A Guide for Doubting Theists
Shortly after I became a Christian, I saw a book about Jesus at the library. I couldn’t get enough of Jesus, so I brought it home and began reading. Excitement turned to horror as I realized it was arguing there was hardly any evidence that Jesus even lived, much less was a miracle-working god who rose from the dead. I was appalled. But I was also a little shaken. I never realized someone could question the existence of Jesus. Could my new found belief be wrong?
After much prayer and counsel, I decided to stop reading the book. I was convinced it was Satan trying to attack my faith, and I took that as evidence my beliefs were correct — if Satan was trying to convince me I was wrong, then I must be right!
I didn’t have any doubts about Jesus for another decade.
I was a fool.
Doubt Can Be Scary
Doubt can be frightening for a believer. It can be so frightening that some people suppress any doubt, no matter how much counter evidence they are presented with.
But you’re different, aren’t you? I know that because you’re reading this essay. You know you’ve been wrong in the past, and now you are beginning to question some things about your faith. You’re not as certain as you used to be.
Perhaps you’ve been scolded about your doubt. People of faith rarely look at doubt as an opportunity — instead, they see it as a danger. That’s why they talk about ”battling” doubt. They fear it. They tell you to pray to God and ask him to remove your doubts, to read your holy book until you believe it again, and to learn to doubt yourself instead of “God” (by which they mean whatever they teach about him).
Pullquote: Doubt shouldn’t be feared and battled. If we love truth, it should be embraced.
You’re not stupid. You realize that would be brainwashing yourself, just like people do in every other religion. What you want is evidence. And that it is lacking is causing you to doubt.
You are being given an opportunity that few believers get. You are actually searching for truth. While many say they are searching for truth, really they are searching for an experience, a community, and/or comfort. And that’s why you’re different — you want the truth, even if it’s not what you want to hear.
Doubt shouldn’t be feared and battled. If we love truth, it should be embraced. Here are 10 ways a truth-seeking theist can embrace doubt.
1) Accept that doubt can be good.
Doubt is not evil — it is a tool for discovering truth. That you are doubting is a good sign. It means you’re thinking critically and not simply accepting things because someone says so. As Peter Abelard said, “By doubting we come to questioning, and by questioning we come to truth.” If we love truth, we must embrace doubt.
The only reason to fear doubt is if you fear truth. Fundamentalists of all stripes fear doubt. Is this a coincidence?
2) Be open-minded.
You don’t want to defend faith — you want to believe whatever is true. Seek the truth, no matter where it leads you.
When people speak, listen. When others challenge your beliefs, consider they might be right. In other words, be humble. There’s no reason to think we’re right about everything, so why act that way?
3) Learn to love truth, not being right.
Truth is beautiful. Unfortunately, none of us possess the entirety of truth. That’s why we see arrogance as a vice — nobody likes a person who think they are always right. We all know people like this. Don’t love being right and telling others they are wrong — love seeking the truth. This requires humility and skepticism.
By doing these things, you’ll be well on your way to embracing and using doubt instead of fearing and repressing it.
4) Learn to ask and consider hard questions.
People of faith fear hard questions. That’s one of the worst things about faith.
Hard questions lead us closer to truth. It helps us break out of false paradigms and shows us inconsistency in our logic. Hard questions should be encouraged and embraced — not feared or condemned. If those around you don’t want to think through hard questions with you, perhaps that is a sign you’re asking the wrong people for answers.
5) Look for historical and/or experimental evidence for claims of your religion or philosophy.
Look especially for evidence for supernatural claims. If this evidence is not accepted by any scholars outside your religion, then chances are it’s not reputable. Now ask yourself if you would accept a different religion’s supernatural claims with this kind of evidence. Bonus points if you look into evidence for other popular religions.
6) Pray to your god for a week. Then choose another and try again.
You probably have some doubts about prayer. Fortunately, there is a way for you to know if your God answers prayers or not. Follow these directions:
- Pray to your god for a week. Make your requests specific and something that could only come about through supernatural intervention. I’m not talking about getting a front row parking spot, which happens to us all every now and then. I’m talking about regrowing limbs, people coming back from the dead, walking on water — things that are impossible on our own.
- Keep a record of all your requests and mark the ones that were answered (if any).
- Next week, pray just as fervently to a different god (like Baal or Zeus) and keep track of your requests.
- Then the week after, don’t pray at all — but still write down your requests.
Does prayer to your deity really work? The evidence (or lack there of) will be before you.
7) Read your holy book.
Yes, read your holy book, but also look at it from a viewpoint of an outsider. Then read up on the history of the book from secular scholars. Ask yourself if this book is really written by God, when history shows it to be written by mere men.
Have you read any other holy books? If not, now is the time to learn about them. Every religion has millions of followers who believe it is the only true religion, and that their holy book(s) are inspired by God. What makes yours any different?
8) Find other doubters.
When you start embracing doubt, you’ll discover many fairweather friends — they love and support you when you think like they do, but when you start questioning, they begin to back away. Forget these “friends.” Seek out those who are comfortable with doubt and view it as a friend instead of a foe.
If you can’t find any locally, there is a thriving community online. Participating in blogs, forums, and social networking can be helpful to doubters.
9) Read widely.
Pullquote: Read other subjects and expose yourself to different viewpoints. You can only be better for it.
There’s nothing like reading other perspectives to encourage doubt. That’s how I began having serious doubts about my Christian beliefs. First, I began questioning whether the Bible was accurate about the age of the earth. Then it was about if it was right about how animals was created. Then it was Adam and Even. Then Noah’s Ark. I kept going from there. But it all started out from reading outside my perspective.
Too often we only read from authors we already agree with. I remember once, when debating with some doorstep Mormons I asked, “Don’t you guys ever read outside your own religion?” Their reply was, “Why should we, when we know we have the truth, and others are still looking?”
Narrow reading will only confirm what you already believe. If we’re always right it wouldn’t be a problem. But who of us are right even 50% of the time? As Dale Carnegie said:
If you can be sure of being right only 55 percent of the time, you can go down to Wall Street and make a million dollars a day. If you can’t be sure of being right even 55 percent of the time, why should you tell other people they are wrong?
Reading people on our side is satisfying, but why not branch out a little? Read other subjects and expose yourself to different viewpoints. You can only be better for it.
10) Always ask yourself, “How do I know that?”
Pullquote: The more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary evidence there must be in order to believe it.
This is a powerful question because it gets at the root of belief. On matters of religion, you will probably find there is nothing to stand on but “faith.”
Here’s an example of how a thought conversation can go when asking yourself this question:
I believe Jesus was born of a virgin.
…Hang on a minute. That’s an impossible event. How do I know it really happened?Well, the Bible says so.
…That’s true. It does say Jesus was born of a virgin in the later gospel accounts, though not the earlier ones. How do I know the later accounts can be trusted about such an extraordinary claim — made almost a century after it was claimed to happen? Are there any contemporary witnesses? Is there any positive evidence for it?No, but it’s in the Bible, and God himself wrote it. That’s amazing evidence, isn’t it?
…Well, maybe. But how do I know God wrote it?Hmm. The Bible says God wrote it, but that’s what all holy books say. So that’s not a very good reason, is it?
…Afraid not.
Unless a belief has positive evidence, then it usually isn’t worth believing. And the more extraordinary a claim is, the more extraordinary evidence there must be in order to believe it. By asking “how do you know that?,” the burden of proof is put on the asserter.
When the answer comes down to “faith,” there’s a problem. Why put your faith in one belief over another? Based on faith alone, why believe in a god at all, much less a very specific version of him? What are the chances you are actually right about such a belief, especially since there is no evidence?
So doubt isn’t something to fear. It isn’t something to repress and fight against. It is something to be embraced. It is a powerful tool to find truth, and I hope you’ll use it.
Hear hear.
I once had a friend who told me that she was “all for the search for truth, because [she knew that it would] lead to Jesus”.
No search for truth is ever valid if you start with unshakable assumptions about where it will take you.
Well written, Daniel.
I have a friend who is starting to doubt and ask questions. I have asked him to examine not what he believes, but why he believes it. I think I’ll send him this essay.
Why does he doubt?
Does he really think that a man with a beard in the sky is can exist?
Does he also doubt that Santa Clause exist?
Olaf my friend, this distant “sky-God” concept is not at all what Christ taught (John Chapters 14 &17) that God lives up in the sky somewhere is not Christianity even though many supposed “believers” are still stuck in the God up there, us down here mentality.
At least now you know a little more about what you’re bashing…that you dont really know anything about…all the best.
Traditional Jews believed that God lived in the “3rd heaven”. Which could mean sky in some contexts. then God would visit them in the temple with his “shikina glory”. And if you wonder how they got this idea that God lives up there and we are down here comes from the fact that in Bible times people believed in a flat earth.
Gods of all people tend to live wherever humans can’t easily, or at all, get to. The highest mountains, deep underground, in the deep lake, on the bottom of the sea – or in the sky. Appropriate to its modern origin, I read that Mormonism places godheads all over extraterrestrial planets. It’s all a strategy of putting gods out of reach and into the gaps.
One hypothesis about the transcendent God of Abrahamic monotheism I’ve heard is that this type of god developed for geographical reasons, matching the desert environment with its wide sky and flowing winds.
According to the OT, God appears to originate from Mount Sinai, but he has also dwelt such places as Mt. Seir, Mt. Paran, and of course Mt. Zion. He sure liked to dwell on mountain tops.
Generally, he seems to have had a preference for living in the Edom area (the southern part of the Sinai peninsula). It’s interesting how he used to be associated with the local area (just like virtually every other deity was at the time) and then later he became omnipresent.
He also lived in the tabernacle. which was among the people, not above it.
Not above, but certainly not among, either. The tabernacle was zealously guarded by priests, and nobody but them had access to it. The same goes for the temple in Jerusalem. God has always been inaccessible even when he was supposedly quite close by, inside a tent or a building.
TRJ…
Where does God live? Hear Paul’s words in Athens. in Acts 17..Then Paul stood up at the Areopagus and said: You Athenians, I see that in every respect you are very religious.
For as I walked around looking carefully at your shrines, I even discovered an altar inscribed, ‘To an Unknown God.’ What therefore you unknowingly worship, I proclaim to you.
The God who made the world and all that is in it, the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands,
nor is he served by human hands because he needs anything. Rather it is he who gives to everyone life and breath and everything.
He made from one the whole human race to dwell on the entire surface of the earth, and he fixed the ordered seasons and the boundaries of their regions,
so that people might seek God, even perhaps grope for him and find him, though indeed he is not far from any one of us.
For ‘In him we live and move and have our being,’ as even some of your poets have said, ‘For we too are his offspring.’
“… the Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in sanctuaries made by human hands”.
Never the less, he dwelt in the man-made tabernacle during the exodus from Egypt.
