)
Hiya Luke. I just now read your deconversion story (can’t believe it took me this long) and it’s very touching. Thank you for sharing. :) I also listen to the Atheist Experience and Non-Prophets religiously. If I can use the term. :)
Eneasz(Quote)
Luke, let me share something with you. I am a police detective in a major city in our nation. Yesterday I appeared in court. An assistant state attorney looked at me, as I was leaving and said, “Have a good holiday detective.” I had NO idea what she was talking about. I asked her what holiday she was talking about. She told me, “Easter.” I was curious. I asked her what exactly Easter meant to celebrate. She told me it is the celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I told her thank you and that I always wanted to ask someone that question. She then asked me if I am Muslim and if not, how I could not have known the purpose of Easter. I told her I have never been religious. She became very annoyed. She pressed the issue. She then asked me why I do not believe. I told her for the same reason I do not believe in Frodo the Hobbit, alien abductions, werewolves, vampires, or the Blair Witch. She looked at me like I was insane. I then realized something. This woman had never met an out of the closet atheist. I want the religious people out there to know something. There are those of us in the world, who are atheist, who have no problem admitting it. I have no problem with laughing out loud when someone makes a bold claim to KNOW the existence of something supernatural. I have no problem completely disregarding emotional unfounded beliefs in things for which there is NO evidence. I find it fascinating that religious people get a pass. If you say something is true, demonstrate that it is. I am glad you shed your christianity. I am sorry for the pain of the transformation. I am happy for you.
Bobby(Quote)
Bobby, that is wonderful. Thank you.
lukeprog(Quote)
Great article. I’m curious, as someone who went through a similar journey: do you still find a place for ecstatic experiences in your life? Something I’ve observed about a lot of the people making a transition to atheism is that even when they avoid the pitfalls of reactionary anger, they carry it to the point of rejecting every part of their lives that smacks of mysticism or superstition. And in the process, they miss out on the intensely human experience of spiritual ecstasy, even though ecstasy is orthogonal to dogmatic belief. I’d be curious to read your take on this topic.
Avdi(Quote)
Avdi,
I’m quite fond of ecstasy. :)
Though, I don’t get it from delusions of magical realities, nor even through drugs. But that’s just my choice.
lukeprog(Quote)
So what’s your chosen avenue? Mountain climbing? Meditation? Live music shows? Just curious.
Avdi(Quote)
Oh, goodness. The right music can definitely move into a kind of “transcendent” experience. Good sex can, too. Arriving at previously unseen wonders of natural beauty can also do the trick, though I haven’t had much time for travel recently.
lukeprog(Quote)
lukeprog,
you’re a kid. kid’s are supposed to run around and question reality and life and god. everybody knows this. you’re asking god to give you questions to answers that didn’t even exist 50 years ago.
if you ask me it’s about trust. right now you’re young and strong and invincible and there’s no reason not to trust yourself. but like most things in this short miserable life, you’ll learn you can’t even trust yourself. every whim, ache and desire coming from your body is a clear signpost but to what I’m afraid only you can discover yourself. You’re questioning things, great but you’re no intellectual giant. neither am i – no big deal. you have a lot of life ahead of you. I came to the same exact conclusions when I was your age. let me know how your quest for morality without god works out.
mstott25(Quote)
mstott25,
Why should I trust in Yahweh? Why not science? Or Vahiguru? Or nothing? Or Allah?
It doesn’t take an intellectual giant to realize that Zeus does not exist.
lukeprog(Quote)
lukeprog,
well uh…that’s kind of my point. You are going to trust in something, that much is obvious. Whether it’s science, or Allah or your own ability to reason and interpret life. No matter what path you decide to take you’ll never be certain about anything. No matter how you try to explain reality or your personal experiences you will always have to draw the answers from sort of backdrop or meta-narrative. There’s a reason you wake up and get on the computer and talk about why you aren’t a Christian anymore. There’s a reason why you, me and everybody else performs certain habits every single day of our lives. You can try to explain it with science, or music, or art or any other medium you please. Science can tell you many things but it can’t tell you how to stay in love. Survival of the fittest explains many things but it cannot explain why humans retained an obvious penchant for wasting time and energy by attributing certain acts of worship to a non-existent god. You will have just as many questions about reality and life as a materialist than you ever did as a Christian. Furthermore what really makes me sad is seeing you fall into this same crowd of dreamers who sit around and fantasize about stumping William Lane Craig! C’mon man, you have a lot more potential than that. Everybody writes these articles and makes these claims and when they finally get a chance to encounter Craig they get annihilated. If you’re not a Christian anymore then get away from this stuff; go study architecture or economics but don’t be delusional like all of these other internet warriors who dream about being the long awaited atheist messiah that finally stumps William Lane Craig.
I’ll quit now because you remind me of myself and I know how useless all of this is. I wish we could hang out for a while, I wish I could show you some things about life and things away from the classroom and the library but you have your own journey. I promise you one day you will realize that your days of doing “nothing but work at Wal-Mart, download music, and watch internet porn” were hardly the definition of a healthy Christian life.
Sorry this was so long and I wish we could have had this conversation at Starbucks since I’m aware it sounds much more abrasive in this format. I wish you luck and I’m glad you’re going through this whole thing while you’re still at a young age and able to come out with a lot of life left on the other end. take care man.
mstott25(Quote)
“Science can tell you many things but it can’t tell you how to stay in love.”
Are you kidding? Yes it can! It can do so much better than any other method!
“Survival of the fittest explains many things but it cannot explain why humans retained an obvious penchant for wasting time and energy by attributing certain acts of worship to a non-existent god.”
Um, well… no, that’s because survival of the fittest isn’t all that’s going on.
“You will have just as many questions about reality and life as a materialist than you ever did as a Christian.”
Yup!
“Furthermore what really makes me sad is seeing you fall into this same crowd of dreamers who sit around and fantasize about stumping William Lane Craig! C’mon man, you have a lot more potential than that.”
Um, really I don’t. I just engage with him because unlike many philosophers – Christian or otherwise – he make coherent arguments. I do have more potential then that, and I think it might be in the realm of meta-ethics, but I have a lot of studying to do…
“don’t be delusional like all of these other internet warriors who dream about being the long awaited atheist messiah that finally stumps William Lane Craig.”
Lol, indeed! It’s like the theists who post excited YouTube videos about stumping Dawkins, which is much easier than stumping Craig anyway…
“you will realize that your days of doing “nothing but work at Wal-Mart, download music, and watch internet porn” were hardly the definition of a healthy Christian life. ”
Oh, I realized that at the time, trust me. Those were my dark days, before my re-awakening, before I fell in love with God and did my best to shed sin.
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke
I just came across your website and story, and found it very interesting. I was interested that the key factor for your conversion to atheism was questioning the historical basis for belief in Jesus, for I went through a similar process but with different result. I hope you’ll be interested in my story.
I was not brought up in a christian home, but I was sent to Sunday School and by 17 I had committed myself to following Jesus. Like you, I was troubled by the apparent discrepancy between evangelical christian teaching and what I found in the gospels. So, like you, I started reading what historians and theologians were saying.
But, unlike you, I found satisfactory and indeed inspiring answers. I read theologians like AM Hunter, and for the first time understood Jesus in his Jewish context, and it excited me. And I later read historians like Michael Grant, an expert in the Roman Empire, and found that secular historians (even unbelieving ones like Grant) took the gospels etc quite seriously as historical sources, even though they didn’t regard the Bible as inerrant or inspired.
I will comment on this in more detail elsewhere, but the result was that I was confirmed in my understanding that Biblical inerrancy was not itself claimed by the Bible writers, but also confirmed in my understanding that it is historically sensible to believe that Jesus existed and did and said much of what the gospels say about him. Whether one believes he did miracles, rose from the dead, or was the Son of God are, of course, matters which the historical method cannot address, but historians can confirm that christians believed in these things from the very first, and so they are not later legends.
So I stayed a believer, with a strong interest in history and philosophy. I guess the interesting question (which I don’t have an answer for) is why you and I, faced with similar evidence, came to such different conclusions? Any thoughts?
Best wishes.
unkleE(Quote)
unkleE,
Thanks for sharing your story, but obviously I have no idea why we’ve come to different conclusions. :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Yes, I guess I was asking a bit much, but I thought you might have a feeling about some key factors. Here’s my first guess …..
Changing a belief or a strongly held opinion generally requires a significant shock to that belief. Perhaps there may have been two differences between you and I that might have made a difference.
1. Although I was taught as a teen that the Bible was inerrant, it wasn’t strongly taught, and I knew it wasn’t a Biblical teaching. So I never really believed it, and thus had no problems treating the Bible as a human document, albeit divinely inspired. I’m guessing you had a much stronger belief in inerrancy that made your choice much more black and white.
2. The first scholars I came across were not highly sceptical, but were more middle-of-the-road, so I gained positive knowledge from them which enhanced my belief. You mention Ehrman (highly sceptical), Wright (moderately believing) and Thiessen & Merz (not sure, but I think reasonably middle-of-the-road), but I guess there were others, and they seem to have had a negative effect overall. So perhaps overall you were reading more sceptical scholars than I was.
Thus more sceptical scholars and a more black and white view of the Bible led to a greater shock to your worldview than I experienced. Do you think those factors made a difference?
unkleE(Quote)
Quite possibly, but my deconversion was still gradual. By the time I started studying the historical Jesus, I already believed in evolution, and certainly didn’t hold to Biblical inerrancy.
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke,
Thanks for sharing your story. I was raised in a tepidly religious family, and when I came to the conclusion that what I’d been taught probably wasn’t true, it wasn’t difficult to drop it. As an extra bonus, my family dropped it all around the same time. Consequently I’m a little in awe of people like who, whose deconversions were the hardest decisions of their lives. You, sir, are a brave man.
FrodoSaves
FrodoSaves(Quote)
“When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts
I’ve seen this quoted by many atheists but don’t see any power in it. When determining the sum of 2+2, I reject 5, 6, and 7. That doesn’t mean I should also reject 4. Just because every answer is not valid does not mean there is no valid answer.
Mark(Quote)
No, Mark, the quote means that I reject the existence of Yahweh for the same reasons you reject the existence of Zeus, Vahiguru, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Santa Claus. It’s just that you apply different standards to your own religious beliefs than you do to everybody else’s.
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke, I am applying the same standard to all beliefs, as much as is reasonably possible. I don’t believe HillaryC or JohnM is president of the United States, must I also disbelieve Mr. Obama too? Objective consideration can yield a true positive answer, don’t you agree? And a question such as what is god will reasonably yield a single answer. Multiple answers would be unreasonable when considering “what force or being is behind all of reality”.
For more along these lines, check out the article on my site in the associated link.
Thanks, Mark
Mark(Quote)
Hi,
I’m intrigued. OK, knowing that Jesus said that not everyone who says to Him “Lord, Lord” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of His Father who is in heaven… please tell me your story on why you ever became a Christian in the first place and on what basis did you believe that you were a true convert as opposed to a false self-deceived convert like the one mentioned above or in the parable of the sower. Thanks.
Adiel Corchado(Quote)
Adiel, I was raised Christian.
lukeprog(Quote)
I hear you Luke, but so was I, and though I had been baptized, and went to church and youth group etc, I was as lost and anti-God and hell-bound as anyone. And what is scary is that I didn’t know it. Why didn’t I know it? Because I had been fed a false Gospel, one that assuaged my conscience, while I committed and was in bondage to all manner of sin. In other words I was deceived into thinking I was Christian when in reality I wasn’t. So I guess, that is why I’m interested in hearing about your conversion and on what basis you considered yourself a true follower of Christ as opposed to a false convert which the Bible continually warns us about.
Adiel Corchado(Quote)
Adiel, how do you know that you were deceived then, and not now? After all, you were definitely convinced back then that you were a Christian, right? You could just as well be fooled now, and just not know it yet.
Lorkas(Quote)
I, for one, really did believe it all, when I was a Christian. I don’t really care if you believe that or not (after all, you think that I am a deranged liar who hates God now, despite my assertion that I form beliefs through evidence rather than wishful thinking).
I’m sure glad that I decided to stop letting myself be fooled by others, and begin thinking about things on my own.
Lorkas(Quote)
Good question Lorkas.
The reason is because I know Him, He revealed Himself to me through His Word, and because my assurance is based on the Word of God and not Pop Christianity or man’s ideas.
I’m interested, on what basis did you ever believe that you were actually saved? How do you know you were not a false convert all along? I mean, the Scripture clearly says that many of the people who ‘believe’ are not actually saved, for example:
“Now when He was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in His name when they saw the signs which He did. 24 But Jesus did not commit Himself to them, because He knew all men, 25 and had no need that anyone should testify of man, for He knew what was in man.”
So how do you know you were not one of these types of ‘believers’? On what did you base your assurance of knowing Jesus?
Adiel Corchado(Quote)
Shorter: “I know because I know”
This is really no justification at all, as I hope you can see. I stopped being a Christian because I lost patience with myself and my conreligionists for rationalizing away beliefs that are irrational.
On distinguishing true believers from false, the Bible says “You will know them by their fruits.”
I spent 10 years of my life active in a church, community service, mission trips, and travelled all over Central America living among those in poverty to better understand the Gospel. I gave thousands of hours in volunteer work to various causes that I felt that Jesus would have had me spend my time on.
I professed the gospel, made a habit of praying constantly, attended a four-year Evangelical university, and practiced apologetics, as you are on this website. If you have a good reason to think yourself a Christian now, then there is no basis for anyone to claim that I was not a Christian.
However, as I began to critically examine my worldview (another story), I found that I could not justify belief in Christianity if I applied the same logic to Christianity that I used to reject other religions. It was hard to give up my Christianity (for one thing, my wife was a Christian, and I wasn’t sure if she would stay with me if I no longer believed. Turns out, I told her all of the questions that I was asking about my own faith, and she found that she could not answer those questions, either, without assuming Christianity to be false).
Using the standard of the Bible that I cited above, it is clear that I was a Christian in the past. If you can’t trust my testimony, then you can’t trust the testimony of anyone who claims to be a Christian.
Lorkas(Quote)
Whoa, that got pretty long. Sorry for the textwall.
Lorkas(Quote)
Lorkas,
While I sincerely appreciate you taking your time out to respond and explain why you believed yourself to be a true Christian I must point out that your reasons are not based on sufficient biblical grounds. For example, lets compare your works to the works of some of those whom Jesus said were self-deceived:
Lorkas: active church attendance, community service, mission trips, and travelled to better understand the Gospel, thousands of hours in volunteer work, professed the Gospel, constant prayer, religious instruction, apologetics.
VS
Deceived Followers of God: prophesy in the name of Jesus, perform exorcisms in the name of Jesus, perform miraculous works in the name of Jesus (all these from Matthew 7:21-23), live a ‘moral’ life, fast twice a week or three or four times, have great knowledge of the truths of Scripture, be known for heavy religious involvement like the Pharisees and even be called “Apostle”, be included in Jesus’ inner circle to the point where you are the treasurer, and go from town to town telling people people to repent like Judas
Again I ask you, what difference was there between you and all the false believers the Bible describes?
On what basis did you ever believe yourself to be a true Christian?
Adiel
Adiel Corchado(Quote)
Lorkas:
I like your blog and I enjoyed reading your heartfelt deconversion story. It is similar in some ways to my own although I didn’t lose my faith completely until I was in my early forties.
I have explored a lot of the same topics you write about and I started blogging late last year — http://richardstheoryofeverything.blogspot.com/
Best of luck to you.
Richard Berry(Quote)
Richard,
I’m flattered at the mistake, but this blog actually belongs to lukeprog. I just frequent the blog and post comments here.
Lorkas(Quote)
Luke,
Been following your blog for a couple months now. You’re doing a great job—thanks for that. I am listening to your audiobook at the moment, and so far, it’s wonderful too!
tyson koska(Quote)
Interesting read. In addition,
…
<—-Is waiting on a continuation of the Lorkas-Adiel Corchado showdown.
Yos(Quote)
I’ve really been interested in how people should respond to those who say “You were never a Christian”, either directly or indirectly. Such talk has made me uncertain of my own belief as it at least gives the impression that no one knows what they’re talking about or only some of the devout are chosen. How else could someone who as sincere fall away?
On a nearly separate note, I’m curious as to if the people from Heartcry/I’llbehonest are well versed on the problems that a scholar like Ehrman has brought to the table when they say speak of or imply that people weren’t Christian.
OS(Quote)
He describes his early days as an atheist as exhilarating: “For months, I walked on air.”
Mark(Quote)
Hi!
Please, read the writings of Vincent Cheung. Cheers!
Osmar Neves, Brazil.
Osmar Neves(Quote)
From his site:
“ABOUT VINCENT CHEUNG
Vincent Cheung is the author of over thirty books as well as hundreds of lectures and sermons on a wide range of topics. Among his publications are foundational texts in Christian theology, philosophy, apologetics, spirituality, and a number of biblical commentaries. He is committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, and thus all the doctrines that it affirms — that God is sovereign over all things and all minds, that the non-Christian man is unrighteous and unintelligent, that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation, that the believer possesses eternal life and would be received into heaven, and that the unbeliever is condemned to everlasting suffering in hellfire. Through his outreaches and publications, he is training Christians to understand, implement, and advance the biblical worldview as a comprehensive and coherent system of thought revealed by God in Scripture. He and his wife, Denise, reside in Boston, Massachusetts.”
http://www.vincentcheung.com/about/
Concentrate on the part about non-Christians supposedly being unintellliegent.
Yos(Quote)
I wanted to read on,but it seems that the article has to be paid for in order to view it. Do you happen to have another source for it?
Yos(Quote)
Hey Luke,
My story is very similar to yours, Also being a preacher’s son. I too, felt the feelings you write about and set out to do my own study, which only strengthened my faith in God…….I guess one can find what one is looking for……gotta have faith in something…..I hope for you to live your life as you choose and be happy…I appreciated your critique of Craig and Mooreland’s new book. It was very helpful to me………I believe the day will come that you will embrace spiritual discernment again…..either way…Best of luck and thanks for the debate section. It’s awesome
jonc(Quote)
Thanks, jonc.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi Luke,
I stumbled across your blog while I was searching for links about the Craig-Hitchens debate and of course I had to read your “My Story” link. Anyway, I just wanted to comment on a couple of things.
When you said, “I know what it’s like to fall in love with God and serve him with all my heart.” Obviously what you meant to say is that you know what it’s like to fall in love with the idea of God. Right? Because now, since you know that there is no God, you must realize that what you thought was God, what you thought that you fell in love with, was just a fantasy.
And when you said, “I know what it’s like to experience his presence.” No, you don’t. If God doesn’t exist, then obviously you can’t experience His presence because there’s nothing there to experience. So, whatever you experienced was just more of that fantastic imagination of yours. However, if God does exist and you did experience His presence… well, I will let you finish this sentence.
You said, “Now I know what it’s like to be a true believer.” What do you mean by “true believer?” Is that what you are now? Or is that what you thought you were when you believed in a God that you now believe doesn’t exist?
You said, “I know what it’s like to earnestly seek the truth but still be totally deluded.” Ok. Earlier in your life you were completely convinced that God did exist. But you claim that by acquiring more knowledge you have freed yourself from that delusion. Now you are completely convinced that there is no God. Is that because you now possess a perfect understanding of all things? If not, then how can you be so certain that you are not still deluded?
Luke, I must say that you are one of the few professing atheists that I have enjoyed reading. You remain polite with those that disagree with you and on occasion you have even encouraged those who disagree to continue with their faith. Wow! Also, from what little I have read so far you don’t come across as an arrogant know-it-all. I haven’t read it anywhere on you blog, but you seem to realize that we all are doing the same thing; we cherry pick the best arguments for our position and then articulate it as best we can.
I would expect that we have read many of the same books. With the exception of some new facts thrown in from modern science, all of the arguments for and against the existence of God are the same as they were in the first century. It’s just a different crowd arguing about the same things. I am sure that you know this quote: “There is nothing new under the sun.”
It surprises me how similar your story is to my own; however, I started out as a complete atheist and now I am a Christian. Like yours, my journey started as a quest for knowledge, but we started and ended on opposite ends of the road. I will cherry pick this as one more confirming fact of my faith. More specifically, that man by his own pursuits can not bridge the gap that sin has created; we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ through grace and that is an act of God least any man should boast. Peace!
Solo Dei Gloria!!!
William(Quote)
amen … you articulated a male version of my life minus the pastor father …
deb(Quote)
William,
What I meant by the “I know what it’s like” sentences is that I had the exact same experiences with “God” that people who are still believers have had. I experienced God as God, just as current believers continue to do so. Our subjective experiences were the same.
Thanks for your compliments.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi
Great website.
I am a 34 year old born in a Hindu family in India. I have been an atheist by default ever since i remember and have only recently since a couple of years after reading books and blogs like yours that i appreciate it more. I think i was an atheist for all the simple reasons before like superstitions, rituals, suffering etc. and it was only recently that i have gone thru this whole thing of the cosmological arguments, evolution etc etc.
However, what i dont understand is this. I have a younger brother by 2 years and we have both grown up pretty much the same. But he seems to have a completely different mind and though doesnt believe in any superstitions or actual religions but does believe that there is a god and there is a purpose to life which we need to find.
No matter how many times we argue, i am not able to get to make him get into my thinking.
It of course could be due to my lack of articulation or debate skills but i was also just wondering whether this kind of atheist thinking is also born within and not all are born to realize this. Maybe you and me are the kind who was born with this atheistic kind of thinking and perhaps it was just chance that you got back to that after years of christianity.
Are you aware of anyone who has been on the side of the Craigs classic 5 arguments initially and have since then gone over to the other side after listenig to debates etc.? I am thinking that there will not be any such.
What do you think?
Ajay(Quote)
Ajay,
Thanks for sharing your story.
I also have a brother who is younger than I by two years. We had the same upbringing but he still believes in God.
Also, I was on the side of Craig’s 5 arguments, and I was a big fan of Craig, but have since converted to atheism after reading some work from the other side.
I don’t think there is a ‘theist’ or ‘atheist’ gene, but genes surely play a role. For example, someone who is more predisposed to independence will be more likely to adopt atheism. Someone for whom relationships and family are very important will be LESS likely to abandon the religion of their friends and family. Etc.
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke,
I stumbled across this website, http://www.wordle.net, and entered the text from your “My Story” post. You can see it here:
http://www.wordle.net/gallery/wrdl/979360/My_Story_by_Luke_Muehlhauser
Its a neat little site.
William(Quote)
Huh. Fun!
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi Luke,
Do you believe the world is a better place if everyone is an atheist or do you believe it is better off today.
I personally feel condescending about a majority of the humans and feel that religion is indeed useful to deter many humans from committing murders, rapes, stealing, other crimes. I am sure most of them are doing anyway even if they are religious but they may do such things much more if they know for sure that there is no judgment coming.
What do u think?
- Ajay
Ajay(Quote)
Ajay,
I don’t know, but I suspect the world is better off without gods in general in the same way that the world is better off without widespread belief in Marduk or astrology.
lukeprog(Quote)
You write: “I bet most atheists today have lost their faith for irrational, emotional reasons – or else they were raised as atheists.”
(1) What could be irrational about losing an irrational faith?
(2) I’ve never had religious faith.
(3) I wasn’t raised atheist either. I was sent to Sunday School for 8 years (from age 4 to age 12) and never believed a single word they told me. On the first Sunday I argued with the teacher about angels. She said they existed and I said they probably didn’t – otherwise we’d occasionally see one or two of them. Not a great argument, but not bad for a four year old.
Michael(Quote)
Michael,
You can disbelieve in silly things for silly reasons. For example, you might reject the truth of Christianity not for lack of evidence, but because the Christians you know are not nice.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hey Mark,
I’m so glad I found this site, and got goose-bums several times when I read your story, simply because it reminded me so much of my own. I think for most ex-believers, there is that defining moment when it all changed, the realization epiphany – after which everything changes, and no matter how much you try to convince yourself after that that you are simply “straying”, the truth has revealed itself. I too was greatly conflicted and tormented and devoured vast amounts of literature to try and understand what was happening to me, when in the end I realized my reason had simply overcome my need to believe in something that doesn’t exist
[I also had a run in with the church round about the same timem which shocked me deeply, and probably excellerated the process for me]
I think it was luther who said: ”the greatest enenemy of christianity(religion) is reason”
I will defintely be camping here and contributing to your blog, especially since I feel a lot of reciprocity going around.
Marius(Quote)
Marius,
Thanks. But, my name is “Luke.” :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Sorry Luke! my bad
Marius(Quote)
Hi Luke,
Just found your website and read your story–almost the mirror image of my story. It’s funny how you mention that most people “deconvert” for emotional rather than logical reasons. I agree. In fact, whenever someone learns that I don’t believe in God they always ask me “who hurt you?”, or “what happened in your life to make you reject God?” It seems incomprehensible to most people that I would actually be lead away from a belief in God while pursuing the truth. Anyways, thanks for taking the time to create this website. I really enjoy the content and the attitude expressed throughout. I’ll be a frequent visitor.
Tim
Tim(Quote)
Tim, it’s good to hear from you.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hey man.
The very basis of the Chrisitan faith is based upon the rejected one…thus, gays should be the very core of the Christian faith.
jamie Seales(Quote)
Hi Luke,
Great story, great journey. I know that thousands of young people around the world are making the same journey in life. With the information age we ‘re in their numbers will only grow. I am also a son of Christian parents. My father is a minister. My story is the same, except I was never engulfed so much in Christian life as you, most likely because I live in the Netherlands, and faith and church are nowhere as much incorporated into daily life over here as in rural America. From a young age I was sceptical, but only in recent years I totally broke with faith. The thing I recognize most in your story is the bit about the reading.. The clear arguments from atheist writers and the woolly thinking of the christian philosophers.
The thing I find the hardest is the relation with my parents. We still love each other as much as before, but we just don’t seem to be able to discuss religion. I am afraid that they agree with me inside, but are caught in their livelong tradition and professional career in the Christian world. They can’t give up faith just the same as I cannot believe it any more. I don’t talk about in fear of hurting them. This feels like a limitation in my live, as I cannot discuss some things with the people closest to me, but fortunately I live in a day and age where contact with people all over the world has become the norm. And psychologically becoming 100% atheist has been very good for me. I get more joy out the marvels of the universe and have no fears.
I wish you all the best in the rest of your life
Ferguson(Quote)
Wow man, you said something that is almost a direct quote from my own deconversion story. (click my name to get to my site and It is listed there under about me) .
I totally get that, it is exactly how I felt and I didn’t think i had anyone at all to turn to.
Thanks for posting this, glad you were able to come out of it much like I did. We are both better for having done it.
Matt Oxley(Quote)
Matt,
Yes, I’m glad you made it out, too. :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke,
So, in your My Story words I just wanted to be like Jesus. So I decided I should try to find out who Jesus actually was. I began to study the Historical Jesus.
What I learned, even when reading Christian scholars, shocked me.
Two thoughts:
1) Your stated desire echoes the oldest temptation offered, “You will be like the Most High.” Right down to the methodology – via wisdom. There is a world of difference between, “I want to be like Jesus” versus “I want to please Jesus.” The first is intellectual auto-eroticism and the second is discipleship.
2) Having set your feet on the path of pursuing Godlikedness through Reason, you picked a sorry guide.
Resorting to Bart Ehrman to find Jesus? That was a mistake. Little wonder you threw away your faith. As educated as he is, Ehrman’s voice isn’t the only one to handle the text, impressed with his arguments, it appears you surrendered too easily. You would have been better served following the scholarship of F.F.Bruce, Gordon Fee, Douglas Moo, or D.A. Carson. It wasn’t without reason Luther observed, “Reason is a whore.” Looks like you’ve been bagged by some fine-sounding impressive arguments.
Are Christians ever tempted to stop believing? Just ask Hymenaues and Alexander – or Ehrman. Temptation and doubt are not shameful – its the giving up that accrues the approbation of heaven. Enjoy a few decades of unbridled pleasures (just like Jesus, huh?).
Beau(Quote)
Beau,
The New Testament frequently calls disciples of Jesus to “be Christlike.” That’s what I wanted.
It just turned out that Christianity is false, just like Hinduism and Zoroastrianism.
lukeprog(Quote)
“I know what it’s like to fall in love with God and serve him with all my heart.”
Well, maybe not ALL your heart, as there was a space He didn’t fill for you, and you kicked Him out :)
Yes, we all struggle with the question, why should I believe in God? I guess for you, you need to have logical consistency, and that’s what’s most important for you right now. Good luck. I’m glad you’re happy. I wonder why you weren’t as happy with God as you say you are now?
K-Bo(Quote)
This is a very interesting story. However I have a couple things to say. I was born in china. Religion is highly discouraged. My parents are not believers. I am highly confused. I was Christian but I believe it is because I needed that support. My life sucked when I was not Christian. After I embraced Christianity my life became so much better. However now I am unsure about God.
1)There are a couple things which make your statement, “there is no god” inconsistent.
Stone(Quote)
Firstly, I would like to know if you have studied Philosophy.
Secondly, If you have studied philosophy then you must have realized the four undeniable laws of logic/reason.
Thirdly, Ironically there is a reason that your reasoning cannot be trusted.
1)People either believe in a supernatural beginning or a natural beginning. So creation was either Personal or Impersonal.
2)People who believe in a supernatural beginning can claim that their logic and reasoning come from God.
3)People who believe in a Natural beginning have no way of trusting their own reason or logic.
Why?
Stone(Quote)
Simple.
People Who Believe in a naturalism must believe in natural selection. Natural selection is not at all concerned with what philosophers think about all the time. Truth. All natural selection is concerned with is survival. Therefore senses cannot be trusted. Even Richard Dawkins a very well known atheist albeit not an atheist well versed in philosophy, realizes that he cannot trust his senses. He states that he cannot disprove that the world we are living in is something like the matrix. Plus in a world set on survival our brain will trick us into believing whatever that will help our chance of survival. For example, a sick person will believe a pill will help his fever. However what the patient does not know is that the pill is a placebo. He or she takes the pill and the pain is reduced.
Simply our senses cannot be trusted in naturalism. Therefore you cannot trust your logic or reasoning.
The alternative is to say you cannot believe in anything but yourself. However not many people live that out internally consistently. If we do not believe in anything the there is no purpose to life. If there is no purpose to life then there is no purpose to live. Yet we still want to survive.
However after this entire arugment from reason (this argument is from C.S. Lewis and is agreed upon by Alvin Plantinga a very renown philosopher)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_Reason
still does not prove that there is a God. It just proves that you cannot believe in naturalism because that world view has a defeater.
Stone(Quote)
Essentially here i am stumped. I believe that this is my personal journey. and i will hope for an answer even though many people have not found one and those that have are not very convincing.
Stone(Quote)
I think its wrong to say this old argument is any kind of defeater for naturalism. It isnt. At best, it simply requires us to look upon all our beliefs with some skepticism…. but there’s nothing in the argument thats problematic for naturalism, specifically. It “undermines” any and all belief. There’s nothing compelling about the argument that would make us believe that all our beliefs are false. Its quite reasonable to believe natural selection might favor more accurate beliefs in some circumstances and less accurate beliefs in others – Plantinga or Lewis hardly have a solid case in that respect.
We just shouldn’t trust everything we think we know – I think thats a good thing. If there’s one position most naturalists and atheists don’t mind, its that of a skeptic.
drj(Quote)
Additionally, any time an argument skirts so close to saying “If X is true, then X is false” as the evolutionary argument against naturalism does, one should be suspicious.
drj(Quote)
drj, I understand where you are coming from. However, I believe that you are thinking illogically. If we can just say that everything has “some skepticism” then we are not looking for the truth. Essentially naturalism is then a half-assed conclusion.
This is not an argument that says all your beliefs are false. This is an argument questioning how can naturalists logically believe in anything without any basis?
I do understand that this argument does not prove God. I am just bringing this up to say that naturalism has no backing. Also most atheists are also naturalists.
When a person claims to be atheist there is something wrong with his or her reasoning. (well all atheists I have met so far)
How?
Well in order to believe in atheism the atheist must either know everything or
the atheist is illogical and has an incomplete theory that defies reason.
Give me a reason that shows me God does not exist. If an atheist can do that without saying something like, my experiences show me or god does not do anything ect ect it is just the same as a christian that say, i believe in god because of my experiences or god works in my life.
God is the author and we are in the book. we cannot prove that the author exists unless the author chooses to write himself and reveal himself to us. whether or not he has revealed himself is a huge question.
Stone(Quote)
Stone,
You may be interested to read Alvin Plantinga’s evolutionary argument against naturalism. He makes roughly the same argument you do, except in a philosophically rigorous way, and there has been a huge debate over his argument in the literature.
lukeprog(Quote)
If one is not skeptical about something, it would mean they have come to a conclusion… and hence, don’t have to “look for the truth” any longer, so I don’t see what you mean.
Well no, what the argument does is undermine all belief, not just naturalism. Plantinga does try to keep the blinders on so that you only focus on naturalism… but it touches everything. If one accepts the argument, it must inevitably lead to a deep pervasive skepticism.
As the addendum, Plantinga basically says “Does that lack of trust you must now have for your cognitive faculties SCARE you? Well, believe in Jesus and you can just pretend your beliefs are mostly true and sweep that skepticism under the rug where you can’t see it!”. But following along in that charade is really just an exercise in wishful thinking. Our beliefs might actually be mostly false! Simply indulging yourself to just throw that skepticism to the wind, in exchange for some unjustifiable, unwarranted certainty, is to – as you put it – “stop looking for the truth”.
But as I said earlier… I don’t think theres any good reason to accept that the truth of beliefs is so entirely disconnected with their utility – If you don’t accept that, then the argument amounts to little. Many true beliefs (but not necessarily all) should also provide optimum utility over false beliefs, hence be selected for by natural selection.
Not to mention, the theist must provide a compelling explanation for the tremendous amounts of false belief that exists – there sure is a hell of a lot of it. I think the job is far too big for weak and tired appeals to “a fallen creation”.
You should see the atheism FAQ on this site; it sounds like your arguing as if atheism requires that one assert that definitely NO god exists – which is inaccurate.
I don’t have too… I don’t claim gods do not exist… but if you tell me about your most compelling evidences for belief – I can explain why those probably don’t meet my standards for belief.
drj(Quote)
Hi Luke!
Nice blog mate. i read about your story and i fully understand where you are coming from. I mean no disrespect to anyone but the bible and the christian belief in god defies logic. Obviously you believe that any idea of god defies logic and i can understand why.
But i feel you haven’t given islam a fair chance. I must say that the islam section of your blog is full of propaganda videos and contains very little regarding the actual theological beliefs of islam. For example did you know that islam believes in evolution (as well as creation).
Admittedly there are bad muslims (just as there are bad atheists, christians, jews). But have you actually studied the quran? If you haven’t done so yet, i would like to recommend it. you can read it as a comic book or whatever but please make an effort to read it sincerely, at least once.
In case you have read it and believe that it was written by Muhammad and is not the word of God, then i have a huge concern. In the quran, there are some very accurate descriptions of scientific facts which couldnt have come from an illiterate shepherd/merchant 1400 years ago. These facts were discovered only very recently. How would you explain their occurrence in the quran.
For reference please visit
http://www.scienceislam.com/quran_miracles.php
or a translation (with commentary if necessary) of the quran (transaltion by Yusuf Ali is recommended)
For comments of athiest scientists (mainly doctors) on the quran please watch the video ‘This is the Truth’ on youtube.
regards
Abdur Rafay Zafar(Quote)
Abdur Rafay Zafar,
It is true I have not yet taken any time to seriously engage Islam. I would really like to find one book that mounts a serious case for the truth of Islam from the perspective of contemporary analytic philosophy and scientific inquiry, I just haven’t found it yet. Can your recommend such a book?
lukeprog(Quote)
I believe that everyone’s logic flows from desire.
-Mark Van Steenwyk
Boom. Mark is right.
Consider the finitude of your potential for mastering knowledge. The category of “mystery” is nearly infinite to you as an individual.
JRL(Quote)
Oh, I am quite aware of my finitude!
lukeprog(Quote)
Random thought; I was just thinking about this.
Here’s the order in which I realized certain things do not exist:
1. God and the supernatural.
2. Intrinsic value.
3. Free will.
4. The flow of time.
Scary! What next? The external world? Myself? Somebody let me off this train! :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Hey, Luke, I noticed your comment about Christianity being contaminated by Paul (“Christianity should be called Paulinism”). Have you seen the Witherington/Pagels piece below?
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Scholarly-Smackdowndid-Paul-Distort-Christianity.aspx?p=1
Jonathan(Quote)
Hey Luke!
This may sound strange to you but I could really relate to your old Self. Why do you let an outdated “version of you” out there to fool people? I guess God hasn’t been teaching you for a while now…
Who am I kidding, I can perfectly understand your quest for a greater truth. I’ve been in one myself for 8 years now. I don’t consider myself christian anymore (not to mention catholic, which used to be my religion). However, unlike you, I turned to a sort of New Age belief system. It sounds terrible, I know. :D But I think I know exactly what is good and what isn’t in the New Age Movement. It’s common sense there’s a lot of bullshit involved in those beliefs, but I’m sure I can find what makes true sense for me.
Have you ever heard of a book called A Course in Miracles? What are your thoughts on that? I feel this is the best truth I could find so far.
I guess my path was somewhat opposite to yours. When I was around 10 I simply told my mom I couldn’t believe in God, because I didn’t feel Him, didn’t see Him, couldn’t hear Him, not to mention understand Him. But one day, I don’t know exactly when or why, a switch was turned on inside my head (I wonder if it was that certain biological predisposition) and God became everything to me, the foundation of my existence. When I say God, I don’t mean that biblical nut and specially not Jesus. I was never able to accept the biblical Jesus, not even when I was being brainwashed in Sunday school with “Jesus is your best friend” over and over again. I remember thinking to myself – “I never even met the guy, how can I say he’s my friend?!” – and I rejected the idea that only he was the son of God, he the all-mighty Jesus who took all the power and left the rest of us feeling like 3rd class creations.
My belief was in a good God and not some two-faced freak, more like a sort of super human, with super flaws. This book, A Course in Miracles, was what finally helped me find a Jesus that is probably a lot like “your imaginary friend”, but free from the Bible contradictions and, lets be frank, cruelty. I think the historical Jesus can’t really be found in ancient records, those aren’t reliable. This might sound stupid, but I think the most reliable way to find the historical Jesus is through… some particularly gifted people, also known as psychics. xD Either that or information you get from somebody’s past-life, as in Brian Weiss’ past-lives therapy. Doesn’t it sound reliable? lol That’s the closest thing to time-travel!
Now I think of God as something very similar to air. It’s always there, and without it reality would simply shut down. Well, not the best comparison ever. I feel I can communicate with Him, even if not in a Neale Donald Walsch sort of way. I believe Jesus and the Holy Spirit share the same purpose, taking us back to God.
Well this is quite enough, I better wrap it up. I’ll be sure to bookmark your blog and pay you more visits. Thanks for sharing.
Zentu(Quote)
Oh great, I just saw your review for Brian Weiss. LOL Oh well… xD I still wonder what you think of ACIM, but I don’t expect much.
All the best.
Zentu(Quote)
Interesting… I wonder why you even bother making reviews about books on spirituality, motivation and success. I’ve seen almost half your list and found 2 good and 2 meh (which I never heard of) and those were about very practical down-to-earth issues.
I have a feeling that you’re a “go with the flow” sort of guy, and you’re my age so you’ll probably be reconsidering your beliefs (or your lack of beliefs) in the near future. I usually don’t make accurate prophecies, but this time, I might be onto something. I sincerely hope I’m right. :p
Oh, and where can the visitors take a decent look at your face?
Zentu(Quote)
Zentu,
Click ‘About’ at the top of the page.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi Luke. I just happened on your website today. I was actually referred here by someone from another atheist website where atheists struggle to communicate without vitriol, profanity, and/or vulgarity. I was told I might find more of an intelligent conversation here. So far I’m not disappointed. Thanks for hosting a civil site for people to debate these all important matters of life.
I have some things I’d like to add to this already great conversation thread. But first I’d like to say KUDOS to you for your courage. It must have been very hard to tell your Christian family that you were disembarking from the spiritual journey you had been on presumably since birth. Honesty is always the hardest thing, isn’t it? I’m sure you know firsthand what Billy Joel meant when he wrote, “Honesty, it’s such a lonely word..”
You are obviously honest. I have nothing but love for that. You’re true to yourself and you’re true to your family and friends. Not only do you have the courage to stand up and renounce your religion to them, you have the ‘nads to do the same in front of the whole world.. with your real name.. and crystal clear image of yourself plastered for all to see. That takes guts. Many of your atheist comrades aren’t so courageous.
That said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t say kudos to your mother and father for raising such an incredibly honest and courageous person. Your Christian parents and mentors apparently succeeded in teaching you one of the most important attributes of Christ’s character: his courage to walk the talk. What a great paradox it is that you so closely mirror the character traits of the messiah you claim to no longer believe in.
A bit about me: I’m a lifelong Catholic. I never stopped believing, but I definitely fell away from my faith for a good 10 years. During that time I came up with all sorts of crazy ideas, did a lot of drugs, drank a lot of alcohol, abandoned my church (save for the occasional holiday mass) and avoided anything remotely associated with organized religion. I rebelled and I rebelled hard. I may not have verbally renounced God, but my actions sure did. Hence, I can’t stand in judgment of you, because I have walked in your shoes.
I think I rebelled for the same reason I THINK you have rebelled: I didn’t know love, and therefore I didn’t know God. I knew sex, I knew emotions, I knew giving and receiving, but I didn’t know love. Don’t get me wrong; I don’t think it’s your fault. How can a child (even a teen) truly be in communion with the God of LOVE without experiencing the seasons of life as a grown adult? There is a very good reason most devout believers are generally those who have, e.g., survived catastrophes, or suffered immense loss, or survived near death experiences. Those ol’ “wretched sinners.” They are people who reached the end of their rope and had no choice but to cry out to God to help them. When these people say they were saved, they mean it.
I am not ashamed to say I am one such person. Many atheists of the Nietzsche ilk would say I’m weak, but they confuse weakness with humility. This is because they don’t know the difference between the two. How could they? If they’re always looking DOWN on everyone and everything, how can they see (let alone worship) what’s above them? I have come to believe humility is indeed the stuff love is made of. It is certainly the the character of Jesus. If you wanted to be more like Jesus, you should have simply went and mowed an elderly neighbor’s yard. Instead you hit the books. Sorry, but thaqt makes no sense. Jesus came to SERVE, not to be served. Didn’t you learn that from someone along the way?
I submit this is likely why God wasn’t anywhere to be found after you had turned your back on him: Scripture tells us God hides his face from the proud. Judging from your spirited story above, your quest to break away from God was one rooted in pride, and the outcome of that quest doesn’t surprise me at all. Pride? Yes, only a person overflowing with self righteous arrogance could ever possess the audacity to think they could command the almighty God, Creator of the universe, to reveal himself on command. You don’t order divine revelation like you would a happy meal. God isn’t part of the fast-food-serve-yourself-Google-it-world we live in.. in fact he is the antithesis of it. You’re supposed to rever the Creator of the universe. His earliest followers wouldn’t even say his name out loud. To love God is to fear him. You didn’t fear God, Lukje, you put yourself on his level.
God reveals himself over time. It took him 30 years to reveal himself to Jesus, yet you had the ‘nads–your nads are your best and worst friend, Luke–to want it all at 18 years old. But nope. Rejected. God’s only interested in the humble and the patient. He not only turns away from the proud and impatient, he abases them. What does that do? That only infuriates them all the more. Took me a long time to get my stubborn mind around that one. I kept asking myself who the %$@& God thought he was to tell me what to do and how to do it. And the more I asked that question, the further he pulled away from me.. until I was without him completely.. on my back in the cold, dark wilderness. Loveless, and nearly lifeless.
I still didn’t get it even then. I literally screamed at him one night: “What?? What did I do wrong?? Where are you???!!” His answer? The most soul-crushing answer of all to the lonely: SILENCE. Dead silence. I searched for answers, too. I wanted to know what gave him the right to kick me around? After enough misery I finally came to realize God did not exist and I would NEVER encounter him ….. as long I was determined to puff my chest out at him and demand he serve me. It was then that I suddenly came to terms with how alone I was. Wandering. Destitute. Lonely. Cold. Confused. Endlessly. I found out to be in hell is to be outside of the realm of love. Once you cross that threshold, you have no choice but to plead to Him for forgiveness. I wish you luck if that day comes for you. It is a scary one as millions of Christians can attest. It will take you within an inch of your life.. if it happens for you.
I believe you’ll probably find God for the first time when you come to terms with the fact that he is not in material things, nor good works, nor in the cross you paraded around with, nor in your flight to Europe to save the world, nor in the historical books you combed through in search of Him. God is in HUMANITY. He is in the human heart. The Conscience. The soul. God is the LOVE and the LIGHT of this world. He is in everything that is GOOD. To touch Him we need only touch another human being who is carrying his fire. Once you encounter His true love, his word will make perfect sense.
Luke, you seem like a wonderful person with a huge heart.There is nothing new about your story. Jesus already told it thousands of years ago in the parable of the Prodigal Son. I will pray he sends an angel to intercede to get you back on track where you family and friends, the people who love you so much, most likely are pining for you to be. Luke, all there is in this life is love. I’m twenty years older than you and I’m here to tell you NOTHING else matters. Step away from your site for a week or two and clear your head. Stop searching and just go serve everyone in your life selflessly without pause. That should get you on track to find the historical and eternal Jesus.
“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man.”
Peace and love,
Mark
Mark(Quote)
Mark,
You are psychologizing my deconversion with very little information. I have tried to explain that while deconversion is usually a psychological matter and not an evidential one, in my case it was almost entirely evidential, because everything in my psychology was pulling me the other way. But I know that is very hard for believers to accept.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi Luke
There is nothing psychological about pride and humility. We’re all prideful, some more than others. With all due respect, everything I have read in your story(and I just re-read it for good measure) smacks of pride–which has been mankind’s greatest stumbling block on the path to faith from day one, ground zero.
Rather than freely speak my mind and draw another label, I would like to address a random sampling of your testimony to demonstrate how I came to my conclusions about your “deconversion” (I have never heard that word).
You said: “What I learned, even when reading Christian scholars, shocked me. The gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death, by non-eyewitnesses. They are riddled with contradictions, legends, and known lies. Jesus and Paul disagreed on many core issues. And how could I accept the miracle claims about Jesus when I outright rejected other ancient miracle claims as superstitious nonsense?…..These discoveries scared me.”
Here are a few observations off the top of my head..
1) You were SHOCKED to find out the gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death. Shocked or sheltered? One could argue it’s shocking you grew up in a preacher’s home and never learned the Bible’s timeline. Were you also shocked to find out if taken literally the Bible is only some 6,000 years old?
2) You sought the counsel of “Christian Scholars” to understand Jesus. Why? What do they know about Jesus? If you truly had the faith you claim you had at the time, why didn’t you patiently await the Comforter? He promised He would reveal everything to you in due time. Was that a promise you were aware of it? Or was it another one you never bought into to begin with?
I read how you turned here, and turned there, and called people, and emailed people, and prayed, and tore through books in search of the answers you were seeking, (and even humbly vowed to allow the Spirit to “lead [you] into truth”), but nowhere do I read anything about a vow to simply WAIT on the Lord. To be PATIENT. To LONG SUFFER. Patience is one of the main fruits of the spirit (Gal 5:22).
Seems to me you weren’t in the mood to wait on the Lord. Seems more plausible that you were much more interested in getting out in the world and loving and living freely, in opposition to how you [presumably?] lived throughout your childhood. This leads me to believe “long suffering” was either a character trait of Christ’s you either didn’t know about, didn’t want to practice because you had more interesting things to do, or flat out rejected. Why? Because the next thing you state is: “It didn’t last.”
But WHAT didn’t last? I humbly submit YOU, Luke, didn’t LAST. This once again leads me to believe your faith was probably present, but not strong. In fact I submit it was young and weak and still forming when you decided to take it upon yourself to increase it (and “become more like Jesus”).
Perhaps you didn’t LAST because you didn’t have the patience to last. I would not be surprised to learn if you were a very impatient person by nature. (Takes one to know one :)
In any event, LASTING is the essence of long suffering. What you did was impose finite limits on long suffering. You may have had patience, but your patience had a limit, and when its limit was reached, when God failed to show up to your courtroom to defend himself, you announced him GUILTY AS CHARGED by all your scholars and mountains of evidence, and officially declared Him DEAD.
[You know Nietzsche famously declared God is Dead too, yes? And you know that he too was once a devout YOUNG Christian too, right? And you also know that absolute reasoning led Nietzsche precisely where Dr. Lane says it will lead one (to spiritual death), yes? In fact Nietzsche didn't just die, he first went absolutely insane. He died in the care of his mother and sister and is said to have been MISERABLE. All for what? Aspiration. Ambition. Pride. He aspired to be a "famous philosopher."]
I realize long-suffering is not a popular idea in our fast-food culture. Sadly we have to turn to beasts for great examples of it now. I saw one such superlative example recently when I watched “March of the Penguins.” How about them long-sufferin’ apples? The suffering starts when the sun stops coming out and every day is dark.. and the temperature drops below -80 degrees.. and winds reach 100+ MPH. They go 125 days without food before migration back to their food source. Watch these beasts huddle together to stay alive. Watch them lean NOT on themselves, but on each other. Survival of the fittest? Sure. But what does “the fittest” REALLY denote Mr. Spencer? In the case of the penguins it denotes ABIDANCE. Interesting how abidance is also the key requirement for the formation and survival of one’s faith, too.
3) You said “Every time I reached out for some reason – any reason – to believe, God simply wasn’t there. I tried to believe despite the evidence, but I couldn’t believe a lie. Not anymore.”
Can we just cut to the chase here? Why use euphemisms like “deconverted”? Can we just call a spade a spade and say you rejected God? And instead of punitively dismissing an argument on the basis that it doesn’t strictly adhere to this or that discipline, can we just say your rationale for dismissing God is due to the fact that he didn’t show up to defend himself at the trial you scheduled for him?
Let’s go over this step by step. By your own admission you had faith in God, yes? You believed in him and prayed to him and served him, right? But then you stumbled upon some information you deemed as potentially damning to his credibility. By your own admission this damning evidence “scared” and “shocked” you. Your conundrum only intensified when the evidence kept streaming in .. deposition after deposition.. fingerprints.. documents.. exhibit after exhibit. “Where are you God? Show yourself! Disprove this lot! I command you!”
You held a trial, and God didn’t show up for it. Hence you didn’t get the answers you demanded. You got stood up. All you got was silence. You roamed the halls looking for him but he was nowhere to be found. At this point it seems you were angry. You felt defrauded. Bamboozled. You had no other choice but to reject God.
I find it very unfortunate you took God’s silence to mean he didn’t exist, or that he was rejecting you, when in fact silence is a very real response from God. It means he wants you to THINK. To REST. To mediate. Or maybe to go another direction. Perhaps of all the responses you had come to know from him, you never learned about that one. I know I had to learn it the hard way, too. I thank God I had a good teacher to help me make sense of it when it happened.
As for your faith, I submit that if you stopped believing because God SIMPLY didn’t APPEAR, then that means your belief in him was never truly rooted in strong faith….. because had it been, you wouldn’t have demanded God defend or reveal himself in a form your eyes would find satisfactory. You literally demanded a faith-based God to be a sight-based one.. for you. And when he rejected your request you rejected him. Right? You don’t see the prideful arrogance in that?
I truly wish you would have WAITED on God instead of put finite limits on his response time. He would have refuted your body of evidence with a wave of his hand had you allowed him to. He would have deleted every ounce of “shock” and “fright” you were experiencing.. if you had only waited on him.
I hope you will reconsider. You still have so much to learn about God’s character. It would be tragic to see you completely abandon your faith before you even understood a fraction of it.
Peace and love,
Mark
Mark(Quote)
Luke,
What do you mean? Click on “about me”? Well it’s the same picture… Or is it about the other things I said?
BTW, are you an aquarian? xD
Zentu(Quote)
Zentu,
Oh, you mean you don’t think my picture here and at About Me is a decent look at my face?
I don’t know what an aquarian is.
lukeprog(Quote)
Yes, exactly. When I make faces sometimes I remind people of Mr. Bean and I’m nothing like him (I think… or hope). Aquarian as in zodiacal sign. “A person born under the sign of Aquarius”. You know… were you born between January 20 and February 18? I’m sure you’re sure that astrology is BS, but I’d like to check if your zodiacal sign has a set of characteristics that matches what I’ve been reading about you. Bottom line, I’m just curious.
Zentu(Quote)
I was born on June 22.
lukeprog(Quote)
Ok. If you had been born a day earlier I could make some sense out of all this (Gemini) but you’re Cancer. It really sounds bad in English, maybe that’s why here in Portugal we call it “crab”. Then again, I’m no expert. Some say Cancer natives are emotional, intuitive, unable to let go, etc. I don’t see any of it. Maybe I’m wrong. But one thing is for sure. It doesn’t matter. lol
Sorry for wasting your time. xD
Zentu(Quote)
Hi, I stumbled upon your site while looking for some stuff on infinite regression theory. I was blown away! All this stuff that so many people seem to be so excited about. Who is this Jesus guy? Where can I meet him/her? And please give me more information about what exactly a God is? Do they have a website where I can read more? Am I correct in thinking that this is like some kind of new wave alternative to the quantum ‘everything popped out of nothing’ origin theory? Wow! I have read about these things. In particular there was one fun one about how the world was born from the rear end of a very big snake. I do hope this new version doesn’t take away my right to disappear totally once I die.
Andre J Smith(Quote)
Nice thoughts here…I quote you….
“Here’s the order in which I realized certain things do not exist:
1. God and the supernatural.
2. Intrinsic value.
3. Free will.
4. The flow of time.
Scary! What next? The external world? Myself? Somebody let me off this train! :) ”
The first 2 are reasonably obvious and easy to get a picture of. (4) re Time, takes a while, you have got to read a lot around it before you start to feel that Time does not actually exist in the normal construct as in ‘the arrow of time’.
(3) or Free Will is more elusive. Whilst the deterministic argument is easy to apply, once you get your head around basic quantum physics concepts and contradictions it becomes clear that Free Will (and consciousness) may well be products of the fundamental nondeterministic and parallel potentialities of the quantum realm…..I am still getting my head around this one. Have fun! (ps…it’s always far more exciting to try to understand what we don’t know rather than to just accept some arb explanation.)….Wait….there’s a glistening leaf tumbling past my window….wow! what a moment of sheer joy. Isn’t nature wonderful!
Andre J Smith(Quote)
I don’t understand your first comment on this post, Andre.
lukeprog(Quote)
When I was 15 or 20 I cut off the church although I did get married at age 21 in the church to please my mother. Even earlier than that I wondered why Jesus appeared in a small mid-east area 2000 years ago and not now in NYC. Odd. A good reason for leaving is I didn’t want any sanctimonious authority figure telling me what to do with my penis. Subsequently I found 1001 more reasons why I was correct. Hallelujah, PTL.
J Nernoff III M.D.(Quote)
Hey! I should be in part of your story…. I don’t see my name anywhere
Elizabeth(Quote)
Lol, Elizabeth! Well now you know where much of my time has gone…
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi from Croatia.
I must admit that I didn’t read the whole story, and I didn’t read all the comments, but it’s great that you wrote about your personal struggle, and I am very thankful for that. I don’t know if it was hard for you to write about personal details, but you proved once again that you were a true believer and that you didn’t want to stop to believe, like some apologets love to claim for those who stopped believing (“He wasn’t a true believer!” “He didn’t have Jesus in his heart!” and so forth…)
Thank you man, your link deserved to be placed on my web site.
Gordon Freeman(Quote)
Compelling deconversion story, Luke. Thanks for sharing it with the world.
I’ve never commented here, but I visit your site several times a week. You set the standard for atheist blogs, my friend. I maintain a blog for a secular student group at Utah State University, so I can appreciate all the time you put into your site. You’re incredibly prolific and always thoughtful.
As an ex-Mormon in Utah, I write primarily about Mormonism. Should you ever be interested to grace my site, here’s the link: http://usu-shaft.com/
Take care and keep up the great work, Luke!
Jon(Quote)
Thanks, Jon!
lukeprog(Quote)
I notice this a lot. I think this is just one of many reasons why churches should strive to be as honest as possible, if they really want to keep people. If you had grown up with the doubts already added into the story, it probably wouldn’t have hit you so hard. It doesn’t mean you would have made a different decision, but it might have made it a lot easier.
Angelo(Quote)
The first thing i love to tell u that u are the first atheism i know that love to speak about god and Jesus (even if for their non existence) and now i really feel that they exist because of u.
Richard(Quote)
I love your blog! Welcome to the big ‘A’ club! I do understand that it is not always easy to throw away the indoctrination of our religious childhoods. I was raised by my Assembly of God family (grandfather = pastor, father=unordained minister) and was sent to a private Baptist school. Trust me, if there is a hell; I’ve done my time!! I’ve always been a nonbeliever, however, due to the teachings of my childhood I was stunted in growth by thinking that I couldn’t be a ‘truly’ good person unless I believed. It was tortureous to say the least. There was a lot of self inflicted doubt of my goodness and ability to be a productive citizen. That is all far behind me now, and I’m free, godless, productive, and a good person!
It can be a long journey for some, and while I don’t wish anyone the pain of self confliction; I am glad that you have pulled through it.
Welcome to the otherside,
Kelli
Kellina(Quote)
Wow, your background and journey out of Christianity sound almost identical to mine. I was a true believer (Church of Christ) until I realized at around age 14 that although I “prayed without ceasing,” God wasn’t communicating with me at all. I heard nothing but silence. I thought I must be doing something wrong. I struggled with depression and guilt for the next 5 or 6 years. At around age 20, I decided to find out as much as I could about the historical Jesus. I read everything I could get my hands on. You’re absolutely right; the Christian books were nothing but weak arguments and handwaving. The arguments given by non-believers were clear and made perfect sense to me. When my questions were met with responses like, “His ways are mysterious,” I knew that my pastor, teachers, and parents had no more answers to give. That just wasn’t good enough for me.
I’m now a happy, well-adjusted, 33-year-old atheist. I love life. I realize how precious it is. I still love reading, writing, and talking about religion and am waiting for Christians to come up with some new arguments.
Thanks for sharing your story. You have an excellent blog here.
Jen(Quote)
Jen,
So glad to hear you left that depression and guilt behind!
lukeprog(Quote)
It is admirable of you to have become an atheist on legitimate merits. Too often one hears stories of authoritarian religious upbringings which lead to atheism, my first thought was always “what if their negative experiences had been from atheism?”. As little as i think of religion i have more respect for a person who is a christian because their thought lead them to believing in god, than an atheist who wound up there because of thuggish or insensitive behavior on the part of the religious towards them. I myself went to a catholic private school for most of my pre university years and it made atheists out of a good deal of it’s student body. I have always been an atheist in the sense that i never could really believe, deep down, that there was a god. It took me considerably longer to fully realize that i had only been religious in the social sense, more like i was part of an organization of whose standards i had to meet in order to belong. I even attacked atheists and non christians, but always there was the gnawing internal skepticism.
Your story is especially impressive in the sense that you made a true conversion, it wasn’t merely a “coming out” experience as it is for many. I’ve often lampooned christians for being mawkish and seemingly “in love” with their idea of god. Atheist friends of mine who have had similar experiences to yours have told me that i can’t understand because i’ve never been a true blue believer. But they did use almost the exact same wording, it was like a close friend or family member was dying. I’ve since stopped mocking christians for this since apparently they really do feel this way.
Best wishes, i found your story refreshing.
AbyssGazer(Quote)
Thanks, AbyssGazer.
lukeprog(Quote)
In a hideous world only the blind are blessed. Welcome to the world of the sighted Luke.
I have no conversion story similar to your own so perforce I shan’t be sharing that with you. I have read through the comments on this thread and I continue to be amazed that people point you to their book of choice as a source for ‘Truth’. Just because someone wrote something down doesn’t make it true and the longer ago they wrote it down doesn’t mean that it accumulates truth with age like a fine wine or cheese.
Granted my senses are not 100% reliable, but I want to see one of these ‘can’t trust your senses’ folks step in front of a bus that their sight and hearing says is there. I suspect they’ll suddenly start trusting their senses.
None of my senses have ever detected a god, demon, devil, faerie, unicorn etc and to my knowledge no machine has been constructed that can detect them so their existence can be described as theoretical at best. But hey, if the ten-headed dragons start coming up out of the sea I’ll readjust my world view.
I’d like to say that my realistic world view has led to greater happiness, but alas it hasn’t. No fault of atheism I think. I hope that your own nature is more capable of joy and at the very least you don’t need to fret that a majority of our species is hellbound.
Peace.
Septarchon(Quote)
Interesting story thanks Luke. I was led here via an atheist twitter link.
I dabbled briefly with conservative Christianity and had a longer period as a liberal Christian. I’m quite happy to be an atheist now. There’s a lot less guilt :)
More importantly, I think atheism gives you a chance to define what your goals are and to aim for them. You’re not tied down to fulfilling someone else’s goals. Plus, while reason and rationality aren’t perfect, they’re the best tools you’ve got to navigate life.
chthoniid(Quote)
Wow, those are some awesome photos on your site, chthoniid.
lukeprog(Quote)
while i can relate rather well to your upbringing (I was raised Baptist in rural Alabama), I think it’s mildly offensive that you assume all gay people “lost their faith for irrational, emotional reasons.” I do have to admit that being gay probably led me to question my faith sooner than I otherwise might have, but I, like you, found myself still grasping for some reconciliation between reality and religion long after I pretty much knew it was impossible.
you shouldn’t assume you know the motivations of an entire segment of the population. and besides, most gay people I know are still at least vaguely religious.
tremorfan(Quote)
tremorfan,
I don’t particularly believe that or defend it. I was just telling the story of what popped into my head at the time.
lukeprog(Quote)
Thanks for the comment re: photos Luke.
As a biologist, it was very difficult to be a conservative Christian when that meant having to join “Team Creationist”. Anybody who believe that dinosaurs were contemporaneous with humans, loses all credibility as an adherent to the truth.
The biology helps with the photos, as the first step to taking wildlife photos is being able to find the wildlife :)
chthoniid(Quote)
Hi Lukeprog,
I noticed that you spend a lot of time deconstructing William Lane Craig’s arguments. I am a fan of this site for that reason. I find trying to identify the holes in his “deceptively simple” arguments to be intellectually stimulating.
His well crafted arguments do nothing to convince me to become a christian however. There are too many absurdities inherent in the bible and christian doctrine for me to accept.
I doubt that Craig has converted many atheists. I imagine that his appologetics are mainly geared at “stop-loss” of believers. At reassuring them that atheism is not the more intellectual position (he has said this in so many words in one of his interviews). So I think that he has probably dedicated most of his career to people who are in your former position.
So my question is, during your deconversion, what effect did Craig’s books have on you? Did you read any of them during that period of your life?
You say:
“the Christian philosophers were lost in a fog of big words that tried to hide the weakness of their arguments.”
If you did read Craig, I would love to hear what your take on him was as someone who was desperately trying to cling to belief
Setiferum(Quote)
Yeah, I read lots of Craig during my deconversion. I suppose I’ll write about the details sometime on this blog. Thanks for your question.
lukeprog(Quote)
I can’t believe the number of Christians who are crawling out of the woodwork to try to win you back to Christianity. It’s as if none of them can conceive of anyone else living a happy and fulfilling life without being devoted to their enthusiasms. And that’s probably the case. If they could conceive of being happy and fulfilled outside the strictures of revealed religion, then their dogmatism would be more difficult to sustain.
I happen to like the novels of Paul Bowles but I’m not running around pushing The Sheltering Sky on everyone or leaving copies in hotel and hospital rooms. Perhaps it’s just an effect of being raised without religion, but I cannot conceive of bothering people who don’t need it with unsolicited advice. That is the height of rudeness.
It makes me wonder which group is more annoying: Christians or Objectivists. Granted, not every Christian is an enthusiast, but neither is every Objectivist.
Anyway, kudos for you making up your own mind, even when that was wrenching, and even more for remaining polite to dozens of proselytizers hovering over here like vultures.
Nullifidian(Quote)
Hi Luke,
I really appreciate your openness. I’m at the other end of life, in my 60s, and have in recent years stepped outside of my faith and taken a long hard look at it. This faith had been very strong and was uppermost in all my life choices. I even served as a missionary for some time in third world countries. I have drawn similar conclusions to yours, but haven’t told anyone else, except for my husband (of 5 years) who is not a believer.
Some of the kindest, nicest most beautiful people I know are believers (Christians and Muslims). It grieves me to think they will not understand that I have left it all behind. My younger son and his girlfriend are devout Christians (thanks to my upbringing in the case of my son).
I just don’t find any of the reasons/evidence Christians give to be believable or often, even rational.
The major turning point for me was a video, 99 Balloons. It sent me looking at babies born to suffer and I just can’t see that a god who loved and cared would dream of allowing or even doing such things to innocent babies and their families. There’s much more to my decision than that, but this was the emotional part of it.
I’d better stop there for now. I don’t want to write a novel!
I feel more free and more at peace with myself these days than I ever did as a Christian. I’m just distraught about telling my Christian friends and relatives.
Thanks for the encouragement your site provides me with.
Doubting Thomasina(Quote)
Doubting Thomasina,
Thanks for sharing.
Is the 99 balloons video you speak of available online anywhere?
lukeprog(Quote)
99 balloons is on YouTube – just type in the search box:
“99 balloons eliot”
I looked at several of the Related Videos from the 99 Balloons page and it really upset me to see so many babies born to suffer. I had no idea about some of the horrendous conditions that exist!
A Christian’s response: “suffering in the world does not prove there is no god. Everything else in the world shouts out that God made everything in this world, including people. The suffering is the result of sin and satan’s wreaking havoc. That is why God allowed his Son to die for us- to allow us a way out of this sin-ridden world if we will trust in Him alone!”
I would have said – actually, I did say – the same thing as a Christian, but now I’m not buying it!
Doubting Thomasina(Quote)
Thanks. That was sad and frustrating.
lukeprog(Quote)
You may have already written this somewhere, apologies if I’ve missed it, but what did you study at college/university? What are you doing now? Any plans for post-grad education in the future?
DoAtheistsExist(Quote)
DoAtheistsExist,
I studied psychology and dropped out for boredom.
I work in IT now.
Yeah, maybe one day I’ll go back and study philosophy.
lukeprog(Quote)
I apologize for my name losing its question mark for a whole 2 posts there, my mistake :P
Interesting. I think tbh you should definitely prioritize getting a post-grad qualification, or at least working to remove future obstacles to it, such as finance.
You’ve got so much potential, it would be such a waste if you didn’t. Not that you can’t achieve anything without a post-grad, but imo it would really open your options up, give you greater exposure and of course studying a subject you love in a lot of depth is an end in itself, right? :D
Take whatever I say with 17 pinches of salt though, my inexperience in “life” leads to the utterance of many foolish words unfortunately! ;)
DoAtheistsExist?(Quote)
Cool to know there’s at least one other atheist out their from MN, land of Bachmann (even if you don’t live here any more). I’m from St. Cloud. Still live in the area, though.
Mathew Wilder(Quote)
Mathew,
Yup, I made many a trip to St. Cloud on 95 from Cambridge, where I grew up. The only atheist I knew to be an atheist there was my Tae-Kwan-Do instructor at Cambridge Community College. :)
Bachmann. So incredibly awful.
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke, Do not allow these shallow humans that call themselves “christians” to dissuade you from what you feel in your heart. What you feel in your heart is whats going to guide you, God and Allah be damned to hell. You are a strong person, and although you may doubt and question, you are a very brave person for choosing this path and following your own heart.
jj(Quote)
jj,
I do not trust my heart at all. To understand with the heart is to not understand.
lukeprog(Quote)
William, I do not even know where to start with you, are so far off. Obviously, you have met god, person to person, otherwise, how do you know god is not a fantasy but an idea? I hope you know the bible says, you cannot meet god face to face without being killed!
So, you tried to nit pic Luke’s ideas apart to make a point, well you might as well called him a lier, because that is what you did, I for one believe he truly felt that way at that time. And what he said was stated in the correct way.
You sir, are the one with a fantasy.
I almost wish there were a god at times, just so I could watch you god thumpers tell god what he can and cannot do, since you all seem to know whatever god that you believe in so well.
Dale701(Quote)
I’m just curious, what atheist philosophers did you read that made, “Plain, simple sense?” Thanks!
JaredHamilton(Quote)
Jared,
For the most part they weren’t even atheist philosophers. I remember Dan Barker’s ‘Losing Faith in Faith’ was influential. It’s very simple, but Christian philosophers must do intellectual backflips to get around the points Dan makes in that book.
lukeprog(Quote)
You call that clarification? It’s just another pathetic and convoluted attempt to justify one’s own delusion. “Aesthetics of faith”? More like “anesthetics of faith”, LOL.
Vlad(Quote)
Word, dawg.
Like so many others who have commented on this site, I was a rigorous Christian (a pretty hardcore Catholic, actually) until my search to understand the nature of God made me realize that there never was a God in the first place – only a myth invented by ignorant sheep-herders thousands of years ago. The greatest “just-so” story ever told! Fortunately, an ever-mounting body of scientific literature on evolution, cosmology, microbiology, psychology, etc. from the past 300 years has laid it out clear for us – there is no job left for “God” with our current understanding of the Universe.
Furthermore – ooh, I just hate to piss off you creationists – the Christian God is just… a big ole bully. He is seriously conflicted and antagonistic if you think about it, even if that thinking is done with your heart.
To quote Epicurus:
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
ATHEISM – For The Win.
Rico(Quote)
Luke, I am amazed that you are still responding to comments. When I read them the end result is a slap on the forehead and losing faith in humanity.
Isn’t it amazing though? Six billion people on the Earth, and every Thor Damned one has its own opinion.
Makes me laugh.
Laugh(Quote)
It fills me with hope to see more and more people be brave enough to publicly speak about their non-beliefs.
I grew up as a non-believer in an ex-catholic home.
But living in South Africa, it is still career-limiting to express one’s atheist beliefs.
Keep up the good work. One does not have to be religious to do good in the world. God knows, (pun intended) I do enough for my fellow man.
Marc(Quote)
Glad to see you’ve come to your senses. We can all live moral lives without the fear of eternal damnation and irrational belief in a ghost in the sky.
I only wish more people would use their brains like you have. I do understand some people’s need for the crutches of religion and if that is what they require to refrain from evil, then I guess I’m glad they’ve got some sort of moral compass they can rely on. Me? I don’t need an invisible deity watching over me to know that we should treat everyone with respect and that if Love is the basis of every decision we make, the world would be a better place.
In fact it would be heavenly. ;-)
winelips(Quote)
Morality comes from innate human qualities…not commandments!
Peanut(Quote)
Luke,
This entry is a source of hope for me. I’ve butted heads with theists since I was about ten years old, when I admitted to myself that I didn’t believe in God. A recent experience of mine had nearly convinced me that some people are just plain beyond the reach of the powers of logical thought. Your writings helped alleviate some of the pain of that revelation.
On a side note, I’d avoid taking shots at gay people for not having a logical reason to be atheists. If the very God who created you, also considered an aspect of your self-hood abominable (Leviticus 18:22), I think you would have a logical enough reason not to believe in his existence. Besides, who’s to say how many gay people do or do not have what you consider a rational argument for the inexistence of the Christian God.
Kyle Britto(Quote)
Luke….great job. Very inspiring story for all of us atheists just trying to fit in. You are awesome.
Jeff(Quote)
Luke, I think my favorite thing about your blog is its title: Common Sense Atheism. That’s really all it takes to free yourself from the BS of religion, common sense. I appreciate you sharing your story as mine is pretty similar, although unfortunately I was raised as a Mormon. It was the fake people (and there are a LOT of them) that opened my eyes. You know, the people that would go and drink and have sex and then come to church on sunday and pretend they were good little children. Oh and btw if you didn’t know sex before marriage and alcohol are like the worst thing to Mormons. It’s a pretty messed up religion…but people will believe what they’re told as children, and Mormons are probably the best at corrupting young minds, it’s tragic. I think if Mormons knew half of the stuff that the church was founded on, there would be a lot less Mormons. I mean a polygamist god that lives by the star Kolob? Come on! It’s a joke, a sad joke. And sadly, around here if you leave the church you automatically get labeled and you’re forever an outcast from your own family. But I don’t mind, I’m free and happy! And they’re disillusioned! Anyways, sorry to rant. It’s just nice to hear a fellow critical thinker who got past the greatest lie ever told. :)
Adrian(Quote)
Kyle,
So many people have misinterpreted that line about gays, I really should edit it now…
lukeprog(Quote)
Thanks, Jeff.
lukeprog(Quote)
Adrian,
So glad to hear you made it out! :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Dear Luke,
Thanks for the story. Very inspirational.
I had a similar experience and I understand the struggle.
I remember being alone in my dorm room and really wrestling with the concept that God was omnipotent. I decided I would take 5 minutes to truly believe He was there. It was the most terrifying time of my life. That such a wrathful and vengeful God could see my every move and infiltrate my thoughts was no comfort at all. I was 26 and I was ready to give up faith. But I wasn’t afraid, and I didn’t feel lost or destitute. I felt empowered and in control of my own destiny. Despite all, I still opted for the term Agnostic, all that guilt really sticks.
