By Johnny Bradford
I write this essay almost thirty years from the day of my birth, married to a beautiful wife and the father of three amazing children, and consider how fortunate I am — fortunate not to have been born in Sub-Saharan Africa, or born during the Black Plague in the Middle Ages, or born in Communist Russia, or the Nazi state of Germany during the early 1900′s.
My present circumstances are shared by many others in this developed world. But what differs me from many others is this: I do not attribute this position of fortune to the work of any supreme being, creator/designer, or god. Instead, I was the result of chance — of good fortune — that my great-grandparents survived the First World War and gave birth to my grandparents who equally survived the Second World War and gave birth to my mother and father who by chance would find one another and fall in love and give birth to my siblings and me. Calculating the mathematical probabilities that were involved in that particular egg being fertilized by that particular sperm are near impossible. But still the religious faith of millions would allow this to be explained as “God’s will.”
Although raised in what is described as a “Christian home” and having once professed Christianity, I can no longer align myself with that worldview. The move from self-professed Christian to confident atheist has been far from easy and my new-found perspective on life and the universe has been formed and cemented over the last two years, although the journey was begun at least four years ago.
Hell
Pullquote: How could a loving God send billions of humans to a place of eternal torment for simply not believing in his existence?
My journey started when I began to wrestle with the idea of hell. How could a loving God send billions of humans to a place of eternal torment for simply not believing in his existence? This paradox cannot be defended or explained. In fact the bible only supports this punishment: 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9 speaks of God “inflicting vengeance” and non-believers who will “suffer … eternal destruction.”
I realized hell was fear-based propaganda. This questioning and further reading led me to the liberal interpretation that if Christ died for all, then it really meant all. Certainly no god I wanted to believe in would be happy to send millions to endless torture for the sake of unbelief.
From this unorthodox view of Christianity, other beliefs began to unravel.
Hypocrisy
I noticed Christians behaved the same way as their non-believing “hell-bound” counterparts. Dishonesty, adultery, divorce, judgementalism, and hypocrisy were as rife within the Christian community as they were outside of the walls of religion.
It seemed that people, including myself, were happy to pick and choose which parts of the bible were applicable — which were perfect. We chose to ignore the parts we didn’t like or didn’t understand. We steered clear of the command to stone people to death who committed adultery, or who were heretics, or who were homosexual, or who worked on the sabbath. We also happily agreed with the bible’s lack of objection to slavery for the better part of 1900 years.
The Horrors of the Bible
Pullquote: Many of the worst atrocities in ancient “history” were recorded in the Old Testament.
I began noticing the horrors of the Bible. Many of the worst atrocities in ancient “history” were recorded in the Old Testament and then seemingly ignored when questioned in favor of a more palatable god of the New Testament. Such events as the flood, Abraham’s disgusting willingness to slaughter his son, the plagues, the 3,000 Israelites killed on Moses’ command after they had built the golden calf, the genocide of every living being as the Israelites moved across Canaan, and many many more.
The people killed after Moses came down from the mountain is particularly disconcerting: imagine you are in a tribe and your leader leaves. You have a party and make a god just like every other people-group at time did. Moses then returns and says he’s spoken personally with God and here’s some stone tablets to prove it. In a fit of rage — because the people are partying — he orders 3,000 to be killed!
Who would then question him? Who would now dare to speak out against him or this god he has communicated with? Today this bears a striking resemblance to the likes of Hitler or Stalin: kill anyone who questions your authority and make an example of them — order through fear-based tactics.
Killing His Only Son For You
What could God prove by sacrificing his “son”? It makes no sense that the Almighty God would have to kill himself to redeem the world from the judgment of himself.
There’s no surprise that according to the story Jesus rises again. There’s no mystery or drama — if he doesn’t, he’s not God.
But what did all this blood and gore achieve? Apparently it would break the curse of sin, which was dumped upon humanity by one man who God made and was given an impossible task: Eden was set up for failure.
I also found it bizarre that a created being “the devil” should wield such power — why banish him from heaven to cause humanity such misery, instead of destroying him and all other rebels and give the world a chance?
The Man-Made God
Pullquote: Christianity has served its purpose and must now be discarded along with all other religions.
As the holes began to appear in the fabric of my Christian faith I struggled to find reasonable answers from books, the bible or Christians I knew. It was only once I began to allow myself to seriously question the validity of what I had always been told did I begin to find the freedom to think clearly and objectively.
One of the final issues I wrestled with in this journey was God’s love. Calum is my son — I created him. I do not demand that he love me. But with God this is the case — in fact it’s the rule above all others (“Love the Lord your God…”).
Upon further reading of the bible, the Christian god seems to be self-obsessed, egotistical, power hungry and moody. If one looks at humanity over the ages, these qualities are found in dictators and tyrants not loving fathers. Consider the many disasters of late: God can either do nothing to prevent these or he chooses not to. This implies that he is either impotent or evil.
These thoughts led me to the conclusion that this story of a creator god and his plan for humanity is man-made. It served a purpose for a time, just like the Aztecs had the sun-god, the Greeks had Zeus and others, the Romans had theirs, and the Chinese had a religious system for thousands of years.
The story that tells me God is interested in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death is not one I can believe or live with while maintaining my integrity.
The truth, as far as I can see, is this: Christianity was the best we humans could do to make sense of reality at a time when we had no concept of physics, chemistry, biology or medicine. It has served its purpose and must now be discarded along with all other religions.
Turning to Science and Reason
Pullquote: I can now confidently affirm the equal implausibility of all religions.
Since making the decision to cease believing in the Judeo-Christian god, my focus has moved away from biblical inerrancies and theological issues toward seeking scientific rational explanations for the world. The theory of god cannot be disproved, but neither can an invisible flying purple unicorn that inhabits the outer rings of Saturn.
All people are atheists. They declare disbelief in many gods, be it Ra, Allah or Jehovah. I, as all atheists have done, have gone one step further to state that I do not believe in the existence of any god.
Unfortunately, the war over whose god is right has raged for centuries and the ill-effects of religion are only too clear in history and the present climate. It now seems incredibly arrogant to me to suggest that the billions of people who have had and will have similar experiences when contemplating Allah, Krishna, or Buddha are in fact wrong and the Christian god is the only true god. I can now confidently affirm the equal implausibility of all religions.
We know that the earth is considerably older than the bible suggests. This is based on evidence and our growing understanding of physics and space/time.
We know that humans in the form of homo erectus have been living for 150,000 years. Through the theory of evolution we can study the effects of change and adaptation over billions of years that bring us to today.
The outstanding lack of evidence for the worldview depicted in the bible is disturbing, yet Americans continue to campaign for it to be taught as truth in their science classes. The argument raging between intelligent design and science/evolution can only be entertained because of the dangerous alliance between church and state in the western world — especially the USA.
Morality
No one need believe that a man named Jesus was born of a virgin and was the son of god to appreciate his moral teachings. And yet he was not the first, nor the last, to propose such actions.
The bible is not the source of morality. Without it we know how to live and treat each other. The fabric of society will not suddenly fall to pieces if the religions of the world were to cease. Through thousands of years of trial and error — the rise and fall of many civilizations — humanity has known or learned how to treat others. And we will continue to learn as our ethics progress.
Hope
Pullquote: Atheism can give us a passion to live.
Some believe the life of an atheist is hopeless. On the contrary, I have a passion to live — this is the only life I get; I have a passion to experience, to have adventure, to explore this planet; I have a newfound openness and curiousity about nature and the make-up of this world; I refuse to settle for less, to live wastefully, or to be mundane; I am hopeful that I can make positive impacts in the lives of others, that I can raise my children to question everything and suck the very marrow out of life; I have no fear of death other than its finality and this drives me to experience all that I can before I pass away and cease to exist.
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately,” Henry David Thoreau said, “to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”
Johnny Bradford is a recovering Christian pastor in Scotland.
Thank you! You have summarized the path many of us have taken over the years. I was a Pentecostal minister. Now I am not. :-)
For a time I was looking at Universalism, which you hint at: that if all humanity was, without personal choice, bound in sin by the act of Adam’s sin, then all of humanity would, without personal choice, be redeemed by the act of Jesus. That’s what it says in black and white in the N.T. If I were to still be a Christian at all, I’d reject Calvinism and Arminianism, and be a Universalist. But even that doesn’t really hold water these days, since all the stories about how God relates to the world requires that God exists, yet no evidence has been put forth so no relationship really exists.
Cheers!
Brilliant read, and well written, I cant say i ever really “believed” I was raised in a fairly liberal family and im a son to a father who is extremely “anti” church (not religion as such more towards how certain churches are run). I dabbled in religion a bit during my teen years and couldn’t come to grips with the control the elders had over the congregation and the hypocracy of most of what they said and taught. i enjoyed the way it was written and explained!
Thanks Johnny. I hope you can experience a sub-Saharan Africa adventure sometime. I was born in Malawi, and live in Cape Town – it’s not all bad you know.
Though Spong would probably deny it as an explicit label, yeah, I think the consequences of his chain of thought about God lead to what cashes out as practical Atheism. To wit, the abstraction destroys the point.
I think the Open Theists in general come closest to conceptualizing a deity that I would feel comfortable following *if it existed*. My thing, of course, as an Atheist is I don’t believe that He does, so it’s sort of a moot point.
Barry, I can think of nothing that is more anthropomorphic than emotions (even primateamorphic or mammalianmorphic). How can you possibly concieve of this bubbling crude without primary reference to the human condition?
I think there is a pretty good argument against the existence of gods here. It really isn’t possible to conceive of gods (with personality) without reference to human evolutionary, neuronal states. Further these states bubble up from different parts of our evolved brain. They come to us as a naturalistic, evolved, complex package. How do you go about picking and choosing which emotions your god possesses? At least on this point the Greeks were consistent. Finally, there really isn’t any clear separation line between emotions and arousal states. Do the gods cruise to Barry White?
Your article does reflect time invested in consideration of your ideas, that is commendable. However, your view of God is anthropomorphic, hence it in part contributed to your rejection of him.
