 |
|
|
|
|
January 15th, 2013
08:28 AM ET
iReport: Why I Raise My Children Without GodEditor's Note: Deborah Mitchell, a mother of two teenagers in Texas, blogs about raising her children without religion. An avid reader of the Belief Blog, she said she shared this essay on CNN iReport because 'I just felt there is not a voice out there for women/moms like me. I think people misunderstand or are fearful of people who don’t believe in God.' By Deborah Mitchell, Special to CNN (CNN)–When my son was around 3 years old, he used to ask me a lot of questions about heaven. Where is it? How do people walk without a body? How will I find you? You know the questions that kids ask. For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories that I didn’t believe about heaven. Like most parents, I love my child so much that I didn’t want him to be scared. I wanted him to feel safe and loved and full of hope. But the trade-off was that I would have to make stuff up, and I would have to brainwash him into believing stories that didn’t make sense, stories that I didn’t believe either. One day he would know this, and he would not trust my judgment. He would know that I built an elaborate tale—not unlike the one we tell children about Santa—to explain the inconsistent and illogical legend of God. And so I thought it was only right to be honest with my children. I am a non-believer, and for years I’ve been on the fringe in my community. As a blogger, though, I’ve found that there are many other parents out there like me. We are creating the next generation of kids, and there is a wave of young agnostics, atheists, free thinkers and humanists rising up through the ranks who will, hopefully, lower our nation’s religious fever. Read Mitchell's 7 reasons she's raising her children without God |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke and Eric Marrapodi with daily contributions from CNN's worldwide newsgathering team and frequent posts from religion scholar and author Stephen Prothero.  |
|
|
|
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertise with us | About us | Help | Advertising Practices
good she's telling them the truth. now they won't go to bed and have nightmares about a 'loving' god that sends people to be tortured for eternity because they don't kiss his @ss. she should teach her kids about religion - for the same reason we study all mythologies. they are part of our human history and culture, but not to be taken seriously.
Her children will be less likely to shoot some doctor in the head because they think they are saving up treasure in heaven. They will be less likely to ignore their biology class in lieu of learning about Adam riding a dinosaur. They will be less likely to vote for another human based only on what invisible deity that person claims to believe in. They will be less likely to discriminate against their fellow humans based on what those other humans are doing in private or based on who they choose to share their lives with. They will be less likely to ever be molested by a priest or a pastor.
There are so many benefits it's hard to see why anyone would force their religion on their children before their child has even the basic understandings of human s.exuality and been through puberty. Once a child has grown into adulthood, then I think it's healthy to explore all the worlds religions as a part of history and if that adult then wants to adopt a religion for themselves then great, they did it in an informed and reasoned way, not mentally abused from childhood to believe in the unproven faith of their parents.
10 Commandments that every child should be taught.
1. DO NOT automatically believe something just because a priest, rabbi or minister tells you that you must. They can’t all be right.
2. DO NOT think that claims about magic, miracles and the supernatural are more likely true because they are written in old books. That makes them less likely true.
3. DO analyze claims about religion with the same critical eye that you would claims about money, political positions or social issues.
4. DO NOT accept it when religious leaders tell you it is wrong to question, doubt or think for yourself. It never is. Only those selling junk cars want to prohibit you from looking under the hood.
5. DO decouple morality from a belief in the supernatural, in any of its formulations (Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc.). One can be moral without believing in gods, ghosts and ghouls and believing in any of them does not make one moral.
6. DO a bit of independent research into whatever book you were brought up to believe in. Who are its authors and why should you believe them in what they say? How many translations has it gone through? Do we have originals, or only edited copies of copies of copies– the latter is certainly true for every single book in the Bible.
7. DO realize that you are only a Christian (or Hindu or Jew) because of where you were born. Were you lucky enough to be born in the one part of the World that “got it right”?
8. DO NOT be an apologist or accept the explanation “your mind is too small to understand the greatness of God,” “God is outside the Universe” or “God moves in mysterious ways” when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief. A retreat to mysticism is the first refuge of the cornered fool.
9. DO understand where your religion came from and how it evolved from earlier beliefs to the point you were taught it. Are you lucky enough to be living at that one point in history where we “got it right”?
10. DO educate yourself on the natural Universe, human history and the history of life on Earth, so as to be able to properly evaluate claims that a benevolent, mind-reading god is behind the whole thing.
All we need do is expose our children to critical thinking and I expect that the gods, ghosts and goblins of religion will die of their own accord. Few mythical beings can withstand the full force of the thinking human mind.
We should stop telling our children WHAT to think and start teaching them HOW to think.
well said. i would love to see that replace the 10 commandments, which is fail.
They are well versed in thinking with the Hegelian dialectic. You gonna give that up?
why give up logic and reason? works pretty great.
Well stated Colin.
1. DO NOT automatically believe something just because a priest, rabbi or minister tells you that you must.
"Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. 12 As a result, many of them believed, as did also a number of prominent Greek women and many Greek men" – Acts 17
2. DO NOT think that claims about magic and the supernatural are automatically true, do your own investigation! See above Acts 17
3. DO analyze claims about religion with the same critical eye that you would claims about money, political positions or social issues. See above, Acts 17.
4. DO NOT accept it when religious leaders tell you it is wrong to question, doubt or think for yourself. It never is.
See above, Acts 17.
5. DO realize that without God, there is no universal morality.
6. DO a bit of independent research into whatever book you were brought up to believe in. Who are its authors and why should I believe them in what they say? See above Acts 17.
7. DO have the guts to ask the hard questions and the brains to spot the weak answers. See above Acts 17
8. DO NOT be an naturalist/humanist or accept the explanation “look, that's just an irrelevant question to ask” when you come upon logical inconsistencies in your belief.
9. DO understand where Christianity came from, that you worship the Jewish Messiah.
10. DO educate yourself on the natural Universe, human history and the history of life on Earth, so as to be able to properly evaluate claims that a benevolent, omnipotent, God is behind the whole thing and He loves you more than you could possibly ever understand.
@ Chad...
Hi, Chad...at what point in history did the God of the Old or New Testament enter and begin to influence Central Asian and Eastern Asian culture?
Chad's homies give him a shasta blasta for each time he posts.
I see Chad is still spinning around in his little mouse wheel of circular logic and reference.
Chad
You clearly missed the point as you so often do. If you adhere to them as they are written, yuou will gain more insight than following some rediculous religious text. Adding in your "scripture" is just insulting.
"and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."
Ah Chad, you sad little man. Your post has one glaring error in it that apparently you are unable to even see. When investigating claims of "magic and the supernatural" YOU DON'T CHECK IT'S VERACITY USING THE SAME FVCKING BOOK YOU MORON!!
And just because you may want to r a p e and kill small children but don't because you believe in God does not mean the rest of us are as sick in the head as you are.
In a nutshell, Colin's whole point is to educate yourself.
And after you have researched and explored both science and faith, if you still continue to follow a faith system....at least then the atheists will respect you. Might not agree with you, but should respect you.
Heck, I wish more followers of a faith knew more about their own faith. And on top of that try to learn about other points of view...even if it ranges from atheism to Zoroastrianism.
@The Truth- "YOU DON'T CHECK IT'S VERACITY USING THE SAME FVCKING BOOK YOU MORON!!"
One glaring fail on your part. The "Bible" isn't one book. It's a collection of books. You should look at it from that stance.
==quote==
"One glaring fail on your part. The "Bible" isn't one book. It's a collection of books. You should look at it from that stance."
==end==
Exactly. The religious tools still can't see the whole picture. Look at all those crap books that were compiled by OLD MEN and threw together to make up this one book. Your delusions are showing.
Uncouth: "One glaring fail on your part. The "Bible" isn't one book. It's a collection of books. You should look at it from that stance."
Sure you can look at them that way. I have no problem with that. But, collectively they support the belief. And many reference them that way – 'the word'. So if you want to prove something about the claims within – don't be silly and stay within them. Go outside and find something. . . . if you can . . .
frank- "But, collectively they support the belief. And many reference them that way – 'the word'. So if you want to prove something about the claims within – don't be silly and stay within them. Go outside and find something. . . . if you can . . ."
Oh, I have no problem with going to other sources. I was only pointing out that the Bible isn't one source but many in essence.
"Bootyfunk sayz,
why give up logic and reason?....."
You're debates require an all knowing "moderator", bootsieQ. Who did you hire for that job, a dustball?
We seem to have two different types of resident religious poster here. The first is the people like Robert Brown, Chad, and Topher. They are certainly sealed tightly into the very closed mindset of their bible, and they use a lot of intellectually dishonest evasions and fallacies. However it is physically possible to understand what they are saying.
The other type is the ones like lol??, LionlyLamb, the many faces (feces?) of Prayer Troll, and hinduHater, who write so badly that it often is almost impossible to know what they are saying, and it is just painful to try because they write so astoundingly bady.
It's not that not even one of them argues honestly, making points and supporting them with solid evidence; but that so many of them having thinking so contorted and bizarre, that so many of them have writing skills so incompetent, that readers cannot even grasp their logical failing through the dense jungle of their inability to communicate.
Is your name monorail?
ME II got confused by my post, "Well MEasly II, just stop sinning and show us how holy you are. Then pay off your debts."
Thank you for proving my point
You mean your point is that you don't understand simple words? That's obvious and no need to "prove" that.
It is completely predictable that that this mother has not advanced beyond the most basic questions about religious belief. However, it is easy to be silent about God in the home. But later, as the child matures, this mother will be answering the same questions. This time, about humanity itself. "If humans have free will and love, why do they do violence to each other?"
"Why hasn't evolution perfected us yet. It's had millions of years to do so." "If people are sufficient unto themselves, why are their emotions continually at war with their reason?" "Why did evolution 'naturally select' heterosecksuality as the sole means of survival of our species?" As for "logic" schtick, "why do humans never ask whether their own reason is infallible?" As long as atheists are at war against religion, they are not having to look in a mirror where the real problems are found.
If we ask a small mind to invent a concept of God, it will look very much like a fairy tale – something that is easy to refute.
Post by 'PrimeNumber' contains multiple instances of the Begging The Question fallacy and concludes with an ad hominem statement.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
@Fallacy Well of course I'm begging a question! One question leads to another, doesn't it? Unless you blind yourself or can't think things through to their untimate grounds.
"It is completely predictable that that this mother has not advanced beyond the most basic questions about religious belief. "
== and you come to this conclusion because she doesn't believe in god? what did she say that made you think even for a second here position wasn't well-thought out?