Now when I look at leaves blowing in the wind, I do not thank God for his majestic power. I appreciate the struggle the tree had to endure to survive, to spread it’s seed. As we do. I feel pride for all my ancestors who lived long enough to bare children and finally produce me. In a world where struggle is a constant I am enriched by the prospect that I was not chosen for this earth, but strong enough to survive it on my own.
Good luck with your struggle and pass on those genes.
Ax
Annalise(Quote)
Thanks, Annalise.
lukeprog(Quote)
that was a beautiful story, devoid of the bitterness i usually run into. I am in the middle stage, needing a crutch but knowing there is none. i hope i can eventually write something as hopeful as you have :)
maggie(Quote)
Maggie,
I’m sure you will. I recommend getting some nonreligious friends who are filled with purpose and happiness, and you’ll see it’s only natural. You’ve got a lot of religious lies about what atheism entails, lies that are bogging you down.
lukeprog(Quote)
It is interesting. I am an agnostic at a christain school. I’d say that its harder to look at facts here than anywhere else. I have to constantly remind myself of the truths that I have observed throughout my life. Thank you for reminding me for another day.
Lauren(Quote)
I was not raised with a religion but I always craved that faith. All my life I have been searching for God but every structured religion I came across felt wrong, false. It was difficult, but I have reached a point where I am content with myself, and the universe. I don’t know what I believe, but it doesn’t matter as long as I live my life to the best of my ability.
I am about to get married to a wonderful person. I couldn’t imagine someone better suited to me. But there is so much I feel that I can’t understand about him. He was raised in the Mormon church. He was very devout, he truly believed. About 2 weeks after we met he told me that he was Mormon but that he’d been struggling with it. Then he “came out” as an Atheist and his friends and family were shocked.
I guess it never really registered until a few nights ago for me, but it was very recent for him. We’ve been together for 8 months and all that time he has been against religion. For 19 years he believed, or he tried to. Now he doesn’t and he says he’s finally happy. We are happy.
I was wondering if you had any advice for me about how to deal with any problems that may arise for him. I can’t begin to imagine what it’s like to have been a part of something your whole life and then suddenly leave it because you realize it couldn’t be true. Sometimes we’ll talk about it and I can feel that he’s hurt by all of it. I just want to support him, no matter what. Thank you.
Arianna(Quote)
Arianna,
I’m glad to hear you and he are happy, and that he escaped Mormonism! Everyone’s experience is so different that I don’t have much advice to give, except to encourage him to explain his feelings as much as possible to you. But it can be hard to get guys to do that, I know! Obviously, the more you understand him, the more you’ll be able to maintain a successful relationship with him.
lukeprog(Quote)
Beautiful. I have walked that walk. Brainwashed from infancy, fantasies inculcated like truth, cautioned against searching for any “truth” other than that which was distilled and dispensed by the Clergy. I, too, swam upstream against the current, and every truth I discovered thrilled me like nothing I’d ever felt during any ‘religions experience’. It was a rocky road, and excommunication was not pleasant, but I saw it for what it was. Now, if someone – anyone – says they are praying for me I can only shake my head in pity for their pathetic delusion. Like you, I am happy. I am fulfilled. And – I am free.
Yobaba(Quote)
People believe in that rubbish because they don’t want to face the truth: they are finite. They live and they die. They’d rather believe that after they die their ‘soul’ goes to some great place where all the women have beautiful D-cups that dispense their favorite alcoholic beverage. Never mind that the same god they
preypray to also created cancer, and e.coli and AIDS, etc.There is no god and it is an insult to the millions of years your brain spent evolving to think there is.
Phil E. Drifter(Quote)
Luke,
I read this entire damn thread and almost lost my mind.
Yes, you should turn this thread into a book, it is that good.
With that thought, I had a brilliant post to put here, but it got lost in my mind.
So. Good luck.
I think you are on the right track and whether you embrace religion or atheism doesn’t matter. The important thing is you have embraced critical thinking. And that, my friend, is THE MOST IMPORTANT THING (if I am able to give my caps-lock opinion :)
Georgeds(Quote)
Thanks, Georgeds.
lukeprog(Quote)
I related to every word of this. My grandparents are/were of strong Christian faith.. my dad, their son, converted to Judaism about 15 years ago, breaking their hearts. I think I’m still in the phase of feeling like I’ve really lost something by being “faithless”. So many times I’ve wished I could blindly follow along, and find comfort. I just can’t. When I ask “why?” I want an answer, not “just because”. It’s not good enough for me. Thanks for this piece. It’s nice to feel like I’m not the only one who has felt or is feeling a bit lost.
Renee(Quote)
I also wanted to clarify, that by “lost”, I don’t mean I’m still questioning what I believe or don’t believe. I also think it’s “funny”, not meaning to offend anyone, that I love stories or movies etc. that are completely fantastical. My cat’s name is Frodo. Interesting that I love things that couldn’t possibly be real. But, I guess that might be because nobody is trying to tell me that they actually exist.
Renee(Quote)
I’m sorry to keep posting.. but I ran across this site immediately after yours. Totally random so I felt I had to share it. Ha.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_08/b4167070046047.htm?chan=rss_topStories_ssi_5
Renee(Quote)
Thanks for the story, very inspiring :)
thegoatisonapole(Quote)
In spite of what your sociological studies say there are a lot of us who were dragged kicking and screaming into atheism by doing what you did: researching the basis of our emotionally held belief system.
As you found, while the process of losing one’s beliefs in this fashion is heart-wrenching, terrifying and emotionally disturbing, the end result is peace and relief beyond anything we could have imagined possible when standing in our previous position.
May your curiosity and intellectual integrity remain with you forever, and may you continue to thrive and be happily at peace with yourself and with the world. Enjoy the trees, the flowers and the snowflakes anew. Their beauty has not changed one iota.
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita,
Yes, the beauty of the trees and flowers and snowflakes has not changed a bit. As Douglas Adams says: “Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi. I’m a seventeen-year-old atheist from another small town I like to call Bigfuck, Nowhere. I mean…here, the most cultured place to eat is the Taco Bell down the street.
Most people here, despite this being a blue state, are conservative Christians who hate godless commie bastards like me. At four, I was enrolled in a Catholic school and proceeded to make my teachers crazy with my constant question of god’s word. I, unlike many of my classmates and their parents, took the Bible stories as clever fiction aimed at keeping us little children in line…sort of like the Boy Who Cried Wolf; they were good *stories* but they weren’t true. When I found out I was supposed to believe them, I was a bit incredulous, but I tried.
In seventh grade, I was into the new-age-y stuff, mostly because my mom was into it. But I never really believed any of that stuff either.
To relatives, I say I’m “in between religions” as if I haven’t found the right one yet. This saves them the discomfort of knowing that I’m going to burn in Hell.
Anyway, great article. It just shows that, the more you learn about religion, the more holes you find.
Natalie R.(Quote)
Great story, Natalie R.!
lukeprog(Quote)
I left Christianity for the emotional reasons you were talking about. I personally never felt comfortable with Christianity…I only held onto it because I didn’t want to disappoint my parents, and the idea of burning for eternity scared me. I have struggled with self-esteem and suicidal issues for a few years, and I always asked, “If I’m praying and believing in God, why isn’t he keeping these thoughts away?” My religion taught me that Satan caused the evil thoughts that told me I wasn’t worth anything.
It took a huge low point in my life for me to realize that I was blaming my own self-struggle on a diabolical figure who lived in a fiery hole somewhere below the Earth. I realized that it was my OWN thoughts that were telling me this, and I had to conquer it myself. And eventually, I did. I couldn’t have done it without the help of my friends and family though. They were a huge help too. Soon after, I left religion and declared myself an atheist. I have been slowly recovering since, and I can honestly say that I feel more empowered and happy. This is my story though, and I’m not saying that everyone should realize this. But this is just my story…
Cara(Quote)
Thanks for writing that. My story is very similar. I’m the son of two ministers. Oddly though, both my parents, after decades of study, also became atheists. My de-conversion came while I was studying the sociology of religion at a christian college. Have to admit, I miss church and the comfort of belief sometimes. I’ve also tried dating christians and it has not gone well. Do you ever feel cut off from people you might have connected with otherwise? I feel like some dear friends of mine will never fully trust me knowing that I’m an atheist. Thanks again. It nice to know other people have had experiences similar to mine.
digby(Quote)
digby,
Yup, atheism tends to cut you off somewhat from people who have been trained to distrust all atheists.
lukeprog(Quote)
Enjoyed reading your story. It could be worse, you could have been in your second year of Bible College as a pastoral theology major before you figured it out…..like I was. I’m glad you had the courage to come out. Some people never do.
Wayne Adkins(Quote)
Thanks for blogging – this is great.
I can really relate to the part about desperately trying to keep something to have faith in. I forget when I first started questioning the parts that didn’t make sense, but each answer made it harder to reconcile the rest of it. But I tried! I went to a Billy Graham revival and my sister’s fundamental Bible church, and ended up with Unity and Unitarian. I have an interest in physics and theory doees say that there is an energy and connectedness for all, so for a while I hung onto that as God – pretty useless for deity to make a difference in my life, but at least it was something. One day I thought, “But there is no reason to think that that energy has an opinion or personality or cares about us!” and POP! God disappeared.
It’s been years since then – I went through an angry defensive stage, but now I’m happier and at peace. I consider myself a skeptic now – I believe in things I have convincing evidence for. Interestingly, all the woo I picked up and fervently believed in – crystals, energy healing, acupressure, homeopathy, etc – is gone for me now too.
MaryLynne(Quote)
I have never met an atheist who pointed at any kind of traumatic event or emotional upheaval as the source of their de-conversion. I believe most atheists who were raised in religious homes have had similar experiences to yours, they started losing faith when they started really looking at it.
I hope you are finding as I did, that when gods are taken out of the equation, life is so much more precious. My feeling of connection to the rest of humanity is richer. I definitely feel atheism made me a better parent, as well as a more grounded and understanding spouse. My life is not a dress-rehearsal, it is the only time I will ever have.
cdo(Quote)
It’s lovely to read everyone’s responses…
lukeprog(Quote)
Good stuff – well done for seeking truth and finding a way out of the maze.
Len(Quote)
God is in our imaginations. Yours is the closest thing you have to 8. Harbor it and grow it and then use it to create.
Infinity(Quote)
Wow- I was in a way quite moved. I came upon your epiphany in almost the reverse. I was raised atheist myself, my parents claiming that if I wanted to go to church- I could walk. They said they would be supportive, but were not going to join me. My best friends have somehow all been religious in some way, and I felt that I was missing some crucial part in my life. I had a best friend who started to take me to his church- not to convert me- but because he loves Christ so much that he wanted to share his love with me.
I am a very open-minded person, and I discovered that after going to his church quite a few times that I didn’t need religion to be happy or fulfilled. Instead I came to the epiphany that I would be happy without religion. So I guess what I learned is that I am really agnostic, I am not indecisive, but rather indifferent- I prefer however to say that I am not religiously affiliated, as opposed to atheist. I don’t know if there is or isn’t a God, and I am going to leave people to believe what they wish, and instead live my life as a good person- which I can do without going to confessional or church every Sunday morning for the rest of my life.
Shae(Quote)
atheist from reason, raised Christian. there’s more than you’d think.
Cat(Quote)
Stumbled upon this.
I must say, that is one inspiring story my friend. You were absolutely right in saying that this is far from the norm when it comes to conversion. I too grew up in a small town of many churches, and my doubts(which came at a pretty young age) were received with less than enthusiastic responses from my peers. But I just couldn’t bring myself to believe. That’s probably not the best way to put it, but I did try to force myself into having faith for a time, and it just doesn’t work like that. I value logic and proof, scientific study and tested facts. To have faith in God is something else entirely, and I don’t know if it’s something I lack or something I possess that just makes it impossible. But, although that maybe be true, I did not go through nearly as much in my journey to disbelief. I found friends with similar minds and just smile when my Christian friends make comments about my Atheism, but otherwise my lack of faith stays backseat as I continue on. It’s just not important enough to argue or try to rationalize anymore, it’s life, and you live it to the best of your abilities.
Anyways, I’m rambling, your story was thought provoking and very inspirational. I’m glad to hear you made the decision based on logic and knowledge, instead of allowing your emotions to sweep you away. Blind faith and ignorant disbelief are far too common in this day and age. And that it made you happy, that is the most important thing of all.
Keep up the good work and the best of luck in all your endeavors.
Wyatt(Quote)
hey great article. i had an almost identical experience, and you did a great job of articulating everything that a person goes through.
Sam(Quote)
It’s kind of a shame that there are so many Christians denouncing your logical rebuke of religion in these comments without actually providing any concrete arguments.
“God will eventually talk to you like he does me, you are just being a know it all kid. See you in heaven!”
It’s refreshing to know that deep emotional faith like that can be overcome, as evidence by your wonderful article. From a fellow atheist from Duluth Minnesotan, I appreciate you sharing your story with the cruelty of the internet.
BSG(Quote)
Luke,
I, like others, just “Stumbled” upon your site…Thankfully. I always find it fascinating when someone of faith, has a complete turn around. To be so deeply saturated in a religion, and then go the opposite way, is quite an accomplishment…and going the other way is as well. As for me, I like to think that I believe in common sense. So, when someone says to me, “just look around, doesnt all this beauty tell you that there is a god?”I have to say no…because that just doesnt make sense. How easy is it to say, when you cant really explain something, that it was done by God. That is way too easy.
I work in the film business, and there are many Born Again Christians in it…many of whom are my friends. As such, so many of them have blinders on, when it comes to certain religious conversations. They just dont want to hear it, if it doesnt jive with their beliefs.
I was born Jewish…and I am Jewish as a “person”…but I do not follow the religious aspects…other than trying to live the way a “good Jew” should live. lol (whatever that is) When I say I am Jewish as a person…usually, only another Jew understands the meaning of that. I wont bore you with it.
To me, there is always a bottom line to everything. Its either yes or no. You like it or you dont.
The bottom line to me, in the conversation about believing or not believing is…”who the F cares?” How does my belief effect you in any way, shape of form? It doesnt.
While I would never take away the faith of another…and I would never say that there is no god…to me, nothing has proven to me that there is.
If I were about to fall off a cliff, I could not put my faith in a gods hands, to keep me safe. However, I could put my faith in my friends hands, because he/she has proven to me that they will be there for me. It would not be blind faith that I was relying on.
I work in a field that requires exact actions and timing, to not get injured.I can not allow “faith” in anything, to keep me safe…other than what has been proven to work, by practiced abilities.
Anyway, thanks for the space to write!
Tony(Quote)
Hey, I had the same sort of thing happen to me after I read the bible with an open mind. It was only until after I read it did I renounce my Christianity. I think more Christians should take a good hard look at what they believe and think about it.
Caleb(Quote)
The “I’m here to save your soul” comments from religious folk are pretty entertaining. I think what’s weird is that they treat you like you’re some strange alien who needs to be “re-herded”…but people, gotta tell ya, there are a LOT of non-believers out here. You just don’t realize it because most of us are pretty non-confrontational folks, quietly and pleasantly going about with our lives. In fact, you might be shocked to discover that some of the kindest and most moral people you know are, in fact, non-believers. Who woulda thunk it.
Good luck in your journey Luke. I appreciate that you’re not foaming at the mouth with extremism like a lot of atheists seem to be. Myself, I was raised Christian, became a fervent atheist at 11 when they forced me to be “confirmed” in the church, rolled back to Buddhism and “spirituality” as an older teen, and eventually settled back into apatheism. I’m glad to see that non-believers are finally starting to get more outspoken, if only because one day, I’d love it if I didn’t have to listen to those nasty cloying christmas songs for two months out of every year.
alex(Quote)
alex,
Yeah, it’s weird, as if Christians don’t get it that I already know the gospel, and repeating it to me ain’t gonna do anything.
lukeprog(Quote)
Pre-cise-ley. Haha.
alex(Quote)
Luke, I wasn’t brought up in the home of a pastor or by anyone really religious, but I was brought up to believe in god. When I got older and learned about evolution and biology, science just made more sense to me and I started questioning those beliefs, for a long time I just said I didn’t know what I believed. Later on I went to college and learned more philosophy and science and religion just didn’t make any sense anymore. I’m happy to be an atheist because I truly believe that now I can live my life as fully as possible because it’s the only chance I believe I have, so I’m not going to waste it. Becoming an atheist, I think, is a liberating thing. I enjoyed reading your story and I hope all is well for you and good luck.
Stina(Quote)
Luke, there are a lot of us formerly religious atheists who used reason and study to figure out that atheism is the correct position. (I imagine that emotionally-driven de-conversion is rather tenuous.) Not all of us, however, can boast the Internet savvy and/or writing skills and/or interest in writing about our experience on a blog. That said, I enjoyed reading yours, and am glad to hear you got your head straightened out.
All of us who have had similar experiences are victims of indoctrination, which I hope someday will be recognized as the crime against humanity that it is. It is good to realize, as you do, that having suffered under false beliefs steels your powers of reason, but some are buried under such a mountain of delusion that by the time they sort it all out half their lives have passed, their youth wasted away on useless pursuits and superstitious restrictions, their life’s potential severely curtailed. Enjoy your youth, my friend, and take full advantage of the years you have ransomed.
caseywollberg(Quote)
I come from hillfolk bible thumpers. The worst kind, excepting pedophiles. I understand and remember that feeling of awakening you write so articulately about.
I acheived that freedom many years ago, I’m an old fart.
On the lighter side check this site,
http://www.lowchensaustralia.com/names/gods.htm
many of these have better documentaion and more interesting stories than the one we both heard as children. Just disbelieve one more than the list.
Billontherock(Quote)
“… we can’t explain why human life has intrinsic value outside of God.” Why can’t we? How about survival? The more that survive in your group, the better chances you have for survival.
Even dogs (who have no soul and therefore are outside the knowledge of god) will try to save a life. I submit this amusing example: http://13.rs/media/171/znog-ovoga-cete-se-osecati-200-bolje.html
Louie(Quote)
Luke,
Great site! I found it tonight thanks to “Stumble!”
Allow me to introduce myself:
I’m 52 years old and living in Alabama. I’m trying to live the life of the “Ferryman” in Siddhartha (Hermann Hesse). Like the character, I too was a “seeker” of truth.
I’ve been a Sandwich Maker, a Mental Health worker, a Journeyman Carpenter, a professional Scuba Diver, a Potter, in the US Navy, a Forklift Driver, a Student, and a Professor (In that order).
My genesis went like this.
1. Belief in God.
2. Belief in a higher power.
3. Belief that it sometimes take decades to overcome a cultural immersion in a belief structure.
Like you, my conversion came at the hands of seeking Biblical knowledge. The more I learned, the more my eyes opened. This ends my introduction. I’ll give you a “thumbs up” on Stumble, and tell a few friends about your site. Discretely, I do live in Alabama, after all.
hmmm… maybe we need a symbol to scratch in the dirt to avoid persecution?
Louie(Quote)
Thanks, Louie.
lukeprog(Quote)
Amazing story. I’m an open-minded, well educated, woman who doesn’t like titles, but my beliefs follow no god. I admire anyone who can share there story. My children aren’t going to be raised as atheists or to believe what I do, rather I want to teach them to explore the beliefs and history of the world and find themselves. A lot of my life was wasted in bible studies and church groups and I even taught in a summer bible camp with friends. Now I’ve studied almost every religion I could find, looked extensively into the way our world works, and collaborated with many different types of people in order to find myself. I fell in love with an open-minded atheist and we have started our family with a beautiful baby girl who is now 2 1/2 and because of our life style I already see her being smart and feel she will be such a well rounded person. Once we get through school years I’ll be able to breathe freely. People need to understand that it’s the uniqueness of a person and the way they live their life that matters. To each his own.
Thanks again for sharing. You’ve had quite a journey and I commend you for all you’ve gone through. Best wishes.
Billie(Quote)
http://lleroimiller.vox.com/library/post/a-very-brave-man.html
Simply amazing similarities
Lloyd(Quote)
Hate to break this too you, Pal, but you’re not the only one around who left religion due to intellectual reasons. Most of us left religion for intellectual reasons. It’s going to take you a while before you see this, because you are still looking at atheism as a theist would.
Bill Dunlap(Quote)
Welcome to rationalism. :)
I’m a life long atheist. I wasn’t raised to be an atheist, I was raised to think for myself. When I was old enough to begin to understand religion/theism it just didn’t make sense, so I rejected it. It was only at that point that you could really call me an atheist.
Slugsie(Quote)
What would you say was the single book that made you lose your faith/become an atheist?
All the best =)
DoAtheistsExist?(Quote)
DoAtheistsExist?
It’s grossly misrepresentative to my deconversion to boil it down to one book, but if I had to choose one I would say Dan Barker’s Losing Faith in Faith. The brief, simple reasoning in that book is better than the convoluted, twisty, double-standard apologetic responses I read from the most sophisticated Christian philosophers.
lukeprog(Quote)
OK thanks :)
DoAtheistsExist?(Quote)
Luke, what an amazing discussion you’ve inspired… I like the overall architecture of your argument. It has an integrity that is often lacking on both sides, as you’ve alluded to.
I was inspired to reply when I read your comments…
quote
“Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”
Yes, and that is exactly the problem with faith. It is wishful thinking and invisible (non-)”evidence”.
quote
I’ve been thinking about faith and how it might relate to the quantum world. I was wondering what you (& others) thought about the notions of faith and quantum probability? From my perspective the more we understand the fundamental nature of our universe, through exploring the world of the tiny, the more I think faith and spirituality play a critical role.
That’s not to say I have any truck for the the way we’ve institutionalized faith and sometimes used lies and manipulation to spawn so called ‘good behavior’.
The human capacity to fuck things up is indeed immense,(yea I am looking in the mirror as I type..) but in our quest for deeper, evidence based truth, understanding the role of faith in the symmetry of the universe will represent amazing progress.
Max(UK)
Max(Quote)
Max,
I’m not sure what you mean by faith having something to do with quantum indeterminacy. In any case, the indeterminacy averages out such that large-scale events (say, involving chemistry or anything bigger) are still fully determined. But for some interesting thoughts on faith, listen to this podcast.
lukeprog(Quote)
Hi! I just stumbled onto your blog and really enjoyed reading your story. I wasn’t going to say anything but you remind me a bit of a youtube user called Qualiasoup, here’s his channel, thought you might enjoy his uploads.
http://www.youtube.com/user/qualiasoup?blend=1&ob=4
Good luck on your… everything, I guess. Seems like you’re concentrating a lot on logic right now, which is good, but don’t neglect or disdain emotion–even if it can lead you down the wrong path sometimes, it can also make the right path better.
Thanks for sharing yourself with the world.
Jade Margery(Quote)
Hi!
I just wanted to leave a short comment to this story of yours, because it reminded so much of my own.
I am a 22-year old university student. My parents are simple farmers with low education, but with fierce religious faith. I lived the first 19 years of my life in this small farming community where a lot of activity for younger folk revolved around the Church(es). I believed because I wanted to believe, oh did I want it so bad! But I just gradually lost my faith. My ‘awakening’ must’ve been when I was around 15 or 16 years old. God, with all his evil and injustice, just no longer made sense.
For a long time I was afraid to leave the church. I finally did it when I turned 18 (and became ‘an adult’), and at first I was treated like an outcast – even by my own parents. Now, as time has passed, we’re closer to status quo… with the exception that my dad still keeps asking me if I’m done with this ‘thing’ and ready to convert back.
My story doesn’t take place in Utah or Wisconsin. I come from the other side of the world, a small Nordic country at the edge of Europe called Finland. I’m telling you this because I want to remind you that a lot of people, all around the world, are facing the same troubling questions of our religious upbringing from that very same intellectual standpoint.
I wish you plenty of strength in the future. I’d type ‘godspeed’ if it wasn’t so awkward in this context.
VP(Quote)
I stumbled upon your work and I just wanted to take the time to say that you are really brave. I commend you on your strength to search for the knowledge you were lacking and to decide for yourself how to live your life.
Christa(Quote)
Hi there! I found this with StumbleUpon. I really enjoyed it. My boyfriend has a similar story with growing up. My parents never really talked about it or had me in church until my mom got sick when I was 12. By then I pretty much didn’t believe already, though I tried for awhile! My entire LIFE is dogs! And when I was a kid I was watching “All Dogs Go to Heaven”. My dad, trying to joke around I guess, said, “Dogs don’t REALLY go to heaven because they have no souls!” Well that REALLY made me mad as a kid! LOL! That AND my love for dinosaurs. :) Atheist can be happy and successful, too! Keep up the good thinking.
SpaceWranglerrr(Quote)
Great post. You’re a critical thinker. Keep it up, no matter where it leads you.
Ric(Quote)
It does happen. Brother Richard from Atheist Nexus is one of them. His epiphany started when there was a scandal in the church where he was an assistant pastor.
Another person I know began his serious doubting after he accidentally backed his car over his toddler and killed her.
However, most of the atheists I know got there by a long process of systematic study and the relentless exercise of critically examining the basis for their faith.
It takes a certain type of personality to be able to operate in this way. You have to be able to overcome the fear of tentatively operating from the assumption that your indoctrinated belief might be false. It definitely helps if you have a good education in the sciences or in logic and critical thinking. Both of these disciplines teach you to suspend judgement and consider things impartially. This, however, is not a sufficient condition.
Rosita(Quote)
I just wanted to say that I was glad to read your story. I was raised in a more or less religious home, but never felt happy in any of the churches we went to. I could never truly believe, no matter how much I tried or wanted to– and I did want to.
As the years went by I tried out different forms of religion, studying paganism, wicca, buddhism, etc, but even though these offered the acceptance I was looking for, I still didn’t really believe them.
Over time, I became a more logical person, and more and more the idea of faith (the intentional lack of logic in favor of hope) bothered me, and religious arguments (and discrimination of any idea that wasn’t based in religions- read Christianity) made me more and more sure of the fact that I couldn’t believe.
When people ask me why I’m no longer religious, my response now is that I don’t need a god to justify my existence, nor the threat of hell to be a good person.
I am a good person. I believe in ethics and compassion, but do not think a set of religious morals are applicable to the whole world. It makes me sad that so many people in the world are so clouded by this “faith” that they judge and hate and otherwise feel that no one else can be right if they disagree with them. Even the ones who claim to be “tolerant” are still rarely accepting.
I’m not against the idea of a higher power, but I don’t think it has anything to do with us, and we couldn’t possibly know anything about it.
Cyn M(Quote)
I stumbled onto this site and I read through your story and some of the comments.
I too lost my faith several years ago. I had a very tough time, although I didn’t have even half the pressure you appeared to have on you.
You’re a strong man.
Mattias(Quote)
I liked your story. Very well written.
I thought I’d post to let you know that I also became an Atheist through an intellectual search and not for emotions or how I was raised (I was raised by very serious, but understanding Christians). I didn’t search as thoroughly into Jesus as you did, however–but maybe I will when I’m bored some day.
Kyle(Quote)
Loosing your faith in Christianity does not mean you have to loose your faith in a god.
Mahatma Gandhi said “I’m a Christian, a Muslim, a Hindu and a Jew”. It doesn’t have to contradict itself if one considers a divine spark in the foundation of all religions. Maybe just 99 % of all religions is man made.
And I believe it was the Dalai Lahma who said “You don’t need to be religious to be following god’s path”.
In other words, there might be a god or a supreme being out there. Whether it interferes with our daily lives or not.
It can help at times to think something is out there.
But then again: Who knows ?!
As long as some day everyone can choose to believe what they want, the world will be a better place.
Kai(Quote)
I know it’s kind of off topic, but could you elaborate on what you mean about Libertarianism?
Michael Dickens(Quote)
All I meant is that I was once a Libertarian (politically), until someone finally made it clear to me why Libertarianism is evil. :)
lukeprog(Quote)
Wow, our stories are very similar. Thanks for sharing.
Cat(Quote)
Hi Luke,
I have been looking at your site for awhile now. I gave up, lost my faith over 6 months ago. My story is similar to yours. I became a believer in 04 after a lifetime of religious studying on my own. I was convinced i had found the truth. I will not go into the whole story but some scriptures got me looking deeper and I kept prodding, until ultimately i decided their was no evidence. Belief is by faith. Anyways, I really like your site because it is honest and calls bullshit when it is, even if it on the atheistic side. Anyways keep up the good work and any suggestive readings would be appreciated.
gabriel sheridan(Quote)
Great blog! I too came by atheism via a rational process, but my conversion came much earlier in life. During confirmation at my church (in sixth grade — way too young in my opinion) I had so much trouble accepting the idea of the trinity and the many contradictions in the Bible. Furthermore, my dad is a scientist so I was raised accepting the theory of evolution. I reasoned that the creation story was just a metaphor and that the “days” actually represented long periods of time. But the more I became familiar with the Bible, the more often I had to make those sorts of exceptions and allowances. Eventually I realized that if I believed that certain parts of the Bible were metaphors or stories told to prove a point, why should I accept any part of it as the true word of God? How did I know the story of Jesus rising from the dead wasn’t also a metaphor?
I still faked it, though. I really wanted to believe. It made life so much simpler, and it meant that I would spend eternity in Heaven. At the end of confirmation we were supposed to pray until we heard the voice of God telling us to move forward and fully join the church. I tried so hard to hear God’s voice, but it never came. Looking back, I realize that was the turning point in my life. I still tried to believe, but by age 16 or so I was pretty confident in my disbelief. I’m now 27, but I still struggle with the fact that I’m not fully “out” to my family. My friends and coworkers all know, but I know my mom will struggle with my atheism (I’m 99% sure my dad’s also a closeted atheist). I did have the honor of unintentionally converting someone to atheism. In high school I was debating a Christian about evolution, and one of my friends was listening from the sidelines. A few years later he told me that he was an atheist, and that my arguments led him to begin to question and research his own beliefs. He hadn’t even considered that there might not be a God! Once I planted that seed of doubt, it was all his own research and reasoning that led him to atheism.
Just wanted to share my story. Keep up the good work!
Robin(Quote)
Wow – this was so good to read…. I feel like we’ve had very similar experiences! I recently have de-converted… but I have not told anyone but my husband and brother. It’s so encouraging to read others’ stories, especially yours. I was a hard core Christian… Jesus was definitely my best friend and the reason behind everything I did. After tragedy hit my life I began searching to deepen my faith, and found the Paul/Jesus issue. From there my questions could only be answered by non-believers. I never wanted the knowledge I had gained. I wanted to be a Christian, but just couldn’t be because of what I had learned. Thank you for sharing your story.
Carrie(Quote)
Thanks for sharing, Carrie.
lukeprog(Quote)
WOW! I found out about this site through a friend. Very impressive indeed as was the word of mouth hype through the grapevine. Personally I find you to be very inspiring, especially as a fellow dude. So confident and cool at the same time, yeah that’s a compliment. Sooo many intellectuals seem to have the consistency of biscotti, smell of the softening coffee. You are more like the clouds in the background, both fresh and expansive at the same time. Is not the whole earth our church and the cosmos our reason for wonder and awe? Do we need an old whiskery mystery blowing like the wind, unseen and uncomprehended? Is humankind not the measure of all things indeed, completely sufficient in and of itself? I look forward to perhaps thumbing through some of your book suggestions, specifically the vs. christian types (more fuel for the fire,eh). Cheers, looking forward to more arguments! These christians seem immune to evidence, shall even the truth set them free???
bruce brinker(Quote)
So fantastic to see people using their brains (and I don’t mean deciding there is no God. I mean making the effort to find out)
It’s not really mine to give out, but I think you might just be a credit to the human race.
Oof, too strong.
Still, it was fascinating to read.
Emma(Quote)
Heh. Thanks, Emma.
lukeprog(Quote)
thanks for sharing. It’s almost frightening how similar our stories are. And I would assume that ours is a common story as well.
Dan(Quote)
The atheists made plain, simple sense, and the Christian philosophers were lost in fog of big words that tried to hide the weakness of their arguments.
yes,you are right
ramanathan(Quote)
Great story, Luke! I had a ‘mildly’ Christian upbringing but not as intense as yours, however your deconversion process sounded similar to mine, what with the hunger for knowledge and realization that life as an atheist just feels more ‘real’.
I was not very active with church, though now I wish I was because I am having to make up a lot of information and memorized passages that would be adventageous to me now, since I am a Religious Studies major at my University! lol Funny how things work out, but I think de-converted atheists have a stronger passion for learning and understanding religion than most theists!
Keep on rocking!
Travis(Quote)
You are the first atheist that i find intelligent. There must be a gradient from Peter Atkins’ talks, passing through Richard Dawkins’ books and rushing straight to this blog.
From an theist reader from Brazil: Repent NOW! ;D
Deus(Quote)
nice to know that there are other people in the world who have gone through similar things as me. I have yet to tell my family i’m an atheist. they already know i’m a vegan and they hate that ha ha. i guess it’s just that i look up to my father in so many ways, i don’t want to disappoint him with telling him i’m an atheist which, he being the fundamentalist christian that he is, would shit a brick over.
but i really enjoyed this.
mandy(Quote)
Fascinating, Mandy. Good luck.
lukeprog(Quote)
“So many bad lessons about morality, thinking, and sex. So much needless guilt.”
And there it is. I have no idea how I wandered onto this blog. I just turned 21 years-old two weeks ago and have had a similar journey as you but arrived at a totally different destination. I am now a rather devout Catholic that knows that God exists. Anyway, I was reading your “story” and had to comment on the above. There it is. I know it’s probably not your intention to convince “believers” with this post, but if it was, you could not have raised more of a devilish flag with the above words.
Uh, anyway, it seems everyone else in this comments section is pretty cool, so I won’t spoil the cordiality. windfish@sbcglobal.net if you ever want to hit me up, maybe to play some games.
Brian(Quote)
@Brian
May I suggest that you have not arrived yet? I think you are merely resting at a stop along the way, much like Luke did on many occasions. It will be interesting to see where you have got to by the time you are 40.
Meanwhile, you might consider why your version of god has been so neglectful of children under the care of the Catholic church and why this god led his representatives to engage in a massive worldwide coverup.
Rosita(Quote)
Well, that sure is a suggestion, but I think you might want to hold off on imposing on me whatever ambiguities you may or may not have went through. I think if you knew where I’m at, you’d see how I arrived at a simple matter of fact that can’t be “debated” or “questioned” away, even if I wanted to! Uh, about the abuse scandal… that’s one way to to frame it, yes.
Anyway, not really interested in a back and forth, so it’s probably my mistake for posting. Just wanted to comment on how that “freedom” he felt is clearly devilish. It’d be a moral failure on my part not to tell you that, so here I am!’
E-mail is is up there if you *really* want bust my chops.
Brian(Quote)
Just an opinion here…
Maybe Jesus was a great man, maybe he did great things for people. Unfortunately his image has been used to create a ‘religion’ which essentially is just a way to have power and influence over society, whether that be through scaremongering by insinuating that those who dont behave as those in power (church leaders) want them to, are going to hell etc. however i think that while religion is essentially just a form of control over people it does incite them to do many positive things, and people will always find something to believe in because in our vanity we want to believe we are important in some way. so god knows what we should do about it! if he exists that is.
Morgan(Quote)
@Morgan.
Every religion, the Abrahamic ones included, has been a vehicle for art, culture and in-group cohesion. Unfortunately, every religion has also been the vehicle or excuse for most of the worst atrocities in the history of the world.
I think aspects of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, or the composite which was called by that name, were ahead of the general wisdom of the day. Unfortunately this first century wisdom is not the best that is on offer these days. Modern civilization will not tolerate the many barbarisms condoned, taught and commanded in the Christian Bible. Modern medicine condemns the methods for healing the sick prescribed by this Book. Modern science prevents many of the evils that this Book neglects to address. If Jesus had been all-wise then teaching people to wash their hands before preparing and eating food would have saved trillions of lives instead of the paltry handful which the Biblical stories attribute to him.
The more literally people take the stories and lessons taught in the ancient writings of their religion the more excuses they have for behaving in ways which range from monstrous to morally immature. “Sunday school morality”, the kind that teaches that you should obey the religious authorities, interpret the holy writings or listen to the imagined “voice of the Lord” for advice on how to behave, is stuck at the moral level of the average 12 year old: follow the external rules and obey the authorities. When religious people behave in a morally mature fashion, they most often do so in spite of, and not because of, their religion.
Rosita(Quote)
To Luke,
I just read your testimony and am encouraged. It is similiar to mine and am glad to have you on our side. Also, I’m glad to know that you are on the side of our Christian friends though disagreeing with them. Your testimony suggests that you desire to be compassionate and understanding towards Christians which is a winning attitude. Unfortunately, this is lacking amongst most atheists which is why many are doing much more harm than good.
Whether you realize it or not, you are an Apostle for another Gospel and that is the Gospel of Reason. Hopefully, you continue preaching that Gospel for years to come and never forget that helping others is its own reward.
Regards!
C.S. McKinney(Quote)
Hi Luke,
I just wanted to let you know your deconversion story was an interesting read. I appreciate your honesty about the long and difficult process that discarding faith usually is. My background was never quite as steeped in strong Christian theology, my parents were never adamant about pushing their own beliefs on me. I’m grateful for that, because it allowed to me to think about things and eventually come to my own conclusions.
Nevertheless, as relaxed as I always was about my own faith – God was sort of “there” as a security blanket, nothing more – I still faced the same horrifying anxiety and sense of loss when I realized I had come to a crossroads. I could choose to keep on believing in something for which I had no justification merely for the sake of comfort, or I could embrace the uncertainty that comes with discarding beliefs held for many years. But belief isn’t really something one can choose. You either believe something or you don’t. For many of the same reasons you mentioned, I could no longer “choose” to believe. In its place though, I felt something new. A sense of relief when I realized there was no impending doom after death, no invisible man in the sky watching and judging my every movement. That things just happen, good and bad, and not every little bad thing that happens is my fault for being an inherently bad person or not praying enough. It made me appreciate life in new ways.
Thanks for sharing your story, it’s good to know the strong fears and doubts I experienced at one time weren’t unique to me. Better still to know you got through those fears through rational thinking rather than emotional arguments. It sounds as if you are happier now because of it.
Wishing you all the best.
Jess(Quote)
Thanks, Jess!
lukeprog(Quote)
> The gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death
I wrote my testimony when I was 23. I made a few changes to the last sentences when I got married, and tweaked the middle of it once. I printed it various times for others to read. If someone claimed that my conversion wasn’t real because the most recent printout didn’t match the date of my conversion, I would think they were screwy.
> by non-eyewitnesses
This man has something to tell you:
“Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness… That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life”
> They are riddled with contradictions
“Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth.” – Blaise Pascal
Since I have two wedding dates and have been married only once, I can identify with seeming contradictions like this:
II Ki.24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign
II Chr.36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign
When the answer to this brain-numbing puzzle was finally revealed to me, I decided from that point forward to first assume the “contradiction” exists because of my lack of knowledge.
See http://atechworld.com/files/BIBLE/jehoiachin.htm
> legends
If you don’t like legends, why don’t you study the originator of the legend?
“Saint Nicholas had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus.” – Wiki
Annie Oakley became a legend in America & Europe through the medium of comic books & novels. The Biblical world-wide flood spawned flood legends throughout the ENTIRE WORLD. Search “Flood Traditions”
The gospel writers provide so much detail about Jesus directly without the cloak of “legend” hung over him, that I see little need to approach him from this muddled position.
> and known lies
The first time I read the Bible, I was immediately impressed with Jesus’ character when contrasted against the Sadducees, Pharisees, lawyers, doctors, etc. Their nature was capable of lying whereas Jesus was incapable. Nothing has changed: man’s testimony vs. God’s. We already know man’s state: atheism, pantheism, agnosticism, Darwinism, Marxism, communism, etc. I think there should be one big “ism” that encompasses all of the separate “ism’s” which contradict, deny, or disregard God. How about Satanism?
Alan Clarke(Quote)
@Alan Clarke
Alan, you clearly don’t get it. There serious differences between your “explanatory” parallels.
Your testimony was written by you, first hand. You are still alive and can be questioned about what you meant by it, if it is unclear. You are human and not eternal and unchanging so it is expected that you will change your mind and make modifications to things.
Consider what would happen if your conversion story was relayed like the New Testament stories. It would go something like this.
You have a moving experience which is witnessed by a group of your friends. You believe that you have been in communion with a god and your friends think so, too. This explanation makes sense in the world in which they live where this kind of interpretation of unusual events is common place.
Unfortunately both you and your friends are illiterate so neither you nor they write up your experience. As is normal with human memory, the actual events and their interpretation warp over time and each verbal recounting modifies the story slightly. Eventually you die and the story lives on in the minds of your friends and in the minds of the people they have told about it. Eventually your friends die and the story is only continued in the minds of friends of your friends, and in the minds of the friends of your friends friends. Finally, forty years after your death someone who has never met you in person writes letters to others claiming that he knows how you were thinking on the basis of several paranormal experiences he had during seizure activity. Because he speaks a different language from yours much is lost in the translation and he attributes sayings to you which do not make sense in your language, although they make sense in his.
Another fifty years later several people write a more detailed analysis of what your were thinking and experiencing on the basis of stories handed down through many generations of verbal repetition. Since the dominant version of what your were thinking is now the version given by the man who had seizures the manuscripts which are most like his take on things are preserved while others are modified to fit. Over the next couple of centuries your original story is embroidered with tales of your life, work and death. People transcribing the early written reports add stories which support these new additions or modify the text to make it a better fit.
Finally, a few centuries after your death, the official version of your transcendental experience differs very considerably from the scientifically niave verbal explanation which you gave to your best friend the day after the original event. The stories told about your life would have astounded your mother, or anyone else who knew you well, unless – - – and it’s an important “unless”, these people had been involved in the verbal drift over the years, repeating the story with the usual mind warp of memory contaminated by time, subsequent experience, wishful thinking, social influence and just plain imperfect biology.
Your original experience would have been better served if you could have dictated it directly to someone who wrote it down immediately after it happened. It would still be contaminated by your ignorance of the psycho-social phenomena at work in conversion experiences but it would at least by reasonably faithful to you original niave explanation of what had happened to you at the time. This is much more like what happened with the Koran, than the Bible. The text of the Koran was written down by a scribe as it was dictated by Mohammed. As in the example just given, the truth value of what was written is directly dependent on whether the person making the statement was infallibly correct in the interpretation they gave to their experience. Sincerity has nothing to do with it. Mohammed sincerely believed that he was speaking words directly dictated to him by the arch-angel Michael. That is not something which is open to scientific disproof. Neither is your interpretation of what happened to you.
In the end, both the Koran and the Bible require that readers accept the infallibility of the writers, the omnisicience of those who had the original experience, and finally, the infallability of any person who tries to interpret the meaning of these books.
The Bible has the added problem of requiring that the reader believe in the unfailing memory of those who passed along the stories before they were written down and the absolute integrity and tactile perfection of those who transcribed them.
There is also the serious semantic problem of trying to capture the original meaning of text which was first written in a foreign language. No two languages have perfect socio-linguistic accord. Islam tries to avoid this problem by teaching its adherents to read the Koran in the original Arabic. Translation is frowned upon.
On the other hand, there are a whole heap of language based interpretation problems with the Christian Bible. Some have even resulted in the development of doctrines which were clearly not intended by the original writers. For example, the semantic difference between the Hebrew and Greek words for “young woman” led to the doctrine of the virgin birth. The spurious nature of the story of Jesus preventing the stoning of a woman caught in adultery is apparent from the fact that the Greek does not translate into Aramaic, so Jesus could not have said what he is supposed to have said unless he spoke it in Greek!
Imagine the problems that would accrue if your testament were translated into a language which had no words to describe the difference between sense of self and sense of other.
Rosita(Quote)
My story is quite similar to yours. I was raised as a Christian. I preached once when I was 15. While my dad wasn’t a pastor, two of my uncles are. I didn’t investigate the history of jesus or christianity, like you, but I had a growing sense of doubt. I remember in my early teens thinking, “I know evolution isn’t true, but it sure makes a lot of sense”.
I, too, felt a BIG BIG BIG sense of loss when I came to the conclusion that there is no god. Those atheists who never have been theists probably think we are silly, but I know what a wonderful imaginary friend jesus can be. And I really wanted to spend eternity with all my loved ones. When my dad died, I sure looked forward to seeing him again. The eternal life in paradise pipe-dream is pretty wonderful. Unfortunately, it’s bs. We, of course, can’t wish god into existence. Those who have never believed cannot appreciate having such hopes dashed to pieces.
But, also like you, I am happier now. I no longer feel guilt over things for which I should have never felt guilty. I’m glad I’m not making sacrifices in my current life for an eternal life that will never happen. I’m glad I can raise my children to think rationally rather than teaching them a fairy tail. (btw, my wife and I refused to teach our daughter about Santa Claus, too.)
However, unlike you, I am still a closet atheist, at least in regards to my extended family. While I do not participate in any kind of worship with them during visits, I have never told them about my loss of faith. It is hard to imagine that I can have any kind of meaningful relationship with many of them if they know I am an atheist. I know my mother would literally be very miserable thinking her son is going to hell. However, I am also sick of hiding my lack of faith. I want to use my real name rather than an alias when I post on blogs like these. But I wonder if I would be selfish to “come out of the closet”. I would be sacrificing my mother’s happiness and psychological well being for my own happiness. I’d like to hear from others about the pros and cons of sharing one’s lack of faith with their family and friends. Forgive me if there is already a post on this site dealing with this issue.
MagickMonkey(Quote)
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. I await the completion of your mapping of the Kalam project with great anticipation.
I was also raised a Christian. I had doubts from when I was very young child. I used to wonder how all those other people with all those other religions also used to think their God and their religion was the right one. Then one day, I was about 18 or 19, and I realized that the Bible was supposed to be taken literally…. that was a major turning point for me. Although I still had not let go of “God”. When I did, there was a sense of loss, but it was a long time coming.
LoPan(Quote)
@ Rhology:
“If I may ask, when have you subjected your new faith to the same scrutiny (selective though it was) to which you subjected Christianity? How did you go about doing so? Rhology”
You do not understand atheism if you just likened to to Christianity and qualified it as being a faith based position.
magx01(Quote)
Luke,
I’ve read through this several times, trying to find something that is different from other atheist deconversion stories I’ve read, but it just seems par for the course to me. You bring up some of the same old canards that have been dealt with for 2000 years. I just don’t see any rational reason for you to have stopped believing in Christ. You say it wasn’t emotional, but then you say, “I don’t recall how it happened, but eventually I found out that I could be more happy and moral without God than I ever was with him.” Seems to me there was an emotional component in there.
bossmanham(Quote)
bossmanham:
Pre hoc, ergo propter hoc?
Chip(Quote)
@bossmanham
Belief changes based on emotion tend to be fast; belief changes based on reason are generally slow, and often bitterly faught against. Luke’s belief change is typical of a reasoned belief change, not an emotional one. I wonder why you cannot see that.
Rosita(Quote)
i’d like to say thanks for having the guts to write a testimony and for the refreshing candour in which you wrote it.
my experience seems to be the opposite! – i find atheism intellectually bankrupt but emotionally appealing.
after spending more than 10 years enjoying a personally autonomous, agnostic/atheist life, i had to admit that my reasons for shunning christianity were not reasonable but based on a desire to craft a lifestyle i found aesthetically pleasing and fashionable; and to distance myself from the social stigma of being religious.
but atheism didn’t provide answers that were convincing, consistent or wide enough in explanatory scope. i tried to stop thinking about deep questions, grit my teeth and ‘get through life’ but then life itself, on an atheist materialist position seemed pointless.
i decided to settle it once and for all and began researching. again, my experience seems to be the opposite of yours – the more research i did, the more respect i had for theism. at the same time, my despair at the intellectual poverty of, say the atheist argument for morals, seemed to grow. when i look at posts by some of the atheists on your blog, well, my despair just grows even more.
i think deep down i would really like atheism to be true! it would be so much more convenient…
kaka(Quote)
“intellectual poverty of, say the atheist argument for morals…”
You can’t be serious. Clarify please, and then give us an argument for morals under theism that isn’t rife with intellectual *and* moral poverty.
“deep questions”
Right. Like what?
It’s easy to speak in generalities and pretend you’ve made an argument, but all you’re doing is overloading my sophistry detector.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@caseywollberg:
if you’re looking for arguments, well you’ve come to the right place!
scroll up and click on “debates”.
find, download and listen to any with william lane craig on the topic of moral values. i’d recommend craig v dacey, craig v kurtz or craig v morgentaler.
craig articulates the theist position far more eloquently than i ever could. maybe you’ll be convinced by what he says. maybe you won’t. i certainly didn’t buy into what he was saying at first.
but then i listened to what the atheists/humanists had to say and it was clear to me which side was more convincing.
on the other hand, luke had roughly the opposite experience!
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
“on the other hand, luke had roughly the opposite experience!”
And unlike you, Luke is able to articulate his position. Bewildering!
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
I do not identify with your version of “atheism” at all. It seems to me that you are mistaking apa-theism (apathy+theism) and hedonism (the selfish pursuit of pleasure) for a-theism (no belief in the existence of gods, usually for lack of valid evidence).
Unlike most atheists, your choice of belief system seems to be based on emotion and the desire to feel good, rather than an unbiased and thorough search for the truth based on the evidence.
If you chose “atheism” for materialistic, selfish, emotional or hedonistic reasons rather than logical ones then it not surprising that you abandoned it when offered an enticing alternative which makes you feel comfortable, secure, special, wise and morally superior.
For most atheists, believing what is valid and verifiable is what is important. Any “lifestyle” that results from the logical conclusions is entirely irrelevant. In hyper-Christian or hyper-Muslim countries, living openly as a non-theist is very hard. Living openly as a member of the prevailing theist group is easy, unless you annoy people by irritating “witnessing” behavior.
To describe the atheist “lifestyle” as “pleasing” and “fashionable” and to compare it favorably with a “stigmatized” American Christian lifestyle is outright laughable. Some form of Christian belief is the acceptable norm in the U.S.A. It is those who do not conform to this norm who are given a hard time, not the ones who toe the party line. There is nothing “pleasing” about losing their job, being forbidden to hold public office, being unable to win a political election, being bullied by school children, discriminated against by school teachers and being labeled as “evil”, “angry”, or “immoral”‘, simply because one admits to not believing in the prevailing community beliefs in the supernatural.
I have no idea what you think to be the “atheist argument for morals”. Behavioural scientists have long known that moral development is a natural process that parallels cognitive development unless the person lacks the appropriate brain structures. The most evil person in the community is the sociopath, not the atheist – and sociopathy has a genetic base coupled with poor nurturing in early childhood. Normal children develop morality as a function of being able to empathize with others, regardless of their religious or non-religious upbringing. A shared morality and cooperative spirit is essential for social group cohesion.
Religion, however, can be used to support every kind of horrific behaviour. The Christian Old Testament is rife with enough divine examples of murder, genocide, torture, malicious, petty and unjust behavior to legitimize just about any selfish or evil act which Christians can think up. As George Carlin once said, for a good man to do evil things you need religion.
National and international studies have repeatedly found that lack of a belief in the supernatural is associated with social and societal health, low crime, low abortion rates and marital stability while religious belief is associated with the polar opposites. The most socially healthy nations are Sweden and Denmark who have very high degrees of atheism. The most socially backward of the first world countries is the U.S.A. which has the highest degree of religiosity. The most dangerous place to be in the U.S.A. is in the middle of the Bible Belt.
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita:
thanks for replying rosita. i feel the issues you brought up have already been rebutted by theists.
generally i feel your definition of morality has no objective grounding. in other words, had humans evolved slightly differently and evolved a different set of brain chemistry which said, for example, that rape is morally justified, neither group could say they were more right.
“Behavioural scientists have long known that moral development is a natural process that parallels cognitive development unless the person lacks the appropriate brain structures.”
i’d suggest looking up one of alvin plantinga’s interviews where he offers what i believe is a convincing argument against morality as a result of evolutionary psychology.
in a nutshell, it’s how, through natural selection, the preservation of certain genes through which produce tendencies towards certain behaviours, for example self-sacrifice, have no bearing on the moral truth of those behaviours. basically, evolution to quote dawkins, is a blind watchmaker – it doesn’t care about morality.
“The most evil person in the community is the sociopath, not the atheist – and sociopathy has a genetic base coupled with poor nurturing in early childhood.”
how many sociopaths does it take to make deviant behaviour a moral truth? i’d suggest looking up craig v dacey or craig v kurtz to see the issue of ‘herd morality’ tackled.
“For most atheists, believing what is valid and verifiable is what is important.”
this is where atheism-humanism gave the biggest disappointment for me.
humanism cannot justify its own existence.
for example – you describe morality as these codes embedded in our brain structures. can you give me an argument as to why we should follow it? how do you know that rape is morally wrong? because many people think that way and it becomes the ‘norm’? that doesn’t mean it’s true then does it?
kaka(Quote)
Hey. You said you left Christianity for purely rational reasons. Do you believe there is rationality then? If so, what basis is there for rationality in a world where there is no all knowing, soverign, personal God?
stu(Quote)
@Koka:
You’ve created a “definition of morality” that is not shared by behavioral or neuro-scientists. As a neuro-psychologist I can tell you that there are no moral “codes embedded in brain structures” or morality resulting from “evolutionary psychology”, whatever that is. Unless the participants in Alvin Planting’s interviews, Craig versus Dacey and Craig versus Kurtz are accredited experts in the psychology of moral developmental these debates are irrelevant. If the participants don’t understand the science behind what they are talking about then their arguments are specious.
The development of morality is part of normal socialization. Children learn how to get along in the community in which they are raised. The underlying meta principle is to avoid causing unnecessary pain or harm to others in line with the community consensus of what this means and implies. This becomes increasingly sophisticated as the child matures and increasingly complex as societies develop.
The Christian Bible states that Jesus of Nazareth echoed the ancient and nearly universal “golden rule” : Do to others what you would like them to do to you. The morally mature rule is greater than this: Do to others what they would like you to do to them.
Morality is a consensual social construct which changes from decade to decade and community to community. Many of the putatively god-given commandments that Moses gave to the people of Israel are not considered moral in modern Western societies. “Thus saith the Lord” is no longer a valid reason for carrying out these injunctions. We no longer consider it moral to make a rapist marry the person they raped. We do not believe that someone who owns a slave is blameless if they beat this person so badly that they die, but only after they have lived for at least three days following the beating. We do not consider it moral to sell our daughters into slavery or to punch holes in men’s ears as a sign that we permanently own them. On the contrary, we consider these acts to be extremely immoral. On the other hand, we do not consider it immoral to wear a polyblend shirt, eat lobster or touch pigskin.
Others supposedly god-given laws are simply redefined or interpreted. “Thou shalt not kill” is a good example. The minute Moses came down the mountain with the first version of the Top Ten Commandments he directed his henchmen to viciously hack up the members of his tribe whom he found worshipping one of the rival gods. In this society we consider this to be a highly unacceptable form of killing. As a civilized society we condemn those who kill people simply because they worship a different god or gods and we also condemn the horrific nature of the killing which Moses oversaw. This change in moral values has little if anything to do with genetic evolution and everything to do with increased communication, education and advancements in objective knowledge.
There are, however, some genetically evolved factors at work in the natural development of human morality. These factors are just more advanced versions of the ones which result in social and altruistic behaviour in the higher mammals: dolphins, apes, monkeys and even African impalas. Among other things, they require functioning “mirror neurons” in the brain that allow the recipient to imagine how others feel.
There is ample objective grounding for the notion that morality develops in discrete stages which are mirrored by discrete stages in brain development and cognitive ability. The major changes occur at around 4, 8 and 12 – ages when there is a spurt in the maturation of neurons in specific areas of the brain. Kohlberg’s investigations led to a paradigm containing six discrete stages of moral development.
At Stage 1 children see rules as fixed and absolute. Obeying the rules is important because it is a means to avoid punishment. At Stage 2 children account for individual points of view and judge actions based on how they serve individual needs. Stage 3 is focused on living up to social expectations and roles. There is an emphasis on conformity, being “nice,” and consideration of how choices influence relationships. At Stage 4 people begin to consider society as a whole when making judgments. The focus is on maintaining law and order by following the rules, doing one’s duty and respecting authority. At Stage 5 people begin to account for the differing values, opinions and beliefs of other people. Rules of law are important for maintaining a society, but members of the society should agree upon these standards. Stage 6, Kohlberg’s final level of moral reasoning, is based upon universal ethical principles and abstract reasoning. At this stage, people follow these internalized principles of justice, even if they conflict with laws and rules. (From http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/kohlberg.htm )
Your comments mark you as someone who has reached Stage 4 but has great difficulty with the reasoning typical of Stage 5. If you take your morality from your concept of Christianity then you have done well. The contents of the Christian Bible rarely get beyond the first few levels. Even the New Testament rarely operates at Level 6.
This scale should help explain to you why sociopaths are unlikely to influence society’s moral code to any great degree, unless they are charismatic leaders of the society. An example of this is the Catholic Hitler whose soldiers all wore belt buckles inscribed with the words: Got mit uns (God with us). It is not even necessary to be a sociopath if you represent a religion. The intensely racist writings of Martin Luther whipped up hatred for the Jews long before the development of the Third Reich.. A personal interpretation of the Bible plus arrested Stage 1 thinking leads to witch burnings, gay bashing and the killing of one’s children by substituting prayer for medical attention.
“For most atheists, believing what is valid and verifiable is what is important.”
=this is where atheism-humanism gave the biggest disappointment for me. Humanism cannot justify its own existence. =
Your comments do not follow from the preceding statement: a very basic logical fallacy. Atheism is not the equivalent of humanism. Atheism is the absence of a belief in any god; humanism is a positive belief in the ultimate power and necessity of humans to control their destiny and care for themselves and others. Preferring to believe only what is valid and verifiable is independent of any belief in humanism. Believing in the ethics and power of humanity is orthogonal to this. Not all atheists are humanists and not all humanists are atheists. In any case, whether humanism can justify its existence has absolutely no bearing on whether theism is verifiably true. You have nothing to be “disappointed” about.
We are ultimately talking at cross purposes because your conception of “atheism” does not match the conceptions held by those who actively identify with that term and your view of morality and moral development seems to be centered in sectarian theological philosophy and poorly informed by modern science.
It seems clear that you have never walked in a de-convert’s shoes because you are not addressing the issues which de-converts have struggled with. We understand how you think because we once thought like you, but you have no idea how we think because you have never been there. Your variant of former “atheism” in nothing like what we have experienced as de-converts. It reads like the distorted picture that we were once fed about “what atheists think” when we were sincere followers of a religion. You have a lot to learn about atheism, de-conversion, developmental psychology and neuro-science before you make any sense to us.
Rosita(Quote)
@stu:
“what basis is there for rationality in a world where there is no all knowing, soverign, personal God?”
The same basis that we use to determine that 2+2 and 2×2 both always equals 4, regardless of whether or not there are supernatural beings, and regardless of whether or not these beings match your conceptions.
Unlike the god hypothesis, mathematical concepts are capable of objective proof and disproof.
Unlike religious faith, the principles of logic and rationality have been proved, over and over again, to be the best way to determine the truth of something.
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita
while i appreciate the time you took to write that detailed response, i don’t feel it addresses any of the points i raised.
in fact, you seem to agree with me that if moral values are the result of genetics and socialisation and if they are subject to change from society to society according to what is widely accepted at the time, no society could say their morality was any more correct than another’s.
so it seems to me what you are describing as morality is social custom – or what is socially acceptable at the time. hence, on your view, it is not morally ‘wrong’ to kill babies, it’s just socially frowned upon.
on your view, you could not condemn the things you mentioned – witch burnings, gay bashing, killing of one’s children – as being morally ‘wrong’ – the most you do is observe how definition of moral good seem to change throughout history and where those things were once widely practised (and thus morally acceptable?) now they are not.
nor could you say we have progressed beyond past societies where people’s sense of morality was underdeveloped. this is because on your view, morality is simply the behaviour observed within a society at that time. without an objective definition of morality which transcends the society of the day, there is no standard or reference point to measure society against. without an objective reference point, there cannot be moral progress on your view, only moral change.
to put it another way, if 100 years from now, society evolved to add a seventh level to the kohlberg stages which permitted infanticide, it seems to me on your view, someone living in 2010 could not say killing babies is always wrong – it is just wrong in this society at this time. do you agree?
i’d also suggest looking up the difference between moral epistemology (how we discover morals) and moral ontology (their basis in reality) as i think you may be confusing the two. those debates you mentioned will delve into this.
kaka(Quote)
@ koka:
=“If moral values are the result of genetics and socialisation and if they are subject to change from society to society according to what is widely accepted at the time, no society could say their morality was any more correct than another’s”=.
A society can be shown to be more morally mature than another. Like cognitive development, moral development proceeds in one direction, with progression to the next stage requiring mastery of the one before it. The order of these stages of moral reasoning appears to be just as universal as the stages of mental reasoning – and just as dependent on education and the environment for their development.
=”there is no standard or reference point to measure society against. without an objective reference point”=
The only culturally transcendent factor is the principal of benign reciprocity. This is expressed in various forms in every culture, starting well before the development of the Jewish and Christian religions.
Kohlberg’s ladder of moral development is based on thousands of carefully controlled observations across and between cultures and is thus about as objective as you can get with biologically based data.
History shows that societies, like individuals, develop their moral codes along the same continuum. History also shows that moral content changes with increasing knowledge and education.
All of the Christian Bibles (Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox) contain very good examples of this. Take attitudes towards sexuality. The Jewish/Christian god’s views on sexuality progressed from tolerance of incest (if the story of Adam and Eve is taken literally), through collusion with polygamy, concubines and slave rape (Abraham, Moses, David), on to punishment for failing to engage in serial filial polygamy (brother-in-law impregnation of widows (Onan) to approval of relative monogamy, divine rape (Mary) followed by the prescription of a sex-free marriages (the Catholic version of the Holy Family). The final Biblical word comes from St Paul who insisted that lifelong celibacy was the highest pinnacle or sexual morality. In spite of this moral progression, the Christian gods never get beyond the approval of women as the sexual property of men. The Abrahamic gods (Yahweh, Jesus, and Allah) are all quite sexist. Sexual equality is a recent secular phenomenon which is restricted to advanced Western societies.
For people who have progressed beyond Kohlberg’s first stage of moral reasoning (belief in fixed and absolute rules which are to be obeyed in order to avoid punishment), belief in a set of reference point moral rules can only be maintained if they remain ignorant of the historical development of morality within cultures and are equally oblivious of comparative studies of the moral codes of various cultures. Sadly, many religionists never progress beyond this first stage.
=“if 100 years from now, society evolved to add a seventh level to the kohlberg stages which permitted infanticide, it seems to me on your view, someone living in 2010 could not say killing babies is always wrong – it is just wrong in this society at this time. do you agree?” =
With reservations, I agree.
It is theoretically possible that circumstances could change and knowledge progress to the point where infanticide becomes as widely culturally acceptable in civilized societies as it was in primitive cultures. This practice would, however, only be a common feature of Kohlberg’s Stage 6 thinking if this action was found to be consistent with the criteria for this stage of moral reasoning: namely, the universal application of the principles of compassion and justice coupled with complex multi-variate thinking.
There is, in fact, no need for a theoretical seventh level. Selective infanticide is already a component of Stage 6 thinking in complex medical triage situations where the competing needs, rights and potentials of more than one individual must be weighed and considered. This is the same level of complex reasoning which determines that artificially induced fetal abortion may be the most ethical behavior in a given circumstance. It is the same level of thinking that reasons that quality of life is more important than life itself. And the same level of thinking that determines that telling the truth is immoral if it results in unjust, needless or preventable suffering or death.
As for your final suggestion, I believe that discussions of moral epistemology and moral ontology are useless if the premises are grounded in scientific ignorance. Now matter what the intellectual prowess of the participants they will ask and answer irrelevant questions and draw false conclusions on relevant ones.
Rosita(Quote)
@rosita:
with respect, i don’t think you understand or are unwilling to grapple with the point i’m making about moral ontology v epistemology which goes to the heart of any attempt to construct a moral system, including the one based on the kohlberg stages you have described above.
the method by which so-called moral values are discovered by a group of individuals – be it through increasing knowledge/education or cognitive development as you suggest – has no bearing on their moral *truth*. the best you can say is that these values are socially acceptable at the time. but those values have no meaning outside that group and perhaps more crucially, cannot be refuted from within. had the nazis won WWII and their moral code spread throughout the world, killing jews would be universally acceptable and there could be no way to escape that moral truth, on your view.
i’m amazed that rather than engage the issue i brought up about moral ontology/epistemology, perhaps using the logic and rationality which you insist to stu is the best way of determining the truth of something, you’ve dismissed it outright as “useless”. this is even more ironic because science has little, if anything, to say about objective moral truths. for example, how does one scientifically observe a moral truth in the brain?
until you’re willing to tackle this issue, perhaps by temporarily putting aside your kohlberg system, i do not respectfully think your understanding on moral values will be “up-to-date” on where the debate currently is.
by way of conclusion, i’d like to repeat that nothing i’ve said here is original or groundbreaking. craig has been making these points for years. i’ve also read many arguments like yours which fail for the reasons i’ve mentioned. but the intellectual poverty and helplessness of the responses – even from distinguished scholars and professors like wolpert, kurtz and dacey – leave little doubt in my mind which is the more convincing view.
kaka(Quote)
@ Koka and Rosita
As I’ve followed this little debate, it seems the main difference is that Rosita is suggesting that moral truth is defined by society and Koka is suggesting that moral truth exists beyond society. (and i am far less learned than either of you so forgive me if this is an oversimplification)
I would say that even Koka is right, and that moral truth exists beyond society, how could we possibly know? All we have to observe the world is our physical senses and our intellect–and possibly our “intuition”. All three of these can be wrong and have given us bad information before. So EVEN if there is an “absolute” it is rendered irrelevant because of our inability to decipher “true” truth from “untrue” truth. So we are left with our opinions and ideas–which is what we, as a society, use to construct our ideas of morality. And just as Rosita says, those opinions and ideas change with time and evolve as we and as society evolves.
so to argue what is “true” truth “absolute” truth is “useless” to quote Rosita because it’s an unknowable thing. at any given time, any action may be the most moral action depending on the situation. we can only make the “is this moral” call after the event and after having considered every single detail building up to the situation. and even then, it may be “moral” for one person and “immoral” for another based on their personal point of view. this is why moral absolutes do not exist.
we use our morals as guidelines to stay on the road, but sometimes you have to veer off road to avoid the oncoming mack truck.
former fundamentalist(Quote)
@kaka/koka/kako:
With respect, I don’t think you understand the implications of the Kohlberg scale.
You can’t “put aside” the Kohlberg Scale because it is a description of reality. This is how moral reasoning develops everywhere. What it demonstrates is that individuals, and communities, determine moral “truth” in different ways depending on their developmental level of moral reasoning.
Since the scale is maturational it implies that people who have not progressed beyond a particular level cannot, by definition, understand the moral reasoning of those who have progressed to a higher level while the those at higher levels of development are frustrated by the insistent of moral superiority by those at lower levels of development. The cognitive equivalent is the child who insists that the moon is following him or that tall thin cups contain more water than short fat cups if the level in the thin cup is higher. Unless the child is at the cusp of progressing to the next stage of cognitive development you will not be able to persuade them that their reasoning is incorrect. For both cognition and moral thinking, not all individuals progress to the highest levels of reasoning.
The Kohlberg scale is like a moral IQ. Since it synthesizes what is observed to be a natural maturational hierarchy the implication is that Stage 6 reasoning is the best way of determining moral truth and Stage 1 reasoning is the worst way of doing so.
=“had the nazis won WWII and their moral code spread throughout the world, killing jews would be universally acceptable”=
The racist morality of the Nazis, Martin Luther and the Catholic Church of that time is demonstrably immature and therefore inferior to more mature ways of determining moral truths. Stage 6 reasoning transcends this authoritative type of system and applies complex rules of benevolent reciprocity – the greatest good for all, regardless of societal rules. That is the reason for the existence of Resitance Movements.
In other words, the external definition of what is morally best is that which is determined by the application of the most mature form or moral reasoning. That definition precludes the application of immutably correct laws, except for one: benevolent reciprocity. Applying this meta rule involves recognizing that rules which may be generally moral are not necessarily moral in all circumstances. For example, when it leads to the greatest good and the dignity of humankind killing is moral and telling the truth is immoral. It is moral to kill a Nazi torturer if this is the best or only way to save a victim from sadistically iinflicted pain and it is immoral to truthfully tell the SS where a fugitive Jew can be found.
At this level of thinking it is never moral to inflict the horrendous punishments which the Christian Bible insists are to be metered out to the hapless individuals who are found to have broken any of the Top Ten Commandments. According to the Bible the Yahwey god demands that failure to follow all but one of these commandments is to be punished by particularly gruesome death at the hands of members of the religious community: generally being stoned or hacked to death. This results in serious cognitive dissonance for a Jew or Christian who has reached this level of moral reasoning because it implies that their god is considerably less moral than they are.
Before you bring in the story of who is fit to cast the first stone, be aware that reputable biblical scholars are nearly unanimous in asserting that this story did not originate from Jesus. It was added into the margins by a scribe some considerable time after the host gospel was written. Later copies of that gospel inserted it into the general text.
Before you suggest that the Yahweh god be given a free pass because he “knows better than mere humans” consider whether you would accept this excuse from a Mafia boss and whether the Biblical injunction to assess the goodness of an individual by their “fruits” should be applied to all.
Rosita(Quote)
@J.A. Kraulis:
it’s easy to get caught up in in the passion of intellectual debates isn’t it? makes you lose sight of the bigger picture and i think i’m guilty of that here.
i’ve avoided talking about god so far in the interests of keeping on topic…and i don’t intend to start a lecture now!
but i can’t help but observe, j.a. kraulis, that the tenor of your responses, particularly your repeated references to christian atrocities, suggests to me that your rejection of anything that has a whiff of religion may be because you find it emotionally offensive or that you’ve been put off by christians who do not practice what they preach, rather than any intellectual difficulties. in other words – it’s a heart issue, not a head issue.
as i said in my own mini-testimony above, this was also the case with me. in my case, i rejected christianity for emotional reasons but made up excuses which had a veneer of intellectual truth so i could pretend i was being rational about it all. looking back, i have realised that the heart is cunning and often works with the head to conceal the root of spiritual problems.
i’m not accusing you or other atheists of the same. at the same time, i want to avoid my last response to you to be a sort of intellectual last word, an ‘ah ha, so i’m right!’ kind of thing. rather, i would like to suggest to you and others who have followed this discussion, to consider taking a hard, honestly look at your own hearts and asking yourself whether it is truly for intellectual reasons that you reject theism or whether it is because of issues of the heart.
if by some process of self-examination you’re willing to give christianity another shot, i’d suggest taking one of the gospels – i’d recommend mark as it’s the shortest! – and just reading it with an open mind. approach it as a biography of a person called jesus rather than a document telling you how to run your life and just try to give it an honest chance.
if it means anything at all, i’d like to assure you that christians all around the world constantly pray that non-christians will have peace in their lives.
take care :)
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
I’ve actually done what you’re suggesting. When I was still a believer I decided to go through the gospels focussing on “the red letters”. I wanted to find a deeper understanding of Jesus. As I read what he said and the verses surrounding what he said, I wrote down responses. That process of reading, reflection and writing led me to question and eventually to my current atheism.
Former fundamentalist(Quote)
@kaka
Who is J.A. Kraulis? A Google search turned up a nature photographer of that name, but there is no-one with name writing on this page.
The subject matter looked like the continuation of the discussion we were having. Did you mean to address me?
Rosita(Quote)
@rosita: sorry rosita, yes i meant you! i got my wires crossed there.
@Former fundamentalist:
thanks for sharing your story. while i commend your desire to deepen your biblical knowledge and i respect your eventual choice for atheism, i’m wondering if you shared what you uncovered in your studies with other christians?
in particular, i’m thinking of senior ministers who are used to responding to doubts and wrestling with difficult concepts (the compatability of god’s love with the wholescale slaughter in the old testament for example). we all have our blind spots. sometimes we leap to conclusions which are not based on a complete understanding. sometimes we need others to help us see the bigger picture.
i remember when i first took the advice i just gave rosita and attempted to read the bible. i think i got halfway down the first page before i gave up. let’s face it – a 2000 year old document is pretty boring and hard to digest if you’re doing it on your own.
so i think it’s important, when reading the bible, to be mentored by a friend who is strong in faith and can serve as encouragement and a sounding board for doubts. i think this is equally true for non-believers and believers as you once were, Former fundamentalist.
the best place to find such people is in a church with a culture of welcoming hostile, doubting non-believers. you’ll know you’re in the right place if the head pastor has this attitude. generally, if the head of a church welcomes doubters, the congregation will too.
if you feel yourself being persecuted or judged for asking questions in a genuine spirit of seeking after truth, find another church would be my advice.
in my experience, catholic churches or ones based on the propserity doctrine (ie, hillsong), tend to be the least welcome to questions.
but ultimately it all starts with being open to god’s word. that’s really the first step.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka.
You are making the usual religionist’s mistake of assuming that atheists are not Christians because they have not read the Bible and do not know enough about the religion.
I trained for the Methodist ministry. Reading all of the Bible, books at a time, played a large part in causing me to reject the Christian religion as nonsense. I remember that the first book that I read in this fashion was one attributed to St. Paul. At the end of the overview I came to the horrifying conclusion that I would not have liked this man, had I met him. I found his views to be morally repugnant. It was the first major crack in my belief system.
I became an atheist over the course of several years, during which time I read widely, refused to avoid material which challenged my comfort zone and forced myself to go where the evidence led me. I had a strong commitment to intellectual integrity which later served me well in my professional career in psychology.