As well, you take the position that it is through the acts of God that you determine the essence of God which is a linear failing. His essence is eternal and declared so one does not properly determine God’s essence based on his acts, rather his acts are to be viewed in light of his essence.
The two above are deadly combinations when it comes to a proper understanding of God per Christian doctrine (which is specifically the context of your upbringing and now repudiation though I do understand you include all theistic concepts in the overall repudiation). So in crippling your foundation I do see how you could never properly construct an edifice of divine reference.
I think Stephen “I-post-comments-for-others-to-read-but-refuse-to-read-their-comments” Webb might do another hit-and-run drive-by on this one.
Can we EVER get him to apologize and redress:
A Tangled Webb of Hypocrisy!
I REALLY,REALLY loved this piece/explanation!!!!!!! I have been questioning and reading for some time and agree with so many things that you have said. I am thrilled that I found your blog. It really affirms what I have been saying for some time.
I also appreciate that you are putting it out there as a guide for others who have/or are questioning.
Well written and thought provoking. I suggest that it would make an interesting case if you pick up Quran, and put Islam to same tests.
I would suggest you start from here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckMwbVmMkIw
Johnny and others,
I’d love to hear stories of how you, being a pastor, were able to step away from that community. Religion’s communal factor is a large draw for people, and it is often socially hard for one to break free even if he doubts his faith’s sincerity.
“What could God prove by sacrificing his “son”? It makes no sense that the Almighty God would have to kill himself to redeem the world from the judgment of himself.”
i go through phases of different #1 question for Christians to answer for me, and right now, this is my main question.
When I started thinking about it (having already been an atheist for several years), I finally realized that it just makes no sense. Yet it is repeated over and over and over again – “Jesus died for our sins”, “God sent his only son to die on the cross for us”, “I know I will be forgiven because Jesus died for me.”
I mean, sure, you can create a sentence that says “Jesus died for our sins”, but that doesn’t mean that sentence actually says anything. What is it supposed to mean? What does Jesus dying have to do with my sins? What difference does it make if Jesus did not die?
Why is this considered some major sacrifice for God? He knew what would happen, and after a few years, Jesus went right up to Heaven and is with God now anyway – where the sacrifice in that?
Excellent, well-written. Covers most of the specific components of Christianity that are antithetical to a human’s health, maturity and well-being.
Especially hell being a fear-based propaganda. I have never been able to get anyone to discuss the deep damage that fear of hell does to someone. The atheists shy away from “that crap” and don’t want to touch it; and the Christians think, “Well, of course! That’s the way it should be!” The apologist Christians who don’t think that heavily about hell practically shit themselves apologizing and rationalizing all over the place “because those No-True-Scotsman poor Christians don’t represent all Christians!”
All of which completely ignores and denies the extensive damage that is done by the belief in hell, which is a Christian construct and belief.
Interesting.
Simply god’s plans cannot be understood by humans. :)
Dont even try!
“The foolishness of God is wiser than men.” Some will have ears to hear and others will not. C.S. Lewis was a devout atheist and was among the most brilliant and talented thinkers of the last century. Read “Mere Christianity” and discover how such a brilliant man who was a former atheist had in the most intelligent and logical way, come to grips with God, Jesus Christ and all these issues you struggle with. Our perspective is so narrow, we can’t even see ourselves! We see only a reflection of ourselves in a mirror. The intelligence to question our own existence did not come by chance. That is absolutely, scientifically impossible! It came from a creator who made us in His likeness just like He said in His word. Most of what is so difficult to grasp can be understood through the simple concept of God creating us to have FREE WILL. It was God’s will that we should have FREE WILL and would have a choice to choose Him and believe what He said. It was not His will that we should listen to the Enemy and be deceived; that was our will. Because we chose the latter, we have sin. All sin can be traced back to a lie. Truth is reality as viewed be the Creator of the universe. He has told us what the Truth is. To believe so devoutly and to lean upon our own understanding, rejecting God’s Truth, is insanity by definition. The Truth of the scriptures in not easy to understand. We need guidance. That is why we need good pastors and teachers who teach the whole scripture, line by line, word for word, so that we might start to see the big picture. The enemy does not want you to understand the Truth and he is winning the battle as long as you lean on your own intelligence instead of the wisdom of God. It was pride that made the Devil the Devil. It is a spirit of pride and an attitude of belligerent denial that can keep a man in everlasting ignorance. “You shall know the Truth; and the Truth shall set you free.”
The Earth was flat once, and the solar system rotated around it, and slavery was a law, and black people were worth less than white people, and so on.
These were once all scientific and social viewpoints that, in time, turned out to be gross mistakes.
Religion and belief in gods is on its way.
Concise and sharp, I like it!
“What could God prove by sacrificing his “son”? It makes no sense that the Almighty God would have to kill himself to redeem the world from the judgment of himself.”
That is a wonderfully articulate statement. Well put.
Thank you for this article, I found it enriching.
I’ll take the anxiety over the anesthetic.
I would like to see someone deconstruct this study the way Bella dePaulo, Ph.D., author of “Singled out: How Singles Are Stereotyped, Stigmatized and Ignored, and Still Live Happily Ever After” did with the one that concluded marriage produced longer, happier lives. She broke down every way they manipulated and selected for the “findings”, until it was worthy of ridicule. (She gives a much briefer summary online than the excellent deconstruction that’s in her book.)
By all that I mean:
With studies that prejudicially stacked, I probably don’t have to choose between anxiety and anesthetic.
Thanks a lot for this. Am currently back in touch with a bunch of people I knew from my old church (thank you, facebook); and it is nice to hear from people who’ve had the same experiences as me.
Johnny Bradford, will you please come back here and write some more?
Daniel, could you try to get him to come back and write some more? Post any links to him if you find any. This and your own article on “3 Ways Christianity Fosters Immaturity” are two of the finest articles I’ve read on here. (And we already know where to find you!)
Thanks!
Excellent post.
Wonderful! Thank you ever so much for posting this.
It just encapsulates my wild thoughts perfectly.
I actually have started talking to my old churchies, but haven’t found they feel the same as I do. Or perhaps they don’t feel they can express that they may be feeling the same as I.
Yet.
Very well written.
My journey was a bit longer than yours, but very similar and it lead me to the same place. I appreciate my children, my wife, and my life more today than I ever did as a Christian for 33 years. Being distracted by an imaginary god keeps us from focusing on what is truly important.
Joy and morality does not require a god and does not come from the bible. It comes from valuing the earth, your life and the life of others.
Beautifully written. Thank you. Your path was not my path. I was born in the middle of a wood, on no path in particular. When I opened my eyes to look around, I saw thousands of equally viable paths before me. When I checked these paths against the only map I knew I could trust, science, not a single one of them made sense. I’ve been forging my own path through the wood ever since.
Wow. Thank you so much for this. I’m always tempted to write one of these “exodus from faith” stories but I don’t think mine would be much different than yours. Or as eloquent. Kudos.
Brain differences found between believers and non-believers:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090304160400.htm
The study found that non-believers experience more anxiety. This could be a bad thing, except it helps them learn from their mistakes better than believers.
Interesting.
I love this article, and it seems to encapsulate many of my thoughts, too. I think I had a similar experience to yours.
A lot of these thoughts were going through my mind as I was starting to question my own beliefs, and it’s nice to see other people have been there, too.
This was a great guest post, and some of the comments were very well put as well (Vorjack and Nope, I’m looking at you two).
I suspect if someone were to do a survey, the most common reason people lost belief in God would be the outrageousness of the concept of hell, not lack of evidence. They may have ended up in the lack of evidence camp but the hellfires started them down the path.
Pingback: Deconversion Story « Josiah Concept Ministries
Wow, that Josiah Concept Ministries rebuttal is pretty terrible.
Logical fallacy, thy name is apologist.
Firstly, thank you for your kind words and shared experiences. I see that the few critical responses have been adequately countered and I have no desire to add anything further other than to reiterate the point that according to the NT we see the fullness of God in Jesus, the perfect human representation of God. So it would seem the anthropomorphic argument posed by Alex doesn’t hold tight given that ‘only through Jesus can we know God’…
Secondly, to Kevin: no offence was intended in my ‘sub-saharan’ comment other than pure statistics!! Maybe I’ll take you up on the offer – always fancied a dive with the great whites at Gansbaai.
Most Atheism is a response to Christianity. Deism is a perfectly acceptable alternative to Christianity. Atheism is a bit extreme if it’s just a denial of a certain religion. Or even all religions. But the Judeo-Christian-Muslim religions leave a lot to be desired and really give God a bad name. I can’t accept religion, nor can I believe something came from nothing. I think God may be found in quantum physics.
To debate God, we need a definition of God to be sure we’re talking about the same concept. My definition of God has nothing to do with religious mythology. I reject Atheism as a closed minded belief system. Hell, anyone can point out the bible is full of crap.
That’s the beauty of God’s love. You are free to reject it and His Son. I truly believe that a human being’s mind is not perfect, there fore it can not know and see all things as God does. Therefore, who are we to judge Him? It’s akin to a baby being in his mom’s womb and wanting to get out after being there 2 months, mom knows what’s best for him. He can’t see it yet!!
I’m really not trying to be disrespectful, but what seminary did you go to, and how good a student were you, if you were tripped up in your Christianity by such obviously flawed questions?
“How Could a loving God send someone to Hell simply because they won’t worship Him?” I’m sorry, but this is the biggest cop out ever brought into the debate. It implies that the person did nothing wrong and God just willy-nilly decided the were going to be eternally damned. If you can truthfully say you have never done even one thing in all of your conscious life (including a thought) which did not bother your personal conscience, or if you happen to be a psychopath, that would not have been looked at as improper by another person,you might be able to claim God is condemning you simply because you won’t worship Him.
I really am curious as to where you studied and how good a student you were.
god bless you all
Very interesting article…I am researching these issues now too; my family consists of Conservative Christians that don’t ask too many questions or think outside the box. I look as science not working against religion but alongside various religions. There are too many amazing things to allow me to believe in no higher power; however, I think science is great, because it proves fact from fiction when pertaining to religion as a whole.
