Here We Go Again…

125 comments to Here We Go Again…

• GMNightmare

  May 20th, 2009 at 2:21 am · Reply

  Ah, perfect, I was ready to reply to this “artist” earlier… I’ll get right on this, or maybe tomorrow as it is a bit late

  Reply to This Comment

• Buffy

  May 20th, 2009 at 6:30 am · Reply

  Pass the popcorn!

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 11:24 pm

  I want a box of whoppers too!

  Reply to This Comment

• deletedsoul

  May 20th, 2009 at 7:42 am · Reply

  It seems to me that Ash’s “joy in belief in god” is much like eating copious amounts of cake every day. There’s no logical reason for doing it, in fact, it is quite likely that it is bad for you, but it feels really really good when you do it. Not only is Ash eating and LOVING her cake every day, she wants everyone to eat the same cake – even if they are well known for not eating cake for many reasons. The mantra of “It makes me happy so why is it bad??” is only valid if you aren’t trying to shove your “cake”, which is mostly just a love for warm fuzzies, down others’ throats.

  I’ve met so many people who give me the “There is so much JOY in serving god!” spiel. However, watching them in their day to day lives most often proves that they aren’t any happier than anyone else. Personally, I have found so much more peace and happiness in my lack of belief than I ever did in religion – I would never, ever want to go back to that kind of mental slavery.

  Good luck Neece – looks like you have a live one here.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm

  The cake is a lie.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 20th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  What? Nonsense! The existence of the pan proves the existence of the cake! How else could the pan have come into being in exactly the shape of a cake?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 3:16 am

  HAhahahahahaha- Awesome response!

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 11:27 pm

  I want cake! Wait.. no.. I don’t want cake… wait.. but cake is yummy! This sucks! What do atheists get then? Do we get brownies!? I hope so. They’re better than cake anyway.
  Great analogy. I agree with you!

  Reply to This Comment

• Michael Mock

  May 20th, 2009 at 8:50 am · Reply

  Just to clarify… I’m not a Christian (“obviously” or otherwise). And I don’t really mind writing out God and including the “o”; I tend to write it with the hyphen simply out of habit. (I spent a couple of years in college hanging out with a pair of gay Hasidic rabbis – no, I am not making this up.)

  For that matter, “God” is supposed to be a job description, not a proper name; so even if I were a believer, I wouldn’t see any sort of blasphemy in writing it out the way bazillions of Christians (etc.) have been doing for quite a large number of years now.

  I am – now, also – really, *really* curious why you would “find referring to god as G-d to be strange and exceedingly irritating.” What earthly difference does it make to you how I refer to something that doesn’t exist?

  And if Ash shows back up, I really would like to hear (or read, rather) an answer to my question. He – or she – began by stating that (s)he had recently returned to Christianity after a long absence; but the argument* that (s)he follows up with only supports a belief in God in general, rather than Christianity in particular. If it’s belief in God that gives you joy, why not become, for example, Jewish?

  I had also intended to go back and address Ash’s sidenote about “whether you knew him in the past or not”, but I think that should wait.

  Michael Mock

  * Maybe “viewpoint” is a better word.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  Hi Michael,
  Well, if you’re not a christian, then I truly apologize. I meant no offense. I was making assumptions, which happens from time to time.
  Gay hasidic rabbis? WTF? That made me do a double take!
  I have to say I’ve never met a non-christian who wrote G-d. And I still don’t get why people do it. I know why they say they do it, but it doesn’t make any sense to me.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 7:31 am

  To be perfectly honest, I’ve never met a Christian who wrote it the way I do. I thought it was strictly a Jewish, possibly even Hasidic, thing. But then, I also thought it was a harmless quirk. I never expected it to attract this much attention, let alone this much “you-shouldn’t-write-it-that-way” attention.

  I’m not going to even try to defend their reasons for doing it, except to say that people do all sorts of silly little things for the vaguest and most nonsensical of reasons, and if I think they’re harmless, I generally leave them alone.

  I kind of like living in a world with a lot of random weirdness in it.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 20th, 2009 at 12:42 pm · Reply

  “You believe what you are indoctrinated to believe”

  Neece, what proof do you have that I believe what I do because I was indoctrinated?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 11:36 pm

  I don’t know a thing about you personally makarios. You can believe in giant pink unicorns for all I know. The very definitions of indoctrination and religion are synonymous.

  We are all born atheists. The only way to become a believer in one particular religion or another is based on what brand of nonsense your parents and community brainwash you into. Plain and simple.

  Reply to This Comment

• GMNightmare

  May 20th, 2009 at 5:07 pm · Reply

  Makarios, look up the bloody definition before you spout nonsense. Really now, is it so hard to do a simple quick check to make sure you aren’t in the process of being brainless? Just type into google “indoctrination”, it’s a given for religion-part of the faith.

  For you Michael, it is annoying to me as well when you do the silly hyphen thing. First off, it’s pointless. YHWH is the name, not “god”. It is absolutely moronic, as there is no difference between god and g-d as it refers to the same thing. It is without reason, especially if you do it. What if everybody started to refer to the as t-e, t-e is now the. It would annoy you as well. It’s just as annoying as when people do that text speak.

  Now, for the main course.
  “reason art/literature/music is mainly seen as a break from work is because that’s when you can sit back relax, and stop thinking”
  I’ll start with this. I’ll flat out say it, wrong. It’s seen as a break from work because it’s just that! It’s a distraction. It distracts you from everything you have to do, distracts you from reality. It has nothing to do with “stopping thought”, art doesn’t have to stop you from thinking-it certainly doesn’t do it for me. It’s funny you should correlate religion to this, because that’s exactly it! Religion is a distraction from reality.

  And that’s why your so happy with it. That joy, it’s having no responsibility for anything in your life. You just, give it up, give it all over to the big invisible man in the sky. The biggest distraction from your life and reality that there is. In a way, it’s an adult’s way to fight society, to return to being a child where you didn’t have any responsibilities.

  It’s not real happiness. It’s not real joy. It’s just like a good drug, and people get addicted to that drug. Then of course, it starts to not completely be enough, but your too far addicted to do anything. The joy of being responsible for your life is just as good… except, of course, that it isn’t fake, and you have to work hard for it. People just want the easy way out though…

  “can accept both art and science despite their natural differences, I believe they can also accept the concept of faith”
  Um… there are quite a few things wrong with just this sentence alone. First, that’s a mistaken correlation. Another, we already understand the concept of faith. And thus there will be no accepting(we will not have faith in your faith). Faith is blindly following what you were told without evidence, and also ignoring all contradictory opinions and evidence.

  Further, these “natural” differences you speak of, is nothing but amount of creativity. ALL job fields have an amount of creativity. ALL. Some more, some less. By the way, what exactly is an “artist”? When people refer to themselves as an “artist”… well, let’s just say it’s not saying good things about you. Are you a painter? Sculptor? Dancer(hell, I’m a social dance competitor/teacher along side my main work)? To set this straight, your not trying to put your feelings into your artwork, your trying to invoke feelings from it. Amateur mistake #1. You know what? Another good move of you to compare religion to artwork, highly creative attempt to invoke feelings so you believe their trash.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 11:45 pm

  Yes, textspeak is just as annoying as g-d. Seriously. Write it out. And spell everything right, too. The only exception is lolcats, and that’s just because they have such teeny brains. So they don’t have the capacity to learn to spell and speak proper grammar. But you are human. Speak and write properly!

  Yes! Worshiping god is like being addicted to a drug that lets you shirk all responsibility and decision-making onto the invisible sky daddy!

  I also don’t stop thinking when I observe or experience art. Sometimes it makes me think much much more! It does hopefully invoke thoughts, feelings and maybe memories or inspirations. Your god doesn’t do that for me. Then again I’m not addicted to religion, so maybe it’s different if you are.

  Yes! Faith is blindly accepting what someone tells you with no proof or evidence, as well as ignoring all contradictory evidence. Exactly. What’s so great about that?

  Reply to This Comment

• Michael Mock

  May 20th, 2009 at 11:39 pm · Reply

  ::sigh:: This is a “respectful” exchange of ideas?

  Look, I picked up the habit of writing “G-d” because I was around people who wrote it that way long enough that it looks normal to me. That’s all; that’s it. But unlike your the/t-e example, that means that there is already some part of the general population which writes it that way, so yours not a very good comparison. More to the point, if it’s as pointless as you say it is, why get so worked up about it? Was it unclear? Did you have trouble understanding what I was saying because of it?

  Neece writes it as “god”, deliberately (I assume) omitting the capitalization. This, to my mind, is at at least as incorrect, as it offers a possible confusion between the concept of a god (such as Zeus or Thor) and the Christian god (God). Yet I don’t see anyone complaining about it.

  (Is your apparent inability to tell the difference between “your” and “you’re” a deliberate attempt to reinforce your point about how annoying misspellings can be? If so, it’s very clever; but if not, well, it’s a nice bit of unintentional irony.)

  As to indoctrination being an inherent part of religion… well, you’re right insofar as all religions want to teach their members what their doctrines are. That’s not the way “indoctrination” is usually used, though. Common usage suggests a degree of programming or coercion, and Makarios is right: there’s no call to assume that such is always the case. Have you never met someone who says, for example, “The church teaches that birth control is wrong, but frankly I think condoms are one of the great achievements of the modern world”? Or been to a church which leaves many (or most) issues up to the conscience of the individual believer?

  If you’re assuming a priori that no one with real critical thinking skills can freely choose to be religious – or, in reverse, that any believer either lacks critical thinking skills or was somehow forced into believing – then there’s not much left to say.

  I’m a little disappointed that Ash hasn’t returned. His/hers was at least an interesting perspective, and the fact that (s)he had responded once offered some small hope that (s)he would do so again. And I really was looking forward to finding out how (s)he got from point A to point B, even if (as I suspect) the answer is simply, “because finding God means finding Christianity, don’tcha know”.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 1:47 am

  Again, it’s annoying. I guess I have to repeat myself, your like a little kid on your cell phone typing nonsense such as 4 instead of four. Yes, I already got how you “picked it up”, and quite frankly, it’s the worse excuse you could make. You were among some people who did it, so now you do it? That’s just sad! They have a REASON(not really, but they think they do) to do it, YOU DON’T. I might as well just say it, if everyone else was jumping off the cliff… Now, do you have anything else to say? Oh wait, since you’ve missed the memo for when both of us said it already, we think it’s ANNOYING for YOU to do it.

  As for not capitalizing god, it’s because the word god is not capitalized. It’s not incorrect, at all–capitalizing god, is incorrect. There is no difference between Zeus/Thor and the Christian god. See how I capitalized Zeus, and Thor, and even YHWH? That’s right, because their actually names of the deities, the word god isn’t. Nobody complains about it, because everybody else knows better–everybody but you apparently.

  “tell the difference between ‘your’ and ‘you’re’”
  Hmm, how childish. Did you search the whole thing to find that one grammar mistake? Or did you actually think that helps your case? No really, come now, do you really think that helped your case? A slight slip on my part and you lunge to try to mellow your little habit?

  Indoctrination… did you even bother to google it? Do I have to spell it out?!? I guess so,
  “indoctrination:teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.”
  Ahem, I wonder, how does that fit in with religion? Bugger, I don’t know, perhaps I should think about the bloody correlation between FAITH and indoctrination. That might just be the key. Oh no, you provided an example of somebody not accepting everything uncritically, shoot. I guess that proves it! Get real. They are still taught to accept everything uncritically, especially, the core. Did she say someone had to do it as well? No, the BIBLE says it itself. Accept it blindly and unquestioningly, god is never questioned. Coercion? I give you hell. I mean literally. You believe or go to hell. Of course it’s all buttered up and slowly spoon fed, but it’s always there.

  As for Ash, I doubt you really even understand it fully. Ash’s post is full of explanation of why she reconverted. You just couldn’t put two and two together. Also, an explanation of “because finding god means finding Christianity”, makes zero sense…

  “This is a ‘respectful’ exchange of ideas?”
  Let’s recap shall we? All I said was that your hyphenated god annoyed me. That is all. You had to have a little fit over it.
  Then you tried to defend Makarios. Why? I don’t know.
  You aren’t presenting ideas. Did I hear an “I think” in there? No. You got a decent amount of respect anyways, but what are you really wanting here? Just everybody to accept your views unconditionally, nobody to call you out or anybody for that matter? No thank you.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 1:15 am

  Calm Blue Ocean, GMN! I guess we’re past calm blue ocean.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 3:31 am

  Actually, I just thought the use of g-d was weird, not unlike finding the names of people or places lined out in Jules Verne novels. (They met at V___ that night, for example.) It doesn’t bother me at all.