I held my religion for emotional reasons but I did not abandon it for these reasons. Like Luke, I experienced gut wrenching emotions while trying to hold on to my beliefs in the face of overwhelming challenges to them. I could not, however, suppress the knowledge that I had obtained or quell the discomfit that I felt on exploring the Biblical personality of the divinity that I had been taught was only loving and kind.
So, no, I don’t fit your wishful stereotype. Unlike you I did chose to be an atheist: logic compelled it.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka.
Typo correction:
I did not chose to be an atheist: logic compelled it.
Rosita(Quote)
@rosita:
that’s a really a powerful story and i appreciate you sharing it.
i also get the feeling there’s more to that story and i’m finding it hard to know what to say. i’m also not sure i can offer much helpful comment on your ministry experience.
the best response i can give at this point is probably to repeat what i said in my post to Former fundamentalist – that openly discussing doubts and frustrations with a christian mentor can mend cracks in faith. it’s worth asking “am i the only person in history who has found st paul to be unlikeable?” “am i the only person who finds divine commands to stone people to death to be morally wrong?” as a previous poster bossmanham said, churches have been tackling the “same old canards” for 2000 years.
you may have discussed these issues already and found the explanations unconvincing. if that’s the case, all i can say is – at the risk of sounding patronising or arrogant – i honestly believe there are consistent, considered answers to difficult biblical concepts and people will find them if they search with an open heart and are willing to understand.
i think it’s admirable that you are willing to be challenged intellectually and to follow the evidence where it leads. in that spirit, i’d like to challenge you to consider listening to those debates i mentioned earlier, even if it means stepping outside your comfort zone.
i’d also invite you to consider the many christian scientists around the world who use logic everyday and see no conflict with logic and their religious belief. what does this evidence suggest? mass delusion? the vulnerability of scientists to religious brainwashing? it’s worth asking whether they have all been deceived or whether there might be some point to it all, apart from free coffee and biscuits on a sunday morning.
thanks for the most interesting conversation! :)
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
a couple things. First, i was a christian for about 23 years, an active evangelist four about 6 of those. becoming a bit disenfranchised with the church, is what caused the desire to seek out Jesus in the bible ultimately leading to my atheism.
you said “churches have been tackling the “same old canards” for 2000 years.”
i think that’s our point. it’s not so much that the church is trying to find an answer to these moral problems, but more they are trying to defend the faith despite the problems. God said it was ok to kill women and children in the Old Testament. What is there to wrestle with? It’s morally wrong. done. The fact that the church NEEDS to “wrestle” with these sorts of problems speaks to the notion of how morally confused the church really is.
former fundamentalist(Quote)
@former fundamentalist:
your post made me smile – i actually discussed this with a christian friend on thursday! we agreed the answer lay in a correct understanding of god’s nature.
god is the source of moral commands but he is not bound by them. as craig says, god does not issue commands to himself.
if i had killed women and childen, god would judge my actions to be murder. god’s actions however, are not in a position to be judged by us.
it’s not even correct to say that he bent the rules to allow mass slaughter – he wasn’t bound by them in the first place.
furthermore, as craig contends, god may have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil, reasons which we are not privy to and may never understand. nor is god under any obligation to share these reasons with us.
as craig puts it – god is the author and giver of life and is therefore entitled to give and take life as he sees fit. if he chose to end my life right now, he would not be committing a moral wrong – he has every ‘right’ to do so because it is only by his authority that i remain alive.
i had difficulty understanding this at first. i later realised what was holding me back was that i had created an idea in my head of what i thought a loving god would look like.
when the god of the bible didn’t measure up, instead of accepting that my understanding was flawed, i demanded that the god of the bible conform to my expectations.
with further reflection, i realised this ‘god in my head’ was simply an idealised version of what i imagined a very nice human person to be like – a kind of cosmic grandfather figure, handing out treats to his obedient human children.
in other words, i had made god in my own image – a pathetic shadow of the real thing. it was like drawing a picture of a teddy bear and then seeing a grizzly bear in the wild!
only by realising this, could i empty my mind of preconceptions and, with the help of my christian friend, begin to work towards a more mature appreciation of god’s nature.
in my experience of overcoming doubts, i have found that christianity always provides an answer. the answers are not always easy to understand, pleasant to listen to, socially acceptable, or politically correct, but they are answers which are, at least in the context of christianity, internally consistent.
sometimes when you read a passage which shocks you, it’s worth giving it the benefit of the doubt and saying – “well why don’t i make a note of this and follow it up later. there were answers to the last 10 issues i brought up, i’m sure there will be an answer to this one” – rather than just closing the book and giving up.
@lukeprog: hi luke, if you’re reading this, you’ve probably noticed the discussion has snowballed from me giving a mini-testimony above to this theological discussion that former fundamentalist and me are now having.
i’m mindful of your bandwidth costs so if you’d prefer we conduct these exchanges via email instead of through this comments section, please let me know and i will set something up.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka.
Thank you for your kind reply.
I realize that you are trying to be helpful and compassionate and I appreciate that. The problem seems to be that you are constrained by ideas about how it must be for me and I keep surprising you by failing to fit these preconceptions. I don’t fit your definition of what an “atheist” is, I did not arrive at this lack of belief by the paths you think that I should have taken, I was not positively influenced by the kinds of things which you think should have resulted in me keeping the faith and I do not evaluate theological and moral arguments in the same way that you do. I see you struggling in bewilderment over what to make of this picture. I applaud you for hanging in there with such good humor.
=”openly discussing doubts and frustrations with a christian mentor can mend cracks in faith”=
Naturally I discussed my doubts with those who seemed to be secure in their Christian faith. I would have been silly if I had not. I also read a lot of Christian apologetics. It would have been intellectually dishonest not to do so. Remember that I said that I did not want to lose my faith, only that I did not want to hold it in blind ignorance of alternative points of view.
In the light of my new knowledge, the simple evangelical arguments that I had found so compelling in the past (writers like Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, C.S. Lewis, Ravi Zacharias) all failed miserably. I now found that I could drive a truck through the holes in their logic. I could see that confirmation bias and ad holmium attacks were rampant. I was surprised to discover that the authors mostly completely avoided the difficult questions. Of the topics that they did discuss the salient points of the argument were often misunderstood or misrepresented. In cases where contrary arguments were well publicized the authors tended to dismiss them by attacking the integrity or character of the authors on the basis of their (inconvenient) conclusions, while steadfastly avoiding outlining and dealing with their actual arguments. Arguments which had made me feel comfortable and superior when I first read the books stood out like a sore thumb when I returned to them. When difficult points were dealt with head on many of the explanations featured semantic gymnastics that were so contorted that it would have been easier to copy the Red Queen’s practice of believing six impossible things before breakfast.
When I brought these issues up with evangelicals I was irritated with the desperate cop out defense that (the Christian) god was so mysterious that humans could not hope to really understand why he did the things he did. The obvious rejoinder was: “If it is so difficult to understand your version of god why should I believe that what you claim to understand about him has any validity?”
Fortunately I had access to more sophisticated resources during my theological studies. The more educated the faculty member, the more complex the argument – and the more remote it was from my original fundamentalist background. However, even the best of these explanations failed in comparison with alternative viewpoints. Cognitively derived constructs (ephemeral ideas) were equated with things which can be demonstrated to occur in reality (material things), and things which could be felt, seen and measured with those which could not. In the end all the best arguments relied on assumptions (sometimes quite well hidden) that could not be proved, measured, tested or, most importantly, at least theoretically disproved.
For example, in the Kalam argument for the existence of god it is first assumed that everything has a cause. (This appears to be true of things in time and space, but we have no proof that it can be assumed for things outside these vectors.) It is argued that the universe must therefore have been caused. (That has been challenged). Then it is assumed that the universe could not come from nothing. (This has been challenged and so has the assumed definition of “nothing”.) Then the argument gets a lot weaker.
First it is assumed that the creation of the universe must have been a complex event. (Why? An explosion can be quite simple.) Then is it argued that the cause must have been more complex. (Why not a simple physical cause, like the energy inherent in a vacuum or the ubiquitous effects of gravity? Why not a physical cause similar to the “big bangs” which are observed to give birth to new stars in the stellar nurseries of the cosmos? Why not a chemical cause such as that which forms hexagonally ordered snowflakes? A god concept is not required to explain any of these creations.)
It is assumed that this complex entity was uncaused. (Why should it be the only exception to the “complexity demands a creator” rule?) It is assumed that this uncaused entity is a highly complex mind. (In this world complex creating minds only exist in highly developed biological bodies and they work by electro-chemical means. Why should this mind be an exception?).
The last question is: Where is the proof that this philosopher-generated god concept exists in reality? (Just because something is conceivable is no reason why it must exist and no proof that it does.)
The last question makes this argument entirely circular because you have to prove the existence of a creator god before you can begin to prove the existence of a creator god. In the final analysis the “creating mind” is described by fiat and deemed to exist purely by definition.
Even if you get beyond this point there is a final question: Whose version of god would this creating entity resemble? How many attributes does it have? What are they and where is the proof of that?
All adherents to a religion which posits a creating god (or gods) automatically assume that the creating entity of the Kalam argument is equivalent to their own personal version of the supernatural. This usually includes all or most of the trappings that their particular community of the faithful attaches to it, and excludes all or most of the attributes of rival groups and religions. Christians, Jews and Muslims assume that there is a singular mind. (What prevents their being a committee of entities like the Elohim in the first creation story told in the book of Genesis?) Not only is the entity assumed to be single but it is assumed that it cannot reproduce. (Why not? We know of no other life form which cannot.)
Deists add very little to the creating aspect of this concept but their notion is sometimes so vague that it would be more economic to skip the supernatural attribution and refer to it as “pre-cosmic energy” or some other name used to define a physical entity or state.
I think that’s more than enough to get the point across. Elsewhere on this site, Luke does a good job of summing up this argument and most of the others of note.
=”i’d like to challenge you to consider listening to those debates i mentioned earlier, even if it means stepping outside your comfort zone”=
Kaka, those debates are unlikely to be “outside my comfort zone”. My academic training has included complex philosophy and I taught logic for a while. I am sure that I would find the debates stimulating and I will probably make the time to listen to them at some point. I am surprised, however, that you think that I would find the Christian viewpoints more compelling than the alternative viewpoints when you have already noted that you appear to be the only one on this forum who found it so. Why do you imagine that my conclusions would be significantly different from the rest of the de-converts on this site?
=” i’d also invite you to consider the many christian scientists around the world who use logic everyday and see no conflict with logic and their religious belief. what does this evidence suggest? mass delusion? the vulnerability of scientists to religious brainwashing? it’s worth asking whether they have all been deceived or whether there might be some point to it all”=
You might be able to see the glaring logical flaw in this argument if you substitute the word “Muslim” for “Christian”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_scientists. Are you willing to conclude that Muslim scientists are susceptible to “religious brainwashing”, “mass delusion” and gullibility while Christian scientists are not?
The ability to encapsulate one’s religious beliefs from the type of thinking used in every day life is associated with a particular upbringing and a personality type that occurs even in people of high intelligence. This separation of religion from normal critical analysis becomes less common the more a person’s work involves the use of skeptical reasoning and the scientific method. At the top of the rung, an overwhelming number of the most eminent scientists are atheists. While the truth of something can never be determined by a popularity vote the high correlation of this particular position with superior ability in scientific research needs to be explained. It does considerable harm to your argument regardless of whether the heavy use of high level scientific research skills causes atheism (possible), atheism causes high level research skills (improbable) or people with a talent for high level scientific research tend to develop atheism as well as the ability to win Nobel Prizes when exposed to the rigors of higher education (probable). It’s not just scientists. The association of atheism with higher level academic performance occurs in the humanities as well. http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Scientists_and_atheism
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
= = = = = = = =
god is the source of moral commands but he is not bound by them. —-
if i had killed women and childen, god would judge my actions to be murder. god’s actions however, are not in a position to be judged by us.—-
it’s not even correct to say that he bent the rules to allow mass slaughter – he wasn’t bound by them in the first place.—
furthermore, —, god may have morally sufficient reasons to permit evil, reasons which we are not privy to and may never understand. nor is god under any obligation to share these reasons with us.- – - (and so on).
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
I’m afraid this is exactly the kind of semantic contortionism that I was referring to in my previous post.
I think you really have to want to believe in Judaism or Christianity very badly in order to swallow that kind of argument and feel comfortable with it.
You have no basis for distinguishing between the works of “god” and the works of the “devil”.
Rosita(Quote)
You’re an inspiration to me.
Thank you.
Mel(Quote)
@rosita:
well i’m starting to get the idea that you have made up your mind based on your own understanding and i respect that.
so i’ll just say thanks once again for taking the time to have this discussion. take care :)
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
I like that when Rosita points out that, according to your explanation, there is little difference between God and the Devil (since God is apparently a grizzly bear who can get away with allowing and creating evil, and is so powerful that we dare not ask why)…instead of addressing that very pertinent association, you again try to bow out from the discussion.
That seems to be the theme for most of this debate–you dismiss atheism as intellectually impoverished, and when others attempt to explain their reasoning, you go on to dismiss their very sound and reasonable clarifications out of hand. Not only that, instead of taking the time to explain your own assertions, you refer again and again to others who have apparently answered alllll the questions any atheist could ever presume to ask. THAT strikes me as an intellectually impoverished approach–demanding explanation from others, rejecting it in a passive aggressive or patronizing way, refusing to clearly illustrate your own points, then trotting off when the conversation gets too difficult. Whatever works, I guess, but you aren’t fooling anyone here.
Rosita, you have far more patience than I, but I’ve appreciated reading your commentary as this discussion has continued, regardless of whether your replies were given the consideration they deserved.
alex(Quote)
@alex:
Thank you :-):-)
I think Luke sets a high standard here.
I enjoyed my discussions with kaka even although we proved to have very different ways of processing information. Don’t be too hard on him for backing off. People need to retreat when they feel confused or threatened. We’ve all done it. The brain needs time to process new information and none of us do that well when we feel uncomfortable. If there is one thing I learned in my teaching career (yes, I’ve had several careers in my life)is that the fruits of one’s teaching may take years to flower. What any one person contributes to someone’s learning process may be only a small part of the final construct, and the learner may not even be remember you for it. It’s humbling.
Rosita(Quote)
Over the last few hours I’ve been continuing to process the enormity of kaka’s summary of Craig’s “explanation” for why the Bible god appears to do evil and appears to command others to do evil.
It is the worst example of the dangers of Kohlberg’s Stage 1 thinking that I have ever come across.
Not only does this explanation provide the Believer with no way to differentiate acts of god from acts of the devil, it also fails to provide the Believer with any way of telling the difference between
1. a command from the Yahweh god to commit evil for a greater good that the Believer is too dumb to understand,
2. a test of the Believer’s loyalty to Yahweh as measured by their willingness to carry out a command that appears to be evil, or
3. a temptation from the Christian devil to do evil to spite the Yahweh god.
I wouldn’t want to be around such a Christian when they felt an inexplicable urge to kill me because I am a non-believer. It would be impossible to predict whether the Believer would take the thought to indicate that
1. I should be killed in accordance with Biblical injunctions to kill infidels and non-believers,
2. I should be left with a post traumatic stress disorder as the result of the psychological torture of being prepared as a human sacrifice (Isaac and Abraham style) – until the Believer decided that they were merely being tested and that they should stop short of actual murder,
or
3. I should not be harmed on the grounds that the Believer was being tempted to do evil by the devil.
It gives me nightmares just thinking about it. Does it give anyone else the shudders, too?
Such a person has no internal moral compass apart from their unique interpretations of Biblical texts and their unreliable interpretations of religious feelings and delusions. I wonder if it could be argued that this person is free of original sin on the grounds that they have clearly failed to benefit from the knowledge of good and evil imparted to the human race when their distant ancestors ate Eden’s forbidden fruit?
Rosita(Quote)
The impression I got from kaka’s early comments was that he “wishes atheism were true” so he could continue living a hedonistic and materialistic lifestyle, free from the burden of morals. Apparently, without the presence of religion in his life, he sees no way to distinguish moral vs. immoral behavior–including rape, gay bashing and infanticide. It also appears that he believes all atheists are similarly deficient in this way…except in my experience, most non-believers have worked hard to craft their own philosophy of morality, and are more than capable of implementing it.
Even more perplexing, after insisting at length that religion is the only logical way to be a moral person, he goes on to explain that God is a grizzly bear who is beyond our rules or understanding of moral behavior–that evil done at his hand follows a “different” code of morality, and as puny mortals we shouldn’t question it. Which certainly leads me to wonder what exactly kaka’s morality looks like, since it seems reliant on a God figure whose own behavior is so morally ambiguous, it’s difficult to differentiate from the “Devil”.
I’ve had other conversations with believers about the nature of evil and its relationship with God, and they always seem to come to this conclusion: “We need to be good people because God says so. But, God can be horrible and cruel because he’s God, and it’s not my place to doubt his intentions.” At which point I always point out: even if that idea of God WERE unequivocally real, I STILL wouldn’t worship him….because I’m a moral person, and it would contradict my own code of morality to worship an all-powerful being that willfully does cruel things.
So yes, the ideas presented by kaka certainly give me the heebie jeebies. I’d hate to see what kind of person he would be without the presence of religion to provide him with a moral construct, but at the same time, it’s a bit baffling to think what his current code must look like.
alex(Quote)
@alex:
i said there are no *objective* moral values without god.
like rosita, you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. i’d recommend checking out those debates i mentioned, especially craig v kurtz and craig v dacey.
kaka(Quote)
Sigh. Way to stay consistent, kaka. I’d recommend avoiding debates if you can’t participate on your own merit.
alex(Quote)
Morals aren’t things that exist, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be objective about them. As far as ontology goes, there are things that exist (biological and social imperatives, empathy, etc.) that lead to behaviors that we judge, epistemologically, to be moral. Even that judgment can be based objectively on things that do exist, like the effects of behaviors (or on, again, things like empathy). In other words, morality can be (is) objective without gods, along with being partly subjective at the same time.
If morals were absolute, ontological things themselves, handed down to us from the gods, then there would be no such thing as a moral dilemma–and yet they abound. Then again, if everything was subjective, there wouldn’t be so much moral consistency across cultures.
Reality doesn’t conform, kaka, to the philosophically contrived zero-sum game you keep referring us to. The false dilemma is convenient to your belief, though, isn’t it? To those who have some understanding of the subject, on the other hand, it amounts to a big “so what?” I suggest you stop dropping names and start picking up books. And read with a view to learn, not to fortify your faith.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
@casey
@alex
Kaka said: = =“you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology.”= =
I prefer to use simple terms when my audience includes those who may not be familiar with academic jargon. I prefer to use simple terms even with experts. I have found that it is generally the best way to ensure that ideas are clearly expressed and their merit or worthlessness not muddied by an obfuscating shower of academic bluster. When I used simple terms, kaka, you failed to understand me and you kept insisting that I was confused. Perhaps it will help if I translate my argument into more complex discourse, including language which incorporates your favorite philosophical terms.
As I have argued, philosophical approaches to moral beliefs are useless if they are not predicated on a foundation which includes the socio-psychology of moral development.
Paradigms of moral development, such as the Kolberg scale, imply that people use different methods of moral epistemology at different developmental stages and by these means arrive at different decisions regarding moral ontology at each stage. What is considered to be moral at one developmental stage may not be considered to be moral at another stage. Children and adults who are reasoning at basic levels cannot understand the epistemology of more advanced stages. This includes philosophers like William Lane Craig who has a developmentally delayed grasp of moral reasoning and a smug and unjustifiably high opinion of his scholarly excellence vis a vis those people that he debates. (http://www.pangeaprogress.com/1/post/2010/06/william-lane-craig-human-pride-will-to-power-the-christian-orientalist.html)
In other words, philosophical discussions which do not distinguish between the differing moral ontology and epistemology at each stage of moral reasoning are unable to order these distinct methods and outcomes in terms of maturity of thinking. Nor do they have any way of explaining why moral reasoning which makes sense to one section of the community makes no sense to other sections of the community.
Let me provide an example, this time in simple terms.
Kolhberg’s Stage 4 is concerned with law and order. People at this Stage respect rules, laws and properly constituted authority. “Justice” requires that rule breakers be punished and law abiders be rewarded. “Injustice” is failing to reward work or to punish demerit. Good behavior consists of maintaining consistency, precedent and social order. Authority figures are seldom questioned. Typical reasoning includes statements such as: “He must be right because he’s the Pope/President/Judge/God”.
On the other hand, Kolhberg’s Stage 5 is concerned with social contracts. Moral action in a specific situation is not defined by reference to a checklist of rules, but from the application of rules and principles which have been agreed upon by the whole society. The individual acts out of mutual obligation and a sense of public good.
Retributive punishment is now viewed as neither rational nor just because it fails to promote the rights and welfare of the individual within the society. Punishment is deemed appropriate if it protects future victims, acts as a deterrent or helps to rehabilitate the perpetrator. The statement, “Justice demands punishment,” which is a self-evident truism to the Stage 4 mind, is just as self-evidently nonsense at Stage 5
Now do you understand?
Rachel Cory-Kuehl is a nurse counselor who has attempted to explain the cruelties and contradictions of the Yahweh-Jesus god in terms of Kohlberg’s hierarchy of moral reasoning. http://www.aggelia.com/htdocs/kohlberg.shtml
Kuehl argues that the Old Testament god’s behavior was matched with the prevailing developmental level of the Jewish society of the time. When the nation was at Stage 1 (Might is Right) Yahweh stooped to that level so that the people would understand him.
= =“At stage one a ruler establishes his right to rule by displays of power and vengeance upon his enemies. He rules by threat of punishment and hope of reward. Mercy, or failure to punish, is seen as evidence of weakness, not morality by stage one standards. – - – - God first established His credentials to rule Israel by acts of vengeance upon the Egyptians, and by mighty, spectacular miracles. “I did this so that you might know that I am the Lord your God.” (Deut. 29:6 NIV)” = =
According to Kuehl, the Yahweh god’s moral behavior matured as the Jews and their neighbors developed.
= =“In many instances this situation of God vs the other “gods” (Dagon for example, the god of the Philistines), was involved when God acted in seemingly destructive ways. When we realize that these civilizations were for the most part functioning at level two, or at best level three, the picture becomes clear. If God had done nothing when directly challenged to prove Himself, He would have lost hope of any further influence over those peoples. To initiate a connection with Himself, a point of contact, from which to begin a reeducation He had to use forceful means. It is evident that sometimes these means involved the death of many people (the 185,000 Assyrians for example). If God had done nothing. Or worse If God had tried to use level 5-6 reasoning, the people would have judged Him weak and unworthy of worship. His word would fall upon no receptive ear. The story of Israel is the story of a Father guiding, not one child, but a whole nation of moral children (a whole world of moral children) from childhood to maturity.”= =
The problem with Kuehl’s argument is that it does not work in reality. Parents who match their child’s stage of moral behavior do not earn the respect of their child and will do them considerable emotional, physical and social harm. Imagine the psychological, emotional and physical harm caused by a father who beat his toddler in order to teach him respect. Imagine the consequences if a mother directed her young son to go out and brutally attack and kill any kids at this school whom he did not like, felt threatened by or had property that he wanted to have for himself. Today’s civilized societies would treat both parents as criminals and remove their children from them.
Behaving like a four year old is not appropriate behavior for a parental figure at any time. A god who behaved like this would be grossly immature, emotionally insecure, neurotic, stupid, insane or all of the above. On the other hand, such an entity could be merely a construct of an individual or society who thought or behaved at such a level. In the first case the entity would be feared but not worthy of worship; in the second case there is nothing there to fear, worship or reject but the followers who believe it exists and is worthy or their devotion.
Rosita(Quote)
@caseywollberg:
“1. As far as ontology goes, there are things that exist (biological and social imperatives, empathy, etc.) that lead to behaviors that we judge, epistemologically, to be moral
2. Even that judgment can be based objectively on things that do exist, like the effects of behaviors (or on, again, things like empathy).”
i don’t agree with 2.
you’ve stated in 1. that behaviours can be ‘judged’ epistemologically to have moral value. i agree.
but then in 2. you repeat 1. but replace the word ‘subjective’ for ‘objective’. i don’t see how that makes any logical sense.
“If morals were:
1.absolute, ontological things themselves
2.handed down to us from the gods,
3. then there would be no such thing as a moral dilemma”
i’m not sure that your conclusion 3. follows logically from your premises 1. and 2. there may be some extra premises that are needed.
“morality can be (is) objective without gods, along with being partly subjective at the same time. ”
this sounds like dacey’s system of “proximate values” or louise antony’s “meta ethics”. i found those moral systems, despite use of the word “objective”, to be ultimately subjective and unconvincing.
“if everything was subjective, there wouldn’t be so much moral consistency across cultures.”
then what do the moral differences and inconsistencies suggest?
just to be clear, i’m not here to offer an apologetic for theism. i take the view that we are all mature seekers of truth and are capable of doing our own research and making our own decisions based on the evidence. i’m more interested in sharing my experiences, exchanging ideas and asking questions.
for those who want to hear the detailed arguments, i’d suggest looking up christian philosophers like alvin de plantiga, jp moreland, jp holding, alister mcgrath or william lane craig and getting them straight from the horse’s mouth, so to speak.
kaka(Quote)
sorry i meant:
@caseywollberg:
“1. As far as ontology goes, there are things that exist (biological and social imperatives, empathy, etc.) that lead to behaviors that we judge, epistemologically, to be moral
2. Even that judgment can be based objectively on things that do exist, like the effects of behaviors (or on, again, things like empathy).”
i don’t agree with 2.
you’ve stated in 1. that behaviours can be ‘judged’ epistemologically to have moral value. i agree.
but then in 2. you repeat 1. but replace the word ‘epistemelogically’ for ‘objective’. i don’t see how that makes any logical sense.
kaka(Quote)
“i don’t see how that makes any logical sense.”
Why would you? It would violate your cognitive bias.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“but then in 2. you repeat 1. but replace the word ‘epistemelogically’ for ‘objective’.”
You’re sophistry is showing. You are misrepresenting what I was doing. I wasn’t replacing one word for another that means something else.
The whole point of my comment (which you don’t address, except to declare that you don’t agree with it) was that morals don’t have to be ontological things for us to be objective about them, and that the moral ontology/epistemology paradigm you present is a false dilemma.
To reiterate, our behaviors derive both from biological and social imperatives *and* from our ethical reasoning, but even this ethical reasoning is just such a behavior that has its source in biological and social imperatives (e.g., empathy). This is not controversial, except to those who wish that morals were handed down from on high. Sadly, though, they only have arguments that fail to account for what we know. Your false dilemma is one such argument.
caseywollberg(Quote)
‘“if everything was subjective, there wouldn’t be so much moral consistency across cultures.”
then what do the moral differences and inconsistencies suggest?’
Probably in this order of significance: differing levels of ethical development across cultures, inconsistent ability with apprehending and analyzing objective facts and building ethical systems accordingly, perhaps differences in legacy social dynamics, and to a small degree subjective taste. Read Rosita’s comment for more information.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@caseywollberg:
“our behaviors derive both from biological and social imperatives *and* from our ethical reasoning, but even this ethical reasoning is just such a behavior that has its source in biological and social imperatives (e.g., empathy).“
if you’re suggesting that we cannot escape our socio-biological conditioning, then the very discussion we are having is no more than an elaborate charade – you are an atheist because your biological and cultural conditioning compels you towards atheism and i would be a theist for the same reason.
neither of us would have really chosen our positions because we believed them to be ‘true’ – they would be the inevitable result of our socio-biological makeup. neither one of us could lay any greater claim to truth than the other, on your view.
———————————–
“morals don’t have to be ontological things for us to be objective about them”
on an objective view of morality, you don’t ‘be objective’ about the wrongness of rape any more than you ‘be objective’ that 1 + 1 = 2.
objective moral truths don’t need any ‘doing’ on our part – their truth emerges necessarily from their existence, just as the hypotenuse rule emerges necessarily from a right-angled triangle.
i don’t think anyone has been able to show objective moral truths are possible on an atheist view.
thus the atheist cannot objectively say rape is wrong, only that he thinks it is wrong. many people might think it is wrong but that would only make it popular, not objectively true.
———————————–
“the moral ontology/epistemology paradigm you present is a false dilemma”
moral ontology and moral epistemology are not choices and i haven’t presented them as such.
if you wanted to prove a false dilemma, you would probably be attempting to show that morals are not necessarily objective OR subjective. is that what you were getting at?
kaka(Quote)
Kaka (Is that what your brains are made of or what?),
“is that what you were getting at?”
You know exactly what I was getting at, but you refuse to acknowledge it or address my points because you are a goddamn sophist.
Listen, jackass, if I have one apple and I get another one, then I have two apples, making 1 + 1 = 2 an objective fact, because I will then have two individual apples in my hands to prove it. “Being objective” simply means (amazing that I have to explain this) that I am exclusively applying what I objectively know to my conclusions, rather than being swayed by subjective forces. We can be objective about morality without having to claim that morals themselves are things like apples. That is because (as I said before) the causes of morals *are* things like apples: we can isolate and measure and consider them objectively. We can also be objective about morals because the outcomes of behaviors are things like apples: we can isolate and measure and consider them objectively. We can also be objective about morals because the behaviors we judge as moral or not are things like apples: we can isolate and measure and consider them objectively. An atheist knows rape is wrong because an atheist is an empathic biological creature living in an interconnected social structure with similarly empathic biological creatures, but also because an atheist can observe objectively in the experiences of rape victims that rape causes suffering. This observation triggers the empathic response and the brain says, “NO! Don’t rape!” If we could isolate the parts of the brain responsible for this response (stay tuned) then we would have yet another morally relevant objective fact to *be* objective about.
“i don’t think anyone has been able to show objective moral truths are possible on an atheist view.”
No kidding, Einstein. Now address my points instead of avoiding them.
“if you’re suggesting that we cannot escape our socio-biological conditioning, then…neither one of us could lay any greater claim to truth than the other, on your view.”
This whole passage is a non sequitur. Try again, moron.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“on an objective view of morality, you don’t ‘be objective’ about the wrongness of rape any more than you ‘be objective’ that 1 + 1 = 2.”
Bullshit. If I was conditioned to believe that 1 + 1 = 4, then I would be subjective in my attitude toward the proposition 1 + 1 = 2. It follows then that one *can* be objective with regard to the proposition 1 + 1 = 2. And one can be objective with regard to the moral status of rape.
Morals, being the emotional responses that they are, are notoriously susceptible to subjectivity (one’s moral feeling can be skewed by biblical statutes, for example). Thus, it is alternatively possible to be objective with regard to those emotional responses by looking at the objective facts bearing upon them and deriving from them, as I have been saying.
It does not follow from this that morals are objective truths, obviously. Moral dilemmas show that certain circumstances are, in general, morally ambiguous. That is because the objective agents operating in response to morally relevant stimuli are various and in conflict within the brain. The ones shouting “NO!” the loudest win out. But even with moral dilemmas, the resolutions are often similar across cultures (no Bible required).
And for those moral dilemmas that are far less ambiguous, like rape, there are good evolutionary psych reasons for them being so (ontologically), just as there are good ethical reasons for the same (epistemologically).
Now, a relevant question for you, Christian. How do you feel about homosexuality?
caseywollberg(Quote)
Kaka wrote: “i don’t think anyone has been able to show objective moral truths are possible on an atheist view.”
The testable prediction from this contention is that the more religious a nation or community within a nation, the more moral it can be shown to be on objective measures which reflect the moral values generally accepted by Christians who live in modern civilized societies. The corollary is that the more atheistic the nation or community the less moral it can be shown to be on such objective measures.
The following URL links to an article which reports the results of a meta-analysis of several studies which examined the relationship between a nation’s religiosity and its “moral health”. The included nations, listed in the order of their rank on measures of religious belief and practice, are the USA, Portugal, Ireland, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, Austria, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Japan,
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
The results do not support the conclusion that non-religious people are less moral than religious believers. In fact, the reverse is shown to be the case Religious societies tend to have significantly higher rates of homicides, abortion, suicide, teen pregnancies and STDs than secular societies and the relationship is relatively linear: the more religious the community, the less moral it is. The USA is the most religious of the nations and has by far the highest incidence of moral and societal ill-health overall. In fact, the United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.
Commentary on this article concludes:
‘Whether religion leads directly to dysfunctionality, or religions merely flourish in dysfunctional societies, neither conclusion from this study flatters religion. The first tells us that religion is a hindrance to the development of moral character, and the second that religion hinders progress by distracting us from our troubles (with imaginary solutions to real problems).’ http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v12n03_are_religious_societies_healthier.html
Not only is there no valid basis for Kaka’s assertion (that no-one has been able to show that objective moral truths are possible for non-believers), it would be hard for any rational person to deny that the assertion is overwhelmingly wrong.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
You have not yet provided a convincing case for the existence of objective Christian morals.
There is a great deal of moral inconsistency in the Christian Bible. There has been a great deal of inconsistency among Christians over time and within time between nations, communities, denominations, sects and groups. Since there is no universal Christian agreement on what is moral and what is immoral, the argument for objective god-given morals is shot out of the water.
Rosita(Quote)
@caseywollberg:
well despite your use of the word ‘objective’, it seems you agree with me that on the atheist view, morality is ultimately subjective and a blend of socio-biological evolution and personal taste.
“How do you feel about homosexuality?”
i’m indifferent as to whether you are a homosexual or not.
@rosita:
my view on morality in the bible is that its teachings have remained unchanged but their interpretation by christians throughout history has been inconsistent. this does not mean the teachings are not true, only that christians have not always applied them properly.
kaka(Quote)
“well despite your use of the word ‘objective’, it seems you agree with me that on the atheist view, morality is ultimately subjective and a blend of socio-biological evolution and personal taste.”
“It seems,” does it? It seems to me you are an incompetent moron who doesn’t know how to read.
But I know better. You are just continuing your pattern of sophistry. And I really hate sophistry. Go fuck yourself.
caseywollberg(Quote)
By the way, kaka, Rosita has you nailed to the wall. That’s why you are hiding from her arguments too. Fucking sophist coward. Theists are always reduced to sophistry. Always. So goddamn predictable, and so disappointing.
caseywollberg(Quote)
‘“How do you feel about homosexuality?”
i’m indifferent as to whether you are a homosexual or not.’
Dodge (of course!). This question terrifies you, doesn’t it?
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey:
Casey, thanks for the support but I’d be a lot happier if you kept your cool and censored your writing. Swearing and name calling is not appropriate on Luke’s site. He goes to great lengths to keep it civil and we should respect that.
(begin preaching) Besides, a display of angry crudity brings you down to the same level as the Christian who assigns his opponents to hell. I don’t believe there’s anything intrinsically wrong with swearing but, as I tell my son, there’s a time and a place for everything and part of growing up successfully is to figure out when and where that is and then apply it accordingly. He’s learning to find a place to swear in private when he needs to let off steam but the present company would be offended or react in a way that harms him in some way. You might want to try the same technique. (end preaching)
@Kaka:
=“my view on morality in the bible is that its teachings have remained unchanged but their interpretation by christians throughout history has been inconsistent. this does not mean the teachings are not true, only that christians have not always applied them properly.”=
The problem with this argument is that there is no objective and immutable standard for determining which Christians are applying the Biblical teachings correctly and which ones are not. Nor does it provide an objective standard for determining which of the contradictory Bible rules, commandments and divine examples are to be followed and emulated in this society and which are not.
It seems to me that your criterion for determining the “truth” is whatever matches your personal and subjective point of view. Since that seems to be the criteria that are used by every other person who claims that they are a Christian, whether they agree with you or not, the criteria is useless. It can only result in a slanging match where each Christian accuses most other Christians of being “not really a Christian” – all on the basis of ephemeral subjective criteria. This would mean that even if the teachings of the Bible were really consistent, unchanging and objectively moral there is no way for any person to determine what the immutable truth is.
Your version of god has a serious communication problem. The message was unclear right from the point where the Bible reports two conflicting creation stories, with the first universe being created in one order by the Babylonian El god and his Elohim committee of gods (one of which was the troublesome Yahweh) and the second universe being created in a different order by the Yahweh god without any assistance from the El god and the other Elohim. Both are incompatible with modern science.
In the beginning was a massively dense singularity. When there was enough gravitational force it exploded and formed huge stars. Some of these stars exploded and formed the next generation of stars as well as small black holes with singularities at their center.
The next generation of stars exploded and formed stellar nurseries for a different type of star. Black holes merged to form super massive black holes and galaxies formed around these. Another generation of stars exploded and formed solar systems.
The black holes in the universe continue to suck up the surrounding star matter, returning it to a “nothingness” with a gravitational field that is no intense that the normal laws of physics cease to apply beyond their rims and space and time do not exist.
It seems that these black holes will all eventually merge, suck up the remaining matter in the universe and build up such a huge gravitational force that the final megalithic singularity explodes in another Big Bang – and starts another universe. No god is required.
Rosita(Quote)
@ all
Sorry for the confusion over “criteria” (plural) and “criterion” (singular). I tried to correct the problem during a spelling check but somehow it did not “take”. I have a dying laptop (cracked motherboard) and I am constantly being alerted that my text documents contain errors. Unfortunately the system will not tell me what these errors are and I usually miss them on read back.
Rosita(Quote)
“Casey, thanks for the support but I’d be a lot happier if you kept your cool and censored your writing. Swearing and name calling is not appropriate on Luke’s site. He goes to great lengths to keep it civil and we should respect that.”
Thanks for the advice, but if Luke wants to censor me he can. As for me, I don’t respect sophists in any way and I won’t be civil to them. It’s the only way I will deal with them. Sophistry is uncivil and an act of disrespect. Being nice to sophists just encourages them to continue their bad behavior. The returned disrespect is not a lack of self-control on my part, just the opposite: it is policy. Sorry to disappoint you.
By the way, this…
“a display of angry crudity brings you down to the same level as the Christian who assigns his opponents to hell.”
…doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@caseywollberg:
see…when you say you will ‘be objective’ about the wrongness of rape, what you are really saying is – you know that the wrongness of rape is ultimately a subjective judgment but for the sake of social cohesion, you are going to pretend rape is objectively wrong. that is, that it is wrong for all people and all time.
but you can’t appeal to behaviours, brain signals or psychology because if we are the product of evolution, all these things developed by random, blind chance. evolution didn’t evolve brains which abhorred rape because rape is wrong, it did it because it was good for survival.
that is the bind that people who appeal to biology or evolutionary psychology find themselves in – evolution doesn’t care about moral truths, it only cares about survival. any deeper meaning, as the agnostic biologist michael ruse says, is “illusory”.
i made this point to rosita earlier and she responded by posting more psychology stuff which doesn’t address the issue – which is why i’ve stopped responding to those. i see you’ve dodged the issue too.
lastly, i have great faith that the intelligent people following this discussion won’t be fooled by name-calling or aggressive posturing. rather, they will ignore posters who rely on false bravado and only read contributions which say something useful.
kaka(Quote)
@rosita:
i’ve only been a christian for about a month (i was atheist for 10 years before that), so my bible literacy is a bit shaky.
but my understanding is – throughout history, christians have distorted the truth of the gospel to enrich themselves or gain political power.
the meaning of jesus’ new covenant is clear but people have just chosen to ignore it so they can go back to the barbaric punishments from the old testament.
but as craig says, our gradual comprehension of biblical morality no more undermines the truth of those morals any more than our gradual comprehension of science undermines the truth of the natural world. the root of the problem is flawed, incomplete human understanding.
i haven’t seen two creation stories in the bible – can you provide a reference?
i see you’ve referred to the big bang…well according to the hawking-penrose singularity model, there can’t have been any gravitational force to act on the singularity because all matter, space and time itself were enclosed in the singularity.
the singularity wasn’t just a ball of matter hanging in space – there was literally no space or anything outside of it.
this is the widely-accepted cosmological model at the moment.
kaka(Quote)
“lastly, i have great faith that the intelligent people following this discussion won’t be fooled by name-calling or aggressive posturing. rather, they will ignore posters who rely on false bravado and only read contributions which say something useful.”
Spoken like a true sophist.
“you are going to pretend rape is objectively wrong. that is, that it is wrong for all people and all time.”
Your first sentence does not equate with your second. Objectivity is not the same thing as universality plus eternity. Further, you mean something different from what I mean when you say “objectively wrong.”
See, what you mean is that some god somewhere said “Rape is wrong.” This claim is exceedingly problematic. For one thing, the god you claim to worship, the bible god, never did say such a thing. In fact, the bible endorses rape in some places. For another thing, there is no evidence such a god even exists to make such a proclamation.
You’ve got absolutely nothing to go on except your subjective beliefs, whereas what I mean by “objectively wrong” is what I’ve been saying all along. I can judge from the effects of rape that it causes suffering and, yes, that it damages social cohesion. It also is wrong in the context of empathy. Empathy is a psychological fact, derived from biology, evolved to be what it is. These are all objective facts bearing upon present morality.
I can be objective when I say “rape is wrong,” whereas you can only be subjective, as your claim is based on nothing but naked superstition. To you rape is only wrong if teh god says it is. And, uh-oh, he doesn’t. (Or, at least, he’s apparently conflicted about it, which doesn’t bode well for your position.)
Now, would you like to answer my very useful question, “How do you feel about homosexuality?” or will you continue your (how did you put it?) “aggressive posturing” and “false bravado”–in a word, sophistry?
caseywollberg(Quote)
“i’ve only been a christian for about a month (i was atheist for 10 years before that), so my bible literacy is a bit shaky.”
That’s okay, it’s typical of Christians not to know anything about what they claim to believe. You’re in good company there. But, tell me again why anyone here should take you seriously.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
I don’t believe for a minute that you have stopped discussing things with me because I did not address the issue. I believe that you stopped responding because I inconveniently refused to accept your assertions about what I really thought…
I repeat, I do not believe that “evolutionary psychology” has anything to do with the development of moral reasoning or the practice of ethics. I do not believe it has much to do with survival, other than its role in supporting in-group cohesion. I do not believe that specific moral rules are hard-wired into the brain. I do not believe that environmental socialization is the only factor at work in moral development. The belief set that you keep trying to demolish is so rare in my profession that I have never met an academic or licensed psychologist who thinks like that.
[On another topic entirely, evolution of biological entities did not occur by “random, blind chance”. According to biologists, chance played a minor role in the process and was largely restricted to random mutations (mostly due to the earth’s background radiation) and the relatively common occurrence of DNA copying errors during cell reproduction. The major player in the shaping of life was the environment.]
Stephen Pinker’s “evolutionary psychology” is a highly controversial theory which he has applied to the development of vision and language acquisition, but not to moral development (as far as I am aware). The mainstream psychological theory of the acquisition of morals, as I have outlined several times, is tied to the biological development of mirror neurons and the consequent development of empathy. It is also tied to the maturation of the neurons in the frontal and association areas of the brain. These biological factors are combined with the type of nurturing the person gets during infancy and childhood and the socialization they obtain from their parents and the wider community, including religious groups. The highest stages of moral development are heavily influenced by education, especially exposure to the skills of critical thinking.
In other words, you are arguing against a “strawman” position that is accepted by few, if any, experts on the psychology of moral development. Worse, you keep repeating your condemnation of the false position and show no sign of understanding the actual position, in spite of it being outlined on multiple occasions. If you were gullible enough to believe whoever told you that all atheists believe that rubbish then you should be enlightened by now.
You keep attempting to cover up your lack of understanding, or your failure to learn from experience, by insisting that I am failing to comprehend or address philosophical constructs that have little or nothing to do with the issues that I have been trying to explain or which were implicit in the material but missed because I did not use philosophical terms to describe them. That kind of misdirection may impress people who are awed by those who sprinkle their conversation with academic jargon that they do not understand, but it won’t impress those who know what they mean and recognize the sophism for what it is. (I’ve listened to some of Craig’s work and note that this is a dishonest tactic that he uses often. He then reinforces it by telling his supporters that he is generally disappointed and bored with debates with atheists because his opponents just aren’t up to his philosophical standard. What arrogance! How rude! Of course, this also redirects his audience away from the fact that he is not up to the scientific standard of those he debates.)
When you have been stumped you have changed the subject or gone back to repeating what you said in the beginning, as if it had never been challenged. This seems designed to hide the fact that you have not answered the objections. (Another of Craig’s dirty tricks.)
When this tactic didn’t work you suggested that the conversation be continued by personal email to “save bandwidth”. That way your continued failure to offer an adequate response would be hidden from the public. Finally you suggest that my mind is made up and I will never see the truth. (sigh) I think I’d call that projection (imputing your own motives to your protagonist). There was a fair bit of that going on at other points along the way (for example, accusing me of becoming an atheist for emotional reasons.)
As I said before, you have a lot of reading to do before de-converts will take you seriously. Inform your philosophy with science (astrophysics, evolution, the psychology of moral development, neuro-psychology, neurology and the soul, the neuroscience of religious experience, conversion, and glossolalia). Go read some fact sheets about what atheists do and don’t believe. Find out why de-converts really leave the faith.
Rosita(Quote)
@caseywollberg:
ok once again…’objective morality’ means moral values whose truths exist independently of the person perceiving them.
that is the commonly accepted definition. you can employ all the sophistry you want to twist this definition to suit your own ends but you will then be going against a tide of scholarly thought which even atheist philosophers and ethicists are a part of.
if you believe in a transcendent god, you have an objective foundation for your moral beliefs.
without god, you are just appealing to the randomly mutated, socio-biological traits you inherited from the genes of your primate ancestors.
these genes were passed to you not because the behaviours they promoted were ‘true’ in a moral sense but because they gave you a better chance of survival ie, they promoted stable, cohesive herd behaviour and aligned with emphatic interests. as atheist richard dawkins says: “there is…no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. we are machines for propagating DNA”.
to then claim anything is morally ‘true’ on the socio-biological level is an exercise in self-delusion. you can call it morality or ‘be objective’ about it as much as you like but that doesn’t change things.
now i completely agree with you that rape is morally wrong. it is not necessary to believe in god to know that rape is wrong. but without god, there is no foundation for it. the atheist philosopher richard taylor agrees: “the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible apart from the idea of god”.
if my beliefs are, as you say, subjective, well why should i not hold that your beliefs are also subjective, including your belief that my beliefs are subjective?
but all that leaves us with is socio-cultural relativism where all values are equal and thus meaningless. this entire discussion, and all of human history descends into absurdity. there is no meaning except what we create for ourselves.
in our journey through life, given the limits of information and our limited time on earth, i feel we must choose the worldview that we feel is the more plausible. i have chosen theism not because it can be proven beyond a doubt but because it is more probable than not and better than the alternatives. belief in god for me is more plausible than non-belief.
in my discussions with atheists such as yourself, i have seen a lot of personal attacks and chest-puffing but little in the way of convincing argument. hence, i’m perfectly rational in saying i have chosen theism because it is more rational than the alternatives. judging by your most recent comments, i’m getting the feeling you’ve run out of things to say and the discussion is slowly fizzing out…psssscccchhhh…. :)
kaka(Quote)
@rosita:
well there you go – on your view, morals came from our biological development and the environment. and to what do we owe our biological makeup and environment? evolution and the big bang. read my post to caseywollberg to see what are the problems with affirming moral values on the back of that. or maybe just re-read what i said to you already.
i don’t think i can break it down any further than that.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
You wrote: “- – - ‘objective morality’ means moral values whose truths exist independently of the person perceiving them.”
What are these objective morals?
Who says they are objective and why do you believe that person?
What objective proof do you have that these moral beliefs are transcendent and universal?
How do you account for the fact that there have been disagreements over moral values from the very beginning of Christianity, starting with the first century Jewish Church that believed that it was immoral to eat “unclean” food or fail to circumcise males and the Gentile Church who believed that these acts were moral?. When the Jewish Christian church died out the Gentile moral code was adopted.
=”appealing to the randomly mutated, socio-biological traits you inherited from the genes of your primate ancestors – - – - these genes were passed to you not because the behaviours they promoted were ‘true’ in a moral sense but because they gave you a better chance of survival i.e., they promoted stable, cohesive herd behaviour and aligned with emphatic interests.”=
This makes no psychological or neurological sense. It isn’t how these disciplines have learned that morals develop. You have confused this position with biological evolution and the selective survival of the best adapted creatures.
=”to then claim anything is morally ‘true’ on the socio-biological level is an exercise in self-delusion”=
I’m not claiming this. There is no evidence that morals are developed in this way. If you think that I believe this, after being repeatedly told that I do not, then it is you who is deluded.
=”. but without god, there is no foundation for (the belief that rape is wrong)”=
Of course there is. Children and adults can reason that out at each Stage of moral reasoning, but the foundation for this belief differs depending on the Stage reached. It is Stage 1 reasoning which thinks that there are external absolute rules made by external authorities who will punish you if you don’t obey.
You would be justified in arguing that my moral beliefs are subjective but you would not be justified in arguing that all moral beliefs are equal. It all depends on the maturity of the moral reasoning that you use to arrive at the belief. If you are still stuck at the moral absolute stage then you could find an 8 year old who can do better. The Kohlberg description of the stages of moral development is compatible with meta-ethical and descriptive moral relativism but not with normative moral relativism. If you understand this system then hierarchical moral relativism makes perfect sense.
The two creation stories are contained in Genesis 1: 1-27 and in Genesis 2: 4-25
The order of creation is different and the names of the gods who did the creating are also different. One version came from the tribes of North Israel and one from the tribes of South Israel. The first creator god is named El and the second creator god is named Yahweh. If you don’t read Hebrew you will miss that.
http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/bible3do.htm
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/1.html
I am starting to repeat myself because you keep insisting that I believe what I do not believe and because I have not been able to get you show an understanding of what I am talking about.
I find it very hard to accept that you are a freshly minted Christian who had been an “atheist” for ten years. Judging by what you have said in this forum, you had no logical basis for your lack of belief and you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have no idea how atheists usually think.
The logical underpinning of your current belief is also poor. You seem to have no clue about the straw man nature and the logical objections to the arguments you believe are compelling. What little you have fleshed out was absurd and even frightening. If you sincerely think that what you have recently been persuaded to believe is plausible, then you must still be in the grip of the irrational conversion syndrome.
In other words, I just can’t take you seriously. Your story just doesn’t ring true.
Rosita(Quote)
@rosita:
yes but you understand the basic point i’m making right? that we got out brains through blind evolution? you do know what evolution is right?
i think you’re taking the piss if you can’t grasp something as simple as that or at least read between the lines, given your apparent training in complex philosophy and logic. if you’re waiting to be spoonfed answers you won’t get that from me, i’m afraid.
as for your claims about two creation stories – give me a break! surely you must have learned in your methodist training that genesis is metaphorical and not a literal, science-textbook account on how the universe was created? even if genesis is be found to be completely false what does that prove? is this really what led you away from christianity or are you just copying and pasting random crap from the internet? my goodness, stop wasting your time.
kaka(Quote)
@rosita:
as for your claim that moral beliefs would not all be equal because some would be more ‘mature’ than others, well how do you know that? without an objective reference point, how do you know if our morals are moving forward or backward?
your only response is to regurgitate large tracts of information on the kohlberg system. but this doesn’t refute the point because it is interpretative frameworks like kohlberg’s which are undermined by the lack of an objective reference point.
you then appeal to ‘empathy’ – well why should empathy, which dawkins describes as a Darwinian mistake, be the basis of a moral system? because kohlberg says so? what reasons do i have to believe kohlberg is right over other psychologists? your response then is to regurgitate large tracts of information on the kohlberg system.
what i’m asking for is a reasoned argument. for someone who claims to have taught logic classes, i’m baffled as to how you have managed to stay in this discussion for so long without providing one. don’t bother replying if you’re going to cut and paste from your psychology textbook – you’ll only embarrass yourself further.
kaka(Quote)
AGAIN avoiding very basic, reasonable, DIRECT questions:
>>What are these objective morals?
Who says they are objective and why do you believe that person?
What objective proof do you have that these moral beliefs are transcendent and universal?
How do you account for the fact that there have been disagreements over moral values from the very beginning of Christianity, starting with the first century Jewish Church that believed that it was immoral to eat “unclean” food or fail to circumcise males and the Gentile Church who believed that these acts were moral?. When the Jewish Christian church died out the Gentile moral code was adopted.
Kaka, you are an unbelievable twit. But at least you’ve stopped pretending that you’re calm, rational and non-patronizing.
alex(Quote)
@kaka
The evolution of the brain is irrelevant to the development of specific moral values.
Sure we got our brains through evolution, but the rest of your argument does not follow because it is ignorant of both neurology and behavioral science. Moreover, your conclusion is inconsistent with the facts. That alone, should tell you that there is something wrong with your logic.
There is no evidence that there are immutable moral laws or values that everyone “knows” are right or that can be reliably “discovered” by those who describe themselves as Christians. When asked to list immutable universal moral laws you could not do so.
The authoritarian mindset.
When asked to explain how “do not kill” and “do not rape” is consistent with divine injunctions to slaughter whole nations of people and rape all the young girls, you had to seek out an “authority” in order to find a way to square up your socialized beliefs about what was moral with what you found written in the Bible. The extrapolation of that person’s reasoning led to absurdity and moral uncertainty. You ended up with no reliable way to determine what is good and what is evil.
In other words, you are relying on the leaders of your current world view to make moral judgments for you, in spite of the fact that the decisions which these people make are not universally accepted by other Christians, or even by intelligent and compassionate members of this society. You have shown yourself to be easily led by specious arguments, especially those which are wrapped in the semantic trappings of erudition.
You have not proved your case.
Moral decisions change as the brain develops.
No matter which model is used to describe the data, there is a mountain of objective evidence which support the fact that humans make different moral decisions given the same moral conundrum at different stages of their lives, and that all humans make moral decisions that follow a one-way ladder up a maturational hierarchy. Sometimes the moral reasoning causes the person to arrive at the same decision but often it does not. The contents of the Top Ten Commandments are a good case in point.
THE TOP TEN COMMANDMENTS (Protestant Version)
1. Don’t worship anyone but the Yahweh god.
2. Don’t make an idol or an image of a god, and then bow down and worship it.
3. Don’t use the Yahweh god’s name as a swear word.
4. Do not work on the 7th day of the week.
5. Respect your parents and do what they tell you.
6. Don’t murder
7. Don’t have sex with someone who is married to someone else.
8. Don’t steal.
9. Don’t tell lies about someone else.
10. Don’t wish you had someone else’s property.
Lying, killing, stealing and doing what your parents tell you to do are not seen as absolutes in the higher stages of moral development.
Moral decisions are relative to the environment.
Cultural and community mores play a big part in how things are interpreted.
Prior to the development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the 3rd Century CE, worshipping Jesus broke the first commandment. Jews still believe this.
Catholics don’t believe that they are breaking the 2nd commandment when they bow down and worship or pray to pictures and models of Jesus and the saints.
Few modern Christians consider that substituting Sunday for Saturday is breaking the 4th commandment. Few Christians and only Orthodox Jews believe that working or picking up sticks to make a fire on Saturday (or Sunday) is breaking the 4th commandment.
Breaking the 10th commandment is essential to the practice of American-style capitalism.
Hardly anyone now believes that people should be viciously killed by members of the religious community if they break any of these commandments, as ordered in the Bible. Christians use the apocryphal story of Jesus and his suggestion about casting the first stone is used to avoid this ancient practice. Modern Jews avoid it for other reasons.
The hierarchy of stages of moral reasoning exists independently of the Kohlberg model.
Behavioral scientists other than Kohlberg have worked in the field of moral development. It makes no difference whether you use the Kohlberg model to describe this progression or you use someone else’s description, the hierarchical ladder is indisputably there and the results are still objectively obvious. Unlike your contentions, this is an observable and reliably repeatable fact. You could repeat the experiments and prove it for yourself.
The assignment of superiority to the top stage of the moral maturational hierarchy is based on objective reference points.
We assume that the reasoning at the top of the scale is the best because we have no reason to suppose that the moral maturational progression is any different in quality from the cognitive maturational progression which it parallels. Both sets of observable cognitive-behavioral changes parallel objectively observable maturational changes in the brain. There are thus two independent and objective reference points: one cognitive-behavioral and one neuro-biological.
The human brain has fully matured by around 16 and is at its peak at around 19. Humans normally reach the top of the cognitive reasoning scale somewhere between 16 and 19. Moral maturation generally takes a little longer. In both cases, not everybody reaches the top of the scale.
The importance of empathy.
The ability to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is crucial to the development of morals. Parents will often unconsciously use that knowledge to ask their developing children something like: “How would you fell if someone pulled your hair?” The fact that it is crucial is confirmed by what we know about those who fail to develop appropriate moral codes. Sociopaths have been shown to have abnormal cell development in areas that we know are related to the development of empathy. People with motor vehicle head injuries to the tips of the frontal and parietal lobes become anti-social because they are unable to monitor and control their behavior or imagine how others might feel. Neuropsychologists spend their professional life testing these functions in brain impaired individuals. Philosophers generally have little or no knowledge of this area.
Empathy is at the base of the meta-ethic: do not unnecessarily harm another human being. This rule underpins the higher stages of moral reasoning but is interpreted differently depending on the level reached and the person’s ability to deal with complexity.
The implications of a commitment to a belief in moral absolutes.
Believing in absolute moral values is a feature of moral reasoning in the early stages of moral maturation. What this says is that the people who are currently influencing your moral reasoning you have not yet reached the peak of moral reasoning themselves, although they may be quite cognitively mature. Since the arguments which these people make seem to make sense to you whereas what the behavioral research has found does not, the inescapable conclusion is that you either haven’t got far up the scale yourself or you are suffering from selective cognitive blindness as the result of an emotional attachment to a conflicting doctrine. I’m sorry if this sounds insulting, but that’s where the evidence leads.
It is becoming really frustrating trying to explain to you, over and over again, where and why your reasoning fails. You simply repeat what you have already said without acknowledging that its relevance and efficacy has been thoroughly disproved by the evidence. It’s not that I don’t understand what you are trying to say, it is that you don’t seem to understand the implications for your argument of what I am saying.
The bottom line is that you have no objective proof of the existence of absolute moral values and their existence is contrary to the evidence of moral progression, both within the lifetime of person and between nations and generations.
And, by the way, complaining about the increasing frustration evident in others reactions to you is a smokescreen to cover up the fact that you started the abuse in your very first post. We have been amazingly tolerant up to now.
Rosita(Quote)
i was frustrated, forgive me.
but…yes, we evolved our brains…so any neural activity you observe in a brain in 2010 is the result of millions of years of that brain adapting to survive better right?
so what you observe and call ‘moral development’ are simply adaptations selected to promote better herd behaviour. maybe one of your colleagues can better explain the connection between evolution and neuroscience.
you’re simply missing the point if you’re asking me to produce ‘the objective morals of the church’. as i’ve been saying – objective morals are not even possible unless you believe in a god who transcends society, biology, culture, psychology etc.
now i could point you to jesus’ sermon on the mount but what’s to stop you discounting it as just another option in the moral/spiritual buffet? but if that’s true for my view, it’s also true for yours. why should we turn to psychology for moral guidance? it’s just another option isn’t it?
what allows us to break through cultural relativism, i contend, is belief in a transcendent god.
ah you say, but which god, there are hundreds. that’s a whole other discussion.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
I can see no useful connection for your argument between the fact that the brain evolved to its present form and the fact that the brain matures over about 20 years, along with cognition, language and moral reasoning, and not everyone matures to the same level.
You have stated that objective morals are possible if you believe in a god who transcends the society, culture and the sciences. I presume you mean at least one of the Christian versions of god, and I presume you mean versions that believe that whatever they read in some version of the Christian Bible trumps anything that science reports as reality and any moral rules they learn from their parents, friends, culture or nation.
You have referred me to the Sermon on the Mount. (Matthew, chapters 5 to 7) If you are using this as an example of clear, objective, unchanging moral values then it is a very bad choice. Almost every Christian group has ways of softening this sermon and interpreting it in a non-literal manner. Here is a sample of the huge variety of interpretations by Christians through the ages.
The Absolutist View (held by St Francis of Assisi, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Oriental Orthodox Churches) believes that all the instructions in the sermon must be taken literally and applied universally. If obeying them costs the welfare of the believer then that is a reasonable sacrifice for salvation.
Text Modification is common. Early copyists changed Matthew 5:22 from “whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment” to a watered-down “Whosoever is angry with his brother without cause shall be in danger of the judgment”. “Love your enemies” was changed to “Pray for your enemies”. The exception to divorce may be a Matthean addition as it is not present in Luke 16:18, Mark 10:11 or I Cor 7; 10-11. Paul gives his own exceptions to Jesus’ teaching in 1 Cor 7:12-16. Additions were made to the Lord’s Prayer to support other doctrines. The most common accommodation in recent times is to paraphrase the Sermon and make it far less radical. A search through the writings of just about every major Christian writer finds that they have done this at some point.
The Hyperbole View, another common view, argues that portions of the Sermon are exaggerations and need to be toned to in order to apply to the real world. There is disagreement over which sections should be taken literally.
The General Principles View argues that Jesus was not giving specific instructions but general principles. It is proposed that the specific instructions of the Sermon are merely examples of the general principles and not to be taken literally.
The Double Standards View is the official version of the Catholic Church. It divides the instructions into precepts and specific counsels. Obedience to the general precepts is essential for salvation but obedience to the others is only necessary for perfection.
The Two Realms View (Martin Luther) divides the world into spiritual and secular realms and argues that the Sermon should only be applied in the spiritual world. Thus a judge should sentence a criminal in the secular world but privately mourn for his fate in the spiritual world.
The Analogy of Scripture View notes that several of the precepts are modified by other parts of the New Testament and should therefore not be taken literally. For instance Jesus seems to forbid all oaths but Paul is shown using them at least twice.
The notion of Attitudes, not Acts (Wilhelm Hermann, St Augustine) holds that Jesus is not saying how someone should act; only what his attitude should be.
The Interim Ethic View (Albert Schweitzer) argues that Jesus was convinced that the world was about to end so survival in the real world was unimportant. Since he was mistaken about this the Sermon should not be taken literally until the commencement of the End Times.
The Unconditional Divine Will View (Martin Dibelius, Dostoevsky) argues that the ethics behind the sermon are absolute and unbending but the current fallen state of the world makes them impossible to live up to them. Failure is inevitable until the Kingdom of Heaven is proclaimed at which point we will all be able to fulfill them.
The Repentance View) states that Jesus meant the precepts in the Sermon to be unattainable so that our failure to live up to them will result in repentance and drive us to faith in the gospels.
Another eschatological view is that of modern Dispensationalism (Plymouth Brethren) divides human history into ages of dispensations. Today we live in a period of grace where living up the to Sermon is impossible, but in the future Millennium there will be a period where it is possible to do so, and living up to them in this period will be essential for salvation.
The Eschatological Invitation View (E.Earle Ellis, Prof.theol. at Southwestern Baptist Seminary) says that Jesus is inviting people to live according to an ethic which will be standard in the future kingdom of God. We should adjust our thoughts and lives to this ethic in this age.
In other words, there is no agreement among Christians on whether the instructions given in the Sermon on the Mount are literal, universal moral values or not. This is a mirror of what goes on in the case of all moral values listed or implicit in the Christian Bible. Take your pick on interpretations. One view might be right or they could all be wrong.
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita,
I’ve enjoyed reading this very long post and the comments following it. However it does nothing to encourage me that religionists can engage in reasoned debate. Ultimately we are talking two different languages. We speak “reason” and they speak “belief”.
While these two languages may have many words in common, the full meaning of those words, including nuances and implications, are different for religionists and for reasoners.
The individual who is self-named kaka (a children’s name for faeces – Freudian slip?). Simply cannot conceive of being wrong. His purpose in this discussion has never been to “learn” from it except that he hopes to learn how to persuade atheists to adopt his beliefs.
His repeated admonitions to you and others to, “open your mind” is an amateurish attempt to induce you to “allow him a foothold” of belief in your mind. At no point did I ever see him take his own advice and open his own mind.
I seldom get into this sort of thing any more. I cannot speak “belief” and I do not expect religionists to learn any more of the language of “reason” than they deem necessary in order to try to convert us to their sad, inhuman, inhumane, otherworldly, inane, philosophy.
Heck, most of them cannot even speak “belief” very well. When did you last encounter any two or more of them who describes their god or their beliefs in the same way? I have come to the inescapable conclusion that “Every believer creates his own god”.
SkypixieZero(Quote)
rosita, these are questions of how morals are applied. i’m talking about their objective basis in reality.
‘god’ need not refer to the christian god. i’m speaking generically of a transcendant god here.
but if you don’t believe in god then there are no objective morals at all. there is no point discussing what is the proper interpretation of the sermon on the mount as there is no objective reference point (what jesus/god really intended) to aim for. they’re just opinions.
but in such a world why should we turn to psychology for moral guidance?
kaka(Quote)
sorry should be:
THOSE are questions of how morals are applied.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
You confuse research psychology (which aims to find out more about how people work) and professional clinical psychology (which helps to heal people with mental health or daily living problems. Psychologists are not trained to givve moral advice and, in fact, are trained to avoid doing so. So the answer to your question is that people should not moral advice from psychologists because only bad ones will provide it.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
In the final analysis, all contentions that the Bible provides objective morals is just opinion. Even if it were not, there is no way to determine what these hidden “objective reference points” are, even if you are Christian. The point of the example was that even those Christians who believed that the Sermon on the mount contained “obective morals” none of them could agree on what they were.
Rosita(Quote)
well then why should we look to the system of moral development you have described for moral guidance, as opposed to others?
the objective reference point was jesus! the arguing between church denomintions today is about ‘what was jesus trying to tell us?’ ‘what did he intend?’ they are all trying to get closer to the truth.
now even if all the views were found to be false, it wouldn’t undermine the existence of objective morals, just our ability to perceive them ie, jesus gave us the truth, but we are still trying to figure out what he said.
but if there is no god or jesus, there would be no objective truth to discover. those views would be nothing but opinions and the bible would be just another book.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
You cannot obtain moral guidance from a description of the different ways in which people process information and make moral decisions as they mature. It makes no sense.
The neuro-cognitive description includes information about the things that people look to for moral guidance at each stage, as well as information which helps explain why they do that. It explains why things which appear to be moral to people at one stage of development appear to be immoral to those who have reached a different level of maturity.
I repeat: the model is a description of reality based on tests of moral reasoning given to many thousands of people from lots of different nations. You cannot obtain moral guidance from a description of what people use for moral guidance.
If that is not clear to you by now then you still do not understand the implications of this research for your argument that moral absolutes exist, but only for people who believe that Jesus is a god.
Let me try to explain it once more. The belief that moral absolutes exist is a feature of immature forms of moral reasoning but not a feature of the mature forms. If you believe in moral absolutes you demonstrate that you have not yet progressed to the mature stages of moral reasoning and cannot understand how people think at those levels or why they do not accept moral reasoning that seems obvious to you. This does not say that you are not capable of reaching these levels. It may simply mean that have not been sufficiently challenged to bump you up to the next levels. Perhaps this discussion will help.
Look, kaka, it’s human nature to believe everything we hear and read until it is challenged by our environment, or until we deliberately challenge it ourselves. It is essential that small children believe authorities and act on them without question. If they did not do so they would not survive in a hostile world. But this form of thinking is dysfunctional in adults. As we mature we learn how to challenge our thinking and our conclusions. This is how new knowledge is obtained, how we find better ways of doing things and how we adapt to new situations. Education in the investigative sciences and humanities develops this ability to its highest form.
Not only is the concept of objective universal unchanging morals a feature of the early stages of moral reasoning, it is also a theoretical concept which has no valid evidence to support it.
As you admit, there is no agreement on what “objective morals” are and a lot of disagreement over how the sayings of Jesus and other biblical passages should be interpreted and practiced in real life. People can, and do, reach contrary moral conclusions on the basis of the same data and the same degree of pious desire to “follow Jesus”. That is, the Christian Bible provides no basis for consistent or clear moral guidance.
If there is no reliable way of determining moral precepts and no consistent and unambiguous source of moral guidance then you are no better off than anyone else, including those who do not believe in the existence of your version of god, or of any god at all.
In the end we all rely on whatever sources and methods of moral reasoning are consistent with our level of moral maturity and combine it with whatever we have learned during our socialization to the community mores, values and traditions.
That’s why there is such a range of beliefs over the centuries about what is moral, and why there is still a range within any one community, even within the same church group.
Rosita(Quote)
ah but without god, your research is as much a description of moral guidance from a person than christians describing the ten commandments or moral claims for any religion.
you call it a description of reality but that’s just a label. what it’s really describing is people’s reactions to tests. but why should i believe moral guidance can be derived from such tests?
in fact, the tests are circular. they assume on faith that we can discover morals this way. then the scientists administer the tests, produce the results and say ‘ah ha – this is moral, that is immoral’. the premises have justified the conclusion.
and what about the moral development of the scientists? why is their moral development at a sufficient level to allow them to design tests which can produce moral behaviour and having done that, to recognise it in the results?
only people with a bias against religion and for science can say this method is any more valid than, say, sitting under a tree and receiving enlightenment.
i think it’s too strong a statement to say the disagreements are about what the morals ARE. i’m not sure churches have contradicted each other to that extent. rather, people quarrel about the significance, application and the proper context of the moral commands.
but so long as one believes that an objective, transcendent god handed these morals down, there is something to argue about – there is an objective morality out there to be discovered. without god, it’s all just subjective chatter and jesus was just another prophet. one might as well be a nihilist.
you seem to think i’m arguing that things are moral because the bible says so or because the church says so.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
You are making no sense.
Please read what I wrote carefully and properly.
In the very first sentence I specifically said that these scales could provide no moral guidance because they are merely a description of what “is”, not a recipe for what “ought to be”.
How could you possibly have missed that?
Rosita(Quote)
and that’s EXACTLY what i’ve been questioning all along – what IS objective morality (without god)! can objective morality EXIST in a godless universe.
you’re saying yes and it’s what we can observe in all these tests.
i’m saying what you observe and call objective morality are two different things.
what you observe is herd behaviour. what you call a description of morality is an interpretation of the results, filtered through the subjective worldviews of the scientists.
the presuppositions of the scientists (like whatever maximises pleasure is morally good) lead them to assign values to the observed behaviours.
they then say ‘this is a description of morality’ but it it’s really just a reflection of their own prejudices superimposed onto the test data.
that this is all done scientifically doesn’t automatically make it ‘objective’ in the sense that i’m talking about.
i think this is why we’re butting heads – you’re equating ‘objective’ with ‘measurable’, ‘scientifically-derived’ or ‘experimentally-based’. you’re also equating morality with observed rules of behaviour, proper conduct – am i right?
that’s caseywollberg’s position too. but that just lowers the bar for what passes for objective morality and isn’t the working definition used by philosophers and ethicists.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
No. I am not saying that objective morality exists anywhere – except in the minds and imaginations of people who illogically argue that such a thing must exist, therefore it does.
I am saying that belief in the existence of objective morality is based on moral reasoning which is characteristic of childish thinking. (Stage 1 of the Kohlberg scale)
I am saying that the scientific evidence does not support the existence of objective morality and that it does support the existence of subjective morality.
I am saying that philosophers can argue until they are blue in the face but if the evidence does not support either their assumptions or their conclusions then they are simply indulging in a showy but hollow display of specious academic balderdash. Copious use of jargon can make the philosopher sound impressive but it can effectively disguise pure navel inspection. The general public are taken in by this because they do not have sufficient understanding of the terms or wide enough general knowledge to detect the fallacies. That is why I like to use simple language rather than technical terms to make and dissect arguments. The strengths and flaws are more obvious that way.
I am saying that even if objective morality exists, the evidence shows that it is effectively unknowable and therefore useless as a moral guide. This means that Christians have no advantage in this area. They are still reliant on their community socialization and their stage of moral reasoning.
I am saying that measures of behavior that modern Christians generally agree is “immoral” are shown to increase in proportion to the theism of the community and decrease in proportion to the proportion of atheism in the community. This suggests that whatever moral guidance Christians have it results in worse behavior in comparison with those who do not have it. That is, what you would call the “guided” behavior of Christians is observably inferior to what you would call the “herd” behavior of non-theists.
Scientists are there to observe behavior, not to make moral judgments about what they see. It is philosophers you make arguments that “whatever maximizes pleasure is morally good”. Scientists merely observe that this kind of moral reasoning is consistent with a childish form of moral reasoning (Stage 2 in Kohlberg’s scale). The moral reasoning scales (Piaget, Kohlberg, and others) simply describe the form of moral reasoning that is characteristic of children at certain ages. They note that the sequence of intellectual and moral development is always the same but the age of the transition from one stage to another differs a little from culture to culture. Some cultures mature faster than others.
Some of those who study the progress of intellectual and moral reasoning do assign values but they are not the ones you imagine. They argue (and you are free to disagree) that the more mature the brain and the more mature the dependent logic and reasoning, the better that logic and reasoning is. Conversely, the more immature the form of reasoning the less value it has for adult functioning. The “pure science” response would simply note that x percent of the adult population continues to behave or reason in ways that are generally outgrown by the age of 9, and make no judgment about that fact. The judicial system tends to take a dim view of such people, however. So does the academic system and the mental health system. Each of these systems base their judgments on “herd” values, of course.
On the other hand, religious people, both groups and individuals, are notorious for superimposing their own prejudices on biblical interpretations. Thus we have witch burnings in Africa, and gay hatred and proposed Koran burnings in the USA.
The most mature form of moral reasoning aims to uphold human dignity and avoid unnecessary harm to others as well as the self, taking into account the complexities of the situation. That is not an objective value but it is arguably the best principal that humans have developed so far. It is a secular value which has some reflection in the better parts of most world religions but can be easily undermined by the insidious parts of these religions, Christianity included.