Also, he was often said to come from somewhere, indicating that he wasn’t omnipresent and that he was connected to certain geographical locations (see Deut 33:2, Judg 5:4-5, Hab 3:3, Ps 86:8-9).
Later he apparently decided to become omnipresent and exclusively spiritual, which is our perception of him today.
TRJ…
The point is He dwells in man(kind). But this is a progressive revelation as we move from darkness to light (He dwells in unnaproachable light) and discard our “God either doesnt exist or is distant and unconcerned with me” mindset. For we are the temple. All the best.
“The point is He dwells in man(kind).”
I’d say that’s the NT interpretation, whereas OT God was usually considered a physical being, separate from humans in his detached state of holiness.
I find it interesting how much he appears to have changed through the centuries, for an unchanging God. He used to be a very material god, who lived in specific places. He would take a stroll through the Garden of Eden, move around by riding on clouds or cherubs, have face-to-face conversations with Moses, and he performed miracles with direct physical consequences (eg. turning rivers to blood). He would not show himself – not because he was invisible or incorporeal, but because no human could not see him and live. He had to hide himself inside clouds to be near humans, so obviously he was perfectly material.
Nowadays, God is entirely immaterial. At most he manifests himself in tiny crackers and wine, but then still in some undefinable immaterial way. He no longer savors or accepts burnt offerings, although he used to be very insistent on those. He no longer cares for painstakingly detailed rituals and ceremonies. He no longer issues decrees left and right on the penalty of death. He never announces his divine will to the people, which he used to do all the time in excruciating details. He no longer performs miracles that are tangible enough to be empirically measurable. He is now considered to be omnipresent (although in fact neither OT or NT specifically say this anywhere). He has become abstract and insubstantial compared to his old self.
You can interpret this any way you like (I know you will), but to me such fundamental differences suggest that the Bible’s various depictions of God are largely a result of human invention and – not least – obvious clerical interests.
John C – what about the ascension of Jesus? Didn’t he ascend up?
L. Jerome…
Yes, He did ascend but “up” represents the spiritual/heavenly realm which is above, superior to the lower “earthly” realm wherein man is positioned. Remember the Lord’s prayer? May it be on earth (our realm, our physical bodies) as it is in Heaven (the spiritual, true realm) where He abides Christ being the intersection of the two. Man is a dual realm (heavenly & earthly) being.
But how? When Christ told the people the kingdom of God was here they looked around and said where? We dont see it, show us. Jesus replied…the kingdom of God (the heavenly, spiritual realm) is not visible for it is…within you. There is more to man than meets the (natural) eye, its just that we have lost our sensitivity to the spiritual aspect of our being (soul/spirit). His offer is that we would live from that highest form of life within us (our inner spirit man) in the same way the Jesus lived from His Father’s life in Him while here in the earth.
So we hear Paul declaring (by unction of the Holy Spirit within) these truth’s…our bodies are the temples of the Holy Spirit and that the mystery of all time (of the ages, aeon’s) is Christ In us. Every man (and woman) is a miniature kingdom in which Christ would rule and reign if He were invited to. The result is tremendous peace, liberty, life. It’s not about religion and rules, but about a new nature, His within us, in our inner man, that Light which “lighteth” every man. All the best.
JC – on the topic of ascension… no doubt you’ve read about Paul’s famous claim to have ascended as far as the third heaven? There are seven heavens linked to the seven heavenly bodies- the five visible planets and the moon and sun. Paul was actually a pagan mystic who clearly did not believe in a historical Jesus. What do you think he means when he says “I long to see you, so that I may share with you a certain Pneumatic charisma”? As you he is also extremely disparaging of the externals of religion- ceremonies, holy days, rules, and regulations. You remind me a lot of Paul, especially considering he said this: “The secret is this: Christ in you!”
Vid…
Yes, Paul went there (the third heaven) while his feet were firmly on the ground. We tend to think of heaven as some wishful, far away geography, and I do believe in an eternal, heavenly state but heaven (spiritual realm of authority, dominion) has been placed within man’s construct, this is a mystery. I have had some very mystical, penetrating, deep spiritual experiences but they have always coincided with love for Christ, abiding in truth, following His invitation to “go deeper” into the spirit realm.
As for Paul being a “pagan mystic” who denied the historical Christ, I can’t fully agree with you there my friend. Paul was an InChristed apostle who heralded forward a word of revelation about the risen Christ now indwelling man, an exchanged life if you will. True, Paul had little patience with those who insisted on endless rules and rituals, the old law, etc. All the best.
JC I have no doubt you had some deep spiritual feelings. There were countless before you that had the same exact feelings for the dying and resarecting god man Mithras or Attis or Dionysus. Substitute the word Christ for any other ancient god and I’m sure the people that worshiped them had the same feelings you do now for Christ. Do you think your spirituality only came about to humans after the story of Christ appeared? No. The Christ story is just one of many before it, designed to inspire you into your deeper spirituality.
As far as Paul saying God made everything “so that people might seek God” see step 10 above. How does he know? Think about that. Is he not just another fallible human being like you and me? And yet he knows the mind of God? Surely an all powerful being would require no one to seek him and would derive nothing from it. If God wanted seeking he could create it in unlimited quantities. We, in our arrogance, are not required.
Vidlord…
Here’s the distinction, secret if you will to Paul’s life and “ministry”. It’s found in one of his earliest books, Galatians 2.20…”I” (his former self, identity, who he thought he was) has been crucified with Christ so that now it is no longer “I” who lives (who is doing the living) but Christ in me”.
This pre-empting is a wholly different concept (truth) from that of any other “deity”, who would demand worship, allegiance, fear, etc. The gospel is misunderstood by the masses, as they say partial/incomplete truth’s like “Jesus died for you” which is true but incomplete. All the best.
Sounds a lot like a metaphor.
Paul was actually a pagan mystic who clearly did not believe in a historical Jesus
Then why did he tell the Galatian church about meeting “the Lord’s brother”?
Galatians 1:18-19:
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter[a] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.
brgulker: ” Then why did he tell the Galatian church about meeting “the Lord’s brother”?”
That was clearly a figure of speech since Jesus did not have a brother.
Rofl!
evidence vidlord?
You know what happens when we die, we go to a place, it’s dark and you don’t know anything is going on, and you have left your troubles to someone else forever. It sounds peaceful. The promise that god makes is that death doesn’t suck as much as you think it sounds compared to the fantastic golden ice cream parlor version of light and love. Love now, you’ll be dead someday.
First off, no one knows “for sure” what happens when they die. That’s how aaaall this crap got started. People fearful of death and the assumption by arrogance that this can’t be “the end”. So when you say “the promise that god makes”, it’s not god making that promise, it’s man. Man who constructed the idea in his mind that we go to a better place when this is over because he cant take the thought of a straightforward end to life. There is nothing to logically suggest that anything happens to us (our thoughts, “spirit/soul”) once we die.
I did also mean to add that this:
“Love now, you’ll be dead someday.”
Absolutely DOES make sense. As far as we know, we only get one run at this, so make it fun.
Oh, ok.
I highly recommend doing everything on this list except number 6. I’ll explain why in a minute.
In place of 6, I’d recommend talking to intelligent and well-spoken people who are aware of theological and religious issues (they could be theist or atheist, but I would attempt to get a balance.) If you can’t find any, then numbers 8 and 9 are the nearest substitutes, but talking to people in person has dramatic advantages for exploring personal doubts. Don’t be afraid to ask the hard questions of them, even as you ask hard questions of yourself.
I do recommend just about everything on this list, although as a considered theist I would love to remind people that there are highly intelligent and well formulated arguments both for and against religion as a way to live life.
At any rate, if you are still within a faith tradition and are beginning to explore its limits, or are searching for truth through doubt from a background of religion, I would not particularly recommend step number 6 for two reasons.
First, most religious traditions springing from Christianity (the ones with which I am most familiar) contain teaching against ‘testing God.’ Please note that this does not mean turning a blind eye to inconsistencies or ‘trouble spots’ in your religion. (Indeed, Paul encourages believers to ‘test their faith!’) Rather, ‘testing God’ is referring to a willful act that attempts to draw out a specific response from God by taking an action that God can not or should not ignore.
If you feel you are transitioning out of religion, and if a course of ‘scientific’ prayer seems helpful to you, then by all means try it. If, however, you are experiencing doubt from inside your religion, I would recommend not pursuing number 6, since it is not encouraged by most forms of Christianity (the notable exception being televangelist-style, gospel of prosperity Christianity.) Do remember that doubt is a factor in making most human decisions, and that many religions have an acceptable relationship with doubt.
The second reason I wouldn’t too strongly recommend 6 is that it is not the most scientific way to perform such a test. God(s) not answering prayer could be chalked up to all sorts of causes. Proving the non-existence of something is extremely difficult; the test outlined in 6 is purely anecdotal in nature, and is not capable of providing extensive evidence for or against the existence of God(s). If you would like to search for evidence for or against God(s), by all means do so! I would recommend, however, looking for evidence of God’s existence in not only your own prayer, but also in as many outside data sets as conveniently possible. If this means you conduct a survey, conduct away! If it means you ask friends, then ask away. You are going to want a large sample size.
With that said, if you are beginning or continuing a doubt-motivated search for truth, by all means do pray if you can bring yourself to.
wall of text… oh god!
This is a good article Daniel. Thanks! I really like it when you do these sorts of ‘outreach’ articles. Transitions can be rough, and I always appreciate those who are able to stop and help people disoriented by rapid change.
Ah yes, it’s nice to see a believer who can consider the idea of disbelief without going berserk. :)
I didn’t like number 6, either.
Once said that… i remembered this:
“most religious traditions springing from Christianity contain teaching against ‘testing God.’”
yeah, how convenient…
And now for the scientific part:
1.- The test would be valid to prove that prayer doesn’t work, of course, not that God doesn’t exists. It will prove too that most branches of christianity -who state that it works- are lying.
2.- It would be valid on a statistical basis, just like when we test a new drug. We can’t state that homeopathy -or drinking water- doesn’t cure cancer, we can state that there is not any evidence of homeopathy curing cancer (indeed, we can’t state that santa doesn’t brings us gifts every christmas)
3.- …provided that you do that enough times with enough people, of course. Daniel, you know most people will forget that:
“Make your requests specific and something that could only come about through supernatural intervention”
Once said that… i remembered this:
“most religious traditions springing from Christianity contain teaching against ‘testing God.’”
yeah, how convenient…
I think a good definition of theology is to assume God exists while explaining why the world looks exactly the same as it would if he did not.
If there is a god, why would it be afraid of doubt?
If there is a god that created everything, shouldn’t the world look the same whether or not you acknowledge it?
Indeed.
If there is a little china pot orbitting the sun, the world would look the same, too.
I don’t know that anyone would think a little china pot had anything to do with any force capable of creating the universe.
Exactly. You missed the point entirely, so now people have to spell it out for you, for all the good it will do. It’s like explaining the punch line of a jokeor story.
