I received this question from Zach:
I’m a 15 year old kid, I’ve been a part of the Christian Church for about 2 years.
I’ve been very close-minded throughout those past two years and I’m not sure what to think. I would like to talk to a Christian about how I am feeling — should I talk to my youth pastor?
Your page has really given me a different outlook on how I think — thanks!
My advice was that in the unlikely event he thinks his youth pastor will encourage him to seek out truth, no matter where it leads him, he should tell him. But if the pastor is a simpleton and will tell him that doubt is bad and he should only pray and read his Bible, then it’s not worth his time.
What’s your advice for Zach?
You see, he asks about talking to a Christian – that right there will be a flawed pursuit from the get-go. Maybe he gets lucky and finds someone who will tell him to do his own research and come to his own conclusions, but there’s a pretty slim chance of that happening. I say he should read instead.
You’re right, Zach should do his own research and come to his own conclusions. He should read every book he can get his hands on and talk to everyone he can, on both sides of the issues. For starters he ought to read the very objective book “The Question of God” by Dr. Armand M. Nicholi, Jr. He can find or request it at his local public library.
How’s that for an objective Christian response?
Congratulations Zach: You have an open mind. Also, I highly recommend you do not seek advice of the church. You already get enough of that, no? Don’t talk to a guy whose job is to make sure you only think like the church.
I would suggest reading Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris, but somehow I think that your parents would either confiscate it, or react in a way that would force more church/religion. So, stick to talk.origins archive (loads and loads of useful info there), and maybe a few more of these blogs for now. When you get some money, buy books from those authors, though you might have to wait.
Good luck Zach! I was exactly your age when I started having doubts. Just be skeptical.
1) Ask yourself “What sort of information would make me stop believing in ‘X’?”
2) Look for that information, and look very hard.
3) If the information exists, stop believing in ‘X’
I agree with Logan. I was going to comment that talking with the pastor will lead where most of us can easily imagine. If Zach truly wants to open his mind and learn all that is out there, reading books is always a great way to go, but perhaps he could contact an atheist student organization? I know friendlyatheist.com knows alot of different student associations – perhaps there’s one close to Zach.
All I can say is never stop questioning. Your preacher may say that faith is about ignoring doubts, but considering what the church asks of your life you have every right to study the history of your religion, and the history of all religions, to decide what is right for your own life.
When we decide what we know can never be questioned, we allow stagnation into our lives, and refuse to accept new ideas. We then can not adapt in the everchanging world, and grow angry, bitter, and confused.
I urge you to seek answers, and demand intellectual honesty of yourself. Don’t fake your way through life because it’s easier than trying to understand the world around you. If your beliefs can not withstand regular questioning, or if you are too afraid to try, then they are not really your beliefs.
So speak with your Pastor if you feel like it is necessary to allow him to speak on the church’s behalf, but remember that he is biased, and it is like asking a tobacco CEO to about the health effects of cigarettes. There are many places online that can help you like this website, and I hope that you will continue to expose your mind to what the rest of the world has to offer, and to never stop searching.
I thought I should add that if your church is very strict or fundamentalist, your pastor could tell your parents or otherwise try to make your life hell. If you have the slightest worry about being abused physically or mentally because of questioning the church then you should search for answers in secret.
I like the tobacco CEO example!
I would say his best bet is to continue using the internet to find some answers but eventually he will have to talk to someone. Come on guys you are talking about a 15 year old and I doubt he has the money to buy many of these books. His library may have some of them but that could create problems at home for him. Since we have no idea of how his parents might react, having the books with him might not be good for him.
I would say he should get into either a messenger or email relationship with a few different people that have views that he is interested in pursuing. I do agree with all of you that said he should avoid talking to a pastor until he has better decided where he is headed with this.
Good advice on your part. If the youth pastor disappoints …
“Doubts in the matter of religion, far from being acts of impiety, ought to be seen as good works, when they belong to a man who humbly recognizes his ignorance and is motivated by the fear of displeasing God by the abuse of reason.”
- Denis Diderot, Addition aux Pensées philosophiques, par. 1, in Diderot, Oeuvres Complète (1875), 1:158
My advice to Zach is to read, read, read. 99% of pastors will tell him to read the Bible, and take him down a never ending spiral that in the end, accomplishes nothing. I hope that as he reads and finds blogs like this one he realizes he is not alone in his quest.
I would not say that reading the bible is the wrong idea. I think more christians would doubt their faith if they acually had read the bible.
Throw in “the God Delusion” by Dawkins and you’ve got one book at each end of the spectra. I think that will get Zach a long way.
Oh, I don’t mean that those questioning shouldn’t read the Bible, not by a long shot. All I mean is that a Pastor (at least Pastors I tried to speak with back when I started questioning) will most likely tell someone to ONLY read the Bible, which isn’t as helpful. I think reading the Bible along with many other texts IS helpful.
When I started questioning, I was told to Pray and read the Bible because God would show Himself to me. Well, in my state, neither of these were helpful. What I did end up finding helpful was reading various texts along side the Bible (as this was a totally new and different way for me to read the Bible, i.e. skeptically) and talking to people who I knew had left church/religion behind, and had experienced what I was going through.
I think the most important thing is for him to read…a lot. We often criticize fundamentalists for not questioning the myriad of contradictions and obfuscations of their faith, but I imagine some of us are atheists without really questioning why.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that while I obviously would like to see him break free of what I see is the mental prison of religion, I wouldn’t want him to do it simply because he reads UF (or any other atheism blog) or because any of us told him to. The guiding statement should be: “Prove it.”
If a blog says this or that Bible passage condones (take your pick: incest, genocide, rape, misogyny), I wouldn’t be satisfied with that claim until I actually read the Bible passage myself. Even now, I often do that: if someone mentions a Bible passage, I dig it out and read it for myself. More importantly, this is a great guideline not just for religion but for, well, anything.
Don’t just listen to us atheists, those fundamentalists, or anyone else: think for yourself! Look for proof in all things: odds are, it’s there somewhere.
I think your advise about listening to all of us, be it atheist or fundie, before deciding is very good advise.
I agree–don’t take what a particular website says a Bible verse says as gospel (heehee, made a funny) without reading it in the original source material.
The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible (now conveniently located at the Reason Project, and renamed the Scripture Project, http://www.reasonproject.org/scripture_project/) is usually accurate and provides interpretations of difficult verses which I have generally found helpful. It shed light on many of the atrocities I didn’t understand (or couldn’t accept) when I first read the Bible in its entirety years ago (and thus helped solidify my lack of faith!).
Zach is in a bad position, and I feel for him. He’s young and changing, but embedded in a situation that probably doesn’t encourage broadening. Youth ministers are often very nice fellows, but with limited experience and narrow advice. If he’s been close-minded for two years, it’s likely because those around him have been, and so the prospect of having a youth pastor agree with his new direction is pretty small. Very often talking with a Christian about doubts is like talking to your neighborhood butcher about vegetarianism; the conversation is already pretty much predestined.
My advice to young Zach is to get out of his church for awhile, and get around to some other places. Perhaps other churches, perhaps meetings of freethinkers. To a very large extent, we humans tend to conform to the thinking and behavior of those around us, so trying to retain an open mind in the midst of those who aren’t is going to be very difficult for anyone, but especially a young fellow. Travel does broaden the mind, and I think it would do Zach good.
Yes, travel is also a very good idea (preferably outside the U.S.). I know that at 25, when I traveled through Europe for a couple months on my own, it changed my entire life and how I viewed religion (not just Christianity). Nine years later, I can still attribute much of my growing up and changing to that trip.
For him going to school and mixing with decent schoolmates is more appropiate and less risky, his/her parents will agree.
If he goes to an all christian school, or a school that homogeneous (like my high school was), then that actually won’t help as much as travel. Because of his age, I know he can’t travel solo… but, he can do a foreign exchange program, find a summer travel program for kids his age, etc. There are many ways to travel overseas as a teenager. If his parents won’t let him, then I’d highly suggest he do it as soon as he is an adult, whether it’s through an overseas college program, or over a summer break.
What is Zach’s family situation? What reaction would they have to your “coming out”?
You are 15. While honesty is laudatory, survival has top priority. If you think making waves now would cause problems, I would say let things slide for a couple years until you are out of high school and more free to act as an independent agent.
BTW, odds are that your youth pastor is a repressed homosexual.
I agree. Sometimes, depending on your family situation, it might be the best thing to learn all you can, as quietly as you can. Just until you’re on your own and have that little bit of distance.
Reginald,
WTF. How are those odds calculated? Is it the less than 1% of Catholic priests involved in the “PriestGate” scandals that gave you that thought? Because I can see where that vocation may attract more closeted homosexuals, since they take the whole celibacy vow and all, but why would you suggest such a thing (repressed homosexuality) may be true of his youth pastor? For those “odds” to be true wouldn’t over 50% of all youth pastors, in every religious tradition be, in fact, gay?
That’s almost as far fetched as rejecting God.
BTW, Are you homophobic?
“WTF. How are those odds calculated? Is it the less than 1% of Catholic priests involved in the “PriestGate” scandals that gave you that thought?”
He got it from the same place you found the facts of, “It’s a little nit picky of me, but no flood story actually predates the Biblical flood story.”
In other words it was pulled out his ass, just like yours was.
“I would like to talk to a Christian about how I am feeling”
Talking to mature ex-christians is a good start. They can understanding your feelings and you can learn from their life experiences. The other good thing is that your choices are always respected, regardless.
Hi Zach, I imagine you’re reading these comments. My advice to you is to take your time especially if you are in a conservative religious environment. I admire your ability to ask the hard questions. At your age I was cowed into going along with what I was told and in the long run it led to lots of suffering.
In my opinion those who believe in souls and the saving of souls will lie to a person in order to `save`that soul. They believe that soul is more important than the truth, more important than any punishment they might receive for lying.. saving that soul is the ultimate goal. When truth fails priests, as it tends to, they find themselves in a situation where lying benefits them more than telling the truth. If the truth will not keep a person Christian, then a lie will be used. For a priest not to lie in that situation would be not to try his hardest to save a soul.
In short, there is an incentive for those who believe that souls can be saved to lie. The ones that don`t lie don`t save as many souls (or keep followers as well) so that means the higher ranking priests (more followers, more years in the pulpit) are more likely to lie. More followers mean more donations, so those who lie make more money. This is a feedback system. There is no incentive for a priest to tell the truth and many obvious ones for them to lie.
So no, don’t talk to your youth pastor if you want a truthful answer. Find a neutral person, someone who does not believe they have some metaphysical gold star coming to them if they can only get you to keep believing. Find someone who has nothing to gain or lose and ask them your questions.
Zach, this is a really important day in your life. Ultimately you have to decide for yourself, just like everybody does – only some of us never realize it, or don’t want to. Talk to as many people and read as much as you can, from as many sides as you can. Some of them will be dopes; some of them will be smart, but you’ll still disagree; and some of them will surprise you. Ultimately, if your faith is correct, it will stand the test. And if you end up changing your mind, what is there to be afraid of? You’ll be one step closer to the truth. This is a life-long process and you’re taking your first steps. Congratulations.
Zach, I am so excited to see you asking questions. I am a minister, ordained in a liberal Christian denomination (though as one who identifies as “religious, but not spiritual”, I realize that I do not represent even the most “liberal” within my tradition). When I was working in congregational ministry, mainly with youth, I LOVED talking with young thinkers like you, youth who challenged me to examine my own beliefs and practice. And I am a much better human being for having these deep conversations. That said, I realize that not all youth ministers would welcome such questions without trying to reconvert you to their “truth”. So, while I don’t want to discourage you from broaching a subject that could be exactly what your pastor needs to hear, I would encourage you to proceeed with caution. Has your minister given any indication that s/he is open to other perspectives on faith? One clue would be if your youth group has explored other faiths with an openness and sincere desire to learn and not convert. If you don’t think your pastor would be supportive of your questions, then don’t tell him/her. However, you expressed a desire to talk to someone of the Christian faith about your questions, so you may want to find a minister in a liberal Christian tradition. Also, keep reading. Keep questioning. Keep learning. And maybe you could start your own blog for other youth who have questions and seek truth. I would read it.
If your youth pastor is a kind person in whom you trust then I would say talk to him or her. You will probably not be the first one to come to him/her with questions such as you have. However be prepared for the possibility that you may not get any answers. When I was 18 I asked the pastor of the church I’d attended all my life, “does God believe in religion?”, and he just laughed as if I’d been making a joke. So I kept finding new people to ask and new books to read. My advice is: refuse to be stopped from asking questions.
When I look at the question, I wonder what brought Zach to the Christian church 2 years ago, whether it was his parents, or possibly some sort of cultish behavior with some kids at school. At 13, being introduced to a zealous religion and falling in, and at 15, questioning the basis and nature of that religion is natural. To realize you are able to question and test the validity of what you’re being told is great and it is powerful. Use that and never let it go.
I would not necessarily reject the suggestion to ask his pastor. It is not likely to get Zach the advice he would get somewhere else, but he can listen with his new ears, and engage in the process of filtering what he’s been taught with his own mind. Additionally, keep exploring. The pastor is a person saying things, so if you are inclined to question something’s validity, put it to the test by asking and asking and asking. Get the answers in books and online resources. Whether you are reading religious or atheist text, keep the questions coming. The worst thing you could do about this right now is believe anything you read or hear without asking questions.
Congratulations Zack! Placing self-honesty above simply believing what makes you feel good is the mark of a freethinker. Pick up the ball and run with it. You’ll find that, intellectually, your adversaries are far weaker than you ever suspected.
“I LOVED talking with young thinkers like you, youth who challenged me to examine my own beliefs and practice. And I am a much better human being for having these deep conversations”‘
I would be wary if a minister confesses that it is not God that made her a better person, but some deep conversations with under-aged persons.
Dark Matter, wow, reading your interpretation of my comment made me realize how sketchy that does sound. Yikes! I had not intended to come off that way. Let me clarify, “deep conversations with underaged persons” are not what have made me a better person. But questioning has. And questions from people, young and old, about faith, religion, belief, and doubt have challenged me to examine my life, my values, my beliefs and to ask my own questions. I do not say that God has made me a better person because I do not believe in a personal deity. It does make for an interesting fit as a minister.
Interesting.
As I’d said in the thread about defecting to “faith”, as an adult, I think it’s important to question and not just parrot other people, or even what you used to think. It’s easy enough to stay on track without asking any more questions, of yourself or others, so you have to consciously make a point of doing so from time to time. If the questions are external, that’s good too.
I think children and adolescents ask the hardest questions you might have a chance to answer, something about their ability to cut through to the heart of the matter and actually wonder in such a way that adults seem to have mostly already hammered out. That’s how I read your answer to Zach’s question, especially as the advice was given alongside the warning that the pastor might be more of a roadblock of dogma. You can’t make his pastor question his own beliefs in this process, but at least the experience of another pastor suggests that he might be able to receive Zach’s questions as a way to confirm his own beliefs by examining them in a dialogue with someone who has doubts and questions. Zach can take away from the dialogue something even if his pastor doesn’t.
Is it about pastors vs pastors? Now, this is interesting.
Rachel Rev: I find the idea of a nontheist minister to be interesting. Could you contact Mr. Florien about filing a guest post?
Thank you.
Reginald, I find the idea of a nontheist minister to be interesting, too, though honestly, I am still trying to figure out exactly what that means.
Thanks for the encouraging suggestion. Perhaps I will do just that.
“I don’t believe in a personal God” =/= “I don’t believe in God”
:)
There’s a good chance his “youth pastor” is just as lost and confused as this young man is. I would tell him that while his heart naturally longs to know the Father, that “church” with all its man made rituals, rules and expectations is more likely to interfere with, be a hindrance to “knowing” this God his heart seeks than actually be helpful. His “church” building and services are external and the true “church” experience he seeks is internal and intimate Christ dwelling within and not in…temples made with human hands.
Let him “hear” Christ’s living words himself from within apart from an external, religious perspective and let him decide for himself…either way love him regardless of whatever decision he arrives at about “church” cuz its not about that anyway, its about love.
As many commenters have said, Zach should get information from as many places as possible. I don’t think it makes sense to tell Zach not to talk to his youth minister (unless there was some reason to be concerned for his health, home life, etc.–for which no evidence has been presented). If the minister is liberal-minded and encourages Zach to ask questions, great! If the minister is closed-minded and tells Zach to stop reading blogs, and to only read Church-friendly material–then Zach will really know who is encouraging the growth of his mind.
I think it’s more important that Zach explore his thoughts openly and honestly with a wide diversity of people than that he come to the conclusion I want him to come to. If a minister convinces him to stay Christian, that’s fine by me. In my opinion, the worst outcome would be if we told him to stay away from talking with Christians, and only talk with atheists.
I wonder how close he is to an urban area? He could visit a buddhist temple & talk to the monks there. He could just spend time online reading about buddism, sufism…my thinking here is this- certain christian factions say that anyone not following god will cannot possibly be moral, or know right from wrong. And of course what they really mean is anyone not following THEIR specific idea of god. I think he would benefit greatly to understand that people are able to find spirituality, comfort, & guidance thru a number of different paths. It’s not as if his choice is either be in a strict christian faction or be a frothing atheist. As to speaking to his youth paster…he says he feels close-minded, well he learned that from somewhere. My guess is his parents & his church. I don’t think the system that has trained him to think small will be a resource for how to think large.
Zack,
By all means, share your feelings with this youth pastor, but be prepared that, although he/she probably knows God, they may have never taken seriously the Scriptural admonition to “be ready always to give a reason for the hope that is within you, to everyone that asks, with meekness, fear and trembling.” He/she may not be fully capable of processing the information and knowing how to help you deal with it, but then, a large percentage of the readers and participants on this blog aren’t either. There is plenty of evidence to convince anyone who truly desires that, if there is a God, they want to know, relate to and love Him. There is never enough to convince someone who would really rather not have to answer to anyone, even Him. And that’s all by His design. He’s not seeking robotic, unthinking, zombies, but freely choosing, passionate people who choose to love Him.
If you are seeking some balance and find nothing that challenges your thinking at church, don’t assume that, therefore Christians have no logical answers. A mistake many Christians make is that once they know Christ they see no need to continue developing their reasoning capacity. After all they’ve found the ultimate answer to the ultimate question. That’s one reason it’s so hard to find Christians who can make a rational defense of their faith, not because one cannot be made, but because truth has won them so completely over.
By all means, keep reading this forum, but also read what people are writing over at places like reasons.org and aomin.org.
If you’ve truly opened up to Christ then you’ve found the true source of peace, provision and purpose. No amount of verbal whipping or scientific theatrics or gymnastics can change that fact. One very real concern I have for you is that if you turn from Him now, after knowing Him, you will spend a lifetime filled with the meaningless, ultimately empty and unfulfilled psyche that most of the people that post here seem to have. They will deny it now, to try to convince you to join their ranks, but one doesn’t have to read much else of what’s posted here to get the feeling that many of the participants are pretty sad and unfulfilled, even MAD at a God they say they don’t even believe exists.
Lastly, talk to God. He welcomes your questions and He’s big enough to not feel the least bit threatened by them. Nobody on here, certainly including me, is even remotely intelligent compared to Him. In all of our wisdom, on our best days, we are like infants compared to Him
How wonderful for you that you found Christ at such a young age. Don’t let doubt take you captive to empty words, futile thoughts and an ultimately unfulfilling life.
Zach, I recommend you ignore anyone that calls something as vast and as complicated as science “theatrics”.
Shame on you Jeff.
Zach,
To be clear, for you and LRA, I am not calling all of science “theatrics” I am writing that, if we’re not careful, we can get caught up in the theatrics of science, just like all areas, including theology, have overly dramatized and grandiose ideas of how far reaching their importance may be. I hope you understood that I value science, and didn’t make the false assumption that LRA did, but thanks to him/her for pointing that out in case you also misunderstood.