In conclusion, whether objective morality exists for Christians or anyone else, it is irrelevant to a person’s ability to behave in a way you would probably call moral, regardless of how you determine this. Whatever methods Christian theists use to decide what is moral their actual measurable observable behavior is, in general, inferior to the actual observable measurable behavior of those who have no theistic beliefs. At the very least, this suggests that there is something wrong with the “guidance system” used by Christians to shape their behavior.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
And, of course, it also implies that there is something wrong with the reasoning that some Christians use to insist that non-theists are immoral hedonist nihilists.
Rosita(Quote)
@all
This is one of the moral dilemmas which Kohlberg uses to determine the level of someone’s moral reasoning ability. The stage of reasoning is dependent on the person’s age, brain development and intellect. The way in which they reason and the conclusions they come to, change as they mature.
How would you answer the questions?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. the drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $400 for the radium and charged $4,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money and tried every legal means, but he could only get together about $2,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying, and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, “No, I discovered the drug and I’m going to make money from if.” So, having tried every legal means, Heinz gets desperate and considers breaking into the man’s store to steal the drug for his wife.
1. Should Heinz steal the drug?
1a. Why or why not?
2. Is it actually right or wrong for him to steal the drug?
2a. Why is it right or wrong?
3. Does Heinz have a duty or obligation to steal the drug?
3a. Why or why not?
4. If Heinz doesn’t love his wife, should he steal the drug for her? Does it make a difference in what Heinz should do whether or not he loves his wife?
4a. Why or why not?
5. Suppose the person dying is not his wife but a stranger. Should Heinz steal the drug for the stranger?
5a. Why or why not?
6. Suppose it’s a pet animal he loves. should Heinz steal to save the pet animal?
6a. Why or why not?
7. Is it important for people to do everything they can to save another’s life?
7a. Why or why not?
8. It is against the law for Heinz to steal. Does that make it morally wrong?
8a. Why or why not?
9. In general, should people try to do everything they can to obey the law?
9a. Why or why not?
9b. How does this apply to what Heinz should do?
10. In thinking back over the dilemma, what would you say is the most responsible thing for Heinz to do?
10a. Why?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Rosita(Quote)
@all
Sample responses to the moral dilemma.
Level 1, Stage 1: Persons in this stage obey rules to avoid punishment. A good or bad action is determined by its physical consequences. Whatever powerful authorities / my pastor/ god / my parents say will be punished is wrong.
Level 1, Stage 2: In this stage, personal needs determine right or wrong. Favors are returned along the lines of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. Whatever makes you and me feel good is right.
** At level one, a person’s answer to the Heinz dilemma might be,”it is wrong to steal the drug to save your wife because you might get caught.” “It is wrong because god will punish you or send you to hell if you do it.”
This reasoning is based on the consequences of his actions. This person’s primary concern is avoiding punishment. On the reverse side, the reasoning for stealing the drug would be to avoid punishment by your wife and the law, assuming an investigation came after the wife’s’ death. The inquiry may blame the man for not coming up with a way to get the money to save his wife’s life.
Level 2, Stage 3: To a person in this stage, good means “nice”. One’s behavior is determined by what pleases and is approved by others. Whatever my community approves is right. Whatever my church group approves is right.
Level 2, Stage 4: When deciding the punishment for a given wrongdoing, laws are absolute. In all cases, authority must be respected and the social order maintained. Whatever the law disallows is wrong.
** At level two, one takes into account society’s norms and laws, saying , “It’s wrong for Mr. Heinz to steal because it’s against the law. Mr. Heinz wants society to approve of his actions, so he doesn’t steal the drug.” “It is wrong because god says it is wrong and he will be unhappy if I do it.”
On the flip side, the subject may believe: “it’s right to steal because Mr. Heinz means well by trying to help his dying wife. He’ll pay the druggist the money when he is able, or accept the consequences for stealing the drug.” In this case, the subject still respects the law, but places an even higher value on loyalty to his loved ones. This shows a desire to be a good person but still conform to the law.
Level 3, Stage 5: Good is determined by socially agreed upon standard of individual rights. The United States Constitution is based on this type of morality. Persons operating in this moral stage believe that different societies have different views of what is right and wrong.
“Stealing others property might have been wrong for the Jewish nation in its infancy but it is not wrong in this society in this context.” Note that the thinking here is more abstract than the previous levels. Laws to a person at this level can be considered somewhat arbitrary, depending on the situation. This person realizes that laws are important to keep society running relatively smoothly, but also knows that they can be too rigid to apply in some cases. This person justifies that saving a life is more important than an abstract symbol of power: money.
** At this stage, a person’s response might be, “It’s not wrong for Mr. Heinz to steal because human life must be preserved and life is worth more than personal property. ”
Level 3, Stage 6: What is “good” and “right” are matters of individual conscience and involve abstract concepts of justice, human dignity, and equality. In this stage, persons believe there are universal points of view on which all societies should agree. They are not, however, absolute immutable moral standards.
“What is right for everyone, is that which is most conducive to uphold human dignity, fairness and the avoidance of unhelpful pain, taking into account all of the relevant factors and circumstances. All laws and commandments are subject to these rules and may be broken if they do not comply.”
“Religious commands and examples are subject to the same principles as other laws and examples and should not be followed, emulated or respected if they do not comply.”
** At this stage, a person’s response might be: “My wife’s right to live is of greater value than Mr.Heinz’s right to a very high profit from his discovery, but Mr, Heinz has the right to be paid for at least the cost of the materials, provided that I am able to pay for this after having done everything I reasonably can to procure the money.” This is a complex response.
A this level the person applies complex humanitarian principles to each individual situation. There are no absolute immutable standards, only a meta principle which is informed by the totality of a person’s current knowledge and whatever additional knowledge it is practical and reasonable to discover in the time frame allowed to make a decision.
Rosita(Quote)
you say scientists don’t make judgments – oh my goodness…to say one stage of moral reasoning is more ‘mature’ than the ones below it is a judgment. that you say theists have ‘inferior morals’ to atheists is a judgment. there are moral judgments all over that sample question! the respondent even gets bumped to a higher ‘level’ if they give a ‘better’ answer!
your scientists know logic/reasoning development mirrors brain/age/intellect development. they then ASSUME progress in logic/reasoning = progress in moral awareness. am i right?
now that’s an unprovable assumption. and secondly, ‘progress with respect to what?’ as far as i can tell, with respect to the scientist! it sounds to me like the scientist is taking himself to be a mature moral agent and seeing how the test participants stack up. that’s a circular argument.
a purely observational, neutral conclusion to those tests would say morals CHANGE as the brain develops. to say they show moral maturation or progress is to draw a line in the sand and say people on one side are more mature than the other.
moreover, if your system isn’t to be used for moral guidance and simply reflects morality in the community, you can’t use it to make ‘ought to’ statements. you couldn’t say ‘you ought to not murder people’. the best you can say is ‘murderous tendencies are a feature of people in stage x which shows such people are immature’. you couldn’t condemn murder could you? and you couldn’t tell me that ‘i ought to abandon theism’ and seek a higher level of moral maturity – why should i?
these tests don’t show objective morality is ‘unknowable’ – at best it shows it can’t be known through scientific tests.
as for belief in theism increasing immoral behaviour – that’s a result of how objective morals are applied in society and you can’t assess the truth of a view by it’s social effects. that’s a logical fallacy. that’s like saying medicine should be abandoned because of evidence of negligent doctors.
kaka(Quote)
@ kaka
You are correct. You could say that the Kohlberg moral dilemmas show that morals change as the brain develops, although that is not all that is going on.
A more neutral stance would be to ask whether and how human moral reasoning changes over time. If we detect changes then we want to know whether they always occur in the same order and whether the pattern, if there is one, is identical across cultures.
So we give children and adults from various cultures a series of moral dilemmas for which there is no obvious right answer and see what they say and how they reason. Some of these individuals are followed for 20 years to see how their thinking changes over time; others are tested in discrete age groups.
We find that as people mature there are distinct differences in the way they approach and solve questions of morality, including the sources which they use for moral guidance. We find that these stages always follow the same order although people vary a little in the speed with which they travel through these stages and in the point at which they stop.
We analyze the distinct stages, describe their characteristics and name them in a way which provides an overview of the type of thinking used in that stage.
You are incorrect in assuming that respondents in moral reasoning research are “bumped up” to a higher level if they give a “better” answer. Their answers are simply placed together with those which use a similar type of logic and underlying world view. Categorization, sequential placing and correlation with age comes later. Building a scale to determine someone’s place along the continuum comes at the end of the research process. That is, there are no assumptions of goodness, badness or level built into the investigatory phase. These kinds of “judgments” are made on the basis of the final overview of results.
To continue with the research methodology, we note the age at which the distinctly different stages are most commonly seen. We find that Stage 1 moral reasoning is typical of the average 9 year old’s thinking, Stage 2 is typical of the average 11 year old’s thinking, Stage 3 is typical of the average 13 year old’s thinking, stage 4 is usually achieved at around age 16 and stages 5 and 6 are not usually reached until somewhere between the ages of 20 and 30, and for the majority of people, never.
We find that people who have reached a particular stage of moral thinking are able to understand the thinking of the stages they have abandoned but unable to understand the thinking of the stages still to come.
We discover that the stage of moral reasoning at which a person stalls appears to depend on the mental challenge and stimulation which they have experienced. We note that the average rural dweller reaches and stays at Stage 3, while the average city dweller reaches and remains at Stage 4. We note that Stages 5 and 6 require the practice of critical analysis, multi-level thinking and a tolerance for uncertainty and we note that these factors are most commonly acquired during higher level education.
Considering that these progressive uni-directional changes are heavily dependent on environmental mental stimulation, do we call these linear changes “maturational” or do we call them “hierarchical”? Do we have reason to suppose that these distinct stages of reasoning are equivalent in value and utility or have we reason to believe that the application of thinking that is typical of the average 9, 11 or 13 year old is not the most appropriate or functional way of thinking for the average 30 year old? Is the type of moral guidance used by the average 9 year old the best resource for an adult? Is this a “value judgment” or a judgment of utilitarianism? Is this “drawing a line in the sand” or a valid conclusion given the evidence?
If you think that it is justified to argue that typical 9-year-old thinking is as good as typical 20 year old thinking for a 20 year old person then you must make a logical case for this point of view and support it with valid evidence
You are correct. Descriptive scales of the development of moral reasoning cannot be used as “moral guidance” to determine what one “ought” to do. They can only describe the differing forms of moral guidance which people use at each stage along the spectrum. It is up to the reader to infer the appropriateness or value of these for an adult population.
At Stage 1 people consult parents, sacred religious books or authoritative views of “god” for moral guidance on what is right or wrong. This is the stage that appeals to “moral absolutes”. At Stage 2 people refer to their own and others personal needs. At Stage 3 people refer to set rules and laws, including those contained in sacred religious texts. Most justice systems are stuck at this level. At Stage 4 people refer to community discussion and written essays. At Stages 5 and 6 people make moral decision by referring to internalized ideas of justice, freedom, human dignity and the reduction of human misery. These differ from moral absolutes because they include the belief that multiple factors must be considered for each particular situation. If extant rules, laws, doctrines and attitudes fail to meet the requirements of the meta logic and the particular circumstances they are discarded.
Now consider this.
According to research conducted by Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Colby, Reimer and many others, the average 9 year old regards rules as fixed and absolute and believes that they are handed down by adults or by God. Somewhere about the age of 10 or 11, the average child’s thinking changes. Now the child believes that is it possible to change rules if everyone agrees. Rules are not sacred and absolute but are devices which humans use to get along cooperatively. There are further changes in moral thinking and decision making at around the ages of 13, 16 and 25.
Since you appear to hold the position taken by the average 9 year old is it reasonable to suppose that this is not the most rational or effective way of thinking for an adult? Is it also logical to suppose that the reason why you have a great deal of trouble understanding how people on this forum think is because you have yet to travel beyond this elementary form of moral reasoning? Is it also rational to suppose that your thinking might progress up the scale as the result of challenges to your current way of thinking, such as the discussion we are having right now? Would this be a bad thing of a good thing?
Has it occurred to you that millions of people who consider themselves to be pious Christians do not believe in moral absolutes? My divinity professors did not.
You are correct. You cannot assess the truth of a view by its social effects – unless the view implicitly or explicitly includes the idea that the system in which it is placed improves the specific social effects being observed. Christians frequently assert that high instances of divorce, suicide, teen pregnancy, unwed mothers, sexually transmitted disease, abortion, homicide and other criminal activity are indications of moral depravity and godlessness and that belief in the Christian god prevents such things.
On the basis of a whole range of reputable studies, including the Pew Report, I have shown that the higher the proportion of Christians living in a community the higher the level of these indications of societal ill-health (or “moral depravity and godlessness”, if you prefer.) I have given you references for several of these studies so you can look them up. If you don’t think the findings support this conclusion then you are free to provide another explanation for the data in order to arrive at a different “value judgment”.
One person argued that the reason why communities with the highest number of Christians do so poorly on items which Christians themselves frequently assert are indications of immorality, is because the Christian devil god works harder in such communities and leaves the more secular communities alone because he already owns them. Personally, I think that is another example of desperate semantic gymnastics, but it might convince you.
You are correct. Tests of moral reasoning do not show that moral absolutes are unknowable. We established that fact in earlier posts by other means. In summary,
1. The existence of moral absolutes is a philosophical construct that is simply asserted. It is not amenable to either proof or disproof.
2. There is absolutely no consensus in the theist community about what constitutes a “moral absolute”. There is no mutually acceptable list and there is no reason to suppose that there ever will be.
3. What theist communities consider to be moral is remarkably inconsistent across place and time.
4. There is no moral consistency in the Bible.
If there are moral absolutes your version of god does not consistently follow them and you have no way of knowing whether or not you should emulate a specific example or obey a particular command in a particular circumstance. The Yahweh god is shown to be capricious. In the case of King David this god commanded that he take a census of the people, and then later punished him severely for doing so. In another instance he consorted with the devil god to unreasonably punish the righteous Job, just so he could brag to the devil about how loyal this chap was in spite of multiple indications that the Yahweh god was failing to protect him. So, like David and Job, you could be punished if you get it wrong, and punished if you get it right.
When you applied special logic to excuse the Yahweh god from behavior that you would consider to be deeply immoral in others we ended up with a scenario where it was impossible to differentiate between the voice and actions of the Yahweh god, the Jesus god, and the devil god. In other words, you proved that you had no basis for consistent and unambiguous moral guidance at all.
That is the coup de grace for your argument.
I think we should stop here. I find myself repeating things, over and over again. You then repeat what you think I said but you get it wrong, over and over again. What seems logical to you seems flawed to me. What seems logical to me makes no sense to you. I think it is time we accepted that we have reached different stages of moral reasoning and are unable to communicate because of it
Rosita(Quote)
more and more i see strident atheism going hand in hand with a warped sense of theism.
it’s incorrect that christianity PREVENTS social ills. in fact it insists we should expect them, even in the christian life as our minds are willing but our flesh is weak.
were those studies done on american people by any chance? i take such studies with a grain of salt as americans have this cultural trait where most of them say they believe in god but do not actually follow him in their lives. as such i don’t take them as representative of genuine christians at large (not that there aren’t any in america).
you didn’t fully address my points questioning the presuppositions and judgments of the scientists, crucially the assumption that logic/reasoning development = moral development. it is NOT for me to disprove!
your last paragraph made my jaw drop. so we’re at different stages…you’re higher than me so i can’t grasp the things you grasp…i think like a 9-year-old and you’re an adult…therefore communication is pointless.
now the validity of an argument isn’t restricted by the psychological state of the person making it, rosita. you should be able to respond to the logic of the arguments i have been putting forth. but you haven’t – instead you’ve mostly just cited research which says my moral development is immature because i hold these views – this is mere ad hominem.
if you’re going to simply reduce my statements to plot points on your chart of moral development instead of responding to what they are saying, then it is you who is obstructing communication. don’t blame it on poor mr kohlberg!
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
I rest my case.
Rosita(Quote)
Here’s the problem Luke.
That sounds like a narrative. You’ve found meaning in those experiences. And you gain comfort and a purpose from those experiences.
You haven’t moved on from the leaf twirling in the wind. The whole world is a gift to you.
graham veale(Quote)
Having listened to your interviews with Trigg and Ganssle
I have to say that you’ve an excellent, light handed approach in the interviews.
And having listened to your interview with Dr McGrew, I have to say that you’re certainly much more polite than I expected
(…although the level of sceptcism that you display seems to be grounded in convenience, rather than the literature.But I’m a rank amateur, so what do I know?)
GV
graham veale(Quote)
What’s the problem, then, graham?
lukeprog(Quote)
Luke
I don’t doubt that you had religious experiences analogous to my own, and genuine religious belief. [whether or not you had "fiducia" is a debate we can have on judgement day:-)]
And two sane, rational people can look at the same evidence and come to radically different conclusions. I find atheism wildly implausible! But that fact shouldn’t give you sleepless nights!
I also think that my first post sounds condescending. Sorry about that.
I just find accounts of “de-conversions” interesting reading. They’re presented like an old-fashioned Evangelical testimony. You seem to discern a purpose to your life, a theme or even a message. You have had evangelical experiences and epiphanies. Therefore you are in a position to refute Reformed Epistemologists. You have studied the Historical Jesus and Philosophy of Religion. Therefore you are ideally placed to refute Christian Evidentialists.
You write as if there is a God, but he doesn’t want you to believe in him. You seem to have found a meaning in life – but this is not a meaning that you’ve imposed on your experience. The circumstances of your life seem to have conspired to take away your faith. And now, like a good evangelical, you pass on the message of your life’s experiences.
You don’t sound like Russell or Dawkins, who would never seek to find significance in the vagaries of life’s events. There is no sense of a life “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” This is not what a man writes when he changes his mind having coolly assessed the evidence. In this “testimony” you are still staring at the leaf twisting in the wind, and finding a message that is just for you.
I’m not suggesting that you have a subconscious faith, or anything like that! Just a sort of hangover from the evangelical subculture.
And I love the interviews. It’s so nice to hear someone let an expert EXPLAIN!
Graham
PS That was typed in a rush. If it sounds rude or patronising or preachy, please forgive me. Old habits die hard!
graham veale(Quote)
“In this “testimony” you are still staring at the leaf twisting in the wind, and finding a message that is just for you.
I’m not suggesting that you have a subconscious faith, or anything like that! Just a sort of hangover from the evangelical subculture.”
Right. Because only evangelicals find significance in life. You’re a twit.
“You don’t sound like Russell or Dawkins, who would never seek to find significance in the vagaries of life’s events.”
Wrong again, Einstein.
“This is not what a man writes when he changes his mind having coolly assessed the evidence.”
What would you know about assessing evidence, and why would that act be mutually exclusive of assigning personal significance to the events of one’s life? Like I said, you’re a twit, and the condescension you are exhibiting is not justified by the quality of your arguments. You have to condescend from above, moron.
caseywollberg(Quote)
Ah, THAT’S what I’ve come to expect from McAtheists.
I suppose I could descend to this level. Make fun of your name, or call you “smelly”…this is all very childish and not worth bothering with.
Oh well, easy come, easy go.
graham(Quote)
@Graham Veale
- – - “You’ve found meaning in those experiences. And you gain comfort and a purpose from those experiences.
You haven’t moved on from the leaf twirling in the wind. The whole world is a gift to you.” – - -
Your comments fall into the psychoanalytic fallacy: interpreting things on the basis of paradigms which can never be tested in a way that could ever falsify them. Philosophy defines that as an “ideology” or “religion” as opposed to a “science”.
Another example would be saying:
Graham, it is clear that you find comfort and purpose in dismissing Luke’s experiences as unjustifiable and sadly inferior to your own.
You have not moved from the point where your subjective world is viewed as more real than the empirically testable world outside your head. No matter how much you look out the windows of your comfortable and familiar self-imposed prison you continue to interpret what you see as pixels on film with no basis in reality.
You’d be justified in telling me that I have no idea how you really feel or what you really believe, but the irony is that you would never be able to prove it. I could simply reply by telling you that your unconscious mind is repressing your real feelings or that you are suffering from delusions and mental distortions which prevent you from seeing reality. Which, of course, is exactly what I am saying. :-)
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita
That’s a really thoughtful and robust reply, and a good conversation starter. And it raises a lot of the issues that I’d like to discuss.
For the record, I don’t think that *my* experience *proves* I’m right, and that Luke’s wrong. (I’m just pointing out that it’s difficult to escape the evangelical subculture. Even Atheism doesn’t seem to work!) That doesn’t say anything at all about the truth or falsity of atheism or Christianity. It might say something about the role of predispositions in assessing beliefs.
I’m convinced that we need to assess our experiences (moral and religious) against the evidence!
That’s the sort of issue that I’d love to discuss. And your reply indicates that you see the issues and want to discuss them from a more evidentialist perspective. And that would be profitable.
I also wonder if we don’t have a “default” belief in something like providence…not that this would prove much. But it would be interesting to explore.
But in all honesty, you can’t have discussions like that while people are calling you a ‘twit’ (or a ‘willfully ignorant sinner’ or whatever) from the sidelines.
In fairness to this blog, Christians behaved in an analogous manner to Casey on Bill Craig’s forum. (Calling Muhammad a demon possessed paedophile was one comment I remember). So I won’t post there either.
It seems to be a real problem…how do you have frank, robust disagreement without the playground trolls ( be they Christian or Atheist) getting involved?
So no harm to you, or to Luke. I’ve always found conversations with interested and informed atheists worthwhile. I don’t think anyone minds provocative statements, to stir up a bit of debate. But why queue up to be (needlessly) insulted?
Graham
graham(Quote)
I also thought that I was fairy clear that I wasn’t dismissing Luke’s experiences—or his loss of faith. But I did type in a hurry! So sorry Luke, if I seemed dismissive.
graham(Quote)
“I also thought that I was fairy clear that I wasn’t dismissing Luke’s experiences—or his loss of faith. But I did type in a hurry! So sorry Luke, if I seemed dismissive.”
Just who are you trying to convince? Listen, you might get more traction with your attempts at starting a conversation with “McAtheists” if you didn’t begin as a condescending tone troll. That’s why I insulted you. You are a sophist, a tone troll, and you were being condescending to someone who is obviously smarter than you. And you didn’t address my arguments, of course. Twit. Just because you didn’t come on here calling people names doesn’t mean you aren’t being an asshole. In fact you’re hiding your prick nature behind smooth-sounding words. Nobody’s fooled by it, so fuck off.
“(I’m just pointing out that it’s difficult to escape the evangelical subculture. Even Atheism doesn’t seem to work!)”
And I’m saying the reasoning you used to get to that conclusion is bullshit. Your only response was to whine about being called out as a condescending twit. Well, I don’t feel sorry for you; you asked for it.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“I suppose I could descend to this level. Make fun of your name, or call you “smelly”…this is all very childish and not worth bothering with.”
And you could also address my arguments, like I did yours. Why did you leave that out? Oh, right. You aren’t honest. By insulting you I stooped to your level. I just did it the honest way.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“paradigms which can never be tested in a way that could ever falsify them.”
C’mon guys!
The Problem of Horrendous Evils? The Hiddenness of God? The possibility of a complete scientific account of nature without reference to God?
All are likelier on atheism than theism!And if there’s evidence against there can be evidence for…
And any theory can be rendered unfalsifiable by rendering more and more auxiliary hypotheses…we’re looking for something like an IBE, or a Bayesian justification in the case of Theism.
GV
graham(Quote)
Casey
I spotted the swearing, so I’m not even reading the posts. You may want to stop wasting time here.
Or counselling or SSRI’s might help with the tantrums. Whatever works for you mate.
graham(Quote)
Sheesh. I don’t think this is worth bothering with – here at least.
Hope I spot some of you guys on other blogs.
So long.
graham(Quote)
@caseywoberg
Down boy!
[start next casey-directed sermon]
I’m not sure whether I should accuse you of behaving like the stereotypical “angry atheist” or the stereotypical “offensive Christian”. Either way the behavior is likely to cause a defensive reaction in the reader which is counterproductive to reasoned discussions about anything. It also gives the moral victory to the person you are attacking. Graham wins that one, hands down.
[end next casey-directed sermon]
Rosita(Quote)
@ Graham:
Good riddance, sophist.
@ Rosita:
Who cares? He’s not worth our time. Oh, and moral victory I think not. He comes on here insulting Luke and atheists in general (which, as you assert, is “likely to cause a defensive reaction in the reader” and is “counterproductive to reasoned discussions about anything”) with his non-arguments and when he gets flack for it (along with refutations) he does some more sophistic maneuvers, completely ignoring the substance of the refutations, and you just eat it up? He’s a bullshit artist and a tone troll, and that ain’t moral. Bring on someone who actually exhibits some moral rigor and you’ll see how I treat them. “McAtheists,” for fuck’s sake.
caseywollberg(Quote)
I’m looking forward to your visit at Colorado State in a few weeks :)
Matt(Quote)
i’m so glad you’re committed to non-trolling and genuine reasoned arguments, caseywollberg.
by the way, i would still welcome a reply from you from our discussion last month on objective morality. i think it ended with you telling me to go fuck myself. but…anytime you’re ready we can talk mate :)
kaka(Quote)
No, it was this:
“i’ve only been a christian for about a month (i was atheist for 10 years before that), so my bible literacy is a bit shaky.”
That’s okay, it’s typical of Christians not to know anything about what they claim to believe. You’re in good company there. But, tell me again why anyone here should take you seriously.
I still don’t take you seriously.
caseywollberg(Quote)
my friend…there are those who hear the truth…and yet choose to harden their hearts. they close their hearts to the truth. they close their hearts to god.
the last thing i will say to you is – repent. what you have said here, what anyone has ever said on this discussion means nothing when we are dead. when you are on your deathbed, that you felt morally superior to anyone in this discussion will not count for anything. i don’t care about winning these arguments anymore. but i care about you. and all i can say is – repent.
you know what i’m talking about. so does rosita. so don’t bother replying. don’t bother swearing, don’t bother with your ridicule or trying to raise yourself above everyone else by putting everyone else down. it’s a charade and it’s not fooling anyone. you need to put your ego and worldly passions aside. you need to seek truth and you need to repent.
kaka(Quote)
Bahhahahaha! Thank you, kaka, for entertaining me this morning! Seriously, I’m not ridiculing you, that made me laugh and it felt good. So, thank you. I guess Christianity is good for something.
caseywollberg(Quote)
Nearly ROFL.
“there are those who hear the truth…and yet choose to harden their hearts.”
And there are those who keep wear mental ear plugs so that they do not recognize sense when they hear it.
And there are those who tell whatever lies they believe will win converts for their version of “god”.
Rosita(Quote)
@ Rosita
I know, right? First, he pretends to be conciliatory and open to honest debate, and when I don’t take the bait, BAM!, he reveals his true motives. It doesn’t get any more obvious than that.
caseywollberg(Quote)
Now wait, wait, wait. Now that I’ve recovered from my laughing fit (breathe, woo, okay), I’m wondering, what if he’s right? I mean, he makes a pretty good case. “Repent!” That’s reasonable, really, when you think about it. I mean, it’s true, none of these superior arguments will matter when I’m dead. Holy donkeys! I’ll die without the love of Jayzusss in my hearrrt! And then I’ll be condemned to the fiery pits of Hell forever! Condemned for eternity to be separate from the light of Gawduh! I’ve seen the error of my ways, kaka! Thank you thank you thank you for saving me from all of this damnable logic and faith-corrupting evidence! From this day forward, I am bound for glory! I have been set free from reason and made whole in The Truth (TM)! Oh, praise the Lord! Praise sweet Jayzussssssss-ah!
caseywollberg(Quote)
And there are those who are so ignorant of their religious text books that they do not know that the god they believe exists has a long Biblical history of hardening people’s hearts so they can’t believe in him. Kaka should be honest and consistent enough to put the blame where it really belongs: on his imaginary god.
Rosita(Quote)
I can’t assume that you didn’t do enough research about God’s existence.
I think the following reasons are what makes a person abandon a religion to become an atheist or agnostic:
1. Religion’s followers’ Attitudes/behaviors that contradicts religion’s teachings. Example, when a religion says don’t lie but the majority of the follower’s are liers.
2. Following a false religion (not everything in a false religion is necessarily wrong) .
There are different religions and some are newly invented. In each religion, mostly there are several sects or divisions. And under each division there can be subdivisions.
Let’s assume the following which is my belief. There is a God. He created us. He provided the rules to live in the right way through religion. Now, all we have to do is to follow these rules. But, as humans, we are unpredictable:
A) Some of us followed the religion teachings.
B) Some, didn’t believe in God and his existence and denied the religion teachings because following religion meant he has to give up some of his desires / powers like giving money to the poor or to abandon adultery … etc. Therefore, he created his own rules.
C) The rest, didn’t deny religion and God’s existence. However, religion is a great way to achieve one’s goals. So, they started distorting religion to fit their goals.
Back to the point “following a false religion”.We ended up with many religions. In each religion we have many sects and subdivisions. This means that only one subdivision of the many sects and religions is still the right religion. Which also means, that the majority of us are born to be taught the wrong religion or at least parts of its teachings. We’re also taught that other religions are wrong.
Therefore, when we grow up we start discovering the inconsistent, irrational and the crazy parts of our religion. So, we take the good parts of the religion but we also reject the other parts. Then we either will start searching for a different religion or we reject the whole idea of religion and mainly God’s existence.
3) “Why all this headache” attitude. Let me live happily without any guilt or restrictions.
This point is related to the previous point. The only difference is that the person’s intentions are not bad.
If a person believes that God doesn’t exist (atheism) or simply doesn’t care if God exist or not then he doesn’t have to follow many rules dictated by religion. This absolutely will make a person live a less restrictive life. In other words, the person becomes the creator of his life’s rules.
I think what you wrote is a good example,
“In many ways I regret my Christian upbringing. So much time and energy wasted on an invisible friend. So many bad lessons about morality, thinking, and sex. So much needless guilt.”
Giving up searching for the right religion is a tempting one. The reason is that it’s not a simple task. There are many, many beliefs to sift. language barrier (even though there are translations but you can’t always be sure you are reading a good translation).It can be a life-time endeavor. You also need to go to work to live.
Even though, I believe the main purpose of religion (not a false one) is one thing: To tell us that God exists. Therefore, the first thing a person should think about is not if a religion is false or not. It’s whether God exists or not?
I asked myself this many times and had my doubts. However, when I saw a video for a Kangaroo’s new born crawling to its mother’s pouch, I have no doubts anymore about God’s existence. How does this creature know that it has to crawl to the pouch and then starts sucking.
Actually, every creature including ourselves is a sign of God’s existence. The fact a new born knows that it has to suck a nipple to feed is a clear sign that some power gave it this instinct.
End.
PS: Are you giving up your other site lukeprog.com? I believe I will learn a lot from that site and this one. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Saleh(Quote)
“Actually, every creature including ourselves is a sign of God’s existence. The fact a new born knows that it has to suck a nipple to feed is a clear sign that some power gave it this instinct.”
Oh, for fuck’s sake, what pure idiocy.
End.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@ Saleh.
I presume that you haven’t done much research on the basis for your belief in God’s existence and the logic that is supposed to support it.
There is nothing logical about suggesting that people choose not to believe in a particular god because you don’t like the restrictions that its followers believe it imposes.
How many gods, religions or christian traditions have you rejected for this reason? Have you rejected the Allah version of god because you don’t like the idea of being subject to Islamic law or wearing a burka? Have you rejected the Jewish Yahweh version of god because you want to be able to eat pork, bacon and shellfish and keep your pensis (or your son’s penis) intact? Have you rejected the Mormon version of the Yahweh god because you prefer non-submissive monogramy? Have you rejected the Hindu gods because you don’t want to spend time preparing and making sacrifices to them every day? Have you rejected the Yehovah’s Witnesses version of the Yahweh god because you don’t want yourself or a member of your family dying for want of a transfusion of whole blood? Have you rejected the Catholic version of the Yahweh god because you don’t want to avoid using reliable forms of birth control?
The implications of what you have acknowledged about the thousands of differing and conflicting ideas about what “god” wants his or her followers to do is that no-one can realistically claim that they have any valid idea about “following god” entails. Your guess is as good as theirs and, should a god really exist, you are just as likely to be horribly punished by a sadistic god as they are.
Your safest bet would be to worship the most sadistic god you can find, and make sure you don’t offend it by similtaneoulsy worshiping its rivals in order to hedge your bets. You should probably investigate Islam, as its treatment of unbelievers and its hell are worse than the Christian counterparts. You don’t feel comfortable with this type of expedient thinking?
So, have we established that you haven’t chosen to reject the existence of a particular god because doing so would cause you pain by preventing you from doing something you would prefer to do? Have we also established that you have not chosen to accept the existence of a particular god because doing so seems to be the best option for protecting yourself from pain?
Good. Then you should be able to extrapolate this thinking to those who find themselves unable to believe, or to continue to believe, in the existence of a god. That will make you a lot wiser than those people who led you to believe that atheists “reject” god because it allows them to live “sinful” lives and Christians distort their religion for similar reasons.
“when I saw a video for a Kangaroo’s new born crawling to its mother’s pouch, I have no doubts anymore about God’s existence. How does this creature know that it has to crawl to the pouch and then starts sucking.? – - – - -“
This is an argument from ignorance. It’s not a magical process, but a natural one. A biologist could probably explain it to you in language that doesn’t require you to have more than a very basic knowledge of biochemistry. (Hint: it’s chemical smell).
You could make the same kind og argument about snowflakes. How does water “know” how to make hexagonal patterns when it freezes? Do you seriously imagine that this “instinct” for making hexagonal patterns, every one of which is unique, requires that the water be “given” this “instinct” by an invisible “mind” that doesn’t seem to have a great deal of importance left to do with the rest of its boring eternal life?
The argument is appalling naïve because it confines its vision to a narrow band of “beauty and magic” and avoids acknowledging the vicious and ugly realities of nature. It does not explain why “god” created creatures that must destroy life, frequently quite horrifically, in order to survive themselves: carnivores, parasites, bacteria, viruses). These life forms horribly kill and maim other earth life-forms because they have been “designed” to do so. A humane creator would have provided all animals and plants with a means of surviving without the need to hurt and destroy sentient things. They cannot survive in any other way unless humans intervene and feed them by some more humane means. Humans, therefore, do better than the “god” who is supposed to have “created” them.
Your argument does not explain the existence of natural disasters (floods, earthquakes, erupting volcanoes, storms, cyclones, tsunamis, mud-slides, hurricanes, lightening strikes, sinkholes, landslides, quick sands) which kill and main life forms which have not been “created” with the means of protecting themselves against such things. A powerful creator would have created beings that could protect themselves from planetary disasters, or created a planet that did not have such such life-destroying events.
In fact, there is little difference between a world where a god does not exist and a world where an incompetent, uncaring, stupid god exists. Take your pick..
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita:
I saw that there was a response in my inbox…so glad it was this pearl from you. I’m a bit burnt out on the swine and their swill at the moment.
caseywollberg(Quote)
By the way, Saleh sounds like a Muslim (and not because of his name) on the verge of a proselytizing fit.
caseywollberg(Quote)
Correction: There is no perceivable difference between a world where no god exists and a world where an incompetent, sadistic, lazy and stupid god exists. Ironically, the less religious the citizens of a nation are, the more “moral” they are shown to be are in many areas that the christian religion considers to be “christian” values. There is less murder, less abortion, less teen pregnancy, less divorce, more pure charity and so on.
Rosita(Quote)
Yes, I don’t update lukeprog.com anymore.
lukeprog(Quote)
@caseywollberg
you said, “Oh, for fuck’s sake, what pure idiocy.”
I think pure idiocy is in saying “fuck’s sake”. What the hell does that mean!?
@caseywollberg
you said, “Saleh sounds like a Muslim.”
You are right, I’m a Muslim. But don’t link my comments to a particular religion. I’ll try my best that whatever I write is not to be linked with a particular religion. What I write should be linked to the question, “Does God exist?” only. Of course, saying that God exists coincides with many religions.
@Rosita
you said, “There is nothing logical about suggesting that people choose not to believe in a particular god because you don’t like the restrictions that its followers believe it imposes.”
Example: In Islam, it says, “Don’t give a loan with interest”. Say that X is a Muslim. He has a lot of money and can make more if he can give loans with interest. Therefore and since X is a greedy person. He denies the existence of God and he starts lending people with interest. Whether he really denies God or not is another issue. So, becoming atheist gives him an advantage.
Note: I’m not saying an atheist doesn’t believe in God’s existence just to gain something. Also, note that the gain sometimes can be on the subconscious level. Like I mentioned before, by disbelieving God’s existence you gain the relief from guilt associated with taboos in religions.
Thanks to your comment, it made me think about the points I mentioned related to ” why an atheist doesn’t believe in God “, so I must add the following point:
4) All arguments or evidences provided are not convincing at least to him.
This applies to any belief. Being an atheist, Muslim, Hindu … etc is a belief. Some beliefs are based on evidences and some are based on nothing. Yet, if a person doesn’t want to change his belief even if you provide enough evidence, you simply can’t convince him.
Evidences of God’s existence are in the reply to this comment.
You said, “This is an argument from ignorance. It’s not a magical process, but a natural one. ”
Actually, it is not out of ignorance. I already knew it’s following a chemical smell. But you missed the point. My point is not about the process/mechanism a creature does or knows something. It’s about the existence of these mechanisms in the first place. In the case of the kangaroo it comes out already equipped with what it needs to reach the mother’s pouch. It already knows that it has to follow the smell to survive. Neither the mother, nor the new born are involved consciously in the creation of this process.
If we take it to the cells level, a fertilized cell doesn’t have a thinking tool. Yet it will start dividing and form different groups of cells which will form different organs. The cells don’t need to evolve into a full creature to continue surviving. They could’ve stayed in the womb or form another shape. However, they are always following specific patterns or instructions.
Consider also the heart. It is beating whether you are awake or asleep. Even though you know it’s there and you have a brain but you can’t stop it.
The same applies to the snowflake example you gave, certain rules are being applied. The whole universe is following certain accurate rules.
Now, the hardest part is in believing that these rules are provided by someone. Why I believe it’s provided by someone? Because such a universe with all its complexities and diversities can’t come to existence as a result of randomness. By randomness I mean, “it can’t be found by itself”. This can be proven mathematically by the use of probabilities.
Quoted from:
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_earth_like_planets
“so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years”
Of course, the article is not talking about life on Earth, but it is talking about one single intelligent life, so let aside the probability of having all the life forms on Earth, and the inanimate objects in the whole universe including planets.
Also check, http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com
I believe 100% that everything in this universe is explainable by science except God’s being (I mean, how it looks or how it thinks … etc). But because we can explain something with science, doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist. To the contrary, science shows us that there are uniform, accurate laws governing existence. Which means these laws are designed by someone. This someone is God to me.
You said, “In fact, there is little difference between a world where a god does not exist and a world where an incompetent, uncaring, stupid god exists”
It does make a difference. If he exists, then you should obey him. You obey him by doing what he says is OK and abandon what he tells you is bad. Therefore, this shapes how you live your life from what you eat, to how you run a country.
I can understand your anger for if God exists and he is capable then why he made a lion kill to survive. Why he allowed someone to kill an innocent person. Why he allowed a country invades another and kill thousands or millions. However, this is another subject. Short answers, regarding animals, I really don’t know. Regarding human beings, because he allowed us to choose our actions. But then you’ll have to believe in after-life to accept such answer.
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh.
1. My point was that people rarely, if ever, choose not to believe in a god. They simply find that they cannot.
While that state may have some advantages, compared with the fear- and obligation-based states experienced by believers, that state also has disadvantages. In areas where belief in the supernatural is the norm, non-believers are often seriously disadvantaged: socially, economically, emotionally and career-wise. They, or members of their family, may be bullied, discriminated against, even tortured and killed. In such situations it would be foolish to “choose” not to believe and even sillier to openly admit it. The safe thing to do is to pretend to believe what the majority does, or at least what those in positions of power believe.
As an experiment, try to spend a week as an open atheist. Tell your family and all your friends that you no longer believe that Allah actually exists. Keep notes of the reactions you get and how it affects your life. If you live long enough to explain, at the end of the week, that you were merely acting a part for a sociological experiment, you will have learned a valuable lesson that no text book could teach you. At the very least, you will never again believe that people sincerely choose not to believe in a god simply to avoid pain and discomfort.
2. All religions believe that they are based on “evidence”. The standard of that evidence is, however, extremely poor in comparison to the type of evidence required by scientists, courts, lawyers and other investigators that aim to determine the truth about something. Secular truth-gathering protocols aim to minimize or avoid the many cognitive biases which contaminate searches conducted in the realms of religion, ideology and marketing. In contrast, religious adherents are actively discouraged from investigating material which challenges the in-group or power-group consensus and are cognitively inoculated against such material in case they are inadvertently exposed to it. Ironically, the strongest form of inoculation against the idiocies of a particular religion is to be indoctrinated during the pre-logical years of childhood with the beliefs of another idiotic religion.
3. The existence of physical laws and biological mechanisms is not a valid argument that these things were “created”, that creatures or things “follow” the rules or that some complex “mind” is directing all this.
Scientific “laws”, “theories” and “mechanisms” are merely precise and predictive descriptions of properties, states and processes that simply “are”. The state of green is green because it emits certain wavelengths of light while not emitting others. Our brains perceive this as a color we label as “green” in English. The green thing is not following any rules, it simply has green properties. Neither do our brains follow rules that turn these wavelengths into a green perception: they simply react to the property of these wave lengths in line with the physical, chemical and morphological properties of the cells which have developed in response to the patterns contained on strands of DNA..
There is no good reason to imbue these processes with some kind of “intent” to follow instructions. There is no good reason to suppose that the “rules” which scientists investigate and describe were “formed”.
For the last few decades, scientists have been creating elements that fit into gaps on the Periodic Table. They can generally predict what their properties and “rules” will be on the basis of the known properties of their chemical neighbors. Sometimes there are surprises and the new element does something unexpected. The point is, although scientists are creating these elements from “nothing”, they are not creating the properties of these elements: these properties simply “are”. Just like “green”.
4. Part of your statistical randomness argument is based on the Puddle Fallacy. It’s like assuming that the walls of a puddle fit it so perfectly because they were specifically made for it. The reverse is true: the puddle could only develop in such a way that it fitted the available conditions perfectly. Life and the universe have developed to fit the existing environment; the conditions were not made to fit the consequential stars or the eventuating life forms.
The other part is based on the Bird Poop Fallacy. If a bird flies across your lawn at 3pm on a particular day in summer and randomly poops on a particular blade of grass on that lawn what is the statistical probability of that particular piece of grass being pooped on by that bird, on that day, at that time, in that season of the year, in that hemisphere – - and so on, infinitum?
The answer is 100 percent. Once something has already happened, it is absolutely certain, no matter how rare it might be. On the other hand, the chances of that happening at any other time are about as close to zero as you can get and, for all practical purposes, next to impossible. That’s the thing about random events: you cannot predict them with any degree of certainty. If, on the other hand, it were a created or non-random event then there would be a mathematical formulae which would allow us to predict when, where and how the poop would fall.
You live your life in a world where you are only aware of the things which conform to Newtonian physics: things which exist and have causes, which in turn have causes. In the realm of quantum physics the “laws” are different. In this microcosm “potential particles” flit in and out of existence from “nothing”. Quantum physicists have mathematical models that predict that the universe began as the result of one or more “quantum fluctuations” in an eternal energy field. Calling such a state or property “god” is semantically stupid. First, we already have perfectly good scientific terms for the state and the process. Second , the term “god” comes with a whole lot of baggage which has nothing whatever to do with the mechanism. 3. The term ‘god’ is hopelessly ambiguous. Everyone assumes that it conforms to the attributes that they are their significant others want it to have.
Rosita(Quote)
@Saleh
I wrote:
“In fact, there is little difference between a world where a god does not exist and a world where an incompetent, uncaring, stupid god exists”
You replied:
“It does make a difference. If he exists, then you should obey him. You obey him by doing what he says is OK and abandon what he tells you is bad. Therefore, this shapes how you live your life from what you eat, to how you run a country.”
Are you kidding me? Do you seriously believe that is it moral to obey a god that appears to be incompetent, uncaring and stupid?
How can you possibly obey this god and do what he wants if you cannot be sure what it is that this god actually wants you to dos? Islam is no more consistent in its view about what these things are than Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism. What one group of Muslims think is “god’s will”, other think is devil’s work, and vice versa. Divinities are very inconsistent in what they apparently tell their adherrents to do. In fact, the Old Testament states that the Yahweh god told King David to take a census of his people. He later punished David for doing what he told him to. A later writer tried to correct this problem by insisting that the Devil told David to take the census, without explaining why it was so evil that the Yahweh god killed David’s daughter in a fit of “righteous” rage. What on earth do you see in this ficticious god that makes you want to do what you think it says?
You wrote: “I can understand your anger for if God exists and he is capable then why he made a lion kill to survive. Why he allowed someone to kill an innocent person.”
Please tell me what I said that made you believe that I felt “angry”? There doesn’t seem to be anything for me to be angry about. There’s no-one to blame for the imperfections of the world and the universe and its indifference to the needs of humans.
In order to be angry about this state of affairs I would need to be a theist. On the other hand, you would have justification for being angry with the god you say you believe exists. It seems that you are protecting your anger and disgust on to me, where it does not fit and cannot belong. Be careful what you accidently say about yourself when you impute emotions to others that do not fit.
On the other hand, one of the salient features of the Abrahamic god is that he is full of anger. This is usually described by religious writers as “righteous” anger, with the implication that this somehow exonerates it without further consideration or investigation. The descriptions, however, would get such a being labeled as a monstor in this morally developed age. They read like the things engaged in by something which is a cross between a Mafia Boss and Hitler. Why should I, or anyone else, respect someone who thinks this kind of anger is justified? Even more to the point, why should I, or anyone else, respect someone who believes that the actions attributed to this exceedingly angry god are so wonderful that the perpetrator is worthy of worship? What does this say about your willingness to commit atrocotries in the name of this angry and vengeful god? Why should be not question whether you can be relied on to always act in a socially benevolent fashion?
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita
Most probably this is going to be my last post since it will be going on and on. As I said before, if a person is convinced of something and doesn’t want to change his belief then nobody can.
————-
No way would I do such experiment. The consequences are absolutely not worth it. I agree with you in this. However, like you mentioned, being an atheist doesn’t mean you have to declare it out loud. Still you can have double the benefits from being atheist and pretending to follow a religion. After all, being an atheist means there are no rules or guidelines to follow except your own rules.
However, is an atheist a selfish immoral person who thinks only about self-gain? The answer to this is the same answer to, “Is a believer (in a religion/God) a selfish immoral person?
My answer:
It depends on the person’s conscience. A believer believes conscience comes from God. How about an atheist? Why he has conscience? Don’t tell me it’s a survival mechanism resulting from evolution. If it is a survival mechanism then it means we can’t neglect it. For example, you can’t stop your heart beating because it’s essential for your survival. Yet, any person can neglect conscience and able to survive.
Also, not in every society an atheist is rejected or discriminated or the impact is very low. So, being an atheist doesn’t really involve strong disadvantages.
——————
You said,
“… The green thing is not following any rules, it simply has green properties. Neither do our brains follow rules that turn these wavelengths into a green perception: they simply react to the property of these wave lengths in line with the physical, chemical and morphological properties of the cells which have developed in response to the patterns contained on strands of DNA.”
From Wikipedia:
The term “law” is often used to refer to universal principles that describe the fundamental nature of something, to universal properties and relationships between things, or to descriptions that purport to explain these principles and relationships.
What you call reactions to properties, I call results of applied laws/rules. What you call properties/laws simply “are” I call gained or created. Why?
If you passed by an empty area and after 1 billion or infinity years someone told you that a building erected by itself in that area. Would you believe him? I think not. Simply you’ll assume someone erected it. Why? 1) Because it can’t erect itself since it’s an inanimate object that is composed of many parts. 2) Even if it happens and the building is erected, this will occur with many imperfections since the probability for a perfect building is very small, which means other things (destruction of the building, creating something other than the building …etc) will happen are very high and they will occur since the period is very long.
You said,
“Once something has already happened, it is absolutely certain, no matter how rare it might be.”
I agree. But you also have to agree that if the probability of creating an intelligent life form is so tiny, then we’ll have many chaotic happenings like having creatures with 1 leg, 10-legs creatures, upside-down mountains and all kind of crazy stuff.
What I mean, is the universe is in order and not in chaos. How come? Scientifically, it can’t be by itself.
You said:
“If, on the other hand, it were a created or non-random event then there would be a mathematical formula which would allow us to predict when, where and how the poop would fall.”
Actually, it is a non-random event. And we can mathematically predict when where and how the poop would fall. The only requirement is that we must have all the variables affecting the event. This applies to any event. However, because we don’t have the knowledge about the event and the factors affecting it, doesn’t mean the event is not non-random.
You also said,
” The point is, although scientists are creating these elements from “nothing”, they are not creating the properties of these elements: these properties simply “are”. Just like “green”.”
Nobody can claim that they can create something from nothing except a God. Therefore, it is evident that those scientists didn’t create these elements, so to them these properties “are”, Again because they are not creators. Yet, they can change these properties according to established laws which they didn’t put.
The same thing is about the universe. To us, it “is” because it was created from nothing by God. But this universe can’t recreate itself, nor can we create it from nothing.
Otherwise, how do you explain the existence of the universe. If you say, “Big Bang”, then you should think twice. Big bang means randomness is involved. If randomness is involved then the universe wouldn’t be a perfect place. It would be chaotic.
—————–
A God being incompetent is your view only if you believed that he exists. The problem is that you are saying:
“God doesn’t exist.
If we assumed he exists then he’s incompetent.”
You should agree this is not logical. That’s an assumption you make to explain what you can’t understand. We as human beings can’t understand some facts when we lack the knowledge.
Example: if there is a God why he makes us need food to survive. If we didn’t need food, millions of Africans would still be alive.
Because we don’t know why doesn’t mean he’s incompetent or he doesn’t exist. And so you don’t have wrong interpretations, yes we have the capabilities to understand the reasons behind everything in this world but it’s a matter of gaining the knowledge.
—
You wrote:
“Divinities are very inconsistent in what they apparently tell their adherents to do.”
The discrepancies are not related to the divinity’s instructions and prohibitions but to 3 factors:
1) Creation of false religions by humans themselves.
2) Distortions occurred and still occurring in religions (including misinterpretations).
3) The multitude of religions.
—
The anger I’m talking about is toward the idea of his existence and that people believe in this idea. And relating that these misfortunes are linked to the idea of God like the wars in the name of God.
—-
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh
Your posting contains a whole truck load of errors of logic and scientific understanding as well as indications that you do not understand what you read. If I tried to deal with all of this I would have to take over this site by writing a small book.
Most of it is so blatant that other readers will see through it quickly and easily. For brevity’s sake I will deal with a very small sample and then leave you to wallow in your delusions.
As you keep pointing out: if a person is convinced of something and doesn’t want to change his belief then nobody can change it.
You seem to be a master (or mistress) or psychological projection – imputing motives to others which are actually yours, and not theirs, as a way of avoiding accepting that they exist in you. You are not deliberately lying about your motives, of course. It’s a psychological defense mechanism that you use to avoid mental pain and discomfit. It’s a trait that is by no means confined to religious fanatics but it is very common among them. It’s a sign that you are secretly quite insecure and cannot entertain doubts, even as “hypotheticals”. Many people do manage to get over this (writers on this site are examples) but it takes a long time and lots of deliberate and painful mental effort. I doubt that you have the inclination or mental stamina for such an endeavor. You have a lot of company there. Do not, however, expect those who have gone on this journey to treat you with intellectual respect.
Your quote from Wikipedia about “laws” supports my contention, not yours. Read it again and try to understand it this time.
“Is an atheist a selfish immoral person who thinks only about self-gain? “
Morality is socially-derived. A person who is well-socialized will fit in well with the society in which they live; a brain-impaired sociopath will not learn to apply social rules and will not fit in. It’s that simple. Societal justice systems are not interested in whether someone engages in moral behavior for selfish or for unselfish reasons, simply that they engage in moral behavior. If we look at the society’s as a whole we find that the more atheistic the society the better its observed rates of societaly approved moral behavior, and the more religious the society the higher the crime rate and the lower the level the indications of societal health. (If you do a Google search you will find a number of scientific studies which support this assertion but no valid studies that support the opposite.)
Atheists are ethical because they are well socialized and it is the right thing to do. On the other hand, religious people claim that they live good lives because some invisible person will punish them if they do not (forced good behaviour, not an unforced choice) or they behave well because they believe this will prevent them from being cast into hell after they die (a selfish reason) or because it will result in them being accepted into a religious heaven after their death (another selfish reason). In other words, it is much more logical to argue that religious people behave as they do for selfish reasons, than to argue that atheists do so.
“The anger I’m talking about is toward the idea of his existence and that people believe in this idea. “
Where is the logic in that? I don’t care what people choose to believe, just so long as it does not cause them to act in ways which harm me, others or the world in which we all live. That is justifiable anger. You would feel exactly the same if a member of some other religion acted this way.
“Actually, it is a non-random event. – - – The only requirement is that we must have all the variables affecting the event. This applies to any event. However, because we don’t have the knowledge about the event and the factors affecting it, doesn’t mean the event is not non-random.”
Behavioral and biological scientists agree that the behavior of biological entities contains a degree of randomness. Formulae used to describe such behavior are necessarily probabilistic. Life began in this realm.
In the quantum realm all behavior is probabilistic. The universe commenced in this realm.
“Big bang means randomness is involved. If randomness is involved then the universe wouldn’t be a perfect place. It would be chaotic.”
The universe is chaotic and imperfect. Most of the universe is extremely unfriendly to human life. It will eventually kill us all. Gamma rays from exploding stars would kill us in seconds if one such ray crosses earth’s path. One just missed us quite recently. Asteroids have a habit of crashing into earth. Some have nearly destroyed all life on earth already. Another is due to just miss us in a few years, and may not miss us the next time around. Untethered black holes roam the universe. If one wanders into our solar system if will swallow up the earth into the infinite nothingness at its center.
“But you also have to agree that if the probability of creating an intelligent life form is so tiny, then we’ll have many chaotic happenings like having creatures with 1 leg, 10-legs creatures, upside-down mountains and all kind of crazy stuff.”
This is an argument from scientific ignorance. Neither biological nor geological evolution works like that. Your contention is absurd. If you are at all interested in “truth” rather than religions fiction (which, I doubt), then you can educate yourself by reading the amateur-friendly scientific articles at http://www.talkorigins.org/
“If you passed by an empty area and after 1 billion or infinity years someone told you that a building erected by itself in that area. Would you believe him? I think not.”
This is the “watchmaker fallacy”. Talkorigins deals with this, too. In essence, we recognize man-made objects because we are familiar with the things that man can make. We make errors of judgment about this when we assume that something that is regular is man-made when in fact it is a product of nature.
And so on, and on.
The bottom line, Saleh, is that you lack the education and intent to understand why the case you mount for your preferred religious viewpoint is not credible.
Rosita(Quote)
@Saleh
Information and pictures of upside down mountains.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/applecrypt/3611283555/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071130201410AArG61a
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita
Most of your comments don’t make sense.
Example,
“Atheists are ethical because they are well socialized and it is the right thing to do”
That’s absolutely biased. This is what you want to believe.
you said,
“If you are at all interested in “truth” rather than religions fiction (which, I doubt), then you can educate yourself by reading the amateur-friendly scientific articles at http://www.talkorigins.org/”
I don’t mind visiting that site even if it is “amateur-friendly”. But your comment shows one thing common I noticed in Atheists (can’t generalize) I interacted with. “Arrogance”. Whether intentional or not, but you think you have better knowledge / IQ / Wisdom / Personality (I’m not really sure which aspect is it). And this is a devastating criterion bcoz it makes you refute anything not to your liking.
Anyways, wish you the best. And thanks for all your comments. At least I learned something.
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh
I’m glad you’ve learned something. Keep reading. One day perhaps it will all make sense. Then you might review your estimate of the locus of “arrogance”. I hope so.
Rosita(Quote)
My journey is pretty much opposite to yours – and surprisingly for very similar reasons. Thanks for your candor and generous spirit!
One book I found hard to argue with – even though I tried, was Richard Bauckhams book – Jesus and the eye witnesses. If you want to find a cohesive argument that refutes some of what you now believe then give it a go.
Thanks again – Dave
Dave.keeps(Quote)
Fascinating read, what a story :D
Frustratedfairy(Quote)
@Dave.keepss
The Bauckham hypotheses have been soundly criticized. For example:
http://vridar.wordpress.com/tag/book-reviews/bauckham-jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses/
RLWemm(Quote)
Dave.keeps,
On Bauckham, see here
lukeprog(Quote)
More reviews of Bauckham’s hypotheses.
http://www.amazon.com/review/REUHC4YLSI52B/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/5650_5966.pdf
RLWemm(Quote)
I read “16 Techniques of Critical Thinking” from your other site at:
http://lukeprog.com/science/16_techniques_of_critical_thinking.html
The problem is applying what you mentioned. The real obstacle is our emotions. My question, Do you know of any book / site that can help in making a person less sensitive / emotional to criticism especially when debating with others. (sometimes debaters insult the counterpart indirectly to affect their rationality).
Thanks.
Saleh(Quote)
Rosita, I advice you to read the article linked above.
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh.
I’m very familiar with this material. How about you?
Rosita(Quote)
Saleh,
That’s a really good and important question! I’ll have to think about that…
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
@Rosita
I’m now.
But being familiar is not enough.
Would you mind sending me an email @
s_alabbas0
@yahoo
Note: That’s a zero at the end of my user name.
I want to communicate with you through email instead of luke’s blog bcoz it will be annoying to him since he’ll receive any comment in his blog.
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh
I’m in the middle of moving house. Bad, bad time. Maybe in a coupe of months.
If you want to learn why people believe illogical things search for the Psychology of Persuasion.
In a nut shell, people are more likely to believe crazy things when they are physically, bodily, emotionally and mentally distressed or, alternatively, if they are the beliefs of people who are nice to them, on whom they are dependent emotionally or whom they respect.
The default position is to believe everything that your parents and teachers tell you. That is necessary for survival during the childhood years. The brain’s capacity for critical thought develops during adolscence and young adulthod. It needs environmental challenge and nurturing in order to develop properly. When these things do not occur we end up with an adult with impaired critical thinking ability. Unfortunately, there are a lot of them, especially in countries with at least one of the following: authoritarian regime, powerful authoritarian religion, uncritical sensationalized media, poor general education system which emphasizes fact learning rather than the application of critical thinking and the methodology of the investigative sciences.
For a little light reading you could try Michael Schermer’s “Why People Believe Weird Things”. Here is an illustrated talk he gave on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k
Rosita(Quote)
@Saleh
I think you were also asking about how to deal with defensive behavior.
There are several reasons why someone may be resistant to the ideas you put out.
1. The ideas may make them threaten them or make them feel insecure in some way. They may be too unfamiliar. They may threaten a well-entrenched and well-learned world-view. They may oppose a belief which is strongly held by someone with whom the person has an emotional attachment.
The response to this is to make the person feel comfortable or, at least, to minimize their discomfort. [Not easy.]
2. Your ideas don’t make logical or rational sense. In this case the problem lies within you, not with the other person.
The techniques used by marriage counselors and psychotherapists to increase positive communication are helpful. Unfortunately, many of them rely on face-to-face interaction and are not easily applied to internet conversations. I notice, however, that you have already learned some of them. The most important one is not to insult your partner. But this does not mean that you avoid calling them out on something which they say that is absurd or grossly rude.
Rosita(Quote)
Hey Luke!
Just wanted to introduce myself and maybe give you some insight as to where I’m at with religion, science, and overall atheism. Like you, I grew up in a primarily christian home. My mother has been a part of the church since she was 18 years old and not turned back from her faith. My father on the other hand is atheist and has openly mocked my mothers beliefs since i was a child. When i was four years old, my mother and father divorced, leaving me and my three brothers with a single mom only equipped with the salary of an elementary school teacher. Yet she still continued to raise my brothers and I in the Christian faith and never wavered. At this point in time I believed that there was a God, but didn’t believe in a relationship with him or Jesus.
Then when i was thirteen years old I was hit with a triple tragedy. My best friend, my Godfather/ Uncle, and my mentor all died within two months of each other. I then thought, “Surely God cant exist if these types of things happen everyday.” So from there on out i considered myself an atheist. Having sex, doing ridiculous amounts of drugs, and drinking till i became numb both in mind and body. I was lost, wadding in self pity.
I was lost and hopeless. Then, seemingly out of the blue, I met a man named Tom McChesney whom was a Young Life leader in Fort Collins and i began to do young life every week, at first in order to meet the abundance of lovely girls who attended, but soon after for the soul purpose of discovering who i was. After Senior year in high school, i volunteered for a month long en-devour at a Young Life camp in Canada were i rediscovered my relationship with Christ and began to trust God as my father.
Since then My life style as made a complete 180. I now lead young life at Fort Collins high school and teach kids about Christ without forcing it down there throats like I had spent most of my childhood having done to me. I now fully believe that God is the one and only reason that I am still alive today, and each day i have the chance to live in his presence and attempt to teach of his amazing love by living as Christ had.
Yet i am not naive to the fact that this world is not peaches and plum trees and that sometimes i stand alone in my faith and am often criticized for my beliefs. That is why i think your blog is a great thing to have. It gives people a chance to logically see both sides and discuss their knowledge of this content.
But now to my question, sorry if you mentioned this in your life story at the top but i am confused as to where you are at with belief and atheism. It seems to me like you are stuck in between, yet leaning more towards atheistic point of view. Is this correct or am I missing the mark?
Jorda C.(Quote)
PS, my name is Jordan, haha not Jorda. My bad.
Jordan C.(Quote)
Jordan,
My story on this page ends long before the present day. I’m now an evangelical naturalist. (Also, naturalism entails atheism.)
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
Hi Jordon.
I understand now why so many Christians think that atheists are “angry with god” and mistake the destructive signs of adolescent grief and depression for “hating god” . It has always puzzled me why this picture of atheism is so popular.
Did you actually fail to believe in the existence of any god during this period, or were you just too distressed to think about it much?
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita,
The part of the story i didn’t tell happened soon after the deaths of those people in my life, I was extremely depressed and began to seriously question the existence of a God, yet i still believed there was one. But then, at the worst time for someone to make me question my faith even further, my friend Amanda, who was at the time was studying Wicca and had been raised in an atheist home (no connection to the two) approached me and began to fill my head with thoughts that, yes for a time, did make me 100% deny the existence of a God. I was at a very unfortunate time in my life were i was quite weak minded and indecisive.
But, sorry if i offended you at all. I have quite a few friends who are atheist yet i still love them the same as those of my friends who study any branch of religion. If one is to truly live like Jesus, which I am trying to model my life after, they must first accept people even though their beliefs don’t resemble that of our own. I just like to understand and know what people see as truth. I also don’t believe that atheists are, per-say, angry with God. I think that sometimes an event in ones life, large or minuscule, can trigger intense questioning of God, but that shouldn’t make someone an atheist. It is those who question God and experience what most Christians would call a “Lack of Faith,” and usually decided paths of scientific discovery and base forms of Logic, such as Luke with Naturalism. Or they just never experience or believe in a God in the first place. Either way, people are bound to have different beliefs than us no matter were we go. But i can honestly tell you as a devoted follower of Jesus that i would be overjoyed if everyone followed Christ’s teachings because i think that by following Christ, and trusting in his love, you gain eternal life, and i would want EVERYONE to experience that love as i have. Just the same, I would imagine you would like those that don’t quite see your beliefs to just understand and believe what you believe, am i right? But pressing my beliefs and forcing things down peoples throats is not the way to go about that, as i am sure you know, hence why i live my life like Christ did in order to evangelize by my actions, not by my words.
Sorry that was a long explanation… does that answer your question though? Haha i have the tenancy to ramble.
Jordan C.(Quote)
@Jordon.
No need for apology. I didn’t feel insulted. I was just curious to hear how you got to where you are now. As you have noted, times of great emotional need and disequilibrium are the most usual fuel for an emotion-based conversions to a belief set: whether Wiccan nor Christian. (There are many atheists who deny that Wiccans, who believe in the supernatural, are atheists, at least not the kind of atheists who do not believe in anything supernatural, no matter what label you give it.)
I am curious because the many traumas in life did not cause me to lose my faith, although losing my faith caused trauma. I was trainining for the Methodist ministry but found that the more I learned of the basis of the faith, and the more of the Bible I read, whole books at a time, instead of cherry-picked piecemeal, the more I was appalled at how different the Biblical god was from the laundered loving god that I had been taught to believe existed and how fractured and poorly behaved were this god’s followers compared with those who did not profess to believe. Then I studied other religions and found that they defended their beliefs sets with the same kind of logical distortions, emotional appeals, unreliable “personal testimony”, claims of “miracles”, changed lives, ecstatic states and other weak “evidence”.
At no time did I see any point, or feel any need, to indulge in the kind of self-destructive and selfish behavior that you listed. As a mental health professional I have never seen any evidence that these symptoms are any more prevalent in atheists then religious people. Regardless of religious beliefs or lack of them, these symptoms are best treated by appropriate counseling, emotional support and medication. I have noticed, however, that when people receive this type of therapy from people with a religious agenda that they tend to take up the same belief set as their carers. It’s emotional basis is obvious when they fail to be able to defend these beliefs with valid reason and logic. They resort to appeals to falllible authority (My friend/pastor/ religious books tells me this is true), appeals to personal experience and subjective feelings without any external proof or circular logic {I know that what I read in the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true and it also says that I will be led by the Spirit into all truth so my interpretation, and that of my religious friends, must be true. }
I lost my beliefs before I studied psychology, but that cemented things. The whole of that subject is built on the well-founded belief that the human brain is an extremely unreliable tool for determining reality without objective external aids.
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita,
I’m glad we understand each other. The self destructive behaviors that i spoke of were not so much to mask my faith (or lack thereof), but to mask other personal issues in my life. But the only reason i resorted to them in the first place was because i had open access to them at all ports in life. I was a freshman in high school playing Varsity level in three different sports which made getting alcohol all the easier, so therefor, i drank. Drugs came easy due to the fact that one of my brothers was a drug dealer who unfortunetly would hook his little brother up for free, therefor, i did drugs. And as for sex and girls, they came with popularity. But the point is, you dont indulge in these things if they are offered to you as a christian, or at least you shouldnt. So more power to you for not getting tangled in that mess.
My time i college has shown me and perhaps given me a false outlook on atheists, but it would seem that most atheists believe in science and theories correct? Well science, namely anthropology, would say that we are a coincidence and have happened purely by chance. From the prospective of a psychologist, do the ideals presented by science saying that we have no intrinsic value or overall meaning on earth seem as bit rash to you? From my time in psychology i have found that when one has nothing to live for, they usually simply give up while undergoing periods of troughs and valleys and either end up resorting to suicide or experiencing severe depression or sometimes even resort to frivolous living such as being a drunkard, participating in the usage of narcotics, or even something seemingly harmless like premarital sex with another. But again these are views that i have seen an heard on my campus for the past couple years so it is just something on the for front of my mind. But i will agree with you on one thing. There defineitly are christians who live this life style and then put there sunday best on at church and then on monday go right back to doing it agian, i would know cause i did that at a point in my life. That is also why i dont lump myslef into the Christian catagory persay, I refer to myself as a follower of Jesus because thats exactly what i do. I attempt to live as Christ lived.
But as for your feelings on God being different than what you expected or had been taught, i cannot relate because my faith holds me to know that God is loving but he is Just, and the actions taken in the bible were all because of his unfathomable love for us. But i truly am interested to know more of your story. I am a sophmore in College with a double major in Political Science and Communication with a minor in History, so I’ll jump at any offer of a conversation with any type of professional as yourself. Thank you for being civil about this whole converstion by the way. My time as a follower of Jesus has been riddled with countless religious debates with one side just trying to prove the other wrong, so its nice to just have a bit of deliberation rather than debate.
Jordan C(Quote)
Jordon,
There are many kinds of atheists. The only unifying feature is that we don’t believe in the existence of gods or (for the most part) supernatural powers. Most of us reach that conclusion on the basis of logic and the lack of valid evidence for the existence of divinities but some, like yourself, lose a prior religious faith (usually temporarily) for emotional reasons. The vast majority of atheists are so-called “soft” atheists: they think it is highly improbable that there are gods, but would believe in them if they were presented with valid and convincing evidence. This group includes those who are “strong” atheists [100 percent certain that a god does not exist] about particular gods, including the Jewish/Christian Yahweh and Jesus gods, usually on the grounds that the attributes of these gods are mutually exclusive an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowledgeable being is incompatible with one who also created both evil and the devil and has only limited control over them) or inconsistent with reality (a creator god in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary).
Athiests come from all walks of life and all levels of education, although they tend to be more prevalent the higher the level of education and less common the lower the level of education. People with a good science education, regardless of whether they have religious beliefs of not, are confident that the scientific method leads to a valid understanding of how the things in the universe work and understand the difference between scientific theories (descriptions of how scientific facts work) and the common use of the word “theory” to mean an unverified conjecture. People without this level and type of education do not understand these matters and can be manipulated by religious leaders (who also do not understand them) to subjectively believe that things are true that can often be clearly demonstrated to be objectively “not true”. These people are mis-educated, ill-educated and poorly informed rather than stupid. The brain’s default position is to believe whatever it is told by people with authority. It takes brain maturity, education and emotional security before people feel confident and competent enough to question what they are told by those they trust, like, admire and feel warm towards. There is nothing shameful about the fact that you may not have reached this stage in all areas of your life. I doubt is anyone could honestly claim that. It is all a matter of degree. The extent of one’s lack of credulity unquestioning credulity has a lot to do with one’s environment and the variety of one’s life experience. These are largely (although not entirely) beyond a person’s ability to choose. If those on whom you depend for your emotional well-being discourage you from questioning what they tell you, then you do not realistically have much freedom to do otherwise. The cost of defying them or disagreeing with them is just too great a loss for a person’s short-term well-being.
Take your belief that the god of the Bible is a loving and just divinity, for example. In order to continue to belief that the actions promoted, commanded or done by the Yahweh or Jesus gods described in the Bible are because of this multiple personality’s “unfathomable love” for humans, you must place extraordinary emphasize the “unfathomable” part. Why would a god who wants his imperfectly formed creations to behave morally provide such profoundly confusing examples of what “moral” is supposed to be. On the basis of the writings in the Bible and the huge variety of interpretations that sincere followers give to them, what grade do you think this divinity would get in your Communication’s courses? What does this divinity fail to demonstrate that it knows about how people obtain knowledge, interpret text and are persuaded?
You must also place extraordinary trust in the logic of someone who is probably merely uncritically repeating what someone else told them. Why not ask yourself why the Bible god gets a free pass and special exemption from the rules we apply to ourselves and others in our society?
There are actually a variety of gods that appear in the Old Testament writings. The two main gods are El and Yahweh. Both are translated as “god” or “lord god” so the difference is not obvious. In the book of Genesis both are reported to have created the world and the universe, two chapters apart, and in a different order. El was a Babylonian god who presided over the Elohim or council of gods. Yahweh was one of the Elohim, but a rather flawed and pugnacious one who was upbraided by El in a manner reminiscent of the story of the dismissal of Lucifer (the god of light) from “heaven”. The Babylonian Yahweh was married to a goddess, but this attribute is not mentioned in the Jewish writings. Ironically, it was the bellicose Yahweh god that the Jews adopted as their national god, although they wrote the story to suggest that this god chose them. The first five books of the Old Testament have stories about the kinder El god mixed up with stories of the fearsome Yahweh god, something which is entirely lost in the English translation. By the time we get to the later books, the Yahweh god has triumphed and the El god has been forgotten. Then we get to hear about a whole lot of “bad” gods who are given roles similar to the one taken by the original Yahweh god. The Bible writers are now so confused over which god is “good” and which is “bad” that the story of King David and the census can’t decide whether David is being punished by the Yahweh god for carrying out the census that the Yahweh god ordered (the original story) or whether he is being punished by the Yahweh because he followed advice from one of the devil gods, collectively known as Satan (the follow up story in a later book). In either case, there is no explanation for why taking a census of the people was so heinous a crime that David’s daughter needed to be struck dead by the Yahweh god as a punishment.
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita,
We obviously don’t understand each other and i would prefer to end this discussion because it is now drifting into a debate rather than a deliberation. I am very experienced with the Bible , not to be cocky, but I am far beyond my years in theological thought (which i study and experience for myself, not forming my beliefs off others) and I believe that perhaps you should have another close look at the God you are speaking of, because you cannot find such things in the bible.
I would ask that you please not respond with more argumentation, or bible verses to attempt to further this discussion down a path of negativity. Thank you for your time and thoughts.
Jordan
Jordan C(Quote)
Oh, look. Another theist proves to be an intellectual coward (not to mention an entertaining case of the Dunning-Kruger effect as applied to “theological thought”). How surprising.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
The fear in Jordon’s last response came over loud and clear. When I was at his stage of thinking I probably would have freaked as well. It may be the first time he has been faced with the reality of rational atheism, rather than the emotional atheism and apatheism that his social group believes to be what defines every, or at least, most atheists.
I found his sophomore ignorance of science, psychology, anthropology and the locus of meaning in life and to be sadly funny, but understandable in someone who appears to have been quite intellectually sheltered. He’s got a few more years of basic education to complete during which he may learn enough to correct these mis-perceptions.
