RICHMOND — State Delegate Bob Marshall of Manassas says disabled children are God’s punishment to women who have aborted their first pregnancy.
He made that statement Thursday at a press conference to oppose state funding for Planned Parenthood.
“The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion with handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the first born of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” said Marshall, a Republican.
“In the Old Testament, the first born of every being, animal and man, was dedicated to the Lord. There’s a special punishment Christians would suggest.”
Marshall was among more than 20 people, mostly Christian pastors and clergy, who gathered for the press conference in the General Assembly Building.
They called on Virginia officials to eliminate state funding for Planned Parenthood because the organization provides abortions.
“We are gathered this afternoon to draw attention to the unethical, immoral and racist practices of the largest abortion provider in America,” said Dean Nelson, executive director of the Network of Politically Active Christians.
The God of perfect love strikes again with his divine justice. As a mob of hypocrites and bigots line up to proclaim his holy judgement against everyone less righteous than themselves.
Tags: Aborted, Abortion, Baby, Bible, Christianity, Fetus, Genocide, God, Heaven, Infant, Jesus, Life, Morality, Paradise, Pro-Choice, Pro-Life
February 19, 2010 at 11:38 am |
Actually, 11 years of Catholic education sez aborted fetuses and dead infant souls go to Limbo — I was always fascinated with Limbo: the nuns said Limbo was “just like heaven but without the Face of God”. Sounded like an ok thing to me!!
February 19, 2010 at 11:41 am |
Heaven, without the Face of God? WTF does that mean? Heaven without the face of a blue-eyed European bearded man walking around tipping over tables calling everyone fools and vipers?
That does sound better than a heaven where you are required to submit and worship this sadistic dictator every second.
Catholicism makes me laugh. Every Pope makes it up and changes the rules as they go along.
February 19, 2010 at 12:12 pm |
I’ve been schooled in a Catholic-run school.
And if I recall correctly, they don’t believe in limbo, or similar concepts like Purgatory.
Are you sure that’s a Catholic point of view?
February 19, 2010 at 1:02 pm |
I have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The answer is Yes on Purgatory but No (or not sure) on Limbo (as an officially-sanctioned doctrine).
For children who die before baptism, the position of the Catholic Church is to entrust them to the mercy of God, which allows us “to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.” See No. 1261
February 19, 2010 at 1:39 pm |
Because the change in policy was so recent, what you were taught depends on when you attended a Catholic-run school ( I did as well, ending in 1980, and was taught about limbo) and how old your catechism is.
February 19, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
Just recently, in 2005, the Catholic church backpeddled away from limbo Naturally, what with being infallible and all, they cannot admit that the papacy changed its mind, so the linked story frames the belief in limbo, which was taught fro centuries, as something that was never more than a hypothesis.
February 19, 2010 at 1:44 pm |
Check out this site, I haven’t decided if it’s Poe or not yet:
The staggering implications of Benedict XVI’s new blatant heresy on Limbo
February 19, 2010 at 1:54 pm |
Clarification: the change in Catholic doctrine on limbo was in the works for several years, it was officially released in 2007 according to Wikipedia.
February 19, 2010 at 3:42 pm
In a few more years the Vatican will invent new dogmas for everyone to believe. It is fun to watch religion evolve just like everything else on earth.
February 22, 2010 at 4:13 pm |
Catholic church never officially taught limbo – although it seemed to grip the minds of many Catholics. Of course the innocent can gain paradise. The importance of preaching the gospel to living people is to try and transform lives in the here and now for the better. Shame most Christians only preach the bits they like.
February 20, 2010 at 12:44 am |
I believe that the Pope declared some years back that the concept of Limbo was invalid after all. So I guess all those kids in Limbo got booted down into Hell, since it just wouldn’t be right for an untested soul to be allowed into Heaven, I’m guessin’
February 21, 2010 at 10:46 am |
I restrained myself from saying this before, but I think I should voice it out here.
Benedict… scares me. Not because he’s a representative of God, but not counting his speaking out against Atheism, he’s already sparked off 2 global-spanning controversies in the name of God.
1. Officially rescinding the idea of Limbo (discussed here)
2. Officially denying the salvation of his fellow believers, as long as they aren’t Catholic (2007)
I hope his patron deity manages to hold him back, because stuff like that tends to trigger off holy wars. We have enough trouble with idiot terrorists committing sins in the name of Allah as it is.
Thankfully, he seems meek over the past 2 years…
February 20, 2010 at 11:52 am |
Well given that limbo / purgatory is never mentioned in any “holy” texts that it is a total crock of crap. Kinda like the saints and many other concoctions of the Catholic Church.
February 19, 2010 at 12:00 pm |
Interestingly, there is some basis in science to show that those who try most desperately to hold on to life (extra treatments, untried meds etc. and so forth) are more often than not Christians or devoutly religious. The indication is that they are less ready to accept death than those who are not religious.
I suspect that infants and fetuses get a get out of jail free card because none of the religious people wants to explain why it is that babies go to hell.
Read this somewhere:
Eskimo to pastor: so, if I died and had never heard of the word of your god, I’d go to heaven? right?
Pastor to eskimo: Yes, that’s right, glory be.
Eskimo to paster: Then why the hell did you tell me about it?
Apparently Christians are not happy to keep their suffering to themselves.
With that kind of attitude, they can’t condone abortion and can’t quite say the baby’s soul was saved from hardship. No, a true Christian wants that soul to suffer like they did. It’s ok to mutilate animals and control their populations, but humans? Nope. Try asking what they think about the Chinese and their limit on population growth?
Ask them where 14Billion people are supposed to live.
I suspect that it won’t be that long before the question of birth control and abortions for Christians in China modifies the dogma of Christianity.
February 19, 2010 at 12:06 pm |
Awesome post. It’s just one more line in the super-long list of holes in the Christian theology. I’ve actually spoken with Christians who say that children of non-christian women (or more so, the aborted fetuses) would most certainly go to hell. Ugh, what a loving religion…
February 19, 2010 at 12:13 pm |
Pro-abortion folks stoop to a new low to justify killing the unborn.
February 19, 2010 at 1:18 pm |
Political comments like yours are exactly why I started the post with a disclaimer.
Who said I was pro-abortion? I’m pro-abortion because I question the “moral” theology of Christianity that uses this barbaric book as proof for the value of human life?
You and I are free to be pro-choice or pro-life regardless of our belief in invisible people. But justifying your political stance with the Bible and its barbaric stories is ludicrous. Pointing to a God that condones genocide and requires blood to earn forgiveness gives a very pathetic foundation to argue for the life of the unborn.
February 19, 2010 at 2:09 pm |
I made no political reference.
And I made no argument for the pro-life position using the Bible.
So, exactly what are you talking about?
Abortion is the killing of a living human being.
You wanna argue with that?
Show me either:
a) the unborn isn’t living
or
b) the unborn isn’t human (please specify what species you think it is instead)
February 19, 2010 at 2:58 pm
I presume Joe White opposes the death penalty and all war, because those consist of killing living human beings as well. (BTW, his terminology is redundant, because you can’t kill something that isn’t living.)
February 19, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Abortion (as practiced in the USA) is not the killing of a living human being. If you wish to argue, prove that it is killing a living human being. To do that you have to prove that life begins at conception and not at birth. You’ve always been a bit short on proof and answering questions, so I don’t expect much from you on this other than political rhetoric, and vitriolic comment.
Joe, your statement was wholly political, no matter how coy you try to be about it with pedantism.
Now, even if you do prove that abortion is killing a human being, you have no right (god given or otherwise) to tell anyone else how to manage their reproductive system. If only it were that we had the right to do so, I’m sure your parents would be in jail for violating some principle or other of good community behavior.
February 19, 2010 at 4:06 pm
You stated that pro-abortion people stooped to a new low, apparently pointed at me. That is a political statement.
Discuss the topic at hand: Abortion from a Christian and biblical perspective. I’m not here to debate the legality of abortion with you.
The rest of your comment is complete drivel trying to bait me into a pro-life debate and derail this discussion. My post and comments have nothing to do with whether or not the unborn is or isn’t a living human.
PLEASE discuss the topic and points made in the post, or find another blog to annoy.
If these red herring comments continue, I will block you from posting here. You are free to post counter arguments and disagree with me. But I will not continue to allow you to deliberately derail every discussion with leading comments that have nothing to do with the post.
February 20, 2010 at 2:09 am
theBEattitude,
You and some of the others seem to think that Mr. White is being deliberately disruptive and obstructive, probably because you have trouble believing that he is as ignorant, irrational, and obtuse as his comments suggest. But either way, you cannot persuade him to change his behavior. In the one case, if his actions are malicious, he will simply continue. In the other case, the limitations of this habits of thought prevent him from even understanding the point of your objections to his behavior or recognizing the distinction that you object to his behavior (which violates the norms of polite discussion) rather than to his opinions (with which you disagree but which you are willing to discuss).
Perhaps you will decide that, either way, his comments are too much hassle. But in deciding, perhaps you will consider a few points.
Mr. White’s comments cannot derail a discussion unless others reply to them and are lured off on to a useless tangent. (We are not, after all, talking about a denial of service attack.) Without replies, the comments would just be a little extra noise to disregard. The primary discussion should be able to continue despite a few unresponsive comments; indeed that is what usually happens when digressive, inept, or loony comments appear.
Sometimes Mr. White actually makes a good point and sometimes one of the non-believers takes the same kind of belligerent and stubborn stand as is typical of Mr. White, but in the opposite direction. An example occurred in the recent discussion of “The history of Christianity”. In the exchange between Mr. White and Mr. Z, they were both wrong and both right at the same time because there were both errors and valid points on both sides.
Sometimes one of Mr. White’s comments illustrates a common misconception about non-belief or a misunderstanding of natural processes. It may be worthwhile to reply to these matters for the benefit of other readers. But such replies, in my opinion, should be directed to the substantive points and should not contain comments about Mr. White’s behavior or exchanges of insults with him. Besides the practical matter of avoiding the ugly clutter of extended vituperation, we should set an example of the kind of discussion we want.
February 22, 2010 at 12:12 pm
1.) “The unborn is not living”
This depends on what point of the gestational process we’re referring to, but at early enough points “the unborn” are no more living than a sperm cell is living, or a chunk of skin is living.
2.) “The unborn isn’t human”
Again, it depends on where we are in the gestational process, but the only “human” thing about these bundles of cells is DNA. Things with human DNA are not necessarily human. If that were true, we’d commit genocide every time we got a tan.
February 20, 2010 at 8:01 pm |
Joe White – I believe the author was making an argument against Christianity rather than an argument in favor of abortion. It appears that the rhetorical style has confused you.
February 19, 2010 at 2:22 pm |
Life doesn’t begin. It continues. A sperm and an egg are just as alive before fertilization as after. Life began billions of years ago, and if you are alive now, you are part of a continuous process. It feels like you’re a discreet living organism with a beginning, but it’s fuzzier than that.
The question of “human” is a political question, not a scientific one. Probably the easiest dividing line between an embryo and a self sustaining human is the existence of cognitive awareness. Arguably, this doesn’t happen until some time after birth, but it’s still the best clear division we have. But even that isn’t an on/off switch. It’s a gradual change from non-sentient to sentient.
Scientists refuse to address the question of whether life begins at conception or birth because it’s a silly question. They also refuse to address the question of when something is “human” because the question betrays enough scientific ignorance that the answer wouldn’t be worth giving.
Here’s a good article about it:
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/a-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-human-being/
February 19, 2010 at 3:15 pm |
Not a christian, but here’s a christian argument:
If a woman has an abortion, she’s going to hell for the murder of an innocent. So heaven gets one soul, but hell gets one. If she *doesn’t* have the abortion, potentially both souls can get in to heaven.
Same thing follows for muslims, etc — they’re going to hell, if their kids are raised muslim they go to hell, but with no abortion there’s the chance to “save” both child and mother.
February 19, 2010 at 6:35 pm |
Whoever the christian was that used this argument didn’t think it though. From what I understand all sins but denying god can be forgiven. Therefore the female that has an abortion can be forgiven for it and get to heaven.
February 22, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
Why does an all-powerful God need the top spot on the Afterlife High-Score screen?
February 22, 2010 at 1:38 pm |
Why does an all-powerful god create creatures in his likeness that he then decides to throw away and burn forever in hell? Is it like a young boy with two bags of plastic armymen, and loses or mutilates half of them in the back yard wars, but still have enough to play some more in bed before going to sleep?
February 19, 2010 at 3:46 pm |
As a Christian I believe that obviously abortion is wrong, but what about the aborted fetus? No, I don’t believe that those children instantly go to heaven, but you’re right, it sounds awful to say that they are going to hell. However, the only way that a person can be saved, can go to heaven after they die, is if they accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. He died to forgive all of our sins. Yea, I know you think it is all a bunch of nonsense, but it’s not.
God is a God of justice and also grace. We are all sinful human beings from birth. We all deserve to burn in hell, let’s face it, none of us are good. We are rotten to the core. God created man good and in his image, but we decided to turn our back on Him, and thus, there is sin. But God loved us enough that He sent His one and only Son to this world and allowed Jesus to bear the burden of our sin. Once we accept this gift, when we believe that only by Christ’s death (sacrifice for sin) and resurrection (overcoming sin and death) can we be saved, then we are God’s covenant children. I believe that I am now a covenant child of God, and because of this the child that I lost in a miscarriage is now in heaven. God shows mercy to thwe children of believers, children who were not given the chance to grow up and learn about God. I alsop believe that young children of believers are saved.
But children from abortions? Well, none of us deserve to go to heaven. It is only because of God’s grace and mercy that any of us are saved. So although we can not pretend to know everything about God (face it, do any of us know everything about anything?) I have to say that no, I do not believe that all aborted children go to heaven. And whose fault is that? You probably say God, I say not. We are all sinful and any one of us, put in Adam and Eve’s position would have sinned. We are born sinful. Only God’s grace and mercy allow us the chance to be washed clean by Christ Jesus’ death and ressurection.
I can only hope that all makes sense, i know that I tend to ramble, especially when I feel passionately about something.
February 19, 2010 at 4:16 pm |
errmmm, speak for yourself. I am NOT rotten to the core as you say. I have far more self esteem than to think that. Just the same, at least your ideology makes some sense of aborted babies going to hell. How does that make you feel knowing that your god demands absolute innocents burn forever? Doesn’t sound like compassion or love to me from your deity. Sounds rather arbitrary as to whose baby is saved from hell and whose baby is not. So, would that be only babies from your sect, or any Christian sect?
Yes, it’s comforting to think your miscarried child is in a better place, but to choose one baby for it’s parent’s faith is quite similar to damning the son for the sin’s of the father. isn’t it?
February 19, 2010 at 4:28 pm |
Like I said, i don’t pretend to have all the answers, I have always struggled with a God of mercy and grace and love letting innocents burn for all eternity. The difference between you and me is that I believe that we all belong in hell, we are all sinful, and only by God’s grace was I saved. We are all sinful, even before birth, we have a sinful nature, we are all corrupted by sin. So, based on that belief, those babies aren’t 100% innocent. Something else to think about, God knows our days, and everything we will accomplish before we are even born. He also knew that all these babies’ lives would be snuffed out before they could take their first breath. He knows this, but that doesn’t make it His fault that we do things like this.
As for my miscarried child being saved, I believe that anyone who has accepted that Christ is the only Lord and Saviour and made Him their own personal saviour has become a covenant child of God, and therefore any Christian’s child will be saved if they die before they are old enough to love Jesus and realize what He has done for us.
February 19, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Wow, just wow!
Janey said “God knows our days, and everything we will accomplish before we are even born. He also knew that all these babies’ lives would be snuffed out before they could take their first breath. He knows this, but that doesn’t make it His fault that we do things like this.”
If your God knows everything we will accomplish, then what exactly is the point of trying to live by his rules? Why even try, our lives are already known and mapped out.
So your God creates more sinners every day, allows them to follow the wrong religion just so he can burn them in hell? This is just? This is grace?
February 19, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Janey do you believe man has freewill?
February 22, 2010 at 12:19 pm
Janey, either “any Christian’s child will be saved if they die before they are old enough to love Jesus…” or “we all belong in hell, we are all sinful.”
You can’t have it both ways.
February 19, 2010 at 4:18 pm |
I used to agree with you Janey, but it is nonsense.
An unborn baby deserves to burn in hell? Seriously? That is your idea of justice and grace?
Would you burn you own children for dishonoring you and not asking you for forgiveness? No, because you have grace and love for your children. But this god is called just when he burns unborn babies, people indoctrinated into the wrong religion or those who don’t believe ancient Jewish folklore? And the punishment for finite sins on earth is infinite barbaric torture in hell? That is the just judgement of a loving god? I’m honestly ashamed I used to believe this garbage.
I know the concept of Jesus’ blood washing our sins away. I lived and breathed the Christian delusion for 33 years of my life. How exactly is heaven a paradise when you are required to worship a god that would burn babies in eternal torment?
The Judea Christian god is imaginary so it doesn’t matter. I just find it baffling to defend such a sadistic deity.
February 19, 2010 at 4:36 pm |
maybe too personal, but how could you believe for 33 years, and then lose it all?
In answer to your question, no, I wouldn’t burn my children. But God gives us many chances, and we deserve none. It seems that an unborn baby isn’t really given a chance, but can we pin that on God in the case of abortion? Just the same, if they were given a chance, would they realize how sinful they are? How much they need a saviour?
I will be the first to admit that I don’t read the Bible as much as I should, nor do i know everything it says. Sadly, I often find myself “too busy”. At times like this I wish I was more knowledgable and also more concise. I would love to answer your questions better
February 19, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Janey answer this if you can. If a aborted fetus or new born baby that died minutes after birth go to hell, why should the woman that either aborted the fetus or had the child that died be given a chance to go to heaven?
February 23, 2010 at 8:00 am
You said: “But God gives us many chances, and we DESERVE NONE.” What a terrible way to view your existence. Were you an evil baby? A wicked child? Are you a criminal adult? The doctrine of “original sin” is just a mean way to convince people that they need the services of a church. Basic business model: Convince people that whatever they have isn’t good enough, so they have to buy something else. You should hang out with atheists- we say you were born good, and have every right to be happy, healthy, and educated.