The religion that Christ taught is foreign to nearly all of the churches today. Present day Christianity is as far removed from the teachings of Christ as the south pole is from the north.
The Church has become a business nowadays. I feel that it would be better practising the teachings of Christ by your own at home than joining some church – where the teachings of Christ are only an ornament worn on the sleeve and not actively practised in one’s life. The public is also disgusted with the church for trying to protect convicted pedophile priests.
How can the church be said to uphold the teachings of Christ, when it is embroiled in the mire of sin.
The second council of Constantinople removed all mention of reincarnation from the Bible, and promptly declared after that, that reincarnation is anathema. Then, there is the case of selling indulgences, and we dot want to even start discussing about some popes who can be termed as the devil’s children in every sense of the word.
Need I say more?
** So, you wanna criticize xian doctrine? Why waste time beating a dead god? **
>> ignorance is no excuse
The central problem with discussion on almost all non-theist sites I’ve come across using StumbleUpon, I call “conceding out of ignorance.”
Xianity was great in its day — nonsense; it was a cultural disaster from day one.
Xianity still provides a moral framework for today — more nonsense; pauline anti-intellectualism, misogyny, and world hatred has poisoned minds in the West for over 2,000 years.
Four (interacting) dimensions of discourse . . . of perspective get ignored:
1. time — xianity appeared as a jewish heresy in the eastern Roman Empire. It is a belief structure which has been in steep decline since 1600.
Attempts to preserve it are lying, shrill and vicious. They fail because they are socially destructive. And xianity will cease as a “living” religion. (This what Nietzsche meant by the infamous phrase: “God is dead.”)
2. space — most of the world’s people are not xian. They would resist (and have resisted) attempted conversion. Their religious views, of course, are mutually inconsistent. As myths, they are fictional prose and poetry.
3. value — India and Japan are good examples where the dominant culture will not absorb an alien framework of religion. Japan is basically a secular society. India has withstood domination by Buddhist elites and by Moslem elites. Buddhism no longer exists in the land of its birth, and by partition Islam was simply cut out of the Indian body politic.
4. psycho-social — most Europeans are secularists, and admit it. Most Americans are secularists, but don’t admit it. The elections of 2008 showed that the disease of fundamentalism can be limited by our cultural “immune system” now trained to recognize christo-fascism and begin a long overdue process of limiting it.
>> the essence of concession
Xianity looks big because you’re standing too close to it. Without cross-cultural and cross-temporal understanding of religion, you’ll never extract yourself.
In perspective, xianity can be dismissed — as an unbelievable belief structure — along with all its closely related near eastern relatives: zoroastrianism, judaism, and islam.
All matters related to defects of xianity’s so-called sacred writings — contradictions, bad arguments, polemics, lies — that is, directly taking on its apologists is a total waste of time.
You might as well be parsing Batman at a comix convention. And, theology is fifth-rate fan fiction.
anti-supernaturalist
Have fun telling your kids they were only born to be worm food.
Your refusal to capitalize The Bible amuses me. Do atheists not believe in proper nouns either?
Live and let die…
Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com
Wow. This is a great summarization of all the huge loopholes in the Christian Faith. People tell me, “You only have to accept that God loves you.” To them I say, “Yes, and then wait for the day he decides to hate me.”
The way their book describes their god is terrifying and I want nothing to do with it.
-Erik
From the Hypocrisy section…
“…or who were homosexual…”
I pointed this out in a discussion with a Christian friend and he commented that “we can’t sell our wives into slavery because the New Testament doesn’t mention it. When Christ came, he eradicated the old law. Homosexuality is mentioned in Romans and as such is still applicable.”
Now I’m an atheist myself (bisexual too, but that’s beside the point), but I didn’t know how to respond to this. May I play Devil’s advocate, if you’ll pardon the pun, and pose this to y’all?
Carson
You know what, people are just making their own excuses…God gave us Freedom of Choice, and with that Freedom, you can think whatever you want, do whatever you want and say whatever you want..go to hell or wherever..but the point is, God loves us and because of that He let things happen. It’s our choice to be in this ‘way’ coz this is what we want.It’s all because we’re SELFISH enough to just think about ourselves…coz we love Power, Attention, worldly things.If we have the Pride, and our heart is in this world,we can’t accept the fact that God created us…people doesn’t want to be a servant of Him that we don’t even see…and by the way, the Bible isn’t just a handwritten book made by those ‘persons/authors’ in the past, but they are Real prophets that God used to send His message to us..Guys, if you know what I really mean, I have goosebumps now, but this is true….the 9/11 remember?it was predicted that it will be destroyed and it happened. [huh, care for details?]
People are looking for a place in this world…they wanted to be known.That’s what we are….sinners.God just want you to know that He loves you..accept it or not, the decision is yours.
We are in the end times….see the wars?and global warming?they’re all predicted to happen..Satan is already making his way to get You all people to be on his side..choose now and so,beware.
A subject that always pulls a crowd, well written too. Without taking sides one also wonders if those millions of folk who lived and died thousands of years before the Bronze Age rule book was compiled all went to hell…
There are answers for all of these questions and clarification for all these alleged contradictions regarding the Bible which is in fact the miraculous word of God that has been given to us. If you truly seek you will find but you must seek with an open heart and mind or you will simply be in contempt prior to honest investigation. Those who never knew about Christ and those who were here before He came into the world will be judged differently from those who knew Him and chose to reject the Truth. Jesus said that He came into the world to testify to the Truth; not to judge but to set the captives free. “You shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free.” It is also said in the scriptures that “The foolishness of God is wiser than men.” Don’t lean on your own understanding which comes from the teachings of men but ask your Creator for understanding of His will and His word and like any Father who receives a righteous and humble request from His son, He will provide the answers in time. If the inner workings of the cell have been proven to be irreducibly complex and Darwin’s theory completely debunked at the molecular level than there is an intelligent creator. Don’t you want to know Him? I would rather live my life as if there is a God and find out there isn’t, than to live my life as if there is no God to find out there is…
Great post! It’s wonderful to see that you have liberated yourself from the limited, hostile mindset of religion. I applaud your courage to go beyond your conditioning and find the truth for yourself. This is true religion: to find the truth for yourself, to be as honest as possible with yourself while you go about it and to learn about love, which is the only form of spirituality. Love transcends all divisions, for love is monistic. Love is the whole. The inherent problem of most religions is that love becomes an object, an end to be reached in a non-existent future (for all that truly exists is the present moment). This gives rise to concepts of after-life, heaven and hell, nirvana, et cetera. But love is not an object, love is not an illusion of future. Love is not external. Love is within. Love is in everything. Love is existence. Love is life itself. One cannot seek it for it is already there. One can only negate that which ISN’T love. As Rumi, the Sufi poet wrote: ‘Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.’
Peace and love to you and your family my friend.
Thank you for a really interesting article. As a Christian I too have struggled with these issues. So much so that last year I brought these very topics up at our fortnightly Bible study. I called it, ‘Who is our God?’ We were led through the issues by a fine academic and even now, I still do not know how to reconcile the genocide, the judgementalism and all the other things you so accurately cite. However, I was intrigued by the concept of how you ended up being allive, in western Europe and the random chances, which led to it. I reached the same fork in the road – belief or none of it. I ended up still believing. It may be foolish to some and I would agree with them in many ways. Is it just chance? Am I just deluded? I don’t know but I know what you said struck a chord. These questions have made my faith stronger but my questions tougher. After all the questions, the struggles, the intellectualising and the research, I took a leap and I ended up on the side of belief. I could easily have not done so. I struggle even to explain it so there are no trite arguments from me in favour of an ‘unbelievable’ religion. I just wanted to stop by and say hello and let you know that I read your blog, and subsequent comments, with a wry smile and a knowledge that I’m still struggling with it all and, like you, doing it in Scotland.
I feel a bit guilty for writing this, for I haven’t read the whole piece or most of the comments – but I had to comment on one aspect of your opening words:
It was not good fortune or luck that you where born in the democratic west of the late 1900s. It could not have been any other way. You where not a person, much less a so the person you are now, before you existed and your personality is solely resting on the circumstances of your family and life. Thus _you_ could not have existed as the person you now know unless your mother and father in fact had sex and later on a baby, and that baby was raised just like you were. As far as I can see this is obvious, as long as you do not believe in a soul that sort of floats around the world looking for a semi-random baby to materialize in.
I think the misconception that we could somehow have ended up elsewhere and that we therefore are lucky to be where we are stems from the very belief in a soul and a God that decides the fate of your soul. Without the soul and certainly without the God there is no need for this misconception.
Otherwise a good read! (even if I didn’t finish it. :P)
If you’re interested, Timothy Keller addresses some of the same issues here:
http://sermons.redeemer.com/store/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_ID=29
He is a Christian pastor and makes some good points, in my opinion.
The picture seems pretty sad to me, that someone could have such a passion for God to even go into ministry, and then that a relationship with Him could be discarded like a crumbled, worthless piece of paper, thrown away in the trash.
Did you think that God cared for people to know, and love Him so much for His benefit, or for our long-term good?
I hear what your saying, but the reality is your not an atheist your just someone who doesn’t like Christianity, and the quicker you come to realize that, the quicker you’ll come to realize how little you actually understand of what your trying to explain.
Pingback: An Explanation of Original Sin « Unreasonable Faith
quote fast eddie
“I hear what your saying, but the reality is your not an atheist your just someone who doesn’t like Christianity, and the quicker you come to realize that, the quicker you’ll come to realize how little you actually understand of what your trying to explain.”
agree!
A very interesting writing that I enjoyed reading thoroughly. It addresses the same issues that I myself struggle with at this very moment while I try to come to terms with my faith, what it means to me, and what role it should play in my life.