"As long as atheists are at war against religion, they are not having to look in a mirror where the real problems are found. "
- exactly wrong. it's the opposite. we don't have an imaginary god - it's just us in the mirror. christians don't look at the real world because they believe in a magic - why look for a real answer when you have magic? instead of just saying "goddidit", atheist parents actually try to answer questions. religious parents say "god works in mysterious ways, son. now just obey and stop asking questions. it's better if you don't use your frontal lobe when dealing with the bible."
All religious argumentation is fallacious: they have neither evidence or logic to support their claims, and so they have no choice.
You will be very busy in your work, Spotter.
Post by 'Rosanne Rosannadanna' is right on.
How does the current concept of the Abrahamic god not resemble a horrifically barbaric fairy tale?
I think you misunderstand evolution. It isn't about 'perfecting' anyone, unless you are religions and believe in evolution by design. It's simply about which characteristics are most likely to survive after a new mutation. That's it. There's unlikely ever to be perfection, and even if there were it would be shot regularly by continued mutations and would be irrelevant the second environmental conditions changed.
Wow, this is so well put. You are correct. All 7 of the reasons given by Ms. Deborah Mitchell are ridiculous and superficial simplifications, that are easily answered by even a moderately educated Christian (unfortunately, many bozos do exist whe are themselves uninformed on their faith). If a person knew nothing or next to nothing about God, this is what they would create, – an easily refutable illusion.
So atheists resort to simply claiming their own position as the "rational" one, as if their views have not been routinely debunked and not just throughout history, but even in recent events.
"If humans have free will and love, why do they do violence to each other?" Our empathy has been in continuous battle with our survival since our species began and survival of the fittest has long been a factor in both our social and physical evolution.
"Why hasn't evolution perfected us yet. It's had millions of years to do so." – Evolution is not a straight line with the destination being "perfection". It is the nature of life to adapt and adjust to best fit whatever current environment the life form finds itself. Also, the perfection you are looking for in the question is one of a more social and mental state, not the fact that our bodies and "perfect" for the environments we evolved in and our life spans no shorter or longer than many other animals on the planet. No life form or even non-living matter has evolved the trait of immortality, even our sun will one day fade and die.
"If people are sufficient unto themselves, why are their emotions continually at war with their reason?" This war is the struggle to survive brought into a highly evolved social system we have and is the struggle between our base desires and needs for survival when confronted by society and it's wants, desires and needs.
"Why did evolution 'naturally select' heterosecksuality as the sole means of survival of our species?" Much like many other life forms, humans are not permanently locked into one gender or another but has the ability to adapt and many children are born with ambiguous genitalia as the gender assignment often happens very late in the pregnancy.
As for "logic" schtick, "why do humans never ask whether their own reason is infallible?" Of course our reason is fallible, so i'm not sure what you mean by this question. Anyone who claims infallibility is either a liar or delusional, or a Christian talking about their religion...
dcanales
Trolls argue viciously, Burahobbitses are rabbity. Flesh smells coffee, ingested vertically. Leon slurps definitively but only on Tuesday. Ivan otter in a tree, pooping at me. Not only left cars stew disparagingly at milk but not in my cereal.
Post by 'dcanales' contains multiple instances of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
@Prime...
**"It is completely predictable that that this mother has not advanced beyond the most basic questions about religious belief..."
Is it "completely predictable"? Really? From a handful of paragraphs you deduced this? How do you know she' not advanced beyond your definition of the most basic questions? Have you spent any time with her? Have you asked her? Please provide us with an authoritative link to the worldwide accepted "basic questions about religion."
**"If humans have free will and love, why do they do violence to each other?"
**"Why hasn't evolution perfected us yet. It's had millions of years to do so." "If people are sufficient unto themselves, why are their emotions continually at war with their reason?" "Why did evolution 'naturally select' heterosecksuality as the sole means of survival of our species?" As for "logic" schtick, "why do humans never ask whether their own reason is infallible?"
Are these what YOU define as the basic religion questions? Or are these additional questions you are certain that an atheist's child will ask? I'd like to know because I'm interested in how/why you came up with these questions and how you would answer them yourself.
**"As long as atheists are at war against religion, they are not having to look in a mirror where the real problems are found."
Are Atheists at war with religion? Why and how? And have you spent years with atheists to confirm that they've not looked in the mirror beyond the morning shave or brush of the hair and teeth?
Are atheists really the only problem that the a mirror reveals? When was the last time you turned the lights on in your bathroom?
**"If we ask a small mind to invent a concept of God, it will look very much like a fairy tale – something that is easy to refute."
I applaud you; with this one you're right on target – you've defined quite well what religion (and a "relationship with Jesus") has produced and has been and has given since its origins in the small, limited minds of humans.
Rational, that was a disturbingly good imitation of LionyLamb . . . though it still made more sense than his posts.
That's just silly "Fallacy". You might want to study the rules of logic before attempting to correct anyone else.
Thanks Lindsay, I try my best.
@dcanales – " If a person knew nothing or next to nothing about God, this is what they would create, – an easily refutable illusion." Yes, it's true, you know exactly the same about God that you do about taking care of Unicorns, you know, what they like to eat, how often you should brush their coats and what kind of ribbons they prefer in their manes... That does make it very easy to refute your illusions.
Post by 'dcanales' is an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
PrimeNumber
"@Fallacy Well of course I'm begging a question! One question leads to another, doesn't it?"
"Begging the Question" fallacy does not mean "raising the question". Look it up.
It's funny to watch the Christians on here get more and more frantic in their attempts to defend their delusions. They never can present any evidence in support of their beliefs; all the evidence points away from what their myths claim.
Christianity is on its way out. High time, too, given all the hate and discrimination it is the source for. Another few decades and it will really be no longer mainstream. That would be a great step forward for the world.
The "evidence" you insist on having is not relevant to the problem, and you wouldn't understand it anyway. I doubt you even understand yourself – like the rest of us.
As an engineer, I work with instruments. I can't depend on these instruments if they are faulty. They must also be applied in a relevant way – you wouldn't use a microscope to measure thermal behaviour of trees. The atheist always assumes that his reason is infallible. He never discovers that the idea of God is not non-rational, nor irrational, but a-rational. In other words, "God" is to lofty an idea to be processed by the minds of mere humans. Religious people possess Faith, but the atheist possesses "Assumption", i.e. he Assumes that his mind is up to the job of serious discussion about God.
Did you verify your prophecies with the scriptures? How can you trust em?
Post by 'catholic engineer' begins with an instance of the Secret Decoder Ring fallacy, a form of ad hominem, and concludes with instances of the Begging The Question fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/
The "evidence" you insist on having is not relevant to the problem, and you wouldn't understand it anyway. I doubt you even understand yourself – like the rest of us.
- wrong. evidence about religion is relevant to religion. that's an excuse to not have to face the music. doesn't sound like you have much understanding of anything.
As an engineer, I work with instruments. I can't depend on these instruments if they are faulty. They must also be applied in a relevant way – you wouldn't use a microscope to measure thermal behaviour of trees.
– again with the excuses. when has science ever tried to do that with religion? present a concrete example instead of talking in v.ague terms.
The atheist always assumes that his reason is infallible.
– wrong. science changes all the time. it's the beauty of science. we update information when new information comes in - as opposed to religion. even if you prove them wrong, they still say their right and ignore the evidence. we act on proof. try it.
He never discovers that the idea of God is not non-rational, nor irrational, but a-rational. In other words, "God" is to lofty an idea to be processed by the minds of mere humans. Religious people possess Faith, but the atheist possesses "Assumption", i.e. he Assumes that his mind is up to the job of serious discussion about God.
- that's funny. we practice assumption? christians are christian because their parents taught them to be. they assume god exists and never question it. usually atheists were religious at one point - but it just didn't make sense. we generally have the most well-thought out view, because we have discussed it and thought about it at length. you can't say the same.
what would it take for you not to believe in god? all it would take for me to believe is proof. what would it take for you to say there is no god? this shows atheists are open-minded and willing to change - just offer evidence, like god coming to earth and talking to everyone. not so hard for an omnipotent god. but the religious are never willing to change their mind.
That was very disingenuous, Engineer. Allow me to give you an example:
Your boss has a new project for you. He takes you into a totally empty room, and he tells you that the car engine before you needs to be disassembled, luded, tuned, reassembled, and put back into the boat in the corner. You look around the empty room, and a bit flabbergasted, you say there is no engine or boat. You boss gets angy and says of course there is, you just are so deficient in your faith in its existence that you don't see it. He says the problem is you. You ask him for evidence that the engine exists, and . . .
. . . he says what you just said about evidence.
That's the problem. God and religion is the Emperor's New Clothes. The thing of it is, had the fable been a bit more realistic, the boy who told the truth wouldhave been burned at the stake for heresy.
Interestingly, the reverse is true. It is atheists who hide behind their increasingly incoherent delusions, and wonder why their supposed "rationality" isn't getting more traction. They are forced to deny even scientific, biological, historical, and archeological finds, in order to sustain their atheist worldview. That kinda throws their "rationality" out the window. Just read this commentator and the author of this article.
As for Christianity, it's numbers are increasing again, and have overtaken Islam in total number worldwide. The supposed dip in the US is illusionary (the same happened in the 60s) and will hardly satisfy those who believe the christian faith is on the way out (which was been constantly predicted since before the 1790s).
Btw, any real study of history (read secular author Paul Johnson) will clearly show that Christianity has had a moderating influence on wars and hatred and discrimination, not the other way around.
See "Bootyfunks" illogical and ahistorical rants on here. They're very indicative of where atheists are in their beliefs, which in spite of easily presentable evidence to the contrary, they insist that it's their viewpoint that is usually "well thought out". Here's just a few of their delusions – they keep referring to christian faith as if it's similar to belief in magic... or talk about a sky-god or grandfather in the sky. They claim God is evil as described in the Bible, without admitting that sin entered the world and thus we live in the regime of sin, and are under punishment. They bring up the rules of Jewish civil law in the Old Testament, asking christians to defend that point of view – without acknowledging the Bible's own explanation that God was slowly raising His people from ignorance in a slow, methodical, historical path, and that the Savior lifts Christians from those civil law requirements in the New Testament.
You can debate an atheist if they insist on it, but the difficulty will be that you are likely arguing with someone who is ignorant of the topic they claim to know, unwilling to challenge their own assumptions (though claiming open-mindedness), and ignorant of both history and the rules of logic.
"It is atheists who hide behind their increasingly incoherent delusions, and wonder why their supposed "rationality" isn't getting more traction."
– funny, last i checked, non-religious was the fast growing group in america.