February 19, 2010 at 9:11 pm |
Janey, I understand not having time to read a really boring and long book. The problem is that you are basing your entire life on this book. If there are ever questions you can’t answer you should seek the answer. This is your life, YOUR ONE LIFE. Imagine if your Christian god isn’t real. You have wasted your one time on this planet. If you think he is real, you should make sure you know it, all of it.
I too used to be a Christian and these type of questions always scared me away from an answer. Excuses like, “I just haven’t studied enough,” was a common one. It was normally hidden away in my brain, along with tons of other holes in religion.
I implore you to try and answer all of the questions you don’t have the answer to. It’s sad that religion condones thinking outside of the box. It’s designed so you won’t question it. If you do, you sin. If you sin, you go to hell.
You get once chance to enjoy anything. Please, don’t waste it.
February 19, 2010 at 5:39 pm |
Hi, I found your site, and particularly this post, by doing research on tagging for my own new site. I think your reasoning in this post is very good–I’ve had many of the same arguments with Christians using the same reasoning. I share your frustration at the irrationality, thoughtlessness and inconsistency of so many Christians. Christianity, as it is represented in its various and often contradicting forms, cannot be looked to for answers to any questions. If you look to the tradition you were raised in or the general Christian culture around you, or to the circumstances and tragedies of life you will not find logical and consistent answers to the things that can be answered. Instead you will find multiplying doubts that eventually shipwreck your faith. The Church in our time is especially filled with contradiction, error, ignorance and…sin. Lots of sin, from a group of people that aren’t exactly the cream of the human crop (1 Cor. 1:26-28, Matt. 11:25). Thankfully, we aren’t asked to look to those things to build a rational faith. We are never called to look at the circumstances of life or other people or even the fractured and irrational elements in the Church to judge whether or not God exists.
I freely admit, along with the Bible itself (Duet. 29:29) that not every question has its answer revealed to us and that even if it was revealed we wouldn’t necessarily be able to grasp it with our comparatively puny and tainted minds. But we do have sufficient answers revealed that are logical to the most astute minds and that are satisfying enough not only for initial faith but also for perseverance in faith through the troubles and tragedies of life.
To your question though–No, actually, all Christians do not believe that all babies, aborted or miscarried or otherwise, go to heaven when they die. Some of us believe that the Bible teaches that God saves those whom He wishes, and saves them the way that He wishes. Some of us believe that ~normally~ God works through the “means of grace” (preaching, sacraments, His Word, etc), but that God, being God, is ultimately free to do as He wishes and to work above, beside, or even against means. The Scriptures describe a just and good God (though I realize because of your unanswered questions your thoughts have led you to believe the opposite) who rightly expects those who have the ability to reason and information with which to reason, to do just that. Scripture also teaches that those who do not have the same benefits and blessings are not accountable for them (Luke 12:48, James 3:1). Therefore, while God is not explicit in His Word about what happens to these children and others, like those who are impaired cognitively, we do have some reason to hope from His Word that at least some babies go to heaven. We also have reason to believe that some do not. Acts 2:39 and other verses and Scriptural concepts give a Christian hope for their children. Unbelievers do not have that much hope offered to them. While believers have hope, Scripture does not give us a guarantee for even Christians have unbelieving children (as you exemplify). When you look at the norm, however, most Christian parents, especially if they are faithful to teach and to love their children, do have believing children and most unbelievers don’t, with exceptions on both sides. While I think that the Bible gives us hope, because it is not explicit I think this is one of those matters that we have to stay somewhat open about.
I thoroughly read your About page and was struck by the lack of logic in your thinking there vs. your clear logic here. In this post you argue that Christians are irrational on a certain point and that I fully grant you. In your About page though you argue that Christianity is irrational which I do not grant. That you had doubts about the Bible and your faith and what you observed around you is evidence of great intelligence and thoughtful existence. That you have concluded that because you haven’t found answers yet that there are therefore no answers is, well, not so logical. Actually, it’s worse. You have not just concluded there are no answers, but you seem to have concluded that the Bible is false and therefore Jesus is not–at least He’s not who He says He is–and so now you take the atheist position and argue from that paradigm. Haven’t you just switched sides of the debate and changed the set of questions that you must answer? If you have honest questions then isn’t the rational position to take one of inconclusiveness rather than the opposite conclusion? But perhaps you have answered all of your questions. If so, how do you know that you asked the right questions or that you asked all of the questions that were necessary to answer before concluding that atheism is indeed rational?
I’ve read several of your posts and you sound like you put an incredible amount of trust in your own ability to know the facts and to reason with them correctly. Do you assume that your questions and a hundred better ones have not been asked by others with even brighter minds than yours? Do you assume that those brighter minds haven’t found logical, compelling and faith-affirming answers? Do you assume that because you haven’t yet found the answers that there are indeed none to be found? I too still have many questions. I too think critically and refuse the choice of living in denial or with a Pollyanna faith. God Is and therefore I am free to ask ALL of my questions and to express all of my concerns and doubts–He’s big enough to take it and kind enough to meet me where I am. The one condition is that I must ask with a humble and true desire to know Him, not with an irrational and rather bizarre demand for the Potter to justify Himself to the pot before the pot will believe in the Potter’s existence. God invites us to know and therefore to enjoy Him, not to merely use Him to get our questions answered as if we were in the superior position. The questions must serve the end for which they are given (yes, given, they are a gift of rationality to be used)–to call us to knowledge and therefore joy through God in Jesus Christ.
Putting aside the question of the right or wrong of pre-birth killing and picking up the more generally accepted wrong of murder of those already living outside the womb–do you believe with most of humanity that premeditated murder is wrong? If so, on what rational basis? Or, to take a cue from your definition of BEattitude, on what rational basis do you even ask questions or seek answers? With a random universe, no God and nothing but annihilation ahead for everyone, what is the point of questions or answers? Why not truly just BE? Your site would be much more compelling as an atheist if you would argue against the more difficult questions. Setting up fractured Christianity, especially in our day, as the target doesn’t make it too hard to hit the bulls-eye every time, does it?
Thanks for the engaging post. I will undoubtedly be back at some point. Not all believers are afraid of the questions and comments I’ve seen here. In fact, there are a great number of us who insist on a rational faith. If you look for us, you just mind find us. But if you did, I wonder, what would you do?
Here are a couple of posts at my site that you and your readers might be interested in. If not–and based on my paradigm that is more accurately, probably not–then at least your wife or extended family might find some encouragement there. I don’t claim to be the expert on anything and my site is new so most things that I will be writing about haven’t even been touched. But just to encourage you that there are Christians who at least seek to be rational (and on that please know that I am NOT the best representative by any stretch of even my imagination
):
http://godistherefore.com
http://godistherefore.com/2010/01/22/god-is-introduction/
http://godistherefore.com/2010/01/17/reason-faith-and-kissing-strangers/
One last note–while I love these types of discussions, the purpose of my site is not to debate the existence of God, but rather to demonstrate why I know that God Is (and why others can know) and then to discuss the implications of that from a Christian point of view. In other words, my site is primarily for Christians and yours for atheists and while we each have some cross over and comments are welcome over there I would ask that those who go to my site from yours be respectful and remember that I don’t wish to turn my site into yours as our focuses are diametrically opposed.
Thanks again for the interesting post, I apologize for the length of my comment, but I cut it, honest!
Susan
February 19, 2010 at 5:59 pm |
Welcome to the discussion Susan. I’ll comment on a few of your thoughts.
I find it illogical for you to be so certain this version of religion contains answers to the obvious theological flaws and biblical absurdities. For me it is not about unanswered questions, it’s the lame attempt by theologians and apologists to justify these absurdities. There aren’t rational justifications because it is a primitive man-made religion.
I’ve rejected every other god my entire life. I just added a new one to the list.
Jesus didn’t say who he was. Anonymous authors said who he was 40-70+ years after his supposed death. There isn’t even solid evidence to prove Jesus even existed, let alone if his Gospel quotes are true. If Jesus was concerned about the authenticity and believability of his message, he should have written his own gospel.
February 19, 2010 at 6:23 pm |
Hi there BE (sorry, I didn’t find your name anywhere so if it’s here, my apologies),
I understand you only wanting to reply to parts of my long comment. I wish you had chosen the more compelling questions or comments to answer. Like this:
“But perhaps you have answered all of your questions. If so, how do you know that you asked the right questions or that you asked all of the questions that were necessary to answer before concluding that atheism is indeed rational?”
Or this:
“Do you assume that your questions and a hundred better ones have not been asked by others with even brighter minds than yours? Do you assume that those brighter minds haven’t found logical, compelling and faith-affirming answers?”
Or this:
“…do you believe with most of humanity that premeditated murder is wrong? If so, on what rational basis? Or, to take a cue from your definition of BEattitude, on what rational basis do you even ask questions or seek answers? With a random universe, no God and nothing but annihilation ahead for everyone, what is the point of questions or answers? Why not truly just BE? Your site would be much more compelling as an atheist if you would argue against the more difficult questions. Setting up fractured Christianity, especially in our day, as the target doesn’t make it too hard to hit the bulls-eye every time, does it?”
The “god” that you argue against is not the God of the Bible or of Creation. Anyone can set up a false-god and then knock him down. After reading several of your posts I have not seen one question, presupposition or argument that hasn’t been dealt with rationally by those much smarter than either you or I. I just wonder why you don’t argue against those more intelligent propositions?
Thank you for allowing my long comment. I realize it was a bit over-the-top.
Susan
February 19, 2010 at 7:51 pm
Hello Susan, Let me have a go at it:
Susan said “But perhaps you have answered all of your questions. If so, how do you know that you asked the right questions or that you asked all of the questions that were necessary to answer before concluding that atheism is indeed rational?”
It’s not about asking the right questions or all of the questions. The single question to ask is why should I believe this fairy tale? Then ask why everything offered as reason or proof is valid. Is it valid? if not, why offer it up as reason or proof? What are the motives for doing so? Atheism is NOT an theological viewpoint. It is a viewpoint void of theism. The basic premise of which is: There are no gods, and there is not yet any compelling evidence to believe that anyone’s claims of gods are true.
Susan said: “Do you assume that your questions and a hundred better ones have not been asked by others with even brighter minds than yours? Do you assume that those brighter minds haven’t found logical, compelling and faith-affirming answers?”
I don’t assume anything, and my personal beliefs or non-beliefs are much more important to me than simply letting ‘brighter minds’ make my decisions for me. I don’t assume these things, and in fact ‘brighter minds’ have NOT found logical, compelling and faith-affirming answers. There are brighter minds than mine, and they have found logical and compelling answers. The problem for you is that the answers the found were most definitely NOT faith-affirming in nature.
Susan Said “…do you believe with most of humanity that premeditated murder is wrong? If so, on what rational basis? Or, to take a cue from your definition of BEattitude, on what rational basis do you even ask questions or seek answers? With a random universe, no God and nothing but annihilation ahead for everyone, what is the point of questions or answers? Why not truly just BE? Your site would be much more compelling as an atheist if you would argue against the more difficult questions. Setting up fractured Christianity, especially in our day, as the target doesn’t make it too hard to hit the bulls-eye every time, does it?”
First, the point about murder. This is a social agreement that we make with each other, not a rule of scientific law or fundamental building block of life. Murder in some circumstances equals food. I don’t mean cannibalism, but murdering animals for meat is food. So the definition becomes somewhat hazy under differing circumstances. In general, we socially contract not to kill one another, except for wars, gang robberies, genocide, food, self defense, and a host of other reasons when it seems ok to kill.
Second, using Christianity as a target, as you say, “doesn’t make it too hard to hit the bulls-eye every time”. Try to remember, that it is the religions of the world that set up missions, send missionary envoys, and prostletize to all and sundry whether they want to hear it or not. The fact that their bunk is based on a fairy tale does make it clear, but not easy as discussing anything with them necessarily includes putting up with their illogical, faulty logic. It was not that long ago that religions controlled more or less all of the world governments, dictating to the rest of us what we should and should not believe, what we can and cannot say. If it now looks like we’re targeting religion and picking on the inconsistencies, then it’s about time everyone started looking at those inconsistencies. I, for one, am happy to help point them out for you if you are interested.
Susan said: The “god” that you argue against is not the God of the Bible or of Creation. Anyone can set up a false-god and then knock him down. After reading several of your posts I have not seen one question, presupposition or argument that hasn’t been dealt with rationally by those much smarter than either you or I. I just wonder why you don’t argue against those more intelligent propositions?
What ‘more intelligent propositions’ are you talking about? theBEattitude is offering up their own thoughts for conversation, not going down a list of talking points from ‘answers in genesis’ or something. Also, how do you think you will be considered when you imply that the people you are writing to are not intelligent, multiple times no less?
Mr Z
February 19, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Susan paraphrased: “Why don’t you ask the questions I want asked instead of the questions you want asked?”
An answer: Susan: go get your own blog.
February 20, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Hi Mr Z,
I realize that as atheists it’s not your job to prove the negative that there are no gods. On the other hand, I feel no compulsion to prove there is a God to anyone–I don’t feel a need to improve on what God has made clear by reason. My point here is that if you’re going to argue against the tenets of Christianity in order to show us Christians the irrationality of our faith then you ought to argue rationally. So yes, be unconvinced by the arguments and evidence presented to you, that’s your business and your responsibility, but if you choose to actively argue against the propositions for the God of the Bible then it would be good to at least represent the best of the arguments and not the division and irrationality that I have before granted exists.
Please allow me to correct any misconception that I believe those here are not intelligent. I actually affirmed BEattitude’s intelligence on a couple of occasions. We’re not talking about intelligence, but rationality. Many intelligent people are at times irrational and many not-so-intelligent folks are very logical at times. I also believe that we shouldn’t let those smarter than us make our decisions for us. I do thank you for granting that brighter minds have indeed found logical and compelling answers. I grant that not everyone who hears those logical and compelling answers will also find them faith-building and that for those bent on their point of view no amount of proof or compelling evidence will make a difference. (cf. Romans 1:18-22).
Re: murder–my question was simple, what rational basis do atheists have for believing that killing another person under ANY circumstances is wrong? Or pick your act–rape, pedophilia, theft, etc. What rational basis does an atheist have for holding to any form of morality at all? What is just, unjust, right, wrong, etc? You have offered “social contract” as a reason, but if someone chooses not to enter into that contract–or to break that contract for that matter–what rational basis does an atheist have for complaining? What rational basis does an atheist have for caring about a social contract in the first place? To quote a philosophy professor, Surrendra Gangadean from one of his lectures: “Suppose there is no God. Then all is eternal in some form or other, whether all is matter or all is spirit or both matter and spirit are eternal. If all is eternal, if there is no creation, the distinction between good and evil might still be made but it cannot be rationally justified. If all is nature then all is natural. If all is one then good and evil are one. If there is no personal immortality, if death ends it all, it cannot be rationally justified why I should do one thing rather than another. If all ends sooner or later we may all do as we please.” If you are a logically consistent atheist then you must reject any form of morality at all and you must embrace every inference that carries with it. Another point that is relevant to the post above–wouldn’t an atheist be the first to excuse himself from such a social contract or to commit suicide for that matter? After all, isn’t the nothingness that you believe awaits you more appealing than this life which is full of pain even when compared to its joys? And since pain and joy are really just illusions brought about by random chemical reactions, why bother with this mockery of existence? If you are consistent as an atheist who desires to live in reality, without delusion then why stop at ending the delusion of religion? Isn’t it just another delusion to believe that anything matters at all, most especially your illusory emotions that tell you to care about life?
The more intelligent propositions are those that are not argued against by generalizing the inconsistent and sometimes irrational interpretations of the Bible, turning them into a cartoon that doesn’t reflect the God of the Bible and then shooting them down as absurd. For one thing, Christianity is represented accurately only insofar as it reflects the accurate understanding of the revelation of God which is Creation and the Bible.
You have granted that there are bright minds that have found logical and compelling answers–why not rationally argue against those? Or perhaps pick up a philosophy professor who talks about reason and faith at the most basic of levels (by which I do not mean simple) and pick apart his work? All of the quibbling over this interpretation of Scripture or that representation of Christianity just skirts the real issues and the harder questions that I do not even see discussed here. I see lots of frustrated Christians who feel attacked (and some of them are not acting very kindly in their frustration which does nothing to serve their position) and a lot of atheists congratulating themselves each time they knock down a new straw man. I see atheists who are not proving their points about Christianity, but merely reiterating and reasserting themselves. Reassertion doesn’t answer legitimate questions.
Why not take on ONE system of theology which does synthesize some if not most or all of the more supposed conundrums of Scripture. Take on one system that reconciles baby killing and genocide, etc with a loving, merciful and just God. My point all along has been to stop setting up straw men arguments, but rather, if your position is right then go for the big guns! If you pick a system of theology that is wrong then you will expose it (and the Christian church shall thank you) and if you pick a system of theology that is right then you will be unable to produce convincing arguments (and the Christian church shall thank you). I am not afraid of the alternative, that the best of your arguments has any hope of survival, so let’s see it! But pick the best and argue if your point of view is solid, otherwise you just add another voice of chaos to the chaos.
But finally, as an atheist–why care anyway? Why go to so much trouble? If faith be delusion and all that is ahead for us all is annihilation, non-existence, then why seek to correct the poor souls who use faith to get through this difficult and painful life?
And with this, I will do as Reginald Selkirk has advised and return to my own blog. My intention wasn’t to engage in debate with those who demonstrate no real desire to understand the other point of view, but rather to say if you are going to argue, please be rational in how you go about it.
Thanks to all who kept the discussion kind.
Susan
February 21, 2010 at 2:06 pm
Susan,
Mea culpa, I misunderstood your question.
Susan said “Re: murder–my question was simple, what rational basis do atheists have for believing that killing another person under ANY circumstances is wrong? Or pick your act–rape, pedophilia, theft, etc. What rational basis does an atheist have for holding to any form of morality at all? What is just, unjust, right, wrong, etc? You have offered “social contract” as a reason, but if someone chooses not to enter into that contract–or to break that contract for that matter–what rational basis does an atheist have for complaining? ”
This appears to be the morality vs. ethics debate: take an example of two mammal tribes. A member of tribe 2 kills a member of tribe one. The grief and pain of the loss of a member drives one or more members of tribe 1 to kill one or more members of tribe 2. Eventually this leads to senseless killing at which the remaining members decide killing is wrong, and make a social pact to not do so… with exceptions. Atheists enjoy the benefits of social contracts, and complaining about violations of such is a builtin function of humankind. It’s not a morality thing. Even a two year old knows what fairness is.