Because I want to be clear, a simple lesson in logic may be appropriate. Zach, I want you to understand the difference between writing, “All of science is theatrics,” and writing, “Avoid the theatrics of science.” Those are two entirely different things, as anyone who has ever taken an introductory course in logic (even Intro to Philosophy) knows very well.
Embrace knowledge and wisdom. They are not the same thing.
Avoid the dog and pony show of religion.
Except that when you say avoid the theatrics of “science” you lump the various and complex endeavor of various scientists into one category, namely, “science”.
“One very real concern I have for you is that if you turn from Him now, after knowing Him, you will spend a lifetime filled with the meaningless, ultimately empty and unfulfilled psyche that most of the people that post here seem to have. They will deny it now, to try to convince you to join their ranks, but one doesn’t have to read much else of what’s posted here to get the feeling that many of the participants are pretty sad and unfulfilled, even MAD at a God they say they don’t even believe exists.”
– Wow, thanks for speaking for all of us that have left and no longer believe. I, personally am not mad at god. Why would I be mad at god? Who I have a hard time with are those people who thought/think THEY had the RIGHT to tell ME how to live MY life. This has nothing to do with god. It has everything to do with power hungry people (including those who wrote the bible) who seem to think that their way is the only way, and those who don’t fall in line with their way are subjected to eternal damnation. It’s a great scare tactic, but really, that’s all it is.
Also, I personally have more peace now than I ever did as a devout and practicing Christian. I no longer get judged by my peers under the guise that they are helping and praying for me, I no longer have guilt about not meeting unattainable standards, and I no longer get angry over unanswered prayers and waiting for God to do something. Guess what, I realized that if I stopped praying and got off my butt and did something, I not only saw a huge difference, but I was no longer angry, anxious or guilt ridden.
Yes, it appears that Jeff can’t see past the end of his nose. Just because he lacks the forethought to understand meaning doesn’t mean the rest of us do:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life-meaning/
(Zach– this is a great, balanced article if you care to read it!)
Hm, I didn’t realize — by the definition “someone who denies life has external meaning” — I’m a nihilist.
“Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it’s an ethos.”
Zack,
But, also don’t let “if” brings you on a guilty or fear trip and remember the priority of your education, that good future your parents desire you to have, for your good in their hearts.
Jeff writes: “…one doesn’t have to read much else of what’s posted here to get the feeling that many of the participants are pretty sad and unfulfilled…” Get real. Some of the people posting on a site such as this are pretty fervent in their atheism, just as you, Jeff, are clearly fervent in your believe in not a god but “God.” But most of the posts I read are calm & logical & thoughtful. And you close with implying that Zach must choose between Christ & a futile & unfulfilling life. Come on, why do you think you’re being so clever & open when you’re not? Seattle has a big pagan population who are fulfilled by their connection to the earth & all the life therein. My trip to Vietnam showed me people who are fulfilled by burning incense to tiny deity statues that do everything from find their car keys to chase bad spirits from their kitchens.
How can you “talk” to an entity that doesn’t exist? Are you expecting the non-existent sky daddy to tell Zach that it doesn’t exist?
I’ve tried it as a thought experiment. Prayer is nothing more than concentrating on a problem and coming to your own conclusions, with an added belief that you’re in communications with someone who would guide you to that conclusion. His belief in god doesn’t matter as much as where the voice is coming from. Is he listening to his own ideas, or is his reasoning it all out coming from voices at his church? I think it’s common and probably to be expected of Zach to start (and possibly end) his journey by finding a way of faith that makes more sense to him, that offers more value for his belief than the church he is in now. People convert, or join a less (or more) judgmental sect. So I don’t see the harm in this suggestion just because god doesn’t exist, unless you have some stake in Zach converting to atheism.
please have respect for peoples intelligence jeff, you rambled of 30 lines of pretty mutch nothing just then, same old HOPE to PRAY line. You can hope that the train will run on time, but YOU DONT KNOW. if man believes he can know god, that is stateing man is as smart as god., FACT: the maker can never be more complex than the made. FOR EXAMPLE– if one dosent know calculus, how is one meant to enact the procedure?
Dear Zach– Congratulations on your bravery and your clear intelligence to question what has been presented to you as “truth.” The first thing I want to convey is that no one, that’s right, no one has the “truth.” We are all human and have limitations as such, so if you are seeking some “truth,” you may be disappointed, like I was, to find that there is none to be had by us mere humans.
With that being said, I encourage you survey your social situation first to determine if it is “safe” for you to question. People can be hard on questioners because they upset the established conformity sometimes. Next, I encourage you to read the whole Bible yourself and judge for yourself what you think of it. There are some good things in there, but there are horrors as well. Be aware. (Besides, no one can object to you reading it in your current situation!) Next I encourage you to read some of the great philosophers of the Western tradition.
I would start with Plato’s Republic, then read Augustine. These are considered to be respectable reading by Christians, so who can object? While you’re reading Plato, please notice how many “Christian” ideas are present there, 500 years before Christ lived.
Then read The Epic of Gilgamesh. It is a flood story that predates Genesis by hundreds of years.
I could go on to suggest some medieval philosophers, but I think you’d find them difficult and boring– besides, if you’re a Christian, you’re already familiar with their ideas to some extent.
Next, I’d recommend for you to read philosophers from the Age of Reason. Descartes’ Discourse on the Method is a philosophical tract that moves human experience from God-centered to human centered by doubting the existence of God (however, he backtracks and re-establishes his belief in God– you’ll have to decide for yourself if his reasons gel for you). Another philosopher from that time worth reading is Immanuel Kant. He works to establish a universal morality that may or may not depend on God.
Move on to Nietzsche. He turned back to the Greeks (like Heraclitus) to establish a more cyclical view of life and time, proposing that people have to rise up to determine their own traditions, which will also be overthrown by the next generation.
Read Camus’ Myth of Sysiphus or Sartre’s Nausea (or Being and Nothingness) next. They are existentialist who believe that life has no inherent meaning. It’s a bit depressing, but well worth it.
They posit that it is our actions that give our lives meaning.
Finally, read some 20th/21st Century short stories (like what you’d find in the Norton Anthology). Each story has it’s own take on life. Some stories will resonate with you, others will turn you off. That’s ok– because the message there is that we’re all different and we all have a journey to pursue– your story is just as special as anyone else’s!
Well, that’s my advice. If you’re too busy to pursue such reading now, then take some philosophy courses in college. Keep exploring and asking hard questions. Don’t give up until you are satisfied. Also, if you have questions about the Genesis account of creation or the flood, take some science courses or explore the “talk origins” website (you can google it!). The science is vast and complicated, but well worth knowing!
I wish you the best, Zach!
It’s scary but I substantially agree with what LRA posted immediately above, unless I missed something in there that is derogatory about me. Ha ha.
It’s a little nit picky of me, but no flood story actually predates the Biblical flood story. It’s the basis of all of them. Flood legends abound throughout the world, in practically every culture, thus lending validity and more credibility, along with the fossil record to the Biblical account. The only sense in which the Epic of Gilgamesh predates the Genesis flood is in the sense that the oldest clay tablet recording it is probably from from the second millennium B.C.E., and we have no actual copies of the Old Testament account that are nearly that old. The timing of the events would, of necessity place the Genesis account before the Epic of Gilgamesh, which was possibly written by later decedents of Noah, after the confusion of languages at Babel, in the early stages of Babylonian civilization.
Wait, did you just claim that the Bible’s flood story predates all others?!? As in the one in Genesis, which was written at the earliest in 10th century BC?
Methinks you need to do a little research before you make such a claim:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_(mythology)
“The earliest extant flood myth is contained in the fragmentary Sumerian Eridu Genesis, datable by its script to the 17th century BC.”
See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
Sir, if you read my entire post you will see that I wrote that the story predates the others, and is in fact the source material, but it is not the oldest extant account of a flood story, as I meticulously stipulated to.
I deeply apologize to many in this group. My experience with debate has, heretofore been largely verbal and much of the nuance that my comments are laced with is apparently lost in print. My tone is being missed, and I suspect, if that’s true of me that it’s also true of many of you. When that revelation hit me I realized I owed this apology. How can I characterize someone’s psyche or emotional state from the coldness of hurriedly written script? I can’t. But that’s what I’ve done on a number of occasions.
I just need to make less cryptic arguments, not because anyone here is incapable of discernment, but because of the nature of this medium of communication. I’m trying to learn here. Bear with me please.
My tone was over the top. Sorry about that. Sometimes I am just flabbergasted at what some people claim. ;)
If there is no evidence, why do you think Genesis was written earlier than the Sumerian flood stories? Why do all non-evangelical Christian scholars disagree with you?
It doesn’t matter to me which was first, BTW, but I see no reason to believe Genesis was first. If it was first, I’d have no problem accepting it.
Again, I’m not stating that the Sumerian accounts weren’t put in written form first, although I don’t know that they were. We don’t have autographs (in the hand of the authors) for either. I’m saying that a harmony of my beliefs with the available facts leads me to a tentative and cautious conclusion that the Hebrews, who were known for oral tradition, were preserving the true and original version from generation to generation even before it was ever written down.
“I’m saying that a harmony of my beliefs with the available facts” = I made up stuff that supports my conclusions.
So basically, it comes down to faith in the face of contrary evidence. We have evidence of written stories from Sumerians 1,500 years before we have anything written from the Hebrews, yet you think that it still originated with the Hebrews.
You have been lied too, Jeff. Does that make you wonder if they told you other lies as well?
“Hebrews, who were known for oral tradition, were preserving the true and original version from generation to generation even before it was ever written down.”
The Epic of Beowulf was an oral tradition too, Are the characters in that one also just as real as jesus is to you ?
Sorry for the slow response. I’m away on business and can’t check the blog very often. It has to do with textual attestation, textual criticism, archeology, and manuscript evidence. The fact is that for us to have the sheer number of OT manuscripts, verses all combined Sumerian texts lead us to surmise that for that number to have been passed on, the “autographs” must predate the Sumerians.
Think of it this way. The OT texts were used, handled daily in services, etc. by millions of people. Of course the surviving texts are therefore not as old, but the fact that we have hundreds of times more of them, suggests (actually many things) among other things that there original texts are probably among the oldest, if not the oldest texts written by man.
We also have archeological attestation that confirms much of what we know about the record of the history surrounding the Pentateuch, so, we know that what we have found of those cultures coincides with what Moses, or whoever it was (we’re not certain about parts or all of Genesis, and really can’t claim certainty for the remainder of the five), wrote in the Pentateuch.
It’s breathtaking the way some here take a whole area of scholarship which they don’t understand, and one filled with some of the brightest minds on the planet, and just dismiss it with snide remarks and such certitude. I am not referring to Mr. Florian here.
As with most of Scripture, there are plausible explanations and concrete reasons to believe it, and at least for me, they are more convincing than the “well so’s your old man,” arguments I’m often seeing spewed.
When I wrote
the fact that we have hundreds of times more of them, suggests (actually many things) among other things that there original texts are probably among the oldest, if not the oldest texts written by man.
It should have read
the fact that we have hundreds of times more of them, suggests (actually many things) among other things that the original texts could be among the oldest, if not the oldest texts written by man. That’s one area where the different pratices of textual criticism may seem at odds with one another, because, as I previously stipulated, the extant Sumerian text is older.
So your argument is since there are “so many” copies of manuscripts around 100BCE (please tell me how many and the dates), we know they predate the Sumerian written records, based on oral tradition, that we can date at 1,700BCE (and thus know the story existed before that)?
Is it really all that surprising there are many copies of a holy book that was used in church services compared to a tablet 1,600 years earlier? I do not see how copies = old. There are millions of copies of Harry Potter. It means nothing but that there are many copies. It has no bearing on on old the story is.
And your other argument is that since the bible talks about real ancient cultures, the flood story that takes place 5,000 years earlier must also be true?
I suppose you also think all the events in the Koran are true, including Muhammad’s prophecies and ascension, because it talks about real cultures and real historical happenings, right? Same argument. Except, of course, it sounds absurd when applied to any other religion than your own.
It seems obvious to me that you first believed, then gathered apologetical evidence for your position. This isn’t convincing to anyone who doesn’t already believe. I know your arguments, I was taught them too, but they are only for believers. Notice you aren’t convincing anyone here with your “evidence,” and we’re a pretty open-minded bunch.
I think you are forgetting about some events that happened in the 300-400 time period. Most of the worlds documents that didn’t support or agree with the chrisitan belief system were destroyed. Look how long it was before they even knew of the Gnostic Christianity was around. If you don’t take into account all the actions of early christians you can feel good about what you are saying. I can easily understand why there are a lot more copies of your book when the ones that came before you destroyed all they could to keep people ignorant of what came before.
Daniel,
Well, as I implied, it is an area of scholarship that takes years to learn and many more, perhaps more than a lifetime, to master. For you not to see how numbers = old, is just one of the many things you may not have understood before throwing out the construct. It’s difficult to compact that knowledge into the literary equivalent of a sound bit, but I’ll try.
Unlike Harry Potter (your example) ancient “books” were hand-copied manuscripts. The more well-regarded the writings, and thus, the more “used” the greater the tendency that those manuscripts would not survive. When you couple that with the tendency of Jewish scribes to destroy worn copies (because they considered the text sacred, which is another reason there is such harmony among the preserved copies) then it becomes more remarkable when you have a large number (about 1300, including fragments, and counting) that would survive through to this century. If you figure the math, beginning from an autograph (the original) and make reasonable assumptions about the communities involved (about which reasonable scholars are not in agreement), and the length of time a manuscript was used before being destroyed and figure, by man hours, how many copies may have been made from it, etc., . . . . Can you see why this can’t be explained in this forum to the satisfaction of people who prefer to snark and make ill-informed judgments?
In any event, people who do the work of such textual attestation have made some fairly strong statements about their findings.
Now the 1300 number depends upon who is counting and whether they consider a fragment worthy of inclusion, but let’s compare with some other ancient documents.
Homer’s Iliad, the most renowned book of ancient Greece, is the second best-preserved literary work of all antiquity, with 643 copies of manuscript support discovered to date.
A comparison can also be made from the 1600s. There are no surviving manuscripts of any of William Shakespeare’s 37 plays.
The New Testament (over 5,000 manuscripts and fragments) also presents another kind of historical, sociologically based evidence, as it can be reasonably inferred from it that the Old Testament based Judaism had been culturally entrenched for an extremely long period of time, and that people of that time quoted from and considered the OT authoritative.
Then there are the converging lines of archeological evidence, and historical evidences from extra-biblical sources, all of which find substantial agreement with what we know of the times through the Scriptures. For example, when the Bible writers wrote of a time and a people and then those people are later discovered to have existed and to be culturally identical to the description then I can assume the writers were contemporary to what they were writing about. This is a huge area with a great deal of scholarship and research. One almost has to be an Erhman (sp.?) with an obvious ax to grind to miss the myriad diverse but converging evidences from these fields.
Sorry so long. Tried to be brief. Actually between clients for a short respite. I’ll try to get a hotel with internet service tonight and check for replies.
Love to all
Jeff,
I understand the general idea of manuscript transmission. I’ve read FF Bruce, Metzger and Ehrman.
I still don’t understand how you arrive at your conclusion from the evidence, only from presuppositions.
We’re talking about the flood story, so let’s keep it OT. NT transmission & reliability is a bit different and not relevant here.
Let’s try one question to establish a baseline and go from there. I don’t like all these generalities being thrown around. Here is my question:
How many manuscripts from the Old Testament do we have before 500 BCE?
LOL A claim with no supporting evidence.
I’ve not the time, nor the space to give you a 30 year theological education, so I guess in your case I’ll settle for making you LOL. At least I can bring some levity to your life.
However, if you’re interested in a thumbnai sketch of my evidence, see my above posts.l
Your evidence is merely baseless claims. Claims that contradict established historical facts.
Whoever taught you those things is wrong.
“I’ve not the time, nor the space to give you a 30 year theological education”
Why would you think a 30 year study of Mythology help your case?
Daniel,
I know you can’t keep up with my rolling rants, etc., but I admitted in one of my first posts that I believed first. Yes, the chicken preceded the egg.
I think that both the Bible and the Koran contain descriptions of things that happened, things that didn’t, actual events that writers framed with their understanding of God and even projected God into, and things that accurately describe the true nature of God. Since I know Christ, for me, He is the final arbiter of interpretation and He gives me the truest picture of who God is, thus helping me to avoid the traps and get to the cheese.
It’s an extremely complicated issue, but I suppose I’ll declare a small victory when people here at least realize that people like me don’t just “decide” to believe in spite of the facts. To be sure we interpret many of the same facts differently, and we often start by knowing the Author (or Preserver/Compiler, what have you), but we remain steadfast and committed not in spite of evidence but through seeing that evidence, and much you may not yet be aware of, through the prism of our apprehension of a living Christ, Whom we know not just to exist, but Whom we also believe we know experientially.
If that’s delusional, it’s a delusion that has built schools, universities, and hospitals for hundreds of years, in numbers that dwarf the next closest contender. It’s a delusion that does more to feed the world’s starving than people of all other traditions combined. It’s a delusion that brings contentment, peace of mind, purpose of heart, precious community, and, I believe, ultimately eternal life.
If it’s a delusion it’s a delusion that helped contribute to the founding of this country as one that would encourage and allow for the “free marketplace of ideas,” where atheism can thrive and suffer no serious persecution, and where every person of any or no religion can contribute and enjoy a free culture and society.
I anticipate vigorous debate and response, but I’ve got to see clients all day, so I’m not avoiding you, just busy.
Love to all.
“If it’s a delusion it’s a delusion that helped contribute to the founding of this country as one that would encourage and allow for the “free marketplace of ideas,” where atheism can thrive and suffer no serious persecution, and where every person of any or no religion can contribute and enjoy a free culture and society.”
How many times did I hear this or a statement like this while being raised in the church. Just FYI… this country was absolutely NOT founded on Christian principles. The fact that churches continue to preach this is ludicrous, although it does serve their purpose of supporting the religious right who are in office.
Our founding fathers were a mix of Christians, Deists Agnostics and Atheists, yes… Atheists. George Washington himself only made mention of the Bible in one speech he had written, and he ultimately took that reference out before giving the speech.
While it is true that people like Benjamin Franklin made statements about the Bible being a good source of moral code, they did not want the church involved in Government. Period. They wrote the constitution without specific mention to Christianity or religion (except for the mention that the government shall pass no law about it)… the closest they came was in the Preamble with a mention of ‘the Creator’ and historians still argue what was actually meant by this statement. Many of the founding fathers didn’t even want this reference to be there.
Go visit the Library of Congress (if you haven’t already) so you can see the ACTUAL writings of the forefathers, with their notes on ‘red-lined’ versions of the Constitution. Come to the realization that a majority of our forefathers were NOT staunch Christians… perhaps Deists at best. That yes, this country was formed by men who were sick of the church dictating their life and they fought… and when I say fought, I mean fought because they despised each other and disagreed vehemently over words in our Constitution. But you know what… the one thing they were able to do… keep RELIGION out of our Constitution, and place it back where it belongs… with the individual.
Stop spreading falsehoods about the founding of this country. The forefathers would turn in their graves if they saw how much religion, and by religion I mean the conservative Christian right, has seeped into our Government and our laws.
Also, in re-reading the paragraph from your post about 10 times, I realize that it can be taken two ways (ahh, how I love interpretation over the internet :-). So, if you actually meant that it contributed but that this country was not founded on it’s principles, then I apologize for my reply that was directed at you.
I still stand behind my thoughts on the forefathers and the fallacy that is spread by many in the Christian Community.
Jeff,
You say “Since I know Christ,” but that’s one of the statements that Christians claim that I take issue with. You don’t “know” Christ. You’ve never met him. You have *no* sense experience of him- so how *can* you “know” him? Further, when I say “know,” I’m talking epistemically here, and at best, your use of the word “know” is controversial:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-epistemology/
You are correct LRA. One can never “know” Christ by the “sense” experience alone, for God is Spirit (John 4:4) and we who would “know” (worship) Him must do so in the realm of truth, in the higher, unseen realm of the spirit. The sense experience you reference is a lower state in which truth is obscured, hidden.