I have to say that I do believe in God, BUT I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT “ANY” RELIGION ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH REPRESENTS HIM. I have read the bible from cover to cover and all you end up with is more questions than answers. Man has polluted it because it is nothing but confusion. Actually it is 100 percent man made. It is not possible to see the “one true” God through man-made religion. I believe that He is a total stranger to all of us because there has NEVER been anyone to truly represent him. About Jesus, I have to honestly say, “I don’t know”. I don’t trust anyone behind me to tell me the truth. I don’t put any faith in anything that anyone tells me. Everyone that has ever lived and been destroyed, was destroyed because they believed someone behind them. Everyone that has ever lost, lost because they were following a fool. Please do not flush God down the toilet because He is a total stranger to you. You are hating someone that false religion has told you nothing about. No religion on the face of the earth past or present has ever known the one true God. He has been hijacked by every group of tyrants to ever walk the face of the earth. Every evil thing that has ever been done on the face of the earth, has been done in the name of God. But that does not mean that God is evil. You can’t look anywhere on the face of the earth and seen God moving, but I believe that before the end of 2010 it will be possible to look and see God moving in the earth plain as day and no one will be able to deny it. If not, then I’m giving up on him too.
I have noticed that the posts written by “True” christians have a note of desperation. It almost seems that they need us to believe as they believe or what they believe just might not be true.
Claidheamh,
What is left is the joy of God alone. It’s not simply about “fire insurance.”
Exceptionally well said…
What always slays me is that they don’t see this; it makes perfect sense to them – infinite “punishment” (revenge, more precisely) for “offenses” committed against an infinite creator.
There’s simply no arguing with this level of delusion. It’s a form of collective psychosis – as well as an addiction. This guy is willing to see all of us being roasted alive for all of eternity, so that he can have the ontological security blanket for a few brief decades while alive. It’s beyond obscene, and the vast majority of them don’t even try to break free of it.
Carson said:
From the Hypocrisy section…
“…or who were homosexual…”
I pointed this out in a discussion with a Christian friend and he commented that “we can’t sell our wives into slavery because the New Testament doesn’t mention it. When Christ came, he eradicated the old law. Homosexuality is mentioned in Romans and as such is still applicable.”
Now I’m an atheist myself (bisexual too, but that’s beside the point), but I didn’t know how to respond to this. May I play Devil’s advocate, if you’ll pardon the pun, and pose this to y’all?
Teleprompter replied:
Paul also says that marriage should be a last resort.
So when Christian groups say that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed to preserve a “sacred institution”, just tell them that Paul says it’s basically a last resort for those who cannot handle their own lusts.
Further, the N.T. also talks about slavery. Is that OK, too?
Carson, I would like to add the following so that you have a little more ammunition for your discussions with Xtians:
The New Testament is big on the theme that wives should submit to their husbands in everything. And, since the scripture doesn’t leave the woman an out with divorce, this could place her in a very bad situation.
New Testament passages show bigoted opinions of women by the writers. (Adam is not the one who was deceived in the Garden of Eden. Eve is clearly the party implicated as being responsible for the downfall of man.) These passages also imply that the “natural use” of women is to function as a derogatory sexual outlet for men, women should be seen and not heard, etc., etc., etc.
Women have suffered terribly for thousands of years because of what men, not any god, wrote in the Bible.
Many Christians have declared that the Old Testament regulations died when Jesus arrived, but three key verses tell us that this simply isn’t a valid deduction. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:7). “For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled” (Matthew 5:18). And “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” (Luke 16:17). Furthermore, as the New Testament instructions postdate Jesus’ life, this failed suggestion doesn’t even attempt to resolve the problems created by the New Testament authors.
jesus is sooooo pissed at you right now…..
You took the words right out of my mouth.
:-)
Nice article. I never believed so its been easier for me. my only question, what on earth is so bad about being born in sub-saharan africa, you are talking about some of the most beautiful places on earth! You should go there sometime mate, especially South Africa, and then you will indeed to sucking the marrow out of life..
not entirely sure what i have stumbled upon here but had a giggle at rays comment!
first off – original post is a well structured, personal view as experienced by one man: cant fault that and no argument there. unfortunately, what follows though is an elitist, philosophical contest between people who appear to rely on a thesauraus to tie their argument together ( i’m talking to you guggenheim; no idea what your point is) bottom line guys, not one of you have mentioned the millions of people worldwide who accept without question, thru’ social, economic political or whatever circumstances, the doctrine of whichever body of authority currently in power deems appropriate. forget about the “essence of god” and try and answer the real question – what purpose does religion serve?
What a beautiful story. It closely aligns with my own, although the initial reason I felt compelled to search for truth is because my life didn’t work for me. I was miserable, full of guilt, and fear. I had grown up christian, and it was look for something else or die, basically. Then I went on to find out all these reasons why christianity should be discarded.
I grew up having chapel every morning, I was educated by monks (none touch me they were all wonderful people). It was in my late teens that I gradually drifted from believing in a God, in part because I witnessed in my readings the long and terrible wars and crimes committed by religious groups. I’m not saying that other non-religious groups were didn’t perform horrible crimes or start wars, the difference is that religious people are meant to be good whereas evil people do evil deeds. This is one reason, there are many more, one in particular is my reading of the Vedas beliefs; many of their sayings, prayers, etc., where just plagiarized and use in many of the gospel writings; another reason, perhaps not important reason (I believe in the importance of little things), is that there are many Gods who also celebrate the same date of December the 25th. Last but not least, is my experience with religious people, in most part they are bigoted, hypocritical, and intolerant – though I have met honorable Christian’s, and, here is the funny part about it all, they are not really Christian’s, they are good human beings that have been blinded by a myth. I will never in any way fight against the Christian’s right to practice their religion and in fact I will fight for your freedom to do so as I would expect you to fight for my rights and my freedom. When Christians stop interfering with the rights of those who are different then people will accept more their beliefs.
The statement that you created your son Calum is interesting. So….you had a loving sexual union with your wife and you are the creator. Since your father created you…then please go backwards and tell me where it all began. The first man and woman had to be created by something or someone following your creation reasoning of your son.
The notion of a tension between eternal and temporal existence is one of the craftier ways in which theists explain the paucity of Godly interaction with man and its relative ineffectuality. Truly brilliant men, like Kierkegaard, Tillich, and Eliade, invoked concepts of Kairos to reinterpret history as replete with eruptions of eternal law in an otherwise mundane temporal continuity. It really is clever stuff.
It is also crap. It’s crap because it leads to a God that its practically Lovecraftian in its alienation from human capacities and concepts. It is unclear how such a deity could possibly matter to humans. Attempts, like Bishop Spong’s, to come up with a practical programme of how to take such a deity and interact meaningfully with it, come up as abject failures.
To the extent that God is anthropomorphized, it is relevant to humans and our (tiny but important) physical and moral struggles. Also to the extent that God is anthropomorphized, it is a truly ridiculous entity. The further it is pushed from that picture, the more alien and less applicable it becomes to our lives in an existential sense. In order to frame the conception of a God in a way that solves most of the logical problems presented by positing such an entity, one must strip away all of its meaningfulness.
When the two options are a self-serving Protagorean chimera, or Cthulu in a white top hat, is it really so strange that many people’s reaction is “no, screw this”?
I have no interest in starting a debate here on someone else’s blog, but I have difficulty with this statement from Alex:
“As well, you take the position that it is through the acts of God that you determine the essence of God which is a linear failing.”
As I understand it, we only know what god IS by observing what god DOES (or what, more correctly, is attributed to a god or gods by humans) — recognizing the character and nature of god can only be by seeing what god (supposedly/allegedly) does.
My question is “would I want to live next door to someone who behaved in the manner ascribed to the god of the O.T.?” If I wouldn’t accept unjustified murder (or slavery, or abuse of women, etc.) from a neighbor, I certainly wouldn’t accept it from god. Hence, my rejection of god.
However, your view of God is anthropomorphic, hence it in part contributed to your rejection of him.
Most religions offer an anthropomorphic God. Teh Bible says that we were “created in God’s image.” A God who is not anthropomorphic is not a God Who can be understood, and not a God who should be worshipped. I think it would be more enlightening to say that God is anthropogenic.
His essence is eternal and declared…
Declared where? In the Bible? That’s a document which contributes greatly to the anthropomorphic image of God.
“However, your view of God is anthropomorphic, hence it in part contributed to your rejection of him.”
The God of the “Old Testament” IS anthropomorphic. It’s right there in the Hebrew of Bereshit (Genesis). Arguing that God is otherwise based on New Testament writings indicates a fundamental lack of understanding and an inability to contextualise… As does the (usually Christian) tendency to read the “Bible” as a linear tale with a unique author.
How can any human reflect on personality or as Guggenheim calls it “His essence” without being anthropomorphic? It’s the only lens we have.
OK, this one goes in my quote file.
Mostly because of that image of Cthulhu in a white top hat.
Can he also have a black cane and do vaudeville?
So everything God (supposedly) does must be viewed through the lens of (God is doing it), and therefore must be alright?
Therefore it becomes impossible to judge God’s (supposed) actions, and you attempt to shield him criticism.
I am a more temporal atheist (observing humanity shows repeated patterns of diety and religion creation, these creations are wildy different but, no evidence can be found, supposed evidence is constantly debunked), so these argument have no effect on me, but it’s amazing how useful they are to a tyrant.
When one has blind faith in you, you can do no wrong, but blind faith is always irrational because communal morality means nothing when it is defined by a singular source who is beyond judgment. God says not to kill, but he reserves the right to kill as he pleases, and therefore God is a hypocrite(To quote Modest Mouse ‘If God takes life he’s an Indian giver’), except he is not because we can’t judge his essence in a negative light and the irrational circle continues.
I disagree with Alex because I think he is trying to hold on to philosophical ideas such as impassibility or immutability, and using these as a basis for knowing God. But I’m in agreement with the open theologians that if we discard these ideas we can affirm a transcendent creator while at the same time affirming attributes such as emotion or changing His mind without having to run to the shelter of anthroprmorpisms. While this may not make God more appealing to an atheist per se, it does alleviate some of the logical questions that we run into such as how does God appear to have emotions if He is truly impassable.
I’m not familiar with Sprong, so I pulled his wiki, but he seems to be denying theism in general. What is he moving toward, some sort of pantheism?