Susan said “What rational basis does an atheist have for caring about a social contract in the first place? To quote a philosophy professor, Surrendra Gangadean from one of his lectures: “Suppose there is no God. Then all is eternal in some form or other, whether all is matter or all is spirit or both matter and spirit are eternal. If all is eternal, if there is no creation, the distinction between good and evil might still be made but it cannot be rationally justified. If all is nature then all is natural. If all is one then good and evil are one. If there is no personal immortality, if death ends it all, it cannot be rationally justified why I should do one thing rather than another. If all ends sooner or later we may all do as we please.”
An atheist has more reason to care about social contracts and this life than any theist. This is the ONLY life we get. Either we learn to like it and enjoy it or we waste it. We don’t burn money if we think paper currency is stupid, it still remains useful in acquiring the things we enjoy. There is much room for discussion on whether we should do one thing or another, but it comes down to creating an environment condusive to those things we enjoy doing. Does the lion care about morality? or does the lion only care about survival and doing those things it enjoys doing? As an atheist, I do not enjoy all of the social contracts made on my behalf by circumstance of birth, however I work within that framework to do those things that make life enjoyable for me. They become useful in that respect. If I do not have to worry about being killed at any point of any day, I have time to ponder science and art, I have time to create and build. I have time to discuss theology. These social contracts, such as they are, are useful in me achieving my goals.
Susan said “If you are a logically consistent atheist then you must reject any form of morality at all and you must embrace every inference that carries with it.
I reject morality in favor of ethics.
Susan said “Another point that is relevant to the post above–wouldn’t an atheist be the first to excuse himself from such a social contract or to commit suicide for that matter? After all, isn’t the nothingness that you believe awaits you more appealing than this life which is full of pain even when compared to its joys? ”
It is not just atheists who excuse themselves from social contracts, nor are they more likely to be the first to do so. Given that there is no scientific basis for such a presumption, I’ll say that humans, regardless of morality, do what they do when they do it based on the information and emotions in their heads, often without regard to social contracts. It is mankind’s propensity to disregard the social contracts that drove us to create laws and create groups of people to enforce them. I am unaware of any surviving theological based society that is without laws and law enforcement. Your question falls moot in face of evidence.
Susan said “And since pain and joy are really just illusions brought about by random chemical reactions, why bother with this mockery of existence? If you are consistent as an atheist who desires to live in reality, without delusion then why stop at ending the delusion of religion? Isn’t it just another delusion to believe that anything matters at all, most especially your illusory emotions that tell you to care about life?”"
A very good point, and in examining this very question it occurs to me that the reason for bothering is simple: This is the ONLY chance I get to see flowers, watch children play, enjoy the company of a pet, ride a roller coaster and on and on. Meh, if it is just an illusion, so what, I am enjoying it enough to go ahead and play along for now. Without question, this life comes to an end sooner than most people hope. Whether it is an illusion or not, whether there is a deity or not. The logical thing to do is enjoy this one chance to experience it. Live, love, laugh, be yourself. It’s the kind of honesty that the chaos of the universe craves. On a personal note: A painting I once saw depicting the flight if Icarus shows that even in his dying moments as he fell from the sky, people were living, loving, laughing, and dying without regard or knowledge of his plight. And so it is with with me. While my existence may be illusion or meaningless, it is meaningful to me and I relish it each day. I live each day with the personal goal of enjoying it, learning something, being kind to others, sharing with others and so on. It is my only chance to do these things and I personally wish to do them well. I do not need morality or a deity to drive me to do so.
Susan said: “The more intelligent propositions are those that are not argued against by generalizing the inconsistent and sometimes irrational interpretations of the Bible, turning them into a cartoon that doesn’t reflect the God of the Bible and then shooting them down as absurd. For one thing, Christianity is represented accurately only insofar as it reflects the accurate understanding of the revelation of God which is Creation and the Bible.”
Christianity does not give an accurate understanding of the revelation of God or creation. That’s the point. Where the Bible is the word and the word is truth, any inconsistency leads to failure. If you wish to say you personally believe there is some higher power but you have no proof of such, that is your choice. If you tell me there is proof of a god in the Bible, you fail. The Bible tells that God created everything, but if the Bible is not all truthful, why believe in creation? You know God created the universe because the Bible tells you so. What if that one book is wrong? If it is inconsistent, contradictory, and scientifically naive, how can you simply and blindly continue to believe the parts you pick and choose? The book itself made it an all or nothing proposition, not atheists.
Susan said “You have granted that there are bright minds that have found logical and compelling answers–why not rationally argue against those? Or perhaps pick up a philosophy professor who talks about reason and faith at the most basic of levels (by which I do not mean simple) and pick apart his work? All of the quibbling over this interpretation of Scripture or that representation of Christianity just skirts the real issues and the harder questions that I do not even see discussed here. I see lots of frustrated Christians who feel attacked (and some of them are not acting very kindly in their frustration which does nothing to serve their position) and a lot of atheists congratulating themselves each time they knock down a new straw man. I see atheists who are not proving their points about Christianity, but merely reiterating and reasserting themselves. Reassertion doesn’t answer legitimate questions.
Perhaps I am not understanding again, but this blog is about whatever theBEattitude wants to write about. There is no guide other than theBEattitudes musings. A place of discussion where theBEattitude sets the topic. No one is forced to read it, nor agree with it. I’m certain that you can discuss whatever you like on your website.
Susan said “Why not take on ONE system of theology which does synthesize some if not most or all of the more supposed conundrums of Scripture. Take on one system that reconciles baby killing and genocide, etc with a loving, merciful and just God. My point all along has been to stop setting up straw men arguments, but rather, if your position is right then go for the big guns! If you pick a system of theology that is wrong then you will expose it (and the Christian church shall thank you) and if you pick a system of theology that is right then you will be unable to produce convincing arguments (and the Christian church shall thank you). I am not afraid of the alternative, that the best of your arguments has any hope of survival, so let’s see it! But pick the best and argue if your point of view is solid, otherwise you just add another voice of chaos to the chaos.”
What system of theology do you suggest? Since atheism means without theism or theology, all theology would be in contention with atheism. Christianity is a large part of theBEattitudes life experience, and thus nearly always the topic here.
Susan said “But finally, as an atheist–why care anyway? Why go to so much trouble? If faith be delusion and all that is ahead for us all is annihilation, non-existence, then why seek to correct the poor souls who use faith to get through this difficult and painful life?”
Because it is the only life, illusion or not, that we get. Perhaps it’s not stuck out in my writing, but if going to church gets you through life I have no problem with that. If you want to ‘witness to me’ or con me into going to church with you, I have issues. If you want to vote to change the laws that materially affect my enjoyment of this life based on a fairy tale, I have issues. If you want to use your fairy tale morality to try to create laws that determine what I can and cannot do with my own body, I have issues with that. If all theists kept their theism at home, and did not roll it out for all to examine and use it to change the laws affecting others, I would have no problem with that. Correcting poor souls as you say is not the reason. Setting right the wrongs done and being planned by theists is the point. In more than one point of view, theists have damaged normal human society; warped it into fear and loathing, pride and prejudice, and prevented humanity from being all that it can be.
The presumption that only theists care about life is wrong. The presumption that good life can only be achieved through morality is wrong. In fact, the presumption that theism of any kind is right is wrong. You certainly don’t have to return to your own blog, I’m sure theBEattitude welcomes you. There are many here who were Christians before becoming atheist. Understanding through discussion is not as structured as the lesson plan for Biology:201 class. Should you wish to add your voice I’m sure it is welcomed.
February 19, 2010 at 8:12 pm |
From Susan’s site:
“..but rather the existence of God can be demonstrated by reason, is clearly revealed in Creation, is irrefutably proclaimed in the Bible and is manifestly crystallized in the Person of Jesus.”
Reason and logic show there is no basis in science or fact for the existence of any god, never mind your god.
Creation? Prove it! Evolution has more of an explanation than Genesis provides. Simply declaring that ‘god’ did it is not proof. Prove creation by a creator god.
Yes, and the same Bible says to murder anyone who eats shellfish! Shall we get on with killing Red Lobster employees then? Just because it was written down and included in the Bible by a few men who decided they were the ones to choose what goes in it, does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that it’s true. If you think it’s true, please offer some proof, otherwise, it’s just a fairy tale book.
More on the proof thing; sure the story of Jesus is inspirational to many, lots of good stories are, but there is absolutely no proof that the Jesus existed, or that anyone named Jesus did what the bible authors claim he did. So, again, I say it’s a fairy tale while you say it’s THE TRUTH… so I say, prove it.
Without proof and evidence, you are basing your faith and belief on the hearsay of people you have never met, or who died long ago before anyone documented their reasoning, their evidence, or anything else that would make them wholly believable. You are in fact basing your beliefs on lies, for without evidence, your faith in the Bible is simply lunacy. You’d be better off basing your life on Aesop’s Fables than you are on the Bible. You probably read the King James version of the Bible. Have you any idea where that comes from? Why it exists at all? What were the motivations for those that translated the bible? What were the motivations of those that decided what common books of the day would be included in the Bible and which would not? There were others you know?
You don’t have to ask too many questions before the house of cards crumbles into a pile of questions with no answers and you are left to simply accept the fairy tale on faith rather than logic, reason, or proof, or walk away and understand that there is no god, there is only claims of gods, and the delusions of those who think they know what god wants, and who claim to speak for their god.
February 27, 2010 at 7:35 pm |
“Reason and logic show there is no basis in science or fact for the existence of any god, never mind your god.”
Science has irrefutably demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. Using empirical evidence and logic please explain how this occured. Please don’t reference any theories such as multi-verses or parallel universes or any of the wishful thinkings that scientists have proposed, all of which have zero empirical evidence, in an attempt to avoid the same problems Einstein had when proving General Relativity. That of how to explain the beginning of space, time, and matter. Logic, it would seem, dictates that anything that comes into being (i.e. the universe) had a cause. Using empirical evidence, please explain. I will accept a response of “science does not yet know how the universe began but we are currently looking for an, as Richard Dawkins would say, Theory of Everything answer but only if you cede the fact that Christians also do not pretend to know everything about God.
“Evolution has more of an explanation than Genesis provides.”
It is too bad that evolution presupposes the fully developed eucaryotic cell. Am I supposed to accept a theory as scientific fact if science itself does not have all the facts? So far the best explanation I have heard to this conundrum is that the planet was seeded by aliens, and this by more than one scientist. I’m sure there is empirical evidence here as well.
“but there is absolutely no proof that the Jesus existed”
Aside from the fact that there were both Roman and Jewish historians that corroberate the accounts of the Gospels, the Gospels themselves, and all the books of the NT for that matter, have more historicity than does any other ancient writing.
Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? Proove it. The fact is that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great and I don’t find blogs about people refuting his existence.
February 27, 2010 at 9:10 pm
“Reason and logic show there is no basis in science or fact for the existence of any god, never mind your god.”
Lewstherinpm Says: Science has irrefutably demonstrated that the universe had a beginning. Using empirical evidence and logic please explain how this occured.
Actually, science has not done this. The big bang theory is simply the best model to fit the evidence available to us. What happened before the big bang and during the big bang is still up for grabs. Why it happened is not a point of scientificly observable information.
Are you asking me to argue that because I offer no explanation for why there is a universe, it must be god did it, or that this is proof there is a god? Seriously, is that what you are trying to get at?
Lewstherinpm Says: I will accept a response of “science does not yet know how the universe began but we are currently looking for an, as Richard Dawkins would say, Theory of Everything answer but only if you cede the fact that Christians also do not pretend to know everything about God.
I do not state that Christians pretend to know everything about their god, in fact I don’t think they can know anything about something that does not exist except for what they make up. It is when they claim to know what god wants that I have an issue with.
Knowing everything about God? I’m not sure that equates to knowing the origin of the universe. Science does not claim to know for certain that there was a big bang beginning, only that it is the best explanation in view of the evidence that we have. I do not personally know the big bang is correct, however, in light of the evidence presented, it makes sense, works scientifically as far as we are able to understand and show. From Wikipedia: The Big Bang is the cosmological model of the initial conditions and subsequent development of the Universe that is supported by the most comprehensive and accurate explanations from current scientific evidence and observation.[1][2] As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past (best available measurements in 2009 suggest that the initial conditions occurred around 13.3 to 13.9 billion years ago[3][4]), and continues to expand to this day. This is hardly “God did it” kind of explanation. “God did it” is no explanation at all.
“Evolution has more of an explanation than Genesis provides.”
Lewstherinpm Says: It is too bad that evolution presupposes the fully developed eucaryotic cell. Am I supposed to accept a theory as scientific fact if science itself does not have all the facts? So far the best explanation I have heard to this conundrum is that the planet was seeded by aliens, and this by more than one scientist. I’m sure there is empirical evidence here as well.
Nicely done, but I said ‘more of an explanation’ not the complete explanation. Evolution explains why we see what we do, not why there is life. ‘God did it’ is still not acceptable without a god.
“but there is absolutely no proof that the Jesus existed”
Lewstherinpm Says: Aside from the fact that there were both Roman and Jewish historians that corroberate the accounts of the Gospels, the Gospels themselves, and all the books of the NT for that matter, have more historicity than does any other ancient writing.
That corroboration is of a set of documents which are NOT eyewitness accounts. Corroboration becomes pretty dodgy when you are qualifying an event written by an author who was not present at the time by someone who neither knew the author or witnessed the events. Please provide evidence showing that such corroboration happened at the time of his supposed life, not much later or added as a footnote hundreds of years later. There is much information available to anyone with a web browser to seek and find information explaining why what you call corroboration is not really that at all, and is certainly not proof positive for all to see.
Lewstherinpm Says: Do you believe that Alexander the Great existed? Proove it. The fact is that there is more historical evidence for the existence of Jesus than there is for Alexander the Great and I don’t find blogs about people refuting his existence.
Where is the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus? Why is it not proclaimed by anyone but Christians? Show us, science will believe actual and valid evidence. There is nothing but hearsay, after-market hype, and politically motivated footnotes. There is no eyewitness accounts, no likenesses made, no recorded-at-the-time records. No cities, no wars, nothing.
I’m supposing you have a map of Jesustropolis ? From http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm, written better than I would have done:
“” Alexander, for example, left a wake of destroyed and created cities behind. We have buildings, libraries and cities, such as Alexandria, left in his name. We have treaties, and even a letter from Alexander to the people of Chios, engraved in stone, dated at 332 B.C.E. For Augustus Caesar, we have the Res gestae divi augusti, the emperor’s own account of his works and deeds, a letter to his son (Epistula ad Gaium filium), Virgil’s eyewitness accounts, and much more. Napoleon left behind artifacts, eyewitness accounts and letters. We can establish some historicity to these people because we have evidence that occurred during their life times. Yet even with contemporary evidence, historians have become wary of after-the-fact stories of many of these historical people. For example, some of the stories of Alexander’s conquests, or Nero starting the fire in Rome always get questioned or doubted because they contain inconsistencies or come from authors who wrote years after the alleged facts. In qualifying the history of Alexander, Pierre Briant writes, “Although more than twenty of his contemporaries chronicled Alexander’s life and campaigns, none of these texts survive in original form. Many letters and speeches attributed to Alexander are ancient forgeries or reconstructions inspired by imagination or political motives. The little solid documentation we possess from Alexander’s own time is mainly to be found in stone inscriptions from the Greek cities of Europe and Asia.” [Briant] “”
The Alexander question is but one common ploy to distract from the fact that there is no solid, never mind real, evidence of the existence of THE jesus. If there were in fact real and solid evidence of his existence, there would be a continuous fight among religions of the world to have/own/display that evidence. No such evidence exists, unless you are hiding it in your basement, in which case I beg you to bring it out for scientific inquiry and testing to begin.
Claiming that you have a sentence in historical records that refers to a holy man in Judea is evidence that all this other hearsay in the form of a Bible (written many many years after his supposed death) is absolutely correct is a shameless con. If you have real evidence, show it.
February 19, 2010 at 9:31 pm |
Do you assume that those brighter minds haven’t found logical, compelling and faith-affirming answers?
No assumptions necessary. I know what’s out there as far as argumentation, and you have your choice between logical and compelling on the one hand, and faith-affirming on the other.
Do you assume that because you haven’t yet found the answers that there are indeed none to be found?
Do you understand who bears the burden of proof?
February 20, 2010 at 8:10 pm |
Susan,
I am not trying to be a smart ass, but I couldn’t find the “reason” argument anywhere on your web page. It seems like you are simply working from the presupposition that God exists and then using the Bible to show consistencies with this presupposition. It’s hardly surprising that the Bible agrees with the notion that God exists.
Can reason prove the existence of God without resort to the Bible? Is it possible to truly question the existence of God without assuming his existence as a given? If we aren’t going to question the existence of God, then what do we need the reason for?
Also, how do you know that Christianity is the true faith instead of one of the hundreds of other non-Christian faiths that have been practiced on this planet over the years? Does reason work for this too? Can reason explain why Muslims are going to Hell (if that is something your religion advocates)?
February 20, 2010 at 8:11 pm |
Typo: Is it possible to truly question the existence of God WHILE assuming his existence as a given?
February 19, 2010 at 8:03 pm |
“How an immoral and sinful act can at the same time be saving souls for heaven.”
Even if we grant that abortion is a get out of jail free card, nobody said that abortion was a righteous act that Christians want done except for you. There are thousands of examples where bad things lead to good things anyway i.e. steal from the rich & give to the poor.
You’re either a dishonest prick or just feel obligated to post whatever rampant bullshit comes to your mind.
February 19, 2010 at 8:18 pm |
I think you missed his point. He didn’t say it was a righteous act but that if the fetus goes to heaven, wouldn’t that be better for it then taking the chance of burning in hell for sins committed between its birth and death many years down the road. If you really believe that the souls of fetuses and young children go to the christian paradise, why take the chance of your child burning in hell because you allowed them to live?
February 19, 2010 at 8:21 pm |
Actually there are other ways to pose the question: if you think abortion is murder, why don’t we imprison those women who have abortions? Or hang them in public?
And to top that off, what do the Christians in China do when they already have their limit of children? Codoms? Birth control? Abortion?
theBEattitude is not a dishonest prick, he simply looks at religious dogma as he sees it. If it insults you, perhaps you should examine why you feel insulted. Perhaps you might stick to other blogs.