But we can “know” Him in exactly the way He said we can. How is that?
Sense experience is not a lower state– it is the only state. Everything we know, we know because we have experiences that we think about. How do we know that 2+2=4? Because we can verify it with our own eyes using objects.
I used to teach math to little kids. You can’t tell me that they just know it a priori! They don’t… they need to have mathematical concepts demonstrated to them– which is…… sense experience in action!
In other words, you say you “know” God, but I say you’re imagining things!
You think God is good (powerful, just, etc.) based on your experience of what good (powerful, just, etc.) is by interacting with other people.
Not arguing with LRA or JC; question for LRA:
What if you’re an empiricist on most matters, but recognize that some things can be understood without recourse to the natural world? Logical tautology, for instance, explicitly refers to an argument that can be proven true without recourse to the natural world (i.e., without knowing whether the premises are true).
Does acknowledging that tautologies exist make me a little bit of a rationalist? Or is it a legal move for me to say that knowledge of mathematics and formal logic are rational, but every other kind of knowledge is empirical? On what argument might this claim be based? Or what is the argument that all knowledge, including math and logic, is empirical?
Rodney– That is a great question!
Actually, the debate on analyticity/synthetic is discussed here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
For me, it boils down to language and the theory of reference.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/
:)
Sorry- and just to be more specific, I’m pointing you to Quine:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/#ExpAwaAppAna
Rodney– I guess the take home message of these debates is that, for me, universals and a priori facts are just artifacts of language.
OK, but take a simple tautological sentence of truth-functional language, which has no shades of meaning:
~(A & ~A)
…where “A” stands for any declarative sentence: “Ann is home”, “The moon is made of cheese”, “George Bush is a Republican”, “All dogs are blue”. The expression is true no matter what. “It is not the case that Ann is home and Ann is not home.” The same holds for any instantiation of this form: “A” might stand for “{[ (W v S) > L ] = B}”. Statements of this form will always be true, regardless of the truth or falsehood or content or meaning or language of the component sentences.
A similar argument could be made for, say, the knowledge that the square root of two is an irrational number.
Not arguing exactly, just trying to put a finer point on my question. I understand that it is arguably true–perhaps actually true–that the rules of math and logic are empirical, but what about knowledge gained from the rules’ employment?
Rodney- I’m glad you’re asking! :)
Actually, ~(A & ~A) does have shades of meaning: Not (A and [not A])
The words, ‘not’ and ‘and’ have meanings. But I suppose you are asking me to talk about statements such as “something cannot be white and not white at the same time” or “something cannot be in New York City and not in New York City at the same time”, right? I think you’re talking about intuitive knowledge here, right?
Well, I guess that my answer to this is that at some time, in early childhood development, we discover these things for ourselves as we experience the world and learn language. I think that if a blind child was asked, “Can something be white and not white at the same time?” that child may honestly not know. Also, if I asked a little kid, “Hey, can you be in NYC and not in NYC at the same time?” she might say yes or even that she doesn’t know. She may say something like, “Half of me could be there, with one foot in and one foot out like in the Hokey Pokey!”
Am I addressing what you are asking?
Sort of. But I meant the simple form to be an example of a larger argument, not to be the argument itself. When the example is so simple, it’s easy to compare it to real life.
“[ (A & B) v ~A ] v ~B” is also tautological, as is “( { (~W & J) & [ (S > Z) > N ] } v ~(~W & J) ) v ~[ (S > Z) > N ]“. In English, that might go something like “Either: if Wilson will not go to the concert and Jane will jump rope, and Susan will swim and Zack will go skydiving, then Nigeria will rule the world, or: (…)”. And you could prove the statement is true without knowing anything about the natural world except for the discovered laws of logic.
Also, those are not shades of meaning, they are concrete meanings. I meant TL is without connotations, not that it is without meaning.
Same question: why is it empirical knowledge that the square root of two is irrational?
Hi, Rodney– I’m going to take this conversation down to the bottom of the blog since “reply” is getting further and further away…
“If that’s delusional, it’s a delusion that has built schools, universities, and hospitals for hundreds of years, in numbers that dwarf the next closest contender. It’s a delusion that does more to feed the world’s starving than people of all other traditions combined. It’s a delusion that brings contentment, peace of mind, purpose of heart, precious community, and, I believe, ultimately eternal life.”
It is a delusion because the bible says that believers are to heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead, not built schools and hospital.
It is a delusion because the bible says the starving are blessed, but those who are full will hunger.
It is a delusion because the bible says those who follow Christ will suffer percecution.
You don’t not Christ at all. The Christ you think you know is a false Christ.
I see the darkness lingers still my friend…a familiar companion all these years? There is One who would vanquish it that you might walk in the Light of day, that the blind might see once more, as it was in the pristine, paradaisical, the restoration of all things.
You do not comprehend the (true) meaning of those words you spoke. Even the “dead” are those without the Indwelling One, Christ within. And what (or who) is it that has made us sick? Can that one be made well again? Who has that power? That dunamis?
When you see the Love, then you know it is…near.
That is why I have loved you in times past, till iniquity is found in your heart.
I, your God dwell in dark clouds and I know the intent of your desires, not of My Spirit, but of your own flesh. Repent while it is still Day, less Darkness overtake you in the day of tribulation.
Actually you don’t know who I know, but believers still do heal the sick, cast out demons and raise the dead too, and those that follow Christ still suffer persecution, not so much in this country, but around the world, and in many places I travel. You err because you may know, but you don’t comprehend the Scriptures. it doesn’t say that all believers, in all places and at all times will do these things. Those things are representative of things that characterize believers. I personally have cast out demons and prayed for and seen the sick healed numerous times over the nearly fifty years of my life. I have someone crippled by scoliosis straighten out under my hand, as several of us prayed. I saw a shriveled arm grow out to normal in a few moments, and a man born stone blind receive his sight. You couldn’t be more wrong, though, or no less what you are talking about when you claim that the work of the church should not also include schools and hospitals. For an enlightened forum this sure attracts its fair share of the ignorant.
I have witnessed many miraculous healings and miracles of various other kinds. God is Who He says He is.
Jeff- I would like verifiable evidence of your claims. I am (rightly) skeptical.
If congenital blindness or crippling scoliosis has been cured by prayer, I’m sure we’d be aware of it. Cases would be documented in major newspaper headlines and medical journals. Skeptics would have been already silenced by scientific evidence.
Science and religion are not non-overlapping magisteria. If the supernatural world affects the natural world in any way, that is most certainly a matter for science.
Without evidence, your anecdotes carry no weight at all. Worse, they contradict a model of reality for which I do indeed have evidence that blindness cannot be cured by prayer.
“I saw a shriveled arm grow out to normal in a few moments”
Is this a joke? Is Jeff a Godbot? Smells like trolls. Also, if you seriously meant that statement, how are you consistantly avoiding camera’s? I’m sure somebody would have caught at least one of these miracles on their cellphone.
I’m actually offended if you are serious. I want you to go over to Walter Reed hospital, and regrow some limbs. My fellow soldiers are wondering why you haven’t shown up yet.
O.K. Jeff, let’s just focus on the man born stone blind. This is an incredible claim. The confirming, supportive evidence of such a thing is certainly overwhelming and easy to produce. Where is it?
Jeff’s claim of seeing a crippled arm regrow is definitive proof that he is not here to speak honestly. He chooses to lie when confronted, and by doing so he makes at least some of the believers that read his words question their own beliefs. When challenged to provide sources, he either declines that opportunity or disappears from the conversation. Even the more gullible readers can pick up on those things.
Thanks for dropping by Jeff. Your blatant lies help to deconvert others like you. Your service is appreciated.
I’m not trying to be too derogatory– forgive the snarkiness though. I’m challenging your ideas more than your character.
(to Jeff)
I appreciate that. Please see my post above. You have not been snarky.
LRA and rodney,
I hope you’re not trying to convince me. I have witnessed these events. There are countless examples of these events recorded as spontaneous remissions, misdiagnosed maladies, or, in some cases just unexplained cures throughout the annals of medical literature. Your skepticism does nothing to change the facts, and I have nothing to prove the cases I have witnessed personally. I’ve never thought God needed empirical proof of that nature, since the rest of the proof seemed so overwhelming to me. In fact I only offered those examples here because someone was trying to peg me as less than a Bible believing Christian, and I was responding to that accusation because they cited that type of example in their indictment.
It dosn’t matter to my case one iota whether you believe what I have seen or not, but I have absolutely witnessed these types of events (and these exact ones), particularly on the mission field, throughout the world, repeatedly.
Preposterous.
Ha ha. Bugs you doesn’t it?
I didn’t say it was annoying, I said it was absurd.
…is less plausible than that the 1969 moon landing was faked.
If I say that I personally experienced monkeys flying out of my butt, would that not be laughable? Wouldn’t I need to give you something other than a personal anecdote to convince you it is even possible? Your claims are preposterous. I defy you to demonstrate otherwise.
If you have proof of a crippled arm regrowing or a blind person’s sight returning, bring it on. I’m sure that if those things really occured they would be at the heart of a ‘christianity is real and true!’ advertising campaign. The person who’s arm regrew would be in that campaign, with before and after photographs. Imagine how many people it would convert! That man would be on CNN, The View, Good Morning America, The Daily Show.. within days that person would have a fully booked schedule and be earning significant amounts from television appearances and book deals. Imagine! Regrowing an arm, now that is a serious book deal. That is Oprah book club material, so why doesn’t that book exist? Why isn’t this person appearing on TV, in newspapers… why, unless you are a liar? Why isn’t the priest involved appearing all over too, why isn’t that priest seen on a worldwide tour curing crippled people? A face on a grilled cheese sandwich gets airtime on CNN, where is this man with the regrown arm?
You are a liar. You have been caught and everyone can see it.
I’m not sure how you got the idea that the internet was full of people so astonishingly dumb that they would believe your bullshit.
jeff,
I have something that would fall in line with Gods miracles.
I was at a prolife prayer gathering in northern OH. We were in front of a clinic. There were 4 guys laying on the driveway, blocking the entrance so that the couselors could speak with the women one more time before the enetered the clinic, and then out of nowhere a large truck, something like a monster truck, large nobby tires, etc. drives in and attempts to run the men over. The truck lifted up, not kidding here, and drove over the men. The men stood up and shook their heads in amazement.
I would say God protected them. I would not have believed this story if I had not witnessed it for myself. I was literally 10 feet away from the truck.
You go God!
What you did was illegal, and I think you hallucinated the whole thing.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title8/cvr00006.htm
Balderdash.
rodney,
We live in the year 2009. If you want examples just f;ip over to youtube and type in healing miracles as a search criteria. You can probably view several happening right in front of the cameras, as I have viewed them in person on many occasions.
Okay, I just did it. Here’s a link to a rather startling one where a severely necrotic buttocks (perhaps cancerous) is healed through prayer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vofXYKwRH7w&feature=related
These things are not common, but they still characterize the ministry of the church.
You’re right, it would be very difficult to fake that in a variety of ways. I also think before/after photos are convincing of the efficacy of various weight loss programs.
/sarcasm
Come on, the unwashed masses of YouTube commenters poked many holes in that video, surely you can do better?
You may as well cite Jurassic Park II as evidence that dinosaurs walk the earth.
And following your suggestion, here is the stupid, unconvincing crap that came up:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=healing+miracles
No miracles, just people acting like there are. Also, Binny Hinn? Really? Binny Hinn, who has been proven to be a fraud?
I’m sorry, Jeff, but in the grown up world, we cite our sources. If you want to make extraordinary claims, then you need to give me extraordinary evidence. I cannot believe nor evaluate your claims until you point me to the evidence. Your anecdote does not count because you could be lying and I have no way to verify/disqualify your statements. If you want to continue to refute my point of view, you MUST give evidence.
ps. Jeff, I challenge you to hire a qualified medical doctor (preferably an expert in the field of what is being “healed”) to measure before and after results and publish them. The test should be scientific in nature, meaning that you control for false positives/negatives/placebo effect. Additionally, there needs to be more than one “healing” and your “healing” needs to be testable and easily replicated. However, I seriously doubt you could even get credible raw data from one person, let alone from enough people as to make a reliable sample population.
You obviously just don’t read medical journals or keep up with the literature. One such study was published in The Southern Medical Journal, December 2000, concerning a control group of arthritis patients. The study stated that the results, in most of the patients, were equivalent to an effective new drug coming upon the scene, but that four of the patients were completely healed.
Such studies are published fairly routinely and one has to just be willfully ignoring them, or not receptive to their findings. I don’t think God is willing to provide evidence you could not diminish or dismiss, like limbs growing out, etc., because then it would not require trust to follow Him. That’s His system (faith). So I can be like an obstinate child, stomp my feet and demand something different, but I am the one who suffers for such behavior as a response to the living God.
Sorry I can’t respond more often. I’m on business and away from my computer most of each day.
First of all, my graduate degree in molecular neuroscience from Columbia makes me plenty aware of what the studies are… here is the one you erroneously cited:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11142453?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
Completely healed? I don’t think so. At best these people had a psychosomatic improvement that is EASILY explained by natural means.
Sorry, you’ll have to try harder if you want to convince me.
As for Benny Hinn coming up, I didn’t say that you wouldn’t need some facility to reason and some discernment to pick through whatever that search uncovered, just that there are plenty of ways to discover this type of thing without me doing all of your leg work.
I concur with you on Mr. Hinn, who, in my opinion, is a cancer and a blight on the body of Christ. I also know, without question that my wife was healed of right regional ineritus (misspelled I’m sure), I have witnessed the physical healing of many on mission fields throughout the world. That’s preposterous to you, perhaps because you are unwilling (not unable) to believe.
Also, requiring proof of claims is not childish… believing in fairy tales is.
Right regional enteritis is a cancer of the bowels. Did you wife at any time receive medical treatment for this condition?
“As for Benny Hinn coming up, I didn’t say that you wouldn’t need some facility to reason and some discernment to pick through whatever that search uncovered, ”
Yes, you see though… that’s what I’m doing now. My reason and discernment tell me that if I dig into your claims a little, I’ll discover that they’re not as *miraculous* as you claim.
Sorry- I mis-spoke, regional enteritis may also fall under Chrohn’s Disease. This auto immune disease is treatable with cortico-steriods and frequently goes into remission. I’ll bet you just about anything that your wife is *not* “healed” as you claim, but in remission.
Heh heh – I always get a kick out of it when christians say that miracles don’t happen very often so that we can live by faith! Well, I have to admit that god really tested my faith. I should have TONS of faith, because in all my years as a christian I never saw a miracle. And I prayed hard. Oh, I just realized. That means…God is real! It’s a miracle! The reason god never answered my prayers was to test my faith! How could I have MISSED that?? Oh lord, I implore thee, hear my prayer, and enter ye back into mine heart wherest thouest residest in yore”….oh, wait, I can’t pray for him to re-enter my heart. He’s making a point of not answering my prayers, to TEST MY FAITH!!! What do you think my next step should be????
You know what I found in a book store the other day? A novelisation of the Epic of Gilgamesh aimed at (I’d guess) 10 year olds. Well the start of the Epic, anyway. I almost brought it out of novelty value. It was called “Gil”.
I imagine by the end its going to need some serious editing to keep it 10 year old appropriate!
LRA,
Actually the doctor involved in this study said that rather than being a psychosomatic and temporary relief, the four who were healed completely were still totally healed one year later. I think that’s sufficiently stout evidence. Thanks for playing.
please provide a quote from the study. It seems to be missing.
As you are aware, that requires actually reading the journal article, not the synopsis you pointed me to. I don’t have that in front of me on the road and I would hate to mis-qoute as I know what a stickler you are. The gist of it is what I stated. There are numerous similar studies, some of which have been inconclusive, but the majority point to some efficacy for prayer. A study is the proof you called for. I personally feel, since we are dealing with a sovereign deity, with personality and decision making powers that He may decide to heal no one in the study, for reasons of His own, so it’s not the best type of proof for these questions.
You may live your whole life and never witness such an event, but I have witnessed healings many many times. I am not special or unique in that regard. I believe it is not me that makes the difference, but that I just happened to be present when He moved in healing power on someone.
Jeff, you should know that the study you have citied is not proof a miracle occurred. It is proof certain people got better under certain conditions.
All the prayer studies I have seen that have shown an improvement verses a control group: (1) the people are told they are being prayed for [which of course would improve placebo healing], (2) the sample size is small, or (3) it was not double-blind.
You’ll need to give specifics about the study you are citing and the conditions it was in to convince us. It also needs to be repeatable. I’m open to your study showing evidence prayer helps people, but you need to give us all the facts about it. As I’m sure you know, many “studies” are done very poorly and are often funded by people who want to prove a certain point. Then when people try to replicate the results under better controlled conditions, the people show no more improvement than a control group.
It’s not only prayer that makes claims like you do. Check out the alt medicine movement. They cite many studies, but whenever real doctors look at them, they find the same problems as with many of the prayer studies.
And, of course, there are other prayer studies that show prayer does not help at all. :)
Here’s an interesting little snippet: Do you know that the recovery rate of sick people visiting Lourdes is actually lower than the natural rate of recovery without intervention? How ironic is that!
Daniel,
Yes, I am well aware that the problem of moving the goal posts is a very real one with, not only this group, but atheists in general. They ask for published articles in peer reviewed journals until you provide those and then they add more requirements. As I’ve stated I don’t believe such studies provide the best evidence, only that they provide the best that your readers are likely to give even the slightest credence to. That’s unfortunate, because they may be in a position to need a miracle someday, as my wife was, and as I have been. Incidentally I have also been in need of one and had God answer, “No,”, or at least “Not now.” He is God, not me. I am even sort of fighting a cold or flu right now. I’d ask you to pray for me, but, oh never mind. ha ha. Kiddin’ ya man.
Peace
No one is moving goal posts. We expect you to know the literature you are citing.
You are kicking short and accusing the opposition of moving the goal posts back.
LRA
please start a new thread for this if you want to continue to engage me. Let’s offer Zach something more useful here. Cool?
LRA,
Then it’s been in “remission” for nearly 35 years. If that’s not a cure, we’ll take it. Thank you Jesus!
Actually, Jeff, I believe it would be beneficial to model for Zach how claims are made and supported/refuted. I also want to say that I’m sure you’re a nice guy and I’m pleased that your wife enjoys good health!
Having said that, I want to point out the fact that you are making claims about a group of disorders called auto-immune disorders. This is something I know about extensively as I have studied the molecular mechanisms of the nervous system, and as the disorders run in my family. My grandmother had arthritis, my aunt has lupus, and my mother has ulcerative colitis (which is related to Crohn’s Disease).
Auto-immune diseases are very much influenced by the brain/body interaction and are aggravated by stress:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12114254?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=4&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed
They also go into and come out of remission based on many factors, psychosomatic being a major one. Not only can I point you to the scientific literature on this matter, but I can also tell you that I’ve witnessed this personally in my family.
If your wife has Crohn’s disease, and if you are pointing me to studies on arthritis, I think it is more than reasonable to point to psychosomatic the effects that a person’s environment has on them.
In short, you may claim that your wife is in remission because of Jesus, but can you explain the remission of my mother who is agnostic?
And just to put a fine point on it, doctors may study prayer all they like, it doesn’t eliminate the possibility of psychosomatic effects on the disorder. They could study therapeutic painting and get the same result.
Very true. Thanks. We’re happy too.
Custador,
Not surprising. I would not expect God to bless Lourdes any more than I would expect Him to stamp approval on Benny Hinn. I tire of being somehow expected to defend positions I do not hold, and caricatures of God I do not subscribe to. It matters not to me that people are offended by the fake, phony, hypocritical, opportunistic, and greedy. But no one bothers counterfeiting fake money, or a fake God. There are fake $20s because real ones have value, though admittedly not as much as they once did. There are fakers in religion, but knowing the true and living God is still of infinite value.