  I only capitalize god at the beginning of a sentence, because it isn’t a proper name like, say, Zeus. But, I guess that can be annoying in its own right.

  Oh well.

  I do slightly disagree on the indoctrination thing. For the most part, people adopt the religion/political party/laundry detergent of their parents and their region. Sure, there are exceptions, but you just have to look at the local denominations of your town or city to see what the demographics are, and there’s always the inconclusive but readily available anecdotal evidence of personal observation. Most religious people I’ve met are one flavor or another of Christianity. If I had been born in Saudi Arabia, however, it would be a different story, I think.

  I’ll go even further and say that the example you give of Catholics disagreeing with the Pope just goes to show that they are choosing which doctrines to adhere to and which to ignore, but they are still Catholic, probably just like their parents were.

  Which is also an indicator that modern society has to drag the church (of any stripe) into the present, usually kicking and screaming.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 am

  Well, I’m glad it doesn’t bother you. You’re more tolerant than me, Steve.

  Yes, I agree, people adopt the ways of their parents and the society they are raised in.

  Excellent point: that modern society and science have to drag the church kicking and screaming into the present. They really hate that, don’t they? I wonder where we’d be with technology and science and even ethics if we had never been oppressed so greatly by religion for so many hundreds, nay… thousands of years?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 2:47 am

  Oooh. I just noticed I didn’t clarify my thoughts on indoctrination there. I think there’s a pretty big gap between indoctrination and taking on the beliefs (about any topic, like shampoo, soda and religion) of your parents, community and culture.

  Or perhaps the word indoctrinate has too much baggage associated with it. For though it’s synonymous with brainwashing, it’s also used to mean instruction in specific doctrines.

  I don’t, however, believe that the only way to religion is via indoctrination or brainwashing. I don’t think that faith is equivalent to indoctrination. This implies, based on the verbal baggage associated with it that there is some nefarious purpose involved.

  Some people come to religion via their parents. Others come to religion through struggle with addiction. Unhappiness and fear can lead a person to the pews, just as much as new friends, anecdotal testimonials or hope can.

  So, no, there are a lot of reasons that fall outside of the indoctrination label for people to find god.

  I will say this, though. It is my personal belief that finding your way to atheism is harder and more rewarding than theism, because though reason is difficult, requiring constant maintenance with no easy, feel good answers, being free of dogma and superstition is a pretty cool place to be.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 7:45 am

  Thank you. That is, in a nutshell, precisely the point I (and I think Makarios) was trying to make about the faith/indoctrination connection. To elaborate:

  The simple fact is that religion – by which I mean religion in general, not Christianity – is essentially universal. Any society of human beings will have tools, art, and religion; if there are exceptions to this, I’m not aware of them. (And, for clarity: I’m talking about people in the aggregate. I don’t mean that every individual human has a need for religion, just as not every individual human has a need for art.)

  That says to me that the urge for religion is somehow wired into the species. If people don’t have something to believe in, they’ll create it.

  The other explanation – that thousands of years ago, someone came up with a way to control people by convincing them that an Invisible Sky Daddy was watching their every move, and that the system has been perpetuating itself ever since – simply doesn’t explain why religious beliefs show up, in many different forms, everywhere.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  Well, I’m not so sure I agree with you wholeheartedly on that score- Specifically, my view is that religion originally came about to explain the world.

  Rather than “religion is somehow wired into the species,” the human brain is wired to ask “why.” Why are we here? How did we come about? The idea of something like us, but not like us as an explanation for how we got here and what our purpose is was not only acceptable but almost inevitable. That’s why the gods that have been invented over the last hundred thousand years reflect the interests, values and knowledge of the culture of the people who created them.

  I think control and power came later.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 24th, 2009 at 12:21 pm

  Personally, I think it’s a combination of the urge to ask why, and the tendency to look for human motivations even in non-human things. But I think that’s a more a difference in details than in basic opinion.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 1:10 am

  Ok.. everyone take a deep breath. What do we have in COMMON? I think this conversation has degenerated a bit.

  Yes, I do not capitalize god on purpose. Why capitalize a word for something that doesn’t exist? It’s not a proper noun to me.

  Regarding indoctrination: sure sometimes you’ll find people going against their brainwashing, but it’s not as common as staying in lockstep. For example, I was indoctrinated in the church and look at me now, a happy atheist. Sure it happens, just not as often as it doesn’t happen.

  I too wish Ash would return, but this rather heated exchange has probably driven him/her away for good. The questions you brought up were good ones. Sigh, maybe next time.

  Reply to This Comment

• Michael Mock

  May 21st, 2009 at 10:05 am · Reply

  GMNightmare: “As for not capitalizing god, it’s because the word god is not capitalized.”

  Untrue. It’s a question of usage. If I’m talking about a god, I don’t capitalize it; if I’m talking about God, specificially, I do. Just as if I’m talking about a president (as in, “Our new book club will need a president”), I don’t capitalize it; whereas if I’m talking about the President, I do. Just because it’s a title doesn’t mean it’s never supposed to be capitalized.

  I didn’t really mean to get sidetracked on grammar, though. I’m just amazed at the amount of animus directed at something that is, basically, an unimportant quirk of my writing style. You still haven’t answered the question about why something so trivial is so annoying to you. Is it because it shows respect for a concept that you don’t like to see respected? Or for people whose beliefs you disagree with? (That’s not snark or sarcasm, by the way; it’s a serious question.)

  As for the rest of your response… You’re conflating religion with Christianity – and possibly just with your experience of Christianity. Yes, some religions actively indoctrinate, in the worst possibe sense of the word. But, in my experience, that’s not true of all of them; it’s not even true of all of Christianity. If you’d like to convince me that it is, you’re going to have to show your work.

  Steve said: “For the most part, people adopt the religion/political party/laundry detergent of their parents and their region.”

  Absolutely, and I’m not disagreeing with this. Is it evidence of indoctrination by the local religion? Evidence that people tend to stick with what they’re familiar with? Evidence that people generally don’t think analytically about their lifestyles? I’d suggest that it’s all three (and probably a few others) with a high degree of variation in the individual mixtures.

  That said, it’s still a gross overgeneralization to assume that everyone who holds some religious beliefs must have been indoctrinated. That’s why I’m defending Makarios’ question: it was a perfectly valid question.

  GMNightmare asked: “…what are you really wanting here?”

  Well, in Ash’s case, I wanted to see if there was anything more to his/her view than (s)he had already offered. (Yes, I am aware that we’ve probably already seen the full extent of his/her reasoning. But then, people generally don’t convert because of logical arguments; studies suggest that religious conversion is largely a social phenomenon. So I’m not really looking for logical arguments there; I’m listening for an interesting story.)

  In Neece’s case, I wanted to point out that she was making some unwarranted (and, as it happens, incorrect) assumptions about my beliefs, and some unsupportable generalizations about religious people in general. It also strikes me as a tad hypocritical to say that you’re willing to conduct a respectful discussion/exchange of ideas with religious people, and then say things like “[Faith] shows someone as gullible and intellectually lazy.” If you really believe that any sort of religious belief is a mark of intellectual and/or moral weakness, then there’s not much basis for respectful conversation, is there?

  I feel compelled to add that, since this Neece’s blog and all, she can run it however she likes. However I may come across, I really don’t mean to be telling her what to do. I’ve commented because she expressed a desire (or at least a willingness) to engage believers in a respectful meeting of the minds, and I have some suggestions that I hope will help her do that. As with all advice, I don’t expect her to take it; it’s freely offered in the hope that it might help, and it’s probably worth exactly what she paid for it.

  (Sure, it would be nice if the world would just bow down in recognition of my inherent brilliance; but if past experience is any guide, that ain’t happenin’ any time soon.)

  As for you, GMNightmare, I was actually hoping to get you to moderate your tone. Not change your beliefs, or lack of beliefs; not abandon your logic or alter your perspective; and I am certainly not trying to convert you. I’m not even trying to act as an apologist, for Christianity or any other religion.

  I have no idea what you’re like in person, or even elsewhere on the Net. But just reading what you’ve written here, in this thread, you come across as the stereotype of the Angry Atheist: dismissive, contemptuous, and utterly convinced that religion is not only bunk, but deeply evil. This tone actually detracts from the points you’re trying to make; it makes your responses harder to read; it’s distracting.

  Seriously, would it have been that hard to say, “I believe indoctrination is an inherent part of religion; consider, for example, the Christian insistence that anyone who doesn’t believe the right way will go to hell. Therefore, anyone who accepts Christianity is subject to psychological coercion about their beliefs and behaviors.” It’s clean, it’s clear, it doesn’t insult the reader, and I believe it hits all of your main points on the topic.

  Then I could go on to point out that there are religions beside Christianity, many of which do not include a Hell-equivalent, and that there are even Christians like Carlton Pearson who do not believe in Hell. (Though it’s probably noteworthy that he lost about 4/5 of his congregation after he reached that conclusion.)

  Instead, we seem to be stuck in some sort of weird pissing contest, and that’s a cycle I’d like to break.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 am

  I’m going to reply to this via a post. I should have it done tomorrow.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 7:48 am

  Please, please (re-)read the rest of the exchange first. A big part of this seems to be that GMNightmare and I are using the same words with very, very different meanings.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 8:42 am

  Oh, and – I’m on vacation all next week (this being a holiday weekend and all), so I’ll be on the Internet very little if at all. You’re welcome to go ahead and post, but this is probably my last post for at least a full week.

  Reply to This Comment

• GMNightmare

  May 21st, 2009 at 2:43 pm · Reply

  You have a failed logic there. The word god is not a title, it is a pronoun. You further imply that god exists by capitalizing, there is no need for a nonbeliever. The capitalization case just basically amounts to, “Well, everyone else was doing it to show respect… so everyone should.” Huh, that sounds familiar.

  &, 4COL, 4 lik t 4th time, its jst simply annoying. What do you not get about that? If somebody in the room was popping bubblegum, people might find that annoying. Your that person. And your not doing it for a belief, so you have no grand justification to do it.

  You just don’t seem to get it either. Anything that depends upon FAITH, is INDOCTRINATION. If you take something on faith, you take it uncritically. It’s by definition, faith is indoctrination. There doesn’t have to be coercion, but there nearly always is. Oh no, somebody who doesn’t believe in hell as an example. Going along this path again are we? Carlton Pearson… what happened to him? Yes, he was basically heathen and kicked out of religious prestige. Why? Because he didn’t believe what he was told. He didn’t accept things uncritically. Huh, does that support me? Yes. Furthermore, you again point out one issue yet fail to see the nearly infinite accounts of atrocity committed throughout the bible just for not doing things without question. By the way, Carlton Pearson STILL BELIEVED IN HELL. He just didn’t think of it as a place of eternal torture. Way to pick a solid example.

  Oh yes, and you seem to fail to get the context of our talk here. We aren’t talking about all religion, specifically we’re talking about monotheism. We not talking about Deism, or Pantheism and so forth. Just in case you couldn’t figure it out. Sorry we use the term religion in the context of just monotheism, but you should get used to it, instead of pipping up everything single time we use religion in that context.

  The suggestion of what I should have said… Would not have changed anything. Also, it’s not clean, it’s not direct, and it’s fluffed with a bunch of junk just to make it sound nicer than it really is. If you don’t have beef with that sentence, than you should not have had beef with mine. Your sentence is no more respectful than mine, further, it lost some of it’s meaning trying to sound nice and inflated with big words. It’s much harder to understand, with the loss of simplicity due to that. Trying to fluff and pad things doesn’t change what is said.

  The respect you get from me, is indirectness. I’ll argue by implying, argue with the actions, with the beliefs. The less respect, the more direct.

  Reply to This Comment

• Johnny

  May 21st, 2009 at 3:03 pm · Reply

  Without getting into the whole mix, just wanted to comment on the “god” versus “God” debate; not to argue, but just as a ‘chime-in.’

  I don’t use God with a capital because to me this infers that he is the only one, the true one. Capitalizing portrays it as a name instead of a title.

  Correlating with the example, president is a title. When used in the name context its capitalized: the President of the United States.

  Yahweh (or YHWH) is the Judeo/Christian deity, and god is his title; only those within the cult see it as his name and view him as the God.

  When writing, arguing, or defending my non-belief, to me using God implies that I’m only arguing against Yahweh. Since I don’t believe in any god, I make a point to not capitalize it.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:41 am

  Yes, that makes sense too, Johnny. I agree. I don’t believe in any god so why capitalize it like it’s referring only to the christian god? It’s still not a title given with respect. It’s just a label to something that doesn’t exist.

  Reply to This Comment

• Michael Mock

  May 21st, 2009 at 3:26 pm · Reply

  Oh, I see. “God” is a pronoun.