Can he also have a black cane and do vaudeville?
You betcha!
I’m not sure if that’s more or less strange than Hello Cthulhu!
The substitutional logic makes sense in the context of religious thought at the time. Everyone, including the Jews and the Greeks, the estranged parents out of which the motley entity of Christianity sprang, understood their relationship with God at least partially as an accounting of debts and obligations. It is no mystery that the Jews use the metaphor of Covenant, literally a contract, to describe how the interaction is mediated.
In that frame, it makes a lot of sense.
I agree, the human sacrifice of God’s self/son does not have an obvious connection to the redemption of other human beings. Let me give you a different story that is much clearer:
Little Hans lived in a country under sea level, with great dikes holding back the waters so the land could be productively occupied and farmed. One day, little Hans was wandering near the dike when he noticed a leak. Knowing how quickly earthen dikes erode, and leaks grow, little Hans stuck his finger in the hole to stop the leak, and waited for an adult to come by so he could report the situation. As the hours went by, no one came around. Little Hans thought about how much he cared for his family, including his dear parents, and all his friends, and so he kept his finger in the dike. He died overnight from the cold.
In this story, the threat to humanity is very clear and understandable. Little Hans’ motivation is clear. The action through which he saves others, sacrificing himself in the process, is also clear.
Not so with the Jesus human sacrifice story. First, before we even start, we have to assume that all parties accept the existence of God. We have to assume that all parties accept the existence of immortal souls. We have to accept the concept of sin. We have to accept that God controls the eternal fate of those souls. I am not down with these, but anyway; now we get to the human sacrifice story: how exactly does Jesus’ death and resurrection save the fate of my soul in the afterlife? There is no obvious mechanism. It comes down to fulfilling some arbitrary rule, which must have been set down by God. But then it becomes obvious that God could have avoided the whole situation by creating a world without sin, or not letting sin get in the way of a happy afterlife without requiring a human/divine sacrifice. The whole thing is arbitrary.
My thing is, Jesus himself (at least, according to the story) articulated a standard that Christianity fails to meet.
“The Christian tree bears much rotten fruit.”
That sentence should send most Christians into conniptions. It is undeniable, as well as brutal. If we take, as Jesus suggests, the standard that we should know a tree by its fruit, Christianity itself doesn’t seem to provide much grounds for its own claims of divine inspiration.
The guran contradicts itself also.
“But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war): but if they repent, and establish regular Prayers and practise regular”
“Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight.”
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace.”
The Quran is written a bit more towards being a stricter religion, and it blatantly preaches not to question what is read lest one (shocking) lose their faith, I often wonder if Mohammed saw flaws in the Christian way, which had many many various sects in his day (and really always has), and felt he should form a religion which could not be so misinterpreted, and one that would quickly have a ‘with us or against us’ mentality.
Anyway, ex-Muslims have fascinating stories also:
https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=10356&start=0
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9685
Perhaps, but I doubt it. The urge to believe seems to be more deeply seated than the other stuff you mention. I think a critical distinction is that those things can only be understood as means to an end (in order to justify some worldview or shore up some power base), whereas many (though certainly not all) people who believe in and worship a God see it as an end in itself.
“The substitutional logic makes sense in the context of religious thought at the time.”
Right, and through the centuries it has been re-interpreted to make sense in the context of the times – Anselm made it work in the Medieval period, for example.
I don’t think it works anymore, though. Is anyone aware of a modern formulation that actually works?
I guess, more accurately, is my feeling that it will shrink to cult-like status, but it will not grip 2/3′s of the planet like it does now.
I saw my first “There is probably no god” bus advertisement yesterday. Something that NEVER would have seen the light of day two generations ago.
3-4 generations from now, kids will be teasing their peers that believe in gods like they tease about the Tooth Fairy.
Once you know how the card trick is done, you just can’t pretend it is still magic.
I tend to agree it doesn’t work anymore. I think that a big part of the problem (and Eliade touches on this quite a bit) is that theologians have consistently *underestimated* the possible meaningfulness of temporal progression. The priesthoods of Judaism and Christianity, despite their innovations regarding the direction-ness of time, could not anticipate what Nietzsche saw, that humanity and the fundamental existential conditions of what being human *means* could change with time.
Perhaps our self-conception has moved into a realm where the contractual model simply is incoherent and cannot be salvaged.
I agree it probably will not maintain an iron-like grip on the majority of humanity, but I think that will be as much due to the evolution of Theism into non-dogmatic directions as to do with any advances in the appeal of Agnosticism/Atheism. I think given enough time, Theists themselves will define religion *as we know it* out of existence, such that whatever survives, it will not be like what has cast such a shadow over our past.
I was thinking about this today when I listened to an NPR story about a new telescope being created to look at far off solar systems and find planets that could potentially support life like our Earth.
I wonder how our descendants who come upon other beings and cultures who may have their own views of spirituality, and possibly even more evidence of the validity of evolution, will deal with the fact that Christianity is a fable. I’d love to be a fly on the wall in about 200 years…
Exactly! I see Christians shooting themselves in the foot, contradicting themselves all over the place.
Good point, simply made, and your icon cracks me up.
Agreed – posters on bus shelters will not be our guillotine on organized religion.
Knowledge and belief (within the boundaries of what we’re discussing on this site) are inversely proportional; if 2009 was the baseline, think of what we’ll know three generations from now…
“And then you sacrificed yourself to yourself, in order to let you out from a rule that you made…”
Another excellent point….
and yet another icon that cracks me up!
In my case, I got divorced (a sure-fire way to turn off the fellowship) and then subsequently I came out as a gay man (a sure-fire way to get kicked out of churches altogether). The church withdrew its embrace, which left me alone to consider what I’d been believing and why, and then to actively question the core doctrines.
If the church (any church) is actually more concerned with forgiveness, love, reconciliation, and so forth, rather than condemnation and judgmental attitudes formed around archaic beliefs and unfounded rigidity, there would be less reason for people to question the disparity between what they say and what they ultimately do.
Thankfully, by the time I was really questioning, I was involved in a progressive movement of christianity known as the ‘emerging church’ and living in california at the time. These were people who were/are searching for what the christian faith looks like in the 21st century. This certainly helped in that there was an open attitude for thought and always support. The faith community worked hard to strip away all that we felt were unnecessary to being a christian i.e. the church building, the pews, the hymns, the tithes, the paid minister, etc. We were involved in community volunteering, meeting in pubs to discuss relevant issues, we met in each others houses to ‘return to the early NT church’ practices – eating together etc.
All this was good, but not enough to keep me convinced of the *truth*. Due to many additional factors, my wife and I made the decision to return to Scotland which in hindsight was the easy way out given my change in thought. I remain close friends with some of the group – because we built our friendship on more than just faith or religion, but on community. I’m happy to count these christians (and others) still as good friends and we enjoy a healthy dialogue about faith/philosophy/world views, etc.
Enviable to have never been a believer. And you’re probably less damaged.
But boy, do those of us who believed have stories to tell. And the scars to prove it. (When I answered a poster with my brief story, I asked her NOT to do the sappy Christian thing and say “I’m sorry”, that that had such disgusting ASSumptions that I would have to rip it apart in a separate post. It’s cause for satisfaction and pride, not sorrow.)
It’s something else to know this stuff from an insider’s point of view.
Johnny Bradford did a wonderful job on this.
“However, your view of God is anthropomorphic, hence it in part contributed to your rejection of him.”
Following this same thread, is that not the fundamental appeal of Christianity, i.e. that God became flesh and dwelt among us? That God/Jesus became known to man in an anthropomorpic fashion so we could allegedly understand him better and He understood what it was like to be part of a fallen creation, thus the redemptive propitation of Christ?
Yet when we come to the eternal verities outside of human conceits, we apparantly have no choice but to accept that our view of God, through Christ, is imperfect, therefore sit down and shut up. Seems awfully convenient at times.
The fact that communities turn their back on those that finally work up the courage to tell the truth is completely damning to any positive messages they had.
I don’t see how atheism suggests that “something comes from nothing”. It seems like a terribly over-used non sequitor, more apt from the likes of Ray Comfort.
Your definition of god? The one you made up for yourself?
My definition that I just made up tells me that your definition is full of crap.
All right! Johnny Bradford, please come back here and write some more!
Gag.
“God bless you all” = The Christian version of “Fuck you.”
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage!
nice mustache.
If you grew a beard, you’d look like Santa!
Little kids believe in Santa!
Joe, your reply makes me wonder if you are capable of any sort of advanced thought process at all, much less whether you studied or how good a student you were.
So, setting my kid on fire for eternity is justified as along as he committed at least one sin?
Please explain to me any system of justice in which it is reasonable to punish a person for eternity for any finite amount of crimes.
The truth is, the idiocy of the hellfire teaching is not a reason to leave religion. There are a million much better reasons. But, as a stepping stone to skeptical thinking it’s not a bad start.
It does remain, however, a good reason to point and laugh at the people who continue to believe it.
Oh, and in case you missed it, I *am* being disrespectful.
Joe,
Is infinite punishment for finite crimes your definition of justice?
Joe wrote: “How Could a loving God send someone to Hell simply because they won’t worship Him?” I’m sorry, but this is the biggest cop out ever brought into the debate. It implies that the person did nothing wrong and God just willy-nilly decided the were going to be eternally damned.”
Well, that is not a cop-out; that is EXACTLY the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and limited atonement: EVERYone is going to hell already except those few whom God has chosen. People aren’t condemned to hell because of individual sinful acts they’ve committed; the entire race is condemned to hell because of the sin-NATURE inherited from Adam. Talk about willy-nilly! Hmph.
O’course, the Universalists have it better: if everyone, through no choice of their own, was condemned by Adam’s sin, then everyone, through no choice of their own, are redeemed by Christ on the cross. I Cor. 15.22: “For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.” All means ALL, in both instances.
But since Christ didn’t (imo) actually die on the cross, it’s a moot point, all just wrangling over words and man-made doctrines.