"They are forced to deny even scientific, biological, historical, and archeological finds, in order to sustain their atheist worldview. "
– such as? you mention things v.aguely, but never directly. give an example of evidence science has ignored. just one.
"Btw, any real study of history (read secular author Paul Johnson) will clearly show that Christianity has had a moderating influence on wars and hatred and discrimination, not the other way around."
– are you high? slavery in this country was justified by the bible. the bible supports slavery throughout. there are even rules for selling your own daughter into slavery. skip those parts?
Lol. Oh my. Atheists assume and those who have faith don't? That's a good one.
It's when one is considering many possibilities for the beginnings of the universe that many faithful making a flying huge-ass assumption from theories of finite beginning and fine tuning to the Abrahamic god. And the only thing they can go on to support that leap is that someone told them or wrote about the same assumptions prior. And that written assumption goes all the way back into the oldest ancient mythologies.
(my last post was in response to catholic engineer)
"As for Christianity, it's numbers are increasing again, and have overtaken Islam in total number worldwide'
Actually it hasn't it's has been at around 30% for centuries. When Christians like you lie to support your religion it only shows how delusional and stupid you are since you can't even follow your own rule book.
@ Catholic
Do you people actually THINK about your God? Think about the concept of your god..... now look at your Holy books..rife with supersition..scientific inaccuracies, impossiblities.....2nd and 3 rd hand accounts (new testament) and everywhere today creationists are scrambling to keep themselves relevant in today's world. The methods they use are many and varied.
Your God, If he were to exist, would take Einstein, Hawking, Newton , Dawkins ect and school them hard....he'd write better than Mark Twain.... take Hawking or Dawkins – put them in a tiime machine and tell them to give a tribe of people rules to get off the ground.... id wager that the book they would write would be FAR beyond the bible in every way...and much more useful.... now your God SHOULD have been able to leave Modern Day science and critical thinging in the dust.....
@ Catholic
If "God" is not accessible to human faculties then revelation becomes irrelevant. And what is "faith" without human cognition? "The idea" of God requires rational thought to create the concept and define it and then decide what value it has.
"They are forced to deny even scientific, biological, historical, and archeological finds,"
The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
dcanolies
You are the one makiing grand stroke assumptions and disregarding real science , and in its place you you accepst the works of men who you cannot question, or verify the validity of their claims in any way shape or form. You reject real, provable knowledge, for myth....well done.
Many sources mention 2.1 billion Christians in the world (about one third of the total population of the planet), but estimating numbers is fraught with difficulties. What is included among the definition of 'Christian' is not agreed upon by many of the groups involved.
The term 'Christian' in its simplest definition refers to one who believes in Jesus Christ (as God). Drawing the line between 'Christian' and those who belong to 'sects' is problematic. Add to this the fact that no-one can really tell if a person is a Christian at heart, or if they are just paying lip-service to the name. This is impossible for any but God who sees the heart to judge. The numbers can be taken, then, as a best estimate of how many identify with Christianity in some way.
However, it is now impossible to say with any certainty, as, while practising Christians have been in decline in some Western countries, there has been a recent surge in 'membership' in parts of the West, and in the East the numbers who are becoming new Christians daily is astronomical. There are estimated now nearly 100 million Christians in China (compared with just 5,000 in the 1960s) and in South Korea, churches regularly have tens of thousands of members each. In one church, the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul, there are over 800,000 members who meet each Sunday in several sittings in a vast hall. So, whilst it is difficult to give a definite answer to the actual number of Christians in the world (estimates range from 2 – 3 billion), Christianity remains the most dominant of the world, and is still growing at an astonishing rate.
Viking, CE didn't say God was beyond human faculties. He said you weren't up to the task.
"Christianity remains the most dominant of the world, and is still growing at an astonishing rate."
More brainwashed garbage, the stats have it at around 30% and it's been that number for centuries. Oops you forgot to adjust for population growth moron. Oh, and yeah don't forget many of the so called "Christians" aren't really true Christians. I know many that claim their Christians and have never read the bible.
"know many that claim their Christians and have never read the bible."
they're not their.
@ Bill Deacon
Bill my friend, religion got us so far, its been superseded by science... time to let go of the broken philosophy and join what works.... we really need to all get on the same page, we are running out of time..and room to move. Religion divides and isnt gonna get the job done.
@ Bill...
I didn't say he did, Bill...I am concluding that his statement brings in to question the idea of revelation and the ability of humans to understand.
And, Bill, how do YOU know I'm not up to the task...what do you know about my life and my history...where have I been, Bill, what have I seen? You apparently assume I am atheist...how do you know?
I have, however, noticed from the content of your posts that you are quite short on humility, a quality highly regarded by your Church and demanded by your God.
But, like my former Protestant brothers and sisters, (based on your arrogance displayed here), I can conclude that you don't live as if your God existed.
Ha, interesting comment. Usually we hear from Christian's that we are running out of time. Perhaps you are equally as correct as they are.
Viking. I apologize, I didn't mean you specifically. I meant, what I think CE meant, that none of us are intellectually equipped to examine the infinite. You are no less, nor more up to it than I or any other. This points to the fallacy of using human mind as a instrument to examine God. It simply cannot be done. I think that was CE's point.
Arrogant I may be and that is but a splinter in the cross of my human afflictions. What I really wanted to do was bait you into a discussion of why you insist on examining God instead of simply doing as he asks and following him.
" What I really wanted to do was bait you into a discussion of why you insist on examining God instead of simply doing as he asks and following him."
Why don't you stop examining Allah and simply do as he asks and follow him.
@ Bill...
That response I respect...now I see humility in what you've said and appreciate it...
Your comments about God are appreciated, and that is how I approached God during my 20 years as an Evangelical Christian....but, if we are created with a mind that is so inquisitive, why in the world shouldn't we question God? How in the world could he be offended by it and why in the world wouldn't he reveal, in detail and answer the very honest questions atheists (and theists) ask of him?
I agree with you that the infinite is inaccessible, but God has provided revelation (according to Jews and Christians), not only in a book but in the life of Jesus...and those things are accessible to question and consideration and charges of legitimacy and illegitimacy...thus, both the theist and atheist must question.
Thanks Viking. I can see that you're open minded as well. I'd like to recommend the book "The Cost of Discipleship" by Deitrich Bonhoeffer. It gets a little weighty in portions but he makes a good case that mental inquiry isn't the proper path to faith as our friend CE points out. Modern atheists will even propose that it is because of our progress in intellectual activity that faith is receding while intellectual inquiry rises. I'm just not convinced that is to our betterment as they are. It's taken many decades for me to simply try to follow, as best I can, with many chances to fall away daily. But, I am convinced that I am onto something true and right, a revelation of my God and King
Pete, while I was studying Buddhism in the 1990's, the monk Ticht Nat Hahn writing about the veneration of ancestry and the value of our spiritual roots advocated the we remain in the traditions of our culture. To grow where we are planted. For me that root is the Catholic church. You seem to want to pit Allah against Jesus and have some kind of spiritual cage match to see who triumphs. I see no need for that and I think that people who are born into Islamic or other traditions should pursue those and glean the truths they provide.
@Fallacy, You'd be a lot more convincing if you took the time to explain how you think each fallacy applies. As far as I can see you're only on target only about half the time, and a hit rate that low doesn't impress anyone.
For over a year, I lied to him and made up stories that I didn’t believe about heaven. Like most parents, I love my child so much that I didn’t want him to be scared. I wanted him to feel safe and loved and full of hope. But the trade-off was that I would have to make stuff up, and I would have to brainwash him into believing stories that didn’t make sense, stories that I didn’t believe either. One day he would know this, and he would not trust my judgment. He would know that I built an elaborate tale—not unlike the one we tell children about Santa—to explain the inconsistent and illogical legend of God.
=>the obvious question is this: what investigation did you do into the claims of Christianity that has led you to the conclusion that it is false?
I have been quite astounded to find that with one or two exceptions, virtually all atheists I have met have at best a passing familiarity with the bible, and that was gained only in the course of mocking Christians for the supposed irrationality of their belief.
As a mother, dont you have a responsibility to teach your children the truth? If so, how do you expect to know if Christianity is true unless you investigate it? What is the basis for your rejection?
Your reasons reveal the usual, a complete unfamiliarity with the bible.
1. God is a bad parent and role model
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible. Do you let your children make mistakes, or do you follow them around all day to ensure they dont?
2. God is not logical (the problem of evil)
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible to understand why evil exists.
3. God is not fair. (the problem of evil)
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible to understand why evil exists and bad things happen to good people.
4. God does not protect the innocent. (the problem of evil)
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible to understand why evil exists and bad things happen to good people.
5. God is not present.
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible so you havent heard about the indwelling Holy Spirit that seals believers. You arent a Christian so have never experienced it.
6. God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
=>nonsense, you never read the bible.. you have no understanding of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, grace.. nothing.
7. God Teaches Narcissism
=>wow.. you sure never read the bible...
A horrible failure on your part to even attempt to gain an understanding of the claims of Christianity.
You did zero investigation.
You are attempting to transmit to them your a-priori assumption that the God of Israel is not real.
Hopefully, your attempts to do so will fail, as did similar attempts by my parents on me.
LOL so your amazing refutation is "You didn't read the bible and I know this because you disagree with me"? That's pathetic even for you Chad.
Chad
What investigation did you do into the claims of The Cthulhu Mythos that has led you to the conclusion that it is false?
Chad's homies give him a shasta blasta for each time he posts.
I have been quite astounded to find that with one or two exceptions, virtually all atheists I have met have at best a passing familiarity with the bible, and that was gained only in the course of mocking Christians for the supposed irrationality of their belief.
*** you obviously don't know many atheists. studies show that atheists generally have more biblical knowledge than christians. i'll go head to head with you anytime. because you don't like a criticism, doesn't mean the person doesn't' know what they're talking about. you want to sugar coat the bible and claim anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion doesn't know what they're saying. wrong.
As a mother, dont you have a responsibility to teach your children the truth? If so, how do you expect to know if Christianity is true unless you investigate it? What is the basis for your rejection?
there is no proof. that's a great basis. why do you assume atheists haven't investigated? atheists generally have the most well-thought out opinion on god. they've actually looked into and were likely raised as christians. unlike you, who never question.
Your reasons reveal the usual, a complete unfamiliarity with the bible.
1. God is a bad parent and role model
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible. Do you let your children make mistakes, or do you follow them around all day to ensure they dont?
- again you assume someone with a different opinion hasn't read the bible. bad logic. god is a monster. he drowned babies in his great flood. he commands people to take slaves of their enemies in the bible. how can you even pretend he's a good role model when he murders children?