  …Wait, what? I think the term you’re looking for is “common noun” (as opposed to proper nouns, which are capitalized). Pronouns are words which substitute for nouns. “He”, “she”, and “it” are examples of pronouns. “God” is not.

  Seriously. Go look it up. I’ll wait.

  …

  …

  …

  Done yet? That settles one thing: I’m not taking grammar advice from you. Right, on to the next bit.

  “its jst simply annoying. What do you not get about that?”

  Okay, fine; there’s no reason for it to annoy you, it just does. Got it.

  “Anything that depends upon FAITH, is INDOCTRINATION. If you take something on faith, you take it uncritically.”

  Let me see if I follow you. Step one: The definition of Faith is believing things for which there is no proof; therefore faith is uncritical belief. Step two: Indoctrination is teaching someone to accept doctrines (i.e. to believe) uncritically. Step three: Therefore, any belief which requires faith requires that the believer has been indoctrinated.

  Is that your logic, more or less?

  “We aren’t talking about all religion, specifically we’re talking about monotheism. We not talking about Deism, or Pantheism and so forth.”

  Then you should say what you mean.

  “The respect you get from me, is indirectness. I’ll argue by implying, argue with the actions, with the beliefs. The less respect, the more direct.”

  So you seriously believe that the more rudely you present your points, the clearer and more persuasive your arguments are?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 21st, 2009 at 5:35 pm

  Step 1: define pronoun:
  “a function word that is used in place of a noun or noun phrase”
  Step 2: define god:
  “deity: any supernatural being”
  Step 3: substitute god for whatever one we are talking about. Zeus, YHWH, Allah, or otherwise.
  Step 4: realize that this use is the definition of a pronoun.

  Yes, god is a pronoun. It is substituted for an abstract noun. Basic grammar 101. When you say god, you fail to realize that it can mean any god, Athena or otherwise. Thankfully, most people know how to handle contexts, so when I’m talking about Christianity they would know to place the proper god whenever I said god. When used to identify the whole group, like of the gods, it is a common noun. Proper noun, would be the name Zeus, Athena, YHWH, or Allah. As the word god can be used to reference to multiple things, it is, a pronoun. Of course, let’s take this into context. This is use for an atheist. For theists, the god in question is the only one, it cannot be changed depending on context. Op, more context, monotheists. Further context, we’re talking why it’s acceptable for Neece to use it without capitalization. Gotta say what I mean directly, contexts are too murky sometimes. Along that line…

  “Then you should say what you mean.”
  Everyone here knows but you. It is therefore, something your missing. It would be, the context. It’s saying, “Hi, we’re talking about Christianity and it’s branches here, so our religious context is going to mostly refer to monotheism.”

  “So you seriously believe that the more rudely you present your points, the clearer and more persuasive your arguments are?”
  That is not said earlier, nor can it be properly deduced from what I said. There is no difference between what you wanted me to say, and what I said. You just inflated the message with a bunch of big words to muddle what was being said, in order to make it sound nicer. Sounding nicer, doesn’t make it nicer, and anybody with a decent intelligence looks right through that. That is why, say Craig the Christian, took offense even when most of Neece was padded and fluffed up with nice stuff except for the occasional slip. Let me show you, for purely demonstration:
  “Your stupid.”
  “I believe you to be lacking adequate knowledge to be socially acceptable.”
  There is no difference, they’re both insults, the second one is just trying to hide the insult through fluff. It is a further insult, treating the recipient as being… well, so stupid to not be able to figure that out. When I mean indirectly, well, let’s just have an example:
  “Your stupid.”
  “Eating poison is stupid.”
  Get it? I labeled the action being stupid, instead of the person doing the action. And typically, I don’t insult even that, although it sometimes slips out.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 am

  Guys, guys. This is starting to sound like a pissing contest.

  And, I think, in the grand scheme of the universe means very little.

  Does Neece need to post another Lolcat?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:58 am

  I’m getting the lolcats together right this minute! CUTE OVERLOAD WARNING!

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 am

  Really, I’m getting the super soakers out now. That’ll calm you guys down! Then we can all hug and make up and sing happy songs while toasting marshmallows to make into smores!

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 8:22 am

  Define “god“:
  I’m not going to copy over the definitions, but look at the parts of speech given in the link. I see noun and interjection, with some archaic uses where it functions as a verb. Nowhere do I see it defined as a pronoun.

  Yes, it can substitute for another noun. That does not (necessarily) make it a pronoun.

  “That is not said earlier, nor can it be properly deduced from what I said.”

  Then humor me and clarify, please. (I read the rest of your post, but frankly I’m having trouble parsing it. If anyone else wants to leap in and translate for me, that would be fine, too.) What’s wrong with saying things nicely? In a scale of politeness to rudeness, your actual points – your logic – should be value neutral.

  Yes, people may still become offended if your logic leads them to conclusions that they don’t want to embrace, but that has nothing to do with whether your tone is rude or polite. So why not be polite?

  You made an assertion (faith=indoctrination) which includes a lot of background assumptions, and then acted as if those assumptions were so obvious that anyone who didn’t immediately see them was clearly an idiot. That’s an interesting rhetorical device, but it doesn’t actually speak well for you logic. If your logic is sound, you should be able to lay it out simply and clearly, without the implication that anyone who doesn’t see it is stupid. You did eventually explain, which I appreciate, but your explanation was so buried in how-stupid-can-you-be implications that I still found it a bit hard to follow.

  No, you can’t say exactly the same thing in different words; but you can make the same logical points with a variety of emotional tones.

  …super-soakers and s’mores for everyone? Yay! (Although, me in a bathing suit… maybe not such a good idea.)

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:44 am

  I think I need to get a couple of cold buckets of water for you guys.

  Reply to This Comment

• Johnny

  May 21st, 2009 at 3:30 pm · Reply

  If Ash does make it around again…
  

  I agree that you can be happy without God. But there is a different kind of joy in believing in God that I find completely amazing. The desire to share this joy is really so overwhelming, and that’s the reason why we Christians can’t leave you guys alone, even if we have the utmost respect for you.

  Christians pushing their beliefs on ‘us’ shows how little you respect non-believers. This is also why so many non-believers detest overt outspoken Christians. Non-believers come to their non-belief dozens of different ways, but very few come to it without thought, without questioning, without self-searching. Can you say the same for many Christians?

  So with this in mind, what new evidence do you bring to the table to convince non-believers?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 am

  Hah. Pet peeve time…

  Ash explains why HE wants to share, without realizing that we’ve already heard his reasons.

  Other Christians share because they really believe in the fires of hell, and just as you would save a drowning person, they try and save you from burning, without realizing that we’ve already heard their reasons.

  I don’t find a capitalized god annoying, or even a hyphenated god annoying. I do however find proselytizing of any stripe annoying and while I’m pretty sure that Ash means well it doesn’t change my feelings on the matter.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:57 am

  That’s a good point, Steve. I got the feeling that Ash was going to proselytize. In the future, if (by some miracle-LOL) another christian comes along wanting to converse, how do we do that without getting proselytized to? Is that even possible? Is it a chance we have to take?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 8:35 am

  My personal opinion? You’d have to find the right sort of Christian… and there you have a Catch-22. The sort of Christian who’d be willing to just converse, offer you a sounding board for your ideas and let you act as a sounding board for his/hers, is not going to approach you to discuss religion. (Why? Because doing so would look like they’re trying to proselytize…)

  It can happen, but it requires a good-faith effort on both sides, and it probably has to happen on some sort of neutral ground.

  And, actually, Ash may have been showing respect for you by not coming back. She’s said her piece, and if that’s really all there is too it, then there’s not much point in her explaining it further – too easy to drift from there into a situation where she’s either defending her view, or proselytizing.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 4:54 am

  I couldn’t agree more, Johnny. If christians really did respect me, they’d leave me alone. But christians only seem to leave “us” heathens alone after they’ve exhausted their arsenal of platitudes and threats.

  I agree exactly. Most unbelievers thought long and hard about their lack of faith and belief in a god. Then they had to decide to stick to it, even when it meant losing friends or family, or being shunned or ostracized. Being an atheist is no small matter, especially in certain areas that are highly religious like the bible belt of America.

  So outspoken christians trying to shove that unpalatable belief system down our gullets is exceedingly distasteful. It never seems to be that they honestly care to save our souls. It feels (to me, anyway) that they are angry at my lack of faith and they want to force me, kicking and screaming, to bow down to their lord just like they do. That’s my personal experience. No thank you.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 8:38 am

  There are some motivations where they feel guilty if they don’t proselytize, and/or they’ve been promised some sort of heavenly rewards if they do. That’s not to discount the “angry at my lack of faith” explanation – if there are people who genuinely don’t need faith, then maybe their beliefs aren’t as ultimately important as they’ve been led to believe. That can be pretty threatening, for a variety of reasons: hence the anger.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  I agree, Michael. Those are all good reasons. That still doesn’t make the proselytizing any less infuriating or alienating, though.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  May 24th, 2009 at 12:28 pm

  I am perfectly in agreement with you there.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am

  Funny thing about that, most of the time you can’t tell the difference between the one who ‘honestly cares to save your soul’ and the one who is ‘angry at your lack of faith’ when they both start forcing it down your throat.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 10:08 pm

  Maybe because there is no spoon.. i mean difference.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 22nd, 2009 at 10:26 am · Reply

  I lived most of my life without God. And then I spent ten years studying and questioning and searching and exploring. I had a notebook full of questions that I wanted answered about religion generally and finally Christianity specifically. I thought Christianity was the stupidest of them all. The thing is, I couldn’t deny this “thing” this Love that was running me to ground. People from all over the world from different religions or no religion coming to Jesus in record numbers. In the far east the more educated you are the more likely you are to become a Christian. The earliest Christians came from a people not looking for a faith. They already had a faith, or not as the case may be, but Jesus made sense.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm

  So you turned to christianity because of the love? Interesting. I turned FROM it because of the hypocrisy, lies and contradictions. I never noticed much love there. What little there was would have been in those people anyway.

  The earliest christians were looking for a politico-religious messiah to save them from the oppression of the romans. Plain and simple. The jews were supposed to have been the chosen people of god but damn, god sure was an asshole to them more than not.

  Unfortunately when jesus was crucified, his messiah status actually ended, according to the definition. Then awhile later the christ mythos was created, which included a lot of hellenic influences and appealed to people because it promised them a better future, even it it was in the next life.

  Note that it still never got the jews out from under the oppression of the occupying romans, though.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 22nd, 2009 at 10:46 pm

  I have some time for you again…

  Christianity on the rise in numbers? No, Christianity is dropping in record numbers. Not only is the number of believers dropping(there has been nary an increase in numbers since the beginning of 2000), but it’s percentage of population in the world is dropping by a LARGE margin.

  In the “far east”… Let’s get an accuracy check on that please? Your facts don’t add up. Well, the far east does have generally countries with higher IQ. Why? Well, places like Japan have 3% church going religious folks… so uh, yeah, your facts are flipped. The direct correlation commonly shown throughout almost every statistic is that the higher your IQ, the more likely for you to NOT be religious.

  “The earliest Christians came from a people not looking for a faith.”
  Proof please? No? I didn’t think so.

  Love? Please, what do you think your sharing? Read my first post for more on your personal feelings toward the religion. Furthermore, you say it as if your faith has some kind of benefit for you. Just like Ash, you both fight well hey, it does this happy joy joy feelings and whatnot. This completely ignores the primary concern, is the religion true in the first place!

  Both of you seem to have treated religion liking buying something. Comparing brands, checking the accessories, making sure it has good options… And you found something that you like. But what matters is not what you like to be true, but what is true!

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 23rd, 2009 at 9:54 am

  Unfortunately isn’t christianity dropping in numbers only to be replaced by islam? I’d like to see some numbers, because this is interesting.

  I love that analogy. Choosing a religion is like buying something where you comparison shop first. Which gives me a better afterlife? Which has less tithing? When the question is, why worship something that doesn’t even exist in the first place!

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 23rd, 2009 at 11:07 am · Reply

  South America – 480 million Christians

  Asia – 313 million Christians

  Africa – 360 million Christians. In 1900 Africa was less than 10% Christian with 10 million people – Today it’s 50% Christian with 360 million people.

  Uganda has 20 million and is projected to have 50 million by 2050

  In 1950 Brazil had 50 million Christians. Today it has 120 million

  China has 100 million Christians and in a few decades China is expected to be the largest Christian nation on earth.

  In Korea, Christians already outnumber Buddhists. The largest Church in Korea has 750,000 (that’s Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand) members.