Also, I think you’re making a fault analogy here. Money is valuable because *people* value it, not because it has inherent value. I mean, it’s paper for silliness’ sake. The fact is that religion is a lot like money because it has value to the people who value it. This is why we have thousands of currencies and thousands of religions. None is worth more than any other, and they are all potentially worthless.
Ahahahaha, “religion is certainly fake in some cases, therefore religion must be true in some cases”… that is a terrible analogy.
And there are so many diverse points of theological views that it is exhausting. I wouldn’t expect you to remember mine, nor to appreciate what, to you, must seem like a far too nuanced and subtle distinction, but I am not standing up here for religion, which is something that I also do not appreciate.
I love God, the Lord Jesus, and His Holy Spirit. He has forgiven me, received me, accepted me and has even begun changing me. At times he heals, chastises, corrects, approves, encourages, discourages, rebuffs and reproves, but He always loves and He’s always amazing. he’s God, after all. Those are His prerogatives.
Once again, you are making claims without providing evidence.
But, as to my analogy, it was really quite good, and an appropriate reply from a truly fair debater might have been something like, “Good point Jeff, but blah blah blah,” and THEN state your own case.
Just a friendly word. I don’t always admit when I am bested, or even scored on and, but it’s a thoughtful and kind debating device, not to mention it’s just good sportsmanship. Oh wait, I guess that IS mentioning it.
What is an appropriate reply if it’s not a good point?
Please explain why you think the analogy is “quite good” despite this flaw, instead of just repeating that it’s good. Back and forth. You know, like a debate.
Also, “money has value because it represents gold” is not a legal justification: gold also is valuable because people value it, not because it has inherent value. It’s just metal.
rodney,
What is an appropriate reply if it’s not a good point?
Ouch. I guess you missed out on Emily Post, as well as God huh? If I have to teach you how to compliment me that’s too much like fishing for one (a compliment). Use your imagination. Step out on a limb and act like you think you might be if you had a tad more humility. What would you say?
Let’s just forget it, you’ve taken all the spontaneity out of it now.
I’ve got an even better idea: Forget about me, and suppose you were standing before God, and because He knows your deepest thoughts you couldn’t pull any wool over His eyes (a colloquialism that means you cannot fool Him), and He says to you, “Rodney, what have you to say for yourself?” Now, be wise and careful, but not cunning. He’s not asking what you have to say about Him, and He’s not accepting excuses about your lack of evidence that doesn’t comport with the inner witness of Him that’s burned into your deep conscience and subconscious. He wants to know what makes you hurt. Remember, for the sake of this exercise, and because He is, He is real, and He is most perfectly expressed, anthropomorphically, in Christ. i.e. You are talking to Jesus.
Obviously God doesn’t need to have this conversation because He already knows, but I’m curious to listen in on it, to know more of what makes you tick.
Peace
I’m sorry, no reasonable rule of ethics or debate compel me to say “yes that is true” of something that I consider false. Instead I gave you a reason why I think so. If you want to be convincing, you have to give a reason why my reason is wrong, or irrelevant, or otherwise shows in some way that the analogy is, in fact, good despite my criticism. Not just say “it is so a good analogy”, which would be childish.
Sorry Jeff. I’m not a debater, I’m a scientist and and educator. I don’t care about style as much as substance. I like to analyze and synthesize arguments on paper (I write quite a lot). So if I lack style, then please try to ignore that and just look to my arguments. Thanks.
Jeff,
At no point did I say that you believed in the “miraculous” properties of Lourdes. Thank you for putting words in my mouth, though – it gave me an ironic laugh.
My point about Lourdes was valid though: People think that if they go there, drink the water and pray, then they’ll be healed – i.e. that their prayers will be answered. It’s actually been proven that the opposite is true! God, it seems, is no favourer of cross-contamination among the imune-compromised faithful!
You live, Jeff, in a little bubble of delusion. There’s a Youtube video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-gSpLBJlOU that explains this very well.
Watch it.
LRA,
Quote:
No one is moving goal posts. We expect you to know the literature you are citing.
Well? I think I’ve demonstrated that I do. Considering that the only link cited pointed to a synopsis which agreed with my position, and that I remembered further details of the study, while obviously not having it in front of me while traveling on business, should be sufficient for rational, fair-minded people. I don’t want to break my own arm patting myself on the back, but it it takes more than that it must be because someone has an anti-supernatural bias.
I was asked to cite. I did. I’m going to stand pat and wait to see the river. Since it wasn’t my preferred method of proof to begin with I refuse to go “all in.” (Texas Hold ‘Em analogies for the uninitiated)
Actually, the article does not agree with your position at all. You claimed healing, and the article only cited benefits (I have the pdf here, but can’t text select it for some reason). Additionally, the study lists it’s own “significant limitations” (p.1184). It states that the study was done on religious elderly white women who knew they were being prayed for, that the sample size was only 40 people, and most importantly, the authors themselves state that “it is possible that there were significant Hawthorn and placebo effects” and that “placebo effects are commonly seen in patients with RA” (ibid). (They also stated that one drawback of the study was that they did not do “sham” prayers!!!! I’m not kidding!!!! Haaaahaaaahaaahaahaa!)
And as Daniel pointed out, this is but one study… a survey of the literature shows that prayer remains suspect in its efficacy.
I would like to add that I don’t have an anti-supernatural bias. I’ve stated before on this blog that I hope there is a God (and I defend the fact that God cannot be disproven– but neither can God’s nature (if there is a God) be known).
I am a skeptic. I have not seen evidence for a God. I think this is also the position of many other people on this blog.
Thanks for looking that up, LRA. Exactly what I suspected.
Not a very good study to be citing as evidence for the miraculous! That’s why I hate these generalities Jeff is throwing around. He says there are studies that prove the supernatural, and then when we get into specifics, it’s a poorly done study that really only shows how a study shouldn’t be done. Sigh.
I actually would love it if prayer helped. Jeff seems to think we’re closing our eyes with evidence all around — but I’d love it to be true! I could just pay people to pray for me, and I’d get better, without any surgery! Or I could learn to pray myself, and who would need doctors! Boy I do wish it were true.
Unfortunately, there’s just not any evidence.
Thank you, Daniel. People who do not have a scientific/medical background will easily mistake the brain’s ability to affect the body as “miraculous,” yet they know nothing of the HPA axis or of the sympathetic/parasympathetic nervous system, or even of psychosomatic conditions in the DSM such as DOS-NOS (disorders of stress- not otherwise specified) or PTSD.
Unfortunate, really.
Well, as I have continuously written, I think the study is valid, as far as it goes. What does account for the total remission of the four in the group that was prayed for, and that no one in the other group experienced such remission? The placebo effect and the fact that the study involved people who knew they were being prayed for may strongly suggest that faith has extreme importance as a part of the healing construct. In fact, faith may be the most beneficial factor in the placebo effect. When I am told to take this and I will feel better, perhaps I am able to have greater confidence than I do when I pray, unless I have total confidence in a god.
Got to run again. Hectic time – our baby girl is graduating from college today, one of only two in her honors program with a 4.0. Yes, pitiful dad is so proud he’s telling this to people he doesn’t know.
Jeff–
FIrst of all, congrats! You must be very proud of your daughter!
Now, from the study, we don’t know if the people went into total remission. We only know what happened in the short term (up to 1 year). We do know that they are in the care of doctors who are likely giving them medicine, which confounds things a bit– so you can’t claim the “extreme” effectiveness of prayer. If their frame of mind was improved by knowing that they being prayed for, then great. But, as I suggest and as the authors of the study themselves point out, there is a “significant” chance that this is a “Hawthorn or placebo effect”. I am not against religious people praying for health. If it helps them, then great! But you can’t conclude from such as study that there is a god and that this god is a personal god who cares about peoples’ health and that this god is none other than your Jesus.
You can conclude that improved frame of mind helps people get better… but we’ve known that for a long time.
hang in there Jeff, this is a tough crew, lets hope this 15 year old young man discovers the truth regardless of what man’s wisdom points to.
NO! Let’s hope that this 15 year old learns to think for himself– this IS man’s wisdom– the one that “God” called sin (the tree of knowledge).
Your statements are anti-intellectual, and that is naive at best, gullible at worst.
Actually, Wade… I’ve got some ocean front property in Arizona that I’d like to talk to you about…
Go speak with Christian pastors of different denominations from yours.
Read the Bible from one cover to the other.
After doing this you should have a clearer idea of what your beliefs are.
Don’t worry too much about your choices.
Just do your best to stay honest to others and especially to yourself, you can change your ideas as you learn more, and refine your beliefs as you develop as a person.
“Don’t worry too much about your choices.
Just do your best to stay honest to others and especially to yourself, you can change your ideas as you learn more, and refine your beliefs as you develop as a person.”
That is *fantastic* advice! :)
I really don’t think this is good advice. It’s all basically the same source of information. Other churches? Read the bible cover to cover?
I still recommend you read exactly the opposite: anti-religious material. I highly recommend that people actually buy products from people they love and respect, however I don’t think Zach has much of a chance to buy this stuff.
Hitchen’s new book: “god Is Not Great” (audio and pdf available)
http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2009/04/god-is-not-great-how-religion-poisons.html
Talk.Origins (this is their ‘must-reads’, and the ‘index to creationist claims’ <—best)
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html
A great science magazine: Scientific American
http://atheistmovies.blogspot.com/2008/08/scientific-american-6-in-1-pack-january.html
hope that helps!
Reading the Bible cover to cover is a great suggestion because I know of no better way to convince someone that Christianity is absurd.
Good point. But still, an outside viewpoint might be the best place to start.
Zach -
My advice largely depends on your perception of those around you. Growing up my family went to a very moderate church with a pastor who was an incredibly kind man. He encouraged questioning, and particularly understood it from young people. As a young teen (during confirmation) I had many discussions with him about doubt and how evolution fit in to christianity. None of it was hostile, and he even told my parents how much he ejoyed the way I wouldn’t take anything at face value.
If you feel like your experience with your youth pastor might be like this I would encourage you to talk to him. If, however, you are attending a conservative or fundamentalist church where doubt will be heavily frowned on and perhaps punished, you may want to take a different approach.
I understand wanting to get a christian perspective on your doubt, but make sure it is someone you can trust. Find someone you don’t think will judge you and talk to them about what you are going through. As others have said you may want to talk to some atheists, agnostics and people of other faiths as well.
Kudos to you – doing what you are doing at such a young age takes courage. Let us know if the folks at UF can help.
Zach,
Talk to someone you trust and that will value you for who you are, regardless of what you believe or don’t believe about God. If that’s your youth pastor, then talk to him. If that’s the people here on this blog, then talk to people here. Or maybe it’s a school counselor. Whoever that person is or who those people are — the people who will love and value you regardless of your opinion — seek out those people.
I wish you the best in your search.
This is really good advice. I would just add that you don’t have to rush into anything.
Excellent.
Zach should follow/listen to his heart (as opposed to his head) which will always lead him to the Father, but not necessarily to the…”church”.
The head (our faculties of reason) can not know God, can not perceive of Him for He is spirit (John 4:4) and reasoning will always deduce that since He can not be perceived by it then He must not be. Jesus Himself said He who would come to God, who (in truth which is eternal, of the spirit realm) must know Him by spirit deduction which is most…unreasonable yet, in the paradoxical nature of God is also the truth.
Jesus said that which is of the flesh, (head reasoning) is flesh, that which is spirit (heart, inner man) is of the spirit is spirit, hence the necessity of the “second” spiritual, inward re-birth).
This is the reason so many who have initially followed the leading of their hearts (inner, spirit man) and then attended “church” with all its man made rules, dogma, etc and ended up disallusioned, disappointed, even resentful thinking (with their heads again) that IT (God, what they initially felt, heard in their spirits) can not be trusted, so they resort back to unbelief, atheism, etc. This is the logical conclusion, makes sense (from the head thinking).
The spiritual will not make sense, will even be ridiculed, despised and vehemently opposed by the natural, physical mind/man.
So…you’re recommending a psychotic break with reality? That should work out fine…
I say DO read the bible. I was a devout Catholic as a teenager. I never thought that all the bible was meant to be taken literally, but I was devout enough to decide to read it from start to finish. I quit halfway through the OT. Take it literally? You couldn’t even take it figuratively! It contradicted everything I’d been taught, and itself from page to page! And what “parable” was I supposed to learn from craziness like the kids who make fun of a guy for being bald, and so GAWD sends 2 she-bears to kill and eat them? The bible is insane! And if the bible is insane, what is religion?
It broke open the doors on my closed mind and questions began flooding in. And a few years after reading it, I was an atheist.
“Nothing will turn you into an atheist faster than reading the Bible” – Penn Jillette
Zach should go on a murderous rampage. Kill everyone close to him, blow up his church, and then eat some babies for good measure. That’s the best way to demonstrate that you’re free from the church!
Truthfully, I’d say that he’s already heard everything the church has to say. There may be some more sermons that demonstrate what the message is, but. If he doesn’t agree with the message, then there’s nothing to be gained from that. He’s only 15, and I know that when I was 15 the thought of reading–especially big works like Dawkins) was probably the last thing I’d do.
I’d stop going to church, first. If that’s an option. If you can talk to your parents about it, then do so. As for the youth pastor, chances are that he’d just try to guilt you into staying in the church, even if you have no faith. There’s very little chance that he’d want you to explore free thought, because that’s not what they’re about. Read blogs, join atheist communities. See if there’s one in your area that you can go to.
“Zach should go on a murderous rampage. Kill everyone close to him, blow up his church, and then eat some babies for good measure. That’s the best way to demonstrate that you’re free from the church!”
John C logical response, not Sock’s.
Sock was being facetious!
Sarcasm rarely translates well on teh intarwebs.
Why not talk to him? Take everything he says with a grain of salt and be willing to seek out other sources, but there’s never such thing as too much information, so it can’t hurt to hear what he has to say.
Because he has already talked to him or similar types for many years. Their advice is precisely what led him to this situation. It’s time to ask someone else.
There is such a thing as misinformation, and too much can certainly be a bad thing.
I made my decision around the age of twelve. I’d already started questioning the existence of god, and then got my hands on a copy of ‘The God Delusion’, which made me start to feel really comfortable with coming out.
But one blog, one page, shouldn’t be a reason to make a decision like that. Think for yourself, what arguments can YOU make for atheism that you haven’t gotten from somewhere else.
If you can’t, then I’d dwell on it a little longer. Not to mention, you’ll need firepower to face the wall of criticism you’re about to run headfirst into. And it would be better if you had some that you understood inside and out.
Zach;
I only have a couple of pieces of advice for you.
1) Ask your youth pastor if there are any other historical references that can collaberate the bible.
2) Do your own research on the subject. Trust me, there’s a lot of information out there to go over. Read, and make up your own mind. Always double and triple your sources and references.
Great idea. I assume you meant “corroborate,” not “collaborate,” but still good advice. If his youth pastor knows the material, then Zach will see that of course there are numerous historical references outside of the Bible, and at least see that his faith is a faith grounded in historical events.
Good job J.R.
No relation to me, I assure you!
Zach,
If you want to talk to a Christian about doubts you’re having about how your church worships, you might be better off talking to someone at another church. I think if you look around the web a little, you will start to see the diversity of different forms of Christian belief out there, and talking to someone who believes most of the same things as you but has a slightly different perspective on them might help give you some perspective as well.
Besides that, your own pastor will be very eager to suppress any doubts you have, as he is the shepherd and you are one of his flock. I suspect he would try to discourage you from exploring your faith on your own terms. I’m sure he would do so with the best intentions, but he’s clearly a little biased when it comes to what you should believe. Someone from another church would be more motivated to help you examine your beliefs, which is what it sounds like you want to do.
I was a youth minister for a short while and a preacher for 30 years. I never judged anyone for their doubts about their faith. And, I was (and am) associated with a very fundamental group. Everyone has doubts and these should be discussed with every possible viewpoint as food for thought. No one should be a Christian as a prisoner of those who would deny the freedom to think and consider. Zach may make the decision to leave the faith of his childhood…that is his right. Or he may confront those doubts with honesty and open-mindedness and make the decision that I did…that believing in a Creator makes more sense than the alternative. Do I still have doubts? You’d better believe it. But I read, study, consider, and read Florien’s blog and others who disagree with me. Christ wants disciples who have made their own decision to follow His teachings with integrity. Anything else is dishonesty and hypocrisy.
Wow!
It takes guts and integrity to read who so passionately disagrees with you and admit doubts.
My most sincere congratulations to you.
“…make the decision that I did…that believing in a Creator makes more sense than the alternative.”
Can you please explain this? Why does it make more sense?
Going back to the original post (comments are TL;DR, sorry), I think it’s good that Zach wants to talk to someone about his concerns. As has no doubt been already mentioned, the problem is that if he speaks with any person of authority within his church that person will say what’s required to steer him back into the fold.
And if he presses the matter after receiving the usual placatory responses, he may experience what happened to me many years ago (more on my blog – I don’t want to hijack this post) — a complete and total excommunication, with the church leaders standing up and outright lying to the congregation. If he’s prepared for that, that’s fine — and will ultimately help him in his road to reason. Looking back, it was a positive turning point in my life.
When I was seven years old, I learned about the ethnic cleansing committed by the Israelites and how they were order by god through Moses to kill Canaanite children. This bothered me. I ask the Sunday School, “Why did they have to kill the children?” Ironically this was about the same time as Roe vs. Wade. I was told the Canaanite children were evil and god had his seasons. That evening my parents and I got called into the pastor’s office. The pastor questioned my salvation and told my parents they needed to do a better job raising me. So I was forced to read the bible everyday for a month. I was on everyone sh*tlist. After that I was always treated poorly at that until my parents left that church when I was 18.
My advice to Zach, do not talk to anyone at your church. The church is like a police state. Just plan your escape. Have a plan when you are 18, go to a public college, or find non-religious friends you can live with. Good luck.
Zach should do his own searching for this one. If he trusts his youth pastor, then he can go ahead and tell him. But if his youth pastor starts giving advice beyond “I’ll support you in your endeavors to find truth,” then Zac probably shouldn’t take it. It’s biased. I think Zach should pray about it, if he thinks prayer works, and keep looking. Expose himself to every possible angle. Zach, do NOT accept anything as truth until you have confirmed it for yourself. It doesn’t matter if everyone else believes it, don’t take that for granted because you could end up regretting it.
Sense state is the only state to the natural man. The spiritual man (InChristed) one knows a higher realm of reality, of truth, a spiritual realm. Not because He is a superior creation, but because He (or her) is a NEW CREATION in Christ.
LRA, after our many discussions I have some feel for you, as I’m sure you do for me. Knowing you in that limited way, I can imagine you being VERY PISSED OFF to find out THERE IS MORE and IT (the More Himself) was available to you THE WHOLE TIME!
A NEW DAY is dawning…is already upon us for…kingdom HAS COME (past tense) and we must repent (meaning to metanoi, to literally HAVE A NEW MIND, HIS) be renewed and then will SEE for it IS the Father’s GOOD PLEASURE to GIVE YOU (LRA) the KINGDOM.
How would she find this out?
JC– thanks for your concern for me– I appreciate it. But after promises for years from religious people that “there is more” not coming to fruition, I was rather pissed off that they made such claims in the first place since I had to go through a very tough disillusionment process. It took me a long time to go belief by belief and undo the “there is more” thinking. And these ultimates affected me in numerous ways. Finding my ideal “vocation”? Ha! non-existent. My career is what I make of it. Finding my soulmate? Nope! My marriage is what I make of it. An ultimate meaning to life? Nope! My life is what I make of it. If only there was more, my life would have been much much easier and much less complicated. But, unfortunately, there isn’t.
Yea, religion is a terrible vice and I am sincerely glad that you have divorced yourself from that tree of good & evil, its a dead, fruitless thing indeed. I appreciate you LRA and KNOW that your journey is not over…all the very, very best to you.
Keep Austin Weird! (bumper sticker for you non-Austin’ites) lol
Do you ever feel ashamed of witnessing, John?