2. God is not logical (the problem of evil)
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible to understand why evil exists.
– again fail assertion. god created evil, so the bible says. so god is responsible for all evil. perhaps YOU haven't read the bible.
3. God is not fair. (the problem of evil)
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible to understand why evil exists and bad things happen to good people.
- if god is al-lpowerful, he could make children bullet proof. yet he doesn't. bad things happen because god lets them. he could stop evil - but doesn't. god = fail.
4. God does not protect the innocent. (the problem of evil)
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible to understand why evil exists and bad things happen to good people.
- see above. stop making excuses for your evil god. he doesn't protect people because he doesn't exist. see how neatly that fits?
5. God is not present.
=>nonsense, you havent read the bible so you havent heard about the indwelling Holy Spirit that seals believers. You arent a Christian so have never experienced it.
– i used to be a christian. i have experienced it. i realized i was in a cult and left. never been happier. you should try thinking for yourself.
6. God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
=>nonsense, you never read the bible.. you have no understanding of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant, grace.. nothing.
– again, fail response.
7. God Teaches Narcissism
=>wow.. you sure never read the bible...
– god's brand of 'love' is worship me or be tortured forever. god is like an abusive husband. "i only hurt you because you make me so mad."
If you want people to fully investigate Christianity before rejecting it you must ask the same for all religions, and the fact is there isn't enough time in a lifespan to do that. If we are to make the kinds of decisions we need to make as to what we will believe we have to hit many religions in our investigations on a few important key points. Most notably to me, Christianity fails where it relies on the libertarian concept of free will in its justification for eternal punishments. You cannot justify such punishments without this notion (though Calvinists and others have tried) and it is not upheld by our current understanding of how the brain works. This is a fatal flaw (and one that I have research quite thoroughly).
There are so many beliefs out there about the universe and reality, that if one finds a significant flaw in one I think it quite reasonable to move on. Not to do so would be like shopping for a house and finding one that was termite infested, yet insisting on continuing to check the bathroom fixtures and lighting before moving on. It's just bad time management.
Chad, you dishonest liar. You say "What research did you do?" then make the statement "You did zero investigation."
Personally, I have done the research, more than you have I'll wager, and I have judged the evidence presented and found it wanting. You are a liar and a cheat Chad when you make claims you can neither prove or even explain with anymore than "God did it" which is the biggest cop-out in the universe, you sniveling waste of DNA. You keep trying to make your posts sound authoritative like you "know" what your invented God is thinking, but that just betrays how little you truly understand. Sad sad little troll chad, go back under your bridge and try to deceive some smaller minded "sheep".
Saraswati, thanks for that post. Brilliant analogy at the end.
@The Truth -
You need to stop questioning Chad's brilliance as he has recently informed this forum that he possesses several master's degrees. LMAO!
Saraswati
"Christianity fails where it relies on the libertarian concept of free will in its justification for eternal punishments"
=>you lost me, where is the fail as we are saved by faith not by works?
@fred
Because your faith is indistinguishable from the faith of a Hindu, Buddhist, or members of the other 38,000 denominations of Christianity (including mormonism), Islamists, the ancient Greek and Romans, the Norse, the Aztecs, etc.
Faith is not a way to come to truth, and is more reliant on geography than anything else.
@Chad the disingenuous,
Dishing up this claptrap yet again?
"... with one or two exceptions, virtually all atheists I have met have at best a passing familiarity with the bible, and that was gained only in the course of mocking Christians for the supposed irrationality of their belief."
This might be true for people like the children of the author who were not gavage-fed bible stories. You know full well that many people here have rejected what they see as the false claims of belief in God and are well familiar with the big book of smiting.
Why do people debate with Chad or Topher? Their minds are completely closed. They view all evidence and logic as tricks of the devil. They can look right at the absurdity and impossibility of something like Noah's Ark and say they believe it absolutely anyway. They even invent the most ridiculous answers and believe them true, despite the fact that those answers are not in the bible and often are opposite of what is in the bible. The happily violate the bible almost daily here, and refuse to notice if that is pointed out.
Why bother debating with them? No about of reason will even penetrate their hermetically sealed fantasy.
If someone had read the bible, they would be able to answer the following questions:
1. What does the bible say is the reason that so many people were killed in the flood
2. What does the bible say is the reason that God has commanded the killing of women and children
3. What does the bible say is the reason that evil exists, and bad things happen to good people.
4. What does the bible say is the reason for the Old Covenant
5. What does the bible say is the reason for the New Covenant
If you dont know the biblical answers, instead responding with "I dont have to investigate that, there can be no good answer", then you clearly have not read the bible, and you clearly have not investigated the claims of Christianity.
End of story.
=====
@Saraswati "If you want people to fully investigate Christianity before rejecting it you must ask the same for all religions, "
@Chad "not at all, if the God of Israel is real, then all the rest are not. The beliefs are mutually exclusive.
========
@Saraswati ""Most notably to me, Christianity fails where it relies on the libertarian concept of free will in its justification for eternal punishments"
@Chad "can you explain that one further? or provide a link?
=====
@Saraswati "that if one finds a significant flaw in one I think it quite reasonable to move on.."
@Chad "I'll hold off on that until I better understand your significant flaw.."
hawaiguest
"Because your faith is indistinguishable"
=>1) that is not point of fail which Saraswati suggested for Christianity. He was addressing free will in eating of the fruit.
=>2) God is certainly very different from any you mention or all that I am aware of. All other gods are created or man made from material or thoughts that are of the creation. God is not from created things or thought based on created things (baryonic matter and the combination thereof)
Chad's homies give him a shasta blasta for each time he posts.
What does the bible say is the reason that so many people were killed in the flood – claims all were corrupt even the babies. LOL! Nah, it was just stupid humans trying to write why they thought their god killed everyone because they didn’t have the science to understand it yet.
What does the bible say is the reason that God has commanded the killing of women and children. Again believing they were wicked but again more writing by men trying to understand why they were killed, even though it has nothing to do with a god.
What does the bible say is the reason that evil exists, and bad things happen to good people. – oh yeah this old one because men rebelled against your god and brought evil into the world so it’s all their faults cause your god was too stupid to realize people would rebel and need an excuse as to why it created and allows evil to exist. LMAO
What does the bible say is the reason for the Old Covenant – old laws and moses
What does the bible say is the reason for the New Covenant – new law and Jesus fulling the old law.
Now back to why the bible is full of crap which is why you’re worshiping an evil pathetic god that in reality is a man made concept of our imaginations.
Chad. The significant flaw is that there is no proof of a god, let alone yours. You keep repeating "I read the bible" but that is not proof of anything other than how you spend your free time. As has been shown to you countless times, there is a lot of evidence showing that the bible is inaccurate and you have yet to provide any proof that a god exists (without the circular reference to the bible).
@fred
And you once again do not address my points. Congrats, you're as useless as ever.
@ Rational Libertarian
"That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons death may die."
@ Chad
Hi, Chad...you said:
If someone had read the bible, they would be able to answer the following questions:
1. What does the bible say is the reason that so many people were killed in the flood
THEN, Chad, having read the scripture, what should one infer about the morality of the God of Israel?
2. What does the bible say is the reason that God has commanded the killing of women and children
THEN, Chad, having read the scripture, what should one infer about the morality of the God of Israel?
3. What does the bible say is the reason that evil exists, and bad things happen to good people.
THEN, Chad, having read the scripture, what should one infer about the morality of the God of Israel?
4. What does the bible say is the reason for the Old Covenant
THEN, Chad, having read the scripture, what should one infer about the morality of the God of Israel as revealed from Genesis to Malachi?
5. What does the bible say is the reason for the New Covenant
THEN, Chad, having read the scripture, what should one infer about the claims of the God of Israel having read the Gospels, comparing them Acts through Revelation, and then conclude when one considers the overall morality of the God of Israel?
Finally, Chad, the Atheists here are correct...your immature reliance on a source that they consider questionable to irrelevant verifies that you are here only to exercise your ego and attempt to aspire to other apologists who you obviously long to be like. If you actually believed in your own scripture, you'd spend more time listening and considering what is being said, instead of hiding behind your tired refrain: "What does the bible say..."
You've made yourself nothing more than a pointless Chick tract. Their lives should mean more to you than that...but, like most Christians, only your life means anything, Chad.
Bonhoeffer describes how the Apostles didn't have faith. They had obedience. Jesus commands "Come and follow" and so they did. Revelation is given along the way. Revelation that seems to end at Calvary, only to be expounded within three days. Without following, faith will not materialize. Modern man is too prideful and skeptical to follow and obey. He demands proof and guarantees and logic. And, sometimes rightfully, he resents religion thinking he is just. The proof is the fruit of obedience, called faith. The guarantee is to die with Christ and it makes no sense to men inebriated by the world. Never has, never will.
@ Bill
Really, Bill...you accuse modern man of being prideful...your example here confirms your own continued lack of integrity.
Bill, What other areas of your life do you not demand proof or evidence. When you buy a house do you just accept all that the seller and agent say about condition and price? Do you not validate that your bank accounts, credit cards, investment accounts, etc have the correct balance and transactions? Do you accept and pay for any repair that a tradesman tells you is necessary? Do you not verify your employment contract? Why would you accept the bible on next-to-no evidence apart from tradition?
@Viking, @UhOh
- you arent familiar with the God of Israel as He is described in the bible if you call Him "evil". The bible certainly doesnt make that claim anywhere.
- neither can you make the claim that the bible portrays the God of Israel as "immoral".
- it is utter nonsense that one cant review the bible as an ancient historical artifact and evaluate the historical accuracy of it. It is ridiculous to try and claim that the bible can not be referenced for any discussion, simply because it purports to record the history of the God of Israels interaction with humanity.
@SantaYou keep repeating "I read the bible" but that is not proof of anything other than how you spend your free time"
@Chad "no.. what I say is that if you want to criticize the God of Israel, you should be criticizing Him as He is described in the bible, and to do that one would have to be familiar with the bible, otherwise you are just throwing around strawmen..
====
@Santa "As has been shown to you countless times, there is a lot of evidence showing that the bible is inaccurate"
@Chad "such as what? Not a single historical detail in the bible has ever been demonstrated to be inaccurate"
=====
@Santa " and you have yet to provide any proof that a god exists"
@Chad "
Evidence for the God of Israel:
1. The origin of the universe
2. The fine tuning of the universe for the building blocks of life
3. The origin of life on earth
4. Punctuated Equilibrium: the fossil record showing species experiencing millions, 100's of millions of years of stasis (no change, random genetic mutations are weeded out of the gene pool resulting in a pool 'wobbling about the genetic mean'), followed by extremely rapid change resulting in new species appearing fully formed in the fossil record.
