Rick Warren tweeted this today:
I challenge any church in America to match the spiritual maturity, godliness & commitment of any 500 members of Saddleback
That didn’t sit well with anyone outside of 500 Saddleback members. Here are some reactions from irate Christians:
“Christianity is not about who’s better than who–NONE ARE GOOD!! all deserve the wrath of God in hell” (src)
“dude this is the most immature thing I’ve ever heard from someone I respect so much. What is this, jr high” (src)
“Churches everywhere are waiting for an apology from @RickWarren.” (src)
“Rick either needs to get someone to filter his tweets or he needs to fire the person who’s doing his tweeting” (src)
“Besides the sheer arrogance of it all, one thing which struck out the most was the utter man-centeredness of this tweet.” (src)
“I would delete the challenge. Sounds too much like “pride.” Media will run with it brother.” (src)
And then there’s the pious reproach:
It’s wonderful that you are doing such good work, but really, is it necessary to toot your own horn in this manner. With all due respect, I’m not sure that’s how it’s supposed to be done.
“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.~Matthew 6:1-4
The “church” seems to be so preoccupied with numbers and power and being THE church that will minister to all sinners that it sometimes forgets why it ministers and for whom. You have done so much; don’t lose sight of it all by trying to use the stats to impress others. I am no one of consequence, and I prefer it that way when it comes to what I do for God and in His name.
I remember writing those kind of concern emails. Concerned Dan was concerned, oh yes he was, and he told others with lots of bible verses and admonitions to “the truth.”
What do you think of Warren’s tweet? Personally I find the whole thing rather amusing.
Update 8:43pm: Matthew Paul Turner weighs in:
Yes! It’s like Church Olympics. Churches already love waving flags, so an Olympic competition will be a natural. [...]
Ricky’s tweet didn’t sit too well with the Christians of Twitterland. They became restless. Some were sad. Some welcomed the challenge. Some cried “pride”! Some declared EGO! Some demanded an apology!! [...]
But seriously, people twucified poor Rick. [...]
I’m hoping he either untweets his tweet or tweets a supporting tweet to help us understand his random self-glorifying 140 characters…
The world waits.
Haha. Not really. But a lot of Christians are waiting.
Twucified?! Nice.
Update 8:48pm: The offending tweet has been removed. Now it’s time for the PR department to patch things up… Will they say the account was hacked? That Warren had too much blood of Jesus to drink? That he’s just a prideful douche who doesn’t want gays to get married? We shall see.
Update 8/12: Instead of apologizing, Rick Warren has defended himself by saying Paul said something similar in the Bible:
Paul COMPARED the Macedonia church’s commitment to Corinth’s & challenged them to MATCH it 2 Cor. 8:1-8. Wise teaching tool
BIBLICAL leaders use themselves as examples to challenge others. Paul often did.See David’s courageous model! 1Chron 29:2- 5
Rick Warren, the modern-day Apostle Paul and pastor of the Macedonians. Go Rick! Keep digging!
Ugh. Really? I challenge any church in America (including Rick Warren’s) to match the actual maturity, intelligence, and commitment of any 500 members of the scientific community.
“Christianity is not about who’s better than who–NONE ARE GOOD!! all deserve the wrath of God in hell” (src)”
That is sick. Really, really sick.
In a nutshell, yes, it is. It’s this kind of pathological thinking that makes it very hard to just leave religion alone and not comment on it or try to help people out of the trap. I try not to proselytize but anything that destroys your self-worth to the point that you think you are a dirty sinner who deserves to burn forever cannot be good for you. It wasn’t good for me, Catholicism made me genuinely ill.
“Catholicism made me genuinely ill”
It was supposed to, that’s all that ‘religion’ has to offer you. Now you know what isn’t Truth because it wasn’t liberating which is always the effect of Truth (Himself) for ‘you shall know the truth and (in knowing it the net effect will be) the truth shall make you (inwardly) free’. All the best JMW
I already went through the “religion is bad, but I have a personal relationship with the REAL Jesus” phase, and that didn’t liberate me in the slightest. Also, it’s still a religion, because it still requires adhering to what someone else wants me to do rather than what my own conscience tells me is right or wrong.