“Sense state is the only state to the natural man. The spiritual man (InChristed) one knows a higher realm of reality, of truth, a spiritual realm. Not because He is a superior creation, but because He (or her) is a NEW CREATION in Christ.”
Act 8:22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.
Act 8:23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Repent John, before it is to late. My higher realm perceive your wickedness.
Thanks Dark…I love you too man :)
“I can imagine you being VERY PISSED OFF to find out THERE IS MORE and IT (the More Himself) was available to you THE WHOLE TIME!”
Why be mad when your “There is moar!” takes such outstanding measures to hide itself?
I have loved you in times past, till iniquity is found in your heart.
I, your God dwell in dark clouds and I know the intent of your desires, not of My Spirit, but of your own flesh. Repent while it is still Day, less Darkness overtake you in the day of tribulation.
Doubt is part of acquiring faith. I would say embrace your questions confront the issues. Never cease searching, have courage and strengthen your convictions in the answers you find. Read books both pro and con share your thoughts and questions openly. Maintain a dialogue with your Lord and Savior it’s important to continue to pray as he reveals Himself to us during times of spiritual warfare.
tm- can you please explain something to me?
How does Jesus *dialogue* with you? Dialogue implies talking. Do you hear voices? Where does this talking happen?
Also, how does he reveal himself, exactly? (What is the process?) And how are you able to defeat the problem of confirmation bias?
Contemplation and reflection in prayer changes my heart and emotional well being. Some people say they have heard a voice I cant say this about my own experience. My prayers are spoken aloud (dialogue), allowing me to express linear thoughts.
God doesn’t need my prayers, Christ taught to pray, in order to renew and exalt in knowing the power of the Spirit, this I have felt within. When in prayer I sometimes turn to the Jewish Scriptures or the New Testament for wisdom. There exists a power in prayer you can feel at times. The combined excercise of prayer and reading scripture provides comfort, helps answer questions or resolve dilemas. Kind of like brainstorming or greenlight thinking with God! New ideas strategy or tactics come to light. I attribute those garnered thoughts as revelations.
If by Confirmation Bias, How am I sure I know how to identify what, if anything, is responsible for the physical sensations I experience? I wasn’t sure the first time and I was tentative about sharing but I knew I wanted that feeling again. It doesnt happen everytime but one continues to pray with expectation.
But maybe you’re just brainstorming with yourself. Contemplation of a topic does tend to lead to insight on that topic. You attribute this insight or physical sensation to God. Those conclusions are only plausible to you because the idea that there is a God and that he cares to bestow insight is plausible to you. This is one facet of confirmation bias. Absent the assumption that God certainly exists, these conclusions are extraordinarily implausible.
(Especially in light of other possible explanations. God is never the simplest answer to any question; usually it is among the most convoluted.)
The question was posed in a sincere fashion and warranted a response. My faith, is not the question but rather how God reveals himself. I could have written one time a spider spun “God says Hold that thought” in its web. But that’s the stuff myths are made of.
Part of your advice was to “maintain a dialogue with your Lord and Savior”. That is the stuff myths are made of.
Answered prayers myths, lies, fate, coincidence? Or devine intervention?
In other words: Zach expressed doubts, and you are advising him to continue to not doubt that a god exists. I think that is poor advice. He said he wants to talk to a Christian, not talk to God. Presumably talking to God is part of the problem.
Hardly what I said and how you misconstrue is quite imaginative.
Why would I ever, express the view that God does not exist to anyone much less a teenage boy? And how do you conclude that prayer, is part of a problem?
I reiterate answers and rebuttals exist to the questions and statements posed by atheist spokepersons and lay people alike. They are worth the effort it takes to discover them.
Zach didn’t express doubts in god, or that he was struggling toward atheism, he said he was feeling close-minded. He seems to be concluding that his own thoughts aren’t his and come from the church and what they’ve told him god is and wants him to do. He may be seeking some independent thoughts about the spiritual direction of his life and a version of theism that is closer to Zach’s attitude, in which case, asking the god he believes in what’s up is a step in that direction. We’ve all pointed him to literature to explore on his own and open his world up a bit, but I do think it’s fair, if he still believes in a god, to expect him to sit down and think whether he wants to believe in the god he’s been told about, or a more compatible and open version of god, or potentially realize there is no god.
Since there is no god, and maybe I don’t understand it because I didn’t have to escape religious indoctrination, is there a real danger in praying? Will god who doesn’t exist actually tell him something about sticking with his church or joining another one? Or in reality, is this a way for Zach to listen to his own voice?
Two kinds of atheists, the ones who think everyone should be atheists, and the ones who don’t care if someone is doing what they think to be right for themselves, and to have the right to make that decision. Is prayer that dangerous for a doubting theist, or is it the word ‘prayer’ that makes atheists sensitive? I guess I’m challenging the word itself and whether there’s a qualitative difference between prayer and just thinking things over. I suppose theists might attribute the clarity and resolution of the practice to the word of god instead of their own cognition. I’m trying to understand exactly what’s at stake here, and whether it’s similar to theists expressing distress over atheists’ souls and whatnot. I’ve read a couple comments to the effect of converting people to atheism who are on the fence, the ones who have questions and doubts, they are more vulnerable/”receptive” to reason than confirmed theists. But yeah, I don’t care. I’ll try to answer any questions they have, but they aren’t obligated to change their mind, and I don’t feel obligated to convince them.
Timothy– A few things…
Prayer spoken aloud is not dialogue (as “di” means two), it is monologue. Also, this “changing” of heart is your own doing. No mattter how you attribute it, the fact is that it is you doing the brainstorming, you reacting to scripture, you feeling your feelings on your own with scripture as stimulus. In other words, I suggest your relationship is with the Bible, as God himself is silent to you.
In the strict sense you choose to grade, absolutely correct. I could have offered, maintain communication with God, be steadfast in prayer.
The fact my ears do not record an audible response does not in and of itself disprove His ability to impart love, inform and reveal.
If you possess absolute proof of God’s non existence please share your source and provide evidence.
“No one has the truth” in and of itself contradictory, because it claims an ultimate truth does it not?
When we speak to God he hears us, whether from our mouth, mind, heart and soul. When we curse Him he hears us.
My belief founded from researching a multitude of agencies? He created order, not chaos, continually revealing His complexity and potentially rediscoverable to all who have lost faith.
I
If you have absolute proof of Santa Claus’s non-existence please share your source and provide evidence.
“Never say never” in and of itself contradictory, because it says “never” does it not?
Dawkins is one of leading the spokepersons routinely quoted.
From his debate with Francis Collins.
TIME: Could the answer be God?
DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.
I think maybe you don’t fully appreciate the meaning of the word “incomprehensible”.
Also, arguing against “God certainly does not exist” is a straw man, because no serious atheist thinker has ever made that claim. You are implying that your claim is that God exists, and that atheists claim that God does not exist, which is absolutely not true. I might argue that a god is extraordinarily improbable; I might even argue that the conception of God as presented by modern theists is impossible; but I would never argue that no kind of god is possible. I can’t know that. You are saying that not only can you know, you do know, and he loves you. You are claiming to know something you can’t possibly know.
Skeptics: assume that God may or may not exist
Theists: assume that God certainly does exist
True, You have not said God does not exist. Others do on occasion I usually refrain from commenting unfortunatley I took another comment out of context it really had no place in this. I will endeavor to be more diligent and would not purposely misconstrue your words.
As to incomphrehensible? Beyond our understanding inconceivable impossible, that would be grand
You think this is haggling over semantics and not relevant to a 15-year-old’s simple, honest question.
I think LRA and others are plainly encouraging skepticism. I think you and others are covertly discouraging it.
Your adamance, conjecture that any aspect of advice, as less helpful, possibly damaging or even misanthropic sadly demonstrates the rigidity off your thoughts. Where does “encouraging skepticism” fall under the parameters of impartiality?
I wrote don’t run from the questions. Christian believer should never bury their heads in the sand or run from questions. The debate exists. “Therfore there is every reason to add to your faith, goodness; and to goodness knowledge, and to knowledge self control and to self control, perserverance….. I wrote “read books pro and con” obviously all that is available can not be contained within Sacred Text. “Confront the issues! “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope you have. But do this with gentleness and kindness..
In other words, you do not deny that you discourage skepticism.
Just so we’re clear.
Not at all, however encouraging skepticism in and of itself is not necessarily an indication of impartiality.
I believe I used the word doubt which is to question
Perhaps I do but I would hope I don’t come across as that dogmatic.
TM– You said: “No one has the truth” in and of itself contradictory, because it claims an ultimate truth does it not?
When we speak to God he hears us, whether from our mouth, mind, heart and soul. When we curse Him he hears us.
Let me rephrase– because human beings have a limited capacity for knowledge, and because of the problem of induction, it is extraordinarily unlikely that any one person has the “Truth” if such a thing even exists.
Also, I cannot disprove god. Neither can you prove god. So until God gives us evidence of his/her/its existence, I feel that the safe position is to operate in an empirical, nominal, naturalistic fashion, lest I make faulty claims, like “God can hear me”.
Ok- messed up the italics! You’re supposed to put before and after right? My words start at let me rephrase. And next time I’ll just use quotes.
I do not think we are in disagreement about possession of the ultimate truth and lack there of..
I could consistently preface my comments with, faith has me, God hears prayer, God is the creator, the giver of life, the source of love and objective morality.
I don’t intend to present these statement’s as being irrefutable just that, my belief. It is challenging to defend, I shrug off ad hominem attacks if they occur and support my position as graciously as I can. Continuously reading different sources, such as some of the links you have provided, I find enjoyably thought provoking.
I myself was confronted by church leadership to be cautious about my curiosity. While not expressing preference of fideism specifically, it was the perception with which I was left. I hope to aquire a better understanding of the philosphical argument as well as the empiracal, with that probe deeper for potential answers.
Apologetics is not widely embraced among principle Protestant denominations. A good reason many believers are less than adequately educated to undertake a discussion with informed, intelligent, free thinking persons, not stating I am by any means. I just appreciate any opportuinty to learn.
I respect that! Keep on doing what you’re doing then! :)
You do likewise, I look forward to opportunity for more discussion.
Please stop quote-mining Dawkins. It’s just sad, and we all know what you’re doing.
How about Flew?
I’m not always sure so feel free to inform, so I can stay on track.
Ok Rodney– Here is what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says about it:
“In sum: an account of the language faculty might provide a basis for ascribing competence with the concepts that that faculty might deploy, and thereby a basis for intentional realism and a distinction between analytic and synthetic claims. It might also provide a basis for a priori analytic knowledge of claims about concept-dependent domains, such as those of ethics and aesthetics. However, in the case of concept-independent domains, such as logic and mathematics, or the nature of worldly phenomena like life or mind, the prospects seem more problematic. There may be analytic claims to be had here, but, in the immortal words of Putnam (1965/75:p36), they would “cut no philosophical ice…bake no philosophical bread and wash no philosophical windows.” We would just have to be satisfied with theorizing about the concept independent domains themselves, without benefit of knowing anything about them “by virtue of knowing the meanings of our words alone.” Reflecting on the difficulties of the past century’s efforts on behalf of the analytic, it’s not clear why anyone would really want to insist otherwise.”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/
So, in other words, analyticity (what you are advocating for math here) is a complicated matter and it is language dependent. Further, there is the problem of sets. People who think about logical propositions realize that saying A->B, A, therefore B know that this is essentially meaningless without a world against which to match it to check for “truth”. Your example that you gave me above may be logically true (in that I can do the calculus and arrive at a conclusion), but it doesn’t give me knowledge until I plug in the sets and check it against real and possible worlds. So, then there’s Russel’s paradox:
“Although the pursuit of the logicist program gave rise to a great many insights into the nature of mathematical concepts, not long after its inception it began encountering substantial difficulties. For Frege, the most calamitous came early on in a letter from Russell, in which Russell pointed out that one of Frege’s crucial axioms for arithmetic was actually inconsistent. His intuitively quite plausible “Basic Law V” (sometimes called “the unrestricted Comprehension Axiom”) had committed him to the existence of a set for every predicate. But what, asked Russell, of the predicate “x is not a member of itself”? If there were a set for that predicate, that set itself would be a member of itself if and only if it wasn’t; consequently, there could be no such set. Frege’s Basic Law V couldn’t be true (but see Frege’s Logic, Theorem, and Foundations for Arithmetic and recent discussion of Frege’s program in §5 below).
What was especially upsetting about “Russell’s paradox” was that there seemed to be no intuitively satisfactory way to repair set theory in a way that could lay claim to being as obvious and merely a matter of logic or meaning in the way that Positivists had hoped to show it to be. Various proposals were made, but all of them were tailored precisely to avoid the paradox, and seemed to have little independent appeal. Certainly none of them appeared to be analytic. As Quine (1956/76, §V) observed, in the actual practice of choosing axioms for set theory, we are left “making deliberate choices and setting them forth unaccompanied by any attempt at justification other than in terms of their elegance and convenience,” appeals to the meanings of terms be hanged (although see Boolos 1971).”
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analytic-synthetic/#ProLog
Ok- have I got it yet? :) I’m trying!
Also, just to be clear, “analytic” here means that something is true in virtue of what it means, and meaning is a complicated subject as well:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reference/#OthIssRefReaKno
Probably. I suspect the error lies in my understanding of the explanations, and not in the choice of explanation. I am wrestling with the analytic vs synthetic distinction; I understand it generally, but I think I don’t understand it perfectly.
Can you address the root-of-two-is-irrational example? That is something that can’t be compared to “real life”. You can indirectly prove it in one of several ways, by proving that “the root of two is rational” implies a contradiction, but (as far as I know) its irrationality cannot be directly proven. You can’t write an infinite number of decimals to demonstrate that root-two does not contain terminating or repeating decimals. How is it empirical knowledge that the square root of two is an irrational number?
* “compared to real life” > “checked against real life”
Ok here goes–
First, let me say that mathematics is about conventions (that’s what empiricists call it) rather than what is true per se (like, I can’t go to a world or possible worlds to check whether or not the square root of two is irrational, I have to do the calculus). For this reason, the irrational number square root of two has no “meaning” in the sense that it does not refer to anything beyond a convention. Hence, the notion of an irrational number, like the notion of something that is perfect, is an imaginative one although not without problems.
Irrational numbers (or any numbers) don’t exist (“twoness” doesn’t exist)– they are artifacts of language. However, we can imagine numbers based on experiences of numbers that do exist. I can see two apples on the counter in front of me. When I place a third apple in the counter, I experience three apples. So, I can conceptualize twoness or threeness based on experience. You can imagine that square root of twoness is some where between oneness and twoness, but in fact you can’t properly imagine what that number is without converting it to something more concrete, like a rounded decimal. So, basically the square root of two is a meaningless convention.
Does that make sense?
Perhaps I could point out that one cannot graph an irrational number on a number line.
Irrational numbers (or any numbers) don’t exist (”twoness” doesn’t exist)– they are artifacts of language. However, we can imagine numbers based on experiences of numbers that do exist. I can see two apples on the counter in front of me. When I place a third apple in the counter, I experience three apples. So, I can conceptualize twoness or threeness based on experience.
Bertrand Russell FTW.
In other words, mathematic and logical axioms are not actual knowledge in the sense of the question of whether some or all actual knowledge is empirical or rational? That seems to make sense. I will have to roll it around in my head for a while.
(I agree that twoness does not exist; Platonism be damned.)
:) Yes, well this all backtracks to Jeff’s claim to know Jesus/God. I say, you can’t know Jesus/God without experiencing him (as in sense experience). If one makes the claim that Jesus/God is (insert description here), then I say that one is either basing that description on something they experienced by interacting with other people (like good, merciful, just, etc.) or that one is making meaningless references that can’t be checked or conceptualized (for as square root of two is a meaningless reference, so is perfection, Truth, Beauty, Good, etc.)
Hm. But the knowledge that root-two cannot be expressed as the factor of two whole numbers is useful. In some useful sense it is true. What is the distinction? Independent testability?
Erm, integers, not whole numbers.
Ergh, and fraction, not factor… yay imprecision… my meaning is clear though :)
William James for the rebuttal win.
Perhaps the distinction lies in the definition of “useful”? James asserts that facts are not true, they simply are; truth is subjective.
If that is accurate, what is the difference in “realness” between “the square root of two is an irrational number” and “God loves you”? My intuition says that the former is so, and that humanity is incapable of determining whether the latter is or is not so… but why?
Well, my answer to this is again reference. As I stated, numbers and certain concepts do not refer to anything real, and so it is hard to say that we have knowledge (true, justified, belief) of them. Would you say that you believe in two? Or would you say that it’s a convention?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/convention/
Also, the statements “root two is irrational” and “God loves you” differ in the fact that the former is a predicate and the latter is not. This first statement takes us back to sets– there are other irrational numbers, and so the logic calculus of this statement would differ from the latter statement. The latter would need to be phrased (simple version), “There is a God that exists, and that God loves you.” From what I’ve learned, we aren’t required to make such statements about conventions, because they aren’t required to “exist,” they are only required to be agreed upon.
Most interesting.
I am wrestling with the analytic vs synthetic distinction; I understand it generally, but I think I don’t understand it perfectly.
If it makes you feel any better, it may be a false distinction anyway. Quine argued that all propositions are ultimately grounded synthetically, and so the distinction is unsustainable on that basis.
Yes, that’s what I’m trying to explain here! :) I have Quinian leanings!
I don’t believe Zach (or ‘the preacher’) even exist. If you tell me that you don’t care whether I believe your story, I’ll provide you with a ditto. Wow, a Christian as liberated as an atheist. Imagine that. No, wait, you can’t. “The scriptures won’t allow it..” Yeah, about that.. It’s not quite as easy as reading a book, running a blog or reasoning it out among ‘friends’…
Staying on course will eventually get you somewhere, even if it is the wrong place. But then again, wandering to and fro will provide the same results – you just look lost while doing it. Carry on. It really is fun to watch.
What is your problem, here? You aren’t exactly making sense…
The guy is just another lying wacko. I challenged him before to back up his lies, and he just disappears.
Conversations between the skeptic and the Christ follower:
Skeptic: “God does not exist until you prove it to me”
Christ Follower: “God does exist, let Him prove it to you”
1. THE ART OF ARGUING WITH CHRIST FOLLOWER (I)
(1) Some smart guy told me God doesn’t exist
(2) I’ve examined the proof that God doesn’t exist
(3) I sited all these references by well-educated men that don’t want to believe God exists
(4) I just won this argument by tearing down a Christ-followers character and called them “stupid” and all my blog friends laughed at my post
Therefore God doesn’t exist
No, Wade, you are wrong. No one can prove the existence/inexistence of God– neither you nor the atheist. And I might add that NO smart guy told me that god doesn’t exist. I’m a smart girl, and I came to the conclusion ON MY OWN that Christianity is absolutely insupportable. What have you to say to that?
ps I WAS a Christian for many years, and in all those years God FAILED to prove his existence to me. I gave him(/her?) every chance in the world, but I’m no fool. I won’t stay in a relationship in which I am neglected.
So that’s it ? You are nothing more than a woman scorned and this your way of punishing God ?
I considered, and decided that no matter how I worded this, it was going to sound condescending, so a simple ‘no’ will suffice – for me anyway.
Scorned? No. Rational.
Also, I was quite dedicated. In fact, reading the whole Bible and attending Bible study is what started me down the path of de-conversion.
Ok.
How about the second part of the question ? You can ‘de-convert’ without hanging out in an atheist blog, making sure you ‘de-convert’ as many as possible. Are you making up for all of those years you mislead people to G’sUs ?
First of all, your tone is rude. I started commenting on this blog because idiot fundies are attacking science education, and as I’m a scientist and an educator, I have a vested interest.
Secondly, if believers don’t like it here, they can kindly leave.
Thirdly, if people are coming here to question, I’m here to provide the answers I’ve found so far. That’s an honest attempt to help people, so there’s nothing wrong with it.