  The Philippines is projected to have 120 million Christians by 2050.
  ============
  “Choosing a religion is like buying something” I think that for many people (most?) you’re right. And when they drop out theys ay, “Religion is meaningless.” They didn’t have a healed and forgiven relationship with Jesus. They had beliefs about beliefs about Jesus / God.
  ==========
  “the higher your IQ, the more likely for you to NOT be religious.” In the West that’s true, in east Asia it’s just the opposite.
  =========
  “hypocrisy, lies and contradictions”
  Soooo, you would judge Mozart as a composer by listening to me play his music? Listen to Jesus and you’ll find something worth living for. If you saw me today, you might think that Christianity is no big deal. If you knew me in my pre-Christian days and compared that to the today me, You’d say, “I don’t know what brought about that change but whatever it is, I want some.”
  =============
  “god sure was an asshole to them more than not.” That’s the way 13-year-olds view life > Mom and dad buy me something – They love me. Mom and dad don’t protect me from the consequences of my actions, mom and dad so “no” to me – They don’t love me.
  ===========
  “The earliest Christians came from a people not looking for a faith.” They had Judaism. To leave that for Christianity meant giving up everything of worldly value. Following Jesus meant living under harship, persecution and for most of them ultimately death. Yet because they’d seen the risen Jesus, because they’d talked with Him, eaten with Him, held Him and been taught by Him they knew that because of what He’d promised, it was worth it all.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 23rd, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  Soooo, you would judge Mozart as a composer by listening to me play his music? Listen to Jesus and you’ll find something worth living for.

  First, this is how most Christians do view things though; by what their pastor relates, preaches, and translates. Second, you need to read some more of what Jesus said, not all of it is rainbows and joy and every lasting life.

  You also need to read the old testament, because Yahweh did some truly evil things to “his chosen people” and to every culture they encountered.
  

  They had Judaism. To leave that for Christianity meant giving up everything of worldly value. Following Jesus meant living under harship, persecution and for most of them ultimately death. Yet because they’d seen the risen Jesus, because they’d talked with Him, eaten with Him, held Him and been taught by Him they knew that because of what He’d promised, it was worth it all.

  Jesus did not create or establish Christianity; Peter and Paul(Saul) did most of that. Jews were not the flocking to Christianity, it was considered a Jewish cult early on; and Paul made every effort to bring the message to the gentiles, not the Jews. Also the majority of those early Christians had not heard Jesus talk, only a very few saw ‘the risen Jesus.’

  As for “giving up everything of worldly value” – why are followers of Christianity today the exact opposite? Do you even know why Jesus said to give up everything of worldly value? Because he believed the second coming would be within the lifetime of those he preached to during his lifetime.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 25th, 2009 at 2:25 am

  Right, Johnny. Paul/Saul is the main troublemaker here. And yes again, Jesus promised his direct followers that the second coming would be in their lifetime. He’s a little late, don’t you think?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 23rd, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  Where the hell are you getting your “facts”? Let’s put this straight, I can’t even get a google search searching for a link between “higher IQ more religious” and get a single link granting a single hit for what you are arguing for. Results are the same if I add “far east”, or “Japan”. You are flat out lying, and it’s shameful. Please, provide the proof. Well, not proof, please provide your lying source so I can rip it apart for the trash that it is.

  Hey, Makarios, why’d you spout projected numbers? That’s nonsense. “There’s going to be more people who believe!” Well no duh, people breed.

  Let’s take your Brazil example…
  “1950 Brazil had 50 million Christians”
  I doubt that, but whatever, let’s go with it. The total population of that time? 52 mil. Alright, so that’s a 96% of the population.
  “Today it has 120 million”
  Great, let’s tally it up then. Total population? 200 million. Alright, so that’s 60%.

  Huh, does that support me? Yes. Christianity dropped a total of 36% in that country. You don’t seem to understand population growth AT ALL. What China is going to be a country with the most believers? Huh, I can’t doubt that, considering it practically has the largest numbers FOR ALL stats. It does have 1/5 the words population. You act like 100 million is a big number in China. Total population? 1.3 BILLION. That’s not even 10%.

  So you hand picked countries… great. Fabulous, that does a lot. What about all the ones with the Christian population plummeting? The ones with hardly a Christian population?

  “I think that for many people (most?) you’re right.”
  Like you, you’ve already said it. It’s too late to take back your words. I’ve already read through your shame of a blog, and yes, it’s you. Quit with the repeated sham of lies, your blog history from the years 2006 and 2007 outright show you out. Indeed, your current entries show that you don’t know anything of what your talking about.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 25th, 2009 at 2:23 am

  Uh, excuse me, Makarios, but you can’t have a healed and forgiving relationship with jesus because even if he did exist at one time (which I doubt) he is certainly very much dead now. How can you have a healed one way relationship with a fairy tale concept?

  Even jesus in the bible is hypocritical. One minute he’s a peace-loving hippie, next minute he’s sending people to hell and talking about hating your family. Make up your mind!

  Before you start breaking out the insults, lets just look at the old testament and how god treated his followers. Read the whole thing, then tell me that god wasn’t a complete hypocritical, vengeful, angry, murderous asshole.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 23rd, 2009 at 1:47 pm · Reply

  Neece, I wasn’t talking about the church. I was talking about Jesus’ love for me, a sinner.
  ==========

  “First, this is how most Christians do view things though; by what their pastor relates, preaches, and translates.”

  And how exactly do you know the experience and practice of most Christians?
  ==============
  “Second, you need to read some more of what Jesus said, not all of it is rainbows and joy and every lasting life.”

  I’m quite familiar with what Jesus taught. I’m intimately familiar with the challenges involved in following Jesus. He doesn’t ask a lot. He asks for everything. But thank you for the encouragement to real more
  ============
  “You also need to read the old testament, because Yahweh did some truly evil things to “his chosen people” and to every culture they encountered.”

  And that means what?
  “God did things I don’t like,
  Therefore God doesn’t exist” Pfft!
  ============
  “Jesus did not create or establish Christianity;”

  Christianity is based on the teachings of Jesus the CHRIST. The reason that the apostles allowed Paul, the former Christian killer and torturer to join them was because Paul was able to show them that he was teaching exactly the same message that they had heard from Jesus Himself.
  ===========
  “Jews were not the flocking to Christianity”

  Did I say they were?
  ========
  “only a very few saw ‘the risen Jesus.’”

  Well, we don’t know how many. From the earliest and most reliable creed we know that 500 + had contact with Him for about a month after His resurrection.
  ============

  “As for “giving up everything of worldly value” – why are followers of Christianity today the exact opposite?”

  That’s a good question. But it doesn’t negate the truth or value of what Jesus taught. What we do know is that His closest followers did leave the things that the world highly values and it turned the world upside down.
  ===========
  “Do you even know why Jesus said to give up everything of worldly value? Because he believed the second coming would be within the lifetime of those he preached to during his lifetime.”

  No no no. I’m not talking about, nor did Jesus teach to sell everything and go sit on a hill. If that’s what you’re alluding to, that never happened. What they did, as do many many Christians today, is set aside the pursuit of wealth and fame and power and give their lives to feeding the hungry, healing the sick, housing the homeless, providing shelter for the abused and outcasts etc. etc. etc. Did you know that hospitals did not exist until Christianity came along? As far as the misconception regarding “this generation” (I’m assuming you’re referring to that particular comment) if you look at the context you will see that Jesus is taking about the future and it was regarding THAT generation, the generation involved in the signs of the future that He was talking about that would not disappear until “these things come to pass.”

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  May 23rd, 2009 at 3:14 pm

  “is set aside the pursuit of wealth and fame and power and give their lives to feeding the hungry, healing the sick, housing the homeless, providing shelter for the abused and outcasts etc. etc. etc. Did you know that hospitals did not exist until Christianity came along?”

  No, they did not, and your outright lying again. They gave up their wealth, for the church, who used that money for themselves and the church community. Churches repeatably use their funds for their own gain, and if they have some left over, give those little morsels away–but always give them away with an agenda.

  Hospitals and faith? No, hospitals didn’t start because of Christianity. Really, can you back up a single inane theory of yours for once? You just spew forth a bunch of baseless information, all useless. What would they do at those hospitals? Gather a bunch of people and PRAY REALLY HARD? Yeah… no. Hospitals did exist, just not in the way you suppose. If your talking about the modern hospital CONCEPT, it would date to Constantine when he ABOLISHED all pagan hospitals. But the kicker, the modern hospital, came about near the 15th century when they started to have it completely SECULAR.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 23rd, 2009 at 4:28 pm · Reply

  “Like you, you’ve already said it. It’s too late to take back your words.”

  I wasn’t shopping for a religion. I was checking out philosophies, atheism included to see which, if any made any sense regarding what we observe. Atheism is right at the bottom. It makes no sense whatsoever.

  Prior to Christianity, if you were sick you had limited option. One was to beg. Another was to pay for what called itself a doctor. Another was to depend on the largess of your family. The main appeal of Christianity was that Christians, like Jesus, sought out those who were ignored and neglected by the rest of society and gave them physical, spiritual and emotional care.
  =========
  “Churches repeatably use their funds for their own gain, and if they have some left over, give those little morsels away”

  So tell me, since you’re such an expert on how Churches operate, how much and what percentage of what our congregation takes in, does it give out in helping the poor and needy?
  =============

  Since you’re a lover of empirical evidence allow me.

  The Bible, especially in Revelation talks a lot about “those who live upon the earth.” It’s referring to those who draw their value, and worth and security and sense of belonging from the things that this life can offer – money, power, looks, relationships, etc. It’s referring to those who deny that there is anything more going on in life than what meets the eye.

  Now, you can say that an atheist loves h/her life specifically and be fairly accurate. To say that they love life in general can only be said if you ignore the high suicide rate, the low reproduction rate, the high rate of abortions, the push for euthanasia, illegal drug use, excessive use of alcohol and high risk sexual behaviours that are so prevalent in the atheist community. So, good for you guys. You really do love your life. Allowing other people to live if their existence will put a crimp in your life-style? Mmm, not so much.

  On the other hand, it’s not that big a deal. Barring a mental illness, virtually anyone can love this life. What’s much harder to do, while being exponentially more important to the well being of this planet and its inhabitants is the ability to set aside one’s life, to reign in one’s corrupted self-love and self-serving bias in order to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. On an atheist blog that was attempting to encourage fellow non believers to play catch up in the area of serving the needy, one young atheist lamented, “Can’t I just fuck around and watch tv if I want?”

  . Empirical evidence shows that atheists, like Buddhists are good at loving this life in a manner that “improves” their personal lot in life while remaining pretty awful at loving those less fortunate.

  . Empirical evidence shows that God, working in the lives of Christians, allows them to prove their love of this life by loving those from whom the rest of the world turns its gaze.

  Of course the first thing an atheist will ask is, “What empirical evidence are you talking about?” Fair enough. Let’s start with a survey that was done by someone at the University of Alberta last year about this time. It lists a number of virtues that I see as being so closely related, that the reasons for supporting or rejecting any one of them are reasons for supporting or rejecting all of them. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of the above virtues. The findings were as follows.

  Kindness (Theists 88%, Atheists: 75%),

  Courtesy (Theists 81%, Atheists 71%),

  Concern for others (Theists 82%, Atheists 63%),

  Politeness (Theists 77%, Atheists 65%),

  Friendliness (Theists 79%, Atheists 74%), and

  Generosity (Theists 67%, Atheists 37%).

  There were numerous attempts to falsify the results, even though most atheists who wrote in actually agreed that these things weren’t as important as Christians seem to think. In the end, however, it was just a survey. It’s not what atheists would call hard evidence. That’s ok. As it turns out, there’s lots of other evidence to prove the point. In fact there is far too much information to include even in my traditionally long posts.

  The evidence indicates that per capita charitable giving by atheists and agnostics in America is significantly less than by theists. According to a study by the Barna Group:
  “The typical no-faith American donated just $200 last year which is more than seven times LESS than the amount contributed by the prototypical active-faith adult ($1500). Even when church-based giving is subtracted from the equation, active-faith adults donated twice as many dollars last year as did atheists and agnostics. In fact, while just 7% of active-faith adults FAILED to contribute any personal funds in 2008, that compares with 32% among the no-faith adults.”

  With the apparent rise in the number of individuals who claim no faith, it will be interesting to see what this will mean for those who serve the poor and outcast.

  Arthur C. Brooks wrote in Policy Review regarding data collected in the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) (data collected by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Centre for Public Opinion Research):

  “The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money and 23 points more likely to volunteer time. And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practising a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behaviour. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.”