Exactly! Perfectly said!
This response isn’t about Rick Warren’s tweet (which I find really strange and pompous), but to your implication that there’s no such thing as an intelligent, mature, or committed Christian.
First, what is your objective measurement of these qualities? To what are you asking Christians to commit?
Second, are you saying that the fact that you have never met an intelligent, mature, or committed Christian is demonstrative of a truth that none exist? Surely you haven’t met every Christian on the planet.
On the other hand, I can also understand why you might be saying these kinds of things, because as a Christian, I’m frequently embarrassed by what I hear “Christians” saying or by what I see them doing in the name of Jesus or Christianity. To often, they really ARE unthinking, immature, and uncommitted to being like Christ. However, there are exceptions.
Doh! I hate typos. Especially when I’m trying to speak intelligently. Especially when I’m trying to speak intelligently while rebutting an insinuation that Christians are unintelligent.
In my previous post, please replace “To often” with “Too often.” ;)
You’ve noticed that this is an theist site, right?
Many atheists think that theists are by definition less mature and thoughtful, as supernatural thinking is the less mature and thoughtful approach to reality.
Not saying you have to agree, but are you really surprised to hear this on a site by and for atheists? That would be sort of like me going to baptist websites and being shocked that they think I’m going to hell.
ooops, should be “an atheist” site.
No one can avoid all possible typos.
You’ve noticed that this is an theist site, right?
I told you D, I knew it was only a matter of time before you came to your senses (like the prodigal) and this became a ‘theist site’ again! :)
Sorry Ty’ster, I couldn’t resist man! All in good sport ha, take care
Actually, no, I didn’t realize that. Someone just sent me the link, and I read the article in a hurry without looking at the hosting site. Thanks for pointing this out.
No – I’m not surprised to hear the comments on this site. I would be if this were a “Christians only” site, but I don’t spend much time on those kinds of sites, because, as many of you point out, there isn’t a whole lot of thoughtful conversation happening on many of those.
My original contention is that making a blanket that ALL Christians are unintelligent, immature, or “uncommitted” is itself a sign of unintelligence, or at least inexperience. It would make just as much sense to say that ALL atheists are evil people who sacrifice babies and drink their blood.
I know, I know, this being an atheist site, it’s likely that everyone on here thinks that a belief in any kind of God is a clear demonstration of ignorance or naivety. After all, an intelligent, thinking person would clearly see that we have no concrete evidence for the existence of God. They would see that God is something we invented to explain scientific phenomenon that we previously didn’t understand or that God is something we invent in order to cope with the difficulties of life because we are too immature to deal with them on our own.
I will admit that my belief in God is based primarily on faith (which the title of this site claims is unreasonable). There is reason behind my faith, but I won’t bore you with those reasons, since you’ve likely heard them already. But what I want to point out is that atheism is itself based on faith, not on evidence.
A thinking person will readily admit that there are many things about the universe which he or she does not know about or understand. It wasn’t too long ago that we didn’t know about gamma rays, because we had no way of detecting them and no theories with which to postulate their existence. Of course, gamma rays still existed in those days.
When a person is saying that there is no God, what they are actually saying is that “IF there is a God, then I have not seen the kind of evidence that I am looking for, and which would prove to me that a God exists.” But again, surely there are many things that exist outside of our individual knowledge or experiences.
What I will agree with is that far, far too many people have said “I follow God” and “I follow Jesus” but than have demonstrated that this has made no real difference in their lives – they continue to be petty, mediocre, unloving, and spiteful. They claim to follow an all-powerful and all-loving God, but then show that apparently this God has no power over their own lives and hearts.
You wont bore us with the reasons of your faith, but you will bore us with the inane babble about needing faith to be an atheist. That’s just great. .