5. The empty tomb, and the unshakable conviction among followers and enemies alike that they had witnesses a resurrected Jesus. A conviction they held so strongly that they went to their deaths proclaiming its truth.
@ Chad...
A simple term, Chad..."infer"
Again, you confirm that you are unwilling or incapable of stepping out of the safety of your scripture. Not much integrity there, Chad.
Again, you confirm, in my view, that you are only interested in butressing your ego...the absence of the God of Israel in the life you portray here is plapable, Chad.
My point is that the God of Israel as described in the bible is NOT immoral.
so
If you are saying that the God of Israel IS immoral, I think the task you have is in showing how what is described in the bible is inaccurate (since what is described therein is a moral God).
You cant argue that the bible reveals God to be immoral, and the bible is the only ancient artifact that we have which chronicles the interaction with humanity. So to claim that God IS immoral, is to dispute some aspect of the bible describing Him to be moral.
=====
@Saraswati "If you want people to fully investigate Christianity before rejecting it you must ask the same for all religions, "
@Chad "not at all, if the God of Israel is real, then all the rest are not. The beliefs are mutually exclusive.
@Saraswati “Are you saying that non-believers in Christianity need to investigate Christianity, but you are not equally obliged to investigate other religions? I'm guessing that's not what you mean,so if you could clarify that would help."
========
@Saraswati ""Most notably to me, Christianity fails where it relies on the libertarian concept of free will in its justification for eternal punishments"
@Chad "can you explain that one further? or provide a link?
@ Saraswati “I mean that if a god created us and we live according to known physical laws our behaviors are either deterministic (which they largely would be on the macro scale) or are following a set of probabilistic rules. Either way they do not warrant praise and blame in the sense that Christianity requires, and would ultimately be either random of the creation of God. I have no desire to enter into a debate on free will here, but if one doesn't believe in it, as I do not (at least in the form I believe Christianity requires) then Christianity doesn’t hold together as a system. Please note that I do believe in punishments and prisons, but I think what most Christians and (in the US at least) many non-Christians call free will is an illusion.
chad, you moron, the bible does prove god to be immoral, you just engage in special pleading to say that his actions aren't immoral because he's mightiest and, in your world, "might makes right." Your morality is subjective; god gets to do things that you would consider immoral if someone else did them. I'm not so hypocritical as you are, and I say that if the action is immoral than the person doing the action is committing and immoral act regardless of how many people think he has special privileges to flout the law.
@Fred,
I wrote:
"Christianity fails where it relies on the libertarian concept of free will in its justification for eternal punishments"
You replied:
"you lost me, where is the fail as we are saved by faith not by works?"
I meant fails logically. If there is no free will and one's eternal existence is dependent on "choosing" whether to have faith, that would make God pretty evil.
@Chad
Don't you mean people who don't agree with your interpretation automatically haven't read the bible, because that's all you're really arguing.
Also, you're still using those same 5 points that prove absolutely nothing?
Chad. One simple example – evolution shows that the biblical account is innacurate, there any many examples such as Noah and the Ark, etc.
Just because the universe exists and that life exists does not prove that a god did it, it just proves that the universe exists and that life exists. Science explains all from the Big Bang and does not rely on the superstitions of bronze age sheepherders. There is no proof of a god – only circular references to the bible.
Yep!! Spot on Saraswati
@Saraswati “Are you saying that non-believers in Christianity need to investigate Christianity, but you are not equally obliged to investigate other religions? I'm guessing that's not what you mean,so if you could clarify that would help."
@Chad "If a person's religion is true and that religion is mutually exclusive with other religions, then there is really no necessity to investigate the others.
Of course that all hinges on the religion in question being true.
========
@ Saraswati “I mean that if a god created us and we live according to known physical laws our behaviors are either deterministic (which they largely would be on the macro scale) or are following a set of probabilistic rules. Either way they do not warrant praise and blame in the sense that Christianity requires, and would ultimately be either random of the creation of God. I have no desire to enter into a debate on free will here, but if one doesn't believe in it, as I do not (at least in the form I believe Christianity requires) then Christianity doesn’t hold together as a system. Please note that I do believe in punishments and prisons, but I think what most Christians and (in the US at least) many non-Christians call free will is an illusion.
@Chad "If I understand your core issue, you believe that there is no free will, and without free will punishment for your actions cant possibly be moral."
before addressing it.. is that correct?
if so.. what philosophy does not believe in free will? If I understand your point, I have never come up against it before... I would agree that without free will, punishment is immoral. I just havent ever come up against anyone that claimed there was no such thing as free will.
note that God having the capacity to be outside our time/space and "know" what actions humans will take as a result of exercising their free will, does not mean that free will does not exist.
It simply means that God is not bound by our time/space.
all of which is consistent with the biblical description of God.
@Chad
So as long as you believe your religion to be true, then you're not required to look and investigate other religions, but those other religious people need to investigate christianity because you "know" they're wrong? Is that seriously what your saying?
@Chad
But also within the bible is the concept that nothing happens that isn't in gods plan. Free will and that concept are completely exclusive concepts, and cannot both be true.
@Chad,
You wrote,
"If I understand your core issue, you believe that there is no free will, and without free will punishment for your actions cant possibly be moral. [...] before addressing it.. is that correct? [...]if so.. what philosophy does not believe in free will? If I understand your point, I have never come up against it before... I would agree that without free will, punishment is immoral. I just havent ever come up against anyone that claimed there was no such thing as free will."
That is almost right. What I believe is that without free will eternal punishment cannot be moral (OK...I can come up with some weird scenarios...but generally). I still believe that prisons serve a purpose of deterence and keeping people off the street and (very occassionally) rehabilitation. I also believe there is a purpose in prasing and chastising children. But these are practical considerations. Many forms of Buddhism, Hinduism and humanism operate without free will as do many Calvinist forms of Christianity (though not very well in that case) and the forms of communism that operated in China and Russia rejected free will. If you look at the literature in psychology (you can google it) most psychologists don't believe in free will but a biopsychosocial model of how the brain works.
@Saraswati,
You'll need to define "free will", and "no free will"
Calvinism is certainly not inconsistent with the notion of free will. "Election" is perfectly understood when considered in the context of God fore knowing what decisions we will make by virtue of our own free will.
You seemingly have determined that all animals/humans are essentially the same as rocks, in that the moment the universe began, the life of that particular rock was completely mapped out (at least until agents having free will came along to kick it around). Our ability to "think" is nothing more than the predetermined interaction of particles in our brains.
is that correct?
And another thread in which Chad will not answer my posts. I don't think I was palemic at all. I wonder why Chad won't answer.
@hawaii.. it is really tedious that you dont read posts..... both of your questions were answered.
If a person's religion is true and that religion is mutually exclusive with other religions, then there is really no necessity to investigate the others.
Of course that all hinges on the religion in question being true.
note that God having the capacity to be outside our time/space and "know" what actions humans will take as a result of exercising their free will, does not mean that free will does not exist.
It simply means that God is not bound by our time/space.
all of which is consistent with the biblical description of God.
@ Chad...
I was wrong to say that there is an absence of the God of Israel in the life you portray here, Chad. I now understand you a little more...From your comments in this thread I now see that you are that kind of Christian that accepts the God of scripture as you interpret him (of course, you would say as he is revealed in scripture...not your interp). And that God could not be immoral because scripture (as you interpret it) describes God otherwise...
And I can see that it wouldn't matter to you if God slaughtered the entire continent of Africa tomorrow afternoon, if it were his will and his plan...because, if I'm interpreting you correctly, the God of Israel can't be immoral because scripture doesn't allow for that DESPITE the clearly immoral things he did or had others do in his name that would be labeled as immoral by any other intelligent person.
If I'm describing you correctly, Chad, then I've encountered only a few Christians like yourself in my 40+ years...you cannot be wrong because you are only providing us with what is "clear" in scripture (if you have the Holy Spirit indwelling and revealing that scripture to you)....thus, you don't need to consider any other sources to make your point....
What is truly dangerous about you, if I interpret you correctly, is that you have the potential to be the most evil kind of Christian, based on the fact that you are willing to accept a God who would slaughter people for the "reasons given in the bible"....
I hope you are not that kind of person, Chad...but history has provided us with many examples of "true believers" who have done some of the most hideous things in the name of Jesus, not to mention Allah and YHWH.
@Chad
You wrote:
"note that God having the capacity to be outside our time/space and "know" what actions humans will take as a result of exercising their free will, does not mean that free will does not exist.
It simply means that God is not bound by our time/space.
all of which is consistent with the biblical description of God."
I do not base my ideas about free will and determinism on god, since I don't believe in him/her.
@Chad,
You wrote: "You seemingly have determined that all animals/humans are essentially the same as rocks..."
Yep, more or less, though I don't use the exact terminology you use in the rest of the sentence regarding determinism, but lets go with "close enough". We are conscious rocks in this particular regard.
@Chad,
You wrote: "You'll need to define "free will", and "no free will""
I don't need to define free will since Christians are the one introducing it. I don't believe in it and don't use the term except in discussions about how it is meaningless. It is a filler word used for pragmatic reasons much as "common sense". For Christians to use it they must define it as existing outside the normal flow of determinism and something more than random or probabalistic events. Note that you already stated "I would agree that without free will, punishment is immoral." so I think we can assume we are referring to the same pragmatic usage of the term.
@Chad
And that in no way addresses either post I made.
@S-3B Viking “ I now see that you are that kind of Christian that accepts the God of scripture as you interpret him (of course, you would say as he is revealed in scripture...not your interp). And that God could not be immoral because scripture (as you interpret it) describes God otherwise...”
@Chad “It is not my interpretation of scripture that ascrbies morality to God. Nowhere in the bible is God described as immoral, throughout the bible, God is described as moral
======
@S-3B Viking “ God of Israel can't be immoral because scripture doesn't allow for that DESPITE the clearly immoral things he did or had others do in his name”
@Chad “You need to understand two things.
1. The God of Israel interacts with immoral humans throughout the bible. Since all humans are immoral, there is simply no other way.
2. Lets look at these “immoral” acts.
2a. Not all killing is wrong. Not many would argue that taking military action against Germany/Japan during WWII was immoral, despite the fact that millions were killed
Some killing is moral.
Some killing is immoral
The circumstances that surround the killing is what distinguishes immoral from moral.
2b. The circumstances described in the bible surrounding these supposed immoral acts, show that the action taken is indeed moral.