  ABC News reported the following in respect to atheism:

  “…the single biggest predictor of whether someone will be charitable is their religious participation. Religious people are more likely to give to charity, and when they give, they give more money: four times as much. As well, the giving goes beyond their own religious organization: “Actually, the truth is that Christians are giving to more than their churches,” he says. “The religious Americans are more likely to give to EVERY KIND OF CAUSE AND CHARITY, INCLUDING EXPLICITLY NON-RELIGIOUS CHARITIES.”

  Reply to This Comment

• GMNightmare

  May 23rd, 2009 at 7:41 pm · Reply

  “I was checking out philosophies, atheism”
  IE, you were shopping for a religion. Atheism, is not a philosophy, it says one thing, that you do not have a belief in any god. That’s it, you can have any other philosophy on top of that. Atheism, is the absence of a god biased philosophy. Strike against you, you did not check on anything, so quit your lying.

  “Prior to Christianity, if you were sick you had limited option.”
  You again, show your lack of knowledge. There were tons of ways to get help, tons of pagan hospitals. Religion and hospitals were always linked(thought I said something against that didn’t you?) in that day an age, Christianity DIDN’T introduce anything new. What’s next? Going to change your previous answer slightly again? Go on, slowly try to lie your way out of each new argument. Should I say it again? The MODERN hospital didn’t come around til near the 15th century when they started to have it completely SECULAR.

  Do you really understand anything your saying? No? I didn’t really think so. Your just using whatever tactic you can find online to fuel whatever your saying, jumping around from point to point and thinking you are actually posing a good argument? Nay. What about your IQ argument? Gone, yes. Couldn’t back that up now could you? What about the rising Christian numbers? Right no. What do you think your saying now? Nothing but trash.

  Surveys don’t work as empirical evidence, especially in case of “virtues”. Because, as you should know, people lie. Would you like me to point out all the surveys that show behavior of church goers are completely hypocritical and their religious beliefs do squat? Yeah, just type that baby into google.

  “ignore the high suicide rate, the low reproduction rate, the high rate of abortions, the push for euthanasia, illegal drug use, excessive use of alcohol and high risk sexual behaviors that are so prevalent in the atheist community.”
  -High suicide rate? I’ll give you that, not for the “community” though. You’ll have to take higher homicide rate of religious… and not just a little, severely over the top, including honor killings. And let’s not stop there… Higher crime rates in ALL areas.
  -Low reproduction rate? Are you kidding me? Yeah, we’re not morons who realize that the Earth has limited space, and that we shouldn’t be having 14 kids. That’s a strike against your argument.
  -High rate abortions? Highest among the religious.
  -Push for euthanasia? Pushed by the religious, who back that up with the bible.
  -Illegal drug use? Higher among the religious, who also hide their habits and live a double life.
  -Excessive use of alcohol? See above.
  -High risk sexual behaviors? Can you guess? Higher with religious, who don’t teach their young safe sex practices.
  You, are just making judgmental cases against what you do not know nor understand. You assume what you want.

  Charity, still on about that? Again, charity to a church hardly amounts to charity. Churches, don’t donate. They use it all for themselves. Your a puppet basically, that is why religious leaders all have vast mansions, and hide their financial spending from the public. Also, religious based charities have some of the highest overhead costs, typically getting pennies for the dollar out to what they are going for. Yes, that’s right, so even though religious are doing more, their donations are doing far less… Guess what that means? Let’s not even go to how religious charities are denying service to people who don’t share the religion.

  How about, you quit jumping around. Rather, how about you just stop altogether? You not actually making a good argument. I don’t think anybody here even believes you for a second. Furthermore, you just lying to yourself as well as us. So please, do yourself a favor…

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 23rd, 2009 at 9:35 pm · Reply

  So nightmare, are you one of those atheists who says, “I don’t need God in order to be a nice person”?

  Reply to This Comment

• Charles

  May 23rd, 2009 at 10:28 pm · Reply

  “Since you’re a lover of empirical evidence allow me.

  The Bible”

  Conversation over.

  Reply to This Comment

• Charles

  May 23rd, 2009 at 10:45 pm · Reply

  Some food for (free)thought.

  http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2005-11.pdf

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  May 24th, 2009 at 12:23 am

  Hey Charles, I followed that link and it didn’t open for me. Is this the same one in html format?

  The title is: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies by Gregory S. Paul

  http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

  Let me know if that’s not the right one.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Charles Reply:
  May 24th, 2009 at 11:41 pm

  Yeah that’s it.

  Reply to This Comment

• Ash

  May 28th, 2009 at 4:17 am · Reply

  Hey guys, I’m sorry for not replying earlier, this week has been really busy. First of all I want to apologize for the unclear meaning behind “dependence on proof.” My mistake on not being completely specific. I meant that to make room for faith, you need to acknowledge that scientific evidence is not all that is available for our understanding of the world.

  To address Michael Mock’s question of why I chose Christianity:

  I was already familiar with Christian teachings because I attended church when I was younger. Not a perfect church because those simply don’t exist, but they were pretty good about sticking to the bible and not preaching too much about individual lifestyle, something I hear a lot of people from more conservative churches complain about.

  After a traumatic event in my life I stopped going to church simply because I couldn’t care enough to go. I completely ignored the existence of God, meaning I didn’t pursue him and I didn’t deny him. I pretty much became a nihilist. I absorbed the stuff I learned in school, evolution and all, but I simply could not bring myself to care whether we were advanced social animals meant to procreate to prolong our species or a fallen group of sinful people who were meant to follow God.

  And perhaps my nihilism made it easier to accept the message of Christ again, five years later. Since I already thought mankind was worthless, it wasn’t hard for me to accept the idea that our worldly existence means prat. That was something I had already decided on my own. I’m sure you’ve all heard this story before. If Jesus hadn’t died for our sins and left witnesses of his resurrection, none of us would have any hope of ever coming back to God. In the OT, God set strict rules for his people to follow so that they wouldn’t stray, but they disobeyed and grew distant from Him. In the NT, God sent Jesus to bridge the gap between Him and man, to give us the chance to know Him again.

  While I could understand the concept of new life through grace, I couldn’t understand the concept of a perfect God. I knew that I might gain answers if I started studying the Bible again (as a Christian). Faith was a long time coming, but once I committed myself to God I grew more and more in faith everyday. Once I accepted the Bible as proof of God’s existence, I also started to see the world as proof of God’s existence.

  Christianity teaches us that no matter how hard we try to live out “perfectly moral and meaningful” lives, we cannot earn our salvation without the grace of God. If you don’t believe in God, you can live out your life on earth believing in what the world has to offer, and then who knows what’ll happen in the afterlife, if there even is one. It doesn’t matter, because this life is all we’ve got, right?

  Judaism follows the NT only and believes the savior has yet to come. Catholics are Christians, but the catholic church follows rules that are not based off the Bible but on age-old tradition. They’re the Pharisees who refuse to interact with the rest of the world. Christians believe in Jesus’ teachings and salvation through grace. We put our faith in God and try to lead a life that is pleasing to Him by following Jesus’ example. Of course many of us utterly fail at the following Jesus thing, but that’s what God’s grace is for.

  My one-liner responses to why I’m Christian are “it makes sense” and “why the hell not.” I’m happy to explain if anybody is interested.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 6:34 pm

  (edit)
  

  It doesn’t matter, because this life is all we’ve got, right?

  Are you saying that Christianity teaches this? Or that you think this? Or that this is what someone who doesn’t believe in gods believes? Cause its really not clear.

  Christianity does not teach this; and I’ve never met a Christian who thought this. This is the view of a non-believer. Christians (and some other religions) lack of seeing this is one of the big problems in today’s society. So many Christians view this life as the stepping stone to eternal life; and thus are careless with their family, their friends, their relationships, their time, the worlds resources, their impact on others and on the world, and in some cases are even careless with their life and the lives of others.

  Too many Christians view this life and this world as disposable.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 6:55 pm

  “If you don’t believe in God” is what I said, I believe. I am saying that “this is all there is” is the way of the non-believer. Sorry it was so unclear.

  I know that some Christians do ignore the rest of the world in their pursuit of God. And a lot of Christians do see this life as a stepping stone. However, I don’t think you have to be Christian to be careless in life.

  God tells us that worldly possessions don’t matter, but he also tells us that our lives are precious. Jesus commands us to love one another. I don’t know where you get your statistics, but I know many Christians who do their best to enjoy life, taking care of the people they love while still following God.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

  I also want to say that since committing to God I’ve found life more precious than ever before, so your claim cannot apply to all Christians.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:02 am

  I didn’t say all and didn’t quote an statistics. I used “so many Christians” and “too many Christians.”
  

  I don’t think you have to be Christian to be careless in life.

  True; but the kind of careless I’m talking about I think is found far more in the religious than the nonreligious.
  

  I know many Christians who do their best to enjoy life, taking care of the people they love while still following God.

  I do too; but I have never seen a group more willing to disown friends or family for their religious beliefs. Many are far too concerned with their little bubble, the friends and family inside that bubble, and frack-the-rest.
  

  God tells us that worldly possessions don’t matter.

  We already went over this one (it was actually Jesus that said it); I’ll repost:
  

  As for “giving up everything of worldly value” – why are followers of Christianity today the exact opposite? Do you even know why Jesus said to give up everything of worldly value? Because he believed the second coming would be within the lifetime of those he preached to during his lifetime.

  Jesus commands us to love one another.

  What about Luke 14:26: “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.“

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 5:47 pm

  The greatest command Jesus gives is to love God with all of heart, soul, and mind. Then, love your neighbor as yourself. Love for God should come before all else.

  When Jesus talks of hating our friends and family, he’s doesn’t mean it literally. He’s talking about commitment to God. Jesus goes on to say, “any of you who does not give up everything he cannot be my disciple.”

  I don’t think the verse has to be taken literally. It’s like “killing the old man;” you don’t actually have to go out and find an old man to kill, you have to let go of the things that are keeping you away from God. Likewise, you can treasure your loved ones as long as it doesn’t hinder your relationship with God. Have you never heard of a man who abandons his family for his career?

  Jesus tells us to give up things of worldly value because no matter where we are in the timeline, our lives are temporary. Yes, Christians can be just as greedy as the rest of the world (are we not human?), but a true Christian knows that even if he were to lose everything, it would be okay. Jesus presented the idea of a lifestyle not run by greed, but love.

  Let’s say I didn’t believe in God. I would still believe in ideas. I’d have this idea that one day I might get somewhere in life. We call this a dream. The idea that one day I’ll get good enough at Smash Bros. to play at a tournament. We call this ambition. The idea that we evolved from a single cell life-form, even though there’s a 1% (?) chance this might be false. We call this theory.

  Now I have a question for you: did empirical evidence make you into a decent human being?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 6:45 pm

  When Jesus talks of hating our friends and family, he’s doesn’t mean it literally. He’s talking about commitment to God.

  But how can you tell when he’s talking in riddles and parables, and when he’s talking literally?

  Jesus specifically spoke in parables so that people would not understand. In a way he was an elitist (maybe a bigot) who only wanted certain people to hear his message.Matthew 13:10-16:
  

  13:10 And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
  13:11 He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
  13:12 For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
  13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
  13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
  13:15 For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
  13:16 But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.

  Jesus said to give up all worldly possessions because he believed he would be returning so soon that the people he preached to would not need their worldly possessions. Matthew 24:34:
  

  Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

  We are having a nice civil discussion here, DON’T bring the word theory out unless you understand the full scientific definition of the word.
  

  Now I have a question for you: did empirical evidence make you into a decent human being?

  As opposed to what? Religion? The church? Yahweh?

  My parents guidance gave me the start for my moral character. My understanding of laws, and observations of what was socially acceptable further shaped my moral character as I grew up. Further observation and personal experience have led to where I am today, and will continue to influence what I perceive as moral. I am a decent human being; and Yes, empirical evidence played a role in the building of my character.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 7:44 pm

  “But how can you tell when he’s talking in riddles and parables, and when he’s talking literally?”

  Four years of English, maybe? I imagine anyone with common sense could figure out “killing the old man” should not be taken literally, especially considering the context. Likewise, Jesus gives us context for “hating” our loved ones, it’s clear that he’s talking about commitment to God. Where else does Jesus tell us to hate people? If you’re talking about “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” it’s in the Old Testament when there was no salvation, so God was warning his people to stay away from the corrupt.

  The parables are timeless. Why do you think this is? It’s so anybody can understand the word of God, if they try. The parables are worth more than blunt commandments because they give us insight to why we should follow such commandments in the first place.

  I take generation to mean the entirety of human existence, but since you disagree let’s not get into that.

  I’m sorry if I’m wrong, but isn’t gravity a theory accepted as fact? A theory is an explanation for the physical world based on scientific evidence, correct? And all theories are susceptible to testing and change? I can accept the idea that evolution is true, but I will not dismiss the possibility of the theory undergoing changes.