So, ummm… where did YOU go to seminary? :-)
Joe said: “If you can truthfully say you have never done even one thing in all of your conscious life … that would not have been looked at as improper by another person,you might be able to claim God is condemning you simply because you won’t worship Him.”
Sooo…. now any crazy old neighbor who disagrees with the way I raise my children or how often I sleep in on Sunday can decide where I spend eternity!??
Here I thought it was just GOD I had to deal with, and I was okay with not believing in him… but the crazy neighbor I can actually SEE.
Give me a break.
Come on Joe, are seriously suggesting that the standard of my degree in theology and youthwork has had a significant impact on my decision to discard the Christian faith? That where I received this degree influenced my thought process so radically? Oh, if only had been to a large respected seminary in the US could I grasp these lofty concepts….
Please, do not begin with wanting to show respect and then imply I’m intellectually lacking. That is no way to engage in an open dialogue, even in faceless cyberspace.
*snort*
And a God who damns people who aren’t perfect, or any people at all, is just as sicko.
That’s a poor analogy.
A much better one is a child being repeatedly burned with cigarette butts while the parent says, “Shush, I know what’s best for you.”
A better response would be a parent leaving a hot stove on, not telling the child that it’s dangerous, and then smacking the child for hurting themselves.
And then cursing all of those child’s children for all time….
Original sin has to be one of the worst ideas ever.
You have enslaved your mind and you don’t even know it. I hope for good things in your children’s lives.
No, no. The Christian version of fuck you is “I’ll pray for you”
Your kids are not so much different from the worms, genetically; more than likely sharing a significant percentage of DNA.
And you know what? That’s pretty freaking awesome.
Only if you have fun telling your kids that they’re going to be tortured for all eternity because their great-great-great-great-etcetera-grandparents ate an apple.
Wow – it’s a bit of a leap from atheism to “only born to be worm food.”
Here’s just of the things I tell my kids:
- This is the only life you have, so live it to the fullest. Find your passion.
- Being your parents makes your mother and I happier than you can imagine.
- Clean your room.
- You have tremendous power to influence the lives of people around you. Try to use it positively.
- Treat other people the same way you want to be treated.
- Do your homework.
- I love you no matter what.
- You were born to be whatever you decide to be, but you have to work hard to get there.
- Eat your vegetables.
Have fun telling yours they were born evil.
Look at your newborn babies and think, “Those things are born evil.”
Have fun telling them that the have no innate ethics or ability to know what is right for the well-being of life, and treat them accordingly. You can get them while they’re young – freshly squeezed out!
Use simplistic reward/punishment on them to get fear right into their survival instinct, so that they decide at the very deep survival level: “I am not acceptable how I am. I must conform to her expectations or die.” (They are born evil and don’t have natural ethics, remember?) Condition them like animals, without higher reasoning capacity.
Teach babies that are incapable of lying with your every action how to be dishonest, then tell them that they are naturally dishonest, and they have to be taught with your words and punishment how to be honest.
What a nasty way to treat a human!
And last of all, make the very mistaken notion of a simpleton that all atheists are as dead certain of a certain belief, because you are dead certain, and therefore don’t have the mental capacity to conceive of open-mindedness. Then ASSume all atheists are *positive* that there is nothing more to a human after death, because they just have to be as closed and narrow minded as the simpleton Christian making the ASSumption.
Have fun stunting your kids from being capable of becoming fully human.
And close your ears and eyes to blind and deafen yourself to the possibility that you are:
Wrong AGAIN!
That was directed at “be-Christian-or-you-must-be-worm-food-because-I-don’t-have-the-capacity-to-conceive-of-any-other-possibilities” Akira.
What my children make of their lives is up to them. But at least I don’t lie to them and expect them to believe in something “in case” it turns out to be true. Fear is not a motivator for respect and devotion in my home.
Also another black-and-white opposites, no-other-option, either-or Akirarrogance:
To ASSume that all agnostics and atheists absolutely, with no uncertainty, don’t believe in the possibility of a soul that lives on beyond this life, JUST because they don’t believe in the Christian God.
*snort*
Wow, very well said and equally provocative. I write merely to encourage a conversation, because you have brought up many valid points.
I am a Christian, and yet, can agree with a vast majority of what you have said. However, before I will continue, I want to qualify myself. I feel that there are a few types of Christians aside from the many denominations. What I mean is, there are categories. I hate to “label” groups, especially in short, but I will briefly mention that there are more liberal observers, moderates, and of course, the ultra-conservatives.
When reading your thoughts on Christians, I feel that there may be a misconception. You use examples from the bible that support your assertions of hypocrisy that would turn the religion itself upside down, invalidating every belief. This is true, however, saying that this is how most Christians view the bible is not. The bible, at least for me (and in my mind a more sensible view), is a collection of stories written by people who desperately wanted people to listen. For every person who condemns another “because the bible said so” is missing the point. These are the people that are close minded and who take the written Word literally, which is ludicrous, because it is written by man.
What I’m getting at is ultra conservative Christians do give people, who have any sense to actually question God, even more reason to look elsewhere for fulfillment because their arguments actually do fall apart on hypocrisy and pragmatism.
With that, let me just say again that your thoughts are full of wisdom. How could I, as a Christian, accept much of what you say?
The answer is that religion is a philosophy, not a separate entity. And the philosophies that you shared in many ways parallel those in Christianity, the only difference is Christians can draw the line to God.
Most do not believe in hell; Jesus’ death made that “human made proposition” irrelevant. And, everything in the bible referring to “not believing and being sent to hell” is a scare tactic only working on those too afraid to question.
Because I say parts in the bible cannot be taken literally does not devalue the validity of the religion. Eden was not real. Noah’s ark was not real. They were stories that perhaps, just perhaps – with some historical truth in some stretch of a way – delivered a message.
So, my point: I still believe in God. Why? The reason being is that the fundamentals of Christianity is NOT the killing of the 3,000, is NOT the being sent to hell, is NOT the hypocrisy. Christianity centers on all the things you mentioned: love, hope, and morality. I can still feel that love is connected to God because that was the message of Jesus: sacrifice. Not literally the sacrifice and all the gore it entailed, but the ultimate example of how to live in the world. If one amongst us can give so completely, so we can live to love in the simplest of ways, hope in the future if all do acts of selflessness, and use this as an undying guide to morality.
Do I believe that the bible, Jesus, or God is the source of morality? No, that would not make sense. It, like religion, is a man made idea that has developed over time.
Do you need to be a Christian to follow this? No, because clearly, and obviously, there are outstanding people of all religions – atheism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Islam – that exemplify incredible human character.
I my mind, this is all that is required. Christianity holds true because everyone person is welcomed in a promise that centers in being a good human being to your fellow man. Pragmatism is a beautiful thing and whether you believe in God, Allah, or reason as the source of all knowledge, all should agree that, on Earth, the only thing that matters is that people care for one another in the simplest of ways.
For this, I hope that you too can accept this view. I do not think my beliefs destroy the world, nor do I think yours do because they are not God-centered. That would be hypocrisy.
I hope, because this was a message I noticed, you were trying to say the following: “the people who can accept their beliefs as the only possible explanation for anything are those who destroy society; open mindedness is a gift coming from our intelligence; use it!”
When I say God bless you I am not saying fuck you.
*SNEEZE*
Well, fuck you ;)
No, it’s “Bless your heart”.
Well, I always capitalize the Bible, just like the Odyssey, the Illiad, and other works of mythology.
After reading through the article and posts, this is your focus? Your grammar superiority is noted.
Ummm…no. You are the indoctrinated one. Lack of critical thinking skills equals enslaved mind.
I have enslaved my mind?
So, you’re telling me that not questioning is open-mindedness, hate is love, and slavery is freedom?
There’s probably not a Big Brother in the sky…but there’s probably a few of them in the pulpits.
Think for yourself, and no matter what you decide, you’ll be a better person for it.
Whoa! Similar name smack! That comment was directed at the FIRST juju…
Ahhh… thank you for that comment. Wonderfully put.
Paul also says that marriage should be a last resort.
So when Christian groups say that gay marriage shouldn’t be allowed to preserve a “sacred institution”, just tell them that Paul says it’s basically a last resort for those who cannot handle their own lusts.
Further, the N.T. also talks about slavery. Is that OK, too?
There’s a section in one of the Epistles (I forget which one, sorry) where Paul has a dream that God has set a great table for him, covered in pork chops, shellfish, cheeseburgers, bat steak, and all manner of non-kosher food. He tells god that he can’t eat it, because he’s kept the law all his life. And god tells him that it’s not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him, and it “call nothing I’ve made unclean”.
In the modern day, if evangelicals mention this story, they interpret it as meaning that we don’t need to keep kosher. But Paul understood it differently, and the follow-up is quite explicit:
When he woke up, he didn’t head off to Red Lobster for all-you-can-eat bacon-wrapped shrimp, but to preach to Romans, prostitutes, and other classes of people that had traditionally been believed to be unclean. Paul made it very clear that no-one is unclean by their nature.
I think the second juju was putting the smack down on the first juju…
And, yes, “putting the smack down on” IS a technical term! ;)
That’s the one.
As a Texan, I can say with absolute confidence that “bless your heart” is an expression of pity.
As in “you are really, really pathetic”…
You have goosbumps, i feel like throwing up after reading what you read.
Religion is nothing more than a way to try and explain the world around you, 2000 years ago.
After that, it became one big powerstruggly by the church to keep the little man little.
Sure.. stay little..
I sure won’t :)
The ‘feeling of knowing’ happens to everyone on the planet about every belief system.
*snort*
“Love” and “go[ing] to hell” are antithetical to each other.
You have to twist your mind in knots to think god both “loves” and damns to hell. It’s a sicko concept.
Christianity needs the threat of punishment to whip its thralls with fear, in order to keep itslf going.
Remove the punishment, you have nothing compelling left.
People have been thinking that we are in the endtimes for 2000 years! This is NO different.
Besides, the book of Revelation was written about the fall of the ROMAN EMPIRE, so it has already happened (and guess what! Jesus DIDN’T come back!)