2c. You could ONLY evaluate the morality of those acts if indeed you sought to understand all of the circumstances surrounding them. One would expect no less from a responsible juror, in your case, you judge without understanding without this due diligence on your part. Until you do your due diligence, your accusations lack credibility.. right?
===========
@Saraswati I don't need to define free will since Christians are the one introducing it.”
@Chad “Christians didn’t invent free will… Certainly all atheists disbelieve in free will. In fact, I suspect you would concede that your viewpoint is the minority.
In any case, since we agree that lacking free will, punishment is immoral, the discussion of Christianity for you seemingly hinges on free will. Which to be quite honest, I have no philosophical background in, nor do I really desire to invest the time to develop one. I don’t really care about it, and you are the first atheist I have ever met to voice that objection. It just isn’t a good use of time on my part.. no offense..
With a person like you, I would pursue demonstrating that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, then the rest would fall in place.
So, how about it. I’ll make you a deal, you read a book I recommend, I’ll read any book you recommend. Deal?
Chad: "Certainly all atheists disbelieve in free will. "
What kind of bull are you spewing now, Chad. My goodness.
should have been "Certainly all atheists do not disbelieve in free will"
in other words, many, if not most, atheists believe in free will.
now, that is based on 15 minutes of internet search, but since I have never come up against that particular argument, it seems fairly valid.
@Chad, I'm not actually too concerned with converting you to my beliefs, just interested in the discussion, so I'll leave you to pick your own reading but recommend looking into neuropsychology which you might find interesting and relevant. Perhaps a subscription to something like Scientific American Mind if you're ever interested and have a few bucks to kill.
If you have a book to recommend that is popular enough to be in a library in a small city I will look out for it on my next trip.
Most atheists in countries with a Christian history believe in free will; most atheists in countries with a Buddhist history do not. Interestingly, the more one has travelled the less one believes in free will.
stay tuned, i'll pick something good
That's interesting, Saraswati. Do you think it matters where they traveled? Do you think they would have had to travel to a predominantly Buddhist region to have that outlook?
@ Chad
Chad, thank you for your response. You said:
@Chad “It is not my interpretation of scripture that ascrbies morality to God. Nowhere in the bible is God described as immoral, throughout the bible, God is described as moral.
Of course not, Chad. Why would a follower writing a text describing the nature of God or relating a purported interaction with God describe that god as immoral? Naturally, as most Christians do, they wouldn't dare "blaspheme" God in any way shape or form especially faced with the "unpardonable sin" as it was named in my days with the Assembly of God.
Here again, I wonder if you are unwilling or unable (sounds like the argument about the problem of evil) to think or consider that those who don't believe or have lost faith have reached that point by considering that what God has done and is going to do is completely immoral. They have made a decision about the God of Israel...one you will not accept...thus the "eternal: back-and-forth between the theist and the atheist.
You said:
@Chad “You need to understand two things.
1. The God of Israel interacts with immoral humans throughout the bible. Since all humans are immoral, there is simply no other way.
Whoa, CHAD. may you be equally respectful when an atheist says: "YOU NEED..." but I understand, again, that one who is certain about their God and their scriptures is just that arrogant to demand things....but, out of respect:
As a Christian, I did accept this...but for you to claim "there is no other way" is typical of one who can't/won't think beyond their own presuppositions (yes, I know, it's not your interp). And just as clearly, now, I see that the God of Israel certainly could have done so much so differently and that, indeed, his actions BY HIS OWN STANDARDS described in scripture were/are immoral and they are immoral by basic human standards...(but, of course, you have already declared there is no possible comprehension or ascent to morality outside of the God of Israel).
Continued next post...
By the way, Chad...I find it interesting that Jesus is quoted as having said (in response to someone quoting Jewish scripture) "You've heard it said...but I show you a better way..."
Now, you said:
2. Lets look at these “immoral” acts.
2a. Not all killing is wrong.
Thanks for this, Chad...you confirm that those who claim to be pro-life aren't. Having served 10 years in the military, ALL war is immoral and all killing is immoral, no matter how you and politicians and Admirals, Captains, Co mmanders, Lieutenants, Chief Petty Officers and Leading Petty Officers try to couch it. Once again, there were/is/are better ways for humans to interact.
You said:
The circu mstances that surround the killing is what distinguishes immoral from moral.
A nice academic treatment of reality...hope you take the time out of your protected life, Chad, to either serve in the military and see, first hand, a war zone. Then spend a year or two in those parts of the world where life (and your life) is threatened by the conditions of life (and no, a mission trip doesn't count).
You said:
2b. The circu mstances described in the bible surrounding these supposed immoral acts, show that the action taken is indeed moral.
Of course they do, Chad...they have to. A writer of "holy scripture" doesn't intentionally contradict. But, as I've said above, looking at scripture from the outside, the immorality of the acts is not "supposed."
You said (once again with the arrogance of a tenured professor and a certain believer):
2c. You could ONLY evaluate the morality of those acts if indeed you sought to understand all of the circu mstances surrounding them. One would expect no less from a responsible juror, in your case, you judge without understanding without this due diligence on your part. Until you do your due diligence, your accusations lack credibility.. right?
As I've said to Bill Deacon and others, you've not spent a minute with me...you don't know where I've been, what I've done and what I've thought...you don't know what is in my heart (and I am convinced that you don't know what is in your own heart...academics tend to be compensating for a host of psychological issues).....so to make your claims shows that you, in fact, lack credibility.
Having been born into a conservative Catholic, military family and born again at age 8, I have considered these things (contrary to your arrogance) and continue to do so in a sometimes painful manner and have found the God of Israel immoral and the collection of books we declare as scripture merely an attempt by humans to understand their place in the world/universe.
Further, along with the arguments presented by theists, agnostics and atheists through years past, the single most powerful confirmation of the non-existence of the God of Israel is the daily lives of those who claim to follow him...and the life you've portrayed here, Chad, only supports my conclusion...and yes, Chad, I own those conclusions because they are made without fear and with the full knowledge that if the God of Israel does exist, I will spend eternity in that place prepared for the devil and his angels...but will confirm once and for all, that the God of Israel is immoral because of it.
mama k, there was no distinction in the research between locations of international travel, but I wouldassume it maes a difference.
@S-3B Viking "[All killing/war is immoral]" (paraphrase mine)
@Chad "was driving Germany back immoral? Ja pan? Is defending myself with deadly force immoral?
i simply can not see how you can say that. Killing is always horrible, but immoral? No.
=======
@S-3B Viking "I own those conclusions because they are made without fear and with the full knowledge that if the God of Israel does exist, I will spend eternity in that place prepared for the devil and his angels...but will confirm once and for all, that the God of Israel is immoral because of it.'
@Chad "two questions:
1. upon what evidence have you based your rejection of God.
2. how would God honoring your choice make Him immoral??
====
I have never served, I do sincerely thank you for your service.
Chad has served, if fries count, that is.
So there is no God....
So do you also tell your kids there is no santa clause and no easdter bunny there is no reason for st valentines day and no reason for celebrations because they are all lies. Oh so then if you don't believe them maybe you should all be out killing and looting and raping...and basically breaking all the 10 commandments because that is for god fearing people. Not people who do not believe. I am sorry bad thing do happen to good people. But God never promised anybody a good easy life....and only good things will happen. God has never started a war. Man has always. God told you you will know they are Christians by their love. You can show as much disrespect to me as you want ...but I will still love you...the same as God will and Jesus loves you...yes there was a Jesus there were many people foretelling he was coming and many that wrote about his coming and his death. That is a tough one to explain away with so many different authors not knowing each other but generally writing what would happen..Jesus did come and he was the son of a God. He Died for me on the cross and took away my sins....I have no trouble explaining that to my children. Not sure what all the hang ups are about that ...
Only two of the ten commandments bare any relevance to today. Also, when my kids find out the truth about Santa and the Easter Bunny, I can still give them gifts and chocolate eggs, which is what they really want anyway. However, I can't offer them eternal life in either constant bliss and constant suffering, so I tell them the truth about deities. Except Cthulhu, they mus always ear Cthulhu.
"Must always fear". Be nice, I have a terrible case of influenza.
Following the duly enacted laws of the land is not good enough for you? You have to cling to a bullsh!t myth for which there is not a shred of evidence. Now that's what I call a hang up!
"So do you also tell your kids there is no santa clause and no easdter bunny there is no reason for st valentines day and no reason for celebrations because they are all lies"
- no, i tell them there is no santa claus but the spirit of giving is worth keeping the pagan tradition of gift giving alive. there are plenty of reasons to celebrate holidays without religion. stop being so childlike in your thinking process.
and the 10 commandments... you mentioned r.ape. but there is no command not to r.ape in the 10 commandments or ANYwhere in the bible. in fact, the bible says if a man r.apes a woman, she must marry him. imagine that. a woman is r.aped... and she is forced to marry her attacker. forced to have s.ex with him again and again. that's the bible. the bible is disgusting. how can you even begin to claim moral/ethical superiority when your book has trash like that? the bible says non-v..irgin brides are to be dragged to their father's doorstep and stoned to death. do you believe that maniacal order too? your christian god is vile and evil. where is the command against slavery? instead, the bible promotes slavery throughout. jesus himself tells slaves to obey their masters if they want any chance of getting into heaven. the bible is awful.
rrh0325, your nasty diatribe lines up well with the characteristics of the hideous god of your bible, considering that it presents demands from your nasty sky fairy like these:
Numbers 31:17-18
17 Now kiII all the boys. And kiII every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
Revelations 2:23 And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
Leviticus 25
44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.
45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.
46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
Note that the bible is also very clear that you should sacrifice and burn an animal today because the smell makes sicko Christian sky fairy happy. No, you don't get to use the parts for food. You burn them, a complete waste of the poor animal.
Yes, the bible really says that, everyone. Yes, it's in Leviticus, look it up. Yes, Jesus purportedly said that the OT commands still apply. No exceptions. But even if you think the OT was god's mistaken first go around, you have to ask why a perfect, loving enti-ty would ever put such horrid instructions in there. If you think rationally at all, that is.
And then, if you disagree with my interpretation, ask yourself how it is that your "god" couldn't come up with a better way to communicate than a book that is so readily subject to so many interpretations and to being taken "out of context", and has so many mistakes in it. Pretty pathetic god that you've made for yourself.
So get out your sacrificial knife or your nasty sky creature will torture you eternally. Or just take a closer look at your foolish supersti-tions, understand that they are just silly, and toss them into the dustbin with all the rest of the gods that man has created.