The type of people who come to places like this, are the kind with questions. They’re probably looking for someone like LRA. Her presence here is to facilitate those already seeking, not to steal or corrupt.
She’s spent years with her own understanding of the lack of God, and is explaining that to others who’re likely in the same place that she was in.
In the end, anyone she “de-converts” has now done so by making an informed decision by hearing both sides of the case.
And I’d like to add that having people challenge my positions forces me to think about my positions. I like that. I’m interested in growing as a person, not in plugging my ears and closing my eyes and stomping on the ground in order to remain dogmatic about some speculative claim.
If I can’t rationally defend my claims, then they are crappy claims. The same goes for the people who challenge me. If they realize the crappiness of their claims and rethink them, great. Maybe they’ll deconvert, or maybe they’ll strengthen their position… fine with me either way.
Socrates said that the unexamined life isn’t worth living.
Thank you Sock! Hope you are well! :)
Doing just fine. Hope you are as well.
Any ‘tone’ perceived in a written question is a result of where you stand when asked. I asked a simple question – and get a not so simple answer. Now I’m stuck with even more questions – and someone coming to your defense – when there was nothing but imagined aggression. How much closer to ‘the truth’ am I now ?
I will take comfort in knowing that I was simply being inquisitive, since I have no ‘backup’ here. Anyway, thank you, but never mind. I just need to ask someone else, and in a different way.
Well, seeing as how English professors talk about the voice in a written piece..
but laying aside you’re irrelevant concern, I provided to an honest question to a not-so-honestly asked question. Your implied accusation is that I’m doing something wrong by speaking (well, writing technically) my mind– and there is nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong with you speaking your mind either… just don’t be surprised when someone disagrees.
sorry… should read “honest answer”
And what “truth” are you trying to get at anyway? You need to be a bit more clear here.
@The Line
You’re illustrating your own point, by assigning assumed aggression to either LRA or me. :P I was stating my opinion to your statement, it’s an open forum and from how you worded your question, it came off reading like an accusation.
And then your last post came off as very passive aggressive. If that’s not your intent, then I apologize.
@LRA
I got your point the first time and probably should not have vented. Anyway, good luck comforting people.
@Sock
LRA stated that my tone was ‘rude’. I consider a ‘rude’ person an ‘aggressive’ person and it appeared to me you were addressing me on her behalf (…. “Her presence here is to” and “She’s spent years…”). Maybe it is just me.
Anyway, concerning the ‘passive aggressive’ comment…As I stated, I consider carefully before posting. You know as well as I that sugar coating the question can be as deceitful as sugar coating the answer. I wanted the answer, therefore, I asked the question.
Now, if you two will allow me to leave our civil and adult conversation, I bid you a fare well. Please turn your heads a moment.. as I become… uncivilized.
@Aor
I am aware of your ‘hard on’ for me, sweetie. I’m not really into it, but your persistence is quite endearing. If you keep following me around calling me a liar after every post, people will figure it out and start talking…
Discretion is the better part of valor. ;-).
@The Line
I challenged you to back up your position and you ran away from the chance. I challenged you again here, and you didn’t go back and say anything. Is that cowardice? Shame? Fear? Incompetence? Whatever you want to call it, the readers here can and will pick up on it. You should get challenged on your lies, and others will pick up on how you behave when that happens. Especially believers! When believers see people like you set that kind of example they start to notice those same kinds of methods in their preachers. It makes them think. It makes them wonder why you aren’t able to respond honestly, and that helps to deconvert them.
So, long story short.. you (try to) talk big, but when challenged you disappear and pop your head up elsewhere. Every time that happens it makes you less and less believable, and thats the entire point of pushing you to respond. Your shame and cowardice helps to deconvert those who read what you have to say. That is the dilemma most believers find themselves in when they get involved in these conversations.. if they speak truthfully they look hypocritical and possibly even bigotted, and if they start to lie they get called on it.
Your little attempts to insult just make it more clear how unwilling you are to actually respond to the points I raise.
Discretion is the better part of valor.. I wonder if the person who coined that phrase meant it to apply to someone who raises their head to take a pot shot and runs crying from the battlefield when someone fires back?
@The Line
You are a liar and a coward. Each time you speak you help us deconvert people. Keep coming back.
AOR,
I have watched your comments for months since I first visited UF. You mercilessly accuse and condemn anyone who names the name of Christ. There is never a kind word, a sincere interest in dialogue, only ugliness and hateful speech each and every time. I have endured countless accusations, name calling, slander on your behalf.
You have chosen to be this man in the face of a higher way, a new and glorious nature, His within. We are both privaleged and charged to live from the highest capacity of the human potential in the image of the Father, to reflect His glory and nature which is love. It takes this Christ (who is our original, pre-fall nature, who we were to be like) within us to live out and manifest this higher, more beautiful, peaceful and Father-reflecting life.
But, since Father has no interest in “Godbots” and only asks for our love in return, as with everything else, its a choice. You can choose to live apart from, devoid of His presence or have Him invade and permeate all the regions within the Self ruled kingdom of AOR with His light and love. The result is a powerful, transformative encounter wherein you “ascend” into the true and original….you. You were made to love. When we choose not to love, we are choosing not to live. I have shared with you what Father has told me to in His great and unwavering love for His lost sons and daughters.
How long AOR? How long will you insist on being something…other than who/what Father intended? Sometimes words get sharp, pointed. This has been a word pointed your way in love, by Love…Himself.
Awake…and Christ (your true self) will shine on you. Ps…He’s not “religious” and only has good things for you.
JC
Don’t worry, John C. It has nothing to do with Christ. He’s mean to Atheists, too.
@John C, the gullible babbler.
You are again overstating things. I made a hypothetical on another thread, this fellow ‘The Line’ claimed he had a response, and it was a lie. Rather simple right? If you don’t want to be called a liar, don’t lie. Next step? Rather than respond honestly or back up his claims, he ran away from the chance to defend his position. This makes him a coward. That means I call him a liar and a coward because my direct interactions with him have indicated that he is both. Simple right? Judging people by their words and deeds. If you have evidence of me mercilessly abusing someone for no more than being a believer, provide this source. Link it. I assume it would be on this website, so go ahead and take a few moments, shouldn’t be too hard right? A piece of advice though.. when you don’t find it, will you please apologize and retract your bullshit? That would be the honest approach.
This ‘mercifully abuse and comdemn anyone’ crap of yours is completely false.. perhaps being more truthful would be a good attribute in a person who claims to be a follower the truth. Never a kind word? Again, false. Only ugliness and hateful speaches each and every time? Again, false. You are, as usual, talking out of your ass for self serving purposes. I remember calling you a liar after I caught you in a lie, John. Repeatedly. Are you now going to deny those things when some of those threads are still active? Remember when you said atheists and believers were ‘literally two different species’ and then later said you didn’t mean it literally? People can just look this stuff up, man… you do realize that right? It would be nice to see you concede a point some day, especially admitting that you are the same species as the rest of us. That would be a LOVELY start to an honest conversation.. admitting you are the same species as we are. Don’t you think?
@Elemenope
I seem to recall being in a conversation with you on another thread that just somehow stopped when I showed that you had taken a hypocritical position. I guess it wasn’t important enough to respond to, right? I mean.. you only took two contradictory positions, its not like you can’t overcome that with some honesty. I guess its easier to ignore points that are made rather than try to learn from them.
Don`t you feel like a bit of a pussy.. I mean, being called a hypocrite and having the reasoning shown to you, you have no response.. yet days later you try this little whinging on another thread. If you lack the guts to respond to me, try to be consistent.
“God does not exist until you prove it to me” should properly be “I don’t believe that God exists until you prove it to me”.
…which is true of everything. Why not of gods also? If I told you that frozen yogurt makes you invisible or that your wife is cheating on you, you’d require evidence beyond my claim, right? What if lots of people believe frozen yogurt makes you invisible? Does that make it more true? Would that reduce your desire for evidence?
I do not believe Santa Claus is real; am I wrong or dishonest or impious to disbelieve in Santa Claus until the existence of magic reindeer is proven? Of course not.
No one is starting with the assumption that God does not exist, or drawing the conclusion that God does not exist. You’re the one who is interested in certainty. I suppose you think saying something is “almost certainly false” and saying something is “certainly false” is only a small difference… but it’s an enormous difference. Two two claims are fundamentally different.
“I do not believe that God exists” is a completely different statement than “God does not exist”.
I wouldn’t worry about dwade — he appears here occasionally; spouts some complete rubbish; ignores everything that is said to him and then plays the “you’re persecuting me” argument”.
I’ll say it. God does not exist. Maybe I’m a more “militant” atheist than most, but I feel that the non-existence of god(s) CAN be proven with certainty.
How so? Can you point me to those arguments/evidence? I’ve never seen it…
I agree that the Tooth Fairy does not exist, Santa Claus does not exist, Zeus does not exist… but these are belief. If someone wants to really press it, no, I can’t prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist, only that it’s extremely unlikely. You can’t prove a negative; in fact, you can’t really prove anything, except in mathematics and formal logic. The key is understanding that this doesn’t affect probability, there are an infinite number of things for which you can’t prove non-existence.
Classically speaking yours is the true atheist position. Agnosticism is the position that many here are actually espousing, although many seem to prefer to refer to it as atheism.
That’s their right, and they’ll have no argument from me, because (here’s the vital common denominator) whichever position you hold will cause you to live (spiritually) like a “practical atheist.” Whether I think the jury is out or in I still hold God at such arms length as to be meaningless to and for my life.
Jesus does desire closeness and intimacy with us. Read (re-read) His prayer in John 17. While some children believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus (though I never did), hundreds of millions of adults, some of the most brilliant thinkers, successful, inventive, well-educated, bright, articulate, well-read and experienced individuals believe in God.
I made an analogy recently which compared counterfeit money to counterfeit religious experience. My (narrow) point was that no one bothers to counterfeit something that is not real. No one bothered to rebut that point, but some dismissed it by trying to change the point I was making with it.
If that analogy was faulty, then this old canard comparing God to the Tooth Fairy is far more so, and it serves no purpose, as believers are keenly aware that the difference is monumental, like comparing a crack in the sidewalk to the Grand Canyon.
Whether millions, one or no people at all believe in something does not have a bearing on whether it’s true or not. If millions of people suddenly decided that gravity didn’t exists would they float of into space?
Oh the analogy, well the reason no one bothered to rebut that point — it’s just a bad analogy; are you seriously trying to claim that counterfeit money and self delusion are in any way related.
Tooth Fairy – level of evidence zero; god – level of evidence zero; the greta flood – level of evidence zero. Nope they seem rather similar to me.
Money has value because humans place value on it. Humans counterfeit it because humans place value on it. Money does not have inherent value or truth, it’s paper.
Religion has value because humans place value on it, whether or not it’s true.
This rebuttal was made twice.
PS: If you want to get reeaallly technical, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive, the former is about belief and the latter is about knowledge… it makes perfect sense to say I’m an agnostic atheist: I think it is impossible to know whether gods exist (agnostic), and I don’t believe God exists (atheist).
(But I avoid using the word “agnostic” because people generally associate that word with the namby-pamby “we can’t know so it must be 50/50″ stance.)
You are so evasive. Are you still not going to respond to the questions you raised by claiming to heal a crippled arm, regrowing in moments? Why haven’t you healed my fellow soldiers at Walter Reed army hospital? There are more and more every month. I’m sure they would pay travel and salary, if you were able to perform the feat once.
japanther,
I’m going to assume that question was aimed at me, although unaddressed. I have not said that I healed anyone. I have been one of many believers who has prayed for the sick, infirmed, crippled and seen them recover, once even a shriveled arm and once scoliosis. I also believe I was very clear that I have joined in prayer and seen nothing that seemed extraordinary too. I feel a little like Richard Nixon here as I say “Let me make this perfectly clear.” I don’t think I am God, just that I have seen Him do some fairly out of the ordinary and common things upon several occasions during my short (50 year) lifespan. Much of that, for some reason, seems to occur on the mission fields where the gospel has not been as widely preached as it has been here (USA). I do not know, but I suspect that is because God, whose perspective is eternal, is much more concerned with spiritual health than the merely physical. In any event, I thought that ground had been sufficiently covered. What else would you like to know? As to your fellow soldiers at Walter Reed, prayers are not sold. Please leave whatever specifics you can on the board and I will get a group of people to join me in prayer for them. For some reason it also seems that God wants people to know when they are being prayed for, so I’d appreciate what you can do on that end.
I serve a living, healing, loving God. I would not be surprised if He sent healing to those you care for. There are, of course, no limits except those He self-imposes for various reasons the most intelligent of us could probably not understand in this life.
Yes, that most certainly was aimed at you, you can tell because I hit ‘reply’ to your previous comment, and mine was on the threshold directly below you. Here is your original text:
“I saw a shriveled arm grow out to normal in a few moments, and a man born stone blind receive his sight.”
I have seen hundreds of my fellow soldiers at Walter Reed with their limbs all sorts of mangled. I was there for my own surgery at the time, but right now I’m getting ready to deploy to the sandbox and am nowhere near there, so I can’t ‘spread the word’ for you. I assure you they are praying, as the military is 99% theist, however, it is not growing back any shriveled arms.
What was the secret for the case you witnessed? Why were none of these things caught on camera. Why is it not repeated in any empirical data? Because it never happened. There is no way an arm can go from sausage-looking to normal arm/hand in a few moments. Let alone, with just prayer or what have you.
I don’t believe you. No doctor would believe you. Few Christians would believe you. It is offensive that you even try this. Do you have any videotape of it happening? WHY NOT? Don’t you think it would be a good idea to record all of this from now on? Just in case another arm regrows, or a blind guy learns to see? That would be the ultimate proof of God. It would be in every newspaper, every talk show, every tv show, every radio station. Everyone would hear about it. But you have absolutely no documented proof of all this. You must be really bad at ‘mission work’. If the goal of your mission is to spread the word of God, you succeed in only freaking people out that there are people as crazy as you that also call themselves Christians. You are deconverting people.
Your comment about Richard Nixon is ironic. I also thought you were a tricky dick.
” I don’t think I am God, just that I have seen Him do some fairly out of the ordinary and common things upon several occasions during my short (50 year) lifespan.”
I never thought you were claiming to be God, sorry if there was some confusion in my earlier post. Notice once again that you are claiming SEVERAL occasions. Not one of these got recorded? If you are unable to set up a youtube, and you do have these on film somehow. I will save a portion of my paycheck until I can afford to make this footage digital for you. However, the most likely event is that you have no proof of seeing these things. We just have to take your word for it. Why would you hold back these miracles from the world? I would be the first convert you had. I really want there to be miracles. I really want all those fallen comrades to regrow their arms. I want it to be true. You’ve had 50 years to take at least one compelling video of the ‘several’ accounts you were there for.
” What else would you like to know?”
I would like to know if you realize how offensive this is. I know your intentions must be good, but the actions are not.
“There are, of course, no limits except those He self-imposes for various reasons the most intelligent of us could probably not understand in this life.”
This is a Get-Out-Making-Sense-Free card. He seems to only work miracles when no one is around to see them. Except for you. For 50 years. And you didn’t think to record them?
And how could an all powerful being even self-impose limits for himself? Here is another way to ask the same question. If God could microwave a burrito that was SOOOO HOT that even He couldn’t eat it, could he still eat it? And if so, why can’t he microwave a burrito that was so hot that he definitely could not eat it? Either way, he is not all powerful.
Stop being lazy. Either record this stuff, or accept the fact that you are bad at spreading the word of God.
japanther,
Actually the shriveled arm referred to was “shriveled,” which to me means that it was physically under-developed. In fact it was captured on video as it grew to match the man’s other arm. I believe that video is still in the possession of Arthur Blessitt, the well-known traveling preacher who has carried a cross while walking in countries throughout the world. I have walked and witnessed with him, although I was one of thousands and not someone he knows personally.
The fact that you or I do not understand why God behaves in ways that He does is irrelevant. He is God. He does what is best, right, just and appropriate. We, by comparison, are infants who could not possibly understand with comprehension that satisfies our tantrum-like demands for equity. There is a far larger picture, bigger drama, of truly cosmic proportions being played out, with intricate details, orchestrated by His divine will and direction. The Scripture declares that “He watches over His word to perform it.”
There are numerous doctors who believe in divine healing and affirm that they have witnessed it too. Donald Cherry of Houston is one. You don’t actually have to do much personal research with a truly open mind to find a dozen or more that have written on the subject. Most of their books have documentation of some of the more unusual cases they have seen.
I’m surprised that someone merely describing what they have witnessed now has to be a specialist in the field and bring reams of evidentiary support for every point, no matter how minor, or even, in my case tangential. Do you have Google? If you mean what you write, about hoping miracles can happen, then you’re largely going to have to accept anecdotes and individual testimonies, as God apparently will not violate His system of followship being based upon the ability to have faith.
I suspect that one reason is that followers would not be choosing out of love, but because there’s no other reasonable choice, if He provided airtight, incontrovertible, non-controversial evidence of the kind you claim you require.
When my oldest son was 10, he had a large boil that had been diagnosed (cultured) as a form of staff. After prayer, we removed the bandage and the skin showed no sign that the boil had even been there. The rest of our family suffered from chronic recurring staff infection for about a year, and my wife still has it. Robert (the oldest) has never had it return.
Shall I ask Robert to send a picture of the spot to me so I can send it to you? There’s nothing there. I’m not sure what value any photographic evidence has in this age of photoshopping any way. Do you really not know any believers that you can trust as credible? Are even your believing friends lying to you? I find that as hard to believe as you apparently find my testimony.
Incidentally, I think I’ve made this clear, but one more time for the hard heads (not referring to you, unless it applies): I have been praying for people for years, and I’ve seen many more times where it appears God has chosen not to act, and I’ve never seen a limb grow back – never claimed to – don’t know of any documented case like that. There is not a recorded case, even in Scripture, which, by the way, if Scripture was made up, they might as well have put one in there. Instead what we see are the same type of miracles that still happen today. Hmmm. I have pointed to a study that you may want to read in it’s entirety, as the study does say that the three or four (it’s specific, my memory is not) who found complete relief was notable because they had no symptoms even a year later, which the authors felt ruled out the power of suggestion, or so-called placebo effect.
Those kinds of studies are not convincing to those who are throwing a child-like tantrum, demanding that God prove Himself. One reason you don’t really need such evidence is that He’s already placed an inner knowledge of Himself within you. Want proof? Go to a professional polygraph examiner and take a long test that includes the question, “Do you believe in a personal God, Who created the world and everything in it?” If you answer no, the needles will indicate deception. “The fool has said in his heart, ‘there is no God.’” Your lips may scream, “No.”, but your heart knows better.
Cheers
I also do not appreciate the implication that I win arguments by making personal attacks and by fiat. That statement is itself a kind of personal attack.
Won? When?
I was referring to this choice of words. I think it is poor form to say — in almost any situation — that you won an argument.
Say of yourself, I mean. Oneself. Myself. The “winner”, if that designation is useful for some reason, should be designated by someone who is not taking part in the argument.
Could lead to a discussion of moral objectivity. Another favorite playground for discourse
Oh Timothy.. why did you run away from our other conversation? Have you got the guts to return to it?
Not sure where it was remind me. I attempt to revisit previous conversations, perhaps I overlooked some of your less than scintillating sintax, for it trends toward demeaning accussatory hyperbole. Not exactly the stimulous I find of any benefit.
Several threads developed from what I believe was a hypothetical situation. I wondered how groups of individuals might coalesce in an effort to recruit or influence someone, like a rush during Greek week. I wonder how many offering advice have or had children within Zach’s hypothetical age group. Once rendered advice bears a responsibility far different from offering “just my opinion.”
I think the original question represents this crux, the philosophical cultural direction of American society thus the world. I give Daniel kudos for giving us something of substance to wrestle with, advice, it’s responsibility and consequence.