It’s hard not to smile at his self-evaluated level of biblical and theological competence when he is so obviously ignorant of biblical background, early middle eastern mythology, textual criticism and some of the basic theological conundrums that have been discussed among theologians for centuries. I had to laugh over being told not to quote any biblical verses. [aka Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is made up.] Isn’t that what atheists generally say to Christian evangelizers?
If I were to re-read some of the stuff I was confidently sprouting at his age I would probably be painfully embarrassed. The religious stuff I wrote at age 16 is even worse. It made good sense to me at the time but now I can see all the large gaping holes, the logical leaps and the fallacious reasoning. I kept thinking and reading widely from a variety of angles. Gradually my thinking and my writing matured. Who is to say that Jordon will not do likewise.
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita and Casey,
The real reason i ended that conversation is because I fully respect your beliefs, not because I am a coward or unintelligent. In my life i have experience being put down and called names by those who are not decent enough to understand that you cannot sway everyone’s beliefs in this world. Like i said above in my life story, my father is in fact an atheist, who has his doctorate in bio chemistry from the University of California and is in the works of receiving his second degree from the University in Political Science. He has offered the same amount of information on atheism as my mother has offered on Christianity, yet i have chosen to live a life as a Christian and my father still supports and respects that even though we still discuss my beliefs on a daily basis. Furthermore, I am not, and have not ever been sheltered from alternative belief systems or religions for that matter, I am just not naive enough to not see when someone has their mindset on something, such as Rosita who has her own opinions formed and unchanging.
Yet it is hard when common courtesy flies out the window and pride and ageism takes over. The type of libel being used against me has shown me a intense amount of lack of humility to ones beliefs and has me hoping that not all atheists will respond to me like this in simple conversations. If i want to debate then I will debate, but if i just want to discuss in order to understand then that is exactly what I will do. A discussion does not in-tale one giving reasons why the other is wrong or should not believe the way that they have decided to live their lives. That is what i was hoping for when i posted on this page, yet i have found myself being attacked and ridiculed by those whom i wish to further understand, not helping the overarching poor stereotypes of atheists.
Yet I refuse to let a few bad experiances like this one be the deciding factor on my outlook of people who share your beliefs. I understand that we all can get a bit fired up, but is it really enough to prod at my level of intelligence or insult me as a person? I would truly hope not. If you really wish to think Logically, then be logical about this discussion and attempt to understand my reason for being on this blog in the first place, not to be told where i am wrong or why you think my beliefs are hog wash, but rather to gain more understanding for when i am conversing with other atheists or even my own friends, who unfortunately always want to debate the matter, not be civil about it.
Jordan
Jordan C(Quote)
@Rosita
“Who is to say that Jordon will not do likewise.”
This, I think, says it all…
“A discussion does not in-tale one giving reasons why the other is wrong or should not believe the way that they have decided to live their lives.”
In other words, “I can’t be wrong, because I ignore any arguments that show me to be wrong, and besides, the way I’ve decided to live my life can’t be wrong, because it’s a personal decision.” An efficient way to deal with cognitive dissonance, to be sure, but hardly a model of rationality.
That said, it seems as though his dad’s a decent guy and has planted some seeds. So, you never know, I guess. Maybe he’ll take some courses in logic. That could help.
@Jordan
“If i want to debate then I will debate”
I wouldn’t if I were you; you seem like the type of person who doesn’t take too well to losing.
“…not helping the overarching poor stereotypes of atheists…Yet I refuse to let a few bad experiances like this one be the deciding factor on my outlook of people who share your beliefs.”
1) Atheism is not a set of beliefs. It is the lack of belief in gods.
2) It seems you are saying that your purpose is to get a feel for how atheists really are as a category of people. That’s like trying to get a feel for what non-believers in Santa Claus are like. We’re just like you, bud, and just like everyone else–except we’re a bit smarter on average and we don’t believe in gods (a bit of a correlation there, I’m afraid).
3) Don’t you think you should instead try and understand the arguments atheists provide as reasons for their unbelief? Wait, that would mean you would have to endure hearing arguments against your beliefs. Well, that really can’t be helped, can it? By insisting atheists not criticize your beliefs on pain of being rejected by you as needlessly contentious, you’ve set yourself up for a skewed view of atheists as people. The only way you will allow discussion with atheists is if they don’t bring up atheism. This is the lengths to which the faithful will go in order to protect their delusions. And besides, you’d no more learn about atheists in this manner than if you went into a bar and talked to a random stranger about anything but atheism. It’s absurd and pretentious to claim your purpose is understanding when you’ve revealed such a scheme to protect yourself from it.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“If I were to re-read some of the stuff I was confidently sprouting at his age I would probably be painfully embarrassed. The religious stuff I wrote at age 16 is even worse. It made good sense to me at the time but now I can see all the large gaping holes, the logical leaps and the fallacious reasoning.”
LOL, yeah. Same here. Jesus, I don’t even want to talk about it. It was bad. I thank the gods of reason every day that some belligerent assholes like the Four Horsemen came along to rescue me with bellicose, strident, polemical, dare I say offensive…truth. I was just smart enough to realize these superior arguments for what they are: not abuse, but disabuse. Besides, I was always more of the attitude of wanting to believe what is true rather than wanting what I believed to be true (and, ironically, I have my peculiar religious upbringing to thank for that). I suppose that is what really saved me. The tough love of the Gnu Atheists was pushing at a door begging to be opened, in an insular culture of locked doors. And that’s why I always dispute the notion that theists will never be persuaded by argumentation. Those who take that position must necessarily perform a grossly inaccurate generalization regarding theists, namely, that all their doors are locked, their minds securely closed around an unreachable intellectual abscess. It just ain’t true in all cases, as you and I and the preponderance of former seriously believing atheists can attest.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
[wry grin] Yes, we probably sounded much like poor Jordon does now. We naively believed that we had all the knowledge that we needed to interpret the Christian Bible correctly and that our conclusions were superior to those whom we could not, for reasons of shaky self-esteem, believe had greater knowledge of these books, their mythical and political under-pinings and the surrounding history, culture and world view. We did not see that as gross disrespect for those others or see anything wrong with believing that our restricted thinking was superior to theirs. Yes, the Dunning-Kruger effect very much in operation there: the less you know the more confident you are of your level of expertise in the area, the less aware you are of your deficits and the greater offense you take when someone with greater knowledge points them out.
Its all about protecting one’s self image as a competent, worthwhile person. The need to perceive oneself as a worthwhile person is a very strong human instinct. The more doubt a person has about their positive self-worth the more they need to bolster this insecurity with false beliefs in their superiority in various areas. Religion offers a very attractive package in this regard: the promise of being absolutely right by simply uncritically accepting the prevalent group-think views. Bingo! Instant superior self-worth. Unfotunately this does not stand up under challenge from those who have examined the faulty premises behind these schemas. If the Believer who is personally insecure does not protect themselves from such challenges their comfort level is shattered and they feel personally attacked, even when they are not.
If you are unable or unwilling to build intellectual walls around the belief system that is protecting a fragile ego, the only way out of the endless loop of being humiliated by being shown up as less competent than you want to appear, is to read widely enough to gain a knowledge of the complexities of the area and thus gain the confidence that comes from the wider knowledge and the comfortable humility that comes with the understanding that no-one can be a complete expert in anything. Knowledge is strength.
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita:
Compelling explanation from the world of psychology. Thanks for posting it.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“It’s hard not to smile at his self-evaluated level of biblical and theological competence when he is so obviously ignorant of biblical background, early middle eastern mythology, textual criticism and some of the basic theological conundrums that have been discussed among theologians for centuries.”
You mean this:
“I am very experienced with the Bible , not to be cocky, but I am far beyond my years in theological thought (which i study and experience for myself, not forming my beliefs off others) and I believe that perhaps you should have another close look at the God you are speaking of, because you cannot find such things in the bible.”
Yeah, I know, that was my favorite part. So rich in ironic arrogance.
Jordan, if you’re still reading, a reality check couldn’t hurt, could it?
You think people like me say “mean” things and “ridicule” your beliefs for cynical reasons, but you’re as wrong about that as you are about anything else you’ve commented on. We’re trying to help you and others (brutal as that help may seem), as we ourselves have been helped.
We know your kind because we were there once. We know the “smooth things” you like to hear, the things that “tickle your ears,” and we know they will never reach the core of deceit within you. It and your ego are mutual sucklings, feeding upon each other, protected by various intellectual buffers and drawing their sustenance ultimately from the unwarranted respect and privilege you and society demand for your beliefs.
Tearing down the walls of this placid nursery of delusions exposes you to the searing cold light of reason, and that is painful at first. Eventually, though, it feels good to be free, born again, as it were, into reality, ready at last to embrace the responsibility of intellectual adulthood and its myriad uncertainties and finitudes with true honor and courage. Then you will know what it feels like to be awake. You will recognize your former views for what they are: monsters dreamt up while reason sleeps.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
@Rosita
@any person who is seeking the truth
Not everything you read in a religion is REALLY from that religion.
This is especially true for religions that divided over time into sub-religions or sects.
Christianity and Islam are 2 examples of such religions.
For example, in Qur’an there is a part of a verse that says (my interpretation is not impeccable but simple), “Kill them whenever you get hold of them …… this is the penalty for the infidels”. Again, I just put a simple translation and it’s not a good one but it serves my purpose for explanation.
This verse was used out of context by many so-called religious figures to make some Muslims have this thought: “Non-Muslim –> Infidel —> must die, If I’m the one to do it then I’ll go to heaven because this is what God wants me to do.”
If you read the whole chapter (Sourah), you’ll see it has a totally different meaning, and circumstances.
My point, if you read some info or hear from a religious person a teaching or whatever, then it’s not necessarily coming from the religion itself.
Saleh(Quote)
@saleh
Of course it’s coming from the religion!
The problem is that religions have such hopeless communication systems that Believers cannot agree what the religion is about. If the communication systems were invented or written by the gods in question then they are incompetent, helpless, ignorant or just plain stupid. That doesn’t make them worthy of worship, does it?
Rosita(Quote)
@Saleh
“If you read the whole chapter (Sourah), you’ll see it has a totally different meaning, and circumstances.”
Elaborate, please. I don’t know how you can get a clear injunction to murder unbelievers to appear civilized or respectable. But the attempt should be entertaining.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
If the unbeliever, a believer or even an animal was trying to annihilate you then it is justified to kill it in self defense.
@Rosita
The problem is not with the communication systems, rather than what is being communicated and whether the recipient is using his brain.
Saleh(Quote)
“If the unbeliever, a believer or even an animal was trying to annihilate you then it is justified to kill it in self defense.”
So why does it specify “infidel?”
caseywollberg(Quote)
@saleh
The problem is that recipients who use their brains come to very different conclusions. It is not equally clear to everyone. Nor are people equally gifted in their ability to use their brain.
In Iraq we see two different factions of Islam killing themselves in fine style over differing interpretations of Islamic sacred writings and traditions. In Ireland the same thing is happening over interpretations of Christian sacred writings and traditions. It seems that the gods of these religions could not provide a system of knowledge transmission that was equally clear to everyone, regardless of their brain power or lack of it. If these gods had the power to make the message equally clear to all then they practise discriminatory behavior based on attributes most of the faithful believe they have been responsible for creating in the individual.
So you end up with gods who aren’t powerful enough, or knowlegable enough or responsible enough or caring enough to communicate equally clearly to everybody, regardless of their “god given” level of brain function and personality. Why would you want to worship gods like that?
Rosita(Quote)
@Casey
To make sure we have the same understanding of the word “infidel”
The Oxford Pocket Dictionary of Current English. 2009:
Infidel (literally “one without faith”) is an English word meaning “a person who does not believe in religion or who adheres to a religion other than one’s own”.
In Qur’an the word “infidel” usually refers to (according to my understanding) someone who disbelieves God’s existence even though he was shown absolute evidence of God’s existence. Inside himself he knows that God exists but he still denies it.
This is one kin of an “infidel”.
The other extremist “infidel” will force (if has the power) others to deny God’s existence against their will.
Back to the verse and your question. The “infidels” were those who killed, tortured “believers” – known as “Muslims”. The first Muslims had to leave “Mecca” (we call it Makkah in Arabic). These infidels wanted to annihilate Muslims so there were battles between them.
The verse came to Muslims when they were in a state of war with Infidels. Among the infidels’ side, there were brothers, fathers and relatives to Muslims. Therefore, a Muslim had to decide either to kill the infidel even if he is a relative to protect himself or other Muslims, or to avoid killing the relative infidel and by this jeopardize the other Muslims.
And this is why it specifies killing the infidels in the verse. And to clarify one thing. The prophet or Muslims’ leader at that time, was known for releasing prisoners who were infidels. So, when I said the verse says “when you get hold of them”, it’s not referring to them when they surrender or ask for peace. It’s talking about a state of war going on and specifically, when a Muslim was fighting an infidel and one must kill the other. (This is my interpretation).
@Rosita
I agree with what you said but not with your conclusion:
“If these gods had the power to make the message equally clear to all then they practise discriminatory behavior based on attributes most …. ”
I have to admit that interpreting Qur’an is not easy. And many differences between sects in Islam, I can attribute them to the interpretation of Qur’an. I don’t know about other religions like Christianity, Hinduism and whether misinterpretation of teachings can occur. However, what I know about the Abrahamic Religions (Judism, Christianity and Islam) is that the prophet of that religion is the person responsible for conveying the message of the religion, its teachings and interpreting the Holy book of that religion. The prophet also appoints who will take his place after he dies. He also appoints those eligible for transmitting the religion and the interpretations he taught them. After the prophet dies, the appointee will take his place and do the same. And so on until judgement day. The followers of the religion must not make their own interpretations or accept ones from non-eligible persons.
Note, what I just said is the belief of the sect I’m from and not all Muslim sects, and I don’t think it is of Christians or Jews.
So, according to my belief, this system of communicating religion teachings and interpretations of God’s words is sufficient IF AND ONLY IF the followers choose to follow such system.
Unfortunately, not all people have good will.
So, why would God allow people to distort religion, change interpretations?
It’s all about “Choice”. He allowed us to choose our actions. Among us are those who want to distort religion. Among us are also those who kill, steal … etc.
So, it’s not about discrimination or a God who’s not powerful enough … etc. It’s about God being “Just” or “fair”. But you have to believe that there is an after life and heaven and hell to accept that he is just. Which also raises all kinds of questions which I can’t answer (at least for now).
Saleh(Quote)
This is a very poor answer. Who are you to say that person “A” has “chosen” the right answer and person “B” has not? Are you infallible?
What is just and fair and just about restricting people’s access to those who speak the “truth”, whatever that is. If interpretation “A” is correct and person “C” only hears interpretation “B” then they will naturally pass on interpretation “B” to others. That puts them at a disadvantage, doesn’t it? That’s blatant discrimination if you have the power to do something about it but don’t. Person “C” and those they teach cannot be blamed. If your appointed “prophet” gets it wrong then are you blameworthy for believing him? Are you to be blamed for uncritically accepting that your sect’s prophet is the only one with the “true” answers? What obejctive proof do you have that you (and he) are right? What if either you or he have chosen badly? Is this bad choice your fault, your prophet’s fault or the fault of the god who provided the circumstances that led the sincere follower’s brain to make such a faulty decision?
Rosita(Quote)
@ Saleh
That’s an intriguing ad hoc interpretation. One question comes to mind. If you really are convinced it is true, then what the hell are you doing on here playing apologist for Islam? Why are you not instead focusing your energy on proselytizing this interpretation to your fanatical counterparts who are, as we speak, taking this verse at face value to mean it is their Islamic duty to murder non-believers? Atheists like me are no threat to innocent people who don’t subscribe to your fairy tales; I don’t need to hear this elaborate exegesis. Tell it to the self-described Islamic murderers!
Isn’t the answer, Saleh, that you don’t give a shit about the innocent victims of Islamic extremists? Isn’t it that you are more interested in protecting your beliefs from falsification than protecting people from ignorant barbarians who slaughter people in the name of your god? Here you are, blissfully arguing with peace-loving infidels that Islam doesn’t demand they be murdered, while your savage co-religionists are out there in the real world showing they (unlike you) have the courage of their convictions by doing just that–murdering unbelievers. Go tell it to them! Go!
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Saleh
“(This is my interpretation).” Exactly, and this implies you could very easily be wrong. See the problem?
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Rosita
This leads to another issue, which is on what bases God will punish or reward us.
However, there is common sense and conscience. Whether you believe in God or not, you still know that killing, stealing, talking bad about someone, … etc. In holy books including Qur’an these are made clear and no need for interpretations.
When I said,
“I have to admit that interpreting Qur’an is not easy. And many differences between sects in Islam, I can attribute them to the interpretation of Qur’an.”
These parts of the Qur’an that needs interpretation are not what makes the main message of the religion. For example, how to pray, the story of Jesus, how a human being is created, signs of judgment day and prophecies.
Therefore, the main message is clear and readily available to everyone. However, still people will try to interpret the teachings and encounter situations where disagreements in applying the teachings arise. In such situations people have to go back to the religion messenger (prophet) or who are appointed by him. To us, a prophet is infallible which you will not accept since he is a human being after all.
@Casey
First of all, I’m not being an apologist for Islam but for religion (one from a true God). Unfortunately, I don’t know much about other religions but I think I know enough which makes me avoid delving more in a particular religion and of course the lack of time. I mention examples from Islam just to make my points clearer.
Now regarding Islamic murderers. Most of us were raised in front of the mainstream media / news and TV. Unfortunately, most educational systems teaches you to receive and store information. Critical thinking is not an option. We simply accepted that news from CNN, BBC and others 100% true.
Now, if CNN tells you that Muslims conducted 9/11 attacks then you’ll accept it. Please, read the following page:
http://www.truthandliberty.com/False-Flag_Attacks.html
If you don’t like what’s written there, then watch any of the following documentaries:
9-11 Ripple Effect: Lies, Propaganda and A Call for Justice
PRESS FOR TRUTH,
PAINFUL DECEPTIONS, and
9/11 Mysteries part 1: Demotions
I strongly suggest that you watch videos in (even though it’s not related to this topic) http://www.thezeitgeistmovement.com
by the way, they are atheists.
Finally give “The Arrivals” on youtube.com a chance. The creators (Muslims) made it longer than it should but they reveal intriguing information.
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh:
You’re a slimy little sophist, aren’t you? Those conspiracy theories, even if they had a shred of truth to them, are not sufficient to wash the innocent blood off your co-religionists’ hands. You are offering nothing but red-herrings here. I was asking why you are not doing something about this or its inevitable outcomes, like this or this or this or this or this. The association between Islam and the murder of unbelievers is not some wild conspiracy theory, it is established fact. And you have a lot of work to do convincing your fellow prophet-worshipers to stop it. Making excuses for Islam to peace-loving non-believers is wasting time and risking more victims. Go out and preach the word to those who need to hear it.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
links 1 and 5 are not working but I get your point.
I’m not a sophist and I’m not slimy.
Why I’m not doing something about these acts is simple. It’s beyond my capability and add to that the many restrictions in my country. These acts are seeded by countries and not individuals.
Second, I’m not saying religionists are all good and the same applies to atheists.
Examples of horrible atheists include Lenin,Stalin and Mao Zedong.
If a person uses free-speech as a pretext to insult others then he’s not a peace-loving person. He surely wants to ignite fire. This person knows that there are maniacs who need a reason to kill.
If I put faked pictures (or drawings) that insult you like depicting you in sexual acts then I have to be trialed and stopped. Let aside if this person is a religious figure.
All genocide, Holocaust, wars and killings claimed to be in the name of religion are all about power and resources.
Since we started drifting away from the main topic, let me summarize:
- God doesn’t tell us to wreck havoc on Earth.
- God gave us power of choice.
- This privilege is misused by humans
- Religion communicates God’s dos and donts to us.
- Whether it’s religion or not, ideology (usually with distortion) will always be used to make its followers serve some entity (king, organization, cleric).
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh
I’m still in the process of moving, with several physical disablities, so its really tough. So I’ll be brief.
I don’t share Casey’s opinion of you as a “slimy little sophist”. I think he was unreasonably rude. {Casey, you know my opinion of this behavior and I wish you wouldn’t do it, mate.}
I accept your point that preventing, or even protesting about Islamic-based terrorism is unrealistic in a country where you could be killed for attempting it. I am also aware that some moderate Islamic authorities have, indeed, come out and condemned these acts – and got very little press about it.
The problem, however, is that other Islamic leaders approve and incite this type of violence. Christianity has the same problem. There are those who believe that the sacred writings or traditions or their implications, demand or support acts which other, equally devote people, condemn as immoral.
There is no consistent, unchanging, unambiguous, and indisputable religion-based moral standard by which to measure behavior.
You make five points.
1. “God doesn’t tell us to wreck havoc on Earth”.
That is your opinion, and/or that of your favorite religious authority. Other Muslims, citing the same sacred writings, arrive at different conclusions. I prefer your conclusion, but I don’t need your Mullah to hand it to me.
2. “God gave us power of choice”.
First you have to prove that there _is_ a god before that statement even begins to make sense. Second, choices can only be made on the basis of available knowledge and are strongly influenced by one’s bodily state at the time, chance environmental characteristics, memories, brain health, cognitive capacity and education. The playing field is most definitely not level. People do not have an equal chance of deciding or acting in the same way, whether “god” gave them the ability to “choose” or this ability is simply part of every complex biological entity. Even the lowly snail has a “choice” about where it slides.
In other words, many so-called choices in life are polemical rather than real. You can choose to keep your hand under a tap which you discover is pouring out boiling water, but your body’s automatic reaction is to withdraw your hand before your conscious brain even gets to consider the situation. Many more actions than you would like to think are actually automatic events which are rationalized by the conscious brain after the event in such a way that the person believes that they had a realistic choice.
3. “This privilege is misused by humans.”
I agree that it is misused by humans but I believe I don’t believe “choice” is a “privilige”. The ability to choose between more than one possible behavior is simply the consequence of one’s evolved and matured biology.
4. “Religion communicates God’s do’s and don’t's to us.”
I agree that religions communicate do’s and don’t's to people, but I see no valid reason to suppose that these demands and restrictions are of divine origin. Like all humans, the dogmas are very inconsistent. What is touted as “right” or “wrong” varies by time, place, era, country, sect or denomination, tradition, the level of education of the preacher or the practitioner and the values and practices of the surrounding neighborhood.
5. “Whether it’s religion or not, ideology will always be used to make its followers serve some entity.”
I have no problem with that one. In your case, you are serving your cleric or yourself and your prefered version of reality. Karl Popper’s definition of a religion or ideology is a system of beliefs which cannot be, or does not allow itself to be falsified. That makes your version of Islam and “ideology”, whether you like to think of it that way or not.
Rositar(Quote)
@ Saleh
“links 1 and 5 are not working but I get your point.”
Link five works fine (read it) and here is link one. It’s important. And no, you don’t get my p0int. My point is that you should stop trying to convince me that Islam is peaceful until you feel free to preach such an interpretation to your co-religionists, who you admit have you by the balls. If Islam was peaceful, you would have nothing to fear. Unfortunately you have Islamic theocracies who don’t share your interpretation, and therein lies the problem.
“Examples of horrible atheists include Lenin,Stalin and Mao Zedong.”
Popular canard used by stupid people. Totalitarian mass murderers like these did not commit atrocities on the basis of a non-belief in gods. They were acting on their misanthropic ideologies, just like the “jihadists.” Atheism has nothing to do with it.
“If a person uses free-speech as a pretext to insult others then he’s not a peace-loving person. He surely wants to ignite fire. This person knows that there are maniacs who need a reason to kill.”
Fuck you. This is the kind of backwards reasoning that enables terrorists, and it’s why I harbor a special disdain for so-called “moderates.” This is also why you are slimy and a sophist. We reasonable people call this blaming the victim, and it won’t work with me.
Free-speech is not a pretext, it is a human right, no matter who it offends. Get that. Learn it. Get fucking used to it. You and those maniacs you’re defending don’t have the right not to be offended–and they sure as hell don’t have the right to murder people if they are offended. Free-speech, if it is to be free, positively guarantees offenses (especially among people who are easily offended by people who don’t agree with them–like the religious). It is precisely those ideas and that speech which would be considered by some to be offensive (e.g., “blasphemy”) that needs protecting. And if you want free speech yourself, you have to be mature enough to endure offenses. That’s how it works.
It’s time for Muslims like you to grow the fuck up and stop acting like petulant two-year-olds who lash out when they get their feelings hurt by reality. And if you want to be considered mature, then you need to condemn the immature behavior of your co-religionists. Speech does not maim, torture, or murder people–offended Muslims do. Try to get the proper perspective here, and don’t mistake the perpetrator for the victim, and vice versa.
“If I put faked pictures (or drawings) that insult you like depicting you in sexual acts then I have to be trialed and stopped. Let aside if this person is a religious figure.”
False equivalence. The former is (or may be) a matter of libel, a legal concern. The latter (blaspheming “the prophet”) is a victimless “crime,” a matter of free speech. Do you think Theo Van Gogh, for example, should have been “trialed and stopped” for criticizing Islam? Of course you do. Well, he was murdered by those your reasoning encourages and enables. And that’s why I don’t have a shred of respect for you.
“All genocide, Holocaust, wars and killings claimed to be in the name of religion are all about power and resources.”
Bullshit. Total fucking bullshit. A convenient fantasy, just like your religion.
I guess you’ve figured out that Muslims aren’t the only ones who can be offended. But, don’t worry, I won’t issue a fatwa against you or anything. That’s because I’m a grownup living in the real world instead of a dark religious fantasy.
caseywollberg(Quote)
I said “ideas” need protecting. Scratch that; I just meant speech. Period. Sorry for the brief confusion.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“I don’t share Casey’s opinion of you as a “slimy little sophist”. I think he was unreasonably rude. {Casey, you know my opinion of this behavior and I wish you wouldn’t do it, mate.}”
Wish away, Rosemary. I know that tolerance can sometimes be a vice, just as you know the same thing about intolerance.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@rosita:
here’s something jordon might have given you in response:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7110
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
Thanks, kaka. That was an interesting article. It’s the first time I’ve seen all the pre-Biblical mythology and its intra-Biblical influence summed up so neatly and succintly.
It is interesting to note that William Lane Craig admits that he is unfamiliar with this background. When I was training for the ministry we got this information in the very first semester. It freaked the fundamentalists who commonly had religious crises and rushed off to the less academic Bible Schools which dismissed all Textual Criticism as “work of the devil” which gave them an excuse to exclude it from the syllabus.
Hess’s response is somewhat weak. In the end, it fails to effectively dismiss the effects of ancient religions on the growing Jewish religion. Anyone with any solid background in textual criticism can tell you that the E (north Israel El god tradition) and J (south Israel Yahweh god tradition) passages in the Bible are distinct in many ways, including stylistic elements. Then there are the P (priestly) passages with all the “commandments” and divine rules, and the R (revisionist) passages that attempt to tie the different traditions together.
The Creation and Flood stories are lifted from the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh written some considerable time before the Jewish scriptures.
Then there is the Zoastrian influence in the later books of the Old Testament and the influence of Greek and Roman mystery religions on the theology of the Christian New Testament and the early church before many elements were grafted into the Roman State religion of Christianity which amalgamated the regions most influential religious traditions in one new religion.
I’ve no doubt that Craig and his cronies will go on pretending that none of this is material is reliably supported. If you want to believe something badly enough then logic and facts are immaterial.
Rosita(Quote)
rosita, there are claims and there are counter-claims. who am i supposed to believe? we’ve left the realm of common sense here. this is all pretty hardcore theology. who is right?
kaka(Quote)
@kaka: Rosita wasn’t discussing theology, but textual criticism, which is not outside the realm of common sense. But, to answer your question regarding contradictory theological assertions, they’re all equal in not even being wrong.
caseywollberg(Quote)
here’s a response to your mention of mystery religions:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6813
kaka(Quote)
casey, textual criticism isn’t just about using common sense to join the dots when you’re dealing with complex topics like the origin of a religion. there is a responsible way to do it and there is an irresponsible way. that’s why i’m more inclined to believe, for example, claims made by scholars like dr hess over internet bloggers.
kaka(Quote)
casey:
on textual criticism, quoted from article above:
“The ancient world was a virtual cornucopia of myths of gods and heroes. Comparative studies in religion and literature require sensitivity to their similarities and differences, or distortion and confusion inevitably result. Unfortunately, those who adduced parallels to Christian beliefs failed to exercise such sensitivity. Take, for example, the story of the Virgin Birth, or, more accurately, Jesus’ virginal conception. The alleged pagan parallels to this story concern tales of gods’ assuming bodily form and having sexual intercourse with human females to sire divine-human progeny (like Hercules). As such these stories are exactly the opposite of the Gospel story of Mary’s conceiving Jesus apart from any sexual relations. The Gospel stories of Jesus’ virginal conception are, in fact, without parallel in the ancient Near East. ”
kaka(Quote)
“textual criticism isn’t just about using common sense”
I said it was not outside the realm of common sense, as you claimed. It isn’t.
“there is a responsible way to do it and there is an irresponsible way. that’s why i’m more inclined to believe, for example, claims made by scholars like dr hess over internet bloggers.”
You pay lip service to the concept of responsibility, but you sure are good at talking out of your ass. Your prejudice against Internet bloggers noted, there are plenty of experts in this field who take a view that is skeptical to an unearthly origin for the Judeo-Christian mythology.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
“The Gospel stories of Jesus’ virginal conception are, in fact, without parallel in the ancient Near East.”
I guess the good doctor never heard of Zoroaster then, born of a virgin impregnated by a shaft of light. Or does that count as sexual intercourse where you’re from?
It sounds to me like you give preference to those “experts” who confirm your (and, obviously, their) beliefs, while dismissing the rest as “Internet bloggers.” Wow, that’s surprising.
caseywollberg(Quote)
that’s interesting you cited ehrman, casey. i don’t think he holds rosita’s view does he?
kaka(Quote)
casey, do you seriously believe a scholar like craig has never heard of zoroaster?
kaka(Quote)
@kaka: I don’t know what you mean by “rosita’s view.” He certainly doesn’t believe Christianity fell from the sky. My reading of what little I’ve heard from him was that he takes the evolution of Christianity to be an accretion of myths, hearsay, mistakes in the scriptorium and outright pious fraud. He does, I should add (with apologies on his behalf to Huxley), call himself an “agnostic.”
caseywollberg(Quote)
“casey, do you seriously believe a scholar like craig has never heard of zoroaster?”
Oh, no. I think he’s just dishonest and a sophist for Jesus. What’s your theory?
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
The trouble with the average evangelical fundie seminary is that their academic standard and level is extremely poor compared with mainstream schools of divinity, especially in the U.S.A. As a general rule, someone with a doctorate from one of these schools would have difficulty passing the first year of a Bachelor of Theology program in Australia. American-style Bible Colleges actively teach students _not_ to think. If the writer does not come to the “right” conclusion (that is, the theological viewpoint of the college director) then that person’s manuscript is omitted from study. In contrast, Australian university standards require that the student read authors who hold a variety of viewpoints and then write a paper comparing and contrasting. The student is expected to be able to summarize the opposing viewpoints accurately.
A good theological professor is expected to be able to present students with a well rounded understanding of the current field of biblical studies. If s/he is doing the job properly then their particular preference should not be obvious. The best scholars can present material in such a way that it is not even possible to tell if they are even theists, let alone what kind.
An example of such a relatively unbiased introduction to the current scholarly knowledge of biblical background and textual criticism is a series of lectures given to Stanford religious studies students by Thomas Sheehan. Luckily, it is available free of charge via ITunes. I defy anyone who does not personally know the teacher (or read the bio on the downpage page I have provided) to figure out what his own beliefs are until the very last lecture (and even then, they are fairly veiled, as is appropriate practice for respected scholars. ) You can download the series here: http://french-italian.stanford.edu/opinions/sheehan.html
That is _not_ the way U.S. Fundie schools teach.
The reason why I have little regard for most U.S.-style Fundie Apologists is that they base their arguments on profound ignorance of both relevant and up-to-date scientific knowledge as well as really basic knowledge of so-called “biblical textual criticism” . Hess, for example, is quite unconvincing to anyone who _has_ studied the details and background of the Christian Bible at this academic level.
Likewise, William Lane Craig is still using philosophical arguments “proving” the existence of “god” that were soundly defeated at least decades ago (and usually centuries ago). What is appalling is that U.S. fundie theology graduates are not even aware of this.
In my country or origin (Australia), Philosophy 101 (generally taken by first year students of Bachelor of Arts or Law or Theology) introduces the process of philosophy by presenting classic arguments for the existence of god (the same ones that Craig uses with very little modification) and also teaches the objections to them. In other words, Craig still hasn’t passed first year Australian Bachelor level. That most Americans find him convincing is disturbing.
Rosita(Quote)
I think this link is the one to the 10 lecture series, not the one I gave earlier.
http://www.learnoutloud.com/Free-Audio-Video/Religion-and-Spirituality/Religious-Figures/Historical-Jesus/23023
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
I’d be interested to know what you think my “view” is. I find Ehrman fascinating.
Rosita(Quote)
rosita, i haven’t read sheehan’s work but i’m aware of the current, mainstream historical view of jesus’ death.
what i was really responding to was your theory that christianity was influenced by israelite polytheism and the mystery religions.
kaka(Quote)
casey, i’m going to stop responding to you. not because i have nothing to say but because i am tired of you turning every one of our discussions into a war of ideas. there is no war mate – you’re only fighting yourself. when you’re ready you can put down the bbq fork, take the saucepan off your head, climb out of the sandpit and join the adults in the living room.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka:
I’ve already encountered you, sophist. I already know it isn’t a war of ideas–it’s a war of intellectual integrity vs. sloppy, haphazard thinking and glaring sophistry. I note which of us surrendered. It always happens this way with sophists. Never respond to the substance of your opponents’ arguments. Make it personal, watch out for “gotcha” opportunities, toss out red herrings and, failing that, run away. The modus operandi of an intellectual coward is on display in every instance of your posting, especially this last ditch ad hominem.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“I’d be interested to know what you think my “view” is.”
Your glowing endorsements of Craig (the appeal to authority is woefully misplaced, by the way, as Rosita has pointed out) pretty much say it all. But, really, this is beside the point. I don’t need to make guesses about your view for you to respond to the substance of my arguments. If you want your view to be known, the onus is on you to describe it. This is just more red herring.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“I find Ehrman fascinating.”
No kidding. Now tell us how you feel about the price of tea in China.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@casey
You’ve got your wires crossed, mate. You are responding to the wrong people about the wrong things. Read the headings :-)
Rosita(Quote)
@casey
You’ve got your wires crossed, mate. You are responding to the wrong people about the wrong things.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
I think that’s wise :-) Casey’s social skills leave a lot to be desired. I suspect he’s wired that way. He reminds me of the problems my son had before he got specific help for his Aspberger’s condition.
@casey
Attacking people and calling them names is only going to put them on the defensive and invite a war. Sophism requires conscious intent to deceive. When I was coming from the religious position I was not intending to deceive, I was just ill-informed and emotionally dependent on my faith. You could at least give these people the benefit of the doubt.
Rosita(Quote)
@Casey
You are always assuming what a follower does represents the teachings of his religion. Big Mistake. Like you explained that Lenin’s crimes don’t portrait atheism, The same can be said about those who claim to be religionists /Muslims and kill innocents.
Also, put in mind that Islam divided into many sects and everyone claims to be the original Islam. That is, there are distortions in the teachings. I can’t deny that there are extremists in Islam or any other religion, but at the end this has nothing to do with religion. Religion (after distorting it’s teachings) is used to make people kill or harm, but even “no religion” can be used to. For example, if an atheist was brain-washed that any person who believes in God is going to kill him bcoz he doesn’t believe in God and that he should kill them before they do. Assuming this atheist is low in IQ, mostly he’ll start killing the believers.
The keyword here is brainwashing. I think Religion is the easiest way to brainwash people but it’s not the only way. Examples include how US Government manage to make Americans go for war.
You said,
“Popular canard used by stupid people. Totalitarian mass murderers like these did not commit atrocities on the basis of a non-belief in gods. They were acting on their misanthropic ideologies, just like the “jihadists.” Atheism has nothing to do with it.”
I tried not to say it but … “you are really stupid”. This is your logic summarized:
Atheist kills –> Atheism is not the reason
Muslim kills –> Islam told him so
What kind of logic is that? Besides, I can say that an atheist killer based his decision on atheism bcoz there are no formal teachings under atheism opposed to religion. It is manmade and he made his decision to kill.
You said, “We reasonable people call this blaming the victim, and it won’t work with me.” I’m not blaming him, I just said he’s not peace loving person. Besides, you can practice free speech right and disagree with others without having to insult them.
You said, ” The former is (or may be) a matter of libel, a legal concern. The latter (blaspheming “the prophet”) is a victimless “crime,” a matter of free speech”. What you see as victimless crime, others saw it as telling lies about a religious figure.
@Rosita
I decided to make this my last or before last comment (depending on your answer to my coming question) since it seems that there is too much to do and too little time.
First let me clarify that the reasons why I wouldn’t start protesting about Islamic-based terrorism here is bcoz of the laws of the country and not that some extremist will kill me. In the same time, the country laws prohibit anybody to preach extreme Islamic acts.
Anyways, I had a question and I wanted to read your opinion about it. Assuming nobody was able to prove God’s existence or non-existence, Wouldn’t undisputed historical records be a good source to prove God’s existence?
We have the history that tell us that the prophets were honest people who never lie. They were trusted by people. They told people that God sent them to show them the right path. Some believed them and some didn’t. The prophets, even though they could’ve lived wealthy and use people for their purposes but they didn’t.
Every prophet brought a miracle to prove he is true. The Muslim prophet recited (from memory) the Qurán “604” pages even though he was illiterate. He also wasn’t a poet but Qur’an is not formed of poems.
So, what should we say about this? People are making it up bcoz we weren’t their?
Saleh(Quote)
@ Rosita:
“You’ve got your wires crossed, mate. You are responding to the wrong people about the wrong things. Read the headings :-)”
Ah, yes. I see that now. Sorry. So, kaka, you don’t find Ehrman fascinating?
“Casey’s social skills leave a lot to be desired. I suspect he’s wired that way. He reminds me of the problems my son had before he got specific help for his Aspberger’s condition.”
Oh, Rosemary, give it a rest. This ain’t a cocktail party, it’s the goddamn Internet. I’m sure kaka would be less forthcoming with his stupid ideas if he had to spout them in a real life situation. So it is with me and my fiery rhetoric.
“Attacking people and calling them names is only going to put them on the defensive and invite a war.”
Cry me a frickin’ river. Debate. That’s what this is. Rhetorical war. And when people start violating the rules of war, that demands a reckoning. I don’t call people names until they show themselves to be worthy of them. Next you’ll be telling me I can’t swear. Jesus fucking Christ, mom!
“Sophism requires conscious intent to deceive.”
1) If this were true you would never be able to recognize it.
2) Since you believe this, then how do you know kaka was not engaging in sophistry?
3) Sophistry is evident when a participant in a debate consistently dodges the strongest arguments of his opponents, employs red herrings, etc. (I already listed all of kaka’s readily observed sins above).
“You could at least give these people the benefit of the doubt.”
I do, as can be verified by reading through this entire exchange. But people need to be called out for falling into sophistry, so they can avoid it in the future. That’s how I learned the skill of intellectual honesty, by being raked over the coals for failing to display it in those debates where I was trying desperately (like kaka) to protect my beliefs from falsification. Contrary to your opinion, sophistry as a style of debate is most often practiced without its practitioner being conscious of it, usually in response to the cognitive dissonance arising from her opponent’s strongest arguments (the urge to “win,” after all, is emotional, universal, and unconscious). Logical argumentation, you should be aware, is not something we are born knowing how to do, nor are the intellectual honesty and emotional control it absolutely requires.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“You are always assuming what a follower does represents the teachings of his religion.”
“A” follower? Did you click on any of the links I provided? No. Well, don’t do it. You don’t want to learn that you are wrong.
“Like you explained that Lenin’s crimes don’t portrait atheism, The same can be said about those who claim to be religionists /Muslims and kill innocents.”
Stop the idiocy. Atheism doesn’t promote a holy book with commandments in it that say things like, “kill the believers.” You aren’t retarded, so stop acting that way. It won’t win you any points with your dead prophet.
“I can’t deny that there are extremists in Islam or any other religion, but at the end this has nothing to do with religion.”
Okay, maybe you are retarded.
“For example, if an atheist was brain-washed that any person who believes in God is going to kill him bcoz he doesn’t believe in God and that he should kill them before they do.”
Right. This example is irrelevant to the subject of atheism, which is, get this, LACK OF BELIEF IN GODS PERIOD FULL STOP! Atheism has no teachings, no holy book, no priests or imams or even beliefs! It certainly cannot even possibly promote the dogma you just dreamed up. For that, one would need an ideology, like Christianity, Fascism, or Islam, etc. And that’s the whole damn point! You must have a brick for a brain not to understand the difference between a belief system, complete with holy books, symbolic traditions and ostensibly divinely appointed leaders, and the total absence of beliefs, holy books, traditions, and divinely appointed leaders. And that brick must be vanishingly small and overwhelmingly dense not to appreciate what range of behaviors the former can inspire compared to the latter.
“I tried not to say it but … “you are really stupid”. This is your logic summarized:
Atheist kills –> Atheism is not the reason
Muslim kills –> Islam told him so”
Okay, I’m stupid. Sure. But you missed a few obvious facts in your summary of my logic. Let me give you the revised summary, since apparently it wasn’t clear enough when I spelled it out for you originally:
Atheist kills –> Atheism is not the reason because atheism is the lack of belief in gods and that says nothing about killing people.
Muslim kills, citing Koranic verses as his inspiration –> Islam is the reason because (his form of) Islam endorses the murder of innocents (verified in the verses he himself provided) in the circumstances under consideration, and because he proclaimed Islam as the motivation for his murderous acts.
Now, tell me why perfectly logical constructs are “stupid” to you.
“I’m not blaming him, I just said he’s not peace loving person.
Bullshit. You say, “They got what they were asking for.” That is the definition of blaming the victim. And you can take it and shove it up your ass. And what the hell would a terrorist enabler know about “peace?”
“Besides, you can practice free speech right and disagree with others without having to insult them.”
What do you mean by “insult?” That’s the trouble. One man’s criticism is another worm’s “insult.” And some religiously motivated, insane people kill and destroy in response to being “insulted.” To wit…
“What you see as victimless crime, others saw it as telling lies about a religious figure.”
Too fucking bad! Suck it up. “The West” is a constellation of free societies. We have the right (even the responsibility) to criticize, refute, expose, ridicule, or parody anything or anyone. It’s an important, hard-won right, and we aren’t going to be bullied into letting it go by a bunch of Medieval savages who got their poor wittle feewings hurt by a goddamn cartoon! By contrast, Muslims don’t have the right (outside of a certain popular interpretation of Koranic teachings) to commit murder and mayhem in response to being “insulted.” Human freedom is far more important than your petulant toddler of a religion, as any intelligent Muslim will discover as soon as they begin to oppose a theocratic regime.
And your fucking anti-blasphemy laws? Mohammed sucked goat balls. How do you like that? If you can’t take it, stay off the Internet and out of the free world. Insulate yourself from opposing views in some dirty cave where you and your myths can be safe. But don’t think you can bully the rest of the world into taking them seriously, or even “respecting” them. We don’t fucking have to. Got that? Good.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“We have the history that tell us that the prophets were honest people who never lie.”
The sentence above this sentence is false–and I never lie. Furthermore, Allah doesn’t exist. QED.
“They told people that God sent them to show them the right path. Some believed them and some didn’t.”
Gasp! Some didn’t believe them? Didn’t they hear that they never lie?
“The prophets, even though they could’ve lived wealthy and use people for their purposes but they didn’t.”
Oh, well, since you say so, I guess it must be true. You never lie either, do you? That makes three of us, not including the prophets! How many people never lie, do you suppose? I’ll bet Stalin never lied either! So many people who never lie. What an interesting world you must live in!
“Every prophet brought a miracle to prove he is true. The Muslim prophet recited (from memory) the Qurán “604” pages even though he was illiterate. He also wasn’t a poet but Qur’an is not formed of poems.
So, what should we say about this? People are making it up bcoz we weren’t their?”
Of course not, sugar. Everything you believe is true. It couldn’t possibly be made up! The wonderful men who taught it never lie, remember? Conversely, everything I say is true too, since I never lie. Allah doesn’t exist. Do you believe that? If not, why not? I told you I never lie. You should trust me!
Seriously, I love free speech! Even intellectual toddlers get a place at the adults’ table.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
That was a funny response. I bet you always try to make those around you (If they didn’t run away already) feel inferior intellectually.
However, you did make good points but not in the right place. The main problem with your comments is that you respond to a sentence or a whole comment without relating it to the previous ones. This means I’ll have to remind you of my earlier comments which is time consuming and makes the discussion pointless.
But maybe you are doing it on purpose and in this case you should be in a boxing ring.
for example
You said,”Gasp! Some didn’t believe them? Didn’t they hear that they never lie?”
Even if you know somebody is telling the truth, it doesn’t mean you’ll not deny they are telling the truth especially if it results in loss of power or money.
Back to Linen and atheism. Assuming no laws or teachings. We have a group of 10 people and one of them is the leader. He enjoys the benefits of being a leader whatever they are. One starts protesting for equal rights. The leader not wanting to lose his benefits, kills the protester. He is following his own teachings. Isn’t that being an atheist?
Another example, An atheist scientist if has the chance to conduct experiments on poor people or say autistic children who in his opinion doesn’t serve the community. Do you think he will not do it? After all they will be serving the greater good of human kind. Like you said, atheism is the “lack of belief in gods” and hence it promotes that a person is to make his own rules.
you said, “Of course not, sugar. Everything you believe is true. ”
You didn’t mention anything regarding whether to believe in historical accounts or not. Of course, you must believe in some parts of the history, at least our history of comments. So, on what basis are you denying the rest!! Simply bcoz you don’t like it?
Regarding my earlier comment I mentioned that the prophet recited Qur’an from memory. Of course, this is not what is considered the miracle. The miracle is in the wordings and formulation of the verses of the Qur’an which is impossible for a human to invent. However, you need to be a linguistic in Arabic to appreciate that.
Saleh(Quote)
“That was a funny response. I bet you always try to make those around you (If they didn’t run away already) feel inferior intellectually.”
You should feel that way because it is true, and this is obvious from your arguments.
“The main problem with your comments is that you respond to a sentence or a whole comment without relating it to the previous ones.”
No, the problem is your lack of comprehension skills.
“You said,”Gasp! Some didn’t believe them? Didn’t they hear that they never lie?”
Even if you know somebody is telling the truth, it doesn’t mean you’ll not deny they are telling the truth especially if it results in loss of power or money.”
The point of my ridicule here is that you actually believe, and want us to believe, the circular argument that because a claim contains within it an assertion that the claim is true then it must be true. I’m supposed to take this seriously?
“The leader not wanting to lose his benefits, kills the protester. He is following his own teachings. Isn’t that being an atheist?”
Listen, you fucking idiot. Atheism has no teachings. It is the lack of belief in gods; that’s it! The lack of belief in gods. The lack of belief in gods. Nothing more. No holy books, no scriptures, no beliefs, no commandments, no tenets, no teachings, no ideology, nothing. Get that through your thick skull. Nothing about atheism has anything to do with killing people. Islam on the other hand is tied heavily to a religious text that does talk about killing unbelievers, and endorses it. Concede this point or prove that you are a dishonest clod with shit for brains.
“An atheist scientist if has the chance to conduct experiments on poor people or say autistic children who in his opinion doesn’t serve the community.”
His atheism is a lack of belief in gods. His opinion about what to do with autistic children is just that: an opinion about what to do with autistic children. You don’t get from a lack of belief in gods to an opinion about what to do with autistic children. Something else must come in between, for example, an ideology or, more likely in this case, a psychological problem. Nothing about atheism addresses autism, science, experiments, children, poor people, or communities. On the other hand Islam is tied heavily to a religious text that endorses the killing of unbelievers.
“Do you think he will not do it?…Like you said, atheism is the “lack of belief in gods” and hence it promotes that a person is to make his own rules.”
As it happens, oh paragon of worldly knowledge, most atheist scientists are secular humanists. So, no, not only do I think he will not do it, I would go so far as to say atheism correlates strongly with high intelligence, ethics and humanistic values, and that you are blind to the facts to even suggest such a thing. But that doesn’t surprise me.
“Of course, you must believe in some parts of the history, at least our history of comments. So, on what basis are you denying the rest!! Simply bcoz you don’t like it?”
What you call history I call pseudo-history. The burden of proof is on you, son. If you want me to believe the religious “history” you’ve presented, then you have to show that it is supported by rigorous historical research. Otherwise I have no good reason to take it seriously, especially, it should be said, the claim that your prophets never lie (absurd!).
“The miracle is in the wordings and formulation of the verses of the Qur’an which is impossible for a human to invent. However, you need to be a linguistic in Arabic to appreciate that.”
LOL, total bullshit! Go on, though, let’s hear your elaboration. This should be entertaining…
caseywollberg(Quote)
@saleh
If you address Casey you open yourself up to abuse. I am afraid that is how Casey operates. Like theists, atheists have a wide range of personalities. You are showing remarkable calm under pressure. Congratulations!
You are correct. In among all the personal abuse Casey makes some valid points. It’s just a little hard to extract them from all the defense-inviting invective. Please allow me to make some of them again, with a little more compassion attached.
Saleh, you’ve been sold a story which has been drummed into you since childhood. That allows things which are absurd to creep in under the radar because humans do not normally develop good critical skills until late adolescence or early adulthood. By that time whatever ideology or religion they have been taught to accept without question has filled them with a fear of inspecting it critically. You, and everyone else who has been indoctrinated as a child, are at a cognitive disadvantage in evaluating the claims and assumptions of your culture, religion and environment. The problems come when you rub up against a different religion, culture or environment which does not view the world though the distorting lenses you have worn all your life. What seems sensible to you seems obviously absurd to those looking in from outside. That’s what’s happening here.
The main difference between you and us are that we have worked through our early cognitive condition and come out the other side. You are just beginning to dabble your feet in this kind if external evaluation. The first response is always defensive because you are being faced with something that threatens a worldview which is familiar and therefore relatively comfortable. How far you go depends a lot on how much ideational discomfit you can stand, and that depends on how emotionally mature and secure you are.
While the ideas you espouse may be absurd to anyone who is not part of your self-reinforcing ideological group, I see no reason to trash you for being a victim of a restricted and cognitively stultifying environmental and educational. That is a misfortune, not a crime.
In other words, I will address the ideas which you have been fed and which your culture persuades you not to evaluate critically for fear of some fearsome real and imaginary consequences, including social isolation and ridicule from those who are emotionally important to you.
When you say that the wording and formulation of the versus of the Qur’an are impossible for a human to invent it sounds blatantly absurd to someone not brought up to believe this without question. As a psycho-linguist, it sounds particularly absurd, and I can see no reason why knowing Arabic would make the slightest bit of difference.
People of other religions make similar claims about the Bible (which Christian Fundamentalists believe is the literal dictation of their version of god), the Book of Mormon and the writings of Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science). Spiritualists make the same claim about people who are supposedly channeling the writing of “spirits”. The Islamic claim is no more compelling than any of these conflicting ones, all of which will seem absurd to you from your standpoint.
You have been taught that the words of prophets and Islamic clerics are truthful because they have to reason to lie. Christians use the same argument about Jesus, Paul and all the writers of the books of the Bible. The problem with the argument on all sides is that the human brain is very easily fooled, confused and deluded. Just because someone is firmly convinced that they are telling the absolute truth does not mean that what they say is true. The history of Western legal systems is full of examples of people being hanged on the basis of human testimony which was not intentionally fraudulent, but nevertheless, wrong. The history of empirical research in psychology is all about inventing methods to remove and partial out the limitations, illusions and delusions and unconscious biases of human thinking.
Just because someone believes themselves to be telling the truth does _not_ mean that what they say will stand up to objective scientific investigation as “true”. There are lots of wonderfully warm and friendly human beings who are, never the less, genuinely mistaken in what they consider to be “true”.
You have been led to believe that people who do not believe in the existence of any god have no basis for a humane moral code. This is incorrect.
Basic morality is a social skill that is taught to all children by parents, teachers and other authorities. Aspects of it are enforced in adulthood by regional laws and statues.
Children learn morality as the result of their interactions with adults and also with other children. Moral thinking matures with age, much like intelligence and other cognitive skills. Mature morality is based on the principles of reciprocity but the earlier stages are more rule based.
Ironically, religions that claim to be the bastion of morality are based on immature forms of moral development. This leads to horrendous acts being performed as the result of interpreting a “rule” in an immature and morally repugnant fashion. As someone once said: Regardless of their religion, good people will do good things and bad people will do bad things, but it takes religion to make a good person do bad things.
International comparisons of nations and regions with varying degrees of belief in the existence of a god show that the more religious that nation the more signs of “societal ill-health” there is: murder, abortion, infant death, teen pregnancies and so on. Conversely, the higher the lack of belief in a god, the less instances there are of what the religious would call “moral failure”. In other words, believing in a god, or living in a society with a high number of people who believe in god, leads to greater immorality than not believing in a god, or living in a society where few people believe in the existence of a god.
Rosita(Quote)
“In among all the personal abuse Casey makes some valid points.”
Interesting framing. I would be a little more generous, you know, since you are compassionate and all: “In among all of his valid points, Casey includes some invective, for emphasis and because he’s frustrated by your obstinance.” I know, I know, atheists aren’t allowed to be frustrated with those poor disadvantaged theists. They’re not quite on our level, after all. Right, “compassionate” Rose?
“Please allow me to make some of them again, with a little more compassion attached.”
More like pretentious condescension. But we’ll see if your faux-coddling approach has the desired effect. Saleh, the ball is in your court. This should be instructive, maybe even to me! I’ve been surprised before.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“If you address Casey you open yourself up to abuse.”
Oh, and this is bullshit too, by the way. Sorry if you find that “abusive.”
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
“you have to show that it is supported by rigorous historical research.”
There is. I’m not sure if there are translations. If I’ll have the time (research, discuss … etc) in the future and still there is a way to contact you, I’ll present them to you. Otherwise, you can do the search yourself.
@Casey
@Rosita
I’m not saying an atheist has no moral values. And Casey, I already understand that being an atheist means no belief in Gods. But your bias is you are saying if an atheist kills then this has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with his own psychological state, ethics or whatever. While if a religionist kills then it’s bcoz of his religion.
Of course, I’m not saying religionists don’t kill bcoz of their religion (not fault of religion) or how they interpret it.
But I can say if an atheist doesn’t have teachings to follow (from a divine entity) then he is more likely to kill than a theist given they are both influenced by the same identical factors from psychological ones to health, education … etc. except religion. Of course, and back to our earliest discussions, I’m saying that religion promotes peace and bcoz someone kills in the name of religion or he misinterpret/misused a religion’s teachings then you shouldn’t blame religion.
This is my last comment, and Rosita I really admire the way you present your arguments. Casey, I wonder what you would if you had the power? Maybe you’ll kill all religionists to vent your anger, then you’ll say it’s not bcoz you’re an atheist; you were simply angry.
Saleh(Quote)
@Saleh
Thank you for your compliments.
Actually, cross-national research supports exactly the opposite point of view. The more religious you are, the more likely you are to kill. The more atheist the community, the lower the murder rate.
Rosita(Quote)
@ Saleh: Rosita’s right. The truth is I have nothing against you as a person. It’s your religion I don’t like. As such, I have no interest in killing people. I love people. I love you, and Rosita. I’m a bit drunk right now. But I love everybody. Especially a certain woman who just left my apartment.
caseywollberg(Quote)
hey rosita, if you like ehrman, check out this debate: http://www.philvaz.com/EhrmanEvansDebate.mp3
try skipping to 1:27:00 where there is a postmortem of the debate where a panel of biblical scholars dissect ehrman’s arguments – i’d be interested in knowing your thoughts on what they say
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
Thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
Rosita(Quote)
no problem rosita :)
as for casey – i’d be intersted in hearing about your journey into and out of armstrongism, if you’re willing to share.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka:
Sure, I’ll give you the brief version. Into: I was indoctrinated from about the age of five. Out of: I grew up and learned how to think properly, which didn’t happen until the age of 30 (indoctrination in a cult will do that). Don’t bother hypothesizing about whether my experience in a cult skewed my perception of theism in general: I came to atheism honestly, through a careful and deliberate consideration of the relevant arguments.
caseywollberg(Quote)
This story certainly resonated with me. My parents have come to a difficult understanding of my views and there is uncertain but real love and acceptance there. Thanks for sharing your story. It’s always nice to hear from other x-Christians out there. Keep on keeping on.
Kait(Quote)
casey, thanks for sharing. my heart goes out to you man. i’ve met people who have come out of cults and their experiences were pretty horrible ie, being enslaved to the cult leader, hate-based doctrines, being excommunicated for disagreeing with beliefs.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
I managed to find the time to listen to the Ehrmann-Evans debate today, and the subsequent discussion. Interesting. I’ll provide comments later. Tomorrow, perhaps. I am moving house, so things are quite chaotic.
BTW, I thought your recent response to Casey was compassionate and insightful.
Rosita(Quote)
good luck with the move, rosita :)
where are you from by the way? i ask because you sound like an australian – i live in sydney.
kaka(Quote)
Good spotting! I’m an Aussie living in the San Francisco East Bay area. Born in Melbourne. Lived in Shepparton, Darwin and Perth before “relocating”. I miss Ausland.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
I apologize for the messy nature of these comments. I just don’t have the time to tidy them up and make them less like an unedited stream of consciousness at the moment. I hope you will understand. As I said, life is pretty chaotic right now. My access to the internet will very likely be cut off for a while at some point soon.
COMMENTS ON THE EHRMAN-EVANS DEBATE.
OVERVIEW:
A very interesting debate. Well conducted. Both participants were civil and both clearly erudite.
In general, Ehrman is far more credible than his opponent. He is at a disadvantage because the debate is set up to deny him the chance to comment on his opponents’ point of view. He manages to do so anyway.
As with all formal debates, there is no easy way to challenge a participant at every point where they present a logical fallacy or argue from unproven conjectures.
1. The original NT manuscripts were ALL written in Greek. It is a very poor argument to suggest that they are reliable because some were written at a time when it is presumed (but not proved) that original eye-witnesses were alive (and could presumably correct the manuscripts if they were wrong.) The original eye witnesses wrote no reports of their own. They spoke Aramaic and were probably illiterate in that language. They did not speak, read or write Greek. They were poor people who were extremely unlikely to have travelled more than twenty miles or so from their home town. They would not be roaming around the lands were these manuscripts were written or circulating and even if they were, they would not have been able to read, understand and comment upon them. There was no Google Translate or Babelfish available to them.
2. The argument that textual discrepancies in the various manuscripts do not interfere with the “basic Christian message” fails to acknowledge that the result is so vague that the message is very far from identical across thousands of Christian denominations, sects and offshoots (including Islam), not to mention the Christians who consider themselves to be independent Followers of a spirit whom they believe is guiding them to correctly understand what is meant in the Bible. . Some of these sects and individuals base important parts of their theological beliefs on verses and passages of biblical text which are disputed or even universally acknowledged among scholars as spurious or later additions.
The best that a biblical scholar could argue is that they see no challenge to their particular version of god. They do not, however, spell out exactly what that is or explain how they manage to gloss over or twist passages which do not support whatever it is that they actually believe. In other words, it is an unsupported argument that relies on their (humanly faulty) memory.
3. As Ehrmann concludes, his view of biblical errancy is shared by every major biblical scholar other than those whose theology is based on the belief that the bible _must_ be inerrant. When you start from a conclusion you wish to support instead of the evidence that should lead to a conclusion then what you see, hear, understand and recall will inevitably be distorted and unreliable. It is a fundamental psychological axiom which is extremely well supported. This is exactly what I heard happening during this debate.
4. Evans is very keen on quoting others. (Appeal to authority.)
COMMENTS ON THE DISCUSSION
(Comments are only answered by one faction. There is no input from the other side. That is dishonest. There is no attempt to allow Ehrmann to comment on the fallacies that Evans made – and there were many. They sound good provided that you do not have a wide background in the area.)
The session began with the admission that Ehrmann had asked questions and said things that the debate had been structured to prevent – things that could upset the audience. He had not kept strictly within the boundaries of the questions asked. That’s an admission that the debate was “engineered” to prevent the “wrong” things from being aired. There was no acknowledgement that their own side had “not kept to the questions” either.
The resurrection incompatibilities. They just cannot be reconciled by putting them all together or assuming that they are cases of “multiple attestation” – an incomplete collection of many stories. It also ignores that Mark omits the story of the resurrection entirely. There is no good reason to suppose that the “original ending” was lost.
What follows is a wonderful example of “spin” and semantic somersaults.
“Ehrmann doesn’t come at it from the eyes of faith.” He did. He just lost it as the result of his study. (False)
One gospel says there was one angel. Another says there were two angels. Both could be correct because there might have been three angels and just one or two of them were mentioned. (!!!!!!)
“Would you go through these things (stoning, shipwrecking) if you knew you had perverted the gospel’? This shows ignorance of social and neuropsychology. People are easily deluded, their memories are faulty and they do know that they are repeating something that is not true, or they justify changing written material to suit their personal beliefs. They feel no guilt.
This is not confined to Christianity. Joseph Smith was lynched; the Wacko people killed themselves and their children, etc. Muslims, Catholic saints, etc.
The example of remembering a sermon and getting the “elements” of it down while not being entirely compatible with the video. Not a good example. The problem would become much more apparent if six people heard that sermon and each wrote down what they heard, especially if they came to the situation with completely different world views to begin with. Their stories would clash considerably because people do not recall what fails to support their views and distort others to make them fit. “:not willful perverters of the message” Sure. Not necessary to distort it.
Ignorance-based comments.
Does not address the problem of the very poor validity of eye-witnesses.
“Ehmann was meant to be responding to 7 questions, not to ask other questions.” ‘They weren’t supposed to be answered with 15 other questions.” In other words, the debate was set up in an attempt to “trap” Ehrmann and prevent him from responding in ways they did not want their audience to hear. This is appalling behavior from the standpoint of academic integrity. What is notable is that none of these evangelicals see their behavior as dishonest or anti-intellectual. They have clearly rationalized it in their own minds and redefined it as “good”. They have unwittingly provided a good example of how the original message of Jesus of Nazareth could be unwittingly distorted and changed by people who were convinced that they had done nothing wrong and were on the side of the angels.
It is argued that the discrepancies between biblical manuscripts and books are “not faith issues”. The examples given to support this were petty. Few of the really difficult problems were mentioned. When they were, the explanations given were more conjectural and fantastical than the reasoning which leads to the general scholarly conclusion that they are real incompatibilities.
Special pleading. The non-canonical Gospel of Peter was mentioned. It was reported to include a resurrection account that many scholars believe was based on the original (but missing) account of this event. This was cause for concern among the discussants because the Peter account was rather bizarre. In this account two men come out of the tomb of Jesus then their heads extend into the clouds and while the head of Jesus extends even higher. A voice is heard asking whether Jesus preached repentance to those who were asleep and the wooden cross replies “Yes”. While this is certainly bizarre it is no more so than the story in one of the other gospels about dead bodies rising from graves all over Jerusalem at the time of the death of Jesus.
Ehmann’s contention that their was no mention of Jesus or his message from non-Christian sources until 80 years after his death was described as “reckless”. The examples of authors who supposedly did so are all highly contentious, except in evangelical circles.
It was contended that Homer’s Iliad and the history of the Roman Empire would not be believed if this kind of standard were used for them. This ignores the fact that the truth of these things is not a matter which affects how people live their lives. It makes no difference to anyone’s belief about the truth of the stories in the Iliad whether it was written by Homer or not. It makes no difference to anyone’s day to day life whether Constantine was an emperor of Rome or not.
Ehrmann’s telephone whispering game analogy of how the gospels came to be written was dismissed as untenable. This failed to acknowledge that it was, in fact, just an analogy (and therefore not meant to be completely comparable). There was no acknowledgment that there is ample scientific evidence of the distorting mechanisms operating in aural history. A quick check of the empirical studies conducted by psychologists would confirm this. In other words, while the analogy is not perfect (and few are) it not at all absurd. It’s a reasonably good illustration of a fact that can be supported by legitimate means.
Someone described Ehrmann’s statements as “more twisting of the facts than misfacts”. Ironically, this is how much of what I heard these people saying seemed to me: somatic distortions, redefinitions and “spin” in the service of their faith mixed in with misinformation based on comprehension difficulties and gaps in education plus some unwitting “misfacts” as well.
Biblical mismatches and errors of fact were re-labeled as “variances, not mistakes”. That is a very convenient reframing that does not hold up under close scrutiny of the whole array of problematic biblical passages.
There were attempts to have things both ways. Someone suggested that the biblical scribes had no reason to transcribe the bible incorrectly while someone else described incidences of scribal miscopying, such as the deletion of lines of text, as normal lapses of concentration that could be “corrected” by later scribes. It was mentioned that a scribe had written something in a margin that was not part of the text, but failed to mention that this is how scholars believe the story of the woman caught in adultery.
In other words, there are a variety of ways in which text could be altered, intentionally or unintentionally, without the scribes indulging in anything that they would recognize as deliberately distorting the text. The whole Ehrmann-style point is that humans are not computers and, because of their imperfections, are prone to making all manners of errors of memory, copying, transcription, interpretation, attribution and translation.
If an all-knowing, all-caring and all-knowledgeable god had been involved in the process he/she/it or they would have found some far more reliable method of disseminating the information. At the very least, the Jesus god, or at least one of his chosen followers, would have written down the important points and made sure that they were preserved and disseminated in such a manner that the meaning was clear in any language into which they could be translated. Of course, even that would have unreasonably disadvantaged most of the people in the world, since not everyone is literate, has the same access to written material or the same ability to comprehend what they read. The Bible is an extremely poor method of communicating messages that are supposed to be crucial to every person’s level of comfort after they die. It’s divinely incompetent.
In summary, the most alarming thing about this debate, and its aftermath, is the deliberate, but apparently unconcious, attempts by the dominant group to manipulate the information and channel it in a direction that supported their pre-conceived conclusions. It is a remarkable example of how evangelicals (and every other person with an ideological agenda) can decieve themselves and their followers into believing that they have a unique understanding of The Truth.
Rosita(Quote)
ok rosita, well i’ve posted a response which you can contemplate in your quieter moments after the move :)
1. how do we know the eyewitnesses didn’t have the manuscripts read out to them for checking? how do we know some of them did not speak greek?
2. i think you’re overstating the case when you say the christian message is ‘vague’. i can’t name any cults apart from mormons and i know little of their doctrine, if they even have any. yet i can walk into any church in sydney and get a clear, confident response when i ask what they believe. moreover, the proliferation of christian cults doesn’t cast doubt on the basic christian message in john 3:16 and 1 corinthians 15. it just casts doubt on the cults.
3. i also believe the bible has errors. but that’s normal for ancient historical documents. if the bible didn’t have errors, that would probably lead historians to suspect it was a forgery. so the presence of errors and discrepancies actually convince me that the bible is authentic history.
4. a) rosita, you can’t psychoanalyse historical characters. to conclude someone is psychologically deluded requires a psychological assessment. you can’t do that with dead people.
b) i’m interested in hearing about the biblical discrepancies which affect core faith issues (like 1 cor 15 for example) you mentioned.
c) i don’t think the historical truth of a document is affected by the impact it would have on someone’s life is it? i don’t think historians consider that.
d) rosita, do you really believe these scholars are a bunch of deluded, narrow-minded cultists who are out to brainwash everyone? i didn’t get that impression from listening to the podcast. they seemed fairly reasonable and well-read.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
I thought I’d made it very clear that I don’t. They have simply rationalized their beliefs and their behavior. That’s what humans do if they have an emotional investment in something. Sure, they are reasonable and well-read, but they demonstrate large blind spots and blinkers almost every time they open their mouth on religious matters. Of course, they accuse Ehrmann of doing the same thing :-)
What you can do is note that the history and written behavior of an historical character is consistent with the history and written behavior of people of patient’s with particular conditions. In Paul/Saul’s case I made a tentative neuropsychological assessment on the basis of a case history. The diagnosis was neurological, not psychological. I am a neuropsychologist. I recognize TLE syndromes when I come across them. Paul’s descriptions of his “visions” is a very good fit. There was no “psychoanalysis” involved.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
BTW, I’m not the only person who has diagnosed Paul/Saul as suffering from Temporal Lobe Epilepsy. I have, however, correctly diagnosed someone with that condition purely on the basis of similar reported history. The difference in those cases was that I was able to support it on the basis of cognitive and behavioral test results and confirm the condition with the ultimate in “hard” evidence: eleptiform spikes in the temporal lobe on EEG readings during “normal” phases and seizure spikes while the person was in the middle of an ecstatic “vision”. Obviously I cannot do that with Paul/Saul so the diagnosis has to remain tentative. OTOH, I prefer the physical explanation to the supernatural one. I also don’t subscribe to the biblical “filled with devils” diagnosis that Jesus gave to someone demonstrating symptoms of generalized grand mal seizures, nor would I consider sending such patients to someone who could exorcize these demons and ruin someone’s pig farm in the process. Do you count that as error or ignorance on the part of Jesus or an instance of an apocryphal biblical story that was mistakenly included in the biblical canon?
Rosita(Quote)
well yes it’s really just a fringe theory isn’t it? it’s not based on any hard clinical evidence. i don’t think appealing to popularity by counting the papers written on it makes it any more credible.
i’d appreciate any thoughts you have on my other points by the way, when you’re less busy, espeically 4b) :)
kaka(Quote)
the scholars’ objection to ehrman is different from yours – they have a problem with the way he does history.
but you’re attacking the scholars by saying their thinking is neuropsychologically impaired right?
well i don’t think you can validly conclude that without a clinical assessment can you?
kaka(Quote)
No. It’s a professional theory. The number of papers written about is irrelevant.
You are correct in that it lacks the certainty of an examination with modern electronic equipment but you are wrong to assume that a diagnosis cannot be correctly made without ever seeing the patient. It’s done much more often than you might think.
Rosita(Quote)
Only evangelical scholars have trouble with the way Ehrman does history. As he points out, every other major school agrees with him. That is a fairly good indication that the evangelical scholars are rationalizing to suit their preconceived assumptions.
No. The evangelical scholars are using the same kind of distorted thinking that other neuro-typical people use to defend en emotionally held belief. It comes under social and cognitive psychology (normal behavior), not neuro-psychology (abnormal behavior). These people aren’t nuts; they aren’t stupid and they aren’t cognitively impaired. They are simply operating from social, emotional and cognitive biases – the very things which the scientific method was developed to counter.
The group we are discussing was using methods aimed to protect their ideas (defensive tactics), not search for the truth regardless of what it was (scientific method). The dominant motivators were fear and the desire to fit in with their emotional support group, not open-minded curiosity.
Rosita(Quote)
you seem to be writing off everything these guys say because you’ve formed the notion that their scholarly work is all done to rationalise their apparent biases. how do you know that? you couldn’t make any firm conclusions without properly assessing them individually could you? i like to take people’s comments at face value and just focus on that. if i focus on the person, it gets in the way of what they are saying.
my feeling is most historians take a less pessimistic view of the historical reliability of the gospels than ehrman. ep sanders is mentioned at 1:41:28. there’s also bruce metzger, marcus borg and some others on the jesus seminar. i think it’s exaggerating to say every ‘major school’ agrees with ehrman. who are these schools?
kaka(Quote)
rosita, if the gospels are, as you say, life changing, wouldn’t you be wanting a more firmer basis from which to dismiss what these scholars are saying than a diagnosis of a podcast?
kaka(Quote)
1.Their behavior on tape is sufficient to form a professional opinion about their biases and blind spots.
2. I dismiss their arguments on rational grounds. They are uninspiring. Not likely to appeal to anyone who does not have an emotional interest in their conclusions.
Rosita(Quote)
1. I didn’t say they were life-changing. That is your claim.
2. If you think that I dismiss what these scholars are saying on the basis of one podcast then you have not been attending to what I have been writing these past months. They, on the other hand, are happy to dismiss Ehrman and other main stream biblical scholars, on the basis of one debate that was engineered to prevent him from answering their objections. The frightening thing is that these men (and they are ALL men) appear to be completely oblivious to the enormity of the intellectual dishonesty they are practising. It is sick. If you were not emotionally invested in having these men’s ideas supported then it would hit you in the eye, too. The fact that you cannot see this is why you persistently fail to comprehend why the arguments you present on this forum are quite unconvincing to de-converts of any kind of religion.
Rosita(Quote)
rosita, suppose there IS a god who exists and that he did reveal himself to people 2000 years ago. what kind of evidence would convince you of that fact today?
kaka(Quote)
This is an impossible question to answer as it is written. It is full of assumptions and unexplained terms.
1. Suppose there is a god.
There is no universal definition that fits all supernatural beings dreamed up my humans. There is not a universal definition that fits all those who believe in the god of Abraham. There is not a universal definition that fits all those who claim to believe in the existence of a Christian god. There is not even a universal definition of god that is common to all those who claim to be evangelical style Christians. How do you define “god”. What reason do you have for excluding supernatural bad boys (devils) and supernatural helpers (angels) from the definition?
2. Who exists.
This assumes that the supernatural entity is a personality, not a mindless force.
It also assumes, I think, that the entity continues to exist now (although this is not clear.)
3. And that he did reveal himself
This assumes that the supernatural entity has a personality, a mind, a will and is male.