I don’t know that the god of your particular mythology had anything to do with any force capable of creating the universe.
hey, I can’t believe that anyone could think that an old bearded man with preference for a shepherd’s nation had anything to do with any force capable of creating the universe, don’t belittle my believes in the China Pot Creator!
Haha! I was telling michael honza that he missed your point entirely.
I mean, look at his statement. It’s almost like saying, “Duhhh, ‘take my wife, please’ makes no sense”. Or like Borat saying “I don’t get it when you say something that’s not true, and then say ‘Not!’”. Or, “I don’t know how an untrue Scotsman has anything to do with people who aren’t true christians”.
It’s just too dense.
Do you really think anyone that can have a reasonable conversation believes that an old bearded man has anything to do with creating the universe?
Thanks for writing this. It’s worth quoting and remembering and thinking about.
I would add another one.
11) Consider the implications of your beliefs.
For example, if you believe God will help with your marriage or financial problems, or whatever other hardships you face, what does it say about him that millions of children die each year for lack of clean drinking water?
What does it say about God if he condemns to hell a person for believing in the religion in which they were raised?
It was questions like these that initiated my questioning and ultimate rejection of my religion.
Well, that, and I had a hard time understanding why God’s perfect Word would give me permission to beat my slave within an inch of his life.
I like point 5 a lot. You are so sure about your god as a muslim is. Both of you have a holy book and the same evidences. How can you be so sure about you going to heaven and him going to hell?
This is why former fundamentalists & evangelicals make the best atheists.
You’ve changed teams, but you’re still playing the same game.
@Michael,
Ummm, as painfully obvious as this is I couldn’t help but point out how dead wrong your observation is. This is by no means, “playing the same game” one approach is based on blind faith, while another is based on empirical, observable evidence. Period.
The approach is different , but it is still preaching a message of:
“I’ve got all the answers. Your questions aren’t even valid.”
I think the point of the article is to encourage the question, not to assert that questions up to this point have been invalid. If you ask these questions of yourself fand are honest about it and yet you come to the conclusion that your faith is still valid, then I don’t see the author making any claim about the validity of your conclusion. You’re simply encouraged to self-analyze.
Where do I say I have all the answers? The whole point is that we DON’T have all the answers, that’s why we should doubt.
Why would we need to have all the answers? Life would be oring if we did.
Why would I need to doubt if I do not have all the answers? What purpose is having doubt in this life except for living in fear? No need for doubt, if I meet a convincing god then I will surely accept it as being true.
Sorry, you don’t assume to have all the answers, only that certain answers are wrong.
I should have put that as, “Your answers are wrong. Your questions are not even valid.”
“Your answers are wrong. Your questions are not even valid.”
What?
Hey, no such thing as a dumb question!
“This is why former fundamentalists & evangelicals make the best atheists.
You’ve changed teams, but you’re still playing the same game.”
Explain please.
I was neither a fundamentalist nor an evangelical (raised a liberal presbyterian). Yet I make a pretty good atheist given my lack of belief in god and and all.
What does it mean to be the “best atheists?”
Well then you weren’t a very good liberal presbyterian.
By “best atheists” I mean someone who tows the company line, so to speak.
I can see this as a dramatic sort of effect – some people do substitute one for another. Just like alcoholics who substitute meetings for drinking. I know someone whose father who can’t travel anywhere for any short or long duration without finding a local meeting. So, yeah, people who have lived a life full of religious doctrine and belief can feel the need to place an emphasis in their lives on atheism once discovered. That doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing.
It is like this – some people take the subject as it is interesting and study it, provide means for others to gain the same information. Some consider that they are atheists but don’t subject their lives to be consumed by it as it’s an interesting world and there are interesting topics of study or fanatic hobbyism or casual, casual everything. Religion does play a very big role in some people’s lives – just like any area of interest may, and because someone is interested in those types of questions and answers, atheistic thought is naturally of more prominent interest to them. That doesn’t make them “best atheists” or towing “the company line,” though.
There is no company, Daniel isn’t my boss, he doesn’t speak for me, but I respect his views and that he openly shares them, and I agree most of the time. I was an atheist before he was, I didn’t take the same path as he did. He traveled to a rational way of thinking and speaks for that journey. We’re not on a team. It’s a topic of conversation because some people wonder and want to explore, feel that faith in god may be groundless and need to really dig, and some people don’t think about what they wonder, they just believe what someone tells them.
When you are watching a movie or reading a story, you might have to suspend disbelief. For some, it’s easier than others. For some, they are triggered by an event in the story presented to them (which they were willing to temporarily interpret as true) that slaps them in the face as ridiculous, and the whole story just falls apart, becomes a house of cards to you, completely phony and not a work of some drama and substance and possibly art while you suspended disbelief. Religion to atheism works the same way.
“Well then you weren’t a very good liberal presbyterian.”
Huh? Are you saying this because I turned away from faith, or are you trying to make some kind of point that I was actually fundamentalist?
FWIW – I tried very hard to be a good presbyterian – to have faith – I just couldn’t get past the complete lack of evidence for what I was being told was “true.”
“By “best atheists” I mean someone who tows the company line, so to speak.”
What does this mean? What does it mean to tow the company line?
I am an atheist, and I have no idea what the “company line” is. I’m genuinely interested in what your take on this is.
Because you turned away from faith, that naturally makes you a bad liberal presbyterian. (a system based on faith)
There is a fairly small set of pat answers and assumptions that go with atheism, at least the brand of it being sold here. This is the company line.
Why don’t you just tell us what they are so we all know.
“There is a fairly small set of pat answers and assumptions that go with atheism, at least the brand of it being sold here. This is the company line.”
And those are?
Daniel has a reading list here.
Did you even check it out, or is your next post going to be “Daniel has submissions here”
Not exactly a command or requirement to read the texts and parrot the themes in them.
I’ve read just 3 things on the list, one of the blogs, a book that I read long before I read this site (and very likely before the site existed) and one of the video’s. I guess I’m a bad atheist. How am I suppose to toe the party line around here when I’ve made no effort to get through the “required reading”?
“Daniel has a reading list here.”
I was trying to engage and have a conversation, but you have made it pretty clear you don’t want to talk substance. Unfortunate.
The idea that a reading list constitute the “company line” is more than a little silly though.
For people that play chess in a serious manner, there are encyclopedias that list standard opening moves, standard response moves, etc. for many exchanges deep. Experienced players may be able to quickly go through the motions to get to a point of fresh play. A gifted novice may be able to reach conclusions for the best moves and do well without ever knowing of the existence of these encyclopedias.
I thank Daniel for creating this web site that essentially puts novices, grand masters, and everyone in between into the same room. Part of the difficulty is that with chess, there is an agreed upon set of rules that everyone ascribes to. Here there is no such standard. Every loud-mouthed, narrow-minded christian gets a shot just like every know-it-all, I’ve-been-set-free atheist. Each thinks they’ve got one of the most basic components of human existence figured out and if everyone else would just shut up and listen to them, all the problems of the world would be solved.
None of us are impartial, as much as we’d like to believe that we are. Each of us has gone through a particular set of circumstances and we have each reacted to the common elements of our lives in unique ways.
As much as Daniel calls himself an atheist, he will always be a former evangelical.
As much as I call myself a follower of Christ, I will always be a former agnostic.
Same for you and your former self.
My posts here concern how this thread fits in to the brand of beliefs that Daniel is selling.
I’ll talk any substance you want.
LOL, “No True Scottsman”
That’s nonsense!
Speaking of being too dense to comprehend “No True Scotsman”, there is
Yes, now I tell everyone they’re going to hell and will burn forever if they don’t think exactly like my atheist holy book. Great observation, MIchael!
No you just tell wrong they are if they haven’t reached your stage of enlightenment.
You are part of the priesthood of atheism.
“You’ve changed teams, but you’re still playing the same game.”
“priesthood of atheism”
Again that obsession to equal atheism and religion?
Daniel is as fervent an evangelist of this set of beliefs as he was of his former.
The parallels are plain.
There’s nothing wrong with the promotion of your beliefs.
I just find it ironic how opposite the viewpoint is, yet how similar the delivery and support systems are.
So it doesn’t matter what you’re saying, just the fervor with which you say it makes it one thing or another?
What you are saying and how you are saying it both matter.
Daniel’s enthusiasm appears to have been equal in very opposite directions. In both cases he has made choices, learned from others, adopted a set of beliefs, and set about to influence others.
Ah, by “ironic”, you meant “amusing”.
I think this is something more atheists should do. I have always admired Daniel’s understanding that community among atheists needs to be more emphasized, for example.
Yes, it opens atheism up to criticism that it is just as faith based as a religion, but it already undergoes that criticism. Religion is a dynamic social phenomenon, and I think it should be emulated more often.
“Priesthood of atheism”? Logic FAIL.
Try to be a bit open-minded and stretch your understanding.
Try showing how atheism could be considered a religion.
What a nutty troll. I can only assume he is not even close to a prime example of mental health.
Name calling. Brilliant.
“the same game”
All nonsense, as bad as name-calling. Or worse, since it is knee-jerk defense, the lack of the ability to think, doubt, question, and examine that Daniel was talking about, with nonsense statements thrown in. You haven’t even achieved the low standard of giving “pat answers” – at least pat answers are intelligible, with a logic (however circular-reasoning and internal) that can be challenged. Nonsense answers cannot be challenged.
Pot/Kettle/Black.
You have no understanding; you entirely miss the point of other people’s posts. You are one of the ones jumping in to defense, as expected, the antithesis of the questioner described in the article. . You’ve shown evidence of nothing, accomplished nothing. (At least nothing good or productive.)You have no capacity for open-mindedness, but tell others to live up to that standard, which you can’t even comprehend. You’ve just jumped in, and jumped in without even any coherent statements, to boot. If your motive was just to stir things up, that is all you have been capable of doing. If your motive was to say anything comprehensible, let alone persuasive, you have utterly failed to do so. That is pretty much the definition of “troll”. It fits your performance here.
Wrong again!
Not even close.
If you read the article, you must have been the perfect demonstration of “reading without comprehension”. Seeking facts, measuring, testing, questioning, examining, vs. “battling doubt”, “strengthening your faith”, twisting hard to explain something you believe instead of considering that the premise (your belief) is false to fact.
DUH!
Not sure why I’m explaining to someone who is utterly devoid and bereft of comprehension. You’d have to be, to make that statement. “Same game”, how idiotic.
My comprehension is fine.
Most of Daniel’s points of procedure, the shortcoming is his narrow view of the conclusions that must be reached.
Correction:
Most of Daniel’s points of procedure are fine, the shortcoming is his narrow view of the conclusions that must be reached.
Michael – you are really good at throwing out generalizations about atheism generally and Daniel in particular, but I’m noticing a certain lack of specifics backing up your generalizations.