*yawn*
“Need faith to be an atheist”, is there any lamer argument, ever? That’s like saying you need a comb to be bald.
I used to consider myself an atheist but my faith in nothing has been shaken. Sometimes I think nothing just doesn’t even exist.
It doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to posit that a person cannot concretely, absolutely, objectively state that something CANNOT exist simply because it is outside of his or her very limited experiences or knowledge.
I haven’t actually ever had this debate with anyone, and I’m genuinely curious: What are the reasons for which you feel that you can absolutely say that God does not and cannot exist?
And since you are a reasonable person, then please don’t give me your reasons for not believing in God as you’ve heard God defined by Christianity. We’re talking here about the possibility of any kind of God.
The burden of proof is on the one making the positive assertion. There is no need to prove categorically that “x does not exist and I know it” (or even to state it), only a need to prove, if stated, that “x DOES exist and I know it”. You cannot prove that there is not a giant, invisible, untouchable teapot floating around the earth humming “she’ll be coming round the mountains” at a completely undetectable frequency – but you wouldn’t ask someone “what makes you so sure it isn’t there?”
Long story short – it is not reasonable to expect someone to believe something exists with no evidence. It is reasonable for them to say it doesn’t exist until shown otherwise.
“It doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to posit that a person cannot concretely, absolutely, objectively state that something CANNOT exist simply because it is outside of his or her very limited experiences or knowledge.”
I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone here saying god cannot exist. However, the mere possibility something exists does not make it likely such a thing exists. (After all it’s also possible flying horses exists. Not very likely thigh.)
Instead what you will find here is people who have evaluated the evidence and found it is unlikely god exists. If you have evidence to the contrary please share it. We would love to hear it.
“What are the reasons for which you feel that you can absolutely say that God does not and cannot exist?”
Who said they were absolutely certain that the the Christian god (I’ll assume that’s the god you’re referring to as you capatilaised the G) doesn’t exist. The fact the you cannot prove something 100% does not mean it should not be believed and it also in no way implies that the opposite is true or indeed holds equal weight. I can’t prove 100% that my cat is not actually a Martian spy but that does mean that it’s invalid to believe he is a Martina spy or that it’s valid to believe that he is given the lack of evidence presented.
“We’re talking here about the possibility of any kind of God.”
You still have to define what this “God” entity if it’s not the Christian god and the attributes it/they exhibit on the grounds that gods, obviously including the Christian god, are an entirely human concept and therefore vary widely. Think it it as if you asked whether Harry Potter really existed but framed the question as to whether any wizards exist …
If you’re talking about a perfect god, I have a simple argument.
1) If god is perfect than all his creations should be perfect, since any imperfection in the creation is a reflection of a flaw in the creator.
2) Therefore, if there is a god/s(highly unlikely), he’s a massive screw-up.
@Darwin
Isn’t the general answer to that, god is perfect (or all loving etc.) but the fact this its actions don’t match our defintion doesn’t mean that it isn’t perfect just that we are limited to fully understanding why those actions are perfect?
That’s it. The problem is all those fake Christians, not the REAL Christians, the ones who never do stupid things like this.
Fortunately, for me and for you as well, lapses in good judgment are not the measure of validity.
Ah! Now you’re one of them? It’s no longer “they” now?
Let’s clearly define “they/them.” In your first statement above, you’re referring to a distinction that you’ve heard some Christians make between those who are merely religious and those who are actually seeking to following Christ. I was indeed making this distinction, and “they/them” is the former group. I never added to the definition of the second group the quality of never making mistakes. You’re implying that I did. If a person in the second group screws up spectacularly, that doesn’t move them to the first group.
Humility is a self-defeating virtue.
I’m the most humble person I know.
I’m so humble and modest that I blush when I think about it.
(tee hee hee!)
I used to be arrogant, but now I’m perfect.
I’ve only ever been wrong once and that’s when I thought I was wrong but it turned out I was right!
Well, as long as it was only once! LOL!