It does not assume that it/he was Jewish or prejudiced in favor of a particular race of people.
4. to people 2000 years ago
This comes closer to assuming that the god in question is the Jesus person who was reportedly born around that time. Jews would argue that their (El or Yahweh) god revealed himself to them far earlier than this. According to ancient Jewish and Christian texts, the character of the god revealed to the Jews, and the nature and characteristics of the promised warrior King (Messiah) is very different from the one painted by the Gentile Christians of their fellow countryman from Galilee.
Why would I exclude gods who revealed themselves to people who were not Jews or members of the Middle Eastern Roman Empire, or who revealed themselves in some other time or place?
5. what kind of evidence would convince of that fact today?
We are not talking about one “fact” here, we are talking about a whole range of vague imperfectly defined assumptions and convictions.
The whole thing assumes that any “god” who had revealed itself to humans is worth worrying about (if it’s a tyrant and capable of harming people), thanking (if it is an entity that does more good for the human race than humans do themselves ) or worshipping (if it demands more respect than humans would give to another human.) If it doesn’t meet any of these criteria then it can be of no more than an interesting phenomena that satisfies curiosity and the wish for knowledge.
If I take the broadest view then I suppose I could rephrase your question to ask: What would convince that a supernatural being revealed itself to some humans at some time.
The answer would be: the presence of something of importance (otherwise why would I care?) which is reliably and validly evidenced that cannot be explained by natural means (or could conceivably be scientifically or mathematically explained at some time in the future) and which satisfies the rules of legal or scientific evidence, the rules of logic and cannot be dismissed by what psychology knows of the imperfections and limitations of the human mind.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
In other words, what you are really requesting is: “Assume that my particular version of “god” is correct and tell me how I could convince you of this. It is not permissible to entertain the idea that anyone else me could be correct.”
Rosita(Quote)
@Rosita: All that “civility” and “compassion” and yet, still no improvement in quality of arguments or intellectual integrity on the part of your interlocutor. Sophists will always be sophists, even if–maybe especially if–you are nice to them. Will the sophist concede the perfectly valid, almost obviously valid, points you have made, or will he continue his sordid dance, ignoring them and moving on to his next line of attack, as though you have said nothing? You vilify my disregard for sophists like kaka on the basis that it does nothing to advance the level of discourse. Yet it has been demonstrated once again (as it always is) that your accomodationist style is no more successful in this area. When will you accomodationists learn that it is not possible to have a meaningful dialogue with sophists, whose very purpose in a “debate” is to talk past your arguments?
caseywollberg(Quote)
rosita, i don’t have your vast knowledge of theology so please forgive me if my question is poorly worded :)
i’m asking the hypothetical that IF the god of the bible is true and he DID gradually reveal himself to people over thousands of years, what would convince you of that fact today?
you said: “the presence of something of importance (otherwise why would I care?) which is reliably and validly evidenced that cannot be explained by natural means (or could conceivably be scientifically or mathematically explained at some time in the future) and which satisfies the rules of legal or scientific evidence, the rules of logic and cannot be dismissed by what psychology knows of the imperfections and limitations of the human mind.”
…now that’s quite a long answer! but what is this ‘something of importance’? can you give me an example?
kaka(Quote)
@casey
Casey, kaka and I are not only participants in this interchange. There are unknown readers, either now or in the future, who will notice all the things that you are noticing: the things that kaka avoids, rationalizes, is ignorant of or fails to understand. The more he engages me, the more he reveals the shortcomings and blindspots of his ideological group’s mode of interchange and line of argument. He may never be able to acknowledge, identify or remember these things (human memory and attention is selective and strongly influenced by emotion and prejudice), but they will be obvious to others.
As I have said on a number of occasions, I see no reason to be uncivil to someone who stands where I once was and may, just like me, be standing there because of ignorance and emotional investment in a line of thinking.
Rosita(Quote)
“As I have said on a number of occasions, I see no reason to be uncivil to someone who stands where I once was and may, just like me, be standing there because of ignorance and emotional investment in a line of thinking.”
I wasn’t talking about kaka’s position, but her/his tactics. That is what inspires my hostility.
“The more he engages me, the more he reveals the shortcomings and blindspots of his ideological group’s mode of interchange and line of argument.”
Ah, there it is. The pretentious condescension I was talking about, revealing that you are willing to use “civility” as a tactic. So much for your smug, moral superiority. At any rate, you get the same benefit from engaging worthy opponents, without the frustration, and without the dishonesty. I figure if someone is going to annoy me with sophistry, they’re damn sure going to hear about it, regardless of others’ hypocritical protestations concerning tone. Like I said, this is an online debate, not Care Bears Academy; all that matters are the arguments. If you want “civility,” come to St. Louis and buy me a drink.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@ casey and rosita
I thought you made a great good cop / bad cop routine. For a while, I thought you were working together. maybe not, but still good stuff.
I enjoyed reading you both very much. ;)
Pescador(Quote)
casey, not everyone takes your view that ‘because it’s the internet’ we should leave our manners at the door and behave like pigs. you’re free to do as you like but don’t ask that we stoop down to your level please.
kaka(Quote)
No. What is important to me changes with circumstances and the available knowledge.
NOW. How about you answer MY questions to you. The list of questions you have been avoiding is getting longer and longer and longer and longer and ……
Anyone reading this would get the impression that you are completely stumped by them.
kaka(Quote)
@kaka: ” but what is this ‘something of importance’? can you give me an example? kaka(
No. What is important to me changes with circumstances and the available knowledge. ”
Sorry, but this is hilarious. I don’t know how you did it, but you just quoted and answered your own question.
“NOW. How about you answer MY questions to you.”
Why don’t you just answer them yourself? Stupid questions deserve stupid answers.
“The list of questions you have been avoiding is getting longer and longer and longer and longer and ……
Anyone reading this would get the impression that you are completely stumped by them.”
Orly? Rosita… This piece of kaka is lying again! Not exactly “civil” of him, is it?
caseywollberg(Quote)
@ Pescador:
I noticed that too and thought about commenting on it; amusing. Of course the good cop, bad cop routine won’t work on kaka or his brothers-in-sophistry unless we get them in a dark room with an overhead light, in RL. Rosita can bring the cups of coffee and cigarettes and I’ll bring the phone book.
caseywollberg(Quote)
well…then can you give an example of what you’d accept as convincing evidence, given your current circumstances and available knowledge? i know you’re a highly intelligent person so surely you have some idea?
rosita, i’d welcome a response to the points in my post above at 1, 3, 4b) and 4c) if you don’t mind :)
if i’ve missed any questions, please post them – i can’t see any :)
kaka(Quote)
“casey, not everyone takes your view that ‘because it’s the internet’ we should leave our manners at the door and behave like pigs. you’re free to do as you like but don’t ask that we stoop down to your level please.”
Do you use sophistry for everything? Even when your mum tries to coax you out of your basement lair with promises of dinner? I never argued anyone should “behave like pigs” or “leave our manners at the door.” I was talking about responding with disdain to sophistry. And what I said about it was that it is useless and inappropriate to the medium and the purpose of debate to be overly concerned about tone, it often turns out to be hypocritical anyway, and in the case of responding to sophists, it is akin to being “civil” to pigs.
Being nice to sophists won’t cure their appalling behavior, so any “civility” you show them is pearls to swine. Do you get it yet that it is you who are behaving in an unseemly manner when you ignore your opponents’ strongest arguments, refuse to concede when it is warranted, dispense red herrings, engage in ad hominem and generally wreak rhetorical havoc instead of debating properly? That it is you who are behaving like a pig and leaving your manners at the door?
I’m under no obligation, whether on the Internet or on the street, to treat you with respect while you’re being obtuse and annoying the fuck out of me, pretending to be interested in honest debate when you are really only interested in getting that winning feeling, to say nothing of your complete disregard for the truth. I don’t check my manners at the door to the Intertubes. But I damn sure reserve the right to put them back in my pocket when I see they aren’t being reciprocated by slobs like you.
caseywollberg(Quote)
casey, you’re asking that i stop using ‘sophistry’, but in the same breath you defend your right to swear and curse others. do you see the hypocrisy?
kaka(Quote)
@kaka:
Oh, for fuck’s sake! Here, get a grip.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
I’m in the middle of a horrendously difficult house move. You are lucky I get time to answer anything right now. I started with the ones I thought to be the most salient.
You can very easily figure out what question I have asked by doing a search for question marks in my comments to you. Please do that and then count the ones that you have actually answered at some point. I hope that you are humbly horrified.
I asked you for your definition of “god”. I can’t answer what would make me believe in your version of this entity until I know what you actually believe. I can only guess that it is along the lines of the standard evangelical doctrines, but even then, I cannot be sure. No two people have the same idea about how or what god is so if I came up with something that might make me believe in “the god of the Chrisitian Bible” it would very probably not be the “god” you think is described in there.
As I said, without your answer it is an impossible question that cannot be answered.
If I developed partial seizures in the left temporal lobe then it is probable that I would start believing in the existence of something supernatural, in line with my personal background and experience. Most victims do. It is unlikely, however, that whatever my brain came up with would match your particular religious beliefs. I might become obsessed with the supposed words of Jesus that “the kingdom of god is within you”, and imagine myself to be a god or a sister of god or a buddhist christian at one with the universe.
So, answer the question: What are the characteristics that you give to “god”, and, just as importantly, what characteristics does this god _not_ have. Explain why you think this god is the only one portrayed in the christian bible and not one that your religious group has made up as a kind of wish-fulfillment by ignoring all biblical material that does not fit the description (is he a god of love and non-conditional positive regard or of anger , hate and tryrannical “forgiveness” ?) and ignoring the absence of material that supports it (the trinity, for example).
In other words, I want to how you define god and why.
Rosita(Quote)
i didn’t mean to pressure you rosita, i just didn’t want my questions to get lost in the deluge :)
let’s just say a generic monotheistic transcendent god who creates the universe and wants you to know that. what does he have to do to make you believe in him?
kaka(Quote)
rosita, i am happy to tackle any questions you have. but i don’t have the time or energy to chase down every objection so please repost the ones you feel are the most important.
kaka(Quote)
“let’s just say a generic monotheistic transcendent god who creates the universe and wants you to know that. what does he have to do to make you believe in him?”
Stop asking the question that way. It makes it meaningless. You’re speaking to people who don’t believe in any gods. If you want to get anywhere, ask it like this: “What would count as evidence for the existence of Yahweh?”
Here is what you would need to start building a case for Yahweh.
1) The non-existence of a historical account that tracks the invention and evolution of this deity among henotheistic groups throughout the Ancient Near East. X
2) Evidence of design in biology. XX
3) Traces of supernatural meddling in the early universe. XXX
4) Evidence that the earth stood still at one point in its history. XXXX
5) All “prophecies” made by him fulfilled, instead of all of them being utter failures. XXXXX
Five strikes and counting. There are lots of ways to falsify this particular deity and, guess what–you only need one. Any claim like this resembles a multi-legged stool, with each leg representing a sub-claim, upon which the larger claim rests. Knock out one leg and the stool falls, since the name “Yahweh” necessarily means all of these things–all the claims made for him (ostensibly by him) must necessarily be true (since he also claims never to lie) in order for this particular “god” to exist. So much for Yahweh, the “god” of the Bible. Who’s next?
caseywollberg(Quote)
@kaka
There is no such thing as a “generic monotheistic transcendent god”. That is your first mistake. There are thousands of different ones. Which one do YOU believe exists?
You have given me a few clues. Obviously the one you believe exists has a mind, a will, a personality, is male, created the universe, continues to exist, doesn’t like being ignored and is therefore capable of interacting and manifesting in the real world. Is that all?
If there is any kind of supernatural being that exists then it has yet to manifest itself to me in any way that is distinguishable from the effects of imagination, wishful thinking, social conformity, mass hypnosis, temporary temporal lobe malfunction, hallucination, cognitive bias and the effects of normal brain delusions and illusions. I have not experienced anything so far that differs from what could be expected if such a hypothetical being did not.
I cannot think of anything that would ever lead me to believe in the existence of a supernatural being who cannot interact in any way with the natural world with the one exception of causing this particular universe to get started.
It is extremely difficult to think of anything that would cause me to believe in a supernatural being that used to interact with the natural world but no longer does so. If there were some credible and unambiguous sign of such a prior interaction then it is nothing that I have ever come across in my 63 years. I could not speculate on what it could be but it would certainly not be anything contained in any of the differing books accepted as canonical by the Catholics, the Orthodox, the Armenians, the Coptics or the Protestants. These collections do not provide any valid proof of the past existence of the gods they discuss, and many of the characteristics they detail indicate that these “gods” were deeply flawed by today’s moral standards and in the light of modern behavioral and neurological science.
I also have no idea what could cause me to believe in a supernatural being that continues to exist in the supernatural realm and is also currently able to manifest in the natural realm. That’s like asking me what would convince me that there is life on other planets. I don’t know, but I will recognize when it is presented to me.
The odds of their being life somewhere else in the universe just took a flying leap up today, with the news of the discovery of an arsenic based bacteria. This adds another type of life form to the carbon based ones that make up 99.99 percent of life on this planet, and the rare sulphur based life forms recently discovered next to deep sea volcanic rifts. But until a scientist comes up with verifiable, repeatable and unambiguous evidence of life on another planet then it remains merely an increasingly likely possibility.
Likewise, the chances of their being a supernatural “personality” with a mind that is not dependent on a biological base is extremely remote, but not impossible. Like today’s newly discovered arsenic life forms, something might turn up that proves that such a thing exists, but I have no idea what it would be. However, the chances of such a life-form being anything like the ones dreamed up by humankind so far, is astronomically remote. It chances of it being anything like the supernatural being you believe exists are so close to zero that it might as well be treated as zero.
Rosita(Quote)
@casey
Good post!
You described the problem exactly.
Rosita(Quote)
@ Rosita: What did you expect, an expletive-laced diatribe?
caseywollberg(Quote)
@casey
LOL
Rosita(Quote)
What about historical documents like the biblical gospels?
Kaka(Quote)
Hearsay evidence. Absolutely no first indisputable first hand accounts. Very weak. So weak it is not admissible in any modern court of law that is concerned with getting to the truth of a matter because the information cannot be cross-examined or scientifically examined to investigate the extent of inevitable cognitive and perceptual bias. Many passages are incompatable, contradictory or historically wrong. It’s a very flawed document AS YOU WOULD KNOW IF YOU HAD BEEN ATTENDING TO THE ERHMAN-EVANS DEBATE. Your attentional mechanism and memory processor are failing to attend to and store huge amounts of data; your mind filters seem to be so effective that they would stand up under an A-bomb attack, even if you didn’t.
You remind me of the patients I see with half-visual field neglect. It can be proved that they “see” information in that field but that the brain does not attend to it and denies it exists. Information in the other field takes up all the processing room. Patients have a better chance of attending to the information in the faulty field if the correctly functioning side is covered. Victims draw half clocks, half houses and daisies with petals on only one side. Whole half bodies can be neglected as well. These patients walk around the hospital with only one leg in their pajamas or ring the nursing staff to ask that the strange arm in their bed be removed. They do not recognize this part of their body as their own, nor do they recognize that they are not perceiving correctly. They will come up with ingenious rationalizations to account for the odd phenomena. These people are not insane, they have simply lost the function of part of their brain.
While I am not assuming that you have lost part of your brain through stroke or head injury, I am suggesting that you have cognitive and emotional biases that effectively screen out part of reality so that you simply cannot see it as others do. We keep pointing out things, you keep “forgetting” the answers and continue to ask the same questions or make the same flawed point, as if you have never heard or attended to anything that you did not want to hear. When challenged, all you can do is say that you “don’t have time” to answer the questions or that you “don’t have much biblical knowledge”. How long is it that you have been Christian now?
See if you can overcome your filtering and recall system long enough to actually ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS that have already been asked. Let’s see how many more times your brain finds ways to avoid them.
Rosita(Quote)
@kaka
BTW, do you accept the historical record that the Roman emperors were gods? Or do you accept that extraordinary claims, like godhood, require extraordinary proof? Are you engaging in “special pleading” in relation to the claims made the godhood of Jesus?
NOTICE: These are QUESTIONS that you have been asked and they require an ANSWER FROM YOU.
Rosita(Quote)
“What about historical documents like the biblical gospels?”
Are you kidding me? One word: Ehrman. You aren’t even trying. Have you been reduced to tears yet?
At any rate, this is the divine Jesus “god” you’re whining about now, a “god” that wholly depends on the Yahweh “god.” You haven’t addressed the disproof of Yahweh, so you don’t get to ignore that and move on to divine Jesus, since divine Jesus is moot without Yahweh. Disproof of Yahweh is sufficient to disprove divine Jesus, while proof of Yahweh is necessary but not sufficient to prove divine Jesus. Get it?
So, since I have shown how Yahweh is impossible, Ehrman’s findings are redundant with regard to divine Jesus, but damningly so. By contrast, you have offered nothing by way of defense for either Yahweh or divine Jesus. How much evidence will it take to convince you?
Now, faith is another thing. Would you like to claim faith? Fine. Then don’t claim knowledge, or even evidence. You can’t have it both ways. Faith or evidence. Which is it? Note (again) that you have no evidence. None. And the evidence is in fact stacked against you, as has been demonstrated again and again.
Therefore, I suggest you retreat to faith. Or invent a new god that is harder to falsify. But remember that a claim which is non-falsifiable also cannot be supported by evidence. So, you’re stuck with faith, I’m afraid–unless you can come up with a falsifiable claim that 1) is supported by evidence and 2) resists falsification. Yahweh and divine Jesus are falsifiable claims that fail to be supported by evidence and fail to resist falsification. The claims are total failures. I don’t know how many ways I can say it before you’ll understand.
caseywollberg(Quote)
You say it’s weak and yet scholars say historical truth can be found. Who do I believe? Who is more credible?
Kaka(Quote)
rosita, would your diagnosis of a man’s voice on a podcast be admissable in a modern court of law? who’s using special pleading now?
kaka(Quote)
you might find this site tektonics interesting:
did jesus exist – http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html
was jesus based on pagan myths – http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
kaka(Quote)
(Modified from the original for greater clarity)
1. What are the characteristics that you give to “god”? Why?
2. What characteristics does this god _not_ have? Why?
perfect love, justice, grace, all-knowing, all-powerful. see bible
3. Why do you think this god is the only one portrayed in the christian bible and not one that your religious group has made up as a kind of wish-fulfillment
?
4. What biblical material are you aware of that does not fit part of all of the description (for example, is he a god of love and non-conditional positive regard or of anger , hate and tyrannical “forgiveness” ?)
?
5. Are you aware of parts of your description that are not supported by biblical material or only by disputed or apocryphal passages (for example, the doctrine of the trinity, Jesus’ attitude to adultery and stoning)?
?
could you clarify your questions please? the last 3 don’t make sense.
kaka(Quote)
oh you might also find these podcasts with gary habermas interesting – he studies the historicity of the resurrection:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/audio/audio.htm
kaka(Quote)
@ Rosita:
So, you still think kaka is not a sophist? Hey, kaka: FUCK OFF.
caseywollberg(Quote)
just going over your post again rosita, i’m not sure we’re on the same page about how historians do history and how they sort fact from myth, who said what, etc.
so i’d recommend this podcast from new testament historian gary habermas where he gives an overview. would be great to hear what you think.
http://takethestand.typepad.com/take_the_stand/2010/08/the-veracity-of-the-new-testament.html
kaka(Quote)
“BTW, do you accept the historical record that the Roman emperors were gods? Or do you accept that extraordinary claims, like godhood, require extraordinary proof? Are you engaging in “special pleading” in relation to the claims made the godhood of Jesus?”
well i accept what historians themselves say about roman emperors. what do they say? do they say they were gods? what ‘historical record’ says this? can you provide a link?
kaka(Quote)
“Many passages are incompatable, contradictory or historically wrong. It’s a very flawed document”
i’m not sure historians would agree. the ones on the podcast for example. also:
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Testament_in_the_Original_Greek#cite_note-0: “our belief that even among the numerous unquestionably spurious readings of the New Testament there are no signs of deliberate falsification of the text for dogmatic purposes.” – westcott and hort
from: http://takethestand.typepad.com/take_the_stand/2010/08/the-veracity-of-the-new-testament.html, atheist antony flew said (paraphrase) the new testament is the best document from the ancient world
from: from: http://takethestand.typepad.com/take_the_stand/2010/08/the-veracity-of-the-new-testament.html, westcott and hort say the textual variances in the new testament do not prevent the text from being 99% accurate
from: http://takethestand.typepad.com/take_the_stand/2009/09/a-debate-on-the-resurrection-of-jesus-christ.html, gary habermas quotes ehrman who said seven of paul’s letters are authentic and can be relied upon, including chapter 15 in 1 corinithians which contains paul’s gospel message that jesus died, was buried, rose from the dead and appeared to christians and non-believers. the jesus seminar, a group of skeptical historians, also place a high degree of trust on paul’s writings
kaka(Quote)
” Or do you accept that extraordinary claims, like godhood, require extraordinary proof?”
if the god of the universe revealed himself in history then i want to check what the historians say. if they say there was once a man called jesus who made radical personal claims to be the son of man then i say, as cs lewis did ‘ok so was this man a lunatic, a liar or the lord?’
i hope the move is going well :) i eagerly await your answers to my questions above :)
kaka(Quote)
“if they say there was once a man called jesus who made radical personal claims to be the son of man then i say, as cs lewis did ‘ok so was this man a lunatic, a liar or the lord?’”
LOL, C.S. Lewis! He wrote superficial religious propaganda for children! Grow up already.
His so-called “trilemma” is a false choice, which is obvious to anyone with a brain or who is honest (which deficiency do you claim for yourself?). Other possibilities not offered are, of course, that Jesus was a myth, that “his” claims were words put in his mouth by the authors of the passages ascribed to him, that he was deluded, that he was drunk or high when he said those things, that he was joking, etc.
All of these possibilities are far more plausible than the “lord” hypothesis, and there’s absolutely no good reason to believe the latter. It doesn’t make any sense. As has already been demonstrated (without challenge from you), Jesus as “lord” is a failed hypothesis, in no small part because Yahweh is a failed hypothesis. You have no evidence for either of these beings and the former depends on the latter. All you’ve got is a spurious and moot claim that the gospels are reliable as historical documents with regard to accounts of supernatural events. And the only way you can “support” it is by appealing to the presumed and biased “authority” of evangelical pseudo-historians. You can’t even make your own arguments! Show me a mainstream historian who will put her career on the line by endorsing such nonsense, and I’ll show you an individual who has solved her cognitive dissonance by running away from the truth, or whose reasoning powers have deteriorated with senility–like Antony Flew, since you brought him up. You theists are demented little ghouls, preying on the weak to prop up your own faith. It makes me sick.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“gary habermas quotes ehrman who said seven of paul’s letters are authentic and can be relied upon, including chapter 15 in 1 corinithians which contains paul’s gospel message that jesus died, was buried, rose from the dead and appeared to christians and non-believers. the jesus seminar, a group of skeptical historians, also place a high degree of trust on paul’s writings”
Are you honestly trying to argue to intelligent people that this agnostic and these skeptics endorse the supernatural claims in Paul’s writings? Of course you aren’t–not honestly! This is pure sophistry, as is to be expected from a sophist. Take your weak little faith and fuck off.
@ Rosita: Is it starting to sink in yet?
caseywollberg(Quote)
“well i accept what historians themselves say about roman emperors. what do they say? do they say they were gods? what ‘historical record’ says this? can you provide a link?”
Way to miss the point, genius. The “historical records,” analogous to your “historical record” in the Bible, that Rosita was referring to include (but are certainly not limited to) the Iiad and the Odyssey. But we can also talk about the “historical record” to be found in the Norse Eddas or the Hindu Vedas or… Do you get the point yet? Just spout some more sophistry if the answer is “yes,” since I know that’s all you’re capable of.
caseywollberg(Quote)
It could be and has been. It depends on what is being “diagnosed”.
You need to read the bible a lot more thoroughly. You have presented only part of the god described in the bible. You have proved that you really don’t know this god. You have made one to suit yourself, and it is not the one portrayed in fullness in the bible.
It’s like the people who are shocked when their neighbor is found to be a sadistic killer because he had always seemed such a nice person. The prisons are full of people like this. In fact, many killers are among the nicest and best behaved prisoners.
Yep :-) Kaka can’t or won’t answer questions. He simply asks another question, and the arguments are getting weaker and sillier.
I think you anwered the most salient idiocies as well, or better, than I could have. Lewis’s “liar, lunatic or lord” trilemma is an example of a logical fallacy: forced choice which excludes other possibilities. One you possibility that you omitted: genuine miscomprehension and faulty attribution. Kaka seems completely unable to get past the idea that the only way the bible could be untrue is if the writers were deliberately telling untruths. He clearly lacks a knowledge of the basics of social psychology: 1. Everyone lies without being aware of it. 2. Everyone tells untruths when they believe they are telling the truth. 3.”Truth” can be relative; what is true in one situation may be untrue in another. 4. There is such a thing as partial truth, which makes the total statement false. 5. People who are deluded or the victim of illusions are neither lying nor telling verifiable truth.
His choice of historian “authorities” is unrepresentative.
Anthony Flew may now be a “deist” but he is certainly not a “theist”. In spite of his declining cognitive powers and increasing dementia he is still does not believe in the god of Abraham, Moses, Jesus or Kaka. I think it is very funny that evangelicals gave him an award for changing his mind to believe in “god”. His version of “god” is the antithesis of theirs, but they lack the education and insight to realize this.
I am about to have my internet access cut off for a while, so I must bow out of this degenerating debate.
Rosita(Quote)
what you’re saying goes against my everyday firsthand experience. i speak to christians all the time at church – you know what? they’re not deluded! they are rational everyday people! we have religious discussions all the time where we question the bible, jesus’ sayings, etc. yes we even talk about the old testament like in isaiah when god basically goes on a killing spree and topples the nations of egypt, babylon and samaria one by one. and he can do that. you know why – because he’s the creator and it’s only by his grace that we remain alive. there are times when i find this unpalatable but that’s because i am only just beginning to understand that god is the centre of all things, not me.
yes we talk about these apparently contradictory characteristics of god in the old testament – what you tell me is nothing new. and when you look at it from god’s view, it makes sense. we’re not all trying to twist or minds into pretzels to sustain an elaborate lie – god is real for me and he’s real for (i hope) other christians too.
i think your view requires a great deal of faith. it takes a lot of faith for me to believe that christians have, for centuries, been spreading lies which they aren’t aware of. can misapprehension sustain a global movement over 2000 years? it just seems implausible to me. i note this is different to what you were originally arguing which was that christians try to ‘rationalise’ their beliefs by ignoring contrary evidence. and how do christians go about spreading this misapprehension? i’d be really interested in hearing your theory on that :)
and some of these apparently deluded christians have risen through the ranks to become professors at secular universities – how do these crazy people get tenure at a university? even more strangely enough, their views overlap with atheist scholars like ep sanders or gerd ludermann. maybe you don’t believe these scholars are authoritative. well how about skeptical scholars like dominic crossan or marcus borg at the jesus seminar? if not who do you take to be authoritative?
i’m so glad you mentioned flew. that quote by the way was from 2002 when he was an atheist.
kaka(Quote)
trilemma – casey did a sneaky bit of sophistry there and misquoted me. i actually said “if the god of the universe revealed himself in history then i want to check what the historians say.” so assuming you take the mainstream view that jesus actually existed and was not a myth, then that is the starting point to seeking what historians have discovered about him.
rosita i can’t help but notice that despite your hectic schedule, you have managed to write long and elaborate posts which all avoid the points i made earlier, most notably:
1. how do we know the eyewitnesses didn’t have the manuscripts read out to them for checking? how do we know some of them did not speak greek?
2. i think you’re overstating the case when you say the christian message is ‘vague’. i can’t name any cults apart from mormons and i know little of their doctrine, if they even have any. yet i can walk into any church in sydney and get a clear, confident response when i ask what they believe. moreover, the proliferation of christian cults doesn’t cast doubt on the basic christian message in john 3:16 and 1 corinthians 15. it just casts doubt on the cults.
3. i also believe the bible has errors. but that’s normal for ancient historical documents. if the bible didn’t have errors, that would probably lead historians to suspect it was a forgery. so the presence of errors and discrepancies actually convince me that the bible is authentic history.
4b) i’m interested in hearing about the biblical discrepancies which affect core faith issues (like 1 cor 15 for example) you mentioned.
c) i don’t think the historical truth of a document is affected by the impact it would have on someone’s life is it? i don’t think historians consider that.
please take care with your move and if you have time, i’d be really interested in your response to 4b) for example, particularly since you seem so well-versed on theology and religion.
i will be taking a break too. as much i like discussing ideas with people online, i think god may be calling me to other things. bye for now and please take care of yourselves over the christmas season, rosita and casey :)
kaka(Quote)
Goddamn, that’s one prolific spew of idiocy. Keep fooling yourself, kaka, you confused little sheep.
“trilemma – casey did a sneaky bit of sophistry there and misquoted me. i actually said “if the god of the universe revealed himself in history then i want to check what the historians say.””
Wha? Seriously, what the fuck? You’re the one who quoted Lewis’ supposed “trilemma.” Are you mentally retarded? You can’t even keep up with your own nonsense. That, or this is a really desperate and weak sophism.
“i’m so glad you mentioned flew. that quote by the way was from 2002 when he was an atheist.”
YOU mentioned him! For Jesus’ sweet mythological sake, don’t you even know what you type? My response to your fellow theists’ using Flew as an argument (argument from senile authority?), was this:
“You theists are demented little ghouls, preying on the weak to prop up your own faith. It makes me sick.”
“…as much i like discussing ideas with people online…”
Is that what you call it? I call it two otherwise sensible people trying to argue with a brick wall covered in theist graffiti.
caseywollberg(Quote)
casey, i’m glad you’re letting your anger out instead of keeping it bottled up. if you want to keep talking, feel free to email me at sittinginaquietroom@gmail.com. cheers :)
kaka(Quote)
1. how do we know the eyewitnesses didn’t have the manuscripts read out to them for checking? how do we know some of them did not speak greek?
Eyewitnesses spoke aramaic and possibly understood Hebrew. They were illiterate in both. They did not understand Greek . The New Testament books were all written in Greek by Gentiles, probably outside Israel. There were no telephones, planes or cars.
2. i think you’re overstating the case when you say the christian message is ‘vague’. i can’t name any cults apart from mormons and i know little of their doctrine, if they even have any. yet i can walk into any church in sydney and get a clear, confident response when i ask what they believe. moreover, the proliferation of christian cults doesn’t cast doubt on the basic christian message in john 3:16 and 1 corinthians 15. it just casts doubt on the cults.
You are very ignorant. For example, the Catholic church, the Coptic Church, the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church do not believe that they are the true churches and that Protestant churches and especially the evangelical stream, are cults. The Catholic church believes that “faith without works is dead”. Evangelicals believe “faith” in the “correct” things is all that is necessary and deny that “works” are required at all. There are many other differences. You lead a religiously sheltered existence.
The Bible has been called the Great Big Book of Multiple Choice. I can be used to support a whole range of contradictory beliefs and practices. There is even dispute over which Books are part of the Bible. The Protestants (Luther) threw out a whole lot of books that were part of the Canon decided in the 3rd century. That makes Luther out to be more authoratative (infallible?) than the early Church Fathers.
http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/charts/denominations_beliefs.htm
Comparison of christian denomination differences:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm
Includes historical and liberal/conservative differences
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1426700482/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_2?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0687069831&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0ZJ0CX78Z5B2ABB4ATHC#reader_1426700482
Summary of beliefs of American Churches
3. i also believe the bible has errors. but that’s normal for ancient historical documents. if the bible didn’t have errors, that would probably lead historians to suspect it was a forgery. so the presence of errors and discrepancies actually convince me that the bible is authentic history.
Historians _do_ believe that parts of the Bible are “forgeries” and deliberate additions (to “correct” things by adding in “missing” accounts of the resurrection, for example). They also believe that most of the differences are due to unconscious human bias and transcription error.
4b) i’m interested in hearing about the biblical discrepancies which affect core faith issues (like 1 cor 15 for example) you mentioned.
I haven’t time to list the huge numbers of these things. YOu can find a list of them on many sceptical sites. Go look them up, yourself. I am sure Casey would be happy to direct you.
@Casey. Can you help out here?
c) i don’t think the historical truth of a document is affected by the impact it would have on someone’s life is it? i don’t think historians consider that.
Neither do I. But you were comparing apples and oranges: the reality of Caesar’s existence and Jesus’s existence. The first is unimportant to you, the second is not. You would be better to compare the reality of the historically claimed divinity of Caesar and the historically claimed divinity of Jesus . Or, indeed, the historically claimed divinity of hundreds of people who lived (or supposedly lived) in the Middle East around that time. Your idea of “historical accuracy” relies on a warped idea which includes special pleading for your particular deity.
Finally, deluded people do not know that they are deluded so talking to them will not prove anything. What you seem to be completely unaware of is the well known concept (among all mental health workers) of encapsulated delusions. People with these kinds of delusions can operate perfectly normally in all areas outside the domain of these delusions. I have known many of them, some quite eminent. A popular example, that you will have heard of, are those who believe they have been abducted by aliens, and are perfectly sane in every other respect.
Religious believers suffer from socially sanctioned delusions which are maintained by frequent affirmations from others who share the beliefs and by carefully shielding the beliefs from rational scrutiny without support from other believers.
Religious believers are not insane. They are often very nice people who are well socialized and friendly. They try to make make their religious beliefs match their socialized beliefs about what is right and good. They are uncomfortable when they cannot do this.
I find your defense of your god’s right to behave in a grossly anti-social manner, quite appalling. I am sure I am not alone there. Your arguments are, frankly, quite frightening and grossly offensive. Hitler’s very Catholic and Lutheran soldiers justified their torture and cruelty to the Jews because they believed that they were on the side of god. Their belt buckles said “God with us”. Christians of that time, both Catholic and Protestant, believed that Jews were the enemies of their god and therefore deserved to treated as less than human. If you believe differently then it is because you have been socialized differently by secular influences. It is not because the Bible supports you.
Rosita(Quote)
Rosita
Does “cult” mean something different in Australia than in America? Because the Catholic Church certainly does not say that Protestant denominations, even the more evangelical ones, are cults.
Zeb(Quote)
hey thanks for replying! :)
1. ok so NOT ONE of the eyewitnesses spoke greek? i’ve heard that FEW people spoke greek but not that NO ONE did. that’s a very strong claim you’re making. jesus preached in greek-speaking regions for example. and even if NONE of the eyewitnesses spoke greek, could later converts have spoken it and worked alongside eyewitnesses in checking manuscripts?
2. yes rosita, i’m aware that denominations differ in their detail. but my point was – they have the same interpretation of the basic christian message in john 3:16 and 1 cor 15. churches which preach a different message are not true churches (gal 1:8) and are probably cults (mormons fall into this category). i was inviting you to show me where churches differ in their interpretation of the basic christian message. you haven’t done that.
3. ah yes the old conspiracy theory about christians inserting passages into the bible. rosita – what REPUTABLE scholars hold this view today? here’s popular author ken humphreys taken to task for that view: http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={6F8A97D2-2B10-475F-B0DD-3D0A13E7F98B}
as for bias – the roman historian tacitus is known to be biased towards the roman empire. yet his annals are considered to be one of the most reliable sources from the ancient world for information on the roman empire. almost all ancient history is biased in the sense that few authors were disinterested and most people wrote about things they cared about. but historians don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater, rosita, they work with what they have.
as for errors, check the link above to what westcott and hort say. maybe you don’t think they are ‘authoritative’? why not? these guys compiled the greek source text for the new testament on which bible translations are based – i don’t think you can get any authoritative than that.
4b) so there’s a ‘huge number’ is there, too many to list? in that case, can you name just one biblical discrepancy that affects the core christian message in 1 cor 15? i think it goes without saying we’re only interested in claims by mainstream scholars, not internet fringe theorists.
c) caesar’s divinity…should we put cristiano ronaldo in the same box? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2010/feb/22/cristiano-ronaldo-real-madrid-villarreal) you have to read things in context, rosita.
and now we’ve come full circle to mental delusions and hitler’s lutheran soldiers…rosita, i’ll just say this – please don’t suppress the truth or harden your heart to the truth. we live in an age of irrelevant information, don’t let that get in the way of you finding the truth (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A18-32&version=NIV). i wish you and your son a merry christmas and perhaps we’ll talk again in the new year :)
kaka(Quote)
@kaka
“please don’t suppress the truth or harden your heart to the truth. we live in an age of irrelevant information, don’t let that get in the way of you finding the truth”
so knowledge is wickedness?
I’ve been following this exchange and I would have bet that you are being purposely obtuse, except that I intimately know so many others like you that I’m sure that you really mean/believe the things that you say.
In the end, the thing that irks me the most is that smarmy, condescending attitude that believers have as if they have a patent on truth — pretending to know things that no one could possibly know while clearly knowing very little about the things that are actually knowable. You know, the hard won knowledge that the world actually builds off of.
Kaka, you are outmatched by your opponents. You cannot even form your own arguments, instead you overly rely on the views of others.
Every point that was presented to you, whether politely or forcefully, has fallen on deaf ears. You simply are not prepared to dispassionately assess the data or evidence, and let the chips fall where they may.
@Rosita / Casey
I really enjoyed reading your responses. It expanded this subject a great deal for me. Thanks!
Pescador(Quote)
Hi All
It’s been an interesting read. One thing is for sure, there are still people passionate about “Truth”. A few minds have expressed their views and I felt it would be nice if these minds are also thirsty for “Truths” in our very current system (economically, geographically, sociologically, politically, blah blah blah. You get my point)
For me, these are things happening in our own time, perhaps we could spend more time in today…
For those who are already doing this, may the truth find you.
It’s not to stir up conspiracies by the way :) It’s more to do with possessing a true thirst for truth.
I hope my post makes sense.
Happy New Year!
ps: my post may be deemed as unrelated to the topic. Apologies :)
larry(Quote)
@Larry: I was just thinking about that. If it’s the correspondence theory of truth you’re into, then I’m right with you. The cult I escaped from had a slogan they hammered at every opportunity: “love of the truth.” Of course, by “the truth” they meant their teachings, and to “love” it meant to accept it first and then work hard to confirm your indoctrinated bias. I’ve come a long way since then, to the point where I notice the same phenomenon from my cult days cropping up in popular political and conspiracy theory movements in the U.S. I like that Russell quote: “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” And doubt, of course, is the way to truth, rather than an end in itself.
caseywollberg(Quote)
“please don’t suppress the truth or harden your heart to the truth. we live in an age of irrelevant information, don’t let that get in the way of you finding the truth”
And this quote from the illustrious kaka aptly demonstrates what I was talking about. The ones who hate truth are unfortunately the ones who shout the word “truth” the loudest. Maybe it’s time to take the word back.
This, from Pescador, nailed it:
“In the end, the thing that irks me the most is that smarmy, condescending attitude that believers have as if they have a patent on truth — pretending to know things that no one could possibly know while clearly knowing very little about the things that are actually knowable. You know, the hard won knowledge that the world actually builds off of.”
That should be the last word on kaka, another word for what its namesake is full of.
caseywollberg(Quote)
I see much debate has focussed on the accuracy or otherwise of the New Testament books. Whilst that is undoubtedly an interesting subject to debate, I’d like to open it up by asking why Jesus isn’t mentioned by other writers of the era.
One that springs immediately to mind is Philo.
Philo Judaeus wrote many books about Jewish religion and history. He lived in Alexandria in the 30s and 40s, and visited Jerusalem often (he had family there). He was, therefore, contemporary with Jesus and Paul. He developed the concept of the ‘Logos’ and the Holy Spirit and was even considered a Christian by some later writers. He wrote a great deal about the people and issues of the times and yet of Jesus there is no mention.
Other writers/historians who could have been expected to mention Jesus would include:
Seneca. (Early Christians were so convinced that he should have mentioned Jesus that they forged letters between him and Paul.)
Plutarch. He wrote much on notable Roman figures, politics, spiritual and religious issues, oracles & prophesies. He wrote about figures contemporary to Jesus but, again, of Jesus there is no mention.
Justus. He wrote a history of Jewish Kings in Galilee in the 1st century. Again, not a word about Jesus.
Bikerman(Quote)
I think that most Bible scholars would agree that John 21 is a later addition (forgery).
The same goes for John 7:53 to 8:11 and for John 5:3-4.
Matthew 17:21 is a duplicate of Mark 9:29 – most likely added by a copyist.
Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest manuscripts and appears to be a composite of passages from Luke and John.
Revelation 1:11 in the KJV is certainly invented – it doesn’t appear in the Greek manuscripts at all.
There are quite a few more that scholars debate, but the ones above are accepted by most bible scholars as forgeries/additions.
Bikerman(Quote)
@Casey
I wasn’t really thinking in terms of theories. I was speaking more from the rudimentary level – Cos you never hear your woman fart, don’t mean women don’t fart… type thing :)
With regards to doubt and it being a way to truth, it sounds like “doubt” in this sense is a tool. However, as with every tool, one has to know what “problem” that tool is suited to and when to pull it out of the tool box.
To me, the supposedly “stupid” have one thing that they do differently – they don’t apply their allegedly limited mind capacity to the level of bickering/scrutiny that the supposedly intelligent do.
People with admirable intelligence forget that that intelligence is also a tool. Most have come to regard it as an end in itself.
Like you said, you’ve noticed some certain traits cropping up in politics that you recognize from your cult days. You mind is therefore alert enough to notice these similarities.
Is the fact that you’ve noticed these similarities where you stop or do you engage with other minds vigorously as you have done here? (With an ultimate aim of discovering the Truth)
I like to witness minds meeting because I am finding myself witnessing less and less of it in these current times. However, it’s always a joy to see minds meeting to address issues of the current day as opposed to them simply engaging in mind masturbation!! (That’s the most accurate term I could coin. lol)
Oh yeah, this is not meant as a questioning of you (as I’m sure you know) but my explanation of my interest in Truth :)
Larry(Quote)
@Larry: 10-4 on all of that. But then I wonder where you stand on truth as an “end in itself.” :) I’m reminded of Alan Watts asking what the objective of dancing is. Just like dancing, I feel that intelligence can be thought of as something besides a tool.
caseywollberg(Quote)
@Casey
lol
Yep, there may be some truths that may be an “end in itself”.
Intelligence is something besides a tool is of course correct. But much like a lot of things, you can ALWAYS find a “USE” for it.
So let more people “use” it and start debating “today”. :))))))
ps: If you see Alan Watts (don’t actually know of him), tell him that Dancing is what he decides to make of it.
Dancing could be used to attract a potential mate, it could be used to de-stress, it could be used as exercise, or it could be used as plain old dancing. Dancing has even been used to prevent a fight before (and I’m not talking Michael Jackson and the gangs in Beat It!) lol
Larry(Quote)
Jesus and Paul disagreed because Jesus taught under the old covenant, and Paul taught under the new. This is among the most basic principles for understanding the Bible, and it’s sad that so many Christians are both unaware of it and misled by it as if it were a contradiction.
The purpose of Christ’s teaching was to bury us under the law and make the case for a new covenant. Bob George’s “Classic Christianity” is a good resource for understanding this principle.
I find it ironic you became an atheist–a position you would need proof for, and one for which there is no proof. The only rational position without proof is agnosticism. But if you want proof, there’s always Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” for those looking for truth.
Anen(Quote)
Jesus and Paul disagreed because Jesus taught under the old covenant, and Paul taught under the new. This is among the most basic principles for understanding the Bible, and it’s sad that so many Christians are both unaware of it and misled by it as if it were a contradiction.
The purpose of Christ’s teaching was to bury us under the law and make the case for a new covenant. Bob George’s “Classic Christianity” is a good resource for understanding this principle.
I find it ironic you became an atheist–a position you would need proof for, and one for which there is no proof. The only rational position without proof is agnosticism. But if you want proof, there’s always Josh McDowell’s “Evidence that Demands a Verdict” for those looking for truth.
Anen(Quote)
@Anen.
I guess that means that your a follower of Paul, not Jesus. Like most modern day Christians, that makes you a Paulian Christian (one who follows a modified doctrine aimed at the Gentiles), not a Jesusite Christian (one who follows the original doctrine aimed at the Jews). The original Messianic teaching died out. When Rome was looking for a nation-unifying religion they choose its offshot: Paulianity, because it did not require that its followers become Jews and follow the rules set out by the original Yahweh war god that had “chosen” this nation to be its followers.
McDowell is no scholar. What he considers to be “evidence” is so weak that it usually convinces only those who already believe that particular brand of Christianity, or those who have not examined all sides of the case.
Rosita(Quote)
Grammar alert. The above entry should read : “… that means you’re a follower of Paul”. Dunno how I missed it. :-(
Rosita(Quote)
Just wanted you to know that your deconversion process seems like it was a lot like mine. I’m a little bit older than you (I think), but I was nonetheless inspired and encouraged after reading it. Thank you for publishing it like this. You write really well.
Daniel Habtemariam(Quote)
Thanks, Daniel.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
Hi Luke.
Thanks for sharing your deconversion story. I’m the child of missionary parents and spent my youth overseas. It sounds like we have similar stories. I’ve been studying atheism for about two years. My boyfriend is an atheist (who grew up in a christian home) and I’ve been picking his brain for the past year about this stuff. I’ve come to terms, within myself, that I am an atheist, but I’ve not come out to my family. I don’t know how I will, but I am encouraged by your story.
Again, thanks!
Berlyqs
berlyqs(Quote)
berlyqs,
Cool.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
listen a priest should never be rich he should live in a simple cell so nothing can distract him from his faith, that how every holy man has lived since the dawn of time (several billion years ago) though the image of a holy man raptor make’s me laugh.
olde world guy(Quote)
The Nigerian Scam has widened to include atheists. Hilarious.
Rosita(Quote)
A great man once said “The capacity for good or evil, like the Force itself, is in all living creatures. And belonging to the Jedi Order, or the Sith, or any group, won’t change what you are at your core.” It doesn’t matter what you believe, its how you live. i have faith in a greater power but its not the christian god, be good to people and good shall be returned to you, thats my believe
Logan Creed(Quote)
@Logan Creed
And you are a great man for having this belief [And surely applying it].
The prophet in my faith said, “Don’t harm yourself and don’t harm others”. Adding this to what you said forms the core of any [True] religion.
Saleh(Quote)
I thought this was well written. Life is so much better as an atheist. Being raised Roman Catholic, it took me a while to fully reject the church. I was never really a big fan of church, always went because my parents forced me to. But I still told people I was a Catholic and believed in God. Over time I was introduced to new ideas and realized atheism was for me.
Chris Banuchi(Quote)
Thank you. Thank you so much for sharing your story. I have been struggling for a while now with my views on the existence of a higher power. As a child I was raised in the church by my grandparents. Ours was a very strict following of the bible. The church taught against things like wearing makeup and jewelry, hemlines the fell above the knee, even cutting your hair…all with scriptures from the Bible supporting them (granted, I believe now that some of those were taken out of context). If you ever get a chance, go to tcognc.org and you can read some of their literature. There were so many rules to follow. But as a child I thought this was normal. They preached to us that other believers were bound for hell for not following these rules. We were the only true followers of God.
As an adult I have begun to realize that a lot of what I was taught was wrong. But it was so ingrained in my mind that I have had a hard time letting it go. I still get scared that I am going to hell for leaving the church. But your story has given me hope. You have been able to let go of the guilt and be happy with the decision you made. And I believe that I can do the same now.
Thank you again for sharing such a personal and honest experience.
Mrs. W(Quote)
Religion is about loving god, atheism is about loving humanity. One is truly a humanitarian enterprise whereas the other is a power and money institution.
bent(Quote)
Wow, truly a great story. This is a different perspective and experience from mine that has really provoked thought. I can’t remember not being an atheist! Even though I was brought up in a Jewish family, I realized at an early age that I didn’t believe that this God guy exists. The fact that you were very Christian up until 19 gives you a very different perspective. When I encounter a theist who is discussing their beliefs, I just can’t understand what it feels like to have faith in a god. You, on the other hand, are well-versed in the Bible and can relate to and sympathize with the theist. When I get angry and annoyed at this person for being naive, you can see what he sees. This story has allowed me to see your perspective and to alter mine.
jared(Quote)
Just happened to stumble on this website using StumbleUpon but I found this blog to be an extremely interesting, quick read. And it was very uplifting to hear that there are young men, like me, out there that are sharing this story because it is exactly like mine! I grew up attending small baptist churches, attending christian schools, and completely believing everything my pastor, parents, and teachers taught wholeheartedly. And around the same age all those beliefs changed for me in a similar manner to yours! Anyways, great writing and I’m glad that you’ve published your story for others to find encouragement within.
Jacob Monroe(Quote)
Thanks for the inspiring story. I haven’t met any atheists in my life so far that used to be christians, a little depressing I suppose. It’s good to know I’m not alone!
Samantha(Quote)
Thanks, Samantha.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
I used to be agnostic, until I had a deep conversation with a friend of mine. She made me realize that I was pretty much doing the unavoidable: admitting to myself that I did not believe in God either. It’s been a tough road, but it’s so much bigger now that I can discover fact on my own, instead of following a religion blindly just for the sake of believing.
The Jenn(Quote)
Hey Luke, I know I’m two years late on this, but I was on stumbleupon.com and came across this blog. You have a very odd and interesting story. I’m confused about something though, how is it you experienced God yet now you deny His existence? I’m hoping you won’t respond with, “the mind can trick you into thinking/feeling different ‘supernatural’ phenomena.” I’ve personally never experienced anything like shaking, sweating, uncontrollable joy, etc. like many charismatic Christians do, but I always find it very odd when someone is extremely connected with God and can feel His presence and then one day decides it’s not there. If God does not exist, can you explain your experiences with Him and the other feelings you felt when you were a Christian that made you feel so connected to Him?
mike(Quote)
You are confused. Agnosticism deals specifically with the realm of knowledge (epistemology), whereas atheism is in the realm of belief.
Therefore, you can be, and many people are, both an atheist and an agnostic.
Pescador(Quote)
Hey Luke.
I too came across your story through stumbleupon. I’m truly happy that you’ve found YOUR way to life YOUR life. Not a lot of people brought up in a household like yours could have done that. I personally was raised by parents who had some type of faith but never forced it on my brothers or I. We were of course raised with certain values and morals, which coincide with those that were taught to my christian friends, but I was never dunked in holy water. My friends and I don’t differ much in how we feel about the world and I thinks that’s neat because we all have different, if secret, ideas. I particularily thought your story was amazing because I actually stopped to read it. I’m not usually one to enjoy debating religion or belief, truthfully it just makes me mad. But this was a different case. I guess what I’m trying to say is thanks and you’re incredible. You’ll do big things in this world, and you don’t have to be like Jesus to do them (who I think was just a regular dude who did good stuff anyways).
Cheers to all the good times you had and the even better times you will have!
oxoxLauren
ps. Mike…. think of when you used to believe in Santa Claus! :)
Lauren(Quote)
Thanks Lauren.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
Lauren, looking back on the days when I believed in Santa Clause, I can’t seem to remember any times where I had supernatural experiences concerning him like Luke claims to have had with God. If Luke really did experience those things and other people experience “supernatural” things, then what is it they are experiencing if there are no such thing as supernatural forces? Maybe that clarified it for you a little bit. It’s a bit hard to relate a childhood imagination with a supernatural experience.
Mike(Quote)
Mike, you didn’t have supernatural experiences about Santa because you weren’t programmed to expect them. It’s as simple as that.
Neuro-science provides several explanations for why people have “supernatural” or “transcental” experiences but they are all based in people’s prior knowledge, experience, and expectation. No matter the cause of a “supernatural” experience it is always within the realm of someone’s stored memories and information. Muslims schizophrenics do not hallucinate Christ, Protestant epileptics do not see visions of the Catholic saints, starving sleep deprived Hindus do not experience fellowship with the One True God, meditating Buddhists do not have warm fuzzy feelings of Jesus and mesmerized participants in a Charismatic rally do not babble in Arabic, find themselves experiencing Oneness with the Universe or hear the thundering voice of Thor.
The most usual cause of “supernatural” experience is externally or self-induced trance that causes a temporary shut down of part of the right parietal lobe of the brain. The illusion of a “sensed presence” can be experimentally induced in normal people by a “god helmet” (Michael Persinger of Lauristan University) which targets these areas with a strong magnetic pulse. The most common pathological cause of gold illusions is abnormal functioning of the left temporal lobe of the brain leading to sub-clinical epileptic spikes that may, or may not, be interspersed with episodes of full blown temporal lobe epilepsy.
Conversely, some neurological states prevent a person from experiencing ecstatic, trance, transcendental or charismatic phenomena. People with conditions that interfere with concentration (ADHD), social functioning (Aspberger’s syndrome) or flexibility of thinking (damage to the frontal lobes of the brain) are usually immune. This suggests that all three of these characteristics are needed to have a personal experience of the divine.
Imagination fueled by social and environmental forces and abnormal bodily states is a powerful source of hallucinogenic and illusionary experiences. The key to recognizing these states are existing outside reality is the proper functioning of the reality checking parts of the right brain. These areas are shut down during trance, epileptiform phenomena, oxygen deprivation states (“near death” experiences), extreme blood sugar disturbances (fasting) and other states that affect specific parts of the brain. Recognizing and accepting the tricks that the brain can play is one of the difficult parts of coming to terms with the idea that the god that the person thought they “knew” is very unlikely to exist in any place other than the imaginative brains of believers.
Rosita(Quote)
How can anyone believe in a religion that killed alot of innocent people in the crusades just so that christianty could be felt as a “true” religion and gain plenty of riches on the way. Also one cant just believe in parts of the bible, if one is to believe one is to BELIEVE the whole writings in the bible. So therefore the earth is 10,000 some odd years old, TWO people populated the earth and a TALKING snake spoke to them…but the TRUE “christian” convertings are what piss me off. As in trying to make every “non-believer” realize that they will burn in hell by not believing, Gays too burn because its a “choice.” ALL other religions are heathens and will burn as well….some judgement from some friendly people!
Shane(Quote)
Hey Luke,
Thanks for sharing your story. I am neither religious nor atheist, I guess I am still “exploring.”
Can you post a list of the books or resources you used to learn about the historical Jesus? Also, a list of the books by christian and atheist authors you read during your journey? I’m interested in learning a little more myself. Thanks!
LG
LG(Quote)
LG,
That list is here. But, a list of better books on both sides is given here.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
I keep getting astonished by the amount of quality output you manage to produce. During the last 31 days alone you’ve published 48 blog posts, 1 podcast, 1 chapter book-draft chapter, 13 Less Wrong discussions and 4 posts to the Less Wrong front-page. That I am aware of.
That’s silly much. However, from your Less Wrong front-page posts alone I’ve also counted references to over 120 books and articles. How did you find time for that? You probably didn’t read through the whole texts, but how did you know what you was looking for? I often find it just as time consuming to find the correct information in the sea of knowledge as actually reading through it.
Anyways, awesome work Luke.
Aerion(Quote)
Hey Luke,
Really enjoyed reading this. I was actually raised Catholic and attended church and Catholic school ‘religiously’ for 20 years. My experience was probably a bit different than your own, a strange amalgamation of incense scented mysticism and fierce shame and guilt over my inability to abandon my natural human desire to be intimate with high school sweethearts. When I started college and expanded my reading horizons the doubts quickly set in – it took me about 18 months to move from dedicated Catholic to deist to atheist. I’m married to the daughter of a preacher and my best friend was becoming a priest at the time so it was an incredibly lonely realization (though the wife’s now an atheist as well). The toughest part for me was, as you described, the “empty, cold, ultimately purposeless universe in which I am worthless and inherently alone.” That took the longest to get over. My favorite book on the subject (currently) is The Myth of Sisyphus by Camus. For me, the world is now alive with so much more possibility than it ever was while I was a believer. Thanks for the great post.
Christopher(Quote)
Fellow preachers kid here. Nice to know there’s more people out there that came to the same conclusions as I did.
Lukifer(Quote)
Quick reply.
Question everything and make your own decision, religion is made to tame the masses but when you’re an individual and you refuse to follow that’s when you become a human. when i see people praying I see people without hope and without action. i think it’s silly for people to bow and wish for something to happen bc often it leads to strife and resentment. Just imagine how much better off we’d be if instead of worshiping our imaginary friend be it god, jesus, allah, or any other deity i left off; we got together and did something for the betterment of humanity for one hour a week every sunday.
surely it’d be a better world
Sentient(Quote)
Hey Luke, thank you for the very informative piece.
I have been an athiest my entire life, although I prefer not to use the term because I find it silly to be judged or catagorized by something I don’t believe. Anywho, my life brought me to persue religious studies as well, and although I was never a believer to begin with, I came to the same conclusions as you. I believe anyone who takes the time to study and understand the history, theology, and philosophy of multiple religions will begin to see undeniable contradictions and changes that make them unrecognizable to their origins, and unreliable as a whole.
I also must say that I admire what you have done. It saddens me that many religious peoples believe that knowladge is stunting as opposed to nurtuing, and that people keep pleading for you to believing instead of encouraging you to question and to learn everything there is to know of this world. It takes a large person to search for evidence even though they are afraid of what they may find.
My studie of religion began so that I could better articulate my arguments and defend myself from those who ridiculed me and questioned my morality, and also to understand the importance of religion in society and it’s ability to cause love and trust while simultaneously creating violence and hate. So far, my stance on religion is summed up best by Stephen Roberts, who said- “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours”.
Robyn(Quote)
Hey Luke,
I don’t want to delve into the debate that’s been going on in the comments, here, just to thank you for sharing your story.
My story sounds much the same, though my break with the church came a little earlier. I went through a lot of the same emotions — praying for my doubt to be quieted, self-blaming when it wasn’t. It’s particularly hard to deal with that pain when you have Christian relatives who persist in believing that everyone who loses faith must do so willfully.
That’s the funny thing about having a worldview that dictates your faith is *everyone’s* answer … it requires you to believe that deep down, everyone needs your God, so those who say otherwise must be lying or deceiving themselves. I think my mother’s still holding out for “rebellious young person”, and hoping it will turn out to be a passing phase.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing. Nice to feel you’re not alone.
Brinya(Quote)
Thanks, Brinya!
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
Rather than focusing on the teachings of any man, focus on the world around you. Focus on the sky and trees. Your body flows through millions of cells all performing a certain function in order to maintain your survival. Rather convenient eh
The Dude(Quote)
Thanks for that story. My grandfather was a southern Baptist preacher and my family would always go to his church on Sundays. Growing up I never believed in a god, I pondered on the idea that [something] could possibly be out there, but never thought twice about it really. I studied a lot on religion and still do, at 20, I still have the same belief I did when I was younger going to church. I don’t know how I escaped the trials of not growing up trying to do everything under someone that is supposed to be watching you, being that my family was so religious, but I’m glad I did. So I give you credit on being strong and facing your doubt and beliefs head on and coming out of it unscathed too badly.
P.s. Now my immediate family are all agnostic, religion doesn’t have to be everything.
Seana(Quote)
I really enjoyed this essay/article. Trying to believe in the face of everything your intellect tells you is very familiar to me. I was raised by agnostic parents, but at age 14 I started singing in a church choir and absorbing church doctrines by osmosis.
The words “For God so loved the world/That he gave his only begotten son/That whoso believeth in him should find everlasting life” are even more compelling when sung in a beautiful solo line.
I experimented for a while going to youth groups, trying to obtain ‘words from God’ and ‘feel God’s presence.’ I never succeeded at any of these tasks. There’s no doubt that during that time I was a gentler and more generous person, but after a while I got tired of spending so much of my life with people who I couldn’t talk to about evolution or physics or so many of the subjects that interest me.
So I’m still trying to find a way to be the moral person I want to be without the framework of people around me who believe in God. Good luck on your journey.
Swimmer963(Quote)
“…but after a while I got tired of spending so much of my life with people who I couldn’t talk to about evolution or physics or so many of the subjects that interest me.
So I’m still trying to find a way to be the moral person I want to be without the framework of people around me who believe in God.”
That’s a total non-sequitur. You need to go to a different church, one that isn’t anti-intellectual.
Jugglable(Quote)
The most difficult thing on earth is to bring our mediocre thinking into a discussion on the infinite God – who in the opinion of some – doesn’t exist! Apart from divine revelation the best you can hope to achieve is foolish pride in your own intellectual prowess or utter confusion and embarassment that you have no more to offer than mere human reasoning and rationale. In both cases the intellectual ends up losing the battle because the infinite God always prevails over the “wisdumb” of finite man.
Faith is the bridge between intellectual wanderings and actual knowledge of God. Faith leads to supernatural revelation that gives genuine meaning and purpose to life. Apart from that all men are merely wanderers in the darkness of worldly concepts and ideas which never lead to genuine answers that satisfy the human soul.
We are triparte beings; body, soul and spirit. The body and soul of man is satisfied with the trinkets of life including self-assured intellectual exercise leading to what some will live and die believing to be truth. The spirit in man is the most real aspect of every one of us, and that part is dead in sin and spiritually ignorant. Christ came to bring that one part to life and truth and “wisdom.” When the spirit meets its creator for the first time there is a revelation that is beyond mere human understanding because puny mortal thinking will never get past the natural aspect of life. That is why a genuine salvation experience is necessary to understanding God as he really is and not just how we would like him to be. Of course, this does not sit well with unregenerate man, and he must fill up the vacuum in his life with everything and anything but God who alone can give him the peace and power he needs to walk this life and prepare for eternity.
It is futile to intellectualize God because he is beyond our pitiful comprehension in our natural minds – I Corinthians 2:14. Spiritual discernment is necessary!
Rick(Quote)
Hey there,
I enjoyed reading your story and I was brought up similar to you, just not to that extreme.
My parents were fairly religious but we never really went as I was growing up. Now they go at least once a week. I was raised to believe in God and that Jesus died for our sins, but as I grew up it just made less and less sense to me. I believe in living a good life, doing good things because that is the kind of person I am not because of consequences after life. I also believe the bible is a man made book. And man is flawed. The bible has many contradictions, but it also has good moral stories. It toke a lot of courage to tell your family what you believe. I still am not sure how to classify myself; Deist, Agnostic, or even Atheist, but I know I am not Christian.
Bonnie(Quote)
Boonie,
What you wrote really shows wisdom, “I still am not sure how to classify myself; Deist, Agnostic, or even Atheist, but I know I am not Christian”.
To everyone out there, because you were raised up and taught a religion that had contradictions or false teachings doesn’t mean you disbelieve in God’s existence. Of course, you may have read, researched or simply been exposed to other religions and yet they didn’t make sense at all. Again, that doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist.
In other words, if you are really in search of truth just try to rid yourself of any bias you have because of your earlier experiences which is impossible so at least decrease it.
Saleh(Quote)
Luke,
You have a great site going here and your posts are enlightening. I really enjoy the neutrality of your assessments and the breadth of your philosophical knowledge.(Which sort of baffles me given your young age). Any way, you should consider writing a book. With the amount of time you must spend on this site you have practically written a hundred. I’m sure your personal story resonates with many atheist/agnostics out there. It does with me, especially the part where you slowly lost belief, but kept trying to get your faith back as if atheism was a relapse of sorts. It is strange how we can fear losing something and in time come to love our loss. Anyway, please keep it up!
Bret(Quote)
Luke,
Just wanted to say thanks. I came across your story and just like many people that have commented on your thread, grew up in a similar environment in rural Indiana. Only my personal story differs not in that I eventually lost my faith, but it was taken from me (for me) by the church. I was active in youth group, and even a lead singer in the youth group band. I went on retreats, and didn’t get baptized until I was able to understand what that exactly meant as a teen. But when my family (and myself) discovered I was gay, and I was outed to my church, my friends, and my fellow classmates… My faith was taken. The door slammed (literally) in my face by those who told me that God loves unconditionally… unless you’re gay. (Turns out there are a lot of conditions to get love and acceptance from a God that says he loves you unconditionally.)
My journey for belief had a different twist. Deep in my heart I thought I new that God would love me no matter what, and that he had to know I was gay when He made me. Nothing in my life would have ever led me to make that choice… (Unlike a lot of people’s beliefs… As a teen, trust me when I say that I didn’t want “that life” knowing all I had heard of it in church.) After an attempt at suicide because of the rejection and guilt I placed on myself, I went on a search to find validation that God was loving and had the same feelings as Jesus. “As you do unto the least of my people, I shall do the same to you” kinda thing. And “Love they neighbor.” It was then that I found all of the contradictions and hypocrisies that were in the Bible itself. Then I realized that it seemed to me to be about control. A way to get people to follow “law.” Eventually I too started to read about Jesus and was very intrigued by the history of it all. Suddenly, not only was I convinced that Christians had missed the mark on a lot of what they are talking about today compared to what the religion is supposed to be about, I was convinced it was all a farce anyway. I learned reason and fact-based judgement to be morally uplifting.
Today, I recognize that my moral compass, as I call it, is just as loving and caring as any Christian, but I feel like I go one step further in believing in fairness and equality for everyone. I found that by learning and feeling both sides of the debate, I became a stronger and better educated individual. I don’t feel that it is my place to tell someone what they should and shouldn’t believe. If believing in God works for you, by all means do so. I don’t feel the need to spread my beliefs onto others. I’m just me. And I am happier now than I ever was as a teenager who felt trapped and judged by every last person around me.
Topher(Quote)
Thanks for sharing, Topher.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
Greetings Luke,
I myself am a former Agnostic Atheist. I came from a Muslim family, entered Agnostic Atheism. I continued to study philosophy and world religions intensively, and here I am as a Muslim again. That’s just some background on me. Some resources that you may find helpful in your study of Islam are looking into the works of Hamza Andreas Tzortzis. Here are some of his works:
1) http://www.theinimitablequran.com/
2) http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/
3) http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/
Ayman(Quote)
Also, you may find this link to be of interest: http://www.actualevidence.com/
They have many published articles in an attempt to establish the case for Islam. You can also feel free to debate them over their material.
Ayman(Quote)
Hello ._.
I have just turned 15 and ive been an atheist since I was around 13 ._.
My grandmother and parents educated me well when it comes to the bible and Christianity. I was a innocent girl-scout as well.I prayed.
But when i was around 11 I started writing down all the bad things that had happened to the ones I love. I became aware of the cruelty of this world. I found that most people are killed from religion and not illness.
I became depressed.
All that darkness really cracked me up..bad
I quit girl scouts. Went to Gymnastics and then to Karate cause violence and evil people being hurt was suddenly hilarious to me.
I dont know why or what happened. But I was sent to a shrink who said. ” Camilla. You have a lot of darkness in your soul. So Im gonna help you rid some of your problems”.
At 13 everything became to much for me. God? I didn’t even spare him a thought. I walked in a dark daze. Life became to much. I became very depressed and i ended up attempting suicide.
Insane right? 13 years old and already fed up with the cruelty and horror.
Meh ._. As you can see I survived and I felt numb. Sitting in the hospital,watching movies, staring out the window. Not feeling a thing. Didn’t even regret my doing.
I Know [NOW] That it was stupid and selfish.
And Im never gonna be that idiotic and hurt my precious like that again.
But after I spent lots of time thinking and reading. And I realized.
God is..Merciless and cruel.
I realized that i indeed…Hated him with all of my heart.
My apathy had turned to Hatred
That sick bastard called himself our ‘father’ – Still he hurt his ‘children’ like this
If he is so almighty – Why had he not stopped the endless killings of the innocent ?
Why did feel offended on my genders part when skimming through the bible?
Im Confirmated but really ._. Its only cause I got to choose a pretty dress, wear a tiara and got lots of presents.
My Mother has had ALOT of hardships.(Grandapa shot himself. Grandmom became an alcoholic, bullying,Molesters, violent boyfriends)
My young cousin drowned before he even started life.
[I[!!!] found cancer on my grandmother before I turned 10.
I was bullied.
I had to feel my cousins pain and humiliation when she was raped by her so called bestfriend.
And through all of this I was thinking: ” WHy is God putting us through this? If he truly loves us and is a God, then why cant he stop the Muslims who wants to kill the ones who doesn’t believe in their god? Why does he test his children so cruelly and why does he favour so much?”
Becoming an Atheist was so much of a relief to me. I didn’t and don’t wish to worship a God who is more like a demon in my eyes.
And As the Teen girl i am i see most things in black and white. I directly called my classmates morons for believing in God. I couldn’t understand WHY? Sat in Religion and asking my teacher question and putting up arguments that she couldn’t answer too.Then i learned that its cause humans are weak! They need something to believe in. SO it changed. ” If you HAVE to believe something, then become a Buddhist..Its much better and they dont say ‘ Oh My God says its alright to kill the non-believers so i will go slaughter millions of innocent yay ftw!’
Then on a holiday My sister was being bothered by some guys. I confronted them. I beat one of them up. After that they continued to brutally harass me. The only thing i knew was that he was a muslim and that he was from Pakistan ._. When i left in the morning along with my family. Boarding a ship to Sjælland. He was at that time harassing me over my cell. I was outraged. I was absolutely pissed. I wrote to him :
‘ Listen up Ali/ Muhammed,Whatever you are named. I hope your proud. I hate you! You have just created a racist! You are probably the reason of quite alot now. I used to think of everyone as equals. I don’t either. Ive never once thought a racist thought. I am right now. Are you PROUD?”
He didn’t answer.
Now let me point out that before this holiday i would scold my friends for being the LEAST racist and refuse to be near them if they acted like it. Some guys threw water at some muslim kids and cause my friend laughed and said they deserved it. I refused to talk to her the whole week.
Now?
I wish to rid them of this world. (Minus the innocent ofc)
My hatred just kept growing.
Now im the kind of girl who will think of them as lower standing people!
I think its disgusting that Ive ended up like this.
Now now Back to ‘God’ ..I found this AWESOME site that wrote”
Rape is one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Yet few people know that the Bible often condones and even approves of rape. How anyone can get their moral guidance from a book that allows rape escapes me. Perhaps they have been lied to about the Bible and carefully detoured around all the nasty stuff in the Bible.
So grab your Bibles and follow along as I show you all the nasty rapes that your priests and preachers don’t want to tell you about. Note that in many places in the Bible there are references to “taking a wife”. Don’t be fooled into thinking that these were voluntary marriages. This first quote clearly shows that murder and force were used to “take” these wives.
1) Murder, rape, and pillage at Jabesh-gilead (Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. “This is what you are to do,” they said. “Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin.” Among the residents of Jabesh-gilead they found four hundred young virgins who had never slept with a man, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan.
The Israelite assembly sent a peace delegation to the little remnant of Benjamin who were living at the rock of Rimmon. Then the men of Benjamin returned to their homes, and the four hundred women of Jabesh-gilead who were spared were given to them as wives. But there were not enough women for all of them. The people felt sorry for Benjamin because the LORD had left this gap in the tribes of Israel. So the Israelite leaders asked, “How can we find wives for the few who remain, since all the women of the tribe of Benjamin are dead? There must be heirs for the survivors so that an entire tribe of Israel will not be lost forever. But we cannot give them our own daughters in marriage because we have sworn with a solemn oath that anyone who does this will fall under God’s curse.”
Then they thought of the annual festival of the LORD held in Shiloh, between Lebonah and Bethel, along the east side of the road that goes from Bethel to Shechem. They told the men of Benjamin who still needed wives, “Go and hide in the vineyards. When the women of Shiloh come out for their dances, rush out from the vineyards, and each of you can take one of them home to be your wife! And when their fathers and brothers come to us in protest, we will tell them, ‘Please be understanding. Let them have your daughters, for we didn’t find enough wives for them when we destroyed Jabesh-gilead. And you are not guilty of breaking the vow since you did not give your daughters in marriage to them.’” So the men of Benjamin did as they were told. They kidnapped the women who took part in the celebration and carried them off to the land of their own inheritance. Then they rebuilt their towns and lived in them. So the assembly of Israel departed by tribes and families, and they returned to their own homes.
Obviously these women were repeatedly raped. These sick bastards killed and raped an entire town and then wanted more virgins, so they hid beside the road to kidnap and rape some more. How can anyone see this as anything but evil?
2) Murder, rape and pillage of the Midianites (Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)
They attacked Midian just as the LORD had commanded Moses, and they killed all the men. All five of the Midianite kings – Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba – died in the battle. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho.
Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the people went to meet them outside the camp. But Moses was furious with all the military commanders who had returned from the battle. “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the LORD at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.
Clearly Moses and God approves of rape of virgins.
3) More Murder Rape and Pillage (Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
What kind of God approves of murder, rape, and slavery?
4) Laws of Rape (Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God.
5) Death to the Rape Victim (Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
It is clear that God doesn’t give a damn about the rape victim. He is only concerned about the violation of another mans “property”.
6) David’s Punishment – Polygamy, Rape, Baby Killing, and God’s “Forgiveness” (2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives [plural] while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’
Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Nathan answered David: “The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin: you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die.” [The child dies seven days later.]
This has got to be one of the sickest quotes of the Bible. God himself brings the completely innocent rape victims to the rapist. What kind of pathetic loser would do something so evil? And then he kills a child! This is sick, really sick!
7) Rape of Female Captives (Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
“When you go out to war against your enemies and the LORD, your God, delivers them into your hand, so that you take captives, if you see a comely woman among the captives and become so enamored of her that you wish to have her as wife, you may take her home to your house. But before she may live there, she must shave her head and pare her nails and lay aside her captive’s garb. After she has mourned her father and mother for a full month, you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.”
Once again God approves of forcible rape.
8) Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30 NAB)
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30 NAB)
9) Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
10) God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)
”
Here is the link : http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/AC2LV3/www.evilbible.com/Top_Ten_List.htm
God doesnt exist. ._.