Please explain the basis of your statement that Daniel is trying to reach a specific conclusion rather than evaluating evidence and analyzing what the the logical conclusion is?
Bill,
Daniel has said himself, at least at one point, that he is agnostic, choosing to live as an atheist. This is, if I recall, due to the nature of logic with its lack of disproof.
He is very open about his journey and shares a great deal about his process.
I share the invitation of this particular piece to those of faith experiencing doubt to explore those doubts to see where they go.
I do take exception to his some own assumptions and conclusions that color several of the items.
#4 It is an assumption when he writes, “People of faith fear hard questions.” This is in direct contradiction with his previous “Be open-minded.” from #1.
#6 The prayer experiment is a gross misunderstanding of what Christian prayer is about. Many Christians share this misunderstanding.
You are the antithesis of the questioning, open minded doubters addressed in the article. You are the negative example of what not to be: closed-minded, ASSumptive, making sweeping statements that are nothing but opinion, defending. defensive, defending, showing no reasoning, logic or evidence to back them up, failing to ask yourself “how do I know that?”, failing to answer anyone’s questions or challenges except with more opinions.
You’re ridiculous (worthy of ridicule) telling Daniel he’s narrow minded. You don’t get the article. You don’t get anything. You are incapable of thought or reason. You won’t even get this; all you do is defend and attack. And it’s with nonsense. People are pointing out the nonsense to you, and you fail to get it. You fail to get anything. You somehow fool yourself that you’re not a troll, yet you’ve said nothing of worth, proven nothing (except about yourself, and you don’t even see it), and accomplished nothing.
i take offense to this statement. i was raised as a conservative jew, and i’d say i make a damn fine atheist, one of the best around if i do say so myself.
Wow. That was very good.
Take Jeremy’s suggestion, consider the implications of your beliefs, even further. Do you really accept that people are born evil (the favorite platitude is “born in sin”)? Do you accept this premise of no worth, of needing saving and redeeming? Do you accept the violence, the threat of punishment forever, the misogyny? The beliefs designed to block you from questioning, such as God is all-powerful but won’t show any evidence of himself? A god that’s a “himself” at all (see misogyny above)?
“Battling” doubt. How eloquent. Whatever is real doesn’t go away when you stop believing in it. As if the truth couldn’t stand up under questioning. Whatever is real will keep right on going no matter how much you question; christianity doesn’t stand up to it.
A fundie on this site, alastair, said arguing with me strengthened his faith. I told him he would have to keep on
strengthening itpropping it up his whole life.Fundamentalism and the brand of atheism sold here are very similar in methodology except that they reach different conclusions from the same pile of information.
Quite a lot of people actually don’t escape supernatural beliefs. They may stop when they find what they’re looking for – it may strengthen their faith that they had originally or they will find a different form to worship that fills the bill, making a god they can believe in. Do you understand atheism is not the same thing at all? I don’t think you do.
“methodology”
What methodology?
Make up your own definitions.
Use scripture out of context.
Re-hash cliches.
Belittle others that don’t share your opinion.
All very broad generalizations, but common to atheism and religious fundamentalism.
The frustration each side feels is a mirror.
If you would just try (logic/my brand of faith)…
You just don’t understand (reason/god)…
I used to be a (xtian, atheist)…
You are a (mindless sheep/slave to logic)…
In the end you will (die/burn)…
You should (think/pray)…
I feel so much better now that I really understand…
*You* do.
That is all you make. Your statements are general opinions, you don’t apply rule #10, and when challenged, you use any trick, device and ploy to refuse and evade backing them up.
Your egregious mistaken assumption that christianity and atheism are alike overlooks their premises, the reasoning or search for evidence vs. forcing beliefs on faith, shows your total lack of comprehension. You only mistakenly think> you “comprehend fine”. Of course, you don’t back anything up.
That list of contrasts to show similarities is grade-school, basic surface stuff. You act like you didn’t even read the article. (Even if you say you did.) You call it ad hominem if someone else uses names (but not if you do), but you’re not sane. You’re not responding to any posters here with any reasoning statements or evidence, or any hint of actually doing the actions listed in the article; you’re only spouting more of the same. What do you think you’re trying to accomplish? You’ve accomplished nothing.
Nice article, Daniel.
I think you raise some very good points and deserve some props for doing so!
A couple points of minor criticism:
I think point 3 is phrased poorly in that I’m not sure the title reflects what you appear to be saying in the body.
Learn to love truth, not being right
The title seems to suggest that we should love truth (as some sort of abstract concept), but the body suggests that what we should really be after is the process of seeking truth.
Specifically,
none of us possess the entirety of truth [therefore] love seeking the truth
Truth as a concept is always going to remain abstract in some way, because you’ve defined it as something that can never fully be grasped. By contrast, we are capable of fully engaging in the process of seeking truth, which seems to be what you’re really after anyway (and I agree with you, btw). I’m not sure I have a better suggestion for how you could phrase it, but the title doesn’t seem to capture the process of seeking truth, which is where the real value is to be had.
Or maybe I’m misunderstanding you?
I agree with JonJon in that #6 seems to be the weakest, but for a different reason. If prayer is primarily about getting God to do something for you, then you’ve got a pretty good point. However, there’s a wealth of Christian tradition that would object to such a claim and respond by saying that prayer is primarily about the person doing the praying (e.g., Jesus in the Garden). Prayer is thus seen as a spiritual discipline that is primarily about shaping the believer, not getting God to do our bidding. I’m not sure #6 really says anything about that.
I also have a minor quibble with #8.
Forget these “friends.”
Sometimes those friends are family, and perhaps those families will in fact reject a person for her doubt. But, I would tread much more cautiously here. Don’t rush to dismiss people who don’t accept your doubt right away; after all, you were that person yourself at one point. I know from experience that professing doubt to those close to you can be downright painful, but if it’s done cautiously and sensitively, it can actually strengthen a relationship in the long run rather than terminate it.
Will some relationships end? Possibly and perhaps even probably. But it’s at least worth taking the time and effort to explore on a relationship-by-relationship basis.
Anyway, really good article overall. I really enjoy reading these posts from you, because they’re always very thoughtful and respectful. *thumbs up*
Yeah… I wonder how many people remain in the “skeptic closet” because they’re scared of actually showing doubt in front of family and friends they’re afraid of losing, especially if one lives in a highly religious environment.
I’d guess the person in question has to evaluate how relevant the doubt is in their daily life and how it’d affect those friendships and relationships.
I’d guess the person in question has to evaluate how relevant the doubt is in their daily life and how it’d affect those friendships and relationships.
And perhaps more importantly, how valuable those relationships are. You only get one family; is it worth alienating them over an ideological difference? The only person who can know for sure is the person in the situation.
I’d resist the notion that they should abandon those relationships simply because of their doubt quit strongly, actually.
I’d gone a long time being an atheist without really thinking about it. I got into a discussion elsewhere on the internet about whether god exists or not with someone who was religious (a Jew, but I don’t remember what kind) shortly before I started posting here – and I found this site by accident of finding another atheist/skeptic-type blog under search terms having nothing to do with religion or atheism. I guess it was on my mind to continue seeking my atheism in a more substantial way than I had, really think about it, so I found your blog of some interest obviously!
In my passive ways beforehand, I had considered types of god. I have never read the bible or any other texts, religious or atheist. I’m unfamiliar with most of the authors and speakers often mentioned. I did take a few courses in college, some years ago now, which occasionally brought up the subject of theories people have of god (but never atheism, now that I think about it) mostly in a philosophical or historical context. I had settled on the idea that if there was a god, he’d have to be the watchmaker kind who made everything and set it down and stepped away. I could see no intervention, even where other people claim there is intervention, or have been convinced of god due to their perception of it. You know I really despise these claims. But with the recent delving into “what do I really think” caused me to discard this as well because it’s ridiculous. It is perhaps most ridiculous that if there were a god, that’s what he would have done.
But is this process the wrong way? I mostly challenge and counter what I’m presented with what I perceive to be logical and critical thinking, which I obviously didn’t do in college. I watched the video someone posted a few days ago, Rev. Tom Honey about the nature of god. I am impressed by his thinking and seeking and then presenting his sermon on the nature of god, but I am mostly impressed by the logistical gymnastics he invents in order to preserve the existence of god. He says “perhaps” a lot toward the end, but the way in which he presents “a great idea” is very compelling. When you get a compelling argument like this, even if it’s wrong, it’s easy to fall into.
It is the same with Intelligent Design and other theories. If you are not critical, you can easily believe what someone presents to you as true if they have any skill in the area of presenting it. Most people aren’t looking for the true truth, and they think they can recognize it when they see it. There are flaws in every argument for god, but people aren’t always critical enough, especially if preserving the existence of god has been important to them. People who don’t really think whether there’s a god most of the time can be convinced due to mere coincidence that affects them just the right amount. I personally think evolution is presented fairly well enough for some people to believe in it, but I do hold out for the possibility of another scientific discovery which adjusts it some degree, solidifies its verity, or even upsets it altogether, should that ever happen. It’s the closest we seem to have to the truth right now, so I go along with it.
Since I’ve been an atheist my whole life, I’m unlikely to find any good enough reason to change my mind, no matter how it’s presented. The more I learn of people’s various beliefs in god, the less likely I am to find that in any way reasonable to do, which I think is good for me. A month or so ago (sometime since I started reading and posting to UF), I was short on cash, and I was walking home several miles at night instead of taking the bus. I out loud said, “God I pray to find $10 on the ground.” You know, it’s rare to find paper money on the ground, but it happens. I was really scared then that I might be due for such a coincidence. Just the kind of sign people really like to get – just as others reinvent a god that matches their own ideas and ideals in order to preserve his existence rather than let that go, I am very interested in preserving my firm atheism, and I knew it right then. I don’t think $10 would prove there is a god, but in the way some here would believe in god if there were proof, I would not be interested in that ever happening. I not only don’t believe in god, but I am like the scared theist – I don’t want to not believe there’s no god. I feel I’m in the right here, but so do theists. The more babble that’s presented to me, I don’t want any form of that to be true and proven.
So anyway, that was a pretty good article! I promised myself no more long posts, but I think I had to say what I had to say. This happens to atheists too, even ones with no religious upbringing to gnaw at them, maybe especially so.
I started to discover that there was a name for me called ateism when I started to hear about these silly things in the US that there were actually people out there that actually did not believe that Evolution was true. And once I heard that some people actually thought that Earth was only 6000 years old sounded really crazy!
Sadly enough those people really exists out there. I could understand that this Jezus was some historical figure that did some good. I als can understand that the ancient people created a bible with a mystial story just like the Greeks did with Zeus…I could also imagine that you could believe that there is something out there (in my case some advanced alien race that visited us once). But that people acually believe that all those stories are real??? Wierd people!