There are in fact many faithful that believe that babies who die will go to heaven, and now we know some think they go to hell, unless their parents are devout of course. The question is, if they go to heaven, aren’t abortions, miscarriages, and other infantile deaths a blessing to those ‘souls’ ?
Shouldn’t Christians be happy about that? If heaven is so wonderfully worth suffering for, why be unhappy when a soul gets there easy?
By the way, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is only a good thing under very specific and limited circumstances. It’s not a universal ‘good thing’ as you suggest.
February 19, 2010 at 8:48 pm |
Because they believe that it’s murder? Or that they’re sad that the fetus died? I could name a million reasons. The point is that it’s dishonest to blame Christians for a belief that has both positive & negative aspects.
What if you could save someone else’s life by taking another person’s life away? There’s another example of how an immoral and sinful act of taking someone’s life is at the same time saving another. Whoopty-freaking-doo. What is the point of that post other than to dishonestly berate Christians?
February 19, 2010 at 11:30 pm |
Well, that is the thing. If I kill a murderer to save the life of someone, nobody really cares… however that is not the point here. I am not like a god that claims right of life and death eternal over EVERYONE. Where dogma says that those who have not uttered the right words burn forever but those who have had no choice will be accepted to heaven, except in some special cases, we begin to see a set of rules on who dies forever and who does not. Rules that god did not lay out in the commandments or have written down, but rules derived from interpretation of laughable holy texts. Rules that are used my many to guide their entire lives. So, if there are rules but the rules make no sense, how can you justify living your life by them?
BTW, it’s not just immoral or sinful acts that kill children before they are able to be baptized. Some think Edith takes them, other think the go to heaven, yet others think they go to hell eternal. Point is, all these variations are arrived at from the same holy texts, same church origins. If his word is the truth, why are there so many versions?
Why are the devout so sad and distressed over death if they are so sure they will live in eternal happiness? Why be upset?
Also, berating Christians is not dishonest. It is Christians who claim to have the answers. The trouble is that so many people, including those on this blog, are able to see that the ‘answers’ are faulty, without logic, and present moral issues that the ‘answers’ can’t deal with. Ergo, why worship a being so cruel as to burn a baby eternally for the simple fault of failure to communicate it’s desire to worship this same cruel deity forever?
If being a Christian is the way to happiness, why are so many Christians sad about death? Why are they afraid of death? Why not be happy about seeing the maker early rather than later? Why not celebrate the death of a loved one instead of the mournful dreary ceremonies we have now?
King James Bible – Matthew 19:14
But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
Well, that is unless they die before they can confess their wanton desire to worship me forever, in which case, let the little buggers burn in hell…. forever!
February 19, 2010 at 10:52 pm |
theBEattitude wrote:
“PLEASE discuss the topic and points made in the post, or find another blog to annoy. If these red herring comments continue, I will block you from posting here.”
It’s too bad you don’t hold everyone to the same standard. Go ahead and ban me.
February 21, 2010 at 9:55 am |
I don’t want to ban you. I enjoy having opposing opinions in the discussion.
I just don’t appreciate the repeated red herring comments that deliberately derail the discussions. Discussions go off topic all the time, but it seems your main goal is to disrupt.
February 20, 2010 at 3:05 am |
[...] Do Christians believe aborted fetuses go straight to heaven? If so … [...]
February 20, 2010 at 4:45 pm |
“Well given that limbo / purgatory is never mentioned in any “holy” texts that it is a total crock of crap.” (Shawn T)
What does Paul mean when he says that everyone must appear before the judgement seat of Christ to “receive recompense for what has been done in the body, whether good or evil”? (2 Cor 5:10) Sounds like proportional punishment, much like a purgatory type of place.
The Catholics also understand 1st Cor 3:15 to refer to purgatory, “If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.”
So, are you so sure?
Now, as to hell, Jesus teaches that in hell “the fire is not quenched and the worms don’t die” (Mark 9:44) but he never actually says that the human beings sent there don’t die. In fact, he says “fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” (Matthew 10:28) So according to Jesus, those who go to hell eventually burn up and are destroyed, both body and soul.
When Revelation speaks of eternal torment it speaks of of the Devil, the False Prophet, and the Beast. “And the Devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the Beast and the False Prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10)
And what’s more, on the New Earth where everyone who escapes hell (or the lake of fire) ends up, we find in Revelation 22:14-15 that only certain people can enter the City where God is, for “Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the City” but others are on the New Earth also who cannot enter the City (yet didn’t go to hell) “For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.” What does that mean?
February 22, 2010 at 10:24 am |
Your kidding right? Your first verse (2 Cor 5:10) is nothing like purgatory as taught by Catholics. That is simply describing the judgement for their deeds before being sent to either heaven or hell. Kinda like sitting in a court room waiting to be sentenced. While it is surely not a “fun” place to be it is not purgatory. Purgatory, as taught by the catholic church is nothing, no joy, no pain, just nothing. Limbo.
As for your second verse (1st Cor 3:15) is even further off base. It states in no such way anything remotely resembling purgatory as taught by catholics. You couldn’t have picked a more random verse.
As for revelations, there were many such apocalyptic books written around the same time, all vastly different in their message and “visions”. When the council of trent met to put together all the various books into what we now call the bible they voted on which ones to include, revelations, as we have it simply got the most votes.
I stand by my previous statement. All crap.
If there is / was a true God out there somewhere, he would have given us a heck of a lot better writings, and it wouldn’t have taken a council of uneducated morons to vote on which writings were truly inspired and which weren’t. God would have given us his teachings in a factual way, without all the contradictions and flat out falsehoods that were obviously written by ignorant bronze and iron age desert dwelling nomads.
There are enough inaccuracies alone in the bible, forgetting all the contradictions, to make anyone with half an education question its origin.
February 20, 2010 at 4:49 pm |
Maybe the souls of the aborted get put in the next child to be born, so they don’t go to heaven or hell but end up eventually coming into this world as another child.
February 20, 2010 at 9:37 pm |
Interestingly enough, that’s the belief of most branches of Buddhism. In effect, Buddhism never has to answer this question, since no soul technically gets condemned to hell.
February 20, 2010 at 9:51 pm |
There are many religious beliefs, Christianity is but one. If you look at the history of the theory of Good vs. Evil, it only dates back 2700 years or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil
Zoroaster gets a bit of credit for his/their contribution to the Christian ethos: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroaster
Of course, this is never widely taught in bible school, but it explains some of the differences between Christian and Jewish dogma. There is also no hell for Jews. Your mother has to be of Jewish lineage or you don’t get to be truly Jewish, so… viola, we have Christianity. At least it’s plausible to think of it that way. Zoroaster, the Cathars, the Gnostics… all gone the way of the sword, the Christian sword.
This might also help explain some of the emotions that must have been in play when the crusaders murdered anything that breathed in Jerusalem without regard to their religion other than Christian=good, anything else = bad.
February 21, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I’ve begun to believe that the crusades weren’t really about Islam but about wiping out dualism. Islam survived but the Manicheans and Marcionites didn’t. That’s no coincidence.
February 22, 2010 at 8:17 pm |
This is where it’s headed: http://tinyurl.com/dsyndrome
February 22, 2010 at 8:53 pm |
Well, this is the discussion of religious issues if such were to become the case, not the discussion of actual euthanasia of infants. Though I must say the other discussion puts a new twist on this one.
March 21, 2010 at 8:57 pm |
If it’s religion that we as a people seek to draw the line of what’s humane and what is not then religion has already failed us.
If we instead see the bigger picture of how life has become so disrespected, granted that we are “free” but if we are disrespectful towards lives then tell me where you see this ending ? It would be easy to polarize an issue like “abortion” like it has been done all the while our humanity becomes less important, we are seen as a plague, to the point where animals are now going to have rights. We already see how “green” everything is going and the bible plainly tells us how important each & every one of us are yet if we allow humanity to exist as a virus then humanity will be treated as such. And you will need to pony up the money to live good because according to the enemy you pollute too much so go buy ‘carbon credits’ because the tax that will be levied upon your very body is not enough for the spiritual wickedness in this world.
I’ll not help polarize a single issue when this is a much bigger issue.
March 21, 2010 at 9:10 pm
I’d like to add to your point (I think) by stating that not too long ago, we could define our community by a physical location and tell you what kind of people live there. This is increasingly becoming difficult to do. Carbon credits are a scam to benefit third world countries by punishing industrialized countries based on a non-existent disaster in process.
But if the truth is sought, we all live in the same community; Earth. We have a need and a reason to treat all people well, and to treat the planet which supports us well. Imagine the crew of a star ship not treating that ship well? Sooner or later all on-board will die. I think that when we see the problems of society in the scope of Earth being our only community, Religion has no place to be making rules. None.
Despite that, we can look at the smaller more polarized issues to point out the hubris of those who would dare to be our leaders, law-makers, and thinkers while carrying a holy text in their arms.
February 23, 2010 at 7:49 am |
The big problem for me has always been the definition and description of a soul. Most people I know don’t seem to make any distinction between the soul and their consciousness, yet are sure that a fetus before the developmental point of self-awareness has a soul, and that severely brain-damaged people have souls. They talk about perfecting, healing, changing the soul in a theological context. Preachers don’t seem to talk about what a soul is very often; maybe they’re aware that they would have to make it up as they go, so it’s better to let everyone stick with their own fuzzy notions.
Until someone can prove to me that I have a soul, religion is irrelevant.
February 23, 2010 at 9:51 am |
That is a very good and interesting point. While studying what it is that *is* intelligence I have found interesting information about the human and mammalian brain. There have been interesting discoveries regarding mammalian brains. Some which indicate that ‘religious experience’ is a brain function. I think that the two experiments in particular help to frame the human brain as something of a computer, albeit one that we don’t understand fully how it works, but a computer nonetheless. One used a chunk of rat brain cells to control a robot. and the other tied sensors to a monkey’s brain and used the signals to control a robot arm. The monkey was able to feed itself with this robot arm and the rat brain cells were able to control the direction of the robot. All studies on the brain seem to be indicating that our perceptions of the universe and self are simply machinations of the computer on the top of our spinal cords. No soul required. There is good argument to define our understanding of good and bad/evil as derivatives of fight/flight function. Every week there is more information piled onto this stack. All of it points to our brains as computers not sacred sanctuaries of a soul.
February 24, 2010 at 2:42 pm |
I’ll have to look up some of those more recent studies. I doubt that many preachers keep abreast of such experiments, just as they can’t be bothered to take Physics 101 and keep spreading misinformation about the Big Bang.
February 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm
It would take a few hours to watch it all, but both Star Trek TNG and Caprica have spent quite a bit of effort exploring what consciousness is. Both story lines seem to conclude something other than humans having a ‘soul’ as an artifact of information processing created intelligence in both scenarios. Although both scifi shows may be avoiding religion in general, avoiding the need to define ‘soul’, they also do not move with any bias to say there is no such thing, allowing them to explore the definition and meaning of intelligence unfettered by religion or any confusion it might bring.
Without making statements they are able to explore ‘intelligence’ and what it ‘might’ be. Despite any failings in the story lines, this is interesting in and of itself.
February 24, 2010 at 8:38 pm
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/02/24/2315204/Triumph-of-the-Cyborg-Composer?art_pos=1
Here is another such situation. Seems each week more is piled on to the ‘human brain is a computer’ list. If the brain can work much like a computer with ‘mathematical music’ there is a bit of argument for the brain functioning as a computer… even if we do not perceive of it that way while we are composing music.
February 25, 2010 at 2:31 pm |
Great post!
One thing that never sits with me about Christianity:
If you have to grow in God’s ways and be shown the Christian way then can’t you say that for sin as well? How can it be that we are all born sinners and have to be shown a life of morality? Can’t you look at it the same way, if you have to be shown how to be good don’t you have to be shown how to be evil? So I don’t believe this preconceived notion of being born into sin. When a child is born they don’t know sin or morality – they have to be shown sin and morality, the same way they have to be shown religion.
I hope this makes sense lol.
February 26, 2010 at 8:16 am |
I think the trouble with this is the arbitrary nature of God’s ways. There is no clear consistent definition of Good and Evil. Well, there’s the book, but the only rule that’s ever consistently preached and followed is “believe in me and you will be saved, believe not in me and you will be forsaken”.
Everything else, even 9 out of 10 of the commandments, varies from interpretation to interpretation. (“unless God wills it” is often added at the end, not just from Atheists, but implicitly from even believers as well. It’s like a vegeterian finding a reason to eat meat products. >_>)
February 26, 2010 at 9:49 am |
So it would be a fair deal if you got to heaven by not learning sin, right? No, you have to utter the right words and learn religion. If you die at 2 days old, you’re going to hell, not because you learned sin, but because you did not learn religion and utter the magic words.
There are many religious people that warn you of making a deal with the devil. I wonder why they don’t worry about the deal we’re supposed to make with their deity? A pregnant Christian woman has a lot to worry about. No wonder the indoctrination is quick and furious.
March 1, 2010 at 12:05 pm |
I once heard a pastor say that it is best to remain silent on those issues that the Bible doesn’t explicitly talk about. Since the Bible does not explicitly address this topic any attempt to answer it would be pretending to know the mind of God apart from what he has revealed to us in his word. Sure we can sit around and conjecture all we want but that won’t mean that any one answer is right.
One thing that can be said about this issue is that we know from the Bible that God values life and that murder is wrong. One thing that sets humans apart from other animals is that we have a soul and therefore our lives have more value than other animals. If Christians believe that at the moment of conception the two seperate living organisms, the sperm and the egg, join and becomes a human being (a living organism with a soul) then they can take the stance that it is murder to kill a fetus. The Bible does not speak about what happens to infants or fetus’ that die so I won’t speculate, but since God is just I’ll trust his will.
BE, I know you are not offering your stance on abortion in this post but by asking this question and then asking Christians to try to explain their views is asking them to put themselves on the line about their personal views about abortion. They couldn’t answer the question without an either direct or indirect inference to their own personal stances about it. It is then only fair that you be willing to put yourself out there a little as well. However, given your response to a previous poster when he queried you on your view I’m guessing you are not interested in offering your opinion so I won’t ask. However, are you interested in a little introspection instead? I am curious at what point in the pregnancy of your own children did you begin to think of them as human beings and not just an organism growing in your wife?
March 1, 2010 at 1:21 pm |
Clearly, you have respect for the Bible. Where does it tell us what a ‘soul’ is? More specifically, where does it ‘clearly’ tell us what a soul is?
Your God that values life and does not like murder, what does he call stoning those who eat shellfish? That little story about The Fall Of Jericho is not about murder? Oh, I guess it’s okay to be genocidal murderers when God says so, right?
You see, it’s inconsistencies like this that make the whole of it open to ridicule and shame. Even when you are trying to reason and be reasonable you will be tripped up by THE inconsistencies in THE word.
March 1, 2010 at 6:22 pm |
“Where does it tell us what a ’soul’ is? More specifically, where does it ‘clearly’ tell us what a soul is?” I’m not exactly sure what you are looking for here. Are you questioning if the soul is something that is distinct and seperate from the body? In Matthew chapter 10 Jesus speaks about the soul and body as being seperate and distinct. In v28 he says “Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell” The greek term for the word soul is psuche which means “life”, our inward animating essence. Since God is Spirit and he sends the Holy Spirit to be our helper and based on this statement from Jesus and the definition of the word I think that the soul is a part of us that transcends the body (but that’s just my interpretation). Does that answer your question?
March 1, 2010 at 7:11 pm |
Bang, into the philosophical
What is a soul? The Bible does not clear up that question, merely adding to the body of thought that because we think, are self aware, communicate in the finite and the abstract, we must have something inside us that is more than the body alone can perform. The more we study the animal kindom, the more the distance between humans and animals shrinks; the less special we seem really to be. Definitions of soul based on the Bible have a veracity equal to the Bible. Without additional corroboration it becomes doubtful that any such thing as a soul exists.
I think that the question of what is ‘intelligence’ is the same as what is a soul, though the religious minded among us will argue that a soul has magical stuff well beyond the physical universe and mere intelligence. Philosophers have discussed this topic since … well, since before recorded time. Despite the recent spate of ‘ghost shows’ there is no physical, scientifically reliable evidence for spirits or ghosts, and certainly none for a ‘soul’ in the terms bantered about in religious circles.
The Greek for soul and psyche are the same, if psuche is soul. Translating Greek is not for the faint hearted. Translating Greek to English for the Bible is best described as a valiant attempt. Even in your post, the word life can have several meanings. Despite all the attempts to translate the Bible, and all the philosophical discussion, there is no satisfactory definition of what a soul is, never mind any evidence that there is such a thing. The thought that it is nothing more than an artifact of being intelligent/sentient is more of an effort to explain it than simply saying it exists.
Nearly all discussions of philosophy create confusion, so to try to be clear, I want to know what a soul is, as this is, after all, what Christians want to save. After the apparent forced lobotomy, a soul is jammed into a fetus, left to remain there until when? we remain here because of what reason? we remain here for what purpose?
Existential inquiry seeks to determine what is the point of this life; why are we here. If we are condemned by God, lobotomized and jammed into a frail failure of an organism, to remain here till it falls apart, what then is the purpose of this life? To what end are we tormented this way by God? From here, many philosophical trails go in differing directions, yet none acceptably answer the questions: What is a soul, why are we here?
Religion explains these things with “God did it” rather than actually explain it. No religion that I’m aware of explains what our purpose here is, at least not past the cop-out of ‘that’s what God wanted’
In the end, that is no more of an explanation than ‘I don’t know, I just am here’ and certainly a lot less honest.
March 1, 2010 at 8:05 pm |
“What is a soul? The Bible does not clear up that question, merely adding to the body of thought that because we think, are self aware, communicate in the finite and the abstract, we must have something inside us that is more than the body alone can perform.”
Genesis 2:7 “And Yahweh God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”
Apparently souls are made of Yahweh’s breath. So there. The Bible does tell us what a soul is. Just like we breath out carbon dioxide (oh no, not carbon dioxide!), Yahweh breathes out souls.
March 1, 2010 at 10:42 pm |
“apparent forced lobotomy”? Are you ex-mormon or something?
March 1, 2010 at 10:49 pm |
No, just a way to refer to the loss of memories prior to being placed in a human body, or generally along those lines. If we humans have souls that have some magic to them which transcends the boundaries of the physical universe, why can’t any of us remember what happened before birth? and thus ‘forced lobotomy’ … even if it’s not a great fit, some use it to describe the problem.