Get over it.
And even at such time the world ends up in end times, your beliefs are still beliefs, something you choose to accept AS real.
Then you seem to expect others to buy your imaginary satan and other imaginary beliefs.
You might just as well say, “god invented gravity” (even though the Flying Spaghetti Monster really invented it) , then drop an object, and say, “See?!? I told you god and satan exist!”
*snort*
You have no verification, other than your internal scripts all verifying each other.
Where, exactly, is global warming predicted? And how do you know that the wars predicted are the ones happening now, rather than the ones that have been happening throughout human history?
You know what, people are just making their own excuses…
Right – because it isn’t as though you talk yourself into believing this crap so that you can feel loved and special.
correction on the first line:
You have goosebumps, i feel like throwing up after reading what you wrote.
That’s nothing but an emotional storm based on your own unverified beliefs (something accepted as real). All of that spouting is your own loaded words describing your imaginary inside world seen through your personally didtorted filters. Your emotion-laden language is connotative, not denotative, it points to nothing. (Except the fact that he was in the ministry, changed his beliefs, and left.) Then you judge everything by your own internal distortions.
The picture seems pretty liberating to me, that someone could have a passion based on the ministry based on the beliefs he had at the time, and then after seeing the cognitive dissonance in the beliefs he had – described under his headings “Hell”, “Horrors”, “Hypocrisy”, etc. – having nothing but an imaginary “relationship” to discard, left it behind like a crumbled, worthless set of beliefs that did far more harm than good, better left behind as trash while moving into a fuller, richer, more human – and more humane – life.
Yea, religion sucks. Its oppressive, suffocating. Fortunately, its not at all what Christ came to bring, to offer us. But what is?
Tom, why didn’t I think to say that to Johnny Bradford?
Indeed: peace and love to you.
agree
I can agree with your point that we could not physically have been born elsewhere or at another time, but the fact remains that we were born here and now. I consider this extremely fortunate given that my life expectancy has not been diminished considerably by the threat of the bubonic plague, smallpox, TB, world war, tribalism, famine, political/religious oppression, etc. In essence, this is a good time to be alive… It doesn’t require any belief in a soul or a god to make me appreciate the opportunities and freedoms awarded to me by simply being born in the democratic west.
Eddie, your whole tone is so condescending yet I still don’t know what point you are trying to make! Are you a Christian who thinks my belief structure was/is weak or an atheist who has grievances with what you feel may have been poor communication?
FYI, you + are = you’re ;0)
For all your physical speed, Eddie, you come across as being a little slow.
I liked this part, though:
“Obviously, anxiety can be negative because if you have too much, you’re paralyzed with fear,” he says. “However, it also serves a very useful function in that it alerts us when we’re making mistakes. If you don’t experience anxiety when you make an error, what impetus do you have to change or improve your behaviour so you don’t make the same mistakes again and again?”
Not true Tele…ever seen Laminin? It’s a cell adhesion molecule…holds everything together in us. Guess what it looks like? A cross…for “in Him all things consist, are held together” Col 1:17
Not to mention, if he came to realize that what he “believed” in was a lie – what was really wasted was the time he spent believing and living that life. I, for one, won’t choose to believe in a god I don’t believe in just for my “long term good” (i.e. in case Heaven or Hell are real). Believing in a deity for insurance is not true belief, is it??
I would like to know more about this. I had heard a friend say that the early bible and xians believed in reincarnation, and the church took it out, because, as he says, when people think, “Hey, I’ve got as many lifetimes as I need to get it right!” (whatever that would be), the church can’t control people with fear of “this one life; this is all you get; eternal punishment if you screw up”.
I didn’t know where to start looking.
Interesting how many xians assume all agnostics can’t possibly believe (belief: something accepted as real subject to further information) in a soul or life beyond this life, and the idea of Christians believing in reincarnation will send them into frothing fits.
Any more is appreciated, and for the starter info, thank you!
Not merely condescending….
And he’s kind of rambling, pointless, unsupported and illiterate, too!
Not exactly a compelling message and consummate delivery to turn the tide of humanity and win souls with his powerful, cogent thesis.
Pardon my French—if I was too direct I apologize.
Every atheist I’ve encountered including yourself, goes on and on about Christianity. You can call it “poor communication”, but you said it, not me.
I think your essay illustrates this point perfectly, that you don’t have a problem with their being a “god” you have a problem with his/her personality and the consequences that go along with.
On a lower level you can have a disagreement with a person—that doesn’t mean you’re wrong or they are wrong. You both could be equally wrong, partially right or wrong—or right and wrong—with some paradoxical meaning lying therein. At the end of the conversation unless there is overwhelming evidence to convince the other of their viewpoint at most you both leave a little more educated on each other’s perceptions, but none-the-less in disagreement.
When you’re a child your parents discipline you when you’re in the wrong and reward you when you’re in the right. When you are a child you know that if you do certain things you get in trouble and if you do the opposite of those things, the good things, you are rewarded or at the least you remain in their good graces. When you are disciplined for doing something wrong, when you are a child, do you not question the punishment? Why do you question the punishment?
Atheists like to talk about faith and reason, let me ask you this… do you walk outside everyday and start your car? Do you ever walk outside and say (assuming that your car is maintained) “I hope my car starts this morning…” probably not. You probably don’t even consider it—most don’t. But if you did consider it, you know that the chances your car won’t start are slim-to-none—but regardless there is still a chance that it won’t start. So do you walk outside knowing your car will start out of faith or do you accept the risk that your car might not start and you are fine with taking that chance on reliability?
Atheists like to talk about science. I’m a firm believer in science, but I’m not one to say just because I can explain something with science makes it any less of a miracle. If you once believed that God created the Universe and everything in it, then I’d say that science can in fact uncover the mysteries of the God, if you couldn’t I say that that God was very contradictory if he had to violate his own laws of nature to illustrate a point or produce miracles. Going back to the parent-child relationship; once the child has grown up and now understands why the parent disciplined them; does it make it any less of a valuable experience? Or do you think if you were a child and understood this to begin with you think you could have done something wrong in the eyes of your parents and then reasoned yourself out of it? In point-of-fact you can explain something with science because of its congruency to the laws of nature and the absolute truth behind those laws. This is not by accident this is by design.
For example take Native American sand paintings, in which a Native American artist takes grains of different colored sands and lays them out in intricate designs and patterns. I challenge you, if you don’t believe that there is some design pattern behind the universe, to purchase little baggies of different colored sands place them in a tin with a lid and shake. Do this repeatedly over and over again till some type of recognizable pattern is made, shake and then open the tin, shake and open. You can shake that tin for the rest of eternity and open it every time to find only that the sand has become more and more mixed. Hopefully without having to explain any further you can clearly begin to see there is some need to have an architect behind the universe, things don’t happen by chance they happen by design, design does not happen by chance, “so-called chance” happens by design. Probability only happens because the design allows it.
I’m not trying to convince you there is a traditional “god”, but only a reasonable person can accept there is some type of “designer” behind this amalgam of matter, otherwise we wouldn’t exist—as the sand painting experiment clearly illustrates. If there is no designer then the entire universe should be one giant congruent volume of matter at perfect equilibrium.
I’m not one to say you should believe in anything, that is a personal choice, however if you chose not to believe something because of mere personality traits or disagreements over which you can offer no concrete evidence against except your word against theirs then what is the point? If it’s that cut and dry why not skip the blog post and get on with your life? Or perhaps maybe you have some revelation that we all must hear, if you do, then you are a hypocrite just the like rest of the people out there who think that what they have to say is something new.
I say that not to be harsh, I don’t think you’re writing this post for that purpose at all, I think you are still trying to prove to yourself what you claim and profess. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that at all.
I’m only here to present a different point of view, obviously there are gaps in my arguments, they are not perfect nor are they meant to be, like science my statements ask more questions than are answered. These are just some things to think about. Finally, I leave you with my final questions to ponder:
How much do you really know? Once you figure that out, what is your opinion of how much you know? Do you think you know too little, do you think you know just enough or do you think you know too much? After you answer that in your mind, then I ask, how do you feel about what you know, do you feel you’re right about what you know or do you feel wrong about what you know?
If you feel right about what you know, are you confident that you feel right? If you feel confident that you’re right, is it the kind of confidence as in faith in yourself or is it the kind of confidence that is confident?
If you feel wrong about what you know, are you confident that you are right about feeling wrong? If you feel confident about being right about feeling wrong is it the kind of confidence as in you have no faith in yourself or it is the kind of confident that you are right about your confidence?
If you have confidence about feeling right and you are confident you are right about feeling wrong then none of us are wrong—we all are right.
If we are confident that we are all right, than we are confident that we are all wrong, and if we are confident that we are wrong and we are confident that we are right about feeling wrong then we are all confident.
If we are confident about our confidence, and we are all confident, then we all have the kind of confidence that is faith in one’s self not the kind of confidence that is confidence.
For us to all have the kind of confidence that is confidence we’d all have to agree on what confidence is, but since all of us are confident we are right, then we are all confidently clueless and blindly faithful!
Sincerely,
Eddie
No. It’s betting with the house because you’re afraid not to.
Take the threat of punishment away: what do you have left?
Peace & love to him but not to me huh Claid?
Selective love…is not love at all.
Peace & love indeed.
So how do you explain the parasitic worm whose only niche is the human eye? Intelligent design?
I looks like a cross cross, it you see a structural diagram in a textbook, but in the real world…. not so much.
Also, how does this negate what Tele said? Do you think that worms don’t also have laminin?
John, if you really expect to be taken seriously making statements like this, you don’t belong in adult discussions. Go back to the kid’s table.
Okay, so how do you know he exists?
If he hasn’t shown up throughout all of human history, why give him another year? Why not just give up on him now? :)
Yeah, exactly.
It’s the Christians grunting and straining to drown out all their doubts and cognitive dissonance.
“I don’t merely believe; I *grunt* *strain* KNOW Jesus is my personal Savior!”
And then desperately try to whip us into line so we’ll all be in this together.