Great stuff this! I started doubting at about the age of 8 or 9. I knew my science and the bible didn’t jibe. My dad was an avowed Atheist who was always talking about the stupidity of religion. I tried really hard to believe again. I wanted to fit with my friends again. Didn’t work. I have gone around to other systems of belief, but find they are all about the same. I am an Agnostic now. I do love Theology though. The history of the bible from Q to NT. I adore when I can point out from fact that what a person thinks they ‘know’ is not really true at all. Doubt has lead me to a lovely understanding of things in general.
Why would the bible jibe with our understanding of science? The stories of faith that are the bible were written many centuries before our modern understanding of science.
Well, science didn’t change from then to now; our understanding of it did, but the facts remain the same. If the Bible was written by God, as many believe, why wouldn’t it jibe with science? He’d be the one who made the rules, after all. Surely he’d know about them…!
At best, if there is a god/creator/teapot, it inspired the bible, but it still took human hands to write it down.
Yes, but revelation implies direct input from god-mind to human-mind. Would the human truly challenge the divine and change what was passed? Was it some sort of “wireless” game (no idea how they call it over there, if it even exists at all; it’s a kiddy game where one kid gives a message to the next, and the next, and the next, and the final message has nothing to do with the first)?
I don’t mean the truly esoteric concepts of quantum physics or whatever; but at least get it right about rabbits and insects. Y’know, simple stuff.
That starts getting into supernatural stuff which doesn’t fly in reasoning.
I think what this article is about is finding reasonable explanations for things.
Reasonably all we can ascertain is that humans wrote the bible.
From there you can start looking at motivations, audience, and intentions but that’s all subjective.
Waitaminute, hardly enough evidence Jesus even lived?
Ahahahaha! So what?
I think he probably did, and christianity is still an unsupported non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that christianity is anything but an institutional load of horseshit even if Jesus did live. So what? What basis for your ASSumptions even so? So What?
Uh.. Read what I said, I was objecting to the conclusion that there wasn’t enough evidence that Jesus (the man) lived. So, no need to give more meaning than was implied, buddy boy.
Who concluded that?
The “Book about Jesus” that you read, Mr. Daniel.
Gotcha. Do you disagree though? I think it’s reasonable to think Jesus lived (I do), but there isn’t any eyewitness or early evidence.
but there isn’t any eyewitness or early evidence.
Well, that depends at least in part on how much credence you give to the schools of thought in support of documents like Q and the logia. True, we do not have those documents, but I think it’s reasonable to think that they existed and probably contained eye-witness content.
Q is just an idea — we just think it exists. Which is fine to speculate, but I wouldn’t base anything substantial on an idea that something might exist.
Still no eyewitness accounts or any contemporary evidence.
I think it’s reasonable to assume a teacher named Jesus existed, but it’s certainly not an airtight case.
There is a Light within every man, which if he would be drawn to It he would begin to truly see.
John you’re starting to talk in meaningless evangelistic riddles again.
When did he ever do otherwise?
Sometimes when the meds are working.
Drawn like a moth to a flame.
@John C: There is a Light within every man, which if he would be drawn to It he would begin to truly see.
@L. Jerome: Drawn like a moth to a flame.
Hypothesis: Moths are in John C’s head.
Haaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
Another troll!
Well Mr. Daniel, I do disagree that there is “little evidence”. Firstly, what kind of evidence would you want? Remember, the guy lived during 1st century Rome.
There is good ‘historical’ evidence that:
1. Jesus was an actual man that lived
2. He made outlandish claims (son of God, able to forgive sins.. etc)
3. He was purportedly able to heal the sick
4. He was crucified, buried by Joseph of Arimatheus (probably wrongly spelled)
5. Tomb was empty
6. early Christians believed he resurrected, and were willing to be tortured and killed for this belief.
Those are the historical information about Jesus that Historians will agree with – even the skeptics. You can agree with all of these without believing the other bogus supernatural claims. What do you think Daniel? Now unlike your first question to me on this thread, this isn’t a “Gotcha”.
lol there’s good historical evidence he was purportedly able to cure the sick.
Why include purportedly on that one and not the others? Or there’s records of him purportedly doing a lot of things. There are records of me purportedly being god.
Read what I said AGAIN. I wasn’t trying to prove that ‘Christianity’ is true, or that Jesus is the Son of God.
Is reading and comprehension a problem for you?
That post (above) was not meant for Joe B, but was a response to claidheamh mor’s response below.
1. So, what if Jesus was an actual man that lived? You’ve proved nothing.
2. What does it matter that one more person made outlandish claims? How does that support anything?
3. Being “purportedly” (1: to have the often specious appearance of being, intending, or claiming (something implied or inferred) – a book that purports to be an objective analysis – ; also : claim ) able to cure the sick means that someone else was making outlandish claims. How does that support any validity of christianity or anything else?
4. So what if an actual person was killed by the current method of capital punishment? How do any of your assumptions follow from that? How does that even remotely make christianity valid and not a non sequitur? (THis is something you don’t even come out and say, but merely ASSume that somehow Jesus being an actual person that lived makes christianity valid.)
5. You got any evidence the tomb was empty? Once you do, so what?
6. How is it relevant what early christians believed and were willing to do?
You’re clearly not one of the sincere questioners the article was all about. You don’t really belong: you are one of the knee-jerk “defenders” who are incapable of examining, questioning and learning.
Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning…………
I’m pretty sure micheal honza just changed his name to micheal.. Anyone else see this? Lol
claidheamh has said it, i only want to add:
1, 2 and 4. That can still be argued, but even if he existed, why should we believe him more than Joseph Smith? He also lived and made outlandish claims.
3.- “He was purportedly able to heal the sick” Excuse me?? The only “evidence” for that is in the bible, written many years ago by people who wasn’t there. Have we evidence that Prometheus stole the fire from the gods, and gave it to humanity?
5.- Tomb was empty. Was it? In wich document, prefereably written by someone not specially interested in it, have you seen it recorded? Would that mean that he resurrected, that he wasn’t killed, or that his body was left in another place?
Was an empty tomb found there? -Yeah, I know it sounds ridicule, as ridicule as saying that an old boat from the 1st century was automatically Peter’s boat
6.- “early Christians believed he resurrected, and were willing to be tortured and killed for this belief” Some muslims are willing to be killed for this belief, and that doesn’t make them right. Contemporary Jews -who were expecting the Messiah- didn’t believed it was Jesus, and they were suposedly seeing him around doing miracles. A lot of the “saw” him and a lot of death people walking on the streets, and no-one thought of writing it.
Joseph of Arimathea, isn’t it?
(Yes, I learned it via Monty Python.)
I meant that there were a bunch of people who believed that Jesus was able to heal the sick, I did not mean that Jesus in fact did heal the sick.
Sathya Sai Baba is said to be able to materialize stuff from thin air, does not mean that he actually is able to do so. That was the point.
yup, they are called christians :-)
Fact is, we can’t even know if there were people contemporary with Jesus who believed that, as all we have is a book written years after those “events”, by people who never meet him.
As far as we know, Jesus could be Paul’s invention; though I think he existed -a normal man- and his followers “improved” his history. Jesus may be the first hoax in history!
But, even if some people -contemporary with Jesus- believed that, that doesn’t means anything about his claims. There are yet people who believe crazy tales. Poltergheists, alien abductions, miraculous healings, prophet-cults, homeopathy…
“There is good ‘historical’ evidence that:
1. Jesus was an actual man that lived
2. He made outlandish claims (son of God, able to forgive sins.. etc)
3. He was purportedly able to heal the sick
4. He was crucified, buried by Joseph of Arimatheus (probably wrongly spelled)
5. Tomb was empty
6. early Christians believed he resurrected, and were willing to be tortured and killed for this belief.
Those are the historical information about Jesus that Historians will agree with – even the skeptics.”
Ummm – other than 6 – what is this “evidnce” you speak of on which “Historians” agree?
Well.. I can’t really cite them and explain each here. That would be tedious. But like any denizen of ancient history, writings about them, depending on the context ofcourse, would give a good account of the person being written about.
While I don’t think Wikipedia gives a really accurate account of anything, it does a pretty good job though most of the time, we have to admit.
This is what it says:
“Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a ‘thoroughly dead thesis’ ”
Ofcourse, cutting and pasting from wikipedia, I know, is a rather soft way of defending the historicity of Jesus.
“There is good ‘historical’ evidence that:”
Well, let’s consider the evidence we have. There are a number of problems.
1: The evidence we have, mostly the Gospels, are late creations a least a generation (30-40 yrs.) removed from the events they write about.
2. While we have multiple sources, they are not independent. Matthew & Luke are expansion of Mark. While they may be using other sources (the famous Q, plus M & L respectively), we don’t know when those sources date from, or if they were actually historical material.
3. The Gospels are religious works intending to make a point about the nature and message of Jesus. Recording actual historical events may be a secondary at best. This is most clear in John, which even the Church fathers declared to be historically false while spiritually true.
4. Jewish midrash allowed for “creative retellings” which were stories used to establish some religious point without being historically accurate. For example, the “slaughter of the innocents” from Matthew’s Gospel seems to be a retelling of a similar massacre that led to Moses being set adrift on the Nile. The author is probably trying to make the point that, typologically, Jesus is the new Moses. But if this is an ahistorical retelling, what else in the Gospels are similar retellings?
“Those are the historical information about Jesus that Historians will agree with – even the skeptics.”
Some historians yes, others no. For example, many of the scholars in the Jesus Seminar would not agree that Jesus made outlandish statements, as they believe that these were later additions to the Jesus tradition. Other historians believe that Joseph of Arimathea was a literary character and not an actual person, and that the empty tomb was a later addition to the crucifixion story.
I can agree with that. Many historians have different opinions etc. But, importantly, the consensus seems to be as follows:
“Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians. Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a ‘thoroughly dead thesis’ ”
Which again isn’t to imply that Jesus was the son of God and was born of a virgin etc. It simply means that there are certain things about Jesus’ life that historians can accept as having actually occurred.
I’m sorry, but I feel I always have to re-assert my position after having been continuously misunderstood by a certain dense character with the screen name claidheamh mor .
Yeah, I got it the first time.
DUH!
Again I say, “So What?”
I really don’t see the point in responding to you, with all your “DUH”s and “Hahaha”s
and Ad hominems like “another troll!” – which is obviously what you say to all the new people who show you how stupid your response was.
Good day.
You ASSumed I didn’t understand the first time and restated the obvious, and failed to answer the original question “So what?”
Then you again failed to answer the twice-asked question, “So what?”
You first avoided answering with a distraction and an assumption, then made excuses why you shouldn’t answer, evaded your responsibility in your excuses, and you still haven’t answered.
No, I’m avoiding answering your “so what” question because it has nothing to do with what I said. I’m not evading any responsibility, I find it odd that you think I have a “responsibility” to answer your question which has no bearing on any of what I just said. You just *think* that it does – its not my problem though if you can’t think straight.
“I’m not evading any responsibility, I find it odd that you think I have a “responsibility” to answer your question which has no bearing on any of what I just said.”