Is this something that Mormon’s say?
March 1, 2010 at 11:29 pm |
Yes. Mormon’s are the only “christian” religion that teaches that the soul existed prior to being born. They believe that God is married and has spirit sex and creates spirit babies and that it is our job here on earth to make physical bodies for those spirits to inhabit so they can begin the process of becoming god’s themselves. And their explanation to why we can’t remember being in heaven with God prior to this life is the trauma of, as you put it, the forced lobotomy.
I don’t think that any other Christians believe that the soul existed prior to this lifetime. There is no Biblical support for it. I personally think that our life (both physical and spiritual) begins at conception.
March 2, 2010 at 12:24 am
Well, that led to some interesting reading, and a rewind on what I was taught/indoctrinated with. While it might not be doctrinal, there are many that believe their soul is a spark from God. Platonic teachings creeping in it would seem, on a technicality of language, where ‘exist prior to birth’ would be not the same as existence per se’. If that makes sense.
As to when life begins? Dodgy question. I don’t think we need any young women on death row.
March 7, 2010 at 4:23 pm |
It is possible to be christian, and not believe that the vast majority of people will go to hell. I currently hold this position. Allow me to explain…
It is called the Middle Knowledge of God. This doctorine is held by many. Feel free to research it. God not only knows everything about the present, he also knows every possible future, that could arise from each and every event, as well as how things would have played out if a particular event had occured.
This means that he would know what each and every persons response would be if they had full knowledge of: his holiness, our sinfulness, the nature of heaven, the nature of hell, the loving sacrifice of Jesus. For this reason, it is hard for me to picture why anybody will go to hell (unless they truly wanted to after fully understanding the 5 points above). This doesn’t make hell any less real, and it doesn’t undermine the fact that we still deserve to go there, the sacrifice of Jesus just means that nobody will.
This is why unborn babies still deserve a chance at life, because it is better to have lived and experienced love, than to have not lived and avoided pain.
March 7, 2010 at 6:13 pm |
Steve, let me slide slightly off topic. If God knows what a 2 day old baby would have thought once they were told of Christianity and God, so they don’t go to hell, they go to heaven. I’m left wondering what the point is? Why even bother with the garden, earth etc. at all. If God can know a priori what a person will choose under a set of circumstances, why not skip past the life on earth part?
Sticking with the theme, if I as an atheist am pointed toward hell, wouldn’t I have been better off skipping the life on earth part? I’ve been introduced to the 5 points as you called them, and I see them as myth, fairytale, and in cases outright lies. The Christian Bible is a terribly flawed book, from start to finish. Christians’ understanding of God is based on that very flawed book. Even adopting the philosophy of middle knowledge does not absolve this God of any of his cruelties. By knowing they could happen and not preventing terrible things from happening, he’s guilty of crimes we execute men for. Namely not doing all you can to stop them, which in a supreme being’s case is actually stopping them. Wouldn’t it be fitting for a supreme being to prevent the pregnancy of a woman who would abort the pregnancy anyway? Why waste time creating a soul and life for that baby if she’s just going to abort it anyway.
You say that unborn babies deserve a chance at life. Please qualify ‘life’ in your statement. Is “being born with a crack addiction, permanent autism-like learning disabilities and with less than 50% chance of seeing a birthday party, and shipped off to an orphanage with half a chance of seeing a decent home” what you call a ‘chance at life’ ? Perhaps that’s a bit extreme, but it still counts, and does happen.
It’s presumed that God knows the possible futures of anyone born to a family where they will not be exposed to Christianity. What then of their eternal souls? If they are not condemned to hell, why in fact should anyone be condemned to hell at all? What is the point of hell and why do we deserve to go there if God already knows whether we need to be punished or not? Why not just give crib death to all who will grow up to not choose Christianity and it’s God, or abort them at instant of fertilization instead? Why create them at all?
I don’t see how middle knowledge fixes the problems we see where a supreme being with it’s knowledge is committing cruelties on mankind by omission or just plain old cruelty.
March 8, 2010 at 10:03 am |
- Why not skip past life on earth?
I don’t know, perhaps it is integral to God’s plan that most of humanity have had the chance to choose, and the chance to see the horrific consequences of sin. Perhaps this is so that there can be free will in heaven without the lure of sin.
– The Christian Bible is a terribly flawed book, from start to finish.
I have done a lot of research and have been able to resolve most of these “flaws” in my mind. As a physicist, I find more flaws in believing that there isn’t some higher power at work in the world around us.
– By knowing they could happen and not preventing terrible things from happening, he’s guilty of crimes we execute men for
If God stopped all men from doing things that would impinge on other’s human rights, or if God forced all men to take the one course of action that lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, wouldn’t we just be puppets?
– Why waste time creating a soul and life for that baby if she’s just going to abort it anyway.
Perhaps because the soul is eternal, and God has a purpose for it in eternity?
– Is “being born with a crack addiction what you call a ‘chance at life’?
We don’t justify murdering children with crack addictions. We can’t justify executing orphans, or children with horrible defects. Isn’t it a case of double standards to consider it okay to murder an unborn child that may have these problems?
If you do believe that the soul is immortal, then earthly troubles are temporary. In fact they are fleetingly short in view of the eons that will pass in some other environment.
We can only speculate when we talk about these things, just like naturalists can only speculate about what caused the big bang, or what existed before then. A timeless parent universe… maybe? Equally possible, and perhaps more likely… a creator. Perhaps both.
March 8, 2010 at 10:25 am
Steve your statement that most of humanity be given the chance seems a little weak. Since most of humanity today and history have never been given that chance. You seem to think everyone has heard of your religion but I hate to break it to you that more haven’t heard of it or have rejected it then have.
It might be flawed to believe there is no higher power but it is even more flawed to think you know what and how that higher being thinks.
Aren’t you a puppet to the whims of whatever god you worship. Have you ever gone against what someone within your church has said is the right thing to do because you felt they were wrong? Have you ever done something based on what others in your church has said is the right thing to do but deep down it didn’t feel right?
Ah the souls are eternal but doesn’t that mean they exist before a child is born. Why would a soul that already exist need to go into a human body to be allowed in heaven?
You say we can’t justify the killing of children but then you say that the bible is a good book. By saying that you are saying that killing children of non believers is ok. I don’t know the numbers but thousands of children have been killed in your holy book and justified by those that wrote it and those who support it today. Anytime a christian wants to justify murder they can by using the bible.
March 8, 2010 at 10:51 am
Steve, If there is no reason for this life other than as a test, why create failed creatures in the first place? If God as we know him in myth, legend, and the Bible put us here for his purposes, what are they? According to Christianity, the creator God made failed creatures, and set them up for failure only to punish them eternally, and continues to punish the children of his creations for the failure of God himself to create a virtuous being.
As a physicist you find it flawed to not believe there is a higher power. Realizing that your answer may be difficult to shorten, can you explain that stance?
Yes, it might make us puppets if God prevented all eveil, but isn’t that exactly what heaven is supposed to be? Is God running a puppy mill so he can get enough puppies with the right qualities to suit his desires?
Again the word perhaps? Eternal or not, what is the point of putting a soul into a body which will never see breath? If it’s not in there then it can’t be murdering children, can it? Why do I need to believe a soul exists? Once that is settled, perhaps I can worry about whether it is immortal or not.
Why do you say a creator god is more likely than the big bang? We have evidence in the form of scientific observation pointing to the ‘big bang’ event liklihood but nothing more than a fable telling us of the existence of a creator god. Naturalists, as you call them, seek an explanation of the world and universe around them. Observations point to the big bang event and curiosity begs us to try to understand what was before that. Theorists, physicists, and scientists et al work to find answers. Christians just say ‘God did it’. One has no answer yet, the other has an answer that is no answer at all. Speculation is one thing that the Bible claims is not needed. Well, unless you want to ask a question they forgot to include an answer for, in which case ‘God works in mysterious ways’ is often the reply.
I presume from all this that as a physicist you fail to see how this existence can be without the aid of a creator God. Do you have evidence of any kind for this thinking? No matter how improbable the chance event of life occurring from accident, life has occurred in the universe on at least one planet. The probability of life occurring in this universe is 100%. The probability that it was created by a being who exists outside this universe is quite a bit lower, as any evidence for this is lacking in credibility. The logic of the evidence in Christianity is faulty. It seems more probable that the NT is the result of cramming the good parts from the Mithra and Horus stories into a storyline that fits ancient Jewish prophecy. A plagiarism of this kind was not uncommon in early religions of mankind.
As we learn more about the human brain, I look to find someone who can explain what a soul is. To me it looks like an artifact of sentience. A myth to explain what sentience is. I question the existence of a soul. What is it?
March 14, 2010 at 9:02 am |
Somewhere in the bible, jesus said that we would only be held responsible for the sins we committed in our life time, basically the baby didn’t sin in his life time, that doesn’t mean he’s totally pure. remember he inherited adam and eve’s sin. BUT that is not committed by him in his lifetime so yeah they’re going to heaven
March 14, 2010 at 10:55 am |
Where in the Bible does it say that?
March 26, 2010 at 8:58 pm |
Not necessarily, last I checked. The standard belief is that we have to pray for the baby’s soul anyway. <_<
To a pastor, a dying person on a hospital bed is always on his way to heaven, good or evil. Every religion's representatives believes the same way, that a dying person is "off to a better place" – death is a sad thing, and it's in the nature of man to do everything that he can to allieviate the pain, including imagining things, denying things, and lying to oneself.
The truth is, we'll never really know.
March 22, 2010 at 1:44 pm |
I’m a christian and I don’t believe in religion. It is the greatest curse on the face of the earth, as a Gospel minister once declared it. I believe that every individual is free to serve and worship God based upon God’s own Word and not upon dogmas or credos of any denomination or religious movement.
God’s judgment isn’t based on anyone’s beliefs or religious affiliation. His judgment is based upon His Word which is Infallible (not a man or a church, please!). The Word of God declares, “Let God be true, but every man a liar”(Romans 3:4). It also says, “Thou shall not murder”(Exodus 20:13). Based on His Word, I can clearly see that He’s not Pro-abortion as I read it in your post. However, He created every individual as a free moral agent to choose right from wrong. We all reap the consequences of our own choices, whether good or bad, it’s the law of God written in Nature.
I strongly believe that those unborn babies killed against their own will by forced abortion (as well as any baby who die a normal death) go to a peaceful place of rest regardless of their parents’ professed religion, because they (babies) are innocent. Does this mean that this immoral and sinful act (I’m using your own words) is justified? I don’t believe so. Salvation belongs to God. He doesn’t need anybody to help Him save souls by breaking His laws. He’s a God of principles. Those babies don’t have a choice, but their parents do.
If heaven is real (and it is real) and you’re heading to eternal torment after death, wouldn’t have you been better off as an abortion? I don’t think so, because you still have the power to change your direction even now if you want to. As long as you have breath of life, the choice is in your hands. Surrendering to God is all it takes. By the way, that place of rest so-called “heaven” is actually an Eternal and Perfect Dimension beyond the heavens. Only by His Word can one enter in. The Bible itself declares, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Word shall never pass away”(Matthew 24:35).
As a last thought, somewhere in The Scriptures it says, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him”(Ezekiel 18:19-20). As with God, there’s always grace, hope and forgiveness for a sincere repenting heart, He goes on by saying, “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”(Ezekiel 18:21-23).
March 22, 2010 at 2:33 pm |
The Bible is infallible? Seriously? It is full of fictional folklore and countless factual inconsistencies and errors. It is willfully blind to call it infallible.
You tell me I am better off because I can turn back to my superstitious beliefs at any time and God will forgive me. This belief is one of the biggest flaws of Christian theology. By this same logic, a person could be a faithful believer their entire life, reject God moments before their death and be sent to hell.
All that matters is what you believe when you die? You view this as God’s offering of grace and forgiveness. I view it as sadistic. To eternally punish or reward a person based solely on whether they worship an invisible god the moment they die is absurd. It has nothing to do with your life, only if you select the right superstition before you die.
March 24, 2010 at 12:06 pm |
Thank you for your response.
It was my first time to come across your website, and this page was the first one I landed on. When I decided to give my opinion on this topic, I didn’t know what your beliefs were. I read “about you” only after your reply.
I once stood where you were standing last fall before you concluded that The God of The Bible did not exist. Personally, I took the time to search God’s face away from any church in order to have a clear understanding of Who He was and what He wanted of me. I’ve been free and happy to serve Him ever since. Even without a written Bible, He is ever Present and Real every day I live and everywhere I look. The whole world is my sanctuary and Nature is a book that ministers to my heart of the realities of This Higher Power.
Yes, The Word of God written in The Bible is Infallible and Consistent from Genesis to Revelation. I think it is willfully blind to select isolated verses in order to contradict The Word of God. The whole Bible reveals the Redemptive Plan of God. Without spiritual insight, it probably won’t make sense. With a canal understanding, one can never catch the entire vision of God’s Plan. This is a higher order, Perfect and Constant.
What is death? It is a separation. It can be either physical (body and soul/spirit) or spiritual (God and man). The Bible uses both, depending on the context. A few examples are:
“But your iniquities have separated you from your God; your sins have hidden his face from you, so that he will not hear”(Isaiah 59:2)
“Then the dust [of mortals] goes back to the ground as it was before, and the breath of life goes back to God who gave it.”(Ecclesiastes 12:7)
“And he breathed his last and died, and was gathered to his people.”(Genesis 25:17)
“But from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die (spiritually). (Gen 2:17)
But Jesus said to him, “Follow Me; and allow the (spiritually) dead to bury their own (physically) dead.” (Matthew 8:2)
“I am the resurrection and the (spiritual) life; he who believes in Me shall live (spiritually) even if he dies (physically), and everyone who lives (physically) and believes in Me shall never die (spiritually). Do you believe this?” John 11:25
The Bible doesn’t suggest that one should wait until the last moment in order to make it right with God. How would I know if I will have that opportunity? In fact The Scriptures say, “Be ready because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect Him.”(Matthew 24:36)
My purpose in responding to this topic isn’t to convert or convince anybody. As a believer of The Bible, it’s my responsibility to tell its truth on a matter when bid to do so. The spiritual route each individual takes is part of their freedom to choose what is best for their life. I wish you all the best!
March 25, 2010 at 8:16 pm
My purpose in creating this blog was not to deconvert anyone. You are free to believe in any one of the thousands of gods of the world. I just strongly disagree with you.
The Bible is consistent only in it’s inconsistency. But beyond these flawed ancient texts, I want nothing to do with a god that condones genocide, inflicts infinite punishment for finite sins and requires blood sacrifices to earn his forgiveness. It’s absurd even if he is real.
If you truly believe it matters to worship this god and believe he is worthy of worship, have at it. If it makes you feel good, I’m not hear to talk you out of it. Just don’t turn into a Christian hypocrite. The world has way too many of them already.
March 25, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Thank you for your sound advice. By His Grace, it shall be well. I disagree with you as well for using isolated Bible verses to prove a point. It simply does not and will not stand. Once I have time to spare, I’ll move to the next topic and use The Bible just the same.
March 24, 2010 at 12:14 pm |
Sorry for the typo, I meant “Carnal understanding”.
March 22, 2010 at 4:28 pm |
Ms Eaglet, Just so we are all clear as to where the authority for your words comes from, can you explain the following?
“…based upon God’s own Word…” Where exactly do we find these words and how should the rest of us verify they are God’s words?
“His judgment is based upon His Word which is Infallible..” How can you honestly say it is infallible? How can you possibly know this to be true?
You have spent time quoting the Christian Bible to a message board where the general consensus is that this same book is a joke and part of the largest evil on the face of this planet if not the universe. Why would you do that?
“We all reap the consequences of our own choices, whether good or bad, it’s the law of God written in Nature.” Can you clarify what you mean by this? Obviously you don’t mean written with a pen, so please clarify.
“I strongly believe that those unborn babies…. Salvation belongs to God. He doesn’t need anybody to help Him save souls …..” On the one hand you claim to know the will of God, but then say it’s up to his discretion. Which is it?
“If heaven is real (and it is real) ” How do you know this? How can the rest of us verify this?
“By the way, that place of rest so-called “heaven” is actually an Eternal and Perfect Dimension beyond the heavens. Only by His Word can one enter in. ” Please, explain how you can know these things. How can the rest of us verify them.
The Bible itself declares, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My Word shall never pass away”(Matthew 24:35). – The Bible doesn’t have much credit here. Just because a book says it’s special does not make it so.
“As a last thought, somewhere in The Scriptures it says, “The soul who sins is the one who will die. ” – more scripture? What is a soul? Do you know? How can I tell if I have one?
“The son will not share the guilt of the father, ” – Is that so, so why is it we are all condemned for the sins of Adam?
“As with God, there’s always grace, hope and forgiveness for a sincere repenting heart, He goes on by saying, “But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. ” – So you are saying that a rotten-to-the-core-nass-murdering-evildoer who truthfully repents seconds before his death will be whisked away to heaven for eternal bliss. Isn’t that just the same thing as a get out of jail free card?
If you are going to quote the Bible, at least around here, it’s useful to explain why you think that is correct. Not too many here believe in it and some will think you are not wound too tightly if you simply expect that everyone else believes it to the the last word in truth.
March 24, 2010 at 12:42 pm |
Mr. Z, I’ve gone through a few of your posts and I’ve found quite a number of inconsistent and wavering statements. How can you find any consistence in The Bible while the foundation of what you stand for isn’t even that solid?
March 24, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Miss Eaglet, perhaps you misunderstand. There is no foundation of what I stand for. I do not believe there are any gods. There is no foundation for that, and there is no credible evidence to believe there is a God. If you would care to point out what you saw as inconsistent or wavering, we can talk about that. Further, the Bible is inconsistent. You can read it and make allowances for the inconsistencies if you wish, but it is still inconsistent and IMO corrosive to society if taken literally and as the inerrant word of God. Since you seem to believe the Bible is both, can you tell me where we should line up the homosexuals, and is it better to use round river type stones, or big cinder blocks? Will there be a fine for burning down seafood restaurants, or just a warning?
And finally, since you seem to have answers and understand the Bible more clearly than I do, what is a soul? How do I know if I have one?
March 24, 2010 at 4:26 pm
@ Mr. Z
You said: “There is no foundation of what I stand for. I do not believe there are any gods. There is no foundation for that, and there is no credible evidence to believe there is a God.”