Ask the questions. Break the chains. Join the movement. Be free of Christianity and other superstitions.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/
If the only reason you don't rap'e and murder is out of fear of god I really, really hope you aren't reproducing. If you are so ignorant that you don't know how many less religious countries have lower murder rates than the USI hope you don't vote. If you are dumb enough not to realize the Easter bunny isn't in any way related to Christianity I hope you don't have a job on which anyone's life or education in anyway depends.
1) Valentine's Day is a pointless holiday to begin with. If you're not showing your loved ones that you love them all the time, then you're doing it wrong. For the rest of the holidays you mention, the way they are celebrated all predate Christianity and weren't associated in any way with Christianity until they were co-opted to draw in the pagans.
2) The very concept of a celebration has nothing to do with God.
3) If you need mythology to keep you from killing people, then by all means, practice your religion. Just remember that all Christian morality predates even Judaism.
4) Most of the writings you refer to about Jesus were writings made several generations after he would have died. The story of his birth in the Gospels of the Bible don't even match or are left out entirely which really doesn't matter since it's likely that everything written about his birth and childhood was simply fabricated later to fit the prophesy.
But to your last point there, you're right...it would be easy to tell that story. I think the issue is that many people are now more interested in the truth than in some comforting lie.
I would never tell my children (or anyone) that there is no Santa Claus.
emp?
Elissa Megan Powers?
See how crooked and dangerous religionist reasoning is?
I've written a statement almost perfectly in line with the author, my boys are now 21 and 23, good young men. Understand the world around them and don't act with prejudice towards anybody. That's all I could ask for, this world needs more people who can look at it without the bias indoctrination into religion gives so many. All the books of religion were written by men, all of the faiths continue to be controlled by men. This isn't a case of god writing a book, or setting the rules of engagement in life. Its a case of men wanting to control the world around them, and I'm a 52 year old man. The last thing I need to worry about is controlling somebody else when its hard enough to figure out why there are all these angry people in the world. Put down the book and say hello, if you don't get one back that's ok. The earth will still be rolling east tomorrow.
Peace
Lucid One
"Pro 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.".....You are a fulfillment of this.
Proverbs 10:18, "He that hideth hatred with lying lips, and he that uttereth a slander, is a fool." Looks like you're toast, lol?? .
OOoooh, oh, here come da stalker.
"Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"[1] although in practice the legal standard is usually somewhat more strict. Hmmmm. I suppose, if the threat posed is to your dishonesty. In that case, guilty as charged.
Unfortunately Deborah, while I massively applaud your efforts, we have a long way to go to convince the large majority of the populace to think rationally and abandon the heaps of illogic that comprise the holy books, no matter what the religion. One factor of why these "belief matrices" are so rampant is that it is much easier to follow blind dogma and not ask questions than it is to answer an endless supply of them from our children.
blind dog ma? don't even trust yo mama, 'specially with all the rights she inherited from the beast.
why would anyone worship the chrisitan god? yahweh is a maniac. just take his great flood for example. god drowned every human on earth but one family. that means he drowned babies. read that again: BABIES. not only babies, but the elderly, infirm, mentally challenged, physically challenged, etc. what kind of a sick monster can fill an infant's lungs with water and call it divine justice? there is no excuse for infanticide. how can anyone worship a baby killer?
that's why this lady is raising her kid atheist. so her child doesn't believe in the atrocious fairy tales of the bible. worshiping a baby killing deity that doesn't actually exist is not good for you. a million hands in prayer aren't worth a single pair of hands hard at work. unclasp your hands. get up off your knees. think for yourself. go outside and help your brothers and sisters. congratulations – you're now a better person.
Definitely. I would never pledge my allegiance to a bloodthirsty god that demanded that I sacrifice my own child to prove my "love" for him/her/it. I do not identify such behavior with a "loving" god.
Bootyfunk clearly has no understanding of the Bible at all (in another comment he also claims that atheists actually know the Bible better than christians, another ridiculous assumption, easily refutable, based upon the very superficial understanding that atheists use in arguments, and the atheists constant need to quote less educated christians as proof of their point). He thinks God was evil becuase of the flood, but that viewpoint belies a total lack of understanding on the gravity of sin. He doesn't acknowledge or even challenge this issue, because he doesn't understand it (and thinks it unimportant even if he knew it existed). A Holy God won't and does not let sin pass. Mankind has brought upon all the worst punishments on themselves. That is why the same God has given us a plan of salvation through the sacrifice of His Son, our Savior, the Messiah.
You can hide in your bubble, believe in delusions, and claim to be the rational one. But the more you present your actual views (and confront them yourself honestly), the more will be fail to pass scrutiny.
@Honey Badger Dont Care : Still waiting on you or ANYBODY to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Go ahead, give it your best shot.
Your wish is my command.
God Necessity of a supernatural being
a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God.
Which God Did It?
a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration for identifying this supernatural being.
Did the Judaism God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Jewish Bible,
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37) in the Jewish Bible
Therefore, the God of the Jews is a viable contender for this supernatural being.
Did the Islamic God Do It?
a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender.
Did the Christian God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for answering the Which God question. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the best answer.
This again??
You've provided no proof, you fail.
you should try using logic and reasoning in your 'thinking' process. because you don't know an answer doesn't mean you should make one up. if have a lot of data on energy, but we don't know everything about - that doesn't mean you make up an answer that a magic being made it all. that's lazy and unsatisfying. goddidit is the worst answer you can give. stop looking for the truth - believe it was a magic sky fairy that did it. you believe in something for which you have zero proof - but then look at the proof offered by science and ignore it. laughable.
Friendly milk countermands my pants but Susan jests under flowerpots: BUT ONLY IN SPRING!!! Lambs poop hotdogs under rainbows although Dorothy smells turpentine. No Balloo, not 'til breakfast at towerheight, over umbrellas of uncertainty.
Claiming EZE 37 is a prophecy fulfilled is just plain wrong.
People read the bible, many people believe it.
The bible says that Isreal will be again.
Men believe it is supposed to happen
After WWII, they had the oportunity to make it happen, and did.
Nothing but a case of self fulfilling prophecy.
People believed the prophecy was supposed to happen and they made it happen.
Better check the cause effect before posting such rediculous claims.
"Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible"
The stories found in the Book of Genesis, Chapter 1-12, such as the flood story, the record is quite different: the time period under consideration is much more ancient. The factual bases of the stories are hidden from our view archaeologically. The stories remain a part of folk traditions and were included in the Bible to illustrate and explain theological ideas such as: Where did humans come from? If humans were created by God (who is perfect and good), how did evil among them come to be? If we are all related as children of God, why do we speak different languages? It must be remembered that the Bible is primarily a book of religion, a guide to faith. it was not a book of history, poetry, economics, or science. It contains all sorts of literary genre, which are used to teach about the relationship between God and mankind. Even biblical history is edited history: events were chosen to illustrate the central theme of the Bible. The Biblical writers did not pretend they were giving a complete history; instead they constantly refer us to other sources for full historical details, sources such as "The Annals of the Kings of Judah" (or Israel).
It is therefore not possible to try to "prove" the Bible by means of checking its historical or scientific accuracy. The only "proof" to which it can be subjected is this: Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship? In the best analysis, the Bible is a religious book, not an historical document.
who created god?
@Live4Him
Fine, I'll bite and respond point by point.
"God Necessity of a supernatural being
a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God."
No, this is called an argument from ignorance. The lack of an explanation that is natural does not automatically imply any kind of supernatural necessity.
"Which God Did It?
a) Given the Biblical account that begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
b) Given no other religions (other than the Abrahamic branches) begins with the creation of matter, energy and time,
Therefore, this implies that only the Abrahamic religions are worthy of consideration for identifying this supernatural being."
You took an implication, and ran with it as if it were fact. This is called a False Premise, and is not logically valid. This point also assumes that everything in the bible is accurate and correct, which requires evidence in and of itself.
"Did the Islamic God Do It?
a) Given inaccurate transmission of the Koran Bible,
b) Given the factual inaccuracies (i.e. members of the Trinity)
c) Given the lack of specific prophecies in the Koran
Therefore, the God of the Muslims is not a viable contender."
a) Examples?
b) This assumes that mainstream christian acceptance of the trinity is automatically correct, which is just begging the question (your original premise must be true in order for the conclusion to follow).
c) The bible does not give specific prophecies either, and some prophecies (Nebuchanezzer and Tyre and Egypt for example) did not come true.
Therefore, these assertions are also not valid.
"Did the Christian God Do It?
a) Given accurate transmission of the Christian Bible (i.e. Jewish / OT and NT),
b) Given the fulfillment of foretold specific prophecies (incl: Eze 37, Rev 13) in the Christian Bible
Therefore, the God of the Christian is a viable contender for answering the Which God question. Since it includes the Jewish beliefs as well, it is the best answer."
See above.
So "transcription" of a book is evidence of your God? The same claim would apply to the first Bible ever written. Just because it has been copied several thousand times and is similar to the original does not mean it is true.
Excellent list @Live4Him!!
Bootyfunk
Captain Beefheart of course.
"Does it correctly portray the God-human relationship?"
*** that assumes there is a god in the first place. their relationship is imaginary as their god.
also, most of the major stories were plagiarized from other cultures/religions. want to read about the garden of eden before the bible? read the epic of gilgamesh. talking snake, garden, forbidden fruit, etc. basically, the stories are made up. god is made up. you can't have a real relationship with something that doesn't exist.
Chad
You are actually impressed by his arguments? Would you net against a scientific explanation for the origins of the universe and life coming forward in the next 20 years? I wouldn't!
I'm waiting for a response to my response. Discussion is good, and now we'll see just how willing Live is to actually be in a discussion.
Even if it were necessary to presuppose a god or gods, why would you imagine the three nearly identical Abrahamic monotheistic concepts were our only choices?
Root post by 'Live4Him' contains multiple instances of the Begging The Question fallacy.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html
I'm sorry, Live4Him, but all of your assertions to date have been unfounded. Using my Idiomatic Expression Equivalency module (IEE), the expression that best matches the degree to which your repeated assertions may represent truths is: "CHRONIC EPIC FAIL".
Haven't we already done this? You couldn't get past proving your first premise to be true, so we can't even move on to the rest.
And even if we did, why are you limiting the number of deities you dismiss without actual cause? There are hundreds of creation myths (though admittedly, most of them aren't take "seriously" like the one in the bible is by some...most people understand that a myth is like a parable or fable, it relays a moral or basic foundation of belief, it isn't meant to be literally true) that you are not even considering, thousands of gods you fail to reconcile with.
And how did your originating god originate?
@Live4Him,
"God Necessity of a supernatural being
a) Given the lack of natural explanation to create matter, energy and time,
b) Given the lack of natural explanation to create life,
Therefore, this implies some supernatural being / God is necessary, but not necessarily the Biblical God."