And i tell the ones who say humans need it to STFO
Humans should stop being whiny then ._.
God is the cruel version of Santa and should thus only be believed by children and the dying ._. They wont kill others for believing something else ._. Bwaah
*Sorry if this is messy <.< Im kinda exhausted right now xD)
Camilla ‘Chibi’(Quote)
Dear Luke,
Hi, I read your story and (like many other commenters here) I saw quite a few similarities between our stories. I wont leave a long comment, because frankly there is no need to. But I wanted to say thank you. I didn’t realize that other people have the same doubts and problems that I have. I completely understand where you are coming from when you say that the more you learn about the bible, the less you are able believe in it. I have had a hard time taking college classes that dive deep into the imperfections of the bible. And there is hardly a day that goes by that I don’t wonder how different I would be if I was still as naive as I once was. Sadly, I too had a moment when I stopped, looked at the world around me, buried my head in my hands, and admitted aloud that there is no god. I have a church family, and my mother is a devout christian, and I was wondering exactly how you went about making the switch to atheism. I have a very hard time with the thought of becoming an atheist myself, because of all the stereotypes involved. And because it is so hard to think that everything in the world was created by coincidence. Do you have any advice?
Kate(Quote)
I must say, from my personal and similar experience in comparison to the writer of this article, I am of a much different disposition: I am NO LONGER polite to bigoted religious people and I DO NOT have tolerance, especially for the Christians below who respond so typically in the “Wounded Christian” predictable format. I don’t have the time to skewer you all in the same way the original writer of this article spends time in responding lovingly and compassionately to you, so I will point out three things: one of objective thought, another that is “food for thought”, and one of subjective opinion.
1. The responsibility of the burden of proof falls to those who believe in a given school of thought. Therefore, as a Christian you need to systematically prove that your belief system is true 100% of the time (that means without basing it on your own faith) before you are reasonably permitted to ask me to even attempt to disprove your belief system. Furthermore, I challenge you to disprove the validity, or even existence of polytheism (once again without basing it on your own faith). If you can do that, then I will use the same method you used to disprove your faith, and the existence of God. If you cannot do that, then you cannot be certain that your faith is true 100% of the time since you have not disproven the possibility that more than one god could exist.
2. The bible has major inconsistencies. When a system depends on all its parts to work in order to be whole and one or more parts fail, the whole system fails. Because Christians generally assert that the bible is “the word of God”, and similarly that “God is perfect”, it follows that if the bible has inconsistencies and is the word of God then God is not perfect. So fess up and admit that you Christians ruin people’s lives and justify it because of your “absolute certainty” that the bible is the truth. Then, it follows that you should accept the fact that you are morally detestable. So, now, one of two things will be the case at this point: God doesn’t like morally detestable people, so you are going to hell, or hell and God do not exist because you are following “God’s Will” which forces you to do morally detestable acts, something that “God is not capable of because He is perfect”. Either way, you lose. Have fun responding to this in your predictable “Wounded Christian” format. How did I guess that is what you were going to do? This leads me to point number three.
3. Your blind faith causes you to look like a complete moron. I already accept the responsibility of looking foolish and angry in writing this post, but my actions don’t even bother my own perceived moral integrity. But you, yes you: the shadow of your incompetence and ignorance to everything around you is far worse than anything I could say to slander my own moral reputation. Yours is the legacy of millions of people murdered or forcibly and violently converted for the past 2000 years. I hate you simply because you aren’t ashamed of peddling your religion, worse: think it is inherently GOOD to peddle your religion to ANYONE, even to the writer of this article who is obviously disillusioned anyway. You are stupid and morally reprehensible and have no personal courage to admit yours and Christianity’s faults, nor do you have the strength to look elsewhere for answers to the problems you know exist.
TC
T Connor(Quote)
In reference to:
Camilla, you sound like a wonderful person, and I have been exactly in the position you are in at your age. You should not worry too much about the indignities of Christianity since you are very much intelligent. Be strong, it’s a tough journey but be content knowing that you are better than the billions of people on this earth who insist God exists. Clearly it must be rare that someone is able to question accepted thought.
T Connor(Quote)
Kate,
That depends a lot on your particular situation. If you want specific advice, feel free to contact me.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
Новые объявления о недорогой недвижимости, надежных авто, высокооплачиваемых вакансиях, а также последний прогноз погоды и полная карта Хабаровска.
Habar0v(Quote)
As an agnostic (not bound to a religion, not sure in general). I see what you are saying, I’m only a teenager and see all of the faults and self-contradictions of all western and eastern religion. I was pushed to this after reading the child’s version of the bible(when I was small) and investigating further. However this doe not stop me from having a small hope that there is god.
BTW, you can only disprove a religion of that same reason can’t also disprove yours.
X(Quote)
I’m an atheist, that’s pretty much what I’ve always been. Of course I stumbled on this site and thought, “Hey, someone’s atheism story, sure I’ll ready it.” But really, wtf? People saying, oh you’re so deep, blah, blah. Shut up. This isn’t profound, this isn’t deep. It’s just some stupid story by someone trying to show how they ‘overcame the odds of becoming and atheist with a parent who is a pastor’. Great, thanks for nothing. Your story should not motivate anyone an anyway. Nor should it be read by anyone else. I hate you. I don’t know why, but you despise me. All of you do. Especially you agnostics. You are worse than Christians. Agnostic is basically saying you are too scared to believe or not. Make up your damn minds and stop straddling the fence. Once again, I hate you all.
Dylan(Quote)
Thanks for the story, Luke. My story is similar – raised as a devout Christian believer all my life, and then when I tried to emulate Jesus in my adult years I found that the bible lied. Prayer doesn’t work, and this becomes obvious when you try to test it. I did, and it failed.
I also have a pastor father, and I also write blogs debunking Christianity. So I know how you feel (also about the porn addiction, though I hope you haven’t totally given that up. (http://www.cracked.com/article_18888_5-ways-porn-created-modern-world.html)
Good site here, and I’ll definitely check in on it regularly.
Supernova(Quote)
I grew up in a Roman Catholic family, went to the same roman catholic school from when I was 5 to when I was 14. I was in doubt about any kind of faith for a long time, but after reading a lot of pagan/wiccan/druidism books, it kinda clicked. While I don’t practice anything other than occasional meditation, my doctrine anymore is “don’t be a dick.”
The one thing I really do regret about all the christian upbringing is the guilt that is constantly engraved in my skull, sometimes to the point where I feel like I can’t even go out to buy myself something for the sake of liking it, and the views on sex. Besides basic biology, I think kids need to be taught something more than “Just don’t have sex before y0u get married. if you do, you automatically get pregnant and at least 2 STDs”
Lovely read though, it’s very well written! xox
Zephyr(Quote)
Hey Luke,
Interesting story. Myself i was brought up as a catholic and felt much remorse after accepting logic over belief and hope. Specifically towards my grandmother who is a firm practicing patron and was disheartened when i stopped going to church and patronizing their agenda. I dont feel it is my place to shatter her rock that has been her stability her entire life (she is now 90). Though she would like me to go to church with her i simply and politely say “no, thank you” when it comes up. I am not an atheist however, i simply do not support organized religion. I dont know if you are familiar with any George Carlin quotes but here is a favorite of mine : “Religion has convinced people that there’s an invisible man…living in the sky, who watches everything you do every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a list of ten specific things he doesn’t want you to do. And if you do any of these things, he will send you to a special place, of burning and fire and smoke and torture and anguish for you to live forever, and suffer and burn and scream until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he needs money.”
Have a good one,
Ivan
Ivan Jones(Quote)
We should believe in something anyway. To be honest ,I am free from any belif, I tust myself only. Nobody would like to help someone as stangers. I love to help others , I am happy to satisfy them, when smile was on their face ,I was happy too . From my point ,I do think kind-hearted people exsit,however ,I never encouter one ,that’s regretting ,isn’t it? What I believe never come true ,so need I go on believing ?
Vivien Zhu(Quote)
Vivien Zhu,
You write, “We should believe in something anyway. … What I believe never come true, so need I go on believing?”
Your question made me cry. Go on believing, but not if it makes you too sad. It’s okay to take a vacation from believing sometimes. I don’t know if we should believe that goodness exists in other people, but I know that life is impossible after a while if we stop believing that goodness exists at all. Some people find goodness in books and movies. Some people find goodness being alone in nature, while others find goodness in community and fellowship. I find goodness in my two dogs, in sunshine after a rainstorm, and in the knowledge that people like you keep trying.
Thank you for asking a very important question.
Flux
Flux Capture(Quote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-AE50otuVA&feature=related
AJW(Quote)
Информация про красоту, конкурсы, косметику, дом и семью и макияж на модном сайте для настоящей женщины Mimilady.ru.
duledukers(Quote)
На компьютерном портале http://www.stonecomp.ru вы найдете актуальные новости про процессоры, материнские платы, драйвера, сети LAN, безопасность, SAT INTERNET, Windows 7, ЭФИРНОЕ TV на компе и многое другое.
sukomtutru(Quote)
God is the unmoved mover. Aristotle made that clear. You can’t be an athiest if there is logical evidence to prove God’s existence, if athiesm means the denial of God’s existence. You don’t need to give him traditional qualities to establish his existence, you just need rational thought. Now if you want to be an athiest anyway, well thats just being stubborn.
1.Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2.A causal loop cannot exist.
3.A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4.Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.
Now the only thing that we can comprehend to exist outside of reality or even before reality as we know it must be something along the lines of God. God is the only being that we know of and can comprehend to possibly exist before everything else, therefore we place God as the first cause.
Zeeshan Rizvi(Quote)
hey luke, how’s it going? why did you change the blog slogan? i apologise if you’ve answered this before.
kaka(Quote)
kaka,
It seemed appropriate because I don’t write about atheism much anymore.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
ah right, i see.
incidentally i came here looking for a post on the mexico 2010 debate between craig and two other guys and richard dawkins. did you comment on that? i can’t find anything in the search box. searching for ‘craig’ didn’t turn up anything either.
kaka(Quote)
Большой список новостей о ремонте компьютеров LG, HP, Lenovo IBM, Gateway, TopStar, ремонте ноутбуков ASUS, Toshiba, Packard Bell-NEC, FIC и ремонте сотовых телефонов Motorola, Philips, Maxon выложен на сайте о ремонте vlab.pp.ru в Волгограде.
volremnout(Quote)
Thanks for sharing your story! I can definitely relate; I transferred to Catholic school as an adolescent and was extremely devoted and academic about my religion for years until I started to doubt. I felt terrible about my change of heart at first, and people thought I was being really negative. But now I feel that being an atheist can be positive! Maybe no “God” put us here, but aren’t we lucky to be alive anyway? Isn’t it refreshing to think of empowering ourselves to think carefully and engage in our ethical decisions rather than rely on a belief system? Isn’t this still an exciting and wonderful universe, and if this is all by chance, isn’t it all the more beautiful? Thank you again, I wish you the best and think it’s very brave and impressive of you to have stood up for your opinions having been surrounded by so much religious influence in your life.
Lisa J(Quote)
I, too, was raised in an evangelical Christian home, and have studied the arguments for and against Christianity. I found your story today, and I’m glad to find that I’m not the only one who finds that the arguments against Christianity and for atheism are much clearer and more direct than Christian apologetics.
Last Saturday night I told my parents that I no longer believe Christianity, though I don’t think I did a good job of presenting the case against it; I probably focused too much on the contradictions in the gospels. But then, as our emotions all got the best of us, I relented a little and agreed to read any Christian apologetics materials that might be recommended, and to attend my brother David’s Bible study group. I wanted to assure them all that I would not make my final decision lightly.
The trouble is that according to my family’s world view, I will spend eternity in hell if I reject Christianity. And they believe that I’ve allowed Satan to gain a foothold in my mind. So because my eternity is at stake, it seems that I’m obligated to give Christianity every opportunity to prove itself. And in my weaker moments, I do still believe that my eternity is at stake, and that the Christians might be right after all. But I don’t want to be double-minded for the rest of my life. Nor do I want to turn off my mind and agree to be a Christian again just so I can be fully at peace with my family.
So, Luke, I wonder how you brought yourself to reject Christianity in spite of how you must have foreseen that it would make your family feel. Did you, too, hesitate to make your final decision because of the Christian belief that your eternity is at stake? Did any of your Christian relatives or friends tell you that Satan had blinded your mind to the truth? If so, how did you respond?
Of course, I’d also welcome input from any other readers.
Matt Campbell(Quote)
You are so ridiculous Mark, the idea that “Aesthetics conditions everyones beliefs” is completely false. Aesthetics purpose is to find universal truth in which can be considered beauty because they are interchangeable by definition. That being said it takes a True Aesthetic Critic to be able to identify these truths and to be an aesthetic critic one must have aesthetic qualities and to identify those qualities must have preferences. These preferences are what set us APART as human beings and is what I believe to be a beautiful aspect (or truth) of life. This is true because with it comes the ability to choose one thing from another, this is what sets us apart from animals. Immersed in the Arts is the only true way of living from what I have come to realize simply because it involves that of what Reality lacks and that is the Imagination. The artist has the ability to take a common stereotype and completely change its definition by bringing in this imaginative substance. I say this because reality is not enough for human life, we need the imaginative to balance things out, like those of the East believe life is; simply a balance. Now, in response to your comment, it is your religion, or rather large groups of people with a common interest (in more general terms) that “Conditions everyones beliefs” by using guilt as form of exploitation, an exploitation of choice. Cut off a mans legs, arms, body, etc and what is he left with, just creation. Where everything once started, for we humans are merely just a creation of our maker, which is a being superior to us, but that is for everyone to find on their own journey, which is like a ride. A ride where you never know is going to take you, it is the mere journey that is life not so much realizing it, it is the moment, which is now. I don’t think religions are bad, but I believe it just takes away from our own rights as humans. The only things one should really believe in are things like: Family, Love, and Friendship if one can value simple things like that, life will come to them instead of searching for it.
Sergio(Quote)
Hi Luke,
Our search has many similarities. I myself was very deeply pained to realize that God does not exist. I felt like I was killing not just my invisible friend, but a part of who I am. My search for truth also began with a search for God, not against him. I was amazed, apalled, and astounded when my search for truth led me in the complete opposite direction.
Losing faith is not an easy experience. My best friend literally went insane for a brief period trying to believe in God.
It is good to hear that you have found truth and that you are no longer depressed about it, but that you have found purpose and meaning in your life greater than any invisible friend could ever give you. I myself struggle between depression and excitement. I am 21 now, I hope in a few yeasr I will feel the same way you do about things.
I hope your search continues and that you are ultimately satisfied with your conclusions.
I wish you the best,
Chris
Chris(Quote)
hi luke, you may have already answered this question, but im just curious as a christian myself, what do you now believe is the purpose of your life if there is no Jesus, and you know you will die not going to heaven?
mberry(Quote)
You know what? I am a Muslim, and I just want to say I think that’s great. I like being a Muslim, but I also love to study science. I have grown up learning about contradictions about Jesus stories, which I had found amusing. As long as those around you still love you, I think you’ll be okay.
onlymuslimonthissite(Quote)
Hi, Luke (and anyone else): I’ve mostly been following along with you and Alonso about Desirism, but I had pegged “My Story” for email updates, and I’ve been watching with increasing curiosity as post after post appears in Cyrillic letters, presumably Russian. Do you, or does anybody, know what’s up with these people? God bless them (pardon the phrase), and I wish them well, but sometimes I wonder if your site hasn’t become a nexus of information exchange between some exotic cadre of covert operatives (or some such other cloak-and-dagger explanation). Does anybody know if they’re at least talking about God, the Lack of God, or the Meaning of Life? Maybe I should Google Wikipedia’s entry about Russian Orthodoxy.
On the topic of the Meaning of Life, “mberry” (above) asked on April 27th what you now think is the “purpose of your life if there is no Jesus, and you know you will die not going to heaven?” I’m curious myself what kind of formulation you’d come up with. I’m asking as a Nihilist (a la Nietzsche), a Pragmatist (a la William James), and a Feminist (a la Hugh Heffner)…
Also, “Joe Allen” (above) asked March 24, 2009, “Do you believe in love?” I ask about that one, too, because “love” is a common purpose given by secularists for living. Heck, I’ve given that one myself. Off the top of my head, though, given my present mood (whimsical), I’d say that the purpose of my life is whatever I happen to be doing at the moment.
If by “purpose,” mberry means “ultimate goal,” then my present mood would answer that the goal of my life is to make my world a better place, which includes the belief that I’m making other people’s worlds better along the way. That’s as good a definition of love as any, as far as I can tell. Unless “Joe Allen” means the kind of love that really, really hurts when it goes away, as in divorce. I don’t know what to make of that kind of love, but I know it’s a lot more common than people who “believe in love” typically consider when they ask that question of others. “Love” can mean lots of things, naturally. For example, I once saw graffitti on a wall that said, “Love Makes You Stupid.” Pretty much sums it up, I sometimes think. It’s hard to poke holes in an argument like that.
Don’t get me wrong; I clap for Tinker Bell as hard as anyone, and I always cry when Bambi’s mother gets killed, but I’m curious about what a relatively young, “born again” atheist might give as to what the point of living might be. I’ve often considered that perhaps the key to successful living is avoiding situations in which “The Meaning of Life” even enters one’s stream of consciousness. Mabye Happiness = Distraction. If that’s true, though, what makes “philosophizing” so much fun for some people?
Perhaps the illusion of progress, and the promise of “wisdom.” It feels good, doesn’t it, to stumble upon ideas that seem foundational. I turned 45 on Sunday, and I’m still learning and re-learning that there is no progress, and as always, I dismiss the thought as absurd. It must be a horrible, absurd thought, because consciousness reels viscerally against the possibility that nothing ever really gets accomplished. I announced my atheism at 17, and I’ve spent the following quarter-century looking for things to believe in. I’ve always succeeded for a while, but then I always end up losing my faith again. Right now, for example, I’m working toward degrees in Finance and Accounting. I don’t expect to be happy, but I’m hoping to postpone dispair for just a while longer…
Just wondering. Thanks for the enjoyable site.
Kevin.
Kevin(Quote)
Well, I just checked my email, and there’s another Cyrillic post, except this time, amidst the Cyrillic letters, there are the clearly legible English words, “Samsung Galaxy S,” which I googled, and discovered were an Android smartphone:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsung_Galaxy_S
Ah, the drama of blogging! Goodness, it’s 2:45 a.m…
Kevin(Quote)
Kevin,
Yeah, it’s spam. I’m still resistant to adding a CAPTCHA requirement on all comments. You’ll see those comments in the feed but I remove them from the site each time I login.
Luke Muehlhauser(Quote)
New Life for your used furniture. Sale your furniture and make money. Buy second hand furniture and save your money.
secondhandfurni(Quote)
Hi Luke, this blog is amazing, and I can relate to it.
I went through something similar, I was brought up a muslim and have been for 18 years.. I wasn’t a very religious person but I was definitely a believer.. A few months ago, I started reading about atheism, about famous atheists and their opinions and views.. The more I read, the less sure I was about my belief and then I don’t know how or when but one day I stopped believing… I’ve been reading a lot more since then and trying to understand life and our surrounding not the way I was told but forming my own opinions, seeing for myself and using whatever proof there is to back up my opinions.. Anyhow it was an agonizing struggle… the conversion was painful but liberating!!!
Nada(Quote)
Shelly Kagan did a good job against William Lane Craig
tom(Quote)
Hey Luke, just wandering if you read NT Wright’s the Resurrection of the Son of God or any works by Joachim Jeremias when you were studying the Historical Jesus. The historical evidence for Jesus’ resurrection and personal claims to be the Messiah, the Son of God, the Son of Man, etc. actually led me the opposite direction when I was around 20. You have no doubt heard WLC arguments for the resurrection of Jesus over and over. What is your historical hypothesis for the empty tomb, belief in the resurrection appearances, and beginnings of Christianity. As Pascal asked, “What made them (the disciples) act?”
It sounds like you read far too many books by Crossan, Borg, Spong, etc. and not enough by Wright, Jeremias, Bock, Luke Timothy Johnson, etc. What conservative historical Jesus works did you read?
God bless
Justin
Justin(Quote)
Thinking more about your story also made me think of a great poem by CS Lewis. I thought I would share it.
“They tell me, Lord, that when I seem to be in speech with you, it’s all a dream, since only once voice is heard, one talker pretending to be two. Sometimes it is, yet not as they conceive it. Rather, I seek in myself the things I hoped to say, but my wells are dry. Then seeing me empty, you forsake the listener’s role and through my dumb lips breathe and into my speech awake the thoughts I never knew. And you neither need reply, for while we seem to be two people talking, you are One forever, and I am not the one dreaming, but I am Your Dream” CS Lewis, Letters to Malcolm, 67-68
God bless
Justin
Justin(Quote)
Cool story bro
asd(Quote)
Hey there, interesting story. Can you cite what exactly you read that made you doubt your core beliefs? I’m not angry or calling you out. But I had a somewhat similar experience but ended up in the opposite direction. Learning certainly aided my understanding of who Jesus was, not stifled. You’ll find (or have found by now) that it’s a field approached with numerous biases, both believers and non believers alike. I’ve found the works of WL Craig, JP Moreland and lesser known christian theists to be most helpful such as JP Holding of Tektonics fame, who has many works regarding ANE culture and the historical Jesus. I hope you continue on your search and haven’t closed your mind completely. Again, no hate intended, just a comment. :)
Morgan(Quote)
Ran across your website, Luke, while exploring the fine-tuning argument used by some christian apologists in defending the existence of God. I read your September 2010 post on the topic. Then I decided to check out your story. Found it fascinating and compelling. I too am an atheist and advocate for rationality, skepticism and critical thinking. I found your story fascinating because unlike you and so many of the other atheists I know, I did not come to atheism as the result of a deconversion. I literally have never believed in God. I attended church as a child, but not often. My parents were not active practitioners of religion and it was basically such a small presence in my upbringing and formative years that God-belief never took root. In fact, as a child I recall thinking something fishy about the sermons I heard, although I could not offer a description at the time of just what it was that stunk about the entire religion enterprise or system of thought. Because I did not share the experience so many of my fellow atheists have had, I am intrigued by stories of those who had this experience. I am on a quest to understand how a person becomes a believer and then loses that belief and finds their way to atheism. I have read the works of Michael Shermer and John Loftus and others who were once strong believers and are now non-believers. So your story interests me greatly. I plan to begin following your blog and hope to eventually have a face-to-face with you, possibly at some future skeptics or atheist gathering. Perhaps you will be attending TAM 9 this year in Las Vegas. If so, would love to talk to you about your experience. Would like to dialogue with you via e-mail, if you are interested. You can reach me at repelton6681@yahoo.com.
Randy Pelton(Quote)
Hey Luke,
Excellent site! And a wonderful story. I was raised a Catholic and always found it to be a horrifying concept. Because of the religious dogma that surrounds western society, I had no choice but to quietly question all the inconsistencies and contradictions I observed from very early on. Now 27 with a family of my own I’m absolutely ecstatic with the progress of reason over superstition.
Again thank you for the amazing resources!
Jay(Quote)
CheatLand – это развивающийся сайт о многих видах читерства. Колоссальное количество читов для игр Вконтакте, Counter Strike 1.6, Crossfair, Call of Duty, Minecraft, Battlefield и для многих других ждут Вас у нас!
CheatLand2(Quote)
I’ve gone on here to listen to debates and take notes. Let me just say, I am a Christian, and I’ve gone through the same struggles as you (as far as the search for truth). I’ve been taking Religion classes by an incredibly liberal professor at UND who teaches straight from Bart Ehrman philosophy. He was fantastically convincing. Heck, lots of it makes sense. I struggled with my New Testament class and then did a lot of research and reading. I force myself to read from liberal and conservative authors, but have lately been focused on Bart Ehrman. I only wish I myself could debate with you over this using the insignificant amount of reasoning and logic we humans have :) I hope you continue to read and search. I’d suggest philosophy, psychology, and sociology books, too. Best of luck,
-D.S.
D.S.(Quote)
Hi Luke,
Very interesting story. I haven’t checked out the entire site, but I am surprised at your admiration for William Lane Craig’s ability to debate. I think he’s a sophist — and he’s dishonest; he misuses quotes and uses trickery. Just to give a couple examples:
In several debates, he uses the standard Christian Apologist trick of redefining atheism. If the atheist admits to the slightest bit of uncertainty, Craig insists the person is really an agnostic (as if there were actually any substantive difference between atheist and agnostic). Then he implies that uncertainty means you’re on the fence, i.e. 50/50 and you need to look for more information. So, with a shell game, a confidence level well above 99% is thus converted to “who knows?”
In the debate with Sam Harris and also with Lawrence Krauss (and maybe others as well?), Craig quotes a passage from Sam Harris’ book The Moral Landscape. The point of the full quote is that if only one person committed an attrocity such as female genital mutilation, there wouldn’t be any question about that being an evil act and that the perpetrator deserves to be severely punished, but because of multi-culturalism, when an entire society embraces this practice and sanctifies it as a Muslim custom, then suddenly people become very resistant to condemning the practice. But Craig just quotes the first part and thus renders the meaning completely different than intended by Harris.
Sam Harris is absolutely correct when he says that Craig has a “charming” habit of summarizing his opponent’s arguments in a way they were not presented. Harris leaves it to the audience to “sort it out on You-Tube”. This is exactly appropriate, rather than get bogged down in trying to refute all the nonsense from Craig.
I also liked Lawrence Kraus’ debate with Craig, because as Kraus says at one point, he’s not likely to change many minds, but he’s an educator, so he teaches some physics in the debate. (It’s actually relevant to the debate, because his point is that regardless of what our intuitions tell us about the world or how we would like it to be, the world is the way it is. So, it turns out light has properties of a wave and a particle. Don’t like it? Too bad. That’s how it is.)
Sasha Karamazov(Quote)
Hi!
Did you read Quran? Islam?
/Stranger
Stranger(Quote)
Bonjour,
Je cite: “The gospels were written decades after Jesus’ death, by non-eyewitnesses. They are riddled with contradictions, legends, and known lies. Jesus and Paul disagreed on many core issues.”
1)La rédaction définitive des Evangiles est peut-être tardive, mais des sources ont dû circuler très rapidement après la Résurrection du Christ, qui furent très certainement écrites par des témoins oculaires. D’autre part quels sont vos arguments pour vous opposer à la thèse traditionnelle selon laquelle les apôtres Matthieu et Jean sont les auteurs des Evangiles selon Matthieu et Jean?
2) Quelles contradictions, quelles légendes, quels mensonges dans les Evangiles? Pourriez-vous donner un exemple?
3) Quelles divergences entre Jésus et Paul?
Christian L(Quote)
Hi Luke,
It’s me, “Farrah.”
I was talking to Nick from CF today and it made me think of you so I looked you up.
Hope you are doing great.
Glad we met.
Terri(Quote)
Сайт города Вяземский Хабаровского края
vzm_pvam_27(Quote)
Letter i wrote to a chritian friend you may find interesting…
http://end-street.blogspot.com/2010/07/letter-to-christian-friend.html
Johan(Quote)
Hey there! I just wanted to drop in and say that I really enjoyed reading this. About a year and half, I reached my own similar realization… for a bit of background, my father is a Southern Baptist pastor, and, well, the rest of my story sounds very, very similar, except it all started with Latin American literature for me and seeing that another approach to life could make a great deal of sense, and that the world was a bit bigger than I had imagined.
Four years of studying my own faith in college resulted in an atheism that I am very excited about, though it hasn’t been easy; my parents haven’t been as welcoming of the change. In any case, it was pleasant encountering another’s similar move to atheism, and so greetings, fellow traveler. I intend to explore your site more, and hopefully discuss this with you at a later date!
Matt Schanuel(Quote)
Hi Luke
My story is almost the mirror image of yours. I was raised outside the church and never attended services or read the Bible. Then, when I was about 40 yrs old, I realized that there is no objective standard without the biblical God. I still didn’t believe in God, but I “knew” there was such a thing as right and wrong. If that “knowledge” was noothing more than a subjective preference on my part then it was meaningless. Ergo, if there is no God then there should be one. After another decade of reading and thinking I am pretty certain the biblical God is real.
If I might suggest some reading get a copy of Socratic Logic by Peter Kreeft and study it.
Dave(Quote)
“For 12 years I attended a Christian school that taught Bible classes and creation science.”
Creation science doesn’t reflect the thinking of mainstream, orthodox Christianity.
Brian C.(Quote)
uhproject.com.ua – здесь Вы можете заказать проект коттеджа или выбрать готовый проэкт из нашего портфолио.
uhome(Quote)
Шахтинское представительство партии ЕДИНАЯ РОССИЯ
ershakhty(Quote)
Наращивание ногтей, коррекция, дизайн ногтей, обучение, семинары, курсы – дипломированный мастер-преподаватель в Киеве. Безупречное качество, по разумной цене.
vip1977manicure(Quote)
КАК СОЗДАТЬ СВОЙ БИЗНЕС с минимальными инвестициями и без Риска; Как создать Источник Пассивного дохода; Как улучшить и повысить Качество жизни!
vivasilij(Quote)
Хватить кликать у почтовых спонсоров за копейки. Начни торговлю на Forex вместе с автоматической торговой системой Invest System.
west234456(Quote)
AS LONG AS YOU STILL CLOSE TO UR CONNECTION THATS LIKE UR FAMILY.
DONT END UP FEELING ISOLATED.JUST DONT GO BACK TO BEING A HOSTILE FARREL THIEF LOOKING FOR SALVATION.
EZEKIEL MOON(Quote)
Hi Luke,
I have stumbled across your blog and read your story. I just wanted to tell you I followed the same path as you did. I’m Italian and my family is Catholic and as a consequence I was raised a Christian. Like you I fell into deep depression when I was 22 and instead of asking for help I turned to religion instead. I was going to university at the time and therefore I approached the problem like a good university student should do, i.e. I asked myself a lot of critical questions. I wanted answers. So I read the Gospels and the other texts of the New Testament and like you that only served to increase my doubts. Like you I turned to Christian apologists and found their argument hopelessly flawed, contrary to logic and at best hanging on ‘miracles’ of Catholic saints. I even dedicated myself to Christian charity through a small local organisation. But to no use. I felt duped and fell even deeper into depsair. Then, little by little I realized that, after all, a prospect of a reality with no God was not that bad after all. I was relieved to know that there was no hell putting and end to that frightening thought that tormented me often during childhood, that is me or one of my loved ones being thrown into Hell for ETERNITY. But at the same time I also felt the compelling need for something that I learned at a later stage and than Socrates describes as ‘goodness’. That is morality. Yes human being can be morally good without religion. Gradually I felt liberated for this cumbersome ‘big brother’ that had been watching me 24/7 hitherto. I was also happy that steel logic in my brain triumphed at last.
I wish you all the best mate.
Enrico (London – England)
Enrico(Quote)
Hi Luke.
Fascinating story.
Yet so sad.
It was interesting to me to read that your story included a gateway to spiritual deception: your admitted addiction to internet porn.
And you’ve acknowledged your joy of freedom from guilt since, and your mystical heights through great sex.
Meanwhile, you chose to believe critical scholars viewpoints about late gospel authors (by non eyewitnesses) rather than strong and easily available evangelical scholarship revealing the early dates of the writings (full NT likely completed by 70 AD, with the possibility of “Revelation” not being composed until 95 AD).
And you have admitted your pre-commitment to evolution prior to your de-conversion.
It sounds as if you made a compelling series of choices which made your de-conversion rather easy. i.e. you had already committed yourself to a trajectory.
However, this was not your only option.
Reading better scholarship would have given you another option.
And shitting the door to your sin addictions might have caused you to treasure your Savior rather than let him be run over by the bus.
God is gracious and I hope you truly find Him again — for the first time.
Craig(Quote)
Hi, It’s late and I’ve spent too much time reading over old posts, but I’ve been enjoying the discussions. Just a quick question. Someone mentioned the disagreements between Jesus’ and Paul’s teaching. Could someone give a point out some specific points. Thanks.
margie(Quote)
Craig(Quote)
Margie asked:
Hi Margie.
This is a spurious line of theologizing that liberal critics have entertained (taking a cue from the now well-repudiated 19th century Tubingdon school “Bauer Hypothesis) that sought to pit followers of Jesus and/or followers of Peter (i.e. early Jewish converts to Messianic Christianity) against followers of Paul (i.e. Gentile converts from paganism to Christianity). Through this oppositional lens, the Jewish Jesus was a human Messiah; whereas the Pauline Savior of all mankind became the “God-Man”. In this caricature, Jesus was best seen as a prophet who called people to live good lives and led opposition against Rome’s evil oppression. In this way, he is re-figured as a sort of Judas or Barabbas (I recognize the incredulity of the comparisons!). Meanwhile, the opposite caricature is that Paul was guilty of paganizing Jesus — elevating him inappropriately to other world dimensions, like a Greek or Roman god. Through this revisionist history, Paul’s view unfortunately became orthodox Christianity by the 4th century, usurping the more modest view of a local political prophet who may or may not have justly been killed.
However, that entire line of thought has little basis in historical reality, and zero basis in Scriptural development — no matter how many critics have pursued variants of it – as a means of denying the impact that the Bible might actually have on their lives.
Rather, the Bible may be seen as a historical development of God working through a people (the small nation of Israel) to establish a spiritual kingdom through a Messiah who would one day come. Jesus is presented in the New Testament (by all the gospel writers) as the fulfillment of that Jewish hope — but also more than that. He is presented as “Immanuel”, God with us, who came to show the way to God, as our Mediator. To be a true Mediator, Jesus had to have continuity with both the perfection of God and the frailty of humanity. This is why 2 of the gospels present him as born of a virgin and why Jesus commonly referred to Himself as the “son of Man” — emphasizing his humanity. And why all 4 gospels emphasize both his resurrection from the dead and his ascending to the throne of heaven — emphasizing his Deity. Paul’s epistles primarily emphasize Jesus’ Messianic role for all people as the “Christ” who rescued all who come to God believing in Him for forgiveness of sins – thus being justified and reconciled to God.
Paul understood that the “gospel” to which all the “gospel writers” referred – was a “good news” message that the Kingdom of God had arrived spiritually in Jesus Christ — through his death for people’s sins and his resurrection victory over death, Satan’s power, and sin itself. Jesus the Christ is now reigning with God from heaven and will one day return for all believers in Him.
In other words, there is both a progression from the Old Testament to the New Testament in general, in terms of prophecy and fulfillment. There is also a progression from Jesus while he was living on earth (as a man) and His exaltation back to heaven, as revealed in the New Testament epistles. (And the NT also describes Jesus pre-existence both with God and as God — which gets into Trinitarian dogma.) However, the epistles were not only written by Paul. They were also written by Peter (which makes a Peter vs. Paul argument completely specious), Timothy, and John (one of Jesus’ disciples and one of the 4 gospel writers). This has all been classic Christianity from the very beginning, from the earliest of the recorded Fathers — Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin, Turtullian — who lived in the 1st – 2nd centuries. Meanwhile, 4th-century Christians of Nicaea fame simply formalized what had been believed and taught for 250 years prior – while fending off various gnostic and arian heresies of the day.)
To deny what I’ve written here in condensed form, skeptics have had to annihilate early church evidence, deny wholesale Scripture’s plain teachings, reconstruct historical myths, deny that any Scripture writer wrote anything, and move all historical evidence 100 years or more later than its actual origins. In addition, they’ve intentionally chosen to side with the heretics wherever possible – against the believers in Scripture, building a case from the collection of repudiated beliefs against orthodoxy. To those who’ve claimed in this forum that the Bible lies, the liars are not on the side of the Evangelicals.
Choose your preferred history. I choose the New Testament.
Craig(Quote)
Смотреть фильм Шерлок Холмс часть 2
zherko(Quote)
Этот портал посвящён рекламе той самой какую вы постоянно слышите на всех телевизионных каналах
kreklama(Quote)
You don’t need to know much to recognize the truth of Christianity. You need not have studied anything.
Being a Christian = gift of yourself to others with an indifferent attitude toward yourself (love).
Love is purpose. For love to exist there must be more than one. That’s why there is a Father, a Son, and a Holy Spirit. (Though all are God, but different parts to the exchange of self gift.) A faith in Christ is a faith that the “Son” of this exchange of love was manifested as a true man in order to show us the perfect love (perfect self giving) we have the promise to accomplish!
You see truth never will be proven with any science. It can’t be, for it exists outside of empirical evidence. But it also exists within us. We all know love to be our purpose. We all know that’s how it “ought” to be. And if we understand that there is such a thing as “ought to be”, then we are admitting that there is a truth beyond the reaches of our experimentation. There is more to your existence than physics my friend!
PS: Tingly feelings are not needed for loving relationships. There is much more to them than that!
In Christ’s Name.
Kris(Quote)
As someone who was raised irreligiously, I can’t comprehend the difficulty of having to loose your faith. It really is compelling to see someone who can hear the voice of reason amongst the din of faith. Have a nice life.
James(Quote)
Thanks for your thoughts Craig, but what I was hoping to hear is what people think Paul taught that Jesus didn’t. No, I guess I mean specifically, what do the ‘use-to-be’ Christians think Paul taught that might have led to their rejection of Christianity, especially those who tend to admire, at least, the teachings of Christ and maybe even he himself, but have such a profound distaste for either the God of the Old Testament or Christianity as they believe Paul distorted it, that they are missing the Infinite Good. I have a lot to say about the God of the Old Testament, and the misrepresentations of himself that were necessary to bring the ancient world out of idolatry and into forms of worship as modes of relationship that would finally make a true revelation of his character possible in Jesus and breath into the world a pure and simple relationship with God and each other. But I would love to shake out of Christianity all the lethally ridiculous traditional beliefs that have been falsely attributed to Paul since the Reformation, especially as they have tweeked the gospel since the early 1900′s, and that tragically, make forsaking Christianity not only logical but the only conscientious thing to do.
“As Jesus said, “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far away from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.”
Matthew 15:8,9
So am asking again, if there is anyone out there who has left Christ on account of Christianity or the Christian scriptures as the most likely hope of a true revelation from a probable Deity, on account of the Old Testament or Paul’s differences with Jesus, please say so. I’d like to say that I’ve probably hated what you hate but have come to an understanding that is life to me, and might at least be interesting to you.
margie(Quote)
Margie –
Hopefully others fitting your criteria will chime in.
In the mean time, I was struck by the severity of your sentence which included your complaint about “the lethally ridiculous traditional beliefs that have been falsely attributed to Paul since the Reformation,” and particularly since 1900, falsely attributed to Paul
I’m curious. Which now-traditional beliefs are you referring to which originated in or since the Reformation, have been falsely attributed to Paul, are deadly, and might require the forsaking of Christianity?
Craig(Quote)
Well, to start with, one of the things non or ex-Christians have a hard time appreciating about God is that He eternally condemns people for something they didn’t do. So if He doesn’t do that, I’d like to bring that out. I know the idea started before they made it popular, but Luther and Calvin have cemented in the minds of most American Christians that humans are born morally corrupt and likewise condemned on account of Adam’s rebellion, and this false premise underlies many other false ideas. God says that “the sons will not bear the punishment of the father’s iniquity” (Ezekiel 18:20) and this principle was long established when Paul said, “Through one man (referring to Adam) sin entered the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned,” and I think Paul meant just what he said, no more and no less: There had been no sin in the world until Adam sinned, nor was there any death, but since all have sinned, all die (Romans 5:12). God breathed His life into humanity and we are only alive (as God means by the word), while we are living in love- God didn’t punish Adam with death, it just is what is when life ceases. Adam chose selfishness, loves adversary, and we now live in a world where love must work its way through death. Nothing Jesus said implied that He thought people were condemned for anything someone else did, but only and very reasonably, for their own selfishness.
This leads to another misunderstanding that I believe thinking people conscientiously question and/or reject or would if they realized that rejecting it is not the same as rejecting Jesus. Based on of the false notion that Adam’s wrong doing produced a judicial problem between God and His subjects, rather than a moral one between the Father and His offspring, God is said to be ‘just’ as only a holy God would be, to have a sort of wrath against mankind on account of the dishonoring of His law. God had said not to eat the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and said that if Adam ate it, he would die. Many suppose God declared that death would be the penalty, not merely the result. They then assume that the crime committed, God must have needed someone to die- as though that would fix anything? So Jesus, as it is said Paul taught, came to earth to die in our place; to take the punishment for the guilt we all have on account of Adam’s sin and ours. Jesus Himself never mentioned anything of the kind. Paul’s or any other author of scripture, speaking of Christ in reference to the mercy seat or as an offering, was clearly attempting to get the Jewish believer’s to quit counting themselves superior to the Gentile believer’s and to convince them once and for all that their Mosaic sacrifices and ceremonies were now a hindrance to a religion-less relationship with God through Jesus for all nations. The wonderful love of God demonstrated in His coming to earth to tell us the truth about life and love, a love that lives the truth and is willing to die for it, is lost in a superstitious story about God needing a blood sacrifice in order to have relationship with us, and Jesus being willing to become one to buy off the Judge, and it is repulsive to our own God given sense of morality.
This way of interpreting the scriptures, has always tended to produce immorality in those who believe it. Those who teach this, say the ‘gospel’ or good news is that if you believe Jesus died for your sins, taking your punishment so you can be deemed innocent, you can go to heaven. Often it is said that He literally took our sins into His body and that if we believe, we take His righteousness into ours. And that being done, none of the sins we commit will be counted against us in the end. This doctrine, although Calvinists as well as other schools of thought have held it since the Reformation, has only since the early 1900′s been taken to the degree of ridiculousness that has led the church in America to its current state of moral decline. I often wondered what had happened and found my answer reading the works of Charles Ryrie and Lewis Sperry Chafer. They spread the idea that the blood of Jesus covers all the sins you will ever commit, if you believe it does, even if you continue in them, unforsaken, deliberate wrong doing, harm, overlooked by God in His children who supposedly are the only ones who have the God given ability to obey, while He condemns those who were born unable to obey? Nope. Not according to Jesus. Jesus’ teachings are clear, and convict us only because they strike our common sense, and tell us what we feel we should have or could have, or maybe already knew, but didn’t it see as imperative.
I wish everyone who has become disenchanted or disgusted or embarrassed by the Christian religion, would go back and read what Jesus said and did one more time. What if the God of the Old Testament had represented Himself as He did out of necessity, not because of how He really was, but because of how humanity really was, and what if everything Jesus said and did really is the Word of God to us, “the exact representation of His Being” made visible, as well as mark of true humanity? I read His life and believe there is life in Him for me, and I will find it nowhere else; His life in me is life.
Craig, I know you maybe the only one who will read this, and I suppose you are sorry to have me say what seems to be counterproductive, but really, all of this needs to be readdressed, re-thunk, don’t you think. The reformers did just what their title implies, they re-formed the gospel. They should have just restored it.
margie(Quote)
Dear Margie,
1. You are torturing Paul’s words to make them say what in fact they don’t say. They actually do imply that men are condemned for an original sin. I quote again “death spread to all men, because all sinned”
If what you say is true only men who sin would die. What about babies who die in early infancy? Did they sin? What about people with severe mental disabilities? Why these categories of innocents have to carry the gun too? If God condemns this categories of innocent to death because of ‘sin’ then God is immoral.
2. “Adam choose selfishness…” Adam did not chose selfishness. He and Eve were punished for disobeying to God. The fruit they ate in the allegory of Genesis is the fruit of the ‘tree of knowledge’. It’s a tell- tale sign that the God, as imagined by these ancient tribes of shepherds roaming Canaan, (known as the Jews) realised that critical thinking is a treat to social peace (read ‘Paradise/Garden of Eden) since wisdom (the fruit) can lead to question the authority of God (the chieftain, the king). Knowledge is a bad thing in religion. God requires his creatures to worship him uncritically while maintaining them in a state of blissful ignorance. Adam was not selfish. he was curious.
3. “God didn’t punish Adam with death”. Yes, he did. By taking away immortality and banning them from Eden, God condemn them (A&E) to death. On top of that, what is the necessity of a ‘life-and-death’ cycle before attaining ‘eternal life in heaven’??? Why does God create me to live in sorrow and want and then die in agony while leaving me horrendous doubts about his plans about me… having decided that only a relatively small number of people in Roman Palestine could be direct witnesses of his word? Either there is no God or he’s very immoral.
4. “Nothing Jesus said implied that He thought people were condemned for anything someone else did, but only and very reasonably, for their own selfishness.”
False. According to the Gospels this is the very reason why Jesus is sent on earth by the God. Redeem humanity from someone else’s alleged sin. If this was true, by the way, it would be only fair for God to forgive any sort of ‘sin’ (I’d rather term sin as immoral behaviour). And that for two reasons.
a. We didn’t ask to be created, and we didn’t ask to be created with a free will. Why then should our Creator punish us for our behaviour, whatever the circumstances? Instead of behaving morally out of fear of punishment we should all try our best to behave morally because we are empathetic to each other (and to each other condition). The golden rule of ‘treat others the way you would want to be treated’ is not exclusive to Christianity. A God who creates a free-thinking being and then punish him for eternity for not behaving according to plan is immoral. If God condemns people exercising free will then it’s better to be born mentally disabled or to die in early infancy in order to avoid the burden of responsibility. I’m sorry there is no escape to this argument.
b. Some of us behave poorly because of genetic factors as recent studies demonstrate the existence of a ‘warrior gene’ that is present in some people. These people are genetically predisposed to aggressive behaviour which trigger under certain environmental conditions. Should then God, who presumably created the warrior gene, condemn to hellfire people who misbehaved having a natural predisposition to aggression and violent behaviour?
5. What if the God of the Old Testament had represented Himself as He did out of necessity, not because of how He really was, but because of how humanity really was…”
What if the God of the Old Testament was a layered representation of what ancient tribesmen roaming the semi-arid regions of Canaan thought of God and the world they were living in by having no knowledge of the laws of physics, anatomy, botany, astronomy etc? You are trying to imply that God misrepresented himself out of necessity? And then when he saw things were getting better he decides to send Jesus in order to reveal his true identity???? (things were not better by the way… one only need to read contemporary authors like Flavius Josephus or Livy to understand that humanity wasn’t any better than what it had been…) What an absurdity.
6. I don’t find some of the teaching of Jesus particularly moral either (Example: Matthew 10.37 ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me’).
Enrico(Quote)
Hi Margie…
Hey, I appreciate you sharing your thoughts. I think I understand your logical assumption to be: Reformed Christians over the past 500 years have mis-represented the Bible’s true teachings, exacerbated by Dispensationalists in the past 100 years, which have combined to present a “God” and “Christianity” that is untenable to moral, thinking people. One (perhaps understandable) response produces atheism or at least a rejection of this distorted Christianity. And another, preferable response could be to pursue a rediscovery of authentic Christianity – which might be embraced by current atheists, once purged of its distortions.
Did I get that right?
Aside from the particularities you offer (which I’ll plan to come back to in a day or so, after more atheists have had opportunity to respond), I think you are thinking that objections to Christianity are purely rational and appropriate according to some moral sense developed outside of current Christianity. (i.e. let’s get rid of the distortions which reveal a false morality and the current atheists will be attracted to the true morality of a true Christ). I think there is partial validity to your hypothesis. The way I and others try to live out this aspect is to truly pursue loving people, striving to not be a hypocrite (though Christians have no monopoly on hypocrisy), and modeling my life after New Testaments teachings (i.e. the lives of Jesus and Paul and Peter and James, etc.). And in some cases, more or less moral non-Christians sometimes “admire” this, and are sometimes drawn toward Christ through this. However, it is wise to remember that Christ Jesus himself — being as “Christlike” as possible was hated, reviled, and murdered. Similarly, Paul and 11 of Jesus’ 12 disciples were as spiritual and “Christlike” as anyone has ever been – and yet were persecuted to the point of death. And, I don’t think people have really changed. When light shines, darkness runs away, or is offended and tries to destroy the light. That has always been.
However, at root I think your assumption is misguided, or at least overwhelmed by other realities. The heart of this reality is, interestingly, what you hope to deny. For example, Enrico’s post shows that he is both well-studied in the New Testament (i.e. not necessarily misunderstanding NT teachings), and hostile to ideas of God and Christianity. He serves as a current example of why I don’t think (what I perceive to be) your thesis accounts for deeper reasons why atheists reject God.
Now, if an innate heart of rebellion (or as Paul described us as “slaves to sin”), coupled with limitations on our human reasoning are admitted to all of us, then we recognize that we all need to be overcome by God’s grace and forgiveness which transforms us and replaces our hardened heart with a new heart (this is the central prophetic hope of the OT – according to the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel) – i.e. the “New Covenant” realities found through Christ. This is why there should be no self-pride among “believers” — only gratitude toward God.
As Paul taught, all of us were lost in sin (spiritually dead) until awakened and enlivened by the Spirit of God through regeneration (i.e. “new birth” / “new life”). As Paul insisted, the “natural man” reasons according to nature. This accounts for atheist conclusions. Whereas, the life of the “spirit” is ascertained spiritually. God’s ways are higher than man’s natural ways and must be submitted to through confession and seeking forgiveness for sin through God’s provision of Jesus. Then the Holy Spirit (God in us) gradually and increasingly transforms our thinking (turning what was “naturally” upside-down to become rightside-up) and we begin to see the world and ultimate reality through a God-glorifying lens. Unredeemed man is no longer the lens or prism through which we make evaluations. Rather, we see “spiritually” as the holy Scriptures retrain our eyes through Holy Spirit’s transformation of our minds and hearts. What is “foolishness” to them, according to Paul has become to us the “wisdom of God” and the power of the gospel.
Meanwhile, those who war against God for perceived injustice or immorality prove the reality of their present slavery to sin and insistence on independence from the very God who might rescue them. The way out continues to be through the “gate”, the “door” of receiving Jesus as Savior of one’s sins. The problem is not merely rational or natural, nor is the solution. It is, of course, supernatural.
Craig(Quote)
Enrico –
You mention (#6) that you don’t find some of Jesus’ teachings particularly moral. You offer Matt. 10:37 as example, where he says that if you love others (even family) more than me you are not worthy of me.
Interestingly, I find this profoundly moral!
But to see it so, perhaps it is helpful to think of “value”.
Try to follow me on this:
If I owned a $10,000 diamond – given to me as a precious gift and part of an inheritance from my Grandfather, which is sure to appreciate over time. And if I also owned a $10 birthstone… Would it be proper to value the $10 birthstone as highly as the $10,000 diamond? Would it not be appropriate, right, justified, even “moral” to recognize the difference between the 2 stones, and give 1000x honor to that which is truly 1000x more valuable?
This is the precise distinction Jesus is giving. He is not saying, “hate your family” in the way a mobster or terrorist might murder their own kin for power or money. Clearly, with all of Jesus’ emphasis on loving one’s neighbor and one’s enemy, love for family is already assumed.
Rather, Jesus is saying in a rabbinical way (i.e. a customary form of teaching that relies of stark contrast – even exaggeration for dramatic effect): “You know you love your family – as you should. But if you know who I am — the Messiah, the Son of the Living God, the Savior of the world — you would value me infinitely more highly, so highly that your love for your family would seem to be hate.” He is making a dramatic contrast to heighten his point.
Nothing is more valuable than Christ Jesus. Nothing is more honorable than knowing and serving God.
Is this explanation/interpretation helpful for you?
Craig(Quote)
Enrico,
Just as I thought, you at least are one person who has objections to the things I used to think I had to believe in order to believe in God, particularly as a Christian, and that’s why I wanted to share my discoveries on this site.
In response to paragraph 1., Sin, as you accurately define it, is immorality. Often biblical terms take on a non-meaning in our heads that makes them vulnerable. We can use immorality as our working definition here. No act can be immoral in and of itself. It is always the intention or motive that makes a deed right or wrong. So sin can’t be a genetic trait passed down parent to child. It has to be something wrong done, when something right was a known option; or a good chosen perhaps when something better might have been. So you’re right, babies can’t sin, people who don’t have the capacity to be rational can’t sin, and no one can be immoral in rejecting a truth they could not have been aware of. James 4:17 says, “To him who knows the good he ought to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.” And Paul himself said that to those who do not have the enlightenment of the law, specifically the words of God, their own conscience will either accuse them or defend them (Romans 2:14-16). Traditional doctrines have made sin out to be something that someone else can either get into you or get out of you apart from your free choice. Impossible. Sin is a willful state of heart. And another misunderstanding is that when God said to Adam about the fruit, “On the day that you eat of it, you will surely die,” He had to mean a moral death in Adam, the death of his own moral innocence. Adam didn’t die physically that day. God couldn’t have been referring to physical death. Adam’s moral likeness to God, the basis of their relationship was lost; it is subsequently lost to the world, because babies are born now, outside of a morally sound environment for which they cannot personally be condemned but it can be said the world itself is condemned on account of it futility. Babies soon and naturally learn to be self seeking. But it’s only when that self seeking becomes inordinate, that is, compels them to pursue their own well being at the expense of others, in spite of knowing a greater good and having an ability to do otherwise, that they can said to sin or become immoral.
2. “Knowledge is bad to God.” No, God’s original intention was to make man like Himself, nothing has changed. God meant humanity to know perfectly. God is love: His own nature compelled Him to create offspring that could enjoy what He has, and the most He can do for us in to make us perfectly susceptible to His own joy in Being, or as He says in 2Thessalonians, “to share His glory.” It is by way of knowledge, the use of wisdom, and adherence to conscience that we regain our knowledge of God, “He will lead you into all truth.” Adam didn’t want to be led by God, the only option was more or less falsehood. So although all God did was clothe him and let him know what to expect from the new living conditions he had brought on himself and his descendants, man has been naturally afraid of God since. It was not God’s idea for men to offer sacrifices, they just did; the compulsion arises from a darkened mind. God merely prescribed, and not until the time of Moses, a sacrificial system that would do away with human sacrifice and the physically and morally unhealthy modes of worship man had fallen into; and in so doing, instill a language in their minds that could be used to communicate the divine love, the love that lays down its life for others, even its enemies. Until the true nature of God could be received, He had to relate to mankind on an elementary level. (Read “The Philosophy of the Plan of Salvation” by James Barr Walker.)
3. There is no inherent necessity for physical death. Neither Enoch nor Elijah died physically, but it is certainly common. It isn’t God’s doing that we have doubts about His intentions toward us, He just can’t work with anything but what He’s got to work with. Like I said, no one will be condemned by God for rejecting the truth but those who are self condemned by it.
4 a. I totally agree, I think.
b. If ‘they’ come up with a ‘warrior gene’ or a ‘selfish gene’ that predisposes us to harmful or even inconvenient behavior, nothing has been proven but that our mammal-ness naturally inclines us to behave in ways that our spiritual or intuitive inner being has the ability and therefore often the obligation to counter. Yes, God created us this way, and that without our permission. Here we are, and here He is with us, not holding our weakness against us (2Cor. 5:19) but taking on the pain of our misunderstandings and wrong doings on Himself in the course of reconciliation.
7. Right about things not having gotten any better by the time Jesus lived on earth. Nor will any amount of physics, anatomy, biology or astronomy etc., elevate the nature of mankind. What we needed was good solid evidence that the sense we have that there is more to human life than can be satisfied here, and reason to be believe that living as He says, in communion with Him here, will without question be eternal life. And that’s what He gave us.
7. It’s true that Jesus said that unless we hate everyone else, so to speak, so as to love Him with all our hearts, that unless we give up everything, even our own souls or lives, we can not have the relationship with Him that will bring us into incorruptibility. That’s only an immoral claim if He isn’t who said He was. If He is the greatest kindness.
margie(Quote)
I likewise am a preacher’s kid, and would like to take a second to thank you for your courage and I am happy to have shared a somewhat similar journey as you have. Please take a moment to look at my own personal story, albeit only a sketch, and continue searching for truth in all aspects of your life. Here is my story and website: http://www.blazingtruth.com/faithfully-reasonable
In Reason,
Dave
Dave | Blazing Truth (@blazing_truth)(Quote)
Good stuff Margie, very interesting.
Zeb(Quote)
Zeb,
Well, I’ve never posted on a blog before, but I just had to say as best I could, that the belief system/religion that is being rejected here, and I think often with good reason, is not the moral re-union of God and man Jesus died to inspire in us. What seems to our brains like superstition, or strikes our hearts as unfair, does so because there really is an Infinite Good who made us in image, and He doesn’t want us to believe anything but the truth, or value anything beyond moral purity. If you go back and read the words of Jesus and the messages of Peter and Paul in the book of Acts, taking a common sense view, you don’t find the religion you see today being established. What you find is a life proclaimed, a life to be lived here in and with the actual Spirit of God. I know Him.
margie(Quote)
I know it was a while back Craig, but you were going to give it some time and then respond to some of the points I attempted to make to Enrico, and I just realized that I didn’t acknowledge your post. I would be really glad to hear your input though, thanks.
But, I am coming from the stance that God is love, that is, impartial, unchanging, infinite kindness, and that the scriptures, if taken logically, prove it from Genesis to Revelation. I know that in theory, every Christian agrees. It’s just that real Christianity is not a theory, it’s living one in mind as well as in heart with God- a life eternal in nature or quality, which is evidenced by practical, moral right-ness, not merely a technical, legal, or mysteriously “imputed” righteousness. Misinterpretations handed down to us, having run their course, make loving God unreasonable and therefore impossible to rational beings, and make ‘faith’ a kind of blind hope that all this will make sense someday, and we’ll get ‘there’ what we’ve been promised here. If we don’t have something better to say to atheists, we probably will have nothing to say to God.
I just wanted to let our friends on this site know that the arguments they have with God that I’ve heard here at least, are things I’d have against Him too, but having passed through those times of questioning when they fell away, I realized finally, that I was just trying to fit pieces into a puzzle that didn’t belong to it. If they had all the right pieces, and none of the wrong ones, they’d at least be looking at the true picture.
margie(Quote)
Surfing on internet and listening to scholars of different religions i came across a Muslim scholar Dr. Zakir Naik. I would recommend his lectures, debates and books to you and i believe gonna love his research as much as i did.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1S4wHtNw95Q
james(Quote)
Luke,
I have a story somewhat like yours. I was raised to believe, but even as a kid I knew that reality had to be something we were missing. As an adult I spent a lot of time, time and again, mad at God because no matter how great he might be, the plan just wasn’t working for me. I kept running into my own unbelief, and of course, everything hinges on faith. I had started out accepting that the bible didn’t make sense to me, but assuming there had once been some intelligent and godly men that had figured out how this all went, and it made sense to them. But the more I learned in an effort to make ‘it’ work for me, to give me peace and the freedom to live in the Spirit as promised, the more I was frustrated. Then, the more I studied various schools of thought, the more I found the traditional interpretation of this or that scripture running contrary to the obvious theme of the book, which is, as I see it, that love must be perfected in us in order for us to be truly human, truly alive, and living an eternal life. Clearly, to my mind and to the few who have escaped the fallacies so prevalent today, there must be a rational, virtuous, practical, and current life with God lived here, to have any assurance of the fulfillments of God’s promises for the future. But I couldn’t get into, or stay in, that life. I’m 51, and long story short, if there had been any chance that I could have been true to myself and thrown in the towel, I would have shared your relief in being an atheist. The difference is that instead of seeking to find the truth by looking back at someone’s record of the historical Jesus, who was no more there at the time than I was, as you did, I kept being drawn beyond Jesus, to the ‘something more’ than He was able to get through to the masses via His historical presence. Now I may be seriously violating all blog decorum with this long excerpt, but I have found, as I said in a previous post, the God who really does make sense of everything, the God who alone can inspire the love that is life in us, the God only Jesus could point us to, but to whom Jesus could only point. I hope you’ll read it. It expresses well a foundational truth that turns all that is otherwise ridiculous in the Christian faith, or in any belief in God, into a key that opens the way to the understanding necessary to honest thinking, and from there to “love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith.”
“When God is revealed, it cannot be as the One, as the Infinite, or Absolute, but only as through media. And as there are no infinite media, no signs that express the infinite, no minds, in fact, that can apprehend the infinite by direct inspection, the One must appear in the manifold; the Absolute in the conditional… And in whatever thing He appears, or is revealed, there will be something that misrepresents, as well as something that represents Him. The revealing process, that which makes Him appear, will envelop itself in clouds of formal contradiction- that is, of diction which is contrary, in some way, to the truth, and which, taken simply as diction, is continually setting forms against each other.
Thus, the God revealed, in distinction from the God Absolute, will have parts, forms, colors, utterances, motions, activities, assigned Him. He will think, deliberate, reason, remember, have emotions. Then, taking up all these manifold representations, casting out the matter in which they are cross to each other, and repugnant to the very idea of the God they represent, we shall settle into the true knowledge of God, and receive, as far as the finite can receive the Infinite, the contents of the divine nature…
Or, let me give the same truth under yet another form. God, as the Absolute Being, is not under the law of action and reaction. He does not compare, try contrasts, raise definitions, in order to know Himself. He has all the poles of self knowledge in His consciousness, and knows Himself by an absolute, eternal, infinite, self-intuition. We, on the other hand, exist under the law of action and reaction, and our minds are worked under this law, as truly as our bodies. The only absolute knowledge we have, relates to a few necessary ideas: time, space, cause and effect, truth, right, and the axioms of mathematical science. As regards all matters of opinion, fact, being, we are obliged to get our knowledge under the law of action and reaction- through finites that are relative to each other, through antagonisms, contrasts, comparisons, interactions, counteractions. And yet in God, considered as Absolute, there are none of these. Therefore, to set our minds in action, or to generate in us a knowledge of Himself, He must produce Himself in finite forms; under the relations of space, as above and below, on this side and on that; by motion towards, involving motion from. For instance, the Savior, in His exaltation, goes up, by a visible ascent, into the heavens. That is, motion from and motion towards indicate His divine exaltation. And yet, if He parted from His disciples on the other side of the world, He would have moved in exactly the opposite direction. Now, the reality of the ascension, as we call it, is not the motion, but what the motion signifies, viz., the change of state. So, when we pray for the Holy Spirit, it is for the descent of the Holy Spirit- not that there is any descent or motion in the case; we only work our thought under the great law of action and reaction, which belongs to the finite quality of our nature.
It was under this principle, and no other, that the special economy of the Jewish state was appointed. The whole universe of God is a real and proper theocracy, but here a special theocracy is organized for the purpose of raising contrasts, and by that means revealing God or making His sway apparent. God was the God of Egypt, Babylon, and Philistia, as truly as of Israel. But in a uniform handling of these nations, dark and brutish as their minds were at that time, all would miss of perceiving Him- He would only be a lost idea. Hence, for the benefit of all, that is, to make His sway apparent to all, He selects one people of the four, to receive a special discipline and have a special outward future dispensed to them. He is to be called their God, and they His people; and it is to be seen, by the victories He gives, and the wondrous deliverances He vouchsafes, how superior He is to the other gods of the nations. And so He will be known, at length, as the Great God and King above all gods. In one view, this special theocracy has a fictitious and even absurd look; for, when we scan the matter more deeply, we find that God reigns in Philistia as truly as in Israel, and the contrast raised is only God contrasted with Himself. Still the truth communicated through the contrast- viz., God is the fundamental verity of the transaction, and the Jewish polity is only the means He appointed to make His power known, and disclose, to all, that broader and more comprehensive theocracy, which is the shelter, blessing and joy of all…
Now it is in this manner only, through relations, contrasts, actions, and reactions, that we come into the knowledge of God. As Absolute Being, we know Him not. But our mind, acted under the law of action and reaction, is carried up to Him, or thrown back upon Him, to apprehend Him more and more perfectly. Nothing that we see, or can see, represents Him fully, or can represent Him truly; for the finite cannot show us the Infinite. But between various finites, acting so as to correct each other, and be supplements to each other, we get a true knowledge (if only as intuitive sense). Our method may be compared to that of resultant motions in philosophy. No one finite thing represents the Absolute Being; but between two or more finite forces acting at indirect angles on our mind, it is driven out, in a resultant motion, towards the Infinite. Meantime, a part of the two finite forces, being oblique or false, is destroyed by the mutual counteraction of forces.
Under this same law, I suggest that we look for a solution to the trinity, and of the person of Jesus Christ. They are relativities to conduct us to the Absolute.
Observe that, when God is revealed, He will not, if He is truly and efficiently revealed, be cleared of obscurity and mystery. He will not be a bald, philosophic unity, perfectly comprehended and measured by us. We shall not have His boundaries (nor His components, or ingredients); He will not be simple to us as a man is. When we have reduced Him to that, and call it our reason or philosophy, we have only gotten up a somewhat larger man than ourselves, and set this larger man in the place of Absolute Being. And if we perfectly understand Him, if we have no questions about Him, the colder, and in real truth the more unknown His is- the Infinite revealed away, not revealed. No; if He is revealed at all, it will be through infinite repugnancies and contrarieties; through forms, colors, motions, words, persons or personalities; all presenting themselves to our sense and feeling, to pour in something of the divine into our nature. And a vast circle of mystery will be the back ground of all other representations, on which they will play and glitter in living threads of motion, as lightening on a cloud; and what they themselves do not reveal of God, the mystery will- a Being infinite, undiscovered, undiscoverable, therefore true. But if we could see the last boundaries of God, and hold Him clear of a question within the molds of logic and cognition, then He is not God any longer, we have lost the conception of God…
And precisely so, the reality of Christ is what He expresses of God, not what He is in His physical conditions, under His human limitations. He is here to express the Absolute Being, especially His feeling, His love to man, His amiableness, conversableness, and His real union to the race; in a word, to communicate His own Life to the race, and graft Himself historically into it. Therefore, when we see Him thus under the conditions of increase, obedience, worship, suffering, we have nothing to do but to ask what is here expressed, and as long as we do that, we shall have no difficulty. But if we insist on being more curious, viz., on understanding the composition of the person of Jesus, and the relations of the infinite to the finite in His person, we can create as much difficulty as we please; though scarcely more than we could, if we pleased to investigate, in the same manner, the interior relations of words or the types of words to thoughts; for we can as easily perceive how Jesus is constructed for the expression of God, as how a straight line (rectus, right) becomes the symbol of virtue. There is a point of contradiction in both- a something transcendent, which no investigations could ever reach.” (H. Bushnell)
margie(Quote)
Проект Strajnik.com раскрывает вопросы самообороны в различных ситуациях.
scrabler(Quote)
I wish more Christians would read stories like this, because we hear stories of apostasy but most of us never see the full brunt of it. This story makes me tear up for you and for your family and I’m not sure what I can do but pray.
Eric Miller(Quote)
It seems to me that you may have been raised among people with pastors who preach like the ones I critically analyze on my blog. You need to get out of this contemporary bubble in order to study seriously. Most pastors and theologians today are neither pastoral nor theological. Try ‘Studies in Theology’ by B. B. Warfield and ‘The Existence and Atrributes of God’ by Stephen Charnock. I say, try these books out without prejudging them by nonsense like ‘the historical jesus’ seminars. I challenge you to prove yourelf more serious than that picture of yourself shows you to be.
mark(Quote)
I will pray for you
Eddy(Quote)
Hey Luke!
I appreciate your honesty. You’re more level-headed than most and, as I can procure from your other blog posts, you take a much, much more balanced and honest approach than few others—atheists or theists—do.
I know you’re quite a reader so I thought I’d share one book in particular which, although not perfect (the forward is garbage don’t read it), it’s titled: I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist(provocative title, I know. I though the same thing when someone recommended it to me) by Norman Geisler. Its got 240 reviews on Amazon so it’s clearly not some obscure book, and it truly is a pivotal book, stimulating, interesting, and my favorite—written for the most part in a balanced considerate way. I really encourage you check it out! It’s the best book I’ve read on the subject!
Spencer Camp(Quote)
Hi Luke,
Stumbled across your website by accident or serendipity? I guess one of the reasons that I do believe in God or a Higher Power is because of accidents like that. I’ve had many in my life. Things that have happened that were mysterious and/or miraculous that led me in the right direction vs. the wrong direction. I was also lucky? enough, I guess to have a “near death” experience when I was 16, where I did feel the immediate and comforting presence of God. It was unlike any other, except to know that we all are connected and cared for and loved. I feel extremely fortunate to know, “for sure” that there is a Higher Presence and a life after this one.
Yet, I do believe that we are given this free will to choose, wisely or foolishly and I, too am confused when bad things happen in this world. I do believe there is a dichotomy of good vs. evil, yin vs. yang, that permeates existance. I don’t know why that is, but it is. I also believe there is a grand design and therefore a grand designer to the design of the universe. I have a brand new grand daughter, and I am in awe of how she started from one tiny seed and sperm and is now this miraculous creature who is so familiar, yet all her own. She has her father’s eyes and nose, her mother’s smile and yet this unique “spirit” which is all her own. I can’t explain it.
Like you said, you can see the evidence of the Grand designer it all around you in nature. For example, tomatoes are good for the heart, and they are shaped like the 4 chambers of the heart. A carrot is good for the eyes, and when you cut it open, it looks like the iris of the eye. The majesty of our planet and how the wind, the clouds, the water and the earth all work in concert together to make this sustainable for all the living creatures on it. A sunrise or sunset, just like our fingerprints are unique, and each day we are given a new day to love and appreciate.
I think perhaps, you are not so much an atheist, as an agnostic, one who doubts the existence of a Higher Power, but sees the evidence of One all around you. The fact that as you are reading this, your heart is beating, your lungs are working and you don’t even have to think about that. The miracle of the body and just how that all works together is amazing as well.
I don’t think that science and spirituality are against each other, rather we are slowly learning, revealing and explaining the miracles that we see all around us. Even though we can explain how things work, it does not make it any less a miracle. :)
Can you be good without God? Many people are, but it still does not fill the spriritual thirst inside of us. We are made to desire and want to know God, your blog is evidence of that. You can look at any culture, anywhere in the world, and you will find an common need and desire to seek God, whether you are looking in the Amazon rain forest, the Aeulutian Islands or downtown Minnesota. Enjoy the journey!
livefortodayok(Quote)
Each person has a minimum capacity to think, observe, test out and form a conclusion.
That is yours, with whatever results it brings.
Judging you is not an entitlement of any human. It is not possible to know all the dynamics that make you “you”.
There is one thing that I feel on solid ground. Religions, from Babylon to today is a ruthless scheme. There is much more to this conclusion. It would be a burdensome to say more to you.
However, I know where I have been, and what I have experienced, and why, and what is happening now, and where I am going and how to succeed to get there. I am not fooled by extravagant thinking or any person or group or philosophy or agenda. I do not permit what is so-called “faith” to touch me. All things needed are completely and reliably clear to me!
I have no delusions or personal agenda. As I read a bit of you discourse, I felt a quiet calmness. I already have what you say you have been lookeing for! I would be a fool to try to fathom out what is impeding you or to offer you anything.
You have your next breath and your mind and your heart. Like it is said at the beginning, how you use them is your entitlement, along with the results.
All that you have studied, pondered and reasoned on has nothing to do with any of my conclusions. Yet, uncorrupted confidence is mine. Little you say makes me think it would be appropriate to say anything more to you. If you think you have a solid reason, then ask. My response depends on you. Only direct contact by email will be available to you. I will not revisit this site.
~a/k/a Casey Barnes KC_Barnes@MSN.com
a/k/a Casey Barnes(Quote)
Скачать порно ролики бесплатно
admin12(Quote)
Подробная информация с описанием всех денежных единиц всех стран мира.
dvsmru(Quote)
~admin12
~dvsmru
Вы уже имеете азимут гадостной порнографии в этом месте!
a/k/a Casey Barnes(Quote)
Вы уже имеете риторический азимут гадостного порно в этом месте!
a/k/a Casey Barnes(Quote)
Вы уже имеете азимут гадостной порнографии в этом месте!
“Вы уже имеете риторический азимут гадостного порно в этом месте!”
a/k/a Casey Barnes(Quote)
Пневматическое оружие, арбалеты, ножы
Vjzhtubcnhfwbz1(Quote)
I just read about you and at the end I still am not sure whether you have turned into a militant atheist or you are now an enlightened and liberal Christian theist.
Are you now an admirer of and convinced with the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, etc., who are writing best sellers for the encouragement of new atheists and the confirmation or re-enforcement of already convinced atheists?
Are you now into stealing communion hosts to desecrate them or to contribute to bus ads about there is no God so enjoy life, or going to courts to demand the removal of crosses in public buildings, etc.?
Well, anyway tell me categorically that you are now a militant atheist, or you are now an enlightened liberal Christian theist.
What are you up in hosting this blog: for self-re-enforcement as an atheist or what?
Well, if I may, if adopting the identity of an atheist is like finding the pearl of great price and not having to pay for it, why don’t you just go forth in life and enjoy life, why bother with all this blogging business about what, commonsense atheism, it is so uncommon sense.
Anyway, if this comment comes out in your blog without any edits, thanks for your remaining an open-mind human.
Pachomius
Pachomius(Quote)
Форум о заработке и рекламе в интернете для всех.
greek1313(Quote)
I don’t know if you’re still reading these comments, Luke. But I’m struggling.. in my faith.. I think I don’t believe in God, which is terrifying for me. Because, I mean, I’ve been in the presence of God, I’m devestated with what has happened to me. It’s because I became interested in philosophy, that I kept searching, and the more I found out…
Anyway, I read some stuff you posted that helped drive you away from religion. Do you think you could do me a favour, and maybe email me a few good arguments that have really made you question God? I need to pick a side, I can’t remain indecisive forever. There either is or isn’t a God, I’m leaning toward the latter, but.. I’m terrified to make that jump.