Anything that has no foundation is chaos. Believing in no gods (you said it well) is a stand. If there is no credible evidence to believe there is a God, then the opposite must be true. Could you state a few credible evidences to prove your point or stand?
If your answer is solid rock, then I will explain to you how and why you are a three dimensional being with a soul, a spirit and a body (you probably may know it already better than me). And I may add to it how Hell is a dimension above you, and not a burning pit underground. Only if your answer is perfectly clear, solid, and consistent.
For the rest of your questions, it seems that you know a few Scriptures already. I would recommend you to search the online Bible you usually use.
March 23, 2010 at 11:57 pm |
I think this is one of those things that isn’t clearly defined in the Bible and will be something God determines at the telos. I would imagine yes, though.
March 24, 2010 at 2:49 am |
Wouldn’t an all knowing god have known that abortions would be done at this time and have left instructions if the bible is this guide for life as claimed by many christians?
March 24, 2010 at 12:16 am |
I can clearly say I’m not sure what you are replying to , but if you believe it is not clearly defined by your religion, faith, or beliefs then you have no idea what you are saying. Leaving such up to a God is to say that you leave it for someone else to decide. Why should it be God?
March 24, 2010 at 4:23 pm |
@ Mr. Z
You said: “There is no foundation of what I stand for. I do not believe there are any gods. There is no foundation for that, and there is no credible evidence to believe there is a God.”
Anything that has no foundation is chaos. Believing in no gods (you said it well) is a stand. If there is no credible evidence to believe there is a God, then the opposite must be true. Could you state a few credible evidences to prove your point or stand?
If your answer is solid rock, then I will explain to you how and why you are a three dimensional being with a soul, a spirit and a body (you probably may know it already better than me). And I may add to it how Hell is a dimension above you, and not a burning pit underground. Only if your answer is perfectly clear, solid, and consistent.
For the rest of your questions, it seems that you know a few Scriptures already. I would recommend you to search the online Bible you usually use.
March 24, 2010 at 5:14 pm |
Miss Eaglet, that has an awesomeness to it that is astounding. If you don’t want to explain it, no sweat.
I was born an atheist. Were you born a Christian? The lack of credible evidence of a God is why I am now an atheist. That is not a stand. It’s the default state. Where gods and spirits are concerned, everyone has to start somewhere. That somewhere is called atheism or agnosticism.
Theists claim there is a God. I say prove it. Without proof we remain either atheist or agnostic. It is not possible to prove the absence of a God. A supernatural being by definition is not within the bounds of nature, and there is no way to prove that God does not exist. We also can’t prove that there are no invisible pink unicorns or flying spaghetti monsters. This in no way benefits those trying to prove the existence of God. It’s still up to believers to prove there is a God.
How do you know Horus does not exist? Or Mithra? How do you know that your choice of God is correct and all those billions of other people got it wrong?
As for your answers, Keep them. If I have to perform to get them they are not worth having. I will be consistent on that. Keep your answers.
March 24, 2010 at 11:26 pm |
Mr. Z,
I didn’t mean to aggravated. I like to learn about other people’ spiritual choices or default states.
Anyway, in one or two of my responses above, I clearly stated that each individual was free to make his or her own choices. If I believe the God of the Bible, it’s by choice and it is the perfect choice for me alone. Whatever spiritual path or default state billions of other people choose in their lives isn’t my responsibility at all. I can only speak for myself. Judging others isn’t my commission. I trust that every normal individual’s conscious is enough to do that job. In addition, at harvest time when every “choice seed” reaches maturity, everyone reaps what he or she sowed. Fruits certainly speak louder than words.
Frankly, I’m having a hard time understanding how and why you’re unable to prove God’s nonexistence!!! I’m gladly keeping my answers; you said it well, they are not worth having. I appreciate your consistency on this one and I wish you all the best on your journey!
March 24, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Sorry for the typo-
“I didn’t mean to aggravate you” is what it should be.
March 25, 2010 at 3:19 am
Miss Eaglet prove there isn’t a Pink Unicorn running everything and then you will understand why you can’t prove a negative.
March 25, 2010 at 3:20 am
That should have said try proving.
March 25, 2010 at 8:49 am
What claims are Mr. Z making that you have problems with him not proving? Disproving your God is just as impossible as disproving Thor, or Zeus.
Furthermore your religion makes quite a bit of extraordinary claims, far beyond just the existence of God, such as the existence of a soul, the existence of sin, the existence of an afterlife, the existence of God as man, the resurrection of man, the need for forgiveness, just to name a few. And just as you assert these claims without evidence, we pass them off without evidence.
March 25, 2010 at 9:42 am
Ms Eaglet,
There is not credible proof of the existence of a God. Any god. There is as much evidence to say what you and others see as evidence is merely a ‘trick’ of the human mind as there is to say it’s God’s work. The Christian Bible has a history, one that puts its veracity in question. The notion that it is inspired by God or the inerrant word of God comes from the book itself. Further it uses parables and allegory throughout and this leaves the reader wondering which parts are to be taken literally. Without non-Biblical corroborating evidence the truth of it is questionable. It is true that it has inspired some of the most heinous acts committed by mankind and used as justification for a whole lot of bad things, many of which will generally get you executed.
Now, you ask for proof that there is no God. I say that the only reason we know there is a God is someone’s attempt to prove one exists and that it is not a natural position for humans to believe there is a God. That is we are not born with such beliefs, they have to be taught to us. If they have to be taught to us, and the information we have to teach with is in question, the likelihood that there is a God is even less.
It was mentioned that you can’t prove a negative. We can’t prove there are no invisible pink unicorns. We can’t prove there is a God. Without evidence of their existence all that can be said is that there is no proof for the notion of either. Based on my experiences and the available proof of existence of God, I choose to be an atheist. I see more value and logic in this choice than in pretending there is a God.
If you have been reading my other posts on this blog you will surely know what I think of evolution and how it has shaped mankind. It seems that every week we learn something more about evolution and our origins. With God, the information is fixed and 2000+ years old. I’m sure it was great news to bronze age men, but we’ve learned a lot since then. We have found wheelbarrows, cars, airplanes, modern medicine and tons more. We can cure cancers, build body parts and transplant them, we have all but wiped out the common health issues that killed people 2000+ years ago. We have doubled our lifespans in that time. In fact, modern men would look rather like miracles workers to bronze age men. Despite all that learning, effort, and knowledge collecting, there still is no new information about God.
To me, there is little reason to believe that Christianity is more than a myth, like any of the other gods that neither of us believe in.
March 25, 2010 at 10:48 am
Mr. Z, could you elaborate on this statement please: “The Christian Bible has a history, one that puts its veracity in question.”
March 25, 2010 at 11:34 am
Veracity: conformity with truth or fact, as how I use it.
Who are the authors of the books of the Bible? This cannot be known with any certainty for much of the Bible. In some instances we’re certain we don’t know, such as the book of Revelations. Who exactly wrote the book of Luke is another example discussed here on other posts. The list goes on.
The books of the bible were collected into a collection of books from a wide array of religious texts available at the time. Some were not included. The generality of that collection was created by Constantine, and later the canonical Bible was established using Constantine’s version as the basis for such canonization. It was men who decided what books should be in the Bible. It was unknown men who wrote those books. Clearly there is reason to believe that errant men might do so without any impetus from a God, especially a man with such powers as Constantine had.
Now that brings us to the point where it gets translated to different languages, for reasons that are not so noble as spreading the word in all cases. If you have not tried it, trust me, translating Greek and Hebrew to German and English is not an easy task. The meanings of words and phrases does not always come through with clarity or even their original meaning.
Then we have the comprehension interpretations. The notion of the rapture is purely an interpretation of the KJV Bible, not a statement of something God supposedly said. Then there are those that believe the Bible the inerrant Word of God, and to be taken literally from cover to cover. Genesis presents a lot of problems. Enough problems that not even all Christians can agree with each other over how they should be understood.
When you look at all that could have tainted the message along the way, it would truly be a miracle if this book still represented the inerrant word of God. So when I’m told that it is, I don’t believe it. There is no evidence for miracles, so the one I just described did not happen either.
What you are left with after understanding all that is a nice piece of semi-fiction with real world settings and a morality tale or three tossed in.
All these doubts show another problem: how does an inerrant omnipotent and omniscient God allow such to happen to his word? The simple answer is that it’s not the inerrant word of an all powerful supernatural being. It is the words of men who wish to garner power in this life by promising you peace in the next one.
March 25, 2010 at 11:55 am
“Frankly, I’m having a hard time understanding how and why you’re unable to prove God’s nonexistence!!! I’m gladly keeping my answers; you said it well, they are not worth having. I appreciate your consistency on this one and I wish you all the best on your journey!”
Frankly, I have a hard time understanding why the faithful expect others to answer for them.
Lack of proof on any side only signifies a stalemate, it does not signify proof of otherwise. A lot of conflicts in the name of any God, anywhere in the world could have been avoided if the faithful and unfaithful realized this, instead of relying on gut intuition or a book of fiction presented as fact.
God has told me the correct answer you lot should give is “I don’t know”. Disprove my point of view. Good luck.
March 25, 2010 at 12:08 pm
@A chicken passeth by
“God has told me the correct answer you lot should give is “I don’t know”. Disprove my point of view. Good luck.” and this made me laugh heartily. Get ready for the faithful to explain the mind of God to you now, proving that your point of view is wrong.
March 25, 2010 at 4:30 pm
Thanks for the definition of veracity, though I wasn’t really looking for you to define the word you used so much as qualify the statement.
I am curious as to how much real effort has been made into discovering who wrote the books of the New Testament, what was considered authoritative and why, what wasn’t and why, who the authors were, when a general consensus formed about these books, and whether there really is any extant non-biblical corroborating evidence.
March 25, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Thanks for your responses.
The reason why you’re unable to prove that God doesn’t exist is because He does in fact exist. Even without a written Bible, it is easy to prove the existence of this Supreme Being. In fact, there are 3 Bibles. Only one is in written form or on paper (the one you have become acquainted to). There is a channel of Perfect Harmony that connects the worshiper to His Creator. This Perfect link is Constant with or without any Bible.
Being my first time to come across an Atheist website, I was curious to learn what you based your point on (or default state as Mr. Z said it well). I have realized that it has no solid stand or foundation. Like I said it before, anything without a solid foundation is chaotic. All your reasoning and arguments, including some of the scientific theories stated in some of the posts are full of contradictions and inconsistencies. So, where is The Absolute?
I already gave my opinion about the original topic. Whenever I find the time, I’ll move on to the next one. Best wishes!
March 25, 2010 at 6:45 pm
Thanks for your response.
The reason why you’re unable to prove that God does exist is because He does not in fact exist. Even with a written Bible, it is impossible to prove the existence of a Supreme Being. In fact, there are thousands of holy texts. There is no channel of Perfect Harmony that connects anybody to any deity. This link is non-existant with or without any holy text.
Not being my first time talking with a believer on an Atheist website, I was not curious to learn what you based your points on (I assure you they are the same ones we’ve heard before). I have realized long ago that it has no solid stand or foundation. Like I said before anything without a solid foundation is chaotic. All your reasoning and arguments, including the most religious arguments are full of contradictions and inconsistencies. So, where is the Absolute?
—————-
Do you understand where we are coming from now Miss Eaglet? I don’t think I’ve seen you back up one your claims. In this post you tell us that there is a harmony that proves God. What harmony? Can you prove the existence of this harmony? Can you prove that this harmony proves a link to God?
You then accuse us of having inconsistencies in our arguments and theories, but you never say where we are making this contradictions. Then you insist that we need an absolute. Why do we need an absolute?
I don’t mean to be rude, but you’ve posted many claims accusing of us of being wrong, but all I can see is that we are wrong in regards to your beliefs, but you have no ability to justify your beliefs.
March 25, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Why can’t I post?
March 25, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Ms Eaglet
“The reason why you’re unable to prove that God doesn’t exist is because He does in fact exist. Even without a written Bible, it is easy to prove the existence of this Supreme Being.”
Well, if this is so, you clearly lack the ability to prove it to anyone here.
Have you checked with any of the major Christian organizations about these three bibles? What did they say?
Sadly, I take from you words that you believe you have a solid foundation. You have the same foundation as the Captain of the Titanic, IMO. You believe you are right and safe and steer your ship blindly toward the iceberg.
Could you possibly spare a few minutes of your time to actually tell us what you are talking about here? Nobody here has simply said you’re spouting gibberish like someone inebriated. We’ve taken the time to speak directly to what you say and the questions you asked. Is it so much to ask the same courtesy from you?
Will you evade any conversation in the next topic as well, stopping only long enough to type some drivel without explanation and pretend you need not be courteous enough to answer questions? Do you truly believe that your understanding of the world is self evident and needs no explanation? Have you actually read the NT? According to many and their understanding of the message Jesus was trying to convey you have done no better than the Pharisees, and condemn yourself for missing the very message you proclaim as the right one.
You may well claim yourself a Christian of knowledge, but even Jesus knew that respect is earned, and your deeds have earned you none here, IMO.
Good luck
March 25, 2010 at 10:11 pm
Mr. Z,
Let’s be accurate, please. Through all my posts above, how many questions have I asked?
Saying what other people did not say surely reflects the amount of respect one can earn, doesn’t it?
Since you seem to know The Bible very well and made mention of the Pharisees, how many of their questions did Jesus answer clearly? Why?
You said that The Bible was a nice piece of semi-fiction with real world settings and a morality tale or three tossed in it. Why then do you refer to it in your post above for moral teaching? Isn’t this contradictory in itself?
I noticed that you like to use “we” and “us” quite frequently in your posts. Why can’t you speak for yourself? Aren’t you confident enough about your default state?
I’m not trying to aggravate you. I’ve said it, and I’ll say it again, I respect your choices. I was simply trying to understand how you came up with your ideas or theories… I still can’t understand, and I probably won’t.
Anyway, good luck to you as well.
March 25, 2010 at 4:51 pm |
@Lewstherinpm
Trust that should external corroborative evidence have been found, it would be proudly displayed on tee shirts, ball caps, bumper stickers, fridge magnets, bracelets, and all manner of other things. It would be held up far and wide for all to see. The fact remains that the esoteric vocation of studying the Bible and its history is not left unattended. There are as many sites dedicated to showing it as THE truth as there are that do not. There are many trying to prove historicity of the Bible as a means to show its truth, though it’s problematic in that Dan Brown’s novels have a historicity to them as good or better than what we know of the Bible story. I believe that you will find that since its canonization, the Catholic church has been far more interested in such information than you will ever be. To date they have provided nothing that would externally corroborate it. In the early days of the church there were dozens of churches claiming to have the same body part of John the Baptist as a relic. There are thousands of such relics remaining today, but none known to be authentic. This is but some of the body of (lack of) evidence that contribute to my lack of belief.
March 25, 2010 at 10:37 pm |
Mr. Z, when I mentioned corroborating evidence I was not speaking about relics. I was refering to other non-biblical, non-Christian writings that lend credit to what is written in the NT.
You wrote quite a bit about the verasity of the Bible and I’m curious from where your knowledge stems that puts you in a position to make the claim that the verasity of the Bible is questionable. I’m curious to what extent you have researched the origins of the NT books, who wrote them, what writings were considered authoritative and why (i.e. what were the factors that were used to establish apostolic authority in writings), what writings were not considered authoritative and why, which were conisdered acceptable for edification though not authoritative, and those that were considered heretical and why, and when the early Church leaders began to form a general consensus about those writings regardless of when they were “canonized”.
March 26, 2010 at 12:50 am |
Lewstherinpm, these are good questions. I will not attempt to list every source of information that I have used over time, but will try to give an example link to get the general ideas. Many sources were books. My pentecostal preacher father had a large personal library of books on theological study, and Biblical reference. I was always taught to look things up by my parents.
My path to atheism has taken me on not just a virtual tour of many of the worlds religions, but a personal one as well. Comparative religious studies are often improved if accompanied by actual visits to other sect’s holy places and texts, and speaking with some of their leaders at length. I am not claiming to be an expert, only that I have put in time and effort to find an answer to the big two questions for myself.
http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/bible/cea.stm gives you an idea of the sources for early Christian writings. These were holy texts shared (mostly verbally) among bronze age peoples. People that did not know what a wheelbarrow is, never mind what we know today. The explanation for lightning was well out of their grasp. The early Christians were not a united group at all, and often contradicted one another in what texts they thought were correct. We see that Constantine has a profound effect on what was collected into the library of texts we see today as the canonical Bible. Not the only one, but the emperor of the known world has a lot of power. His library of texts was then called into being made official by what can be understood as an offer you can’t refuse. His motives were not clearly of a spiritual nature. This link also mentions some of how the accepted books got on the list, and likewise why some did not.
If you credit the theory that the crusades were not so much about the Holy City as they were about removing dualism from the planet, we see motivations among Christendom that are less than spiritual, motivations that were not absent in the first several hundred years of Christianity.
Without doubt, there is a deep well of thought and writing concerning the actual authors of the books of the Bible. Disagreement is generally gentlemanly these days, but it continues. Someone named John who had been on the Greek island of Patmos claims to have written the book of Revelations. Nothing more can be known of this author despite conjecture and writing analysis etc. Each book’s history and analysis is more than should be put in just a single post here. What was important for me in my search is that the information, conjecture, and analysis of such did not point to a single inspiration or God inspired works. Where some books seem to be different authors repeating the same story but telling it different is a sign that it is likely they were not divinely inspired to write original text, but at best had an inspiration to write a copy of what they had seen or heard elsewhere.
Further, it was not uncommon at the time to write a text and attribute it to a apostolic figure to give it more of an air of authority such that where there are questions and uncertainty, it is clear that no definitive author can be named.
I can continue, but there is not a short way to pin down why I find the Bible lacking veracity. It is a long list of things. I’m not certain if you want the list, or an understanding of to what effort and sources I have gone.
Here we see a Christian view: http://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4907 which is commonly rebutted with the dating with examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae
and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04083a.htm.
On any one book or topic concerning the origins of the Christian Bible that we have today, there is much discussion and no clear authoritative answers. Generalities yes, but not for origins.
It is suspected that much of what was accepted for the NT was on the basis of what was thought to be authoritatively attributed to the Apostles. Anything deemed not apostolic was not included. There is no clear understanding of why books that were not included were not, since most of them no longer exist.