You are responsible for the claims that you make. Getting upset and evading the question doesn’t excuse you of your orphaned assertion.
What “claim” did I make? The “claim” that I made was that there was good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. This was not a “claim” that Jesus was the son of God, etc – which was what this ‘cleadheamh mor’ fellow was making my initial “claim” out to be, as evidenced by this statement that he made:
“How does that even remotely make christianity valid and not a non sequitur?”
First of all, I wasn’t “claiming” Christianity was “valid”, what I was claiming was that there is good historical evidence that this Jesus figure existed and so on and so forth.
In that regard, why should I be responsible and defend a position that I DID NOT assert?
I’m sorry Mr. ‘Sunny Day’, I’m sure this is all very confusing for you. I realize you are the type who cannot really follow logic much. Maybe reading the above a couple more times will allow it to sink in.
Good day.
And I said “So What?”
You ASSumed I didn’t understand that, and you failed to answer the question.
I told you DUH! I did understand, and you replied with distractions and diversions about me saying DUH! because you ASSumed I didn’t understand what you were saying – and you again failed to answer the question.
I spelled it out again how you were using assumptions, diversionary tactics, and dodging and evading, shifting the blame to me, and you then said you weren’t responsible to answer the question – and you again failed to answer the question.
I agree you are not responsible: irresponsible and evasive, shifting blame, dodging, evading, attacking, making sweeping, fallacious, opinions as if they were fact, but never backing them up with any sense, reasoning or logic – but never answering the question.
Michael and Michael Honza are 2 different people.
This is ridiculous.
Firstly, I’m not Michael Honza.
Secondly, take a look at YOUR response:
1. So, what if Jesus was an actual man that lived? You’ve proved nothing. (What was I trying to prove? )
2. What does it matter that one more person made outlandish claims? How does that support anything? (wow, more presumptuous bullshit )
And more stupidity to that effect.
I don’t know how else to explain this to you. It seems you can never understand.
Nothing of what you said relates to what I initially asserted. You just falsely ASSumed what my position was – rather presumptuously.
And if you are asking me to back up my claim that there was good evidence for the historicity of Jesus, that won’t be possible in this format. A simple glance at Wikipedia can soothe your curiosity.
Perhaps next time, when you ask a question, lose the presumptuous bullshit, and maybe you will get a respectful answer.
Now if you still haven’t gotten it, I’m sorry, but I will have to think of you narrowly.
So support it. And answer the question “So What?”
Support it. And “So What?”
You’re being self-contradicting. See above.
You’re doing the name-calling, and you’re doing the failing to comprehend and have anything “sink in”.
Sorry, wrong michael.
Take a look at YOURS.
See your own claim above, for a reminder of what you’re evading.
So, answer that; support it – if you can. You came on and posted; quit dodging and evading questions about it.
You might (though you won’t) also quit the trick, device and ploy of name-calling to avoid answering questions. You might (though you won’t) quit your hypocrisy of dodging giving any real answers by spewing hostility, while taking exception to any, real or imagined, that you get form others. You might (though you won’t) quit the hypocrisy of taking exception to others’ name-calling, while full of it yourself.
See above.
You’re doing more evasion and dodging.
More evasion and dodging on your part, answering with a load of hostility and saying nothing useful. More name-calling on your part. And you don’t even have any factual basis for it.
Nope. You pattern is clear. You don’t ever give those. You don’t give any real answers of substance at all, even without respect, let alone with it. You’ve demonstrated that you aren’t capable.
You still haven’t answered. (With any real, substantive, reasoned, sense-making answer.) More dodging and evading on your part.
You don’t think of anything in any way but narrowly. You’re not capable of it.
But your hypocrisy continues. You called Daniel narrow-minded. I think you don’t even comprehend the old saw about the pot calling the kettle black.
If your exchanges were with someone else in person, on the street, I can picture you shouting, interrupting, pointing fingers at someone, name-calling, shifting blame to someone else, practically frothing at the mouth and dancing like a lunatic gibbon in an attempt to distract them from asking you pointed questions, and in an attempt to evade and dodge any challenges to reply with sense and answer their questions.
Well thank you for your long, kilometric, non-sensical diatribe. You try to sound smart and logical, but, sadly, you fail every single time.
*sigh* you are dumber than I thought. lets see if this will get through to you:
This is what I initially said
Waitaminute, hardly enough evidence Jesus even lived?
To which you responded:
Ahahahaha! So what?
I think he probably did, and christianity is still an unsupported non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that christianity is anything but an institutional load of horseshit even if Jesus did live. So what? What basis for your ASSumptions even so? So What?
Couple things.. Firstly, you stupidly assumed that I was implying that the “good evidence” for the historicity of Jesus supported the truth claims of Christianity.
Here are more examples of your stupidly wrong assumptions, which also prove that your initial assumption (quoted above) was in this same line of thought:
1. So, what if Jesus was an actual man that lived? You’ve proved nothing. [I wasn't trying to prove anything you idiot! What I was stating was "Jesus was an actual man that lived" !]
2. What does it matter that one more person made outlandish claims? How does that support anything? [I wasn't trying to support anything you dumb fool! I was saying that historians agree this man called 'Jesus' made outlandish claims!]
Which is why I said this:
Uh.. Read what I said, I was objecting to the conclusion that there wasn’t enough evidence that Jesus (the man) lived. So, no need to give more meaning than was implied, buddy boy.
I was simply saying that there seems to be good evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Evidence you expect me to tediously cite for you? Google it.
Take the last sentence of that non-sense I just quoted from you:
It doesn’t follow that christianity is anything but an institutional load of horseshit even if Jesus did live. So what? What basis for your ASSumptions even so? So What?
So you ask me to give you “basis for my assumptions” (my assumption that there is good evidence for the historicity of Jesus?), which I will for a moment grant that that is what you indeed meant. Why then follow it up with a “even so? So What? ” ? You wanted me to give you basis, but with full intention that once that “basis” is given, you will ask “so what?” -which implies that whatever “basis” I give would be useless and prove nothing, since as you put it “Christianity is an unsupported non-sequitur”.
Do you see now the error you’ve made? You, presumptuously, and rather ignorantly assumed my initial assertion was done in defense of Christianity.
Why then, I ask, should I answer your “so what” question, when it has nothing to do with my position or anything I stated?
After my 1st response to Daniels question you again, childishly retorted:
Haaaaaahahahahahahahahaha!
Another troll!
Which was pathetic.
Now I’m quite sure, to your feeble mind, this will all, again, seem fuzzy and difficult to follow. But I guess there’s nothing I can do to be clear enough for someone who is as stupid as you are.
Now, I never said Daniel was “narrow-minded”. Did you make that up? Nice tactic, sadly, your not smart enough to pull it off.
Good day.
You’ve done every type of trollery there is instead of supporting that with some reasoning.
You’ve done every type of trollery there is instead of supporting that with some reasoning.
You’ve done every type of trollery there is instead of supporting that with some reasoning.
Look at your own “long, kilometric, non-sensical diatribe”.
Your trollish name calling is okay for you, but you don’t like it in others, ya hypocrite.
More name-calling and hypocrisy. See above.
More name-calling and hypocrisy. See above.
You’ve done every bit of dodging, evasion, name-calling, hostility, hatred, diversionary tactics, every bit of trollery, everything except following up your posts with saying anything of substance and reasoning.
More name-calling and hypocrisy. See above.
More name-calling and hypocrisy. See above.
As I said already, sorry, wrong michael. You engage in hateful diatribe against others for “not getting it”, but fail to look at yourself.
More name-calling and hypocrisy. See above.
More name-calling and hypocrisy. And passive-aggrssiveness without contributing anything of value.
You play that as if it were the other person’s fault, and you’re cutting some sort of deal (“Now be a good little boy or girl, and i will give you a respectful answer.”). That shifts blame to the other person (“I’m not respectful because they were mean to me!”). Actually, you are incapable of giving a respectful answer mot matter what other people do. Your pattern is clear. You’ve never done so in this blog. It’s a trick to avoid taking responsibility for yourself.
You’ve failed to contribute anything useful or of value to this site. You’ve failed to follow through on anyone’s challenges or replies. You’ve called people on name-calling and not getting it, while you’ve done those worse than anyone at whom you are hurling your invective. Because of that, you’ve also been a hypocrite. (That is the action of being a troll.) What were you wanting to accomplish? (Other than venting your hate.) You’ve been full of hatred and vitriol. You’ve supported nothing, contributed nothing, amounted to nothing, accomplished nothing.
“First of all, I wasn’t “claiming” Christianity was “valid”, what I was claiming was that there is good historical evidence that this Jesus figure existed and so on and so forth.”
Those poor little orphans of yours, who will take care of them if you lack the courage and just leave them LIE-ing there.
“You’ve supported nothing, contributed nothing, amounted to nothing, accomplished nothing.”
@claidheamh mor
You forgot the ending part, “…and you have made us all stupider for having read your comments.”
Those poor little orphans of yours, who will take care of them if you lack the courage and just leave them LIE-ing there.
Why don’t you read what I said AGAIN. I already said for the nth time that it would be tedious to show you that there is good evidence for the historicity of Jesus, and that you could simply google it. That is essentially like saying: Venezuela had people who farmed crops A,B and C. Then you retort: “huh!? prove it!” If you are so curious about it, then Google it, you lazy bastard.
Furthermore, for the nth time, that was not the point of this charade. The point was that my initial statement was misinterpreted by two dumb people (this includes you Sunny day), who fall way below the distribution, as to mean a defense for Christianity. First of all, I don’t fucking care what Christians think. You are too stupid and dumb to get it still? Just wow. Really? Wow.
Blah blah blah…
“You’ve failed to contribute anything useful or of value to this site. “
- I made a comment. Thats it. Do people who accurately call you out on your ignorance “fail[ed] to contribute anything useful and of value to this site” ?
I bet that’s a position you always take huh?
“You’ve failed to follow through on anyone’s challenges or replies.”
- I already conceded that citing the evidence for the historicity of Jesus would be an incredibly tedious task. Your *other* challenges had nothing to do with any position I made – you obviously still don’t see that because you’re stupid – oh well, not my problem.
You’ve called people on name-calling and not getting it, while you’ve done those worse than anyone at whom you are hurling your invective.
- Ok, I’m guilty of resorting to “name-calling” against a person who says “DUH”, “HAHAHA” and “you’re a troll!” So sue me.
“Because of that, you’ve also been a hypocrite.”
-Wait, hmm, you seem to be bemoaning my name-calling and yet you are also guilty of the same. I guess that makes you a HYPOCRITE too. Wait, you did the name-calling first right? I guess you are an even bigger hypocrite than I am.
“What were you wanting to accomplish? (Other than venting your hate.)”
- Lol! Did you cry while writing this? I’m venting my “hate” now? I just made a statement, that you misinterpreted while simultaneously acting like a douche, so I called you out on your idiocy – plain and simple.