  I wasn’t suggesting anything. Thank you for answering my question.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 30th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

  I take generation to mean the entirety of human existence, but since you disagree let’s not get into that.

  I know you said you didn’t want to get into this one… But I guess I have a problem with your interpretation. None of the English definitions of ‘generation’ indicate it to be “the entirety of human existence.” So why would you think that? It just seems like trying to make the Bible support your view.

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 30th, 2009 at 12:23 pm

  My mistake on the theory comment. I re-read your original statement with ‘theory’ in it, and realized I had misread what you posted.

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:09 pm

  Exactly, Johnny! Jesus was an elitist!

  Reply to This Comment

• Ash

  May 28th, 2009 at 4:47 am · Reply

  “My experience with respect from christians is lacking. I’m not sure where you get that. Maybe that’s your personal experience.”

  I’m truly sorry about this. I was disgusted by many people at church when I was younger, especially the girls, who did nothing but bully and gossip. Now that I’m older and can accept the fact that people aren’t perfect, I’d really love if the Christian community would stop being drama llamas already.

  It’s true that some Christians get it in their heads that they have the “power” to convert people. This is completely a product of their own egos and NOT what Christianity is about. Everyone has to make their own choice to follow Jesus- really follow him, not just as church-goers who are forced to go with their parents or whatever.

  I post on these sites because I want to get a deeper understanding of why people are unable to believe in God, what makes it so hard to have faith, etc. I really appreciate that you choose to indulge me with these discussions.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 6:59 pm

  (emphasis mine)
  

  It’s true that some Christians get it in their heads that they have the “power” to convert people. This is completely a product of their own egos and NOT what Christianity is about.

  See, this is the problem. You have a moderate view on Christianity; and according to polls you’re probably in the majority of Christians. The problem is that its the fundamentalist Evangelicals and Catholics that are the loudest.

  Christianity is so far removed from it origins that its not even close to the same religion anymore. So there are all these schisms, and most of them think all the rest are wrong.

  Fundamentalists and extremists are the problem, but they exist because the moderates allow them. If the moderates would disown, disallow, or eliminate the fundamentalists and extremists, then religion would be a tolerable thing. As long as the fundamentalists and extremists continue to exist, they make religion a threat to other religions, non-believers, and all of society.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 7:39 pm

  I do wish more Christians would focus on Jesus’ message instead of trying to force their own distorted versions on people. In theory it would be great if all the hypocrites in Christianity could simply disappear, but that’s not going to happen. A Christian must be very conscious of their own actions. Are we preaching the word, or our own words? It’s not always easy to make the distinction. How can we improve the church so that tradition doesn’t overpower the message? The Catholic church is a case of tradition getting in the way of serving God, I believe.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 11:31 pm

  Yeah, but the Catholics don’t.

  Look. There are at least 33,820 denominations of Christianity in the world. Each one is convinced of it’s own truth, and claims that those other guys have it all wrong. Speaking in tongues. Handling snakes. Hating homosexuals (or loving the sinner, hating the sin. What a crock THAT is.).

  You’d think that if your religion was correct, or even guided by a supernatural hand, there would be only one. As it stands, I’d be willing to bet that there are as many variations of Christians as there are people who call themselves Christians, because none of them can agree who is a good one or not.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 12:10 am

  All Christians are a variation of the Christian because they are ALL individual people. What makes a good Christian is not what church they’re from or what kind of personality they have but how strongly they follow the words of Christ.

  Jesus himself warns us about false teachers and hypocrites. But for all the churches that are doing it wrong, there are some that do it right. Meaning they stick to studying the Bible, applying it to life, and focusing on grace over performance. The word of God is what keeps Christianity together. Once a church stops using the Bible it can no longer be called a christian church.

  The Bible also tells Christians not to worry about the small differences and variations as long as they don’t get in the way of praising God. Most of the denominations are in the Protestant church and that’s all they are, small differences and variations. If you get along with conservative people and have found a conservative church with like-minded people, great. If not, there are other churches available if you search for them. The problem arises when people make too big of a deal out of it. The biggest division is between the Catholics and Protestants, with the Catholics putting emphasis on “performance” and Protestants focusing on “grace.”

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:06 am

  The Bible also tells Christians not to worry about the small differences and variations as long as they don’t get in the way of praising God.

  Source please.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 5:17 pm

  Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on disputable matters (Romans 14:1).

  One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord. He who eats meat, eats to the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who abstains, does so to the Lord. For none of us lives to himself alone and none of us dies to himself alone… whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord.

  For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. You, then, why do you judge your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat…

  Therefore, let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way.

  (Romans 14:5-13)

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:12 am

  I do wish more Christians would focus on Jesus’ message instead of trying to force their own distorted versions on people.

  …

  How can we improve the church so that tradition doesn’t overpower the message?

  Jesus does have some good messages; but none of them are really that much more profound that what others have said – both religious and nonreligious.

  In my opinion, you improve the message, you need to remove the church. The church as an entity has its own agenda and is far too easily corruptible by power. I can see religions place in society sometimes; but the big churches and big organized religions are a cancer on society.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:13 pm

  Johnny is right. The few pearls of benign wisdom that Jesus taught are far from original to him. And never forget, the gospels were written long after the supposed historical Jesus died. No one who wrote the new testament ever met Jesus and there is no evidence that such a person ever even lived. The Romans were notorious with their record-keeping, so this is extremely significant, and basically makes the rest of the argument moot.

  Reply to This Comment

• Steve

  May 28th, 2009 at 5:30 pm · Reply

  “I want to get a deeper understanding of why people are unable to believe in God, what makes it so hard to have faith, etc.”

  Weird phrasing, there. Atheists aren’t unable to believe in god, they just don’t. The reasons are many. Faith is a silly proposition because you are required to believe in something without proof. It’s remarkably easy to have faith, you just have to toss reason out first.

  Before we go any further, though… Define god.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 7:09 pm

  Yes, I know that you don’t believe in God. But since I believe in God, I believe he is real, and I want to understand what prevents non-believers from entering this reality, in other words, what makes them so sure of their own godless reality.

  I disagree with the notion that it’s easy to have faith. For example, when someone yells “fire!”, some of the people in the building will leave immediately, while some of the people will wait until they hear the fire alarm. And even then some people will stay in the building until they can see/smell the fire themselves. I believe reason is easier to believe in because reason is easier to understand. Faith is difficult in the way that it’s hard to define any emotion.

  God is a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, supernatural being who created the universe and rules over it. But if you don’t believe in God, you won’t believe in that definition either. =P

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 28th, 2009 at 11:21 pm

  Ok, you’ve vaguely defined your god, and each one of those vague descriptions has problems with it. That said, though, why are you certain that that is what god is? Does he have a mighty hammer? Does he live on Mount Olympus? Does he dwell in a pantheon with other gods and only represents the Jews? Did he have just one son, or many? Does he have a wife or consort? Is he even a he? How do you know? And how do you reject all the other gods that man has created over the millenia?

  Beyond the description though, what is there to understand?

  I can’t speak for all atheists. I’m not sure of a lot of things, and I know even less. I’m not afraid to say, “I don’t know,” knowing that that isn’t an admission that something supernatural fits that gap. I come to my views based on reason, and reason dictates that the universe behaves exactly as you would expect it to without a prime mover.

  I think that right there is a pretty good reason to be relatively certain that gods don’t exist.

  Your fire analogy is flawed. It doesn’t take faith to leave a burning theater if someone yells fire- that’s just silly. We can see and smell smoke, hear the crackling of fire.

  Faith isn’t difficult to understand. It feels good and most people who have it were raised on the notion it is real, or convinced in a moment of a heightened emotional state (either good or bad). It takes most people years to become an atheist and to reason their way out of those credulous beliefs.

  For example, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you believe that a snake once spoke. So did Balaam’s donkey. You believe that an ignorant Adam and Eve were created from dirt and the breath of god. You believe god created light and separated it from darkness on the first day but didn’t make the light producing objects (the sun and the stars) until the fourth day.

  Step outside your belief system and look at that list. It’s absurd. And every other religion that has ever existed has stories just like it.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 12:47 am

  The purpose of my analogy was to show that while some people find it easy to trust word-of-mouth, some people won’t believe anything until they see it for themselves. Perhaps a better example would’ve been “Everyone get out of here, I just saw a guy sneaking around with a machine gun.” How do you know this guy is telling the truth? You can sit there pondering the probability and weighing the pros and cons of believing him, you can wait until there’s a gun pointing at your face, or you can trust that he’s being honest and get the hell out of there.

  I assume faith is easier for children since they don’t have the developed reasoning of adults. It’s when you become dependent on reason that faith becomes difficult, because God is pretty much saying “become a child and believe in me.” He’s not telling us to be immature and ignorant, he’s telling us to trust in him like most kids trust their parents.

  The concept of light isn’t the same as the objects that produce it. Anyway, that’s besides the point, because the point of Genesis isn’t how God created but what God created (which is everything). The point of Jesus’ parables isn’t whether they actually happened or not, but what they teach us. The talking animals were before our time, when God had to reveal himself to certain people so that they could do his deed. If Satan decided to reveal himself through another talking snake, people would no longer doubt his existence. The same if God revealed himself in a similar fashion, but then what would become of faith?

  I guess symbolism has no place in current society.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:36 pm

  And how often are people actually honest? How often do people, even preachers and priests, lie or get things wrong?
  That’s why atheists look for evidence. That’s the beauty of critical thinking, and the necessity of peer review in science.
  Faith is simply accepting something blindly. There is nothing noble or intelligent in that. It’s intellectual laziness.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:34 pm

  I agree with you Steve. As an atheist, I’m not unable to believe in a god.
  I look at the available evidence. And the evidence does not support any gods. This is reality.
  Faith is the ANTITHESIS of reality. It’s completely baseless BY DEFINITION.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:20 am

  (emphasis mine)
  

  But since I believe in God, I believe he is real, and I want to understand what prevents non-believers from entering this reality, in other words, what makes them so sure of their own godless reality.

  You believe without proof; which means you are in the area outside physical reality. Also known as faith.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 28th, 2009 at 9:53 pm · Reply

  “. . . faith” Atheists live by faith day in and day out. Regarding origins atheists not only operate on faith, the substance of their faith completely contradicts the evidence or the facts that are established by the scientific method of discovery. For example:
  . Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Space and matter itself had a beginning. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Matter cannot create itself. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Matter cannot precede itself. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Infinity only exists as a concept. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity Atheists believe otherwise
  . Background radiation points to a Singularity. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The levels of entropy point to a Singularity. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The expansion of the universe points to a Singularity. Atheists believe otherwise
  . You can’t get everything from nothing by natural means. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Non life cannot produce life. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information. Atheists believe otherwise
  . “Nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The Big Bang is the simplest explanation of the origin of our universe. Atheists believe otherwise
  Each of these points have been established by science and by faith and faith alone atheists say they are not true.

  As for a definition of Creator God – which is itself a defintion:
  Eternal – Existed before time began and now exists in time but outside of time constraints

  Necessary – Creator God had to exist or there would be nothing,

  All Powerful – Creator of space, time, matter and the laws of science,

  All Knowing – Created the constants and qualities by which the universe functions,

  Omnipresent – Not limited by space or time,

  Timeless and changeless – Not limited by time

  Spirit – He exists outside of and prior to the creator of matter,

  Personal – the impersonal cannot create personality

  Purposeful – He deliberately created the universe

  Intelligent – Only intelligence can create intelligence
  Caring – His character makes possible objective morality by which we live

  Moral – What He asks of us is for our benefit

  Merciful – At His own expense made possible the forgiveness of our sins,

  Slow to Anger – He has put up with us from the beginning of human kind,

  A friend to the poor,

  Full of Grace,

  Compassionate,

  Patient – continues to bless those who hate Him,

  Mind / Logos,

  Triune: Father, Son and Spirit,

  Source of objective morality,

  Uncaused,

  All-good,

  Infinite,

  Unique,

  Lord of lords,

  King of kings,

  Creator,

  Sustainer of the universe.

  Independent of His creation,

  Perfectly Holy,

  Love,
  Truth,

  Righteous,

  Sovereign,

  Self-existent,

  Elohim – The strong One, mighty Leader, supreme Deity.

  Yahweh – Self-existent, changeless, Provider, Present,

  Adonai – Majestic, Master, Owner.

  True God,

  Transcendent,

  Saviour,

  Supreme Lord.

  I’m sure there are more descriptions than this. So what do atheists mean when they say we can’t describe the God in which we believe? What do atheists mean when they ask, “Well which god(s) that we’re talking about when you say god created the universe?”?