Add to this mess is the stories from other religious beliefs at the time, say Horus and Mithra. It is difficult for me to flip the coin of clarity in favor of a story that has possible sources from places other than the apostles.
Nothing about the entire subject says it was directed by God himself, nor makes me think it was. It sounds like a city council meeting stretched out over hundreds of years. Simply looking at records for decisions on the books does not give you the full picture of what was not written down. In effect, by saying ‘these are the only books of the Bible of Christianity’ they were saying you other people are not Christians, and must go away (if they didn’t outright kill them). Ostracizing too many groups would have been counterproductive. So those who opine that theology of people supporting one text or the other had a lot to do with whether it got cut from the list or not sounds more than a little bit likely to me in the very early years. There were many Christian sects at the time, few of whom used all the same texts up until the time of the collected books.
And on it goes.. does this answer your question regarding my personal research into the matter? If my father’s library were close at hand, I’d list more reading material. I’ve been on this journey of mine for 30 years now.
It is important to read as much as you can because one historian will delve into the effect of Constantine while giving little time to other issues, and the religious sourced studies tend to not pay much heed to influences outside what defines their understanding of the divine nature of the text. Trust but verify perhaps. Get both sides of the story works too. Where there are specific records, there is a lack of external motivations and influences to those actions.
An example of why this is important is trying to understand why the US went to war against Iraq. So much information was withheld and later found to be untrue or outright lies. In Christendom, going back to correct errors was really not an option after the accepted Christian Library of Holy Texts was established. This one fact makes for an interesting understanding of the process. They were not simply writing history, but declaring the Holy words of God, to which there soon would be death for questioning. That kind of thing really kills the editorial spirit in people.
To see that external motivations had a lot to do with things, Constantine used his new Christian empire to kill Christians who disagreed with Catholicism. Whether his motives were Christian or not, he did in fact have much sway in putting together an ‘official’ library of texts.
There is of course much more to any one topic here, much much more. The truth of any of it can be found probably somewhere in the middle of all the information. That it is not 100% sure what happened is true. To me, it has become clear that the motivations and influences of the process were not dutifully recorded and the motivation to agree with the generality was one of life or death in enough instances that it’s hard to say it was a divinely inspired process.
March 25, 2010 at 6:09 pm |
Miss Eaglett you agree that all the gods/goddesses that can’t be proven to not exist then do exist. So why do you worship your god over Thor or the many other gods that exist. Do you understand that by making that statement you are claiming all gods in history exist. I don’t really understand where you are trying to go with your others bible stuff but it sounds like it is one of those, the bible is in all of us when we are born things. I doubt you have any view or evidence that can’t be used to prove any of the other gods you claim exist.
March 26, 2010 at 4:56 am |
Baconsbud,
Thank you for your question.
I worship The God of The Bible because He is the only Eternal God. His Word is an Eternal Memorial that has stood the test of time.
Concerning the 2 other Bibles, the first one is written in the Zodiac and the second one is written in Nature.
March 26, 2010 at 5:17 am |
So basically you have no evidence and are just saying the same all others do. You have mixed a few other religions into your own version so you can claim to not be of the corrupt views. Sounds like you have built your wall of beliefs well in your mind. Good luck in wasting time trying to get nothing.
March 25, 2010 at 9:47 pm |
Ms Eaglet said “I disagree with you as well for using isolated Bible verses to prove a point. It simply does not and will not stand. ”
I did not use isolated Bible verses. I used pretty much the basic moral lessons that the Christ story conveys. If it must be taken always in a whole, and no part used individually, then I reject even the parts that are not objectionable on the basis that they come packaged with some of the cruelest and mean spirited stories in the history of mankind: blood sacrifice, punish the son for the sins of the father, genocide, slavery, racism, and wholesale killing on a scale this world does not know. That is just what the Bible talks about and doesn’t even count the atrocities the Bible was used to justify which were committed by men.
I realize you believe you are right, but no matter how much you believe the story, simply telling me I’m wrong does not prove your God is real, never mind just and loving.
BTW, the Earth itself does not have a strong foundation. The crust of the Earth is in continual flux giving us earthquakes and volcanoes among other disaster situations. As far as we can see, the only constant in the universe is change… and things like the speed of light. Make of that what you will. If you do believe the Bible is inerrant, and must be taken literally from cover to cover, I would like to know when we are supposed to start killing homosexuals and patrons of seafood restaurants. Your belief puts you at odds with the law of the land. That is not a good place to be. It might be said that it’s not a solid foundation for life in such a land.
March 25, 2010 at 10:24 pm |
Mr. Z,
Of course, you didn’t (at least in this case) because that response wasn’t for you. You must have plenty of time indeed to the point of getting confused as to who or what you’re replying to. Good night!
March 25, 2010 at 11:00 pm |
Ms Eaglet said “Let’s be accurate, please. Through all my posts above, how many questions have I asked?”
By my count, at least 10.
Ms Eaglet said “Saying what other people did not say surely reflects the amount of respect one can earn, doesn’t it?”
I don’t understand that question.
Ms Eaglet said “Since you seem to know The Bible very well and made mention of the Pharisees, how many of their questions did Jesus answer clearly? Why?”
By my count, none. Parables are not clear answers.
Ms Eaglet said “You said that The Bible was a nice piece of semi-fiction with real world settings and a morality tale or three tossed in it. Why then do you refer to it in your post above for moral teaching? Isn’t this contradictory in itself?”
How is it contradictory? I have never claimed that there are no moral lessons in the Bible, only that I don’t agree with all of the Bible or all of its lessons. I will guess and answer that I used it as it is near and dear to your heart and contains lessons you should probably know already, as well as your admission that you believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, to be taken literally.
Ms Eaglet said “I noticed that you like to use “we” and “us” quite frequently in your posts. Why can’t you speak for yourself? Aren’t you confident enough about your default state?”
Of course I am, and if you’d point out where you are talking about, I’m reasonably certain that it could easily be replaced by ‘atheists’ or ‘non believers’ or other generally referenced groups.
Ms Eaglet said “I was simply trying to understand how you came up with your ideas or theories… I still can’t understand, and I probably won’t.”
To fully understand why I am an atheist, you will have to understand a few things:
There is no credible proof of the existence of a supernatural being, any gods, or a soul. Add to the list heaven and hell, miracles, and an afterlife among other things.
Evolution has more evidence supporting it than any religion. There is far more reason to believe in evolution than religion or gods. The simple fact is that you and I agree on the non-existence of gods, with one exception. We are in accord on all the rest.
The only unnatural sexual orientation is that of abstinence. Nature (God’s creation?) has everything else covered.
The Christian Bible lacks veracity, and external corroborative evidence of it being the inerrant word of a God. Additionally it is inconsistent and self-contradictory whether it has any good morality tales or not.
Religion has been used to justify horrific crimes. Atheism, not so much. Sure, atheists commit crimes, but not by using the lack of a belief in any god as justification.
There are far more hypocritical Christians than there are atheists who only pretend to not believe in any gods.
As an atheist I’m responsible for my actions, including the mistaken reply. Christians get to point the finger of blame at the devil when it suits them.
I could go on, but that should be a fairly long reading list to get started with.
March 26, 2010 at 12:46 am |
I know this thread was not directed at me but I figured I’d put in my two cents worth with regards to a few of your comments Mr. Z.
“There is no credible proof of the existence of a supernatural being, any gods, or a soul. Add to the list heaven and hell, miracles, and an afterlife among other things.”
I have previous suggested that the Big Bang by definition is a ‘supernatural’ event in a previous post. Since natural law breaks down at the singularity it is quite probable that Science will NEVER be able to find an answer. Do you disagree?
“Evolution has more evidence supporting it than any religion. There is far more reason to believe in evolution than religion or gods.”
Given the fact that Evolution is presented as scientific fact it has glaring oversights which I have mention previously on this blog. I.e. the origin of the eucaryotic cell. Your reply was something to the effect of “good one.” You seem to justify this by using the phrase “Life simply is.” Which is as much of a copout as the popular atheistic phrase of “god of the gaps”. It seems to be a bit convenient to be able to just write off a very momentous occurance with such a phrase. How did the cell evolve? What about DNA? Or more specifically adenine? (It requires something like 11 different chemical transitions which convert amino acids to enzymes to arrive at adenine and according to Darwin’s theory of slow progressive transition of long periods of time there needs to be a transitional purpose to all the enzymes required just to make one of the 4 building blocks of DNA). Where is the evidence to support the scientific fact of evolution at the chemical level? It only exists in the form of extrapolation and not real observable evidence which is what science is all about.
“The Christian Bible lacks veracity, and external corroborative evidence of it being the inerrant word of a God. Additionally it is inconsistent and self-contradictory whether it has any good morality tales or not.”
I’ve addressed this recently to which I am awaiting a reply.
“Religion has been used to justify horrific crimes. Atheism, not so much. Sure, atheists commit crimes, but not by using the lack of a belief in any god as justification.”
This is a popular topic for atheists to use in their books to use as evidence for there to not be a god. I’ll reference Francis Collins, an atheist scientist turned believer and most known for his lead in sequencing the human genome, to address this. He says simply to not judge the pure water by the rusty containers. We humans are imperfect and have done horrible things in the name of God but that should not be used to justify the non-existence of God. Timothy Keller, in his book ‘The Reason for God’, says that when bad things are done in the name of Christ the perpetrator is not being true to the message of Christ. In other words, don’t judge Christ by the actions of his followers. They are sinful and error.
As to atheists not being responsible for heinous crimes? Stalin? Was he not an atheist that thought religion to be an opiate?
“There are far more hypocritical Christians than there are atheists who only pretend to not believe in any gods.”
What exactly consitutes a ‘hypocritical Christian’? I, for one, do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I think most Christians admit that they are not perfect. The greatest example is Paul. He readily admits he struggles with sin.
“As an atheist I’m responsible for my actions, including the mistaken reply. Christians get to point the finger of blame at the devil when it suits them.”
Again, I don’t run across to many Christians that run around blaming all their mistakes on Satan. Sure he may be a tempter but it is our sinful nature that ultimately leads us (and by us I mean all humans) to sin. I’m pretty sure that if you find yourself standing before God being accountable for your actions an answer of “Satan made me do it” will not suffice. We are all responsible for our own actions.
March 26, 2010 at 12:56 am |
Let me append to the whole evolution has more evidence supporting it than religion topic that due to the “apparent design” of life many famous scientists are left positing theories such as Francis Crick (co-founder of the DNA double helix) to suggest that life originated from outer space. Even Richard Dawkins makes similar suggestions in his book ‘The God Delusion’. Now THAT is scientific! Especially given the complete LACK of evidence. Besides suggesting life came from outerspace does not answer the question of the origins of life but only removes it a step.
March 26, 2010 at 8:43 am |
Lewstherinpm
The Big Bang is another event that is currently beyond our understanding of the laws of nature. That does not mean it is beyond nature, only beyond our current understanding of nature. To say a supernatural being or God did it is intellectually lazy and ‘god of the gaps’ thinking. There is no reason to believe there is a God, never mind that he is responsible for all things that we cannot explain yet.
Life is and without question exists. The fact that our understanding of its origins is limited does not mean, nor validate the notion, that it was created by a supernatural being. This is a God of the gaps thinking, pushing magic and faith into the holes where our knowledge is scant or none. The idea of panspermia is a possible explanation for life on this planet. No matter that mankind yet has no answer for the origin of life on this planet or indeed the universe, saying that God did it is still intellectually lazy.
Let me say it again. There is no credible proof of the existence of a supernatural being, any gods, or a soul. Add to the list heaven and hell, miracles, and an afterlife among other things. To suggest and insist that our lack of knowledge is proof of such is insane. Without this proof, suggesting God is responsible for what we do not yet understand is superstitious behavior. That very same ideology of blaming gods for what we do not fully understand is one of the largest reasons that so many other gods are deemed false.
Lewstherinpm said “This is a popular topic for atheists to use in their books to use as evidence for there to not be a god. I’ll reference Francis Collins, an atheist scientist turned believer and most known for his lead in sequencing the human genome, to address this. He says simply to not judge the pure water by the rusty containers. We humans are imperfect and have done horrible things in the name of God but that should not be used to justify the non-existence of God. Timothy Keller, in his book ‘The Reason for God’, says that when bad things are done in the name of Christ the perpetrator is not being true to the message of Christ. In other words, don’t judge Christ by the actions of his followers. They are sinful and error.”
Parables are great. It’s not the rust you see on the container, it’s the Ebola in the rust. Test the water before you drink it. If it’s making other people sick, don’t bloody well drink it.
The non-existence of God is justified by the … well, lack of evidence of God. Doing evil in the name of God is to use God to justify the evil acts. God does not exist, and those acting criminally in God’s name are criminals of a special nature. You talk as though God’s word does not tell you to act criminally, as though it does not condone criminal actions when done in the name of God. Lets see, genocide, slavery, killing homosexuals, disobedient children, and those who eat shellfish are but a few. Yes, Christ kind of reneged on that deal with the let those without sin throw the first stone thing, but nowhere is there an apology, or recantation for all that other bad stuff. It’s sort of contradictory.
Shift the blame again. For some reason you find it impossible to believe that the religion itself creates the propensity in Christians to sin, and sin with great gusto. You say don’t blame the religion, blame the sinner, or they are aren’t real Christians when they do such criminal things. What a fantastic copout and license to sin, and be criminal. Do the crime, then repent. Screw a young child or same sex prostitue or take drugs or whatever your bent is, then repent. This nature of the Christian religion pardons those sinners of their crimes because the sinner repents, and removes the need for the criminal to feel guilty because they can still go to heaven if they get caught.
Lewstherinpm said “As to atheists not being responsible for heinous crimes? Stalin? Was he not an atheist that thought religion to be an opiate?”
Interestingly, he was an atheist after having attended seminary, but this was not his reason or justification for his crimes. He seems to have believed that religion had to be removed and replaced by a ‘cult of personality’ to bring correctness to society. Lack of belief in any god was not his justification for doing so. All great megalomaniacs replace religions and opposition to their goals and person with a religion of their own and lackeys, as can be said of the God of Abraham.
Are you denying the existence of hypocrites in the Christian churches? I did not say ALL Christians blame ALL their problems on Satan, only that they do so when it suits them. It’s a blame shift game. The Christian says Satan tempted them and they succumbed, but then they talked to God and repented so it’s all okay now. And Hollywood stars get caught cheating and say they are sex addicts, it’s not their fault, then enroll in an addiction clinic and it’s all okay now. It’s the same blame shifting. The same brazen attempt to not be held responsible.
I don’t worry at all about finding myself standing before God being held accountable. It’s not going to happen. I’m accountable now.
March 27, 2010 at 10:10 am
“The Big Bang is another event that is currently beyond our understanding of the laws of nature. That does not mean it is beyond nature, only beyond our current understanding of nature.”
Mr. Z, you seem to write off, or at least minimalize, the reality and implications of the big bang. It is a scientific theory in as much as evolution is. Which means it is emirically verifiable. Verifiable that the universe began ex nihilo. You say it is not beyond nature but it is. Prior to natural laws coming into existence along with nature (time space and matter) is known as the singularity. This has significant scientific implications and has since the inception of the hypothesis and the future verifications that had made is a scientific theory. The scope of science ends at the singularity. Current efforts in science are in the early moments of the universe (the first fractions of seconds) and not what was prior. Science can study the early moments because there is something to study. What it cannot do is scientifically study nothing. You must then, as do scientists, reconcile how what is comes from ex nihilo. Only problem is you can’t do it using scientific method. Any attempt to reconcile this by scientists comes in the form of wishful speculation about things that are unverifiable. Scientists recognize this conundrum and know it is indeed a problem for science. Now, I’m not going to sit here at tell you it was God. You need to come to your own conclusions about this issue based on the evidence. What you cannot do it just write it off as an unknown. Because, given the evidence that is available, to brush it off would, as you like to say, be intellectual laziness.
Carl Sagan once said that we would follow sciences journey through the cosmos where ever it may lead. I sometimes wonder if that is really true.
March 26, 2010 at 4:19 am |
@ Mr. Z,
What does “above” mean to you?
The questions that you just listed, were they above or below?
Do you even take time to read and understand?
March 26, 2010 at 8:46 am |
Yes, I totally missed the word ‘above’. So maybe two questions. Now what is your excuse?
March 26, 2010 at 7:08 am |
I’m calling Miss Eaglet as a troll. I refuse to believe anyone is so willfully ignorant, and so awful at discussing their beliefs.
March 26, 2010 at 8:45 am |
Andy, I agree on the troll part, but there are many Christians who are that willfully ignorant and awful at discussing their beliefs. I was too, a long time ago. In trying to remove my ignorance I found I could no longer believe in God. The blindness to truth is required to have faith in God.
March 26, 2010 at 10:47 am |
I’m sorry if I annoyed some of you. It wasn’t in my intentions.
How can I discuss my beliefs when I seem not to get to the bottom line of your various statements about the non-existence of God. I read some of your posts (including those of Mr. Z) but It seems as if some pieces of the puzzle are missing. I’m decided to research further on this matter. I’m hoping to reach a concrete understanding of your theories if there is any substance in them. Have a good one!
March 26, 2010 at 1:03 pm |
Ms Eaglet, take your time. It took me 30 years to get where I am. Getting the pieces to fit is not as easy as falling off a log and there are no preachers and Sunday schools to help you along. It’s a personal effort.
March 26, 2010 at 2:18 pm
30 years? It must have been really complicated for you.
Anyway, He still does exist for me without a doubt. When I was convinced about it, I didn’t have a preacher or Sunday schools around me (not that I have anything against them).
But I’m just interested in getting more information on your theories and statements. I’ll find out whether there is a bottom line to it or not.
March 26, 2010 at 2:46 pm
Ms Eaglet, where you say God exists for you without a doubt, think what it would take to convince you that God does not exist. What would be enough to convince you that you have been wrong, that your family has been wrong, that all the people you were taught were good and smart were wrong. Now stop thinking of the one thing that would do it and start thinking about finding out the truth about all the things and little bits of information that you use as a foundation for the faith. Did you investigate them? Did you simply trust what you were told? Did you seek a deeper understanding of where your traditions and customs come from? Did you look at why you use the symbols that you do? It takes a while to go through all that. It’s easier now with the Internet, but it still takes a while. When you’re doing it you have to listen to people who say that’s just the way it is with no explanation, people who look at you funny because you are bothering to try to find out more, people who will think you odd for not simply accepting things as they are presented. Almost everything is stacked in favor of you simply believing without asking. It is complicated and difficult to work through that all, but you owe it to yourself since you are staking so much on the outcome.