Allison(Quote)
Hi Allison, I felt compelled to respond to your post. I just wanted to recommend to you probably the two leading Christian apologists alive today: William Lane Craig and John Lennox. If there is an atheist/skeptic writing a book today then William Lane Craig has very likely debated him and you can watch it on Youtube. Craig has debated almost 100 times now and I can assure you that the Christian position comes out the strongest in every debate (even Luke on this website agrees check out what he has to say about William Lane Criag). The debate with Christopher Hitchens is especially good. John Lennox is a professor of Mathematics at Oxford University. You can watch his debate with Richard Dawkins at the Oxford Natural History Museum on Youtube. I am a pastor and I came to Christ as a result of the evidence/arguments for Jesus of Nazareth’s claims to divinity and His resurrection from the dead. I believe what Pascal said, “There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition” (Pascal, Pensées 144). However, the “light” or arguments for Christ, God, and the Bible are far more weighty than the arguments for atheism. If you would like me to recommend some books to you or if you would like to dialogue further just let me know justin@1042church.com. Romans 1:20-22 God bless
Justin(Quote)
Allison,
You’ve been in the presence of God. I’m guessing there was a time in your life that God was the only thing you were certain of, but now that you aren’t feeling His presence it seems like He must not exist. In between then and now, something must have happened that made you question His goodness or His devotion to you personally. You would do well to take Justin’s advice and check out the resources he mentioned, but what are you going to do about the fact that you know you’ve been in the presence of God? The natural selection/intelligent design debate will not decide what is truth for you. Everybody winds up making the choice to believe or disbelieve based on their perspective on the evidence for either side. Whether people admit it or not, they wind up feeling one way or another; feelings determine our preferences and thus our choices. That’s why atheists rely heavily on discrediting God’s character. Makes sense; everyone assumes that if God is, He must be good and many of them became atheists because they had once believed in a God who wasn’t good. I don’t believe they had their facts straight. Take the God Delusion as an example- like so many atheists, Dawkin’s list of reasons that God isn’t good (and so we should not believe in Him), is simply his own misinformation or misunderstanding making God look ridiculous. But all of their points against God prove nothing more than that the god whom they speak of must not be the real one. Jesus is not necessarily responsible for all that is Christianity by the way, nor is He necessarily accurately defined by popular ideas of Him. God is light, in Him there is no darkness at all. If you have doubts about His character that are making you question His existence, I’d like to address them so please let me know.
The pain you feel in sensing His absence is evidence that there is a natural and inherent want of life between you. You may come to a state of mind in which God so truly does not exist that you escape your conscious want of Him, but He will never be without His want of you.
margie(Quote)
congrats on taking the red pill, it means so much more that you did it willingly. those of us raised without a religion cannot understand what it must be like to suddenly doubt the absurdities taught in Christianity and beyond.
nathan(Quote)
[quote=previous comment] Pachomius November 24, 2011 at 4:13 pm
I just read about you and at the end I still am not sure whether you have turned into a militant atheist or you are now an enlightened and liberal Christian theist.
Are you now an admirer of and convinced with the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet, etc., who are writing best sellers for the encouragement of new atheists and the confirmation or re-enforcement of already convinced atheists?
Are you now into stealing communion hosts to desecrate them or to contribute to bus ads about there is no God so enjoy life, or going to courts to demand the removal of crosses in public buildings, etc.?
Well, anyway tell me categorically that you are now a militant atheist, or you are now an enlightened liberal Christian theist.
What are you up in hosting this blog: for self-re-enforcement as an atheist or what?
Well, if I may, if adopting the identity of an atheist is like finding the pearl of great price and not having to pay for it, why don’t you just go forth in life and enjoy life, why bother with all this blogging business about what, commonsense atheism, it is so uncommon sense.
Anyway, if this comment comes out in your blog without any edits, thanks for your remaining an open-mind human.
Pachomius
[/quote]
Well, I am not happy that you are not answering my comment, so I guess I won’t be writing here anymore, except unless you also answer to comments.
Better, please host a forum so that people can interact with you.
Maybe I missed your answer to my comment, so I will look again for it.
No, I don’t see any answer from you to my comment — and I don’t read your emails either because your emails are just to notify addressees that there are new comments or you have written something new.
What I want very much is interaction with you; so put up a forum.
Pachomius
Pachomius(Quote)
Замена катализаторов,резонаторов,гофр,уч. труб
grossu(Quote)
Hello all,
I would just like to thank you, Luke, along with everyone else who has commented, for sharing your stories. Within the past several months I have found myself yearning for truth, but it hasn’t been easy. Like a lot of you I also grew up as a pastor’s kid, and have not even been able to voice any of my thoughts or concerns about the Christian church and beliefs, and religion in general, to any family or friends.
Because of this I feel like I’m living a double-life at this point, and have been feeling very distressed knowing that I will eventually have to express these questions and doubts to those that I love…whom I know will be frightened and disappointed, unfortunately. But reading the original post and the comments have inspired me to continue with my search without fear of what I might find, and to have the courage to be okay with questioning, and to someday take the leap and tell my family and friends about this journey. And I don’t feel so alone anymore. So thank you, friends.
Much love.
Emily(Quote)
Наращивание ресниц в Киеве
misslash(Quote)
Удобный и малогаборитный девайс
bw_eysk(Quote)
Emily,
My heart goes out to you as having been a “pastor’s kid”. I am raising 2 “pastor’s kids” right now. As high schoolers, they are old enough to see inconsistencies in me and in others. And they have many questions they cannot answer. But they also are able to recognize the radical differences in how Christians in our church live – compared to the (sinful) lifestyles of most everyone they interact with at their public school. And we are able to process their questions together.
I encourage you to open up dialogue with your parents and Christian friends – while you are in process. Many times, raising questions and acknowledging doubts prompts study and reflection that becomes the bedrock for deeper faith. Christians are included among the most brilliant of people throughout the ages (think of Isaac Watts – doctorate and fluent in all classical languages by the age of 19, Blaise Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Carl Henry), as are theists (Einstein for example, plus former famous atheist Antonin Flew). So, being able to generate scientific and philosophical questions and to then pursue reasonable answers are certainly within the quest abilities of Christians. While there are people of all belief systems who bypass their brains, to be a thinking/questioning/pondering Christian is no anomaly.
I encourage you to bring loved ones and trusted friends into your search. Don’t just read skeptics online. You haven’t seen how they live. You don’t have access to the credibility of their lives up close. You don’t have access to how the final chapters of their lives are written, or the damage that happens in their personal worlds.
For a great read — in memory of (“God is not Great” fame) Christopher Hitchens, who just died and has now met his Maker, please check out the book by his former atheist-activist brother. By Peter Hitchens, it is revealingly entitled, “The Rage Against God: How Atheism Led Me to Faith”. He describes how he has studied and observed where atheism leads, wherever it is most faithfully practiced. As Scripture reveals — it leads to death and destruction. Meanwhile, the path to light and life is found in Christ.
Keep searching. Keep reading both sides. More than anything — keep praying for the Lord to reveal Himself to you. People come to faith and maintain their faith — through faithfully responding to the Spirit of God. It is not measurable scientifically. But this doesn’t mean it is not the truest reality. (Rather, it just confirms the boundaries of scientific inquiry).
Try to remember what spiritual need brought you to Christ initially (forgiveness, reconciliation with God, void for unchanging love…) and ask yourself how rejecting God will fill that remaining need. Re-read Scriptures that have spoken to you in the past. Do they still communicate the Truth of God to your heart?
Craig(Quote)
craig,
inconsistencies? why do you ask Emily to re-read scriptures that have “spoken” to her?
i know why, its because in order to have faith in that sick and twisted book written by primative men, you have to ignore passages like this:
Exodus Chapter 21, verse 20:
“If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”
yup, that’s your “good book” showing a pretty big inconsistency from a God who is supposed to love us eh? condones not only slavery, but the beating of your slaves until near-death…provided they can actually get up in a few days you are good!
how does that passage speak to you?
nathan(Quote)
nathan –
I’ll give you a respectful reply, to benefit you and/or others reading or with similar concerns…
I recommended Emily remind herself of the truth and reality she has experienced from God through His inspired word. A parallel might be: to a married couple that is considering separation — it can be good to remember why you got married in the first place. Reminisce on preferable memories from the past. See if there is still a root of life there that is worthy of continuing to explore. Many have referred to Scripture as the “living word of God” as it continues to speak to hearts today, to people from every background.
To respond directly to the passage you (nathan) quote from Exodus — which likely typifies your disgust in the Bible; it is clear that you have not developed an interest in seeing how the story of the Bible unfolds, develops, and transitions from (as you partly say) “primitive” man to the glorious grace and beauty of God – as exemplified in Christ in the New Testament. But in case you develop such an interest, follow along…
Those who know how to interpret Scripture (nothing private or esoteric — simply understanding it in its chronological unfolding development of revelation), you would see that Scripture works against your presupposition and argument. There is not a Christian Evangelical scholar (i.e. one who has truly studied the Bible and believes it) alive who would seek to follow Exodus 21:20 today or at any time during the past 2000 years. It is part of the ancient legal code, superseded by the gospel since the time of Christ. Moreover, this verse is not appropriately used in modernity to “condone slavery” as you assert, nor the beating of such slaves.
Rather, historically, when written (3500 years ago), it was written to a culture where slavery was already rampant. Middle eastern tribes of Canaanite descent all took slaves of one another, and from among each other. Slaves were part of the spoils of battle and power. And there were no limits to how slaves could be treated. Into this “sick and twisted” culture (I’m using your words correctly now), God began to establish guidelines for the nation of Israel that set them on a trajectory to be distinguished from the other nations and their horrific practices. In fact, probably all of the “twisted” Scriptures you could find in the Old Testament – particularly during the conquest (the historical one-time taking of the land which involved displacing other people groups) was due to the severity of the other nation’s awful sinfulness (i.e. sacrificing babies to idols, sexualized worship practices, severe injustice, etc.). At every point, God speaks revelation progressively in a more humane direction to wean the Israelites from the corrupt culture they were in — to call them out from it and into true righteousness.
At this early point, God had already established that Israel could take no slaves from among countrymen. This was already an improvement. While maintaining the status of (foreign – read “idolator”) slaves as “property” (at this era of time), the unique contribution here is to punish slave owners who would kill their slaves. Prior to this, slave owners were not held accountable at all. From our perspective, I would agree this seems to be a small improvement. However, God progressively reveals through the message of the Prophets (2nd half of OT) His priorities on justice and mercy toward others. The entire social justice movement (which you have likely been influenced by) is sourced in the prophets enhanced message of human dignity as a sign of true spirituality.
By the time we reach the New Testament, God has revealed that the Christian ethic is to love one’s enemies. This is not a mere “tolerance” preached today. This is active LOVE. And Christ Jesus modeled for us what it looks like to sacrifice yourself for those who despise you. This is a supernatural response. What atheist LOVES Christians? But, as a Christian, I am committed to loving you and caring deeply for people like Emily who are struggling with their faith.
Meanwhile, the Apostle Paul use the backdrop of slavery as an object lesson of how to live: i.e. Christians are to live as slaves to God. Meanwhile, everyone apart from Christ effectively lives as a slave to themselves — i.e. their inherent sinfulness. How many people apart from God die in their selfishness, their inability to change their bad habits, divorced, alienated from family and former friends, broke, drunk, angry, hurt, etc.? This is the road for all of us — apart from God’s loving and transforming intervention in our lives which rescues us from the worst parts of ourselves. It is belief in Christ that actually breaks us free from our spiritual bonds. So, perhaps God found the word picture useful in communication to us.
But there is no appropriate basis for concluding that Christians either promote, practice, or ignore such passages as Ex. 21:20 (as you state). We are grateful that God, in His progressive revelation of Scripture took us far beyond primitive culture and their wickedness to one another. To know what Christians believe and seek to live: look at the New Testament, and particularly at Jesus Christ. Sometimes we are “inconsistent”, which I humbly acknowledged. But our target is to model after Jesus.
Craig(Quote)
Craig,
I think one of the reasons the original post resonated so well with me was because of what Luke concluded with–he has true understanding of believers and why they choose to believe, because he was once a believer himself. Why do I mention this? Because I was saying the exact same things that you said in response to my comment to an atheist that I met about a year ago this time; It’s eery how similar my response was to yours.
Going from this, I admire your love and encouragement, even if I don’t necessarily believe…yes, I have had the experience of feeling what I thought to be god’s presence many times in my life. How could I not when I was raised only knowing one opinion, only being brought up around followers? Again, similar to Luke I have struggled with feelings of uneasiness and regret over being brought up so biased because, despite the fact that the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament have made an impact on my life in a positive way, I have carried deep feelings of guilt and shame from an extremely young age due to the Judeo-Christian teachings. And now that I have begun my search for truth, I have simply been given too much evidence of inconsistencies to turn a blind eye. Yes, the emotions and feelings which are the basis of faith appeal to me, and I think that’s one of the main reasons why I have had such a hard time on this journey to completely reject the Christian church, but I cannot ignore what is true and logical; there has to be a balance…
Also, something that you mentioned twice now in your comments has bothered me–the assumption that atheists live “sinful” lifestyles, and that they do not love Christians (“But they also are able to recognize the radical differences in how Christians in our church live – compared to the (sinful) lifestyles of most everyone they interact with at their public school; What atheist LOVES Christians?”).
It’s funny because while I am exploring both sides, as you suggested, I so often come across this assumption from Christians, and theists in general. Alternatively, I also see many atheists attack and express hate for those who choose to believe in a higher power (e.g. Nathan’s abrasive response, though I can see where he is coming from), and have been on the receiving end of that in the past, as I previously mentioned.
But how can you back up such assumptions? I understand why you would believe this…after all, I spent almost twenty years in agreement that nonbelievers can neither truly love or find happiness and freedom because they are “lost” and unresponsive to god’s calling and “redeeming” love, that is until I began to meet people who not only suggested otherwise, but showed proof in their every action; no, they did not claim to be perfect, but they also did not claim to know things that could not and cannot be proven.
I guess…and this is just me expressing my frustration at what I’m going through now…what bothers me the most is that I feel like we are all still missing the point, theists and atheists. Why do we spend so much time trying to convince others of what we perceive to be true? No one living on this earth has the answers, we know this, and yet humanity has wasted countless years and lives battling over who knows best.
Hopefully I haven’t rambled too much and have been able to communicate my thoughts well to you. I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me, Craig, and like I said before–even if I don’t agree, I truly admire the love that drives you, regardless of where that love may come from.
Emily(Quote)
Hello Craig,
I agree with your progressive revelation explanation, and Jesus of course, is the final Word. But doesn’t it seem that rather than progressing further or even maintaining the early state of the Church, Christianity kind of runs one step forward, two steps back? Perhaps this is the real reason for Emily’s doubt, not the historical or scientific evidence against belief in God, but a lack of the evidence Jesus said would convince the world of His validity- love among His followers. I too, hope she will keep questioning what doesn’t seem right until she finds God aright.
Also, I think I know why there is so little love. It seems to me, and I’d appreciate your opinion on this, that whenever the reason for Christ’s death is believed to be some sort of legal restitution for the violation of God’s law, it makes God out to be legalistic, and naturally produces legalism in those who believe it; they’re ‘legally’ saved, and must strive to love God, there being no natural affinity, and they not very likely to be respected. What Jesus taught us about the Father is that it is not His law or His holiness He’s concerned about, but us. It is our morality that was lost and must be saved, our souls receptivity to Him, and He taught that it is possible for anyone to be restored, not by believing anything about His death, but believing in He Himself. His death was necessary as evidence that His teaching was God’s word, because it was validated by His resurrection. I think the best thing we can do for those whose faith is failing is to re-think the ‘grace’ gospel Paul is supposed to have explained for Jesus, and see that Jesus died for our sins only in the sense that we needed to see the quality of God’s love that our selfishness had so blinded us to- and that receiving it, we might be born into it, “He who loves is born of God and knows God,” and consequently, has eternal life.
You could respond directly if you think it best at mrsjtrush@gmail.com
Thanks.
margie(Quote)
Hi Emily.
Nice to hear from you directly. I appreciate your comments and questions. To interact a bit, from the bottom up…
I imagine on the one hand that it is human nature for people to share what they have learned in life and benefited from (i.e. free self-help sites, advertising, restaurant recommendations, sports team merch, etc.). But distinctive to Christianity is a missional thrust: the command to go and tell. I have a friend who was raised as a young rock musician in and around the Hispanic gangs in East L.A. A little imagination can surmise the “stuff” he was involved in during his teens and twenties. When he met Christ, understood that he could be forgiven from his sins, and responded to the gospel – his life dramatically changed. He stopped his partying life, left drugs, dis-sociated from gang friends, stopped shacking up with his girlfriend. He led her to Christ, they married, have 2 kids, he serves in a worship ministry with me. You can’t get him to stop talking about Jesus, and his conversion was 20 years ago. When real life-change happens, people want to share it with others.
Regarding assumptions of atheists lacking love toward Christians… I have been around a few blocks on atheist forums. The scorn and derision dripping by such authors as Christopher Hitchens and Dawkins toward Christians is magnified around the blogosphere. Certainly, tens of millions of non-believers are friendly, positive, or neutral to Christians as fellow Americans and human beings. My reference was in direct reference to nathan’s abrasiveness (as you called it), which in my experience is completely ordinary in discussion forums among the “new atheists”. To me, their anger and disgust at particular Scripture passages and historical incidents which they take out of context are in complete and utter contrasts to the friendly, life-giving, relational discussions I have with Christian friends on a daily basis. This is part of the point of the book of Hitchen’s brother. Maybe you’d be interested to read it. His path to faith was driven specifically from seeing the rage emanating from the new atheists like his famous brother. On the other side, I have seen hundreds and hundreds of people who have all been individually transformed from the inside out by the grace of God – to become completely new people. Haters turned to lovers.
I too have seen inconsistencies and failures and also do not turn a blind eye. There are leaders who have succumbed to delusional aspirations of greatness or used ministry platforms for power grabbing – whose lives have eventually disgraced Christ’s church. There are countless Christians who have proclaimed standing for a moral code – until they didn’t anymore. But there are also those who are following Christ and the New Testament teachings with grace, who are amazing testimonies to the reality of the Spirit-empowered life. I happen to be going through life with many such people. They also represent what is “true and logical” and are part of the equation.
There is a sentence you wrote which I don’t quite understand. You said, “I have carried deep feelings of guilt and shame from an extremely young age due to the Judeo-Christian teachings”. I understand that many people carry deep feelings of guilt and shame. But we do so because of our actions or the actions of others against us – which go against conscience. (For example, a man might feel guilt for lying or being unfaithful to his wife; or a woman might feel shame for having been sexually molested, etc.) What I don’t understand is why you assert that guilt and shame is “due” to Christian teachings. Maybe you could elaborate. I guess my take is that Christian teachings provide the solution the way out to our very real guilt and shame. Through Christ, we have the offer of God’s forgiveness and restored fellowship with Him. And then that gives us strength to restore relationships with others. And the forgiveness we’ve received from God then empowers our ability to forgive others and transcend all shame and guilt. It is BECAUSE of Christian teachings that I do NOT live in shame or guilt, but in freedom.
Let me know if any of this is helpful.
Craig
Craig(Quote)
Emily, you might be interested to check out the arguments and explanations for what is known as “classical theism.” Classical theism refers to the philosophical/theological understanding of God that developed over 1500 years in the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim worlds. It also relates strongly to the pre-Christian Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. Although it is still the standard interpretation for the most numerous denominations of those religions across the globe, it has become overshadowed in the English speaking world by what is known as “theistic personalism” since the Protestant Reformation. I have been reading this blog for several years now and while my faith has been challenged and I have abandoned some ideas about it and reformed others, I never found convincing reason to doubt the core teachings of Christianity. I have found though that classical theism stands up much better to scrutiny than some of the weird bits of theistic personalism, and it explains some aspects of life and existence more satisfactorily than naturalism does. In short, I think that classical theism (of what ever denominational stripe) can well accommodate both your feelings of faith and you desire for truth and logic. If I knew more about it I might be able to give you the perfect one stop recommendation to find out more about it, but all I have is Ed Feser’s blog. He is a philosophy professor who writes a blog very similar in focus to this one (at least how this one used to be), but from a theistic point of view.
Margie, given your slant on Christianity which I very much share I think you might also be interested in Feser’s blog and the subject of classical theism generally. That is, if you are interested in a logical and philosophically strong intellectual conception of Christianity. I always assumed anything like Scholasticism would be very dry and very obsolete, but I find that it makes a lot of sense out of the confusion I see in both common theism and naturalism. And it leaves plenty of room for more mystical, experiential, and literary thinking within the framework of its rigorous logic.
Zeb(Quote)
Craig,
Thanks for the reply! As you have decided to respond for the benefit of myself and others, I shall offer the same courtesy so everyone reading can gain a greater understanding of this magnificent book of yours.
“The Living Word of God”
In typical fashion, you have dismissed my claim that god condones slavery by saying it is a dated Old Testament (OT) passage that is supplanted by New Testament NT teachings. while i could provide you with more passages that show how hideous and mean-spirited your god is, i will instead debate your NEED to “interpret Scripture” and your rejection “to seek to follow Exodus” or any other part of the Bible you deem unnecessary.
-In 1 Thessalonians 2:13 the Bible says:
And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God.
-In 2 Peter 1:20-21 the Bible says:
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
-In Psalm 19:7 the Bible says:
The law of the Lord is perfect, reviving the soul.
Here you can see that The Bible states that it is not the word of men but the word of God, and that the Bible is perfect. This book is the foundation of your faith, The Word is supposedly “perfect”…how can you pick and choose as you seem to be suggesting? Furthermore on your reference to “interpreting Scriptures”, i have a problem with this. Why would an all knowing, all powerful, infinite being, create a book that had parts that were imperfect and able to be misinterpreted? Unless of course the Book was NOT written by a all knowing, all powerful god but instead, a book written by primitive men.
You assert that God wrote his book is a progressive way, slowly inching primitive man away from slavery, by somehow giving them better guidelines on how to keep their slaves? I know I know, Jesus is now the real Word so HE will show man how Slavery is abhorrent right? Wrong. In Luke Chapter 25 v 44 we see a Centurion whose favorite slave has fallen gravely ill and Jesus is asked to heal the slave. Jesus heals the slave in the story, but its what he DOESN’T do that is troubling. He doesn’t admonish the slave master or seek to free the slave, he merely heals him so he is free to go back to being a slave.
Or what about animal sacrifice? in Leviticus Chapter 1 we see god detailing how he wants his animals sacrificed in HIS name:
“If the offering to the Lord is a burnt offering of birds, he is to offer a dove or a young pigeon. The priest shall bring it to the altar, wring off the head and burn it on the altar; its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar. He is to remove the crop with its contents and throw it to the east side of the altar, where the ashes are. He shall tear it open by the wings, not severing it completely, and then the priest shall burn it on the wood that is on the fire on the altar. It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, an aroma pleasing to the Lord .”
So god is pleased with the aroma of burning bird flesh?
When the foundation shows cracks, the building on top is unstable and will eventually fall. no amount of “interpreting” will fill those cracks sufficiently. If you have to spin and twist the Old Testament, there is no good reason to put faith in anything that comes after such a absurdly built foundation.
What you are left with is the search for what makes you feel “good”. To that degree I can respect whatever it is you want to use to accomplish that end. However, when you assert that my whole life’s work/charity/accomplishments will become moot and i will rot ad infinitum in hell for not being able to sufficiently spin this rubbish as you have into something “True”, is why atheists take such great offense to your “Word” written by primitive men and your attempt to sell it.
natahn(Quote)
Natahn/nathan –
I will try to interact with several of your comments and questions here…
I accept the foundation of your argument that Christians believe the Bible (both testaments) are the “word of God”. The verses you quote establish this well. So far so good on what these Scriptures assert.
However, from there you have leaped to unwarranted conclusions. To believe that the Bible contains truth from God as His full and reliable revelation to people (which I and biblical Christians affirm) – does not also require that the Bible be interpreted in a “flat” manner, as if one can simply pick a line here on p.24, another line here on p. 263, and combine it with 2 lines on pages 456 and 821. Imagine if you were trying to do something similar with USA Supreme Court decisions during the 235 years of our nation. While there is a notable progression in Supreme Court decisions which are based on prior decisions, one cannot simply take a line (verse) out of various decisions over 200+ years with intent to make the Supreme Court look ridiculous — and end up with any critique that is valid. All interpretation must happen in context. And current application happens in historical situations.
By means of comparison — the Bible contains a 2000 year record of God’s historic dealings with humanity, which took place 4000-2000 years ago. It focuses initially on God’s calling of a single pagan idol-worshiper to whom God reveals Himself, to a tiny nation which God inhabits and instructs in holy distinctiveness, and culminates in His divine Son whom He sends for the benefit of all nations. The big point here is that there is a unified story – but it is a progressive narrative that begins in the heart of darkness and moves forward progressively with increased light and clarity. The first testament sets up the 2nd – which is the present, ongoing will of God for all people. No one under the full light of New Covenant realities since the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ and under the present ministry of the Holy Spirit goes backwards to the half bright partial light of the Mosaic Law covenant. The OT is setup; The NT is fulfillment. To be “under” the OT would be like you, as a free adult, to go back under the supervision of a Kindergarten teacher. (In fact, such is a similar analogy that Paul offers those who were tempted to go backwards, in Galatians 3).
So, against your charge… It is not ignoring, picking & choosing, or viewing as some Scriptures as imperfect which lead to not living under Exodus laws today. It is Scripture itself that affirms and requires this position. For example:
Hebrews 8:13 “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.”
2 Corinthians 3:6 “who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit.”
The Laws of Moses were given to the specific nation of “Israel” during a particular period of time and under an earlier form of revelation and in the context of theocracy. None of that applies today. We are not “Israel”. We are not living in “the land”. We are not a theocracy. The old covenant law is “obsolete” to us, according to Scripture itself. Today, believers in Christ make up the “church” of all nations – a spiritual body living under New Covenant realities.
Concerning the Centurions’ “slave” in Luke 7 (not 25)… The very nature of your question revealing both that the Centurion has a “servant” who is “highly valued”, and that he is personally concerned enough to seek Jesus’ healing, reveals that whatever the nature of this servitude was, it is a far cry from what we Americans think of slavery from our ugly heritage. Regardless, there are a few key things here to keep in mind.
1) This was historically prior to Jesus’ public revealing of Himself, prior to His sacrificial death and resurrection, so — effectively still living under Old Covenant realities. I.e. The New Covenant was present in Jesus, but not ratified until his death & resurrection.
2) For anyone following the developing narrative (rather than just picking a scenario out of context), Jesus is dramatically showing here that His kingdom will be not merely for the nation of Israel (their expectation), but even for the gentile nations and leaders. So, in Luke 6, Jesus has just taught about the ethics of His Kingdom. Now in Luke 7 he begins his ministry – dramatically not with an expected Jew, but with a Roman leader! And then at another corner of the spectrum — to a widow. And then to the bottom — to a prostitute, whom he honors in front of a rich man! This is a rather astounding chapter, if you read this as the story unfolds. But, out of context, you have focused on a peripheral detail and missed the entire story line. What is remarkable is that Jesus initially demonstrated his healing power to a Roman leader (thought to represent the oppressors of the Jews in 1st century Judea) and then expressed compassion on his servant! This would have been profoundly shocking.
3) Jesus and the NT will always prioritize one’s relationship with God and the breaking in of the spiritual kingdom of God over the temporal life that we each live now. God’s granting of eternal life through freedom from slavery to sin is infinitely more valuable than physical slavery. That said, Jesus did not ignore physical life – as evidenced by the healing. He also came “to set captives free”, and Christians believe that a proper Christian ethic is to support freedom and life and personhood of everyone (i.e. To free slaves, to overcome structures that enslave, and to support the right to life of the least protected — i.e. Babes in the womb). It’s all quite consistent.
In the opposite direction, I was just watching some excerpts from notable “new atheist” Richard Dawkins. You may be aware that his atheism allows him to make no firm distinctions on values. i.e. If there is no God, then there is no necessary Source for Good or trustworthy source for what is Right. We can’t even trust our own thinking processes. Everything becomes pragmatic and negotiable. I’ll print you the text to confirm I’m representing him accurately:
In an interview with Larry Taunton, Dawkins said, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” “My value judgment itself could just come from my evolutionary past.”
When asked, “So, therefore, it’s just as random as any product of evolution” (referring to making a judgment about Hitler’s genocide of Jews), Dawkins affirmed, “Well, you could say that”.
As Christians, we cannot say that. We affirm that we are made in the image of our Creator – to honor Him and reveal Him. It is no “genuinely difficult question” to affirm that Hitler’s murderous rampage was evil — if one sees life as coming from God. Meanwhile, apart from God, everything becomes debatable… that’s a frightening ethic indeed!
Are you as outraged by the dismissal of Hitler’s genocide by Dawkins as you are about the God who loves you enough to send His Son to die for you – to offer you abundant life now and eternal life to come?
Let me know if my explanations above are helpful to you.
Craig
Craig(Quote)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMdXikyXVNY
Life is big. Deal.
Merry Christmas everyone.
MS(Quote)
We live on the edge of two opposing lines of direction, with the freedom to run in sync with either at any given time, and it is not possible to exist outside of one or the other. Both lines run forever and immutably in their course and as they run they draw all time and circumstance, memory and imagination, study and experience, desire and choice- along with them. One line is love and it unites all in their true light. The other is ‘own’ and it divides all in their own, unnatural darkness.
Love desires all good for its own sake, for the sake of the good itself, not just at any cost, but at all cost. Unlove inspires any other preference or intention, and must while we refuse to love entirely. There is, therefore, no excusable falling short of love in any moral being, only direct opposition and its inherent condemnation. Hate is not a weak love, it is murder. And there is no state of mind that grows out of one into the other by degrees- they are like two parallel tracks that continuously travel in opposite directions, two deliberate states of mind that willfully resist the influence of one or the other at all times, and while retaining the freedom to switch tracks in any moment, must absolutely refuse the rule of one while being utterly abandoned to its antagonist.
We must not be confused because we have two sets of thoughts or a wide range of feeling or conflicting desires. We must not suppose that because we prefer most good and despise most wrong, that we are on the right track. We must not judge ourselves lovers because we enjoy giving often, but only if all that we do, the ruling principle of our lives is impartial kindness, a devotion to the universal good, as it is comes within our range of influence and opportunity, as well as an impartial abhorrence to all harm, in every form and degree, in ourselves as well as anyone else, regardless of their relation to us. Every interest must be valued according to its promotion of love, its relation to universal, eternal well-being- the one good. Love unites all our thoughts, feelings and desires into one whole mind, one will, one service, one energy. Love makes our souls at one within us, at peace, as well as making us one with all souls. This love is a joy to live, unconditionally, because we are rational, and love always delights inself in its gift of the best means to the best end.
So then, we are ever free to love, but we can never be free from it. Love is more binding than any other law, because it is life itself. The only sense in which we can be out of it, is our own rejection of its power; our choice to kill it wherein we are most essentially dead.
“Let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” (1 John 4:7,8) This is the message of Jesus life, His death, and His resurrection. Never mind anything else.
margie(Quote)
The post above is full of utter nonsense – unsupported, wishy-washy, high-sounding but ultimately empty words.
Love, I’m not sorry to have to tell you, is a biological imperative, evolved because it gave our species an edge. It’s wonderful, feels like heaven and produces the noblest (and the basest) actions. But don’t kid yourselves, insecure ones. It is hard-wired in your brains, not by your invisible friend, but by generation upon generation of hard-fought survival.
Your need for a god or gods is also hard-wired in there, unfortunately. Evolution also has by-products. The pattern-seeking impulse in us which drove the evolution of intelligence has not until lately had any check upon its force and drive. Now we have science and education. We do not have to turn to imaginary beings to explain nature, disease, misfortune and origins. We are no longer frightened and ignorant Bronze Age goatherds. Well, many of us are not. A rising number – which is just as well, if the human race is to move onward at all. Religion will drag us back into our savage past if it is allowed to go unchallenged. This needs no supporting argument – look at the world news almost any day of the year.
All you need to persuade good people to do evil things is RELIGION. Extreme religion produces hell on earth. Let us do away with it once and for all. We need no fictional friend to teach us how to behave – we know; we have always known. We could not have survived thus far unless we did. It is only the domineering demagogue, religious or secular, who leads us away from the golden rule. That and our own cowardice. So – be brave, be good, and consign the ignorance and blindness of religion to our less civilised past where it belongs.
©Tarquin 2011
Tarquin Farquharson(Quote)
Margie, that was beautiful and true, I think. But I’m afraid it would sound like flowery nonsense to anyone who doesn’t already know it. I don’t know how one overcomes such a barrier in communication.
Zeb(Quote)
Zeb, Maybe that’s my point, and why I would bother posting here. Jesus must have understood our biological as well as all our other properties, and came to demonstrate that although there is a “biological love” it is animal, not divine. True, divine love is hardly discernable among friends- but it communicates itself best when those whose ‘love’ shows itself for hatred come against it. That’s always been the case. Maybe someone out there has a flickering hope that there is something within them that isn’t limited to mammel instincts, something that is calling them to a love that can only be described with words like Light and Life, and will not sit still for scientific investigation, and yet it calls from within them- a voice that can’t be stilled.
margie(Quote)
In response to Tarquin Farquharson’s post:
St. Augustine had this to say around AD 400: “The fool has said in his heart, There is no God” (ver. 1). For not even have certain sacrilegious and abominable philosophers, who entertain perverse and false notions of God, dared to say, “There is no God.” Therefore it is said “in his heart;” for no one dares to say it, even if he has dared to think it.” (Commentary on Psalm 14)
Oxford Professor John Lennox said this to Richard Dawkins at a debate a few years ago: “The universe made you Richard. Who then made the universe?”
Thoughts?
Justin Bass(Quote)
justin your question has a very big premise flaw
-the oxford professor is assuming that there is a “Who” that we should be searching for with regards to “making” the universe, this is already placing an intelligent design premise into the question. atheists disagree with all proposed evidence of intelligent design as we do not believe there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
atheists do not bare the burden of providing proof of an intelligent designer, that is up to those making the claim. furthermore, the fact that i cannot disprove without a doubt that an intelligent designer does not exist in no way makes the claim any more valid.
here is a question for YOU:
do you believe in leprechauns? i would guess your answer in no. if i told you i had a 2000 year old book proclaiming a leprechaun once existed and did all this magical stuff but has not been seen since (this is a real basic argument forgive the simplistic way i am dismissing the bible we have plenty of evidence to dismiss that book and the magic of jesus but this is not the post for that). you would reject my claim of leprechauns even with my book as you have no real proof.
you reject my claim of leprechauns because the default position for a wild claim in non-belief until proven. you disbelieve wild claims until they are proven and im sure we can agree the bible and story of jesus is a mighty wild claim as is some creator god who is responsible for creating the universe.
/dawkins
nathan(Quote)
Nathan, thanks for the reply. I think the flaw in the leprochaun, spaghetti monster, santa claus, etc. arguments used by atheists is that not only is there no evidence that they do exist, there is good evidence that they don’t exist! Is there a 4,000 year old book written about leprochauns? Have 99.9999999 percent of the human race believed in leprochauns? Do people daily profess their lives changed by leprochauns? etc.
On the other hand, there is good evidence that God, an intelligent creator, a first cause, a necessary being, a foundation for morality, does exist. John Lennox’s question does presume a “who,” but either way Dawkins and most atheists have agreed that there is no answer to absolute origins. To use Dawkins own words from the debate, “We have not found our Darwin for the universe.” So he favors the ‘atheist of the gaps’ theory. Genesis 1:1 is another theory. So what is you answer to the origin of all things? Something from nothing, reason from non reason, mind from matter, coherence from incoherence? In addition, even Dawkins agrees that the universe has what he calls the “appearance” of design or what others would just call design. Have you seen the end of the “Collision” documentary with Hitchens and Wilson? Hitchens even admits that the undeniable fine tuning of the universe is not easily dismissed. Something to think about.
Justin Bass(Quote)
thanks for replying to my reply :)
since you used a bible reference i will assume we are debating the christian version of god? if that is the case stating statistics on believers and book dates is not useful since we have as many or more muslims with their book, jews with yet another, hindus, buddhists, taoists, confucianists, etc. that argument is a false one since it is classical argumentum ad populum or “appeal to belief”. the fact that there are many believers is not evidence of proof.
as to your claim that there is “good evidence of God”…id have to ask you to produce that evidence.
note: im a cause-effect guy, i believe every effect has a cause and that presents me with a dilemma…what is that first cause? i don’t know. nobody does. but where some put “faith” into fantastical stories of gods and magic, i choose to be ok with not knowing for now and seek to find the answer.
if we put faith in a conjured up answer just to make ourselves feel better, we stop searching for what the truth really is.
as for needing a god as a foundation for morality, have you ever read the bible? the god of the bible loves slavery and allows you to beat the as long as they get up in a day of two, the smell of an animal’s burning flesh as a sacrifice, and is a misogynist…not the type of morals i want my children to be brought up on :)
nathan(Quote)
Whenever my son (10) brings up religion (usually prompted by one of his friends talking about God or somesuch), I simply tell him “Never stop questioning”.
For as soon as you stop questioning, and start to accept ideas on “faith”, you lose the greatest evolutionary advancement this planet has ever seen – the ability to think and to reason. There is so much we do not know, but not knowing does not make it “magic” or “divine”. It just means we don’t know the answers yet.
This not evidence for a “creator” of any kind. It is simply an opportunity for us as a species to ask bigger and further-reaching questions. Rather than base our understanding of the world on a book written 2,000 years ago by primitive men with an extemely limited world-view, we are far better served by ceaselessly striving to find real answers that *do* explain the world around us.
I find the entire faith argument to be quite offensive to be honest. It flies in the face of all rationality and does nothing to further human understanding of the universe. It is an affront to the elegance of Darwinian Evolution, a blight on society, a hindrance to the education of young people and a millstone around the necks of the easily duped.
Miszou(Quote)
Nathan,
Thanks for being willing to admit you don’t know what the first cause is. This is also the stance that Dawkins takes (and all atheists who answer the question honestly) as I referenced above. In fact, take the time to watch his debate with John Lennox at the Oxford Natural History Museum on Youtube. Here are 2 much wiser men then you or I and I feel like they really get to the heart of the matter, at least as far as the fine tuning evidence for the existence of God. You ask for “good evidence” let’s start with the fine tuning argument (you may be aware that this is the argument that persuaded renowned atheist Antony Flew to become a theist). Dawkins, Hawking, etc. all informed people agree this universe is incredibly fine tuned for life. Consider these 3 quotes:
“If the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have collapsed before it ever reached its present size.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 121
“There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned’ for life.” Paul Davies, “How bio-friendly is the universe?” International Journal of Astrobiology, vol. 2, no. 2 (2003): 115.
“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. … The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.” Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 125
You ask for good evidence, here it is. It is an undeniable fact that this universe is fine tuned, the question is how do we account for this fine tuning? So you really have 3 options: 1.) This happened by accident, no purpose involved at all. We are just very lucky. 2.) The Anthropic Principle 3.) There is a Fine Tuner who rigged this place to produce life. From Moses to Aristotle to Augustine to Aquinas to Pascal to Lewis to… the third option seemed to be the most persuasive. So where do you fall on how this universe is meticulously fine tuned for life?
Now to get from the God of the philosophers (Prime Mover, First Cause, etc.) to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob we must look at the Nazarene who said “I am the Way the Truth and the Life and noone comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).
God bless, Justin
Justin Bass(Quote)
Of course it is, otherwise we wouldn’t be here to observe it.
The question is, how many other universes exist that are not finely tuned? If a universe existed that was not capable of supporting life, then there would no no-one in it to observe that fact.
I still see no need to invoke a “creator” of any kind though. Much lesss a creator that was conjured up by primitive men attempting to fashion their own understanding of the world around them.
Miszou(Quote)
Miszou,
I see that you go with option #2 (the anthropic principle) to account for the fine tuning of our universe. It is true that we wouldn’t be here to observe that it is finely tuned if it were not, but isn’t it also true that it may be fine tuned to such a meticulous degree because there is purpose behind it, even a Fine Tuner? In addition, this doesn’t help you with the origins of all things. Even if we just happen to find ourselves in a finely tuned universe, the question still must be asked, “Where did it come from?”
Lastly, why is it that you and others consistently refer to the ancients as “primitive men” in an intellectually superior way? Do you really think the wisest alive today could match the wisest of the ancient world? Do we not include in these primitive men Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Lucretius, Augustine, etc.? Is not all philosophy a footnote to Plato and Aristotle? Granted they may not have had the scientific advances we take for granted, but it seems that the evidence shows they were much more knowledgeable than us on most topics (they didn’t watch tv :). If Plato and Aristotle had somewhat of the final word on Philosophy by the 3rd century BC then maybe the Hebrews and the Christians had the final word on the nature of God and salvation by the end of the 1st century AD.
God bless,
Justin
Justin Bass(Quote)
The problem with the idea of a creaor, is that it is a circular argument. Who created the creator?
Superstring theory has some very exciting ideas about the nature of the Universe, including spontaneous creation from the collision of two branes, which would look remarkably like a Big Bang. ie – creating “something” out of “nothing”.
As I said already, just because we do not know for certain how the universe came about, does not mean that there is any intelligence behind it – it simply means that we do not yet know the answers. If I do not know the answer to a problem, I seek it out. I do not simply dismiss the question and assume “God did it”. That approach does not further any understanding at all and simply raises even more questions..
The people who wrote the Bible were indeed primitive men. And yes, Aristotle and Plato and all the others were great thinkers, but their scientific understanding was woefully inadequate compared to ours today. There is a vast gulf of difference between people like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin and those men who believed the earth was flat, had no concept of bacteria, electricity, molecular biology or nuclear physics and many, many other things that our children today learn in school before 5th grade.
Miszou(Quote)
Miszou,
Yes it is a circular argument if you only posit another finite creator but by definition God is an uncreated being. He either does exist or he doesn’t, but if He does exist then to ask who created Him is like asking ‘where is the bachelor’s wife?’
As far as String theory is concerned, even in your brief description of it you are assuming the existence of “something” not “nothing” (no thing at all) to have brought about the universe. You also say that to say “God did it” is the end of the argument, but isn’t it also a conversation stopper to appeal to the atheism of the gaps? If you presuppose there could not be intelligence/a Mind behind the universe are you not limiting your thinking? If there is an Infinite, Powerful, Glorious being who created the universe; learning about the finite universe would pale in comparison to studying the Infinite God!
Lastly, I agreed with you as far as science is concerned most of the ancients were not on par with a Newton or a Hawking today, but that has to do more with discoveries in the universe rather than the critical thinking of the mind. As far as Philosophy is concerned has there been any significant advances beyond Plato and Aristotle? Most would say no. In addition, what modern books surpass Romans, the Psalms, Job, Isaiah, the love chapter of 1 Corinthians 13, etc? Even unbelievers cannot read these books without being moved.
Just curious Miszou, what do you think will happen after you die?
Justin Bass(Quote)
It’s only a circular argument because it is not possible to know what the universe looked like before it existed. Your answer to this is simply that “God has always existed and then he made the universe”, which doesn’t answer the question at all – it simply moves the problem somewhere else.
The fundamental issue here is basically “how long is a piece of string?”. Without enough information it is impossible to answer the question. You cannot simply say “It’s this long, because… God!”. You are attempting to end the circular argument by introducing a 3rd party, and yet the existence of this 3rd party creates more questions than it can ever possibly answer!
Furthermore, I’m not pre-supposing that there is no thought behind the universe, but I have yet to see any supporting evidence. Simply asserting “irreducible complexity” is not evidence, and only serves to indicate a fundamental lack of understanding of the theories involved.
Furthermore, there are many, many books that easily surpass the contradictory nonsense written in the Bible. “The Origin of Species” is one such book, just off the top of my head. “The God Delusion” is another example, and in my view should be required reading for all high-school students.
And as to your last point, “what will happen to me when I die”, the simplest answer is “Nothing much – I will be dead”. I was unaware of the first 14 billion years of the universes existence and I’m sure I will be quite unaware of the next 14 billion years too.
However, should I unexpectedly arrive at the Pearly Gates, being quizzed by Saint Paul, I could be inclined to look upon that event as sufficient evidence for an afterlife, complete with all-powerful superbeing and Divine plan.
Miszou(Quote)
Miszou,
Well I can assure you there will not be any quizzing by Paul or Peter. Jesus Himself told us how it will go down (see Luke 16:19-31). I recommend reading Pascal’s Wager again if you haven’t. Pascal’s Wager in no way proves the existence of God, but it does demonstrate how important it is to seek the truth on the question of God, Christ, and the afterlife. Pascal summarizes it in one sentence: “I should be much more afraid of being mistaken and then finding out that Christianity is true than of being mistaken in believing it to be true.” Blaise Pascal, Pensées no. 241. Check out William Lane Craig and John Lennox’s debates on Youtube. I think most come away feeling like the Christian worldview has the stronger arguments even if they are not believers (for example this very blog we are on!). Read NT Wright’s The Resurrection of the Son of God or his debate with John Dominic Crossan on the resurrection. Ravi Zacharias is probably the greatest Christian apologist alive, check out some of his lectures. The evidence is there if you seek it (John 20:24-29). Pascal had another great statement to the skeptics of his day: “There is enough light for those who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.” Pascal, Pensées 144.
Good discussion
Justin Bass(Quote)
This is what Richard Dawkins has to say on the subject of Pascals Wager, in his book “The God Delusion”:
The great French mathematician Blaise Pascal reckoned that, however long the odds against God’s existence might be, there is an even larger asymmetry in the penalty for guessing wrong. You’d better believe in God, because if you are right you stand to gain eternal bliss and if you are wrong it won’t make any difference anyway. On the other hand, if you don’t believe in God and you turn out to be wrong you get eternal damnation, whereas if you are right it makes no difference. On the face of it the decision is a no-brainer. Believe in God.
There is something distinctly odd about the argument, however. Believing is not something you can decide to do as a matter of policy. At least, it is not something I can decide to do as an act of will. I can decide to go to church and I can decide to recite the Nicene Creed, and I can decide to swear on a stack of bibles that I believe every word inside them. But none of that can make me actually believe it if I don’t. Pascal’s wager could only ever be an argument for feigning belief in God. And the God that you claim to believe in had better not be of the omniscient kind or he’d see through the deception.
But why, in any case, do we so readily accept the idea that the one thing you must do if you want to please God is believe in him? What’s so special about believing? Isn’t it just as likely that God would reward kindness, or generosity, or humility? Or sincerity? What if God is a scientist who regards honest seeking after truth as the supreme virtue? Indeed, wouldn’t the designer of the universe have to be a scientist? Bertrand Russell was asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him. ‘Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence,’ was Russell’s (I almost said immortal) reply. Mightn’t God respect Russell for his courageous scepticism (let alone for the courageous pacifism that landed him in prison in the First World War) far more than he would respect Pascal for his cowardly bet-hedging? And, while we cannot know which way God would jump, we don’t need to know in order to refute Pascal’s Wager. We are talking about a bet, remember, and Pascal wasn’t claiming that his wager enjoyed anything but very long odds. Would you bet on God’s valuing dishonestly faked belief (or even honest belief) over honest scepticism?
Miszou(Quote)
heh… I just found this article on todays MSNBC:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/09/10076985-how-to-get-a-cosmos-from-nothing
Miszou(Quote)
Miszou,
Dawkins, in my opinion, is correct in his belief that if there is a God He would be wrong to require of mankind anything but honest integrity or virtue, and I might add, would be equally wrong not to. It is only because the character of God is perfectly good that His will is inherently obligatory, nothing more or less than moral law; certainly not because He is simply bigger than we are. We might be wise to serve even a mean God, but we could never love or trust Him, and the Christian God has clearly denounced hypocrisy. The rendering of fake faith as well as fake virtue are more reprehensible than outright rejection of Him. It’s only because of what He has done to earn our trust in His will as the universal best interest that rejection of His sovereignty condemns. Maybe you don’t have enough evidence. I do.
And it’s not simply believing God exists, that Jesus is who He says He is, or even a belief in what He has done for us, if you take belief in the sense that ‘belief’ is being spoken of in your post. The required believing is not to simply concede the fact of God’s existence, it is to entrust your well-being to Him, and devote yourself to His. So much so, that the belief promised to produce eternal life saves our character because this perception of Jesus influences an allegiance to Him that regenerates us, purifies our motives. A false perception can’t save anyone. Religion won’t save anyone. We are saved if and when we believe Him to be the truth and we want the Truth to make us true. “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except by Me.” Everyone will stand before Him, and everyone who wants to be true will find Jesus an open door to the Father. You asked what’s so special about believing? That’s what’s so special about believing.
Of course you can’t believe in someone you’ve never yet heard of. In the second chapter of the book of Romans we learn that those who do not know the law of God (His revealed will), will not be judged by it, but by their own conscience which will either accuse or excuse them. Fair enough. Maybe your misunderstanding of Him prevents you from accepting His revealed will as obligatory. Only you and He would know. Maybe you’re living up to your conscience so well it’s a moot point? I think His concern is that we have a way of working our conscience in the half-light here, that that won’t work so well there.
Not that it matters to you, but I personally don’t blame you for not believing in God if you really believe and are wholeheartedly devoted to something higher, something more certain to make us all that we know we ought to be for each other. In fact, I like to believe it too.
margie(Quote)
Miszou,
“I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” David Hume in Greid, The Letters of David Hume, Vol. 1, 187
This article is nothing new. Krauss has been saying this for awhile now (and I might add the only one saying it). Watch his debate with William Lane Craig on Youtube from just last year. Craig deals decisively with this issue and I think you will agree with most reviewers who said that Craig comes out stronger in the debate. In fact, in Krauss’ review of the debate he mentions the universe coming from nothing argument and says, “I continued to try and explain that quantum gravity may imply that space and time themselves are created at the moment of the big bang. This is a rather remarkable statement if true.” Remarkable indeed.
Dawkins is also a dangerous character to trust your destiny with. As Jesus put it, “If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matt 15:14). Did you watch his debate with John Lennox at the Oxford Natural History Museum? Dawkins concedes that he was wrong to say in the God Delusion that Jesus never existed.
What else was Dawkins wrong about?
Justin Bass(Quote)
God as creator of the universe is a classic deus ex machina – the introduction of a contrived character used to explain a seemingly inextricable problem. Unfortunately, it doesn’t explain a single thing, and only raises more questions than it answers.
Dawkins is only a ‘dangerous character’, if you subscribe to this afterlife nonsense in the first place.
Furthermore, there is a very great difference between saying that Jesus never exised, and that he existed but was not the son of God. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t the Jews (and possibly Muslims too) believe this? That Jesus did in fact exist, but that he was not the son of God?
Miszou(Quote)
justin,
sorry real busy since last post, im pretty caught up though and see i have someone on the same page as me who has joined us :)
ok im shifting gears a bit.
we started out debating the evidence of a creator “first cause” god. while i enjoy discussing that subject, im not an expert in theoretical physics and as such lack a certain degree of confidence when challenged too firmly on that subject. to sum up my bottom line on the “first cause” god, i leave the possibility open but am satisfied that with lack of sufficient proof either way my default position of disbelief is the correct choice.
there is a big leap between trying to prove some “first cause”, and faith in the accounts of the bible which say i will goto hell for not believing. when presenting evidence you use bible quotes, as has Margie.
since your faith is in not just a “first cause” creator but in the traditional christian god, where does your faith in the bible come from? i have referenced the “primitive men” who put pen to paper…why is it different than any other book of fiction?
nathan(Quote)
Great question Nathan. I think my answer will also address Miszou’s last post as well.
I believe it all centers on who Jesus of Nazareth was. Even if you were to admit a Prime Mover or First Cause (in agreement with Aristotle), that doesn’t bring you to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I do think certain arguments for the existence of God are compelling, but I became a Christian a little over a decade ago not because of them but because of the evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Miszou, you are correct that Muslims and Jews agree Jesus existed, but reject Him as God incarnate. You have to admit that it is incredible that over half the population of the world today (Christians and Muslims) believe that Jesus of Nazareth was sinless, healed the sick, the blind, raised the dead, ascended into heaven and will return at the end of the world! Now of course Muslims are grossly in error because they reject the deity of Christ (the Quran even says that Jesus was not crucified (Surah 4:157-158) which disagrees with unbiased observers such as Josephus and Tacitus), but this just nothing but further support that Jesus of Nazareth had to have been the most magnificent human being to ever walk planet earth. If it were true, as Dawkins said in the God Delusion, that it is very questionable that Jesus even existed then the primary foundation for Christianity would be removed. However, as Dawkins admitted when challenged by a knowledgeable colleague, the historical evidence we have for Jesus of Nazareth is far greater than Socrates, Buddha, Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and really anyone from the ancient world.
This brings us back to the ultimate question, ‘Who was Jesus of Nazareth?’ Or as He immortally asked “Who do you say that I am?” (Mark 8:29). You can throw out the credibility of the 4 Gospels and we would still know that Jesus of Nazareth was baptized by John the Baptist, gathered disciples around Him, spent time with the poor and outcasts of His society, was at least believed to be a miracle worker and exorcist, ended up being crucified under Pontius Pilate, and the earliest disciples believed they saw Him risen from the dead. This list of “facts” about Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus Seminar agrees with. So what is the truth? Is this the greatest hoax of all human history or is Jesus of Nazareth who Peter, James and Paul claimed He was, the crucified Son of God?
Consider three of my all time favorite quotes from John Chrysostom in the 4th century, Blaise Pascal in the 17th century, and recently from NT Scholar C.F.D Moule.
“Upon this ground also we argue with unbelievers. For if He did not rise again, but remains dead, how did the Apostles perform miracles in His name? But you say they did not perform miracles. How then was our religion instituted? For this would be the greatest of miracles, that without any miracles, the whole world should have eagerly come to be taken in the nets of twelve poor and illiterate men” (Hom. Acts 1:1-2).
“The Apostles were either deceived or deceivers if Jesus didn’t really rise. Either supposition is difficult, for it is not possible to imagine that a man has risen from the dead. While Jesus was with them he could sustain them, but afterwards, if he did not appear to them, who did make them act?” Pensées no. 322
“If the coming into existence of the Nazarenes, a phenomenon undeniably attested by the New Testament, rips a great hole in history, a hole the size and shape of the Resurrection, what does the secular historian propose to stop it up with?” (Phenomenon of the New Testament, 3, 13)
This question must be answered. What then do you fill this Grand Canyon from history with if not the resurrection?
God bless,
Justin
Justin(Quote)
so your proof in jesus as son of god and that the gospels are true…is because the bible says so?
your proof of the validity of your claim, is that without miracles being true there wouldn’t there be a religion based off jesus at all? this is not logical at all. do you believe that jesus comes to us in the form of his face on grilled cheese? do you believe in stigmata? do you believe in the claims of statues of the virgin mary and jesus weeping tears of blood? do you believe god influences sporting events?
and why is it difficult to believe jesus was not resurrected? what evidence other than heresay written 2000 years ago, much of it dozens of years after his followers had died?
consider the following quote from Thomas Paine in his booklet “Common Sense” in 1776:
“Revelation, when applied to religion, means something communicated immediately from God to man.
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication, if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.”
surely an all knowing god would realize that hundreds, thousands, even millions of years after the supposed Resurrection, rational humans would need more than a book of heresay to have faith right? logic dictates i am obliged to disbelieve claims based off heresay unless sufficient proof is presented, giving me more quotes of heresay is no such proof.
nathan(Quote)
I stumbled onto this website and glad I did. I enjoyed your story, Luke, and your honestly. I wish I could say that I knew what it was like to be an atheist. I might have shared some moments, but no lasting conscience of atheism. I was brought up without religion, only told about my religion by my granny, but never saw it in my own home. My mother was a hellion and I was raised . . . horribly. I did a ton of really bad stuff. But I always knew there was a God. Just something that was in me, idk. I wasn’t saved, of course. I didn’t love God. But I knew.
I was converted in 2005. And I cannot imagine what it would feel like to lose my faith. I don’t have to read book, I don’t have to try. I cannot run fast or far away enough to escape God. I get frustrated and angry from time to time but I cannot ignore the reality of Him. I couldn’t get rid of God if I tried! Just in the same way that you couldn’t ignore what you were experiencing (that there is no God). I wish I could say this was because I want to believe that I’m not alone etc. Because frankly, it would be easier not to believe and to experience no remorse for “sin.” To not have to walk a straight path and be careful about what I do, see, hear and say. But alas, ’tis not so, not for myself atleast.
I hope you find everything you are looking for. I hope your days are filled with joy and peace. I hope you continue to plow through the tough questions. I hope that it is well with your soul (which I’m sure it is).
Love,
Kim
Kim(Quote)
Wow, we’ve had some significant action here lately.
Miszou/Nathan and others —
I can imagine that from a purely rationalistic mindset, people who argue for the reality of God – and particularly the biblical, Christian presentation of God – may seem to be a peculiar bunch. Emily mentioned she can no longer “ignore what is true and logical” (implying that perhaps a full-orbed Theism cannot genuinely embrace what is both true and logical); and many atheists and agnostics perceive or even conclude that theists are simply not intelligent people. But this is to misunderstand theists in general and biblical Christians in particular.
Perhaps an analogy of a 4-legged stool is helpful.
Leg 1: Thinking Theists DO have a rational, coherent basis for their conclusion that God both exists and continues to be active in the world He has created.
As has already been noted here, history is replete with highly intelligent and even brilliant thinkers who are convinced Theists. (names already offered here include: Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Watts, Einstein – these are all notable men of their era, the one in a hundred years on the planet types. Other recent/current men of note who are 1 in a million caliber intellects include Lewis, Flew, Lennox, Craig, Wright, Feser – who after thousands of hours of inquiry concluded that theistic perspectives provide stronger logic, wisdom, rationality, truth-to-life than non-theistic or anti-theistic viewpoints. Meanwhile, there are thousands of current Ph.D. professors and authors and teachers and pastors who consistently find non-theistic alternatives simply wanting. Justin and I have both offered a number of resources for the inquisitive to pursue. If someone is truly interested in discovering the intellectual rigor of potent theistic thinking – it is surely available. To demean the intellectual viability of arriving at conclusions that support a Deity is simply dishonest. (It would be like saying nobody in the U.S. knows how to play basketball, completely ignoring the reality of the NBA.) Meanwhile, thinking Christians are typically not impressed a whit by Richard Dawkins. He is and has routinely been soundly refuted on a truckload of issues, and is easily dismissed as an angry hack, who often argues above his head and expertise. Even common knowledge and basic math can refute Boyle’s assertion: 0 does not change to 1. Some THING must act upon zero to move it from NO THING (0) to SOME THING (1 or more). It is surely not only Christians who may be accused of reaching, or grasping for something from beyond to answer our questions.
Craig(Quote)
Leg 2: Theists add to their rational thinking the capacity for faith and experience to weigh in on discerning reality.
Unlike naturalistic atheists who, by definition, interpret the universe both physically and from within a “closed system” of what may be observed and measured as naturally and repeatably occurring – Theists recognize that naturalism simply does not and cannot account for everything. We are not solely rational beings. Theists recognize we are sensate beings as well. Morover, we are spiritual beings. Most religious people accept that there are spiritual realities which we are unable to measure, quantify, completely understand. Current scientific hypotheses of multiverses, quantum mechanics, and having perhaps 7-10 dimensions (even as we only perceive 3 or perhaps 4) only add academic prowess to what peasants have known intuitively throughout the ages and the world: spiritual realities exist, spiritual beings sometimes torment us, “God” is seeking our attention, inner spiritual battles wage, and true and real comfort comes from exercising “faith”.
Countless former atheists have at some point concluded that an accidental world without purpose moving nowhere in particular with humans as mere momentary specs of consciousness leads to rather hopeless ramifications. Something within them has driven them to pursue the unseen Reality, the Unknowable, the Immeasurable, the One who might truly satisfy our souls. Opposite of the popular scientific method, with faith, believing precedes seeing. Not because what is believed is not real, but because faith is the key to unlocking what then becomes visible and real.
Craig(Quote)
Leg 3: Christians have found the Bible to be a reliable record of God revealing Himself and His purposes to people who will humbly receive the message.
Interestingly, the Bible never claims it will satisfy everyone. Not because it’s not true or wise, but because of the spiritual discernment required to receive the message. Within the pages of Scripture from both testaments are the historical reality of the great masses of people rejecting God’s words and ways. The Bible itself asserts that it may not be “naturally” appraised, but must be “spiritually” received. God’s ways our “higher” than ours. A pained grief of God expressed in Scripture is regarding so many who “looking, will not see; and listening, will not hear.” Jesus himself spoke to “those who have ears to hear”. There is a requirement to discern God’s reality that the lot of angry “new atheists” consistently miss: humility. We do not stand in judgment of Almighty God. He stands in judgment of us. He is not accountable to us. We will be accountable to Him. Yet we find this God consistently offers His love, mercy, and grace to those who will humbly respond to Him. Unlike the unremitting history of evils that every culture of civilization has thrust on its perceived opponents, we find in the Bible that God is good and the source of good.
The “kingdom ethics” taught by Jesus in the “Sermon on the Mount”, for example, have been unsurpassed in human culture. The “love chapter” by Paul (1 Cor. 13) is the superlative teaching on love in Western civilization. The demonstration of love by Jesus of sacrificing Himself for others is unsurpassed. The power to love and forgive opponents and enemies is the strongest force for good that exists in our world — and it is exactly center to the overarching message of the Bible.
Craig(Quote)
Leg 4: God revealing Himself through Jesus – the transformative grace offered through the gospel and confirmed by the internal ministry of the Holy Spirit makes all the difference.
Many times atheists don’t seem to understand that most biblical Christians are not motivated by debate, argumentation, or the latest scientific theory. But this shortness of attention is not due to what may be presumed. As an example – my eye is not enraptured by the sexualized dancing of pretty women women I go to an NBA game, or by bikini-clad sun-bathers when I go to the beach. I am a married man. My heart and allegiance are to my wife. I am not in pursuit of other options. When God reveals Himself through the personal confrontation of Jesus Christ, His gospel message through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit — people find what they’ve been longing for. They have discovered their Lord, their King, their Messiah, their Savior, their source of Divine Forgiveness, their constant Companion, their inner Counselor, their Divine Lover.
It is not a surprise to “born again” Christians that unbelievers don’t understand their experience with Jesus Christ. Many of us have our own memories of life before knowing Christ. Perhaps all of us have lived alongside others prior to their spiritual awakening and have seen and experienced the transformational difference God makes in both our own lives and others who we go through life with. The internal reality that God has taken spiritual residence within us and is shaping us to be more like Christ Jesus is self-confirming. For Christians, it is undeniable “evidence”. And neither atheist political regimes (like formerly in the Soviet Union or China or currently in N. Korea) nor atheist apologists can dis-affirm what Christians have come to know to be true — rationally, experientially, personally, and internally.
Here’s the kicker though: like Haagan Daz coffee ice cream, you can’t know it until you experience it. The Psalmist offered, “Taste and See that the LORD is Good”. And this is what motivates Christians to share with present unbelievers what they have not yet experienced. And also to mourn for those like Luke who appear to have experienced a placebo, while presuming it to be genuine…
Craig(Quote)
“Even common knowledge and basic math can refute Boyle’s assertion:”
sic: Boyle was the article messenger. I meant “Krause”.
Craig(Quote)
craig,
…and if i don’t take it hook line and sinker…i rot in hell for eternity.
none of the christians that i have seen post here in last week seem to want to address this. i am a good person, i do good deeds, give to charities, obey the 10 commandments etc…but i refuse to take what amounts to here say as proof in your god/jesus/etc. due to this refusal to go against my innate sense of reason you all must believe i will go to hell.
you can flat out ignore parts of the very book you offer as proof of your claim, then turn around and attempt to scare me and my children into professing our faith. you blackmail me by saying i have sinned before i have had a chance to learn to speak then dare to specify how much it is i am supposed to pay you for the honor of attending your weekly meetings.
its not that i dont think christians use reason, its that i think when reason breaks down instead of stopping you bridge the gap with faith in a story because it makes you feel good. but its not moral to hold a gun to my head as your god is supposedly doing and its not free will when your potential reward is used to tempt you…that is called coercion. a true omnipotent being would not need to coerce me, i would gladly follow his brilliance as it would be as obvious as it was glorious.
nathan(Quote)
Hi Nathan,
I’ve read your most recent post several times. It’s actually really well written. I think I am understanding better your reaction against Christians. I suppose if I looked at the data in the same way and drew the same conclusions, I would respond very similarly.
Let me attempt a response to your first point (which both gives rise to and summarizes your concerns expressed in your other paragraphs). I won’t try to be thorough — just an opening attempt. Let me know if any of this is helpful.
It sounds like the root of your anger is related to the threat of hell. Let me respond in a few ways…
1) I too find it frustrating when warnings of “hell” are used by anyone in perceived “power” to attempt to control others (for belief systems, money, political power, etc.). And unfortunately, many unscrupulous people have abused divine punishment as a means to control people. This is always wrong and is never defensible!
2) Throughout Christian history, the nature of divine punishment for unbelief has gone through some shifts. It seems that the early church (prior to Augustine) may have had a majority (at least based by geographical schools/guilds) who believed the Bible taught a form of Universalism. Not the 19th century sort where “everyone gets in” for being human; but rather a focus on the ultimate triumphalism of God to transform and eventually redeem everything and everyone through Christ. For some earthly rejectors of Christ, punishment might be temporal — eventually giving way to salvation. This gave rise to a middle place (popularized increasingly in Roman Catholicism) of Purgatory — a place of purging those who died without complete forgiveness, who still needed to have purging accomplished – but without facing eternal fire.
By the time of the Reformation – there was a renewed emphasis on Augustinian interpretation which took man’s sin and rebellion against God very seriously and emphasized legal relationships. So, those who are believers in Christ who are forgiven and given the free gift of salvation and are now under “no condemnation” (Romans 8:1), they fully miss any future divine punishment. Meanwhile, all unbelievers are presented by Scripture as belonging to the “kingdom of darkness” and as having rejected the gospel and persisting in unbelief. This is the primary sin against a holy, perfect God. It is a sign of being in the lineage of Satan the opposer to God. “Hell” (which may actually be the “place of the dead” prior to the resurrection), or what people usually really mean: the “Lake of Fire” – is created for “Satan, the Beast, and his prophet” (end of Revelation). And unbelievers are cast to the same fate. So the Reformed and standard evangelical belief systems assert the Bible does teach a literal “hellfire”. Though there is much current discussion of whether it is appropriate to consider “literal” flames for eternal “souls”, and “fire” that does not actually consume. So, many lean toward some sort of “eschatological” interpretation with less literalness than was common in prior centuries.
Meanwhile, There is a rising group of Bible students (including some bigname theologians) who are seeing more evidence for “death” as the punishment for sin than “suffering”. Many references in Scripture specify “destruction” (of the body and the soul). The common term for this is “annihilation” – which is not so terribly different from what you believe: i.e. when you die, you stay dead. With this key exception: While the Bible is unclear on many things (which gives rise to differing interpretations), it is completely clear about this: we will all be resurrected to give an account of our lives before God of how we lived – and particularly regarding how we obeyed God’s commands — specifically in relationship to belief in Jesus. One’s eternal destiny is at stake – whether to be eternal life in the presence of God, or eternal punishment (whether conscious or rather banishment or eternal death – i.e. eternal separation from the life and pleasures of God). So, the common denominator is that yes — biblical Christians believe in divine retribution for disbelief. But this is a warning, not a hope. Definitely not a weapon.
Additional thoughts: What all biblical Christians believe is that we are created by and for God and will give an account to Him. This should cause 2 responses: 1. Humble gratitude toward our gracious God who has provided forgiveness and a means of eternal life through Christ Jesus; and 2. a loving desire to see as many people as possible benefit from the offer of salvation and to avoid whatever final punishment awaits those who reject God and salvation through Jesus.
With the stakes this high — perhaps it is a worthy pursuit to enter into the story of the Bible and experience it from the inside. This is vastly different than the typical skeptic approach of trying to find sentences or paragraphs (in many cases completely divorced from context or narrative flow) something apparently egregious to make the biblical God look bad. Those who read the Bible with eyes of faith and a humble heart — seeking to learn and discover divine truth — tend to come away persuaded that God has actually spoken and revealed Himself. And that He is good, loving, gracious, and awesome to His own.
Craig(Quote)
Craig,
your reply to me is very good at highlighting a very big point of contention i have with modern day christians, which is your need to interpret, reinterpret, and then reinterpret some more. this is supposed to be the eternal unchanging word of a omnipotent deity, it should not contain so much dated material. it should not need interpretation as its words should be so clear and so precise that they are just as easy to understand today as they were 200 years ago, as they will 1 million years from now. furthermore, while you dismiss my questioning of the few passages i raised (just a few, i could go on an on with them however) to me its a all or nothing. i shouldn’t be able to “misunderstand” and the context should not be up for any debate if this was the work of a perfect deity.
god certainly knows all languages and dialects both past and present, so why doesn’t HE rewrite it for us if its that obtuse and muddying? why are mere men twisting the Word of god so that hell has so many meanings to the point where it has no meaning at all in your descriptions?
nathan(Quote)
doh! forgot to take you to task on the “high stakes” comment. Pascal’s wager is not going to work, god would see though me hedging my bet so to speak.
nathan(Quote)
Nathan,
I can’t help but ask, since God hasn’t just shown up in full force and communicated Himself in some way that would leave no room for cultural or personal interpretation or growth in knowlege of Himself and His will, why do you suppose it’s because of some deficiency of character or power in Him? Couldn’t it be that He has done everything in the wisest, kindest way possible considering our deficiencies? You’re a parent aren’t you? Would you really want a God who was free to make arbitrary laws and conditions in an attempt to make everyone happy, or would it be a good thing that God, if there were one, was bound to do all the good He knows to do in compliance with moral law, whether it was understood and appreciated by all people at all times? Love is a law that binds Him as well as springs from Him.
And whatever hell is (I do believe it’s a “perishing”), it is something God is begging you not to let happen, not something His trying slap on you-it’s something He hates far more than you or I could. It may just be a fact that the world as we know it is going to be destroyed and we will all return to our source, and those who can live and love with God will, and those who won’t can’t, and there really is no way around that. I think He’d do anything possible for you to be with Him. Not even God can do the impossible.
margie(Quote)
margie,
the god i see in he bible is extremely deficient. he is obtuse, immoral, and incompetent. my salvation lies with the fact i must have faith, yet all i am given is a book of heresay from 2000 years ago and nothing more?
id submit even you do not know Him if you claim He cannot do the impossible:
Matthew 17:20: For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
“nothing will be impossible to you”
nathan(Quote)
Nathan,
You know, often ‘believers’ just put everyone else in a box labeled REBEL. I don’t. I’ve done too much striving and doubting and being angry at God about the “damned if I do, damned if I don’t” thing I think you’re tossing around, as well as lots of other issues. You haven’t brought up anything that hasn’t torn me up too. I don’t think the real question is where did the universe come from. It’s an infinite arguement. Finally, we are either going to want to believe in a God, or want not to. There can be a million reasons both for or against and just like every other choice we make, at some point our preference turns one idea into a deciding factor. The real question for most people is whether or not God is good. For some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, everyone assumes that if there was a First Cause it would be an absolute good. I guess we just figure that if someone was a self-existent being capable of creating what we see, it would be perfectly good as well as perfectly all else. Anyway, the question of God’s character as I see His personality in the Bible has been an incredible deterrent to my faith. That God who must be able to all things, would allow things to be as they are mainly, but also that if there really is an eternal afterlife, why is everything a riddle? Why did He leave so much room for error? How does He sleep at night, if it’s keeping me up and I’m not the one who started all this?
I don’t know what to tell you. Others may be more help. All I can say is God can only do what love makes possible, and He must do all that evil makes necessary, within that scope nothing is impossible with God and is always the right thing to do. I’ve discovered a good reason for all the things I used to not like about God, no, not all of them, but enough of them that I am convinced that the longer I know Him the more I will trust Him. You may know people who you expect that even if you heard they’d apparently done something wrong, you would know they had a good reason. You don’t know all about a surgery or how it’s going to turn out before you decide to have the cancer removed. You do a little research maybe, but mostly, you decide it needs done and entrust yourself to the best surgeon available. That’s what I’ve done. And having done so, the real presence of a real being whose personality is truly wonderful is the strongest case I have for my growing faith. I know that doesn’t do anything for yours.
margie(Quote)
фотоэротика
eroxxxtube(Quote)
I think it might be a little presumptuous to say, “God doesn’t exist.” I’m sure you’ve heard that before. I know the burden of proof is on the Theist, but in a way it’s also on the Atheist as Atheists cannot prove God isn’t real. I’m sure you’ve also heard that before. Just nonsensical Theist fog. My beef with Atheism is this: My worst case scenario is your best case scenario. When I die and you’re right nothing happens. When you die and you’re wrong everything is lost. Pascal famously stated, “God is a reasonable bet; it is worthwhile to assume God exists. If he does then we all win; if he does not we lose nothing.” The truth is religion is far from perfect. Then again, so is science and the concept of reason. Who can make heads or tails of dark matter? And who’s reason should we adhere to?
Thatguy(Quote)
It’s ridiculous to say religion killed all those people. You obviously don’t know what the Sixth Commandment is and what Jesus believed about pacifism. You also don’t seem to know what the Bible says about judging your fellow man. Do you really think a world ruled by atheists would be a perfect place devoid of war? The worst genocide in human history took place in Germany where the rate of atheism is higher than almost any other in country in world. (25% according to the Euro-barometer Poll of 2005). Coincidence?
Thatguy(Quote)
{ 4 trackbacks }