And most of them do it with the most illiterate, rambling, sometimes hate-filled, verbal attacks. Wow! THAT certainly will turn the tide of humanity back to Christ, with their compelling message and cogent, powerful delivery! Yep, THAT made me see the error of my ways, and become a Christian! Baby, I’m right there!
You don’t see the other religions (except some radical Islam) trying to whip others into line and force others to live by their beliefs.
I have noticed that the posts written by “True” christians have a note of desperation. It almost seems that they need us to believe as they believe or what they believe just might not be true.
Shelly, that is the basis of all missionary activity. In trying to convince you, they are really attempting to convince themselves.
One of the early twentieth century British authors said something along the lines of, “The missionary impulse is the outward manifestation of an insecure faith.”
So how do you explain the parasitic worm whose only niche is the human eye? Intelligent design?
Why it’s the result of sin, Teleprompter – just like the flesh-eating bacteria that fundie was kind enough to enlighten us about last week. Don’t you read your Bible?
And god tells him that it’s not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what comes out of him, and it “call nothing I’ve made unclean”.
Maybe God was pissed because he spent all day cooking and Paul wouldn’t eat.
(Bat steak, huh? “Holy treif, Batman!”)
I’m not 100% sure it’s specifically enumerated as being amongst the foods of the feast, but it’s implied.
Yep! No extensions for God. I’m throwing in the towel.
My reply to the first part:
I believe in God because of the dreams and visions I have had since I started to believe in him and the way He has revealed Himself to me over the years. The way He has helped me understand what His true love for humanity really is. All of the understanding that I have of Him came straight from Him because the whole world is is the dark and you cannot hear real truth being preached anywhere. I have been through many churches trying to find people with the understanding that I have of God and I have found none. The last church was a proud middle class church and the only things they were proud of are the good jobs that they have and that they are slaves to make the rich richer. God did not make slaves. Only man does that. God did not create us to work ourselves to the grave to make a rich person richer. That is one of the many revelations that God has given me. You know there is no church that preaches that.
My reply to the second part:
The reason that I do not give up on God now is because I am dying and He is my only hope. I have no health care because I can’t afford it and I am unemployed because I refuse to boot lick the rich. God told me to quit my job in 1993 and He would make a way for me. He has. I have not shed one drop of sweat since then to make a rich person richer. I believe in God because He has made a way for me to live. It hasn’t been all comfort but I don’t have dollar signs in my eyes like 99 percent of the “so called church” and I am truly satified. God has promised me much much more. I continue to wait. As I wait, I get more revelations of His love and His will. I love ALL people and you know that never came from a church either. I bless you all.
LOL… thanks for checking out my blog… btw, I’m not that fast… so I guess I’m physically and mentally slow… get your facts correct.
Sorry in advance for any incorrect semantics.
No it doesn’t.
Look up emergent behaviour, and what can happen when complex rules interact, even without any design or designer.
Every atheist I’ve encountered including yourself, goes on and on about Christianity.
Because, Eddie, Christianity & Islam are the only religions with adherents who are attempting to impose their collective will upon society as a whole – and Islam isn’t a major player here (yet).
You probably don’t see that because you’ve been conditioned to think of Christianity as being persecuted – when, in fact, it is in the position of being the aggressor.
Many (probably most) atheists disagree with the supernatural aspects of Buddhism, but I don’t know a single atheist who’s pissed off at the Dalai Lama.
As far as your points about intelligent design are concerned – you’re just wrong.
Eddie,
Your post was lengthy so I’ve tried to address your points in bite size chunks:
1) ‘Every atheist I’ve encountered… goes on about Christianity’. To echo Jeff’s response, because it is this religion which has dominated with such drastic effects over the past 1600 years or so. It is this religion that has driven the spread of empires and the abolition of people groups, tribes, religions and political parties. I grew up in Northern Ireland and experienced the damage caused by so-called religious freedom fighters who claimed to fight for ‘God and country’. It is Christianity which to this day holds so much political power in the West and funds a significant portion of hopeful US presidential candidates. So, it should come as no surprise that many atheists or agnostics would feel fit to address the negative consequences of such a powerful machine based on nothing much than belief and some ancient documents.
2) The personality of God issue was raised by an earlier poster and the answer should be explicitly clear: God states that he a personal God, that we were made in his image, that in the person of Jesus we can see God. People are judged by their words and actions, why not God? Whether or not I dislike a person/God is not contingent on their proof of existence. There is no evidence for the existence of the God of the bible.
3) Your metaphor of faith in the scenario is particularly weak. The workings of a man-made machine bear no correlation to the existence of a supernatural being. Cars work because they have been painstakingly designed to work, they are meticulously made in factories. When they don’t work, there is a problem in the mechanics/electrics, not because of a lack of faith.
4) The very definition of the word miracle implies that the event was supernatural or that divine intervention was to play. Science on the other hand, which you claim to believe in, is the explanation of the natural world based on knowledge, practice, theories, testing and results. Science and miracles are diametrically opposed to one another.
5) I believe science has adequately explained how this universe came into existence. And although I fully admit to not entirely understanding the complexities of science (a claim very few could make), I feel there is no need for a god/designer/first cause/prime mover when there is no proof of such a being.
6) As for your last question, oh riddler, you could have benefited us all by simply stating ‘how can you be sure?’. I’m confident that the decision I have come to, the conclusion I have made, works for me and is based on my best understanding of the explanations offered. Could there be a prime mover? Maybe, but I doubt it and I sincerely doubt the god of the Christian faith or any other known religion is that being either.
Again, I’m not trying to convince you just to offer another perspective.
“You probably don’t see that because you’ve been conditioned to think of Christianity as being persecuted – when, in fact, it is in the position of being the aggressor.”
That’s quite an assumption -first you assume I am a Christian, then you assume what I think…
Quite the contrary -I don’t believe Christianity as being persecuted, quite frankly I think it’s the complete opposite, as you said.
Why would I be pissed at the Dalai Lama, he never claimed to be “god” or of “god”.
“As far as your points about intelligent design are concerned – you’re just wrong.”
I never said anything about “intelligent design” in the sense of main stream thought on the subject. I did use the word “design” to illustrate a governing principle, but that’s it.
I enjoy your writing.
And more, what you wrote here makes an excellent answer to anyone saying, “How silly; why are atheists so involved in arguing against nothing?”
Especially point #1. The damage done by both Christian beliefs and Christian people acting on those beliefs is infinitely far from “nothing”.
Again you don’t have to convince me of your beliefs, you seem satisfied with “adequate” answers just as much as I am, a simple, ‘How can you be sure?’, would have been just as appropriate.
I didn’t claim to say anything new either, in fact I even mentioned originally there were gaps in my arguments.
When you use words like “believe”, or words like “maybe”, you don’t sound convinced yourself. In fact it seems you are open to the possibility, that really was my entire point.
All the arguments are mostly based on “the Christians” this “the Christians” that, not very objective Ayn Rand would be disappointed. So would George H. Smith for that matter.
A lot of your grievances seem to be the actual Christian people, again you seem to be letting your emotions get the best of you.
I’m not trying to insult you or debase you, what I am stating is that I think you’re a little confused as to why you believe in what you believe in. Using what “the Christians” did really is a weak argument, if we were talking history then it’s cool, but when we are talking what you finally settle on believing then you need to remain objective and keep other people’s actions out of the story. I mean who are you trying to convince yourself or “the Christians”?
If I come off condescending that is because you obviously are not convinced of your own logic, if you were you would have taken my original statement as an objective observation and considered it, you had just the reaction I intended, and illustrated my point, you are constantly in defense of your beliefs because they trouble you because you where raised a “Christian”.
This is not a easy thing to overcome whether it be your case or a Christian converting to Islam or some other combination. In my mind issues like these should be private especially when you’re not sure yourself, this is what contributes to the problem. People find out something new or claim to know what’s true and not and then they run out and tell a bunch of people, next thing you know there is war, etc., everybody is equally to blame atheists included. If you’d stop and think for a minute you’d realize that posts like yours are part of the problem, you’re antagonizing people just as much as the Christians are and your tactics are no better then the Islam extremists either. Maybe you like that, maybe you like causing controversy because you find the debate engaging, seems kind of pointless to me and causes more bitter feelings then it’s worth, again I’m not trying to convince you of my point of view, just to share my perspective of what I see.
Regards,
Eddie
P.S. I apologize again for any semantic errors.
“oh riddler”… I don’t know if that was supposed to be an insult… but I did chuckle quite a bit when I read that… LOL
“Again you don’t have to convince me of your beliefs, you seem satisfied with “adequate” answers just as much as I am, a simple, ‘How can you be sure?’, would have been just as appropriate.”
If this is the case, why bother continuing with this pointless conversation. You by definition are a theist, myself an atheist. Let’s leave it there unless you feel you have something to add, after all, the burden of prove must lie with the affirming party.
The title of the essay was ‘why I discarded Christianity’. It was not entitled ‘johnny bradford’s definitive evidence for the absence of a supernatural being’. Hence, you’re continual efforts to attack my intent, my confidence, and my person are simply irritating, not to mention ad hominem.
Your outlandish claim that my story should in any way parallel the actions of an Islamist extremist are absurd, unfounded and disrespectful. You can fuck right off on that one…
Fast eddie, I believe this is where we part paths.
Regardless of our disagreement, I really did enjoy your post, I think you asked a lot of important questions, questions I sometimes ask myself everyday.
You can bet if God does exist, on the day I meet him, I’m going to have a but load of questions to ask… :-)
We may believe different things and reached those conclusions differently however the one thing that remains is the desire to seek what is true and what is not. Ultimately I think mankind will continue to struggle with these questions, I don’t get concerned when people believe different things I get concerned when people stop asking questions and stop exploring…
Humbly I take a bow these questions are no easy journey.
Regards,
Eddie
First think about the statement you made i.e. “complex rules”, then you need to look it up and explain it since you assume I don’t already know what it is and you are using it as an argument.
Again you’re trying to convince me, support yourself. That’s what makes a comment like yours substantial, the support.
Be specific.
Presumably, that includes this post?