“You’ve been full of hatred and vitriol. You’ve supported nothing, contributed nothing, amounted to nothing, accomplished nothing.”
- Yes, I do hate idiots, like you. And it seems you still don’t GET IT. Please reread my previous post. Perhaps you could read it a hundred times and maybe, just maybe, it would get into your thick skull.
Good day.
I’ve posted these lyrics before on that music video, but I’m posting them again because it fits this subject.
song-Perpetual Bris
band-These Arms are Snakes
You were born from sin.
And if that ain’t a curse,
then I don’t know what is.
Like Abraham and altar and the son you can’t keep…
Would the shepherd shed the blood
of his most precious sheep?
Did Job ever ponder the price of his piety?
Was Methuselah tired?
Did Lazarus want sleep?
Praise be Thomas for fingering the wounds
because if he had his doubts then perhaps you should too.
Does the bride beg for a barren womb?
Did God give the gift of a gamble to you?
That last question right there is what made me really think outside the christian box. It is one of the many reasons why i deserted christianity.
…As well as embrace doubting things in general.
Most of your numbered points here are good. (you jumped the shark with #6, if there is God, do you really think he would play prayer games?)
What do you do with someone that uses your methodology and comes to a different conclusion?
I think this is where your supposed open-mindedness falls short.
If your god exists, and s/he’s ticked off with “prayer games,” then he/she should unequivocally let humankind know that s/he’s the one to pray to (a global announcement discernible and visible to all of humankind would go a long way towards making that happen).
I didn’t say ticked off, I just don’t think a god would respond to prayer games.
Why do you have an assumption that a god would need to identify itself?
“What do you do with someone that uses your methodology and comes to a different conclusion?”
That’s a very odd question. I’m pretty sure the answer is “have a cup of coffee and an interesting conversation with them”. What sort of answer were you looking for- pounding them over the head with “atheist evangelism”? Trying to trap us into somehow admitting that our lack of belief counts as a religion again? Ain’t gonna happen pal.
What do you do with someone that uses your methodology and comes to a different conclusion?
I can answer that question from the other side. Christians have told me I didn’t try hard enough, or I did not pray enough, or I went to the “wrong church”, or I had the wrong translation, or I did not read the right books (I guess the Bible isn’t good enough for some Christians).
The Bible says you will find God if you seek him with all your heart. Not true.
I got tired of all the battered-wife theology: God is all-powerful, yet if it all doesn’t click, it’s YOUR FAULT. As Gene Roddenberry said: We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.
Besides, you do not come across as open-minded in your posts.
He sure doesn’t!
That’s because: he isn’t.
And not even slightly able to conceal it.
People were giving you answers from their own system of belief for answers from your changing set of beliefs. We all have to find the one that works for us as an individual. One that we then choose to conform to.
Why not? Believers know he does. We can see this in the fact that some dude in North America is thanking his God/Goddess/Gods for his great good fortune, while the prayers of some starving kid in, say, Somalia, go unanswered. Presumably because he isn’t praying hard enough? Or does god just hate poor kids? How about the kids the Christian Brothers abused? Why were their prayers ignored, eh? Does God tell you why he decided that it’d be better if they spent their teen years getting beaten and sexually assaulted? Especially when it would require no real effort on his part to stop it. If you or I stood by and watched someone getting raped, would that put us on a morally equal footing to god? I’d say it did. He does it every day. Even when the victims cry directly to him for help. Some god you’ve got there.
Let’s turn your idea around: What do YOU say to people who tried theism and found it tasted rather stale? You say things like “You didn’t believe hard enough.” Or “You weren’t really a Whateverian.”
If you can honestly go through the steps above and come out believing in God as He is presented in most churches, I’d say “You obviously weren’t really testing your beliefs.” And also that you suffer from a certain hardness of thinking.
I will fall on my knees and worship the first testable, provable, evidence-based god anyone presents to me (as long as someone can prove to me that worship is useful, pleasing to Him/Her/It, and required). Until then, I continue to disbelieve its existence. If you have a testable proposition for me, present it please. For I long to know Him, if He exists. But only if.
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, I have prayed for faith, for an answer. For proof. No answer. No god.
I think this is where your supposed open-mindedness falls short.
Well, Blackened Pot/Kettle, maybe your mind is slammed so far shut you can’t comprehend even a basic concept of questioning and examining. Quit pretending that you’re examining or questioning or using this method. Quit pretending that your mind isn’t made up already, facts be damned, and now you can just fool yourself that you’re going through any thinking process.
Did you actually readd anything?
I think you’re exactly as Daniel described: defensive – you do want to defend instead of examine (“Defend The Faith!”) – afraid of questioning, afraid to admit that
and pretending to question and examine and pretending to arrive at your predetermined conclusions after a pretended thought process.
I think that the reason that atheists might seem closed-minded to a lot of Christians may be due to the facts that 1. Not all atheists are very patient people and 2. A lot of Christians do not seem to realize that a lot of people go on a “journey to atheism” as Daniel described.
After finding out you are an atheist, have you ever had someone ask you if you ever went to church? Or read the Bible? Or told you that their church was different? This has happened to me many times.
And the people who say these things never seem to realize that they are not the first person to say them, and they are not saying anything I have not already heard. If I was not convinced by something the first 5, 100, or 500 times I heard it, will hearing it again from yet another random person really make a difference? And yes, I thought about it, yes I read X, yes I prayed about it. And hearing it from you does not make it more convincing.
Well, mind slammed shut. You probably use what you’ve heard as “practice” for “
strengtheningpropping up your faith”.And, just as most christians use the grade-school arguments (“You fell away because you focused on flawed people” “Don’t let a rigid church turn you away from Jesus!”), and few christians bring up any really good reasoning or arguments, atheists ask you questions that, after you hear them often enough, you can have pat responses and use them for “practice”. They’re good questions: “What if you’re wrong?” is probably one you’ve got a pat answer to by now. You can get together with other christians and “strengthen your faith” by practicing cute, facile one-liners that prove nothing, but you all agree with each other and can reinforce each other, smothering each other’s doubts under a veneer of faith bravado.
Probably only a few atheists countering you talk about your lack of self-worth, your fear of eternal punishment so that you’re afraid doubt and afraid to question, your doubts when you’re all alone, wondering, “What’s wrong with me? Why does God love everyone else but me? Why can’t I be strong? Why am I still full of doubt? Why don’t I have the peace that passes understanding?” (Pretend hard enough to the other christians and they’ll think you do.)
No kidding.
Typical conversation:
Me: “I’m an atheist.”
Them: “Have you read the bible?”
Me: “Yes, pretty much non stop for almost thirty years, and read it cover to cover numerous times. Studied the bible. Studied Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic terms from the bible. Read the apologists. Trained as a minister. Spent several years full time in a ministry position. Yep.”
Them: “You must not have been a real Christian then.”
Ewww. I feel for you.
Are you assuming that your own pretending is superior?
Are you are telling me that the conclusions I’ve reached are invalid, because they don’t agree with your own?
That depends.
If, for instance, a person of faith comes to the conclusion that creation was literal (or, say, the flood) and evolution never happened, even when observable reality contradicts it… yes, they’ve reached the wrong conclusion. Just like if I prove a mathematical theory and use faulty logic through it, it’ll be the wrong conclusion.
We’re in agreement there.
I don’t have much patience when people ignore sound, reasonable scientific theory.
There are many people of faith that embrace doubt. I don’t think faith is actually faith without it.
There are people of faith that embrace hard questions. Without them, there is no growth.
What do you do with someone that uses your methodology and comes to a different conclusion?
Invite them for a cup of coffee and discuss the different conclusions and the respective evidence thereof. Then, either find an agreement between point of views or agree to disagree.
Not that hard, really.
Agreeing to disagree is a weak way of giving up.
That really doesn’t seem to be the point of this web site.
“Agreeing to disagree is a weak way of giving up”
Agreeing to disagree is really just a way of saying continuing to disagree – how is that weak?
I’d always thought the point of this site was education, not trying to sledgehammer belief into someone’s brain. Also a method for the author to express his thoughts and converse with the wild web, as to speak.
But then, maybe I’m missing something.
This site uses a lot of reasoning, or statements backed up with some logic and reasoning. It notes the difference between conclusions that can be reached based on evidence or a chain of reasoning, vs. opinions and sweeping generalities that that don’t’ follow rule #10 in this article: 10) Always ask yourself, “How do I know that?
You have been completely lacking in the former, and have done nothing but the latter.
if there is God, do you really think he would play prayer games?
Technically, I don’t see why a benevolent god would even need prayer at all, but that’s just me.
My understanding of the teachings and practices of Jesus Christ is that prayer is about bringing yourself toward God’s will.
If there is god/creator/tea pot, would it really be a toll taker?
What do you mean, “bringing yourself toward God’s will”? Why ask anything at all? He may or may not answer and the will will be done regardless?
Why would it need his creation to worship him at all? Maybe it’d be a toll taker, maybe not. I can’t know. I’m no god(dess).
If you were to accept that there is a god/creator/teapot that has a plan for your life, do you think that it would be waiting for your ideas? (“Oh, great idea, I hadn’t thought about that. I’m glad you took time to pray it up to me.’)
Now take the idea of god/creator/teapot as something with a personality out of it. (call it evolution if you want) Everything looks designed, everything fits, everything just keeps working better together. Praying becomes a way to find your fit, to look for what you are designed to do and be.
Probably not. I’d be utterly powerless to affect such a being, no more than any AI I create has power to affect me (at least, as of yet. You never know…).
I still don’t see how praying leads to knowing “where you fit”. Maybe I don’t understand the concept, what with never having believed in god(s) in the first place, but, yeah. I’m genuinely curious here, mind – I always am.
Say you pray to be healed, which is a common thing people pray for. God will heal you if it’s in The Plan. He won’t heal you if it isn’t in The Plan. Now, when you don’t pray, you’ve the exact same odds… that didn’t answer anything. In fact, it didn’t change things at all, because The Plan is up there and will happen regardless, whether you like it or not. Praying for change becomes irrelevant, since things are either in The Plan or aren’t and will or won’t happen whether you pray or not (unless there’s some sort of branching decision, like an algorithm: if(prayer) then do(this) else do(that)…).
Praying for understanding, well, I could see that, but then again, either there’s an answer (“ooh! I get it now!”) or there isn’t one (“his ways are unknowable by ye lowly mortals”), which isn’t very helpful at all if you can’t change one iota in The Plan. I don’t see a lot of the first happening, either, other than the whole mystical “it’s all happening for a reason… really…!” and purely human reasoning trying to make sense of purely random events.
Which isn’t a lot of consolation when you’re six and suffering from horrible chronic pain, but I digress.