That actually sounds arrogant. I, on the other hand, know that it’s always been possible for me to be wrong. Why, before I die I fully expect…. ;-)
What do I think of Warren’s tweet? Love it! Just give religious whackjobs enough rope and they’re bound to hang themselves with it.
just because you are at the head of one of the biggest church congregations in the country, doesn’t mean you are intelligent
I think Rick’s tweet is hilarious and revealing. His “humble man of god” shtick is an act – as atheists have known for years. He’s an egomaniacal asshole and it’s fun to watch him swim in his own shit for awhile.
Well, well. I challenge any one of Saddleback’s members to match the unbriddled passion for Jesus that a precious Down Syndrome girl possesses here in Spokane, WA. Problem is, this little saint doesn’t know she’s a saint, much unlike the ilk of Saddleback apparently. It’s no contest – sorry Rick.
Did this make anyone else want to throw up? Or is that just me?
I wonder if she has the same passion for Santa Clause.
That was a terrible movie. No-one has passion for that, I’m sure.
Monkey see, monkey do.
(hides)
Pingback: Bag of Randomness
Thanks for brief
WTF is “spiritual maturity?”
Oh, wait, it just came to me- from Passage to India:
“boom”
I think it’s when you’ve expelled all thetans from your body.
…which is signified by jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch.
CHURCH FIGHT!! CHURCH FIGHT!!
I don’t know how you religious people fight but didn’t they just throw down a challenge and throw in the towel all in the same breath?
“I AM THE MOST HUMBLE PERSON IN THE WHOLE ENTIRE WORLD!!!!! YAY FOR ME!”
Fail.
“What do you think of Warren’s tweet?” That it can’t be shocking, unfortunately, in the light of his being just one more ego and actor and greedhead who loves adoration, money and power. They’re everywhere, and evangelical christianity is a great place for them to have a stage and contributors.
It’s only shocking in the same sense that it’s “shocking” to find yet another religious right politician who was caught in an affair with a woman or a gay prostitute. Shocking that yet again, that another homophobic, sexist person is abusing power and full of hatred and the desire to control people. But *not* surprising, except to decent people who are baffled that anyone can be that way.
My church is worth Jesus to God and this realization makes me a whole lot less upset and little more sober in my criticism of a man who is far more seasoned and accomplished as a pastor than I may ever be. I’m sure he doesn’t need my forgiveness, as a matter of fact, I need his for being the pharisee I claim to resent. Regardless, I love and forgive him. Perhaps I was so quick to fire arrows, because I was overjoyed that he is capable of the same arrogance and nearsightedness that plagues me. If anything, Rick appears to be less than perfect and that in itself is a comfort to a hopelessly imperfect pastor like me.
I once heard someone say, “Never compare everything you know about yourself with what you do not know about others. You will both lose every time”
That’s good advice.
This, Ty, is what makes me want to throw up — wallowing in the quicksands surrounding a mindless devotion to a nonexistent god.
I know…I’m obviously am a moron. What am I thinking?
“hopelessly imperfect”
That is why you are a sad sack. Your religion puts up an impossible standard and makes people out to be deserving of abuses that are inhumane and cruel. Any person that said “Love me or I will eternally torture you” is said to be a obsessive psychopath. How is your “god” any different? And the fact that you swollow this bullsh*t hook, line, and sinker says little for your critical thinking skills.
We are NOT sinners. We are NOT in need of salvation. No truly omnipotent god would force us to love it by threatening us with damnation. No truly omnibenevolent god would allow such evil in the world. Nope, that’s just a failure of logic on your part.
That’s one way of looking at it. I’m not upset at you for having this perspective. I respect it. Why are you so angry at me for mine? I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything…just stating how I felt about Rick Warren’s comment. Was that so wrong?