  Well, the fact is, out of all the religions of the world, this God, the Christian God, the God that was just described best describes the Creator of the Universe. Creator God IS the Greatest Conceivable Being.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:27 am

  Makarios, faith is the belief in something with no evidence.

  Science has evidence. The Bible not only lacks evidence, but it is scientifically wrong.

  I’m not even sure out to respond to your list of scientific-esc terms; but you’re illustrating you do not have an understanding of science. It really looks like a paste from a creationist site.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 9:56 am

  You seem to have (or be quoting) some very odd ideas about what Atheists believe.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm

  “atheists believe otherwise”? Apparently you have no idea of things outside of your own narrow world view. Atheists do not BELIEVE otherwise. End of discussion.
  We look to reason, science and EVIDENCE, which you eschew in place of feelings, faith, and mindless belief.
  No comparison.
  And your definition of god would not cover the christian god, the jewish god or the muslim god, or any other. They are all flawed human creations to try to explain scary things in a scary world. And since now we have science and the scientific method, and research, we no longer need fairy tales to comfort us. It’s time to grow up.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 8:09 pm

  “Timeless and changeless – Not limited by time
  Triune: Father, Son and Spirit”
  A quick jab, your god wasn’t a father until he had a son, and the son didn’t always exist, neither did the spirit. So indeed, god changed, when your mythical figure Jesus came to be.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  June 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 am

  Quick jab part 2:
  This:
  “infinity only exists as a concept. Atheists believe otherwise”
  plus a defining attribute of god:
  “Infinite”
  Doesn’t mix.

  “Slow to Anger – He has put up with us from the beginning of human kind”
  …
  Ha, hahaha, that’s a good one. He didn’t put up with us for not even a day. ATE MY APPLE? YOU ARE CONDEMNED YOU FOUL LITTLE CRETINS!
  Let’s get serious, your god gets angry at a pin drop. And he most certainly doesn’t put up with us… Flood anyone?

  I’ve got more, but I’ve decided it’s a bit bigger than a quick jab.

  Reply to This Comment

• Ash

  May 28th, 2009 at 11:43 pm · Reply

  Thanks for the post, makarios. It’s true that everybody believes in something. It’s also true that people lie to themselves, and atheists are no exception (I’m not talking about God, but about life in general). What I want to know is, since they have faith that the Bible is false, could they ever have faith that the Bible is true? Or is it completely ridiculous to even consider that notion, since the Bible is most definitely false anyway?

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:33 am

  I don’t have faith that the Bible is false. I’ve read enough other material to understand that much of history does not coincide with the Bible, all of science disagrees with the Bible, and today’s common moral standards conflict with the Bible.

  Give me evidence and I’ll believe it; but without evidence it is faith, and faith is the enemy of reason and knowledge.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Steve Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  Ash, please stop tossing the word faith around as a catch-all phrase to mean something it doesn’t.

  One of the reasons I stopped being religious is because I read the bible, cover to cover. While some of the language is beautiful, I realized that nothing in it was credible. The Exodus of the Jews probably didn’t happen. The god of the old testament was an angry asshole. The god of the new testament wasn’t. Contradictions abound. Biblical scholars agree that the first gospel (Mark) wasn’t written until at least thirty years after the death of Jesus with the next three coming out over the next forty years after that, each one embellished and a little more whimsical than the one before it. Jesus was in turns a warmonger and a peace lover who spoke in parables even his own disciples couldn’t understand.

  I know these contradictions can be rationalized by believers, but like I said before if you stand outside of your belief system and look at this stuff critically, it’s pretty clear that you can’t take anything it says with more than a grain of salt.

  If you go even further it’s pretty clear that there’s no extra-biblical corroborating evidence that anything in the new testament went down the way it did. You’d think that if dead saints were walking around Jerusalem after a mighty earthquake and a political prisoners death, that somebody would notice and write it down.

  So yeah. I second Johnny’s request for evidence.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:49 pm

  You don’t understand, Ash. Just because you randomly use the word FAITH, it doesn’t make it valid. It’s used incorrectly, invalidating your entire statement.

  If you were to read the bible to actually study it, which I did, you would be able to see it as lacking in credibility, instead of simply finding verses and parts to already support your conclusion. Also, Steve is right, the bible is not supported by any texts outside of it.

  Again, I will remind you. The gospels are from long after jesus supposedly lived and died. No one who wrote in the bible ever met this person. There is zero evidence that he actually existed at all.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm

  Eh, there’s a little evidence that a traveling jewish rabbi named Jesus may have existed; but no evidence to support any of the stories about him in the Bible. There is especially no evidence for the birth, death, and resurrection stories; not to mention the implausibility and lack of proof for all the other miracles.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 29th, 2009 at 10:52 am · Reply

  “. . . faith is the belief in something with no evidence.”

  That may be your definition but the Bible defines faith as, “The SUBSTANCE of things hoped for and the EVIDENCE of things not yet seen.” Agnostics are the only ones that go as far as science will allow, while atheists and Christians go part way on deductive reasoning and the rest of the way on inductive reasoning and relatively equal amounts of faith, as in the examples I mentioned above.

  Steve: “why are you certain that that is what god is?”

  Through general revelation – We can see from the universe much of what God must be like in order to create such a system from nothing with such finely tuned constants and quantities, exactly as Big Bang cosmology suggests

  Through Biblical Revelation – Many of the terms that I listed and given to us there

  Through the revelation of the life of Jesus – “If you have seen Me you have seen Creator God.”

  Through His indwelling of my very being – He walks with me and He talks with me and He tells me about Himself. Beyond that, the indwelling of the Spirit of the Living Creator God:
  . Empowers me to do the work He had planned for me from before the beginning of the universe
  . Enlightens me to distinguish between your lies and His truth
  . Encourages me when I step into the slim of discussions like this
  . Equips me to go above and beyond the call of duty, to perform the task in His Spirit and Power.
  ======
  “And how do you reject all the other gods that man has created over the millenia?”

  I don’t reject any of the other gods of other religions. I accept them as false gods or what the Bible calls demons. You don’t reject ONE more God than I do, you reject several thousand gods more than I do, with the rejection of Creator God being the single biggest mistake you will ever make in your entire existence on earth.
  ==========
  “Beyond the description though, what is there to understand?”

  For you? Absolutely nothing. You are so in over your head it isn’t even funny. There’s a saying that applies directly to people like you. For an atheist to understand the Bible or ANYTHING to do with the workings of Creator God is like someone trying to read a sun-dial at a quarter moon. You should just give it up and go on to something more productive
  ————
  “And every other religion that has ever existed has stories just like it.”

  And here we come right to the core of your atheist reason and logic

  . There are things in every religion that seem absurd
  . Therefore God does not exist

  Priceless!
  =============
  “I’d be willing to bet that there are as many variations of Christians as there are people who call themselves Christians,”

  I’m glad you brought that up. That is an excellent point. I think you’re right, not in the sense that you believe but right nevertheless. Tell me! How many different sports are there in the world? Why do you attend one sporting event and not the other. Why does one appeal to you and not another? Christianity is as diverse as there are people. Some identify with a Pentecostal type of experience. Some identify with a loosey goosey kind of service while others like a service that is well ordered. Some like this and some like that and those of similar likes congregate together just as those who like baseball congregate where baseball is played. However ALL of the Christian denominations agree that Christ crucified, died, buried and rising from the dead is at the centre of there core beliefs. Of course there are frauds and phonies. Every person on earth is a hypocrite to one degree or another and our human nature corrupts everything that humans touch, even Christianity.
  =========
  Ash – “Or is it completely ridiculous”

  Absolutely!!! The ONLY reason I do this is for the one or two people who are listening in who might actually be genuine seekers and who need to hear the truth. The rest of these guys are just wasting time until they die.
  ===========
  John: “I have never seen a group more willing to disown friends or family for their religious beliefs.”

  I’m afraid you’re right. There is a saying in the Church, ‘Christians are the only one who shoot their wounded.’ It’s tragic. It’s offensive. It’s wrong.
  ==========
  “but none of them are really that much more profound that what others have said – both religious and nonreligious.”

  You mean, “I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me.” OR “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you.”

  “In my opinion, you improve the message, you need to remove the church.”

  I’m not sure Jesus would think much of kidnaping or killing His Bride. “I will build my Church and nothing, not even the gates of hell will stand against it.” The Church at large may be far from perfect by within that mess there is a core of beauty that nothing else in the world can match.
  ==========

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

  You can’t truly take the definition of an English word from a 2000+ year-old text that has been translated multiple times to reach you in English. Use a dictionary.
  

  “I AM the Way, the Truth and the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father except through Me.”

  This isn’t profound or insightful, this is poetry.
  

  “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you.”

  Love your enemy but hate your family? (Luke 14:26) Sounds pretty profound to me.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 29th, 2009 at 4:21 pm · Reply

  “Use a dictionary.”

  Johnny, do you honestly think that an english dictionary 2,000 years removed from the context is going to give you a definition that is context hard? You know better than that. When trying to understand a work of literature from antiquity, you go with what the author obviously meant. You don’t insert you own definition just to suit your political ends.

  “This isn’t profound or insightful, this is poetry.”

  Well, I believe that sometime between the next five seconds and a few decades from now you’re going to change your mind. Good luck with that

  “Love your enemy but hate your family? (Luke 14:26)”

  You know what? I don’t believe for on second that you don’t know what this means. I think you’re just trying to stir it up a little. That’s ok, but I gotta run. The kids have soccer practise. Enjoy!

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm · Reply

  Johnny – “Jesus talks of hating our friends and family, he’s doesn’t mean it literally.”

  So why do you state it as though it means one thing when you know that it means another? That makes having a discussion pretty difficult. And what if someone listening in only got your misleading statement and never came back? I believe you said, “I am a decent human being;” but deception is not very decent, is it.
  ==========

  “Jesus specifically spoke in parables so that people would not understand.”

  You’ve read what Jesus had to say regarding parables, and you don’t understand what it means. That should be a clue. Jesus isn’t elitist nor a bigot, rather He spoke in parables so that those who will never accept His offer of salvation will not be able to understand what He is talking about. On the other hand Jesus also said that He / Holy Spirit would make it so those who WILL accept His offer of salvation will be able to understand what He’s talking about. Plato put it this way, “God has provided just enough evidence of His existence so that those who are looking for Him will be able to find Him, and those who don’t want to know Him won’t be able to discover Him accidentally.”
  =========

  Ash – “Love your neighbor and hate your enemy,” it’s in the Old Testament

  Actually it’s not in the OT. The test says, “Jesus said, “You have heard that it was SAID . . . but I say . . .”

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Ash Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

  Sorry, I was thinking about how in the OT, God told the Israelites to cut themselves off from the other (corrupted) tribes, whereas in the NT Jesus tells us to love our friends as well as our enemies. I’ve still got a lot to learn

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 10:53 pm

  You’re not understanding the block quote…
  

  makarios
  May 29th, 2009 at 8:31 pm · Reply

  Johnny – “Jesus talks of hating our friends and family, he’s doesn’t mean it literally.”

  So why do you state it as though it means one thing when you know that it means another? That makes having a discussion pretty difficult. And what if someone listening in only got your misleading statement and never came back? I believe you said, “I am a decent human being;” but deception is not very decent, is it.

  That was an excerpt block quote from Ash’s previous comment.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  May 29th, 2009 at 9:06 pm · Reply

  I think somebody here said that s/he denies that God exists because there isn’t any evidence for His existence. Hypothetically, if there WAS evidence for God’s existence, what form would you expect that evidence to take? What would be an example of evidence FOR God’s existence? I’m just curious.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Johnny Reply:
  May 29th, 2009 at 11:13 pm

  If Yahweh is all knowing then he should know an understand every scientific detail right?

  Why then would he give his followers information to write down in his holy book that was so scientifically inaccurate that it simply conflicts with science? If he had provided scientifically accurate information about species, biology, and the universe — coming from a bronze age text, that would be very impressive. If he included the details of DNA, a periodic table of elements, accurate medical and disease prevention information, an accurate description of the cosmos, and the location of the nearest habitable planet — coming from a bronze age text, I would consider that a starting point for proof of an all knowing being.

  Since we’re talking about the Bible, the next proof I would ask for is the Bible delivered in every language, of all time, with no need for translation – and thus no possibility for error. And while you’re at it, have it delivered by the hand of god, instead of leaving it to his followers and their possible typos.

  I think I might still ask for one or two more proofs, but that’s a good start.

  Want to know the proof I would take to be convinced Jesus was really a deity? Watch this video.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 pm

  Exactly, Johnny. I agree completely.