Meh, forgot this tidbit…
Mm, yes, but then – how do we discern whether that’s the truth or just “spiritual pareidolia”? Finding meaning in things that don’t have any, or simply seeing patterns for what they are – like the fractal patterns in a snowflake, created at random but nonetheless there?
The way I see prayer as an exercise is to concentrate deeply and quietly on a problem or issue. The answers that come to you are when you are clear-headed, or the personal will to be strong no matter what comes. I would say there’s just a lot of chaos as there is order, just by observing things. I don’t need to read about it in a book or think about it very long. However, as sentient beings who do make mistakes and find ourselves in hard times, sometimes of our own doing, reflecting upon that is natural and not a bad idea. Why is my life going like this, what caused it to be so, do I continue to make it to go in a direction I do not like? To me, these are the questions of prayer, the answers can come from inside you, which is not god.
A lot of people who do believe in god probably do not take the time to pray for serious. They may pray for recovery if they or someone they love is injured or sick. They may pray to get a job offer or to be able to stick to their diet. They may pray when there is no hope for recovery or they don’t get the job or haven’t lost any weight. There seems to be very little personal control or resolve, perhaps comfort in anticipation of something better. Pray, rinse, repeat. Heaven or an even better job god was saving you for later or soon someone to discover a way to make fat-free donuts and french fries taste awesome. You may get what you want, or not, but you’re still hanging on for god’s plan.
If you try to embrace doubt from this perspective, you’re going to be a lot scared. If you think god makes you good enough to do your job or stay on a diet or not succumb to an injury or illness, and that even god makes me good enough to do my job, or all people of whatever foolish alternative to your god they believe in do what they do for you, teach your children or share the road with you in a safe manner, work in harsher conditions than you’d be comfortable just to make those t-shirts you like, then you’d be wrong and doubt will be painful for you: god doesn’t have a plan. It is up to you, to affect the things you can, to solve a problem, maybe in a very slow way, like going back to school and managing two jobs while you do it. There are things you cannot affect, these are only for you to manage to react and accept. If it’s not clear to whoever reading this, I am writing this as some form of prayer to tell myself that it’s me who has some changes to make and to decide to have the will to make them. And it’s also an essay pour vous.
So, yeah, I’m going to bring up people like Andrea Yates for a second here. It’s a big example, not a small example. If I hear one more numbnuts Christian who believes that god speaks to them and controls the way they manage their lives, then you’re in real trouble if you’re calling out Andrea Yates a monster, without even considering mental illness. Your god told her to do it, if you believe in god, that’s how he answers prayers. If you don’t believe that, then why should I believe you when you say god answers prayers and affects the changes in you?
Whether is was god/creator/teapot or physics/biology/evolution the fit and function is the same.
If you assume a god/creator/teapot with a personality you have a possibility of meaning.
If you assume exclusive physics/biology/evolution you have reaction/stimuli/response with no meaning.
So a good question might be: Whether created by god/creator/teapot or physics/biology/evolution, do humans actually have free will?
If you say no, then aren’t we all just going through the motions?
If you say yes, then don’t we all choose all our relationships?
“you jumped the shark with #6, if there is God, do you really think he would play prayer games?”
Yes, of course. He did it, remember Job’s tales?
“What do you do with someone that uses your methodology and comes to a different conclusion?”
I would accept that. I accepted brgulker conclusions as he seems to be a rational christian
+1 to self-esteem
;)
lol
well sir, you are the perfect example of a christian I can respect -you and your beliefs I mean, I always try to respect every person
A corollary to #4 (learning to ask hard questions) could be: Virtually everyone who faces hard questions experiences anxiety and therefore it is not a sign from some god but natural to the process of discovery.
#6 is probably a sub set of #5 – looking for evidence. A supernatural being that is supposedly interposing in significant ways in nature should be leaving a trail of evidence.
*stands up and cheers loudly for Daniel*
That was great! Thanks for posting it. :)
!!!
Good article, Daniel. My sister is not currently “in doubt.” To the contrary, she’s one of those blindly faithful. However, I’ve asked her to read this article if not to encourage her to question her own convictions, to at least understand where I’m coming from when I say no one has ever given me any good reason to believe.
Thank you.
Point 7.
read all other holy books from all possible religions, including Harry potter Star Wars and Zeus.
No ask yourself which one is the correct one?
If you fail to choose the correct one then you will burn in hell eternally. LOL
I thought there were about 4700 different religions, so you have a 99.998% chance that you took the wrong one. LOL
Great post Daniel! I especially enjoyed #3 and #9. Religious beliefs are very arrogant! One of the hardest things during my de-conversion was to admit that I had been wrong.
Truth is a Person.
and that person is me
Do you actually have anything to say, John?
You’ve been uncharacteristically quiet on this post… we’re all waiting to see how you explain this one away with the Light and Truth or whatever word you’ve randomly decided to continually capitalise this week…
John C has been very well behaved, only weighing in on things that he feels are the most important. I really appreciate this; he is being careful to allow other conversations to go on. As we know, things get a bit off-track when he says very much, mostly because people *ahem* attempt to goad him into responding.
you wouldn’t do that, would you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiva ect ect. If one “person” is the truth, why are there so many versions of it?
all those are aspects of the same Person, as there is only a person and we all -all the universe- is it
-answering for JohnC, as he is trying to cut on his number of comments
Atticus…
Good question. I think its because we are all at different places on the (same) journey, no two spots look exactly the same. The shadows are both long and short. We “see” more and more as the Light progressively dispels the darkness, as our (spiritual) eyes are opened. This has been my experience thus far, not that I have “arrived” by any means. Truth has a way of portending to liberty, to increased measures of freedom both inwardly and outwardly.
All the best
Daniel, since this article posted up, I’ve been expecting some knee-jerk defensive reactions that would illustrate and demonstrate, if not outright prove, your points.
A few fundies, unaware of how their nonsense contrasts with your description of open-minded questioning, have fulfilled my expectations.
Their god must be a weak pussy who can’t stand up to examination and needs their feeble, irrational defense. Or, he doesn’t exist.
I can’t quite say “I haven’t been disappointed”, as I keep being shocked at how much they can lower the bar for (lack of) comprehension, eloquence and reason. Their inability to comprehend your point even slightly – while demonstrating the lack of the abilities you describe – is breathtaking.
“Their inability to comprehend your point even slightly – while demonstrating the lack of the abilities you describe – is breathtaking.”
Breathtaking…reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a friend who is an incredibly intelligent, successful, respected, fully grown adult. He looked me dead in the eye and calmly said, yes, there was a talking snake in the garden of eden. Adam committed the original sin of pride in collusion with the first woman Eve. Faith he stated, falls like a house of cards without original sin. How can Adam, the perfect creation of God, have been a grunting Neanderthal or other such hominid species? To which I responded, as I always do, ‘then why would Adam, created perfect in the image of god, have nipples?’
Then there are those millions of years of time. Evolution is said to be observable in the fossil record. If one examines rock strata different kinds of fossils can be seen which are believed to show an evolution of species. The strata are dated primarily by the geological time-scale which affirms that strata lower down in a rock formation are older than those superposed higher up: often by millions of years. To this he responded that this principle of geologic dating has been shown to be wrong. Strata sequences form rapidly and many of the fossilized organisms in them could have lived relatively contemporaneously. These facts have been confirmed by field analyses he said……… as I mentioned- simply breathtaking.
@claidh
Once again, thanks…
Always nice to be slammed. You would characterize my comments as ‘lower[ing] the bar for (lack of) comprehension, eloquence and reason?”
That’s just not very nice…
Just because I deliberately refuse to understand the things *you* say (hehehe) doesn’t mean i’m not listening to everyone else…
Great list Daniel. To this I would add 11. Ask yourself, “Are devils any different from unicorns and other fantasy creatures?” I could never reconcile the concept of devils and hell with pure, basic common sense reason.
from wikipedia…says it better than i can: An omnipotent being, by definition, cannot be harmed. Therefore, by condemning souls to an eternal damnation, God would be punishing souls for actions that had no effect on him. Christianity states that only by accepting Jesus can one be saved from Hell. The problem is that this means that people who never heard of Jesus automatically go to Hell (including infants and children). There is a clear injustice against being punished for something you didn’t even know was wrong.
I think a nice, long, self contemplation about “devils” and “hell” and other fantasy creatures/realms will go a very long way to resolving some of those inner doubts a Christian may have….
That’s when the bending and manipulating starts.
“But hell isn’t eternal!”
“But God understands those people!”
“But works count too!”
“But there’s an age of accountability!”
“But God doesn’t play favorites – no matter which religion, the important thing is belief” (I’ve seriously heard this before)
“But we’re all worthless sinners (yes, even babies) and we deserve it because rib woman made dirt boy eat the apple the talking snake offered!”
And so on and so forth.
Well, at least the Bible is consistent here. It clearly describes unicorns and the Devil to be real and separate creatures.
On the one hand, I applaud any effort to encourage a transition to rational from irrational thought, and I think this list makes a decent attempt at that, though, to be honest, to an impatient antitheist like me, and as others have pointed out, number 6 still seems totally unnecessary.
That said, its rather telling that not unlike an addiction to alcohol, said transition requires a 10 step program (hey, its two less than the 12 step, does that mean its even easier?). Of course, lets not even get started on the 12 Steps. There are some real gems in that list.
#7 – “Yes, read your holy book, but also look at it from a viewpoint of an outsider.”
I think this is really important. When I finally read the Bible from an outside viewpoint, I was shocked at how much Scripture I had instantly accepted, justified, or rationalized as a Christian. Take, for example, the story in Judges 11 where Jephthah sacrifices his daughter. I would always think, “Wow, be careful with your words. And always keep your word, especially with God.” Never once did I stop and think, “Why would a good, all-loving God be ok with this promise in the first place?!?! And why would he let the sacrifice happen?!?!”
The first thing that forced me to look at Scripture from an outside perspective was actually a spoof of the Bible. The stories were exaggerated and humorous, but they also closely followed Scripture. And that’s what startled me the most: what I found absurd in the spoof was actually in real Scripture (and just as absurd!)!
The blog that had this spoof (“Resurrecting Reason”), sadly, doesn’t exist anymore, but it influenced me so much that I’ve been writing my own spoof at my own blog. As I’ve been spoofing Scripture, I’ve also been reading it more carefully, and I continue to be amazed at all that I passed over as a Christian. It just confirms this point #7 to me all the more.
Did you know that Jesus dying on the cross is the most well recorded event in history!? Not just by religious people either.
Hahahahahahaha…
Yeah.
Uh, no? The death of Jesus is “recorded” by the four gospels only, and two of the gospels were probably based on an unknown third source, and they were all written generations after the alleged event. Three hearsay sources.
Hello, are any of you familiar with parallel dimensions/universes as proposed in string theory or m-theory (minor difference). From what I understand eventually any imaginable permutation of events is possible due to probability.Could that not allow for there to be a god-LIKE being in another universe that could have naturally occurred as we have?