Believe what you will, but keep it to yourself. One thing I truly dislike about certain religions is their need to proselytize and to interfere in politics. So, do you respect a gay couple’s right to marry? Rick Warren doesn’t. Do you respect a woman’s choice to do what is right for her life should she find herself with an unplanned pregnancy? Rick Warren doesn’t. Do you stand up for excellence in science and history education when lying fundies want to teach ridiculous dogma in schools? Rick Warren doesn’t.
We live in an age in which ignorance is damaging to society. I, for one, am tired of the willful ignorance of church leaders like Rick Warren. When church leaders stop disseminating misinformation and bad advice, I’ll stop being angry.
LRA…I agree with what you’ve written, but it seems to me that you are angry at Rick Warren. I’m not him. I’m not a sad sack…I actually like my life quite a bit. I don’t hate people in ignorance…at least I try not to…I have close friends that want nothing to do with God or church or religion…I’m ok with that…I still love them very much.
I agree that ignorance is damaging to society, but you are ignorant about who I am, but that didn’t stop you from making assumptions about me. I respect your anger and your obvious frustration with the idiocy of religion. I do too…just not in the same way.
Truce?
Do you tell people that they are sinners? Do you tell them that they are unworthy of god’s unconditional love because they aren’t perfect? Do you tell them that Jesus was a blood sacrifice to a wrathful god who demands “perfect” “justice”?
Because if you spread that hateful, inhumane message, then it’s hard for me to find a way to be at peace with that to call a truce. Christianity is a misanthropic religion, and I don’t want anything to do with a belief system that hates humanity that much.
Oh- and I’m connecting you to Rick Warren because you said he was “seasoned” and “accomplished”— which indicates that you think of him in a positive light, whereas I do not and don’t respect people who do.
“My church is worth Jesus to God”
Well MY church is worth 3 Shrute-bucks to God, so… yeah, take that imaginary conversion rate!
Ok…if it makes you feel better.
Laughter is the best medicine. And no one gives better comedy than uptight apologists.
from your previous post:
“I don’t hate people in ignorance…at least I try not to…I have close friends that want nothing to do with God or church or religion…I’m ok with that…I still love them very much.”
well, la-dee-dah!
thanx but No thanx for “loving” my ignorant butt
please save yourself the trouble
Well…um…wanna hug it out?
…maybe.
What’s the exchange rate between Schrute Bucks and Stanley Nickels?
It’s tied to the unicorn/leprechaun rate, which fluctuates based on rainbow density, crop intake, and unicorn tenderness. See, unicorns fart rainbows, which end at the pot of gold, where leprechauns are found; more unicorn crop intake, more gaseous emissions, more rainbows, more leprechauns. Leprechauns then hunt the unicorns for dinner, and if they’re tasty, they hunt more of them. Overhunting of unicorns reduces the amount of rainbow farts, which decreases the number of leprechaun hunters. A nice closed system.
You fucked up! You forgot the fairies in the system! Without that, the whole system collapses and the dwarfs and elves start hoarding and everything goes to hell!
I don’t really see this as much different from the various people who declare that they’re the only ones who are following Jesus the right way and everyone else has it wrong. John C does this constantly. Well, he’s not exactly challenging a Christ-off resembling a high school football rivalry, but the whole ‘no true Scotsman’, et al., everyone who answered the challenge is guilty of the same pride. I guess there’s what you say and by the side, how it comes out, and Warren’s was too obvious for some people.
I.e., it’s better to write an open letter on your blog exemplifying how my way is so much better than your way.
I think he just wants attention, and he wants people to react how they normally do when challenged… and in a way, they did. Did they not meet or exceed at least the one member of Saddleback in spiritual maturity, godliness and commitment?
Spiritual maturity (sort of) — “what is this, jr high”
Godliness — “Besides the sheer arrogance of it all, one thing which struck out the most was the utter man-centeredness of this tweet.”
Commitment — “Christianity is not about who’s better than who–NONE ARE GOOD!! all deserve the wrath of God in hell”
Like it never even happened. “Sounds too much like” … the media will run with it. But god won’t find out if you just undo it!