“Angels fly because they take themselves Lightly”, Razor Ralph
I’m sure you remember quite well, but I’ll give you that link anyway.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/05/11/the-first-couple-yahweh-and-asherah/#comment-37672
Poor dwade. He’s so persecuted. I mean, don’t those Big, Bad, Mean Old Atheists force him to point his browser to atheist blogs and type indefensible drivel in the comments section?
I don’t feel persecuted, i just like ribbing you. It’s hard for me to understand how a person who has experienced God in their life can turn their back on Him. My personal revelation (being a witness to what Christ did and accomplished-this is an appropriate word when you feel like you are on trial) was that God showed His Glory and presence to me for the first time 21 years ago.
I am not a crazy person, I run a company, I am a dedicated husband and father of 4, grandparent of 2, respected in my community, serving in ministry, (I even have friends that are atheists). I dont share this because I am proud or arrogant, I am only attempting to establish some credibility.
I have witnessed hundreds of people who have sincerely accepted Christ into their lives and display a changed, repentant life. These are extreme situations. These are people who could not have changed without the power of Christ in their life. So the evidence is usually right in front of you. The sad thing here is that many of the bloggers (not all) start out not wanting to believe, therefore they already have their minds made up regardless of the evidence of personal witness of the facts.
I like the way Christians use the word “experience”… as if they know what it actually means….
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-contents/
You ask how someone who has experienced god could then decide he was wrong. I can’t say for sure but I would say studying the writings of more then just those that agree with them. There are also life experiences that can explain why they have decided your faith is not well placed.
You do know someone who is crazy will generally claim they aren’t. I figure there are enough examples of people who have very successful lives and if it wasn’t for medication they wouldn’t.
I also have known people that did better after going into religion. At the same time I have known people who have went into religion and their life went for the worst. I have known people that left religion and the same happened. Some felt better about their live others went down hill fast. The fact that you feel you are doing good proves nothing more then that you need something imaginary in your life to function.
What is the difference between This
“Conversations between the skeptic and the Christ follower:
Skeptic: “God does not exist until you prove it to me”
Christ Follower: “God does exist, let Him prove it to you”
“1. THE ART OF ARGUING WITH CHRIST FOLLOWER (I)
(1) Some smart guy told me God doesn’t exist
(2) I’ve examined the proof that God doesn’t exist
(3) I sited all these references by well-educated men that don’t want to believe God exists
(4) I just won this argument by tearing down a Christ-followers character and called them “stupid” and all my blog friends laughed at my post
Therefore God doesn’t exist”
And This:
“I have witnessed hundreds of people who have sincerely accepted Christ into their lives and display a changed, repentant life. These are extreme situations. These are people who could not have changed without the power of Christ in their life. So the evidence is usually right in front of you.”
That is how you see things and presume everyone reasons like you.
“(I even have friends that are atheists)”
That’s good? Do you want a present? :P
I have friends who believe in God. Does that mean anything to you? :) Also, I am going to take issue with your argument outline:
1. THE ART OF ARGUING WITH CHRIST FOLLOWER (I)
(1) Some smart guy told me God doesn’t exist
- Actually, I took a look at the world without a God bias. I saw engines making cars move, I saw trees being cut into boards and made into houses, I saw the gravity from the moon making the tides, I paid noticed how some creatures have sex to procreate, and some don’t. I’ve never seen anything in this world that could only -be- because of “magic”, which is all that God is.
(2) I’ve examined the proof that God doesn’t exist
- There is no proof that God doesn’t exist. There’s just no proof that he does, and the arguments for him come off as shallow and full of mystical woo.
(3) I sited all these references by well-educated men that don’t want to believe God exists
- “Want”. Such a powerful word, but it’s not used properly here. Very few people here “want” one way or the other. It’s an impartial view, that has nothing to do with how we feel. It has to do with reality, with what -is-. Personally, I -want- God to exist, I want a heaven, I want to see my family again. However, I also -want- to be able to fly, stop time, and breathe under water. What I want doesn’t matter, what -is- does matter.
(4) I just won this argument by tearing down a Christ-followers character and called them “stupid” and all my blog friends laughed at my post
- Actually, it’s more to do with childish than stupid. It’s childish to believe what you’re told without thinking on your own.
A lot of your argument outline has a lot of anti-intellectualism sentiment in it, and that’s pretty sad. If it weren’t for intellectuals, we wouldn’t be that far out of the dark ages. All the things in your life that you take for granted are due to intellectuals, and you owe them far more than you do your belief in some anti-hero from bronze age fairy tales. What has God actually -done- for anyone lately? Did he invent computers? The internet? Cars? Modern housing? Shopping malls? Canned food? Bottled water? Levies that don’t break? Buildings that resist earthquakes? Did he make -soap-?
When he came to earth as Jesus, why didn’t he mention soap? Think of the lives that could’ve been saved, and the great advances in disease control if he’d just taught people to wash their hands before they eat. He’s -God-, he could’ve dropped some real knowledge on us, but instead he chose to perform a few small-time miracles and then sacrifice himself to himself to force himself to change his own mind about something that he himself forced on everyone else because two naked people ate a fruit that he knew they were going to eat in the first place?
Somehow, this clip seems relevant…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0yQunhOaU0
cut me a piece!!! hehe
Yeah, well, until you can produce incontrovertible, tangible, empirically verifiable evidence of the existence of your imaginary sky friend, I mentally file your ramblings under “religious delusions.” I couldn’t care less about how many businesses you own, or how many children you’ve produced–that in no way validates the veracity or verifiability of your claims.
I’m Zack, the one this post is written about.
I am being open minded here, I did not go on to this website wanting to believe that God does not exist, nor did I have the intention to go on and get a different outlook on what I believe.
If you can factually prove to me that there is a God, please do.
My email is xnarffx@gmail.com
Unfortunately, Zack, no one can prove or disprove God’s existence:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/
I find that a more helpful question becomes, “Why your religion and not the religion of another group or no religion at all?” Don’t believe the insistence that it’s not religion, it’s a relationship, because that’s bull. Anything relating directly to God is religion:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/
Best of luck!
The best we can do is point out how the Bible is incorrect or contradictory. The Bible exists as the only “proof” that God is real, so if we keep debunking that, eventually it’ll become a ridiculous belief like the tooth fairy.
Using the Bible as proof of God is like using a pile of crap in the woods as proof that unicorns are real.
Sock….so if we keep debunking that, eventually it’ll become a ridiculous belief like the tooth fairy.
Oh, so its a master plan between all the unbelievers to turn everyone away from the Creator who created them…..genius!
I think Zach is the most level headed person here.
Yeah. And I’m one of the few High Ranking Atheists in this movement, privy to the Master Plan.
Also, atheists? We’re specifically trying to turn people to Satan. Of COURSE there’s a God, I mean duh. You can open your eyes, right? What more proof do you need!
You’ve seen through our clever guise, Wade. But I don’t think you know that we also opporate as Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, Dolphins, and Martians, so we can keep the Master Plan going through those outlets, too!
I agree. If there are no christians you cannot proof the bible is incorrect or contradictory.
Rfer below…
Refer below.
not true.
If you think you have a proof that will overturn centuries of logic and philosophy, kindly show us. That ought to be enough to earn you a few hundred thousand dollars as an advance on a book deal and a person appearance on Glenn Beck and countless other talk shows. Or, you are just talking out of your ass and will never back up anything. What seems more realistic? You proved the existence of god, and never got a chance to appear on television explaining this astonishing proof.. or you are some dumbass who hopes nobody calls him on his lies?
By the way Dwade, your monster truck flying over protesters story.. please link us to the newspaper article where that was reported. Surely those protesters mentioned it to a reporter! Maybe a television crew? That kind of story is a huge draw for local television stations and newspapers, so I am certain that if it happend (I think you are a liar and it didn’t happen at all) then it would be reported and you could give us that link. The driver of the monster truck would have been arrested. Do you have the police report and any other links to this bullshit story of yours?
You are a liar, dwade. A ridiculously out of touch liar, if you expect people to believe in flying monster trucks and withered arms regrowing. When people challenge you on these things you do not respond. You lack the guts to even defend your own lies!
This is quite nice, from my perspective. Your kind of lies help to deconvert believers.
Zack one of the test I conduct when someone claims proof of god is to see if it could also prove that other gods are the true ones also. Anytime evidence is given that can also prove another god is real then it isn’t real proof of anything. All I can say is question every thing you are told and decide for yourself what is best for you.
You forgot to add that to see the evidence of gods existence you need to beleive god exists in the first place. Makes it all rather pointless doesn’t it?
no it’s rather revealing
So to believe the evidence you need to believe in what the evidence is showing first. This makes the evidence pointless i.e. you’ve already decided the answer so why bother with the evidence? It only reveals how religions all pedal the same lies — just open your eyes and see the glory of X, Y or Z.
“I can prove he exsits.” — Really? Well get on the dog and bone to the Pope as you’re just about to become a very famous person. Oh and while you at it do you mind sharing some of the insight you have that so many people have missed.
… bugger, that was to dwade.
I can prove He exists. You will just need to come hang out with me for a couple weeks, words cannot describe. Seriously.
Ohhhhh– so all the other hundreds of Christians I know don’t have answers, but YOU do?
You mean the Christian professor of religious studies who I met with regularly for a year couldn’t give me answers, but YOU can?
You mean that all the years I attended Bible study and hashed over the scriptures only to have ever increasing questions but no answers can simply be solved in a few weeks by YOU?
REALLY?????
well yes. nobody special just an ordinary guy under an extraordinary God.
Somehow, I get the feeling that me hanging out with you for a few weeks would go badly for you…. my constant questions, my demand for claims that are backed by evidence, my refusal to believe just cause someone says so… Then, after I talked you through my journey to skepticism, I have a feeling you might start going that way too… I’d start by debunking your claims on the Bible’s inerrancy…
You are just another liar. You claim to have proof, but when challenged that ‘proof’ becomes ‘words cannot describe.’ You are a liar, you show yourself to be deceitful in the way you speak here. Your kind helps to deconvert a great many people. The more intellectually honest believers out there see your lies and trickery and start to wonder.
Thanks for participating. You provide a great deal of assistance in deconverting your fellows.
I thought it is by invoking the name of Jesus, I need to study the bible again.
Zach,
If you are referencing this site to discover whether God exists, you will come up short with answers. Most of the bloggers on this site, have already turned away from God.
It’s not necessary to me that Zach decide to be an atheist, but exposing his mind to atheistic thought should not be considered harmful in his journey. We’re just people who know or think there’s no god, nor possibility and/or probability, nor evidence of god. Looking for god or no god among only theists (or even narrower, limiting his exposure to his church) isn’t likely to get Zach as far as thinking about it from all angles, and he might decide to stay right where he is after he checks himself out.
I haven’t seen a lot of atheists on this blog who think much like I do, but it’s useful to have conversations in which I check myself out, not attempting to join or refusing to join people in common perspective. I think for myself and avoid being sucked into anything I think is dogmatic. I think, is this new to me, and do I agree, do all atheists agree, must I agree, does it even matter? Maybe I change my own ideas given more to think about than I had been, or ask myself why I always think like I do, and is it something I should change. Atheism = there is no god. But I don’t adhere to statements just because an atheist said it and another atheist agreed. Neither do I want to stay the same just because I’ve always been that way without examining my true responses to hard questions.
Zach should do the same and conclude what’s right for himself. You’re doing that dwade, you’re not changing your beliefs because of what a lot of atheists have to say, so you shouldn’t worry about Zach being able to make up his own mind, for if he listens to only his church and internalizes what they teach without examination, he won’t be in any position to know or believe what he comes to believe is true.
Exactly, the church should teach according the directives of the bible: we should test the spirits to see if they are from God
Isn’t there a simpler way? Give them a few years education in Christianity, and then have them drink a flask of poison. True christians are immune to poison according to the bible, right?
“Most of the bloggers on this site, have already turned away from God.”
And likewise, you have turned away from Krishna and Shiva and Vishnu.
Am I the only one who finds it absolutely meaningless when people invoke deities that I don’t believe exist?
Zach,
Think about this. God, who created you and everyone on this blog, wants you to know Him. He sent His Son so you could know Him. Some reject the Son, others accept the Son. Those that reject the Son are blinded spiritually, those that accept the Son have their eyes opened.
The rock that offends…There are many skeptics out there bashing God’s word. And, in an attempt to engage in healthy debate with these folks over the last several weeks I have come to an understanding that they are “offended” by God’s Word, this I think explains the reason for their frustration:
“Give glory to the Lord your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.” (Jeremiah 13:16)
The figurative representations of Christ as the foundation rock of the great spiritual house of God (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6) and also as the water-yielding rock of sustenance in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4) are two of the great symbols of the Bible.
But for those who reject Him, He becomes “a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense. . . . And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken” (Isaiah 8:14-15).
http://dougwadedesign.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/the-rock-that-offends/
If you think basing arguments off quoting bible verses and assuming the stories are true, with convince anyone that doesn’t already believe, then you aren’t delusional, your just slow.
I should probably use the right for of your/you’re when insulting someone’s intelligence.
You’re just slow
and shouldn’t have a will/with typo
reply FAIL
You got a ‘for’ instead of ‘form’ … :-)
I am just full of fail today
It’s ok… could happen to anybody!!! Happens to me all the time!
Therefore, God exists! ;-)
“Think about this”
This is what is all about. Be careful.
“The rock that offends…There are many skeptics out there bashing God’s word. And, in an attempt to engage in healthy debate with these folks over the last several weeks I have come to an understanding that they are “offended” by God’s Word, this I think explains the reason for their frustration:”
Not offended by god’s words – not bashing god’s word. Pretty much just poking holes in these words, due to the fact that they are just people’s words, ridiculous people’s words.
Ahh but Kodie, they “appear” to be merely “ridiculous people’s words” because you attempt to deduce their true meaning thru the lens of mere reason. While the faculties of reason are adequate for certain things (of this physical realm), ie driving, balancing your checkbook, etc reason is quite incapable of comprehending things of a higher, spiritual nature, therefor they “appear” to be foolsih words. But we are warned “not to judge by mere appearance” for we can’t (fully) trust what our (natural) eyes tell us, this life has an element of illusion to it (ex: the matrix movie) the secular prphet speaks loudly, its like this:
Upon the plane of the mystical, reason no longer possesses that strength and power, which it has within philosophy, for then it is upon a trans-rational plane. A man, caught up into the mystical plane, into a mystic contemplation, then “becomes bereft of the reliance upon reason”, he surmounts reason.
Does reason become altered or otherwise enlightened by revelation in what has been received upon the mystical plane?
There IS more than meets the (natural) eye….all the best.
I perceived that you are getting closer to becoming a millionaire for God will transfer the richess of the unrighteous to the righteous.
.
It’s a fairy tale.
Yes, and the fairy tales are trying hard (if we will only listen) to tell us something, ancient truth, a once upon a time, a villian who spoils everything (that’s the part we’re in now) and a happily ever after.
Can you hear it?
Why didn’t God just chop Satan apart like the Big Bad Wolf? Why let him torment us?
I think the Fairy Tales are trying to tell us that either the Bible is incoherent or Yahweh is incompetent.
Fairy tales don’t try anything. Humans have a great capacity for buying hype. If someone makes hype, then other people are likely listening and making a big deal out of nothing. If you turn off the Christianity-talk for a second and observe the news on TV, you will see a venue for making big deals out of nothing, using attractive people who have practiced making their voice compelling. Seriously, close your eyes, and listen, it’s like they are singing the news song, and they want you to tap your toe and glaze over. Now you’ve got the watchers making a big deal out of nothing and talking about it – news generating topics of conversation and even futile debates. Was the news untrue? It is usually true enough. Was it important enough to be reported? Well, for the advertisers, they’re going to call for you to come up with enough news to fill an hour. This means leading the public to be interested in consuming these potato chips. I mean news. When the bag is empty, they need more tomorrow. They need to worry about something, and they need the news to tell them how much worry to expend. A car crash in the suburbs, don’t care. I don’t know those people, is traffic affected, but more importantly will my own commute be affected? And still, it’s car crash – Oh my, I hope nobody was seriously injured! (While in another market, car crashes, not reported locally, it’s a great day, right?) A correspondent on location, to say a few words of something that happened there 3 days ago. The outpouring of community is evident by this makeshift shrine of candles and teddy bears, let’s keep bumping “one shaken neighborhood” to the top of the hour for a week. The economy, worry more than necessary and react accordingly = tune in every day until they tell you it’s not getting worse anymore. Something uplifting, like a fireman saving a puppy. Anchor chitchat. A commercial for shampoo, a local retirement community, and some microwaveable slop that’s supposed to pass for a family dinner. Celebrity gossip. Sports, weather, and if they feel like dedicating a slot to it, an editorial piece. Don’t forget to friend them on facebook, and go to their website to participate in a poll (that doesn’t affect anything). It’s compelling and addictive. craiglist killers, swine flus, the kind of stuff people get worked up over, so they can consume more, fear more, be manipulated into concern. I used to work on campus with the actual craigslist killer, although not in the same department. OMG, supernatural creepy feeling.
This is how I feel about the Jesus story. It kind of snowballed out of a misunderstanding, an embellished news piece, a kind of crazy guy who thought he was Jesus, and a lot of reporting that gets more and more fantastic with the retelling. That isn’t trying to tell me some obscure ancient truth, it’s just not under there. If it was important and true, nobody would need to make it sound a lot weirder than it already was. Seriously – a god who depends on people to report him accurately is quite obviously imperfect. So, like, one day god was still mad, and instead of getting unmad, he sent a dude down to martyr, and after that, it’s a rumor. RIGHT? God’s not mad at us anymore! We’re all going to heaven! And unicorns are real, and I have a giraffe in my closet. I didn’t see the giraffe, but my dog told me. If you can’t believe a dog, I’m going to keep telling you it’s true until you believe it.
The real money is in ad sales.
Yes, we are all “grown up” which is exactly what Christ said would keep us out of, from seeing this kingdom come in the here and now.
John C,
If this life has an element of illusion to it, then who’s idea is that? Do you think your god is *trying* to be deliberatively deceptive?
“Upon the plane of the mystical, reason no longer possesses that strength and power, which it has within philosophy, for then it is upon a trans-rational plane. A man, caught up into the mystical plane, into a mystic contemplation, then “becomes bereft of the reliance upon reason”, he surmounts reason.”
If you are willing to accept a trans-rational plane, then aren’t you willing to accept a trans-rational plane for *anything*? What prevents you from accepting Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism as remnants of “the mystical plane”, “a mystic contemplation”, which “surmount reason”? Are you going to believe *everything*? That’s exactly what “trans-rational” means, doesn’t it? Yes, on the plane of the mystical, the rational does not possess strength and power. And that is a really bad thing, not something to be desired! Poor quality intuition and misguided emotion can seize us on the plane of the mystical, for by removing the rational, you have removed the rudder by which we navigate our existence. You have removed part of what makes us fundamentally human. By transcending the rational, you have transcended an essential element of your capacity to fully understand the human condition.
Doesn’t it seem as if rational explanations serve us better than non-rational explanations, and if we have been endowed with rational minds, then shouldn’t it be seen as fitting to actually *use* them?
Yes, yes by all means. The problem comes when we make reason/rationale a “God” exalting it (what we see, know, believe) above the ultimate…Truth.
I know this will come as a shock to you but I employ my faculty of reason every single day! ha. I use reason at the traffic lights, balancing my checkbook, etc. But if I try and use it as a means/lens into which I perceive the higher, spiritual things it falls woefully short, is inadequate. Its not a one faculty (reason in this case) fits all kind of life, although since we are so very comfortable with it we endeavor to employ its utility across all planes.
The complete man is a multi-dimensional creation employing all his God given attributes in their respective strengths and spaces.
John C,
You mention restrictive strengths and spaces. What are the restrictive strengths and spaces for religion?
“Religion” in its cultural context and meaning is all restrictive, lol. If the nature and desire its not within us, then its merely religious “duty” trying to live up to some high standard of endless rules, dogma, etc. Christ didint come to bring religion in that sense, but an entirely new nature, His within, hence we are “new creations” in Christ Jesus.