  Reply to This Comment

• Ash

  May 31st, 2009 at 2:10 am · Reply

  “I know you said you didn’t want to get into this one… But I guess I have a problem with your interpretation. None of the English definitions of ‘generation’ indicate it to be “the entirety of human existence.” So why would you think that? It just seems like trying to make the Bible support your view.”

  Ack, verse confusion! I thought you had a strange translation of Matthew 28:20: And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

  My mistake. I’m used to actually reading the verses and not just memorizing them actually, I don’t ever remember being forced to memorize verses in my youth church.

  In Matt 24, the disciples ask for signs indicating the end of the world. Jesus tells them of false prophets, wars, trumpeting angels, the usual stuff. “And this gospel will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.” Christianity may have gained a horrible rep over the ages, but there are still missionaries going into every place imaginable.

  Right after Matt 24:34 Jesus says, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.”

  Why is the generation of disciples so significant? They are the messengers of Jesus’ message. Their words have not yet passed away. I’m sure there are many people in the world trying to get rid of Christianity, but it has yet to disappear. Taking in the context of the whole chapter, I believe this is what he means by generation.

  I think there’s a verse that says about 75% of people who hear the gospel will reject it. This thought is extremely depressing for me, but very realistic. A person needs to want to know God before they can start to understand his word, and no amount of logic is going to convince them.

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  June 2nd, 2009 at 10:07 am · Reply

  “You seem to have some very odd ideas about what Atheists believe.”

  Really? So which of the things that I said are not correct? You can use yourself as an example.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Michael Mock Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 1:52 pm

  I can’t use myself as an example; I’m not, strictly speaking, an Atheist.

  I’m talking about this whole list:
  . Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Everything that begins to exist has an explanation of its cause. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Space and matter itself had a beginning. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Matter cannot create itself. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Matter cannot precede itself. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Infinity only exists as a concept. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics points to a Singularity Atheists believe otherwise
  . Background radiation points to a Singularity. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The levels of entropy point to a Singularity. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The expansion of the universe points to a Singularity. Atheists believe otherwise
  . You can’t get everything from nothing by natural means. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Inorganic and inanimate gases cannot evolve. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Non life cannot produce life. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning. Atheists believe otherwise
  . Inanimate and inorganic gases cannot produce written information. Atheists believe otherwise
  . “Nothing” cannot produce intelligent, reasoning consciousness. Atheists believe otherwise
  . The Big Bang is the simplest explanation of the origin of our universe. Atheists believe otherwise

  Pretty much every time the list says “Atheists believe otherwise”, it’s more than enough of an overgeneralization to be misleading, and in most cases simply false. Take the last one as an example; most of the self-identified Atheists that I know actually do believe that the Big Bang is the most credible explanation for the origin of our universe. (I’m not sure about “simplest”, because – like so many things – the Big Bang sounds simple and actually involves quite a bit of complicated details.) It would be closer to correct to substitute “Some Atheists believe otherwise” for every one of those lines, since you can find some people who’ll believe very nearly anything.

  Leaving that aside, most of the assertions on the list strike me as problematic – either so grossly oversimplified as to be almost meaningless, or so lacking in essential details as to be misleading, or (and maybe this is just me) simply incomprehensible.

  To pick a single example: “Non life cannot produce life.” That is more or less true, in the classical sense. Dung does not produce flowers; rotting food does not produce maggots. However, there are plenty of microorganisms which straddle the line between animate and inanimate, in that they do some of the things that we associate with being “alive” and don’t do other things which we also think of as part of the basic definition of “living”. Last time I checked, scientific thinking suggested that life did arise by natural processes, though the mechanism is not currently understood. That could be taken as a belief that life came from non-life, in a sense. Even granting that, though, there’s a big difference between saying that life can come from non-life, and hypothesizing that there were some chemical processes which occurred naturally and caused some complex systems which became sort-of-alive things which eventually developed into more complex things that were actually alive as we understand the term.

  And that’s just one example. If someone was taking a poll, and asked me if I agreed with those assertions, I’d end up going down the entire list and answering, “How do you mean?” for each one. Without details, they’re meaningless. They don’t even make particularly good talking points; the only people who are going to really understand what they’re trying to say are people who already agree with them.

  Edited to add: Were you quoting this from somewhere?

  Reply to This Comment

• makarios

  June 2nd, 2009 at 3:06 pm · Reply

  “Last time I checked, scientific thinking suggested that life did arise by natural processes though the mechanism is not currently understood.”

  No actually, science cannot and would not say that because that would violate the scientific method of knowing. However, ATHEISTS (Richard Dawkins and atheist with an agenda) whether they’re scientists or not make many of these types of claims. My list is a good but incomplete example. Another example is that inanimate and inorganic gases / chemical evolved. Ridiculous to suggest but vital for the atheist to do nevertheless.
  =========
  “the only people who are going to really understand what they’re trying to say are people who already agree with them.”

  And only people who don’t WANT them to be true would need to go on a hunt for qualifiers by asking “What do you mean?”

  Reply to This Comment

  

  GMNightmare Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  How many of those claims do you think you actually know anything about? Really now, tell me. I’ll tell you though, NONE. You haven’t a bloody clue on ANYTHING.

  First off: “science cannot and would not say that because that would violate the scientific method of knowing.”
  That’s BS. You don’t understand science. If there is not enough evidence at time to support a conclusion, that is said. You really don’t understand a thing.

  “Another example is that inanimate and inorganic gases / chemical evolved.”
  Case and point… I wonder, do we have a field somewhere that does this on a daily bases? Some class, that you should have gone through in high school? Oh, that’s supposing you actually went to a nonreligious controlled good school or made it through school… I guess I’ll just say it then, CHEMISTRY. Bloody hell, how do you think we can explain to you in short paragraphs what it takes books to do? You have no sense of knowledge, you think everything should be spoon fed to you, well it doesn’t work that way outside of religions “god did it” explanation. You have zero understanding of anything your criticizing, you don’t even understand that the Big Bang theory is only one of the theories. How about the Steady State theory? And I’ll say it, you know squat about laws of Thermodynamics. Squat. It takes whole college semester to get through those laws to actually put them in correct context and know how to use them, you haven’t a bloody clue on how or why they work.

  And why do we ask what do you mean? Because those one liners don’t actually make sense…
  “Space and matter itself had a beginning. Atheists believe otherwise”
  Really? Do we? I thought we all believed in the Big Bang theory, which gives a beginning?
  “Anything that begins to exist has a cause for its beginning. Atheists believe otherwise”
  Heyuck heyuck, I give you god. What was god’s cause for its beginning?
  “Infinity only exists as a concept. Atheists believe otherwise”
  What do you mean concept? Under your terms then, EVERYTHING is just a concept. Your playing with language now. I give you mathematical pie. Let me tell you, it is an infinite expression. You again talk about what you do not know nor understand.
  “Randomness cannot produce fine-tuning. Atheists believe otherwise”
  Really? I assume your talking about evolution, but you really don’t have a clue about that either. Evolution is driven by natural selection, which basically speaking provide the rules of the game. Therefore, evolution provides the randomness, natural selection provides the fine-tuning. They aren’t one and the same.

  You list is trash. It doesn’t say a correct or even coherent thing. It doesn’t make a good argument. It isn’t even based upon any kind of truth.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  You are typing words but they have no meaning and no value. Science is about trying to understand, about exploring and learning. It is not about knowing.
  You need to stop talking. You have no idea what you’re rambling about.

  Reply to This Comment

• Johnny

  June 2nd, 2009 at 3:46 pm · Reply

  No actually, science cannot and would not say that because that would violate the scientific method of knowing.

  Seriously?! “The scientific method of knowing??” You need to read some actual scientific material instead of just all the creationist propaganda. Scientists often point out where they don’t know; and scientists have no problem updating their way of thinking once new evidence is provided. Creationists and IDers are the ones who vehemently insist they “know” and refuse to re-evaluate when new evidence is presented.
  

  Another example is that inanimate and inorganic gases / chemical evolved. Ridiculous to suggest but vital for the atheist to do nevertheless.

  Again, you really need to read some real science news: Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory.

  Reply to This Comment

  

  Neece Reply:
  June 2nd, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  Um, yeah. “Scientific method of knowing” is completely nonsensical.
  The thing is, science is so wonderful and beautiful. Scientists climb on the shoulders of giants, and seek further and deeper for understanding. It is amazing and constantly fascinating.

  Then you have faith and religion. That’s where belief and being stuck in bronze and iron age nonsense comes in. Fairy tales told to try to explain a big scary world. Clinging to such silliness is completely unhealthy, and has been downright deadly over the millennia.

  Give me science any day. You can keep your faith, belief, and “knowing” (wrong information).

  Reply to This Comment

• Michael Mock

  June 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm · Reply

  “Another example is that inanimate and inorganic gases / chemical evolved.” And now we’re back to my original problem with your list: what does that even mean?

  I suppose I could try to guess… but for the sake of clarity, can you give me an example of someone actually making that claim (or even some rough equivalent), in their own words? Preferably with a citation, so I can look at the context in which they were speaking? On its own, it’s so obscure as to be nonsensical.

  Also… is this a list you compiled yourself, or are you pulling it from somewhere? If so, where?

  Reply to This Comment

• GMNightmare

  June 3rd, 2009 at 5:15 am · Reply

  “Eternal – Existed before time began and now exists in time but outside of time constraints
  All Powerful – Creator of space, time, matter and the laws of science,
  All Knowing – Created the constants and qualities by which the universe functions,
  Omnipresent – Not limited by space or time,
  Timeless and changeless – Not limited by time
  Spirit – He exists outside of and prior to the creator of matter,
  Personal – the impersonal cannot create personality
  Purposeful – He deliberately created the universe
  Sustainer of the universe
  Independent of His creation”

  This is good fodder. I can play with this for awhile. BRING ON THE PARADOXICAL FLAWS!

  Changeless + purposeful:
  So he deliberately created the universe? What change on day came to him, and he suddenly decided, “Hey, today I think I’ll create the universe!” Is that it for purposeful, by the way? So your saying creating the universe was god’s purpose? The act of fulfilling that purpose is a change wouldn’t you say? Now he doesn’t have a purpose… Please, give more, so I can connect purposeful with all powerful as another flaw.

  Changeless + personal:
  This includes all of your personal things like patience, slow to anger, and all that nonsense under personal. Emotions and personality, are changes of states. If he wasn’t angry with you earlier, and now he’s angry with you, then something just changed. Simply things like god was pleased with his creation on one point, then he was displeased is a change. Indeed, being pleased with his creation is a change, since before he wasn’t pleased with his creation, as there was no creation to be pleased in…

  Omnipresent + Spirit:
  Your definition of spirit is weird. Does that mean he doesn’t exist in matter, thus no having the ability to be omnipresent? For that matter, omnipresent, once he created the universe, wouldn’t it thus mean he had to change to accommodate for his omnipresence?

  All powerful + omnipresent:
  Does he have the power to not be omnipresent? For that matter, does he have the power to change himself?

  Sustainer of the universe + Independent of his creation:
  This one is too easy, he can’t be independent of his creation if without him the creation ceases to exist. In some way or part, we must be connected if he sustains our existence.

  All Powerful + Creator of space:
  So he created space huh? Nice one. Do you even know what space is? Nothing. How do you create nothing? Never mind that question, I’ll just say it. Nothing, would be the absence of a creation in this situation, thus being he didn’t create it.

  .

  I’m done with your silly little games. I want you to do something real quick for me here. Pray to your “All knowing” god and for the answer to the question:
  “Can god create an object so heavy that even god cannot lift it?”
  Reply only when you have done this. Give the direct answer. Or, if you’d rather not, pray for a correct reply to this request.

  Reply to This Comment

• rebzzz

  October 14th, 2009 at 4:05 pm · Reply

  Ash stated he was once a christian but left only to return seven years later because he felt led. No one goes willingly and have to be led. Truth be known, Ash feels safty in numbers and is not man enough to stand on his own merits or goodness. All any of us ever needed to know or do is to follow the golden rule, which is as old as time. Religions were created to keep mankind at odds with other nations for the sake of war. You can’t get nations to fight if they serve the same dogma but they will tear one another to bits over ‘gods’ while the powers that be stuff their pockets with the loot and destroy cultures by the thousands. Religion is based on lies, control and the enormous egos of the idiots who need to be part of such silliness. Most men who get caught up in christianity soon become effeminate and are quite nauseating. Getting on ones knees before an invisible man you never met and can’t prove exists is pretty freaky. Declaring undying love for this same invisable man is scary as hell. How does it feel to be a man and know you are going to be a ‘bride’? You simpletons make my stomach churn and you are not happy unless you are trying to force your misery on everyone else.

  Reply to This Comment

Copyright © 2010 Heaving Dead Cats - All Rights Reserved

200 queries. 2.574 seconds.