March 27, 2010 at 10:53 am |
@LewstherInpm
I do not write off the implications of the big bang. The evidence points to an expanding universe coming from a singular point. Beyond that, nothing is known. Nothing. In case I forgot to mention it, NOTHING is known beyond that point.
Some assume that the natural laws were not in effect prior to it, but that is also not known. The scope of current scientific inquiry ends at the moment of the big bang. Current, not future. Currently science is unable to explain the big bang itself or what may have been before that, if indeed, there was anything before the big bang.
What, if anything, came before the big bang can only be speculated on at this time, no matter what your thoughts of it might be. You boldly state that the universe comes from nothing yet you do not know that and cannot know that. Neither science or religion can know this yet. Making your statements as though this is fact is less than honest.
LewstherInpm said “Now, I’m not going to sit here at tell you it was God. You need to come to your own conclusions about this issue based on the evidence. What you cannot do it just write it off as an unknown. Because, given the evidence that is available, to brush it off would, as you like to say, be intellectual laziness.
Carl Sagan once said that we would follow sciences journey through the cosmos where ever it may lead. I sometimes wonder if that is really true.”
But you are more than happy to imply that God did it is the only conclusion that can be made. That is intellectual laziness with a dishonesty to it. You might wonder if what Carl Sagan said is true, but you are not trying to help either.
When we and science find ourselves at a point where our current knowledge cannot reach past, we theorize, test and experiment, and work to try to understand more. There is no set time limit on such a process. I have already said that mankind may not know more about the big bang than it does now in my lifetime and I’m ok with that. That is not writing it off. That mankind as a species is actively working to find out more is as it should be. You would have us explain it as God’s work and stop looking. I’m happy with my place in the universe, but you must decorate the natural world with myths and magic and legend for it to be comfortable for you. I don’t need security blankets and night lights to get to sleep.
No matter what your religion or deity tells you, you cannot know what lies beyond the moment of the big bang. None of us can yet. I choose not to stick any gods or magic into the gaps in my knowledge. I feel confident that some day we will know more. Then where is your god? Where will you place your god then? As long as you use a god to explain what is not yet known, you are no better than those that came before you and believed in the gods of thunder, or the sun god and moon god. It’s that simple.
March 28, 2010 at 9:51 pm |
“The evidence points to an expanding universe coming from a singular point. Beyond that, nothing is known. Nothing. In case I forgot to mention it, NOTHING is known beyond that point.”
Simon Singh, in his book ‘Big Bang’, refers to the singularity as an unphysical state. What does that mean? Since matter is physical could it be the moment just prior to the emergence of space, time, and matter?
“That is intellectual laziness with a dishonesty to it.”
You decry me for taking a stance on my view and yet from what vantage point do you stand in which you are confident enough to repeatedly call me lazy and dishonest?
“You might wonder if what Carl Sagan said is true, but you are not trying to help either.”
It is true that I am not a scientist. Are you? Other than calling people lazy and dishonest on blogs how do you contribute to the progression of science?
“You would have us explain it as God’s work and stop looking.”
LOL. Is this your assumption about my view on science and religion?
“I don’t need security blankets and night lights to get to sleep.”
Can you debate without being condescending or sarcastic? It my eyes it lessens your credibility. I was largely turned off by Dawkins ‘The God Delusion’ because he is unable to express his views without being condesending. He takes what he thinks is the intellectual high ground and then refers to everyone who is not standing next to him as idiots. It does nothing to help his cause. His condesention directly contributes to the lack of any sense of credibility in anything he says.
“I feel confident that some day we will know more. Then where is your god? Where will you place your god then?”
Francis Collins, who according to you, is intellectually lazy (despite the fact that it was a Christian, Collins himself, who lead the effort to sequence the Human Genome), has this to say about this final statement of yours I am responding to: “Science is not threatened by God; it is enhanced. God is most certainly not theatened by science; He made it possible.” Einstein had something interesting to say along this line as well. He said that science without religion was pointless and religion without science is blind. From henceforth please stop assuming that anyone who makes a stance for God is automatically opposed to science and satisfied with a “god of the gaps” mentality.
March 28, 2010 at 10:38 pm |
Lewstherinpm said “Simon Singh, in his book ‘Big Bang’, refers to the singularity as an unphysical state. What does that mean? Since matter is physical could it be the moment just prior to the emergence of space, time, and matter?
Continue, if you must, to presume that people should believe that your assertions about what cannot yet be known should be considered. No matter what your insistence might be, you still cannot know, just as I have said and will continue to say. When your assertions carry even the hint that God did it, you are using the God of the gaps thinking. You might want to get used to hearing it.
Yes, I too read Francis Collins’ book. His view on God is as silly as any Christian’s. Just because he does science stuff well, does not mean he is incapable of believing falsehoods about deities. He even dared to write a book to tell his story, and in it he described his views, not the views of science with regard to God.
Did I hurt your feelings?
March 29, 2010 at 2:50 am |
I think that the Big Bang is of no use in the question of Ultimate Cosmic Origins. In this area, it is just a distraction. No matter how anyone speculates about the time before, no matter how anyone characterizes the conditions just before, there just is no information on which anything can be based.
There is a hypothesis that all the energy and matter that participated in the Big Bang came into existence just fractions of a second before it. You can speculate that if that is true, then God created that energy and matter. I can speculate that if the sudden creation of matter/energy is true, it occurred due to a natural phenomenon which we have never witnessed in our ordinary experience and do not now understand.
But that is not the only hypothesis. Another is a cyclic universe. Under this hypothesis, the internal gravitational attraction of the universe will eventually slow the outward motion of all the parts, will eventually bring it to a standstill, and eventually will collapse everything back into a hugely dense mass crammed into an infinitesimally tiny space, just like the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Then there will be another big bang. And another. And there were an unknown (perhaps infinite) number of them before our own Big Bang. If this hypothesis is true, all that matter and energy existed long before the event we know about and simply went through a change of form 13 billion years ago.
Since we cannot see anything outside the range of our visible Universe and have no information from before the Big Bang, another hypothesis is that our local “universe” is simply a small part of a much larger *UNIVERSE* in which huge accretions of matter/energy may occur (perhaps regularly) and in which such accretions can explode (perhaps regularly throughout the *UNIVERSE*) through natural processes that we do not at present know. In this case, again, the energy and matter already existed long before our personal Big Bang.
So the Big Bang itself is not evidence for the creation of energy and matter nor is it evidence for how long its own matter/energy existed before it. It is irrelevant to the question of cosmic origins.
Theists say that something cannot come from nothing; that whatever the nature of the space in which a universe exists, that space must originally have been completely empty (an absolute void); and there must be something (call it a god) that created the matter and energy that now is drifting about in that space. Then they go on to say that this god must have always existed and must be infinitely powerful; but not in any way material because that would violate the notion of physical emptiness.
In contrast, I propose that an absolute void is physically impossible; that the energy and matter now in the universe is an integral part of the primordial space; that it has always existed, and the total amount of it is infinite, commensurate with the infinite extent of space. In this hypothesis, the energy and matter did not need to be created, and did not come from nothing, because it was always here.
March 29, 2010 at 7:43 am |
Indeed Verbifex, and every hypothesis that does not include a god is more plausible than one that does. We still do not understand the actual nature of space and black holes and a couple of other things. When we understand them and can model the universe we know better, it might well be that what happened at the instant of the big bang and before will be self evident. It was only this year that it was reported that looking at the universe in a different part of the spectrum reveals a lot more matter than was visible to us before. Until someone finds a rock out there that has a plaque on it that states “Product of God” on it or “Made in Heaven” none of this is of any value to proving or disproving the existence of a creator god. His existence then is still wholly defined by holy texts, and proof of the existence of a creator god still depends on those same texts. That’s the good and bad news. Your personal perspective decides what part is good and what part is bad.
I’m fairly happy with that. Happy to be part of the human species that exists at a time when we at least know there was most likely a very big bang, that there are black holes, that space is not an empty void. Looking back at my predecessors, I can easily say that I’m glad I did not live in a time when we did not know what lightning was and did not type on computer keyboards. I’m glad that so many of my predecessors did what it was they had to do for me to be able to sit here and converse this way. No matter what I do not know or may not ever know, I am part of the species that dominates this planet, that currently absorbs knowledge in each day at a rate equal to or exceeding the rate of new knowledge gained every century when human holy texts were written. Further, that this rate of new knowledge is increasing exponentially.
The texts which contain creator gods do not allow for this event, and cannot compete with it. We already do things which could only be attributed to a god when these texts were written: In California, cancer was cured using nanoparticle technology to deliver RNA material. In London a 10 year old boy had a trachea replacement built from his own stem cells. The news gets more ‘miraculous’ every day. I live in a society that has a better standard of living than kings and queens of even just 1000 years ago. We are the gods in certain perspectives, in that we do what our predecessors thought only a god could do.
I feel very confident that we will some day know the true nature of space, time, black holes, the big bang, and many more things. If we have to wait a bit .. ok. I’m patient and happy to do my part in this grand epic, and I’m happy to be a part of it where I can see the epic for what it is.
March 29, 2010 at 12:19 pm |
Mr. Z, boy did you hurt my feelings. *sniff* I spent hours laying prostrate on the ground crying to my “sky daddy”. Give me a break. *sarcastic emphasis* I just find your use of condescension most uncouth.
Thank you Verbifex for a response devoid of the aforementioned condescension. I am familiar with the other hypothesis you posited. The cyclic universe idea was popular at one time but due to the current understanding of the universe it is does not seem to be plausible. At one point scientists thought that eventually there would be a ‘big bounce’. However, through observation of the rate at which other galaxies are moving away from our own seems to indicate that they are accelerating in their recession and they now figure that there is no reason to believe the acceleration will reverse itself. I.e. the universe will continue to expand away from itself infinitely, if that is even possible. The multiverse hypothesis also lacks any sort of empirical evidence. How does the eternal existence of matter reconcile with the second law of thermal dynamics?
March 29, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Lewstherinpm, thanks for the laugh.
IMO, the relation between energy and matter as we understand it shows room to think it might be possible that matter in the universe as we know it was not existent as we know it before the big bang. There are many possibilities that can be thought of as to where matter of the universe as we know it came from. As we learn more about the laws of nature and learn to understand black holes and space itself, I think we’ll be able to eliminate some of those possible explanations. There are some limitations to what we do know about the universe. We can only see a portion of it; that is what we can see is not all of what must be there. Trying to make the parts we can see fit the big bang and what conclusions we can make by observation has not totally worked out yet. From this we have had other theories. In trying to learn how to test such theories will will undoubtedly be able to use this new information to help determine the questions surrounding the big bang. True, the ‘observable’ universe is expanding.
Saying that the small portion of carpet that you can see in front of you is clean does not necessarily mean that all of the carpet in the room is clean. We have not yet seen the edge of the universe. It might just be that most of it is out there, on its way back, we just can’t see it yet.
It’s good to think about it, but we must wait and test, find empirical evidence before making any conclusions.
March 30, 2010 at 1:22 am |
Lewstherinpm:
Basing your view of the origin of the cosmos on the current state of astrophysics and the current understanding of the Big Bang is like basing your World Series bets on spring training exhibition games (or maybe worse).
As you note, one hypothesis or another is favored at any given time depending on the evidence gathered to date. But the other hypotheses are not abandoned; in fact, each newly discovered fact is applied to each hypothesis to assess whether it makes any difference in the standings. Regarding lack of evidence of a system larger than our visible “universe”, (following the above simile) it is still very early in the season. So, if you are looking for something to anchor your understanding an eternal and unchanging source of cosmic dynamics, this is not it.
—————
How does the eternal existence of matter reconcile with the second law of thermal dynamics?
Well, this is not my field, but I’ll take a stab at it. I’m not sure what you mean by “reconcile”, but I suppose you are referring to the contrast between the notion that the temperature of a thermodynamic system will become uniform throughout and the fact that we do not see uniform temperature around us. Just to be sure we are on the same page:
And at the cost of a little redundancy:
A little more redundancy to get the definition of thermodynamic equilibrium:
So, here, the thermodynamic system under discussion is what I called above the *UNIVERSE*: the entire totality of everything, however complex its structure may be and whether we can see all of it or not. I think this is an “isolated system” as defined in the quotes. Because it has been in existence for a long time, I think it is also “in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium” in the sense that the averages of energy, entropy, density, etc. taken over a suitably large volume anywhere in the system are equal to the averages in any similar volume elsewhere in the system.
As I understand it, thermodynamics is the study of the relationship of heat, pressure, and volume in gasses and other fluids; subsequently generalized to other kinds of energy flow. As such, it deals with averages. Individual particles may be going faster or slower than the average and regions may vary from the average from time to time, but these variations also average out. In a very large system these variations and varied regions can be quite large without affecting the overall average.
Still, why do we not by now have a uniform cold sludge rather than stars, galaxies, etc.? Energy flow from a colder location to a hotter area requires work.
Thermodynamics deals with heat, pressure, and volume. Other forces are not considered; they are either external forces against which the system (e.g., an engine) is doing work or they are an attribute of the physical construction of the system (e.g., friction of an engine’s moving parts) that require the system to do work which does not contribute to the system’s intended function. Either way these forces are outside the consideration of thermodynamics and are engineering problems to be taken into account with respect to the useful work that the system can do.
Gravity, in particular, plays no part in thermodynamics; whatever gravitational attraction there is between gas molecules is regarded as negligible or is accounted for in the computational constants.
On the scale of the universe, however, gravity is a big force. The random nature of the motions of particles, even in a system at equilibrium, means that gravity can form clumps of matter which can then grow. This in turn leads to local variations from the average, with gravity, nuclear fusion, and other non-thermodynamic forces doing the work of warming up cold regions. That newly released energy again dissipates according to the laws of thermodynamics.
So all the impressive fireworks we see in the cosmos are just local variations from the equilibrium average. But no new energy or matter is created by any of this; existing stuff is just changed from one form to another. But I suppose, as each fusion reaction releases more energy, the products become ever cooler. Which brings us to a new hypothesis I had not thought of before. The Big-Bang-style events, the massively dense accretions of matter and energy, powered by gravity, return some or all of the stuff of the universe to its original state: a big glob of quarks and the like. And the explosion starts the cooling process all over.
That’s right. I am proposing that the *UNIVERSE* is a giant perpetual motion machine. Why can this work? Because no energy is ever lost from the system. The system is not interacting with an external environment. Any energy “lost” to any inefficiencies in any of the processes still remains inside the system. And gravity provides the added energy, external to thermodynamics, to keep the system going.
I did not know when I started this how well it would turn out. I wonder what I’m missing.
March 30, 2010 at 11:34 am |
I think that was well stated, given that the premise of the *UNIVERSE* is taken as true. From a different viewpoint, I can agree that this seems possible even if I cannot prove it probable. One way to explain where all the missing matter in the visible universe that is needed to create what we can observe is to state the obvious: we can’t see it. There are several conditions under which this would be true: it’s not visible to our detectors or it’s beyond the measurement capability of our detectors, or beyond the scope of what we are trying to measure.
To make reference to Dr. Seuss, we perhaps are in Whoville and do not yet know it. Completely unable to see the greater universe around us, and can only infer what the universe really is by what we can observe. There is as yet no reason to think this is impossible or even improbable, only that we have no method yet of proving it.
May 5, 2010 at 3:02 am |
Everyone went to hell before Christ came as a result of the original sin. It was indeed the sacrifice of Christ needed for us to come out of it. Even Joan the baptist went to hell and staied there untill Christ had risen. Hell must be a horrible place, but the worst of its layer is the eternity of it. That is the deepest “layer”. I am orthodox christian, a wife and mum of 3 children. I made so far pill abortions, which in my mind I consider as bad as the other ones, except for producing less phisical pain. My killed children would therefore be in hell, as a result of hating me for it. I would go to an immediately lower level because the one in charge of the killing takes the sinns of the killed. (However I have stopped with my own killings however, and all i do is just look at my husband, nothing else.)
I am not sure that it is entirely like that with hell. But on what i have read so far. Anyway, most of us go to hell, and I only deserve the lowest. But then again, God is good. I believe in the babies recognising Christ there in hell sooner than I will, and therefore go to heaven. The measure of our meanes is capable to keep us in it forever.
May 5, 2010 at 8:42 am |
Hell wasn’t invented until the New Testament. It’s a fictional place, so I wouldn’t spend too much time worrying about it. It was a very effective scare tactic to evangelize people. Fear tactics are sadly the most effective way to motivate and indoctrinate people.
May 5, 2010 at 3:24 pm |
one should always have fear on his left(of God, not people, himself or things) and love on the right, meaning they are both good, but one is better than the other. so as long as you have love, you are free from fear as well, but can be a stage where fear can impede you to do something that you would otherwise do, if lacking love also. in that way one can see fear as the beginning of love. hell is the absence of love=God. in that way, yes fear can be good for a while to stop onself from a bad action. fear alone is not enough for you to better yourself, whereas love can solve many more things
May 5, 2010 at 8:06 pm
No, if you perform good deeds out of fear for God, rather than because you are genuinely good of heart, then you’re missing the entire point.
You are right, it is a good deterrent to prevent evil. But doing good deeds out of fear does not actually erase evil. The temptation to cut corners will always be there unless there is a real change of heart.
May 5, 2010 at 3:28 am |
i must add that by pill abortions i meant the 24 hours after pill
May 5, 2010 at 4:53 pm |
and about being happy over having been born, there are many christians too, for which it is better that they were not born, or worse(nasty sin – dispair – to think it is all pointless), many atheists are better than many christians, but there is no point in generalizing
maybe you have the sin of “being an atheist”
just think that i might add to mine “not caring wether an atheist becomes one as a result of my actions”
somehow i believe in a economy of God that will eventually turn all bad to good
May 5, 2010 at 8:12 pm |
Let’s be clear: there is no sin in doubt. Otherwise presidents, kings and CEOs can put people in jail for simply not having any faith in them. This is the rule in the secular world and religion should be no exception.
In fact, doubt must always be present. It can indirectly deter you from sin, if used correctly. If you doubt an action is the right course, it forces you to think of the consequences of what you want, or what you are ordered to do.