John C,
But what is a belief other than cultural context? How do you know that the “nature and desire” within you isn’t pointing to some other source other than Jesus, without the “dogma” of historic Christianity?
Because He’s the one whom I first believed, rec’d. His spirit, (the spirit of truth), His words, His promises, His people. I responded to and rec’d Christ, not another…there is no other.
John C,
“Because He’s the one whom I first believed, rec’d. His spirit, (the spirit of truth), His words, His promises, His people. I responded to and rec’d Christ, not another…there is no other.”
But *why* did you believe in *Jesus*? What if Allah was the first one you believed in? What if you received the truth of Buddha or Confucius first?
I cannot judge what you received and responded to — that is your personal narrative. I cannot know. However, I want to know if it is possible that you could have had similar experiences through other sources, and what the best explanation for those experiences may be.
No, I could not have had the same experience through any other. If I had “accepted”, received another, ie buddha, etc then in that case I would have merely received a belief system, a culture, a lifeless religious tradition etc, not a living Christ in the substance of spirit.
Its the indwelling Light of Christ Himself that redeems, makes one whole (as it was in the paradaisical, the pristine before the fall, prior to the entrance of death/sin). There is only one name in which man may be made whole, but that One desires that all men might be made whole.
That’s the cultural relationship between what you were told and what you like to believe. Or don’t you think everyone feels positively this way about their favorite religion?
Kodie…
My friend, you are still confusing the life that Christ offers with that dreaded, dead thing called…religion. Night and day difference.
As far as your earlier comments regarding fairy tales…yes, we are all “grown up” and that is exactly the thing that Jesus warned would keep us from knowing Him, from seeing this kingdom come in the here and now.
John C,
“in that case I would have merely received a belief system, a culture, a lifeless religious tradition etc, not a living Christ in the substance of spirit.”
People of diverse religious origins have strived to reach “the substance of spirit” for thousands of years. What makes your way better? Lots of other people who do not share your faith would agree that their approach to spirituality is more than “a belief system, a culture, a lifeless religious tradition”. My Muslim friend and my pagan friends would beg to differ. They assure me vociferously that their spirituality is genuine. For the sake of argument, my pagan friends could be said to closer to pure spirituality because they do not have any organized dogma, like Chrisitanity does. So you see, you are not alone.
Christ has no “organized dogma” Tele.
You will know them by their fruits over time.
And they shall be called….tree’s of righteousness (Is 61)
“Christ has no “organized dogma” Tele.
You will know them by their fruits over time.
And they shall be called….tree’s of righteousness (Is 61)”
I will know them by their fruits over time? Excellent. Now we’ve established a starting point. All of these months and we’re finally getting there now, haha?
So what are the fruits of the supposed followers of Jesus, John C? Organized dogma, just like every other group which has come together in the name of anyone.
Yes, I acknowledge the possibility that you have a personal relationship. But where is this facilitated? Why do you believe that you have a personal relationship? (For the purposes of this discussion, if you believe that you have a personal relationship, this is equivalent to you having one.)
You cited Isaiah in your response. Is that not an example of the product of organized dogma? Is that not part of the established, official history of your belief system?
John C, you inform me that you have no organized dogma and then you cite the product of organized dogma in your response. How do you think I should react? You tell me.
Um, no. You believe in Christ. Someone told you about that and you listened and thought it to be correct. I don’t care how much you’ve read or listened or adhere to or distance yourself from whatever you fancy to call dogma, it’s religion.
The only reason you would cite Isaiah as a product of organized dogma is if you had previously labeled him, or his inspired contribution as such, not because I ever said Isaiah was “dogma”. You assume because Isaiah is in the “bible” then his words, their true meaning must be “religious”, do you see this? This world predisposes us to these errant mindsets, hence we must be “renewed” in the spirit of our minds.
Of all the OT prophets, Isaiah was given some of the most beautiful words.
Kodie,
You currently see in one plane (the physical, fleshly) only and so to you, you can not yet comprehend of any other capacity from which man may “live” from.
I have no priest, no church (no physical bldg), hold to no denomination or sect, have no “human” leader. The true offer is one of a spiritual nature which is internal, religion is an oppressive, external behavior modification program but Christ offers an internal change of nature, His.
You only think you know about this Christ which you wrongly associate with this thing called “religion”. Truth is always liberating, immensely free’ing. Freedom from Self is the greatest emancipation a man may experience.
John C – you are currently living in your vivid imagination. Jesus did not appear to you on his own. He doesn’t work that hard. You heard the news, you read a book, and you want to live in the sky someday, so you digest what you like and you reject what you think is corrupted by men. It is a childlike fantasy, and I get that you like it that way, but Jesus doesn’t just emerge inside of people, he’s implanted from outside your head. It’s all from people, not just the parts where they gather in church and make rules. Whatever good feelings and peace and emancipation and whatnot is derived from your devotion to a fiction that you’ve deeply considered inside your head. I mean, think of all the people who don’t know about Jesus, don’t you think he’d care to show up and inform them of this great mystery you believe? No, people do his work, they “mission” so nobody can’t say they didn’t know.
That should say “so nobody can say they didn’t know. In other words, a good way to blame them from turning away from the “truth.”
Kodie…
Perhaps someone should tell you, I’m not your average run of the mill troll with a minor in Christianity, lol. You make assumptions about me and my experiences based on traditional, “religious” norms, but as you will soon come to know, I am anything but “normal”, lol. I am a quarter century into this “delusion” as you call it and it only gets better, brighter all the time.
All the best to you Kodie, all the very, very best.
There is more, there is a Life!
I’ve been an atheist longer than that. I’ve seen a number of your posts and wondered when I would have my say with you, now that’s done, I guess. I’m not trying to convince you, I am disagreeing with you, there’s a difference. I don’t think you’re a sad case, because you’re not sad. I don’t believe anything you have to say, but it’s not because I’ve turned away from god or “grown up” to set aside the fairy tale ending you are looking forward to. You did get your stories from somewhere and chose to attribute some feeling or clarity or imaginary vision on one god and not another, as if you had no choice in the matter, but you really, really did have a choice. I know when you die, you won’t be able to tell the difference, when you’re not there and you’re nowhere, it won’t be possible for it to occur to you that you were wrong about that. Anyway, I hope you are enjoying your life and that your stories serve you well while you’re waiting.
Kodie,
Thank you for your kind words, I very much appreciate and value your life expression. Please understand, I am not merely waiting “until I die”, this kingdom, this Christ is a present NOW reality. The eternal (not subject to death and decay) life is a quality of life, not simply the “after-life”.
We are implored to “awaken” but few have any interest past the nominal, daily cares of this world. If you truly knew the story, the adventure, the wonder that we are invited into, you would “see”. The way to this “seeing” is to divorce from our minds (its hard I know) the traditional association we make of Christ, religion and the Institutional Church (IC). This is an important delineation if we are ever to start out on the (L)ight path.
Anyway…I appreciate you.
Thx, JC
“I know this will come as a shock to you but I employ my faculty of reason every single day! ha. I use reason at the traffic lights, balancing my checkbook, etc.”
I am actually shocked by your words.
Zach,
Think about this. Zeus, who created you and everyone on this blog, wants you to know Him. He sent lightning from the sky so you could know Him. Some don’t believe that the lightning is just a natural discharge of electricity, but the True Believers know that it is only by His will that lightning is made. Those that refuse this truth are destined to by struck by His lightning, but those who accept it will be shielded from His shocking wrath!
The rock that offends… there are many skeptics out there bashing Zeus’s word. And, in an attempt to engage in health debate with these folks over the last several weeks, I have come to an understanding that they are “offended” when Yahweh is compared to the one true God Zeus, which I think explains the reason for their frustration.
“Hansel and Gretel are the children of a poor woodcutter. Fearing starvation, the woodcutter’s wife (variably called the children’s mother or stepmother) convinces him to lead the children into the forest and abandon them there. Hansel and Gretel hear her plan and gather white pebbles from the front garden to leave themselves a trail home.” (Wikipedia Hansel + Gretel)
“Rumpelstiltskin in his rage drove his right foot so far into the ground that it sank in up to his waist; then in a passion he seized the left foot with both hands and then took his left foot and tore himself in two.”
(Wikipedia Rumpelstiltskin)
As you can see, anyone can say anything and then quote a story from a book of unsubstantiated fairy tales.
“Zach,
Think about this. Allah, who created you and everyone on this blog, wants you to know Him. He sent His Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) so you could know Him. Some reject the Prophet and his message, others accept the Prophet and the message of the Qur’an. Those that reject Allah are blinded spiritually, those that accept Him have their eyes opened.
The rock that offends…There are many skeptics out there bashing Allah’s word. And, in an attempt to engage in healthy debate with these folks over the last several weeks I have come to an understanding that they are “offended” by the Qur’an.”
Spiritual blindness is an easy charge to make casually, but an impossibly difficult one to demonstrate effectively. The imam who has dedicated his life to spiritual pursuit is blind according to the Christian blogger. The priest who has dedicated his life to spiritual pursuit is blind according to the Muslim columnist. Which one is blind here?
There are thousands of religions. Maybe there is something within us that is revealed by them. But to me, it is far more likely that this quality and capacity is human rather than divine. For if it is human, it seems likely that we would develop all of these faith traditions and belief systems independently, from the ground up. If religion were from a divine source, why would we have all of these conflicting traditions — especially if a monotheistic god, who wanted us to know her or him personally, was in charge of the universe?
Christianity is an awfully convoluted and unwieldy hypothesis.
Well put, and quite courteously.
Many have suggested things for Zach and others to read, most of them authored by atheists. I would like to suggest to everyone to examine the work of John Clayton. Mr. Clayton was an atheist in his youth and studied his way to Theism. He is a Christian but believes in evolution and an old earth. I find his work readable and understandable by the common person, even one as young as Zach. There are many informative articles on his website but here is an interesting article I just finished reading: http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/GodsRevelationInHisRocksAndInHisWord/GodsRevelationInHisRocksAndInHisWord.html
Enjoy!
Humanity forbid Zach should read anything by atheists! :rolls eyes:
Zach,
I grew up in a very conservative Christian home and was incredibly judgmental and close-minded. But I did begin to question some things about my faith when I was your age. Like many others here, I read and read and read and eventually realized that while we cannot prove that a higher being does not exist, we can rather easily disprove the existence of any specific god.
Read the Bible closely, read about science, read about other religions and come to your own conclusions. Take your time and be careful. The most difficult thing for me about becoming an atheist wasn’t realizing I’d been lied to, constructing a new worldview, or losing the certainty that faith provides – it was the loss of family and community. I have since rebuilt relationships with my siblings, who came to the same conclusions I did and found a new community, but until then, I was quite lonely.
While you may still lose some family or community, I think you will be better off than I was – you are already reaching out.
I wish you the very best!
Ever consider that perhaps its not so much that you were lied to concerning the reality of Christ, but rather the severe distortion or lens through which “religion” would have you to view this Christ?
Religion is a great deception, a hard rock from which to free oneself for sure but to toss out the baby with the bathwater, when draining the tub (of religious mindsets) only would suffice making clear the muddy waters once again?
Just wondering, JC
“Ever consider that perhaps its not so much that you were lied to concerning the reality of Christ, but rather the severe distortion or lens through which “religion” would have you to view this Christ?”
What are you accusing @sarcozona of when he was at that age? Rather, I can say the faculty of your reasoning suffer serious malfunction by your accusation of his mental faculty without any facts about him at that time.
“If I know your sect I anticipate your argument. I hear a preacher announce for his text and topic the expediency of one of the institutions of his church. Do I not know beforehand that not possibly can he say a new and spontaneous word? Do I not know that with all this ostentation of examining the grounds of the institution he will do no such thing? Do I not know that he is pledged to himself not to look but at one side, the permitted side, not as a man, but as a parish minister? He is a retained attorney, and these airs of the bench are the emptiest affectation. ”
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
If you want to challenge and explore beyond christianity, then don’t ask a christian! Don’t ask a youth pastor, darkmatter, or John C.
Ask someone who actually thinks, and also explores and challenges, and whose answers aren’t dead-certain and predictable.
The judge Emerson mentioned is seeking facts, and the retained attorneys are already pledged to one side and doing nothing but restating their own cases. Any appearance of seeking facts is a pretense, designed to get you to listen to their predictable arguments supporting only what they have decided to believe while closing their minds to anything that disagrees.
If you want to challenge and explore beyond christianity, then don’t ask a christian!
some forget that not all were born Christian, some of us received the knowledge later in life. I hope you are not implying that believers are stupid. I for one lived 25 years apart from Christ, and learned a lot.
Jury’s out on all believers, but from some of your postings earlier I had already concluded to myself that you are.
claidheamh mor,
Quote
“Jury’s out on all believers, but from some of your postings earlier I had already concluded to myself that you are.”
That is an arrogant and rude thing to write. It’s so unfortunate that you feel the need to try to make yourself larger by attempting to make someone else appear small. That backfired for you, by the way.
Now I’m going to have to declare dwade the winner, at least of this small side exchange. Oh, wait, that’s Daniel’s prerogative. Please go easy on the disparaging comments. . .seriously.
I wouldn’t call anyone a “winner”, necessarily, Jeff.
I believe that there are a lot of intelligent and thoughtful theists. Does that mean I agree with them? No, it doesn’t, and I don’t.
However, I agree with claidheamh mor’s point that if you ask a Christian about Christianity, you may get a somewhat biased perspective.
Of course, I would hope that everyone would be open-minded and willing to subject their perspectives to critical thinking; and I believe that many of the theists who have posted here have stated that they are willing to do this, so there are some Christians who agree that this is a worthwhile endeavour.
Those are the types of people I would talk to, and I would also speak with non-believers who are willing to engage with you and not merely dictate their beliefs to you.
People of whom the faith has, share the reasons for faith within them, absent expectation. It does not equate to vindication for my belief it is the spirit that moves into a persons heart and acquaints them with the love of God and the potential relationship Christ’s sacrifice provides.
Attesting that a believer study or research as a pretense to share prescribed doctrine seems potentially narrow minded. I would point towards Francis Collins as a prime example refuting your statement.
You said “If you want to challenge and explore beyond christianity”. I have to admit, I got a good chuckle from that one liner Claid, lol. You see this “christianity” as a finite religious system of sorts, not knowing the Christ of Christianity. There is nothing and no one beyond Him, for He is all in all. All beauty, majesty all glory, all. All will bow their knee, and not in contempt, but rather in praise.
All Things Were Made Through Him, and Without Him Was Not Anything Made That Was Made.
The great emancipation, the liberty, the joy in knowing the Truth…Himself!
Love to all, JC
“You see this “christianity” as a finite religious system of sorts, not knowing the Christ of Christianity.”
No, that’s what you think we think. You are casting aspersions without the knowing. Christianity is no system, although some Christians practice systematically within their beliefs, like you, for instance. Christianity is an infinite fountain of nonsensical claims.
“There is nothing and no one beyond Him, for He is all in all. All beauty, majesty all glory, all. All will bow their knee, and not in contempt, but rather in praise.”
You believe what you think, but that will not happen. I VOW IT! I heard it from…. somewhere…. a light was on…. it was a lamp, but ….. nevertheless.
All Things Were Made Through Him, and Without Him Was Not Anything Made That Was Made.
And There Was Toilet Paper, And It Was Good. Some Of It Was Scratchy, Actually, But You Don’t Have To Buy That Kind. And All Creatures Great And Small, Some Of Them Are Actually Not That Good, Like Mosquitoes. Looks Like God Messed Up On That One.
How do we ever know who won these things? Does Daniel declare a winner or do we all vote? How does this work exactly? If we’re voting put my vote down for John C.
Respectfully submitted.
Oh wait!! Can we vote for ourselves?!!
ATTENTION ALL BELIEVERS!!
I am being accused of “deconverting” you……
Have I shared anything in these posts, that have caused you to question your belief in God?
If your answer is yes, I apologize with my whole being. If not than thanks for your support!!
Somehow, I don’t understand this post, and feel that I am missing something here (at least more than usual).
this is in reference to many accusations that I am deconverting people, seems to be a popular response….
Attempting.
EOR, AOR, whatever your name is….
The incident cited (by eye-witness account happened in Northern Ohio in 1993. The only media present was a local news station. I reviewed their coverage of the event that following evening in my hotel room, and either they missed capturing the whole event, or they purposely edited that information out of the video clip, so not sure that I will be able to prove to you that miracles DO happen. Even if I did deliver video footage, I am sure you would work out a scientific explanation of the event, like the truck was moving at a rapid pace and managed to launch itself over the protesters by way of the height of the curb, or some “head in the sand” explanation. So I won’t spend my weekend looking for biased media evidence just to give you more ammo. The real issue comes down to belief or unbelief. This is a personal choice you will have to make. It’s interesting that those on this blog that do believe, see miracle, and those that don’t don’t.
Kind of like having a dark veil over your eyes. I am certainly glad that God lifted my veil. My advice to you, move towards the Light…..
If someone attempted to run over a child with a truck, there would be more evidence than a local TV crew may or may not have. A police report, for instance.
wasnt a child, they were protesters, and the protesters didnt file any charges
Police reports are filed whether or not charges are pressed.
Oh wait, you mean the police weren’t even called at all? Okay.
So one possible explanation is that the laws of physics were suspended — something that we have no reliable record of ever having occurred in all of history — and a conspiracy to cover it up; and another possible explanation is that it didn’t happen. Hm.
It’s illegal to block entrance to an abortion clinic.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/split/facestat.php
Since 1994. Not in 1993.
Aw damn.
its also illegal to run people over with your truck….
lol whose side are you on?
rodney,
I think there is more than 2 sides, so I’ll just say the side of truth and justice.
Figure of speech, was sort of referring to “your side” and “my side”, insinuating you’re arguing against yourself… care to address anything that isn’t almost completely beside the point?
I think it was real cool of god to lift that truck over your human blockade so they could get their abortion and not have to worry about any criminal charges.
A truck flies in front of many witnesses, and it doesn’t make CNN? It doesn’t make the cover of Time magazine? It doesn’t get the pope’s attention, or the any of the countless televangelists that could and would use something of that sort to raise millions of dollars?
Seriously, Dwade… keep telling those crazy stories. It really does help the more rational believer to see crazies like you tell those ridiculous lies. The more batshit insane you sound, the better.
We’ve already established that lying for Jesus is perfectly ok, Dwade is just uping the game.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/03/20/pastor-gets-caught-lying-for-jesus/
If you claim to have an eyewitness report of the sun rising, or maybe something even more unusual like an observant Jew eating pork, then readers would probably take your word for it. But you are claiming to have witnessed something that is impossible without magic, and I don’t believe in magic. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Flying cars were invented? I’ve been waiting for that since I was a small child.
“Even if I did deliver video footage, I am sure you would work out a scientific explanation of the event, like ….”
Yah Dwade I can see from your POV its much better to be thought that you are just a Miserable Fucking Liar.
Kodie,
another funny charge being brought against pro life activists is the reco law, which was designed to pass criminal charges against the mafia….that’s a hoot.
If by “being brought against” you mean “brought against 7 and 22 years ago”, and by “funny” you mean “irrelevant”…
Did some irrelevant research… should have been only “23 years ago”… it’s one suit, originally filed in 1986, second round in 2003, third round in 2006. The National Organization for Women (NOW) and other plaintiffs sought damages and injunctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). NOW alleged that Pro-Life Action Network (PLAN) and Operation Rescue were racketeering organizations. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously against NOW, citing that non-economic violence does not violate the RICO Act.
Funny! Wait…
It’s fashionable to deride the reliability of Wikipedia, but I find it’s a great source for quickly looking something up, make sure I’m not smoking crack, look at the cited sources if I want to be more certain of something. It’s a good habit to do a quick fact-check before you make assertions about things. We are living in the future, after all.
a charge dwade is so familiar with he spells it wrong.
Which 12 year old on you tube told you about that one?
Ok Dwade you can tell more of your stories I have my hip waders on.