See, I prefer to do things the right way. I went to her blog post and saw this nice comment also:
“I really hate to throw stones, but in this case I’ll make an exception.”
Oh, Benston.
Wow, 160 were offended, and bit. I know, 500 is bigger than 160. “It chafes a little”? You mean, you’re bitten by pride as well, you have something to prove, and you’ve published a post in response, including your open letter to Rick Warren, trumpeting some quality so much better than how Saddleback does it.
What a circus! It’s comedy on the order of celebrity gossip.
Oh, how people react to a challenge even when they think they’re not. Oh, turn the other cheek, what’s that?
Nothing inherently bad about “pride”. It is merely the glad feeling in virtue – the achievement of something one values whether or not that value is a rational one. Of course, just as there are rational and irrational values, there is justifiable pride and unjustifiable pride. Rick Warren’s silliness would be the latter in both cases.
You have it all wrong my friends.
What Rick Warren said and the sentiment it conveyed were nothing un-Christian like. See, every single Christian soldier in America thinks they are the special ones, they and they alone have read the true word of God. They and they alone are conducting their lives according to the Bible. They and they alone have discovered the secret code of human morality and by their own lives, they are acting as role models to the unwashed and unsaved masses toiling in the cold and harsh outside world.
See, they think they are the special ones that God has blessed with enough grace to accept Jeebus as their person God. I’ve seen enough self centered egotistcal assholes with a thin veneer of humbleness in my dealings with fundie/Christian cow-orkers to spot a true Christian in three sentences flat.
Seriously? You’re claiming absolute knowledge of what every person who claims to be Christian thinks of themselves? Do you really live in a universe that is that simple? Are you so easy to categorize and sum up?
Paul COMPARED the Macedonia church’s commitment to Corinth’s & challenged them to MATCH it 2 Cor. 8:1-8. Wise teaching tool
Tomorrow’s headline: Rick Warren calls St. Paul a “tool.”
Gosh, I wonder why Warren didn’t just play the Elijah versus the prophets of Baal card instead. He seems so bleeping sure of himself that his kind of piety surely wouldn’t end up on the losing side of the subsequent genocide.
“Paul COMPARED the Macedonia church’s commitment to Corinth’s & challenged them to MATCH it 2 Cor. 8:1-8. Wise teaching tool”
Is Rick the pastor over all churches of America to have the authority to challenge their members like Paul did? Like many he lies using the bible for his own selfish purpose.
LRA – if you can stand another comment from a Christian here goes. The girl I was referring to is quite capable of discerning between an obvious fantasy and a loving heavenly Father who revealed himself to her in his only-begotten Son. She is not ignorant nor arrogant in her beliefs. Might I say that even if there were no God, we still need to believe there is to avoid the pride and arrogance you display in your tyrade against the God who loved you enough to die in your place and take your hell for you. In this case I would think that delusion is better than a proud arrogance that stinks to high heaven. You are not God and neither am I. Why are we so hesitant to admit that fact? He would do you no harm. Let’s all stay humble for we know not all there is to know. Perhaps that 1% you do not know includes the reality of the God who created you and has an awesome destiny for your life here and hereafter if you will only acknowlege your need. Email me at efcain@gmail.com.
“Let’s all stay humble for we know not all there is to know.”
Yet you stated with certainty facts about the Christian god in your post – why don’t you class this as arrogance?
Holy cr*p, there is nothing more sickening than a Pious christian lecturing on how to be humble like him.
“The girl I was referring to is quite capable of discerning between an obvious fantasy and a loving heavenly Father who revealed himself to her in his only-begotten Son”
Citation needed. You’re going to have to demonstrate why this loving heavenly father is not a fantasy. The bible doesn’t count – why would it to non-believers who don’t presuppose it is the word of god… unless you can provide evidence not in the bible that could indicate it genuinely is.
“Might I say that even if there were no God, we still need to believe there is to avoid the pride and arrogance you display in your tyrade against the God who loved you enough to die in your place and take your hell for you.”
No, we don’t. This doesn’t make any sense. You are saying that even if there is not god we need to avoid tirades against that god. That’s like saying that even if there isn’t a car coming towards you, you better jump out of the way of that car. You are completely contradicting yourself here.
Not to mention the completely backwards notion of a god that loves you so much he created a hell for you in the first place.
“You are not God and neither am I. Why are we so hesitant to admit that fact?”
I’m pretty sure LRA is happy to admit she is no god. I can’t say for sure but I don’t think she believes in any gods, like many folk here.
“He would do you no harm.”
Except send you to hell forever and ever if you don’t adore his suicidal son that is also himself that he killed to appease himself.
“Perhaps that 1% you do not know includes the reality of the God who created you and has an awesome destiny for your life here and hereafter if you will only acknowlege your need.”
And perhaps it won’t, but you aren’t going to even entertain that possibility, are you? Why do you expect people to take on faith your lengthy descriptions of the god ‘is’? If you have any evidence to back up your assertions, please share it with us.
Even if there were no god, what? You mean, even if there IS no god… we still need to believe there is…. again, what??
Is it pride and/or arrogance to say there is no god, evidently, you are saying that’s the same thing as saying we are god then? And then we have to believe in something non-existent, because some non-existent person symbolically died for our sins, based on the god who doesn’t exist, that it never even happened, without whom there is no sin. I think it’s plenty of pride and arrogance to assert we must do this to please a non-entity sufficiently to avoid going to non-existent hell, or you!
Plenty of no logic there! I mean, do you get how fucklng stupid that sounds? What contortions one has to go through in order to believe. We have to believe because we have to believe because we can’t not believe in something we believe in to believe in it. Or else we don’t believe in it, well we don’t believe in that, it’s so hazardous! Look how proud and arrogant it makes me think people are, trotting out the Down girl who isn’t like that at all, and knows the difference between fiction and receiving a direct message from god. Indoctrinating mentally handicapped children is cruel.
@JohnMWhite @Bill
The comments handler isn’t allowing any more deeply nested replies in our earlier discussion, so I’m having to reply with a new comment.
First, thanks for your replies, and for actually addressing my questions.
@Bill I always thought that to be atheist was to believe that there absolutely is and cannot be any kind of God, and that to be agnostic meant to believe that there *could* be some kind of God out there somewhere, but that we don’t have the faculties necessary to know that God or that the potential God had just not revealed him/herself. And don’t worry – I’m not trying to pull the old “HA! I’ve converted you from an atheist to an agnostic!” stunt.
Regarding “evidence,” I don’t know that I would have any evidence that you haven’t already heard before, or that would be admissible in your court. Such ironclad evidence would be difficult to procure for anyone. Even if I could come to your house, and introduce you to God, who could then dazzle you with miracles and blind you with His light, you could just as well claim that I’d drugged you or that I was using some sort of advanced technology on you.
I won’t try to enumerate my evidences here (for the above reasons) except to say that the bits of data that I hold as “evidence” for myself consist of some statements of logic about God, as well as a handful of personal experiences, all of which, when held together, create what is for me a strong case for the existence of God. Again, given the nature of this site, I think it’s safe for me to assume that you might find the notion that there could be logical statements which support the existence of God to be laughable, so I won’t subject you to them (unless you really want me to).
@Darwin
Could you allow for the possibility that a perfect Creator might be able to create beings which He has imbued with the ability and autonomy to make choices, even imperfect ones? Also, you admit that humans are “imperfect,” meaning that somewhere out there is some nebulous standard of “perfection” which we humans are falling short of. For you, what is that standard?
“I always thought that to be atheist was to believe that there absolutely is and cannot be any kind of God, …”
The probable are atheists that believe that but I can’t say I’ve ever heard when express it in such definitive terms. The generally case, in my experience, is that an atheist doesn’t believe in any gods which is shorthand for saying they don’t believe in any gods but would be willing to change their mind if any credible evidence existed.
“Such ironclad evidence would be difficult to procure for anyone.”
Why should the evidence for the Christian god be so difficult for someone to procure. The Bible provides many indications to its nature, behaviour and interactions with us, yet where is the evidence for this? If you classified god as an entity whose only interaction with out Universe was its creation then I would agree but that’s not the case with mainstream religions.
“Could you allow for the possibility that a perfect Creator might be able to create beings which He has imbued with the ability and autonomy to make choices, even imperfect ones?”
Why would a creator who was “perfect” decide to create something that was itself imperfect, does that fact in itself mean that the creator is imperfect or maybe the creator doesn’t care. Is that the god you beleive in?
“Also, you admit that humans are “imperfect,” meaning that somewhere out there is some nebulous standard of “perfection” which we humans are falling short of. For you, what is that standard?”
The fact that someone has an idea of what they would call perfection would only be relevant if that definition agreed with everybody else’s definition, the fact is that it does not
Atheism is merely the lack of belief in gods due to lack of evidence. The agnostic has the lazy and intellectually coward position that since god’s existence hasn’t been disproved, believing in him is as reasonable as not believing. The absurdity of this position was illustrated by Bertrand Russell with his teapot analogy:
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
I wouldn’t. That would be enough to convince me. But of course, you can’t do that. And I’m pretty sure that’s not how you came to believe in god, either. It probably took a lot less to convince you. The “ironclad” evidence we demand is the same you would demand in every other aspect of life. If a police officer acused you of a crime, he would have to present some solid evidence. If a scientist affirmed the moon is made of cheese, he also would have to back his claim. Why should religion standards be lower?
The fact that you refuse to share with us your “evidence” indicates you don’t trust it would resist scrutiny. Like most christians, you probably believe for purely emotional reasons, and afterwards rationalize a few arguments that support what you want to be true.
I would say that there isn’t a single scale that runs through theist to agnostic to atheist, but two orthogonal scales. In one dimension, you have theists (people who believe in one or more gods) and atheists (people who believe in zero gods); in the other dimension, you have gnostics* (people who know their opinion about theism is the correct one) and agnostics (people who think they might be wrong).
Most (but not all) theists are convinced that their belief in God is correct and are therefore (by the definition I’m using here) gnostics. Most (but not all) atheists are willing to admit that gods could exist, and would change their minds given sufficiently convincing evidence, making them agnostics.
However, while my (obviously incomplete) experience indicates that agnostic theism is a minority viewpoint, but one that is not rare, I don’t think I’ve ever come across an atheist who’s unwilling to consider any new evidence presented**. Even “millitant” atheists like Hitchens, Dawkins or Myers are adamant that they could be convinced of the existence of gods. Most atheists either have never really thought about the issue and come to it by osmosis in an secular/atheistic culture, or they have sceptically reasoned themselves into atheism: neither of these approaches is amenable to dogmatism.
Of course, there are as many different ways to define “agnostic” and “atheist” as there are people claiming those labels. Not to mention labels like “apatheist” or “antitheist”, so these are my own personal take, and not intended to constrain anyone else’s usage.
*theologically, this has a completely different meaning, but it’ll do here because I like the linguistic symmetry.
**Bill Maher may be an exception. He certainly doesn’t fall into either category I’ve outlined above.
I just want to know -
- What is the unit of spiritual maturity – the Teresa?
- What instrument can be used to measure it?
No, no, no! It’s the Graham. You measure your spiritual maturity by the Graham.
Of course any of the devices listed on this site can be used to measure spiritual maturity:
http://www.medievality.com/torture.html
you owe me a new keyboard :D
Tee hee hee! I made a funny! :D
Pingback: Rick Warren and His Tweet (plus Sunday Reflection) « Step By Step
Ahh the gig is up. That man behind the curtain – pay no attention to him. He’s a modern day snake oil salesman plain and simple.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
Voltaire
Pingback: Dangerous Talk » Fear of the Unknown