I see you've modified your claim a bit since last time."...need of a supernatural..." to "...lack of natural explanation..."
How exactly does a lack of explanation, imply a need for supernatural?
1) You arbitrarily exclude an explanation that we don't know yet.
2) You arbitrarily exclude the possibility that some form of matter/energy/space/time has always existed and don't require creation.
3) You arbitrarily exclude a supernatural explanation that doesn't involve a being.
My ignorance, my limitations, my intelligence???, my self sufficiency, my wellbeing, even my foolishness, wickedness tells me that someone loved me and REVEALED HIS LOVE for me because i surrendered my unbelief. I can fail miserably even in my BEST EFFORTS!
HE showed me that ALL that I have is garbage and dung!
So HE rewarded me with FAITH to KNOW HIM!! For this I REJOICE daily for that BLESSED ASSURANCE and HEAVENLY HOPE! May you it have too!
He clearly didn't inform you about capitalization.
you sound like a whack job. you are obviously deep in the cult. cults are bad for you. they teach you to turn off your brain. get up off your knees and think for yourself.
Yeah...sorry rod, you're not very convincing.
Your post failed miserably.
Yep ... I did essentially the same thing as the author.
While I did indulge in the Santa fiction for a while with my children, I was not prepared to lie to them about the hereafter and never did.
The author's list:
- God is a bad parent and role model.
- God is not logical.
- God is not fair.
- God does not protect the innocent.
- God is not present.
- God Does Not Teach Children to Be Good
- God Teaches Narcissism
is somewhat overlapping but all good nontheless. Of course there's a couple more:
- So which God is the 'right' God? (Perhaps this question doesn't come up in Texas)
- What omniscient omnipotent God needs validation by grovelling worshippers and punishes them for eternity if they don't?
I like the last point. How could an omniscient, omnipotent god be so petty and jealous?
"Pro 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it..... Well if you're positive you did the right thing, however,.........."Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:"
Three Rings for the Elven-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Dwarf-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Men doomed to die,
One for the Dark Lord on his dark throne
In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie.
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them
GOPer
I understand that he needs worshipers for fuel.
Ratlib sayz, "......god be so petty and jealous?..." Exd 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name [is] Jealous, [is] a jealous God:".................That's His name.
Did americult teach you jealously is a naughty thing? You shouldn't have listened to Wizbutt Trailer so much, or was it Lady GaGa?
His name is Jealous? El and Asherah are cruel parents.
“overlapping but all good nonetheless”
=>You really disappoint me that you believe this is all good. To call it all good it far from the truth and speaks out from the darkness which is the empty pit of godlessness. I will teach my children godlessness in all its forms then boast of my accomplishments. Yes, “the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure” as you are just beginning the slide into the darkness.
“the light came into the world but the darkness did not comprehend it”
=>what rational mind would subject great grandchildren to never tested world wide godlessness. There has always been a superpower that restrained godlessness as the U.S. has done for 200 years. Take it down Goper way down into godlessness so it cannot rise up when beast is evident to all.
@RL,
I think this one is a better choice from the sacred text:
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost;
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by the frost.
From the ashes a fire shall be woken,
A light from the shadows shall spring;
Renewed shall be blade that was broken,
The crownless again shall be king"
@Rick,
"fuel" – love it!
If ya wanna run cool, you got to run, on heavy heavy fuel.
@fred,
"... far from the truth and speaks out from the darkness which is the empty pit of godlessness"
Not my "truth". Truth, like beauty (as we all know) is relative.
Lie4Him,
"I'd like to agree, but I must be honest. You're wrong, there is some evidence."
Still waiting on you or ANYBODY to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Go ahead, give it your best shot.
Come on Badger, a Christian with evidence is like a mule with a spinning wheel. No one knows where he got it and danged if he knows hot to use it.
How dangnabbit.
"Still waiting on you or ANYBODY to provide any evidence what-so-ever. Go ahead, give it your best shot."
What are you waiting for? On someone to prove that the concept of God was created by a man? Yeah, we have been waiting on that one too but no one has been able to prove it with science yet.
Null hypothesis, Swain me boy.
@Rational Libertarian- so asking for proof that a man created the concept of God is a null hypothesis? Explain that.
You do think that the concept of God was created by man right?
You're saying that your deity of choice exists. There is no testible data to say so, so you have to go with the null hypothesis, i.e. god doesn't exist.
By the way, I'm not saying man created god, I'm saying god doesn't exist.
uncoot yoot
Now you want to try to discuss the CONCEPT of god....nice try but changing tactics won't work. Since we do not know the concepts of all other living things, we do not know if the concept is man only or where it comes from, and it may be quite possible for animals to have their own concepts of life, and how they come to be. You can though clearly see the correlation of ignorance and men creating gods to explain what man does not yet know.
"You're saying that your deity of choice exists."
I've said nothing of the sort.
"By the way, I'm not saying man created god, I'm saying god doesn't exist"
And you have no opinion on where the concept of God came from? Very well.
Uncouth, To prove that man did not invent god, there would need to be proof of a god. To date there is no proof of a god.
Evolution, man, aliens, drugs. All possibilities but I wouldn't assert a positive claim without evidence.
Really??- "Now you want to try to discuss the CONCEPT of god....nice try but changing tactics won't work."
I am sorry, did Badger mean something else? If so, then he should have been more clear with his statement.
"the concept is man only or where it comes from,"
So you cannot prove that the concept of God was created by man than one of faith can prove their God. Ok.
"You can though clearly see the correlation of ignorance and men creating gods to explain what man does not yet know."
That is still not evidence that the Judeo-Christian God was created by a man. If one takes the only evidence (admittingly, one that most on here won't accept) available, man was not searching out God but God searching out man.
Rational Libertarian- "All possibilities but I wouldn't assert a positive claim without evidence."
A wise and honest answer. Diogenes would be pleased.
every concept of imaginary men in the sky was invented, imagined, conceived, created, spawned, and written down – by human men on earth.
that's a flat fact.
zing!
In Santa we trust- "To prove that man did not invent god, there would need to be proof of a god. To date there is no proof of a god."
I am not asking for a person to prove that man did not invent God. That would be asking one to prove a negative. I am merely asking the logical conclusion to those that say God does not exist. If one states that God does not exist, therefor they must feel that concept was created by someone. Unless they feel that the concept just popped out of nothingness and that would be a whole new mess to deal with..lol.
the AnViL- "that's a flat fact."
Nice to see that you have faith in that belief of yours. Pity there is nothing to back it up other than your hope.
there is no evidence of any other species on the planet ever writing down anything, much less their ideas on imaginary men in the sky.
that all the writings which describe imaginary men in the sky were written by the hands of men, is enough evidence that these ideas were spawned exclusively in the minds of men... on earth – a long time ago.
~
Uncouth. God's were invented to explain aspects of our environment that primitive man did not understand: floods, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc. etc.
In Santa we trust-"God's were invented to explain aspects of our environment that primitive man did not understand:.."
A fine hypothesis but one that does not add any evidence to who created the concept of the Judeo-Christian God.
swain:
there isn't any substantiated evidence of the existence of any of the imaginary men in the sky which have been written about by men who believed in them, based on faulty ignorant non-knowledge.
there is also, in addition to the absence of evidence, evidence of absence.
keeping things simple, sticking with the abrahamic imaginary man in the sky, the entire bible is filled with a long list of contradictions and a long list of failed prophecies – evidence of its fallibility.
also – there is contradictory evidence for many of the extraordinary claims made in the bible.
there is evidence that men on earth intentionally create religions for a number of reasons.
probability being what it is, logically – imaginary men in the sky could have only been invented by the imaginations of men... and your position is untenable.
you cannot justify your belief, because you've no real knowledge of imaginary men in the sky beyond what you imagine. your belief is false because you've no evidence, contradictory evidence, and evidence of absence. your beliefs are based on faulty non-knowledge. your faith is based on ignorant beliefs constructed with garbage data.
you can believe whatever you like... but if you believe in imaginary men in the sky, you are delusional – because that's the only place where your gods exist – in your imagination.
evolve, son.
you're retarding all of humanity with your ignorance.
@the AnViL- "there isn't any substantiated evidence of the existence of any of the imaginary men in the sky which have been written about by men who believed in them, based on faulty ignorant non-knowledge."
And your point is...what? How is your reading comprehension? Did I ask for evidence of anything you just said? I think not.
"there is also, in addition to the absence of evidence, evidence of absence."
I agree. There is a complete absence of evidence in showing
1)who created the concept of the Judeo-Christian God
2) where that person created it
3) why that person did it
4) how that person did it
So far no one has been able to offer up conclusive evidence. Including you.
"keeping things simple, sticking with the abrahamic imaginary man in the sky, the entire bible is filled with a long list of contradictions and a long list of failed prophecies – evidence of its fallibility."
And your point is what? It seems that you are dancing around the idea that a man named Abraham created the concept. Is that what you are going with?
"also – there is contradictory evidence for many of the extraordinary claims made in the bible."
Yes..your reading comprehension needs a little work. What argument are you trying to win here because I've never asked for anything you are putting out.
"there is evidence that men on earth intentionally create religions for a number of reasons."
Hmmm...seems to be a fallacy in all this. But the fact is that this doesn't offer up any evidence of who created the Judeo-Christian God.
"probability being what it is, logically – imaginary men in the sky could have only been invented by the imaginations of men... and your position is untenable."
Of course..the fact remains that you cannot scientifically say who created the concept. But you expect those of faith to use science to prove the existence of God. Not to mention not one person on here has yet to ask anyone to prove a "man in the sky".
"you cannot justify your belief,"
Never stated a belief and never stated I could justify one. How many strikes does this make for you now?
"because you've no real knowledge of imaginary men in the sky beyond what you imagine."
Ah..now you can read minds about know or what I imagine or know? I think you have a date with the men in the white jackets.
"your belief is false because you've no evidence, contradictory evidence, and evidence of absence. your beliefs are based on faulty non-knowledge. your faith is based on ignorant beliefs constructed with garbage data."
I have stated no belief or offered up evidence of any kind. You are in error...again. You attack a premise that was not made.
"you can believe whatever you like"
Not really the point of all this but thank you.
"but if you believe in imaginary men in the sky,"
I believe in no imaginary men in the sky.
"evolve, son."
You do realize that there is no scientific evidence that abandoning the concept of faith is an evolutionary improvement on the human condition right? Actually....there have been no known societies in human history that have held a non-religious background. But there have been numerous societies that have thrived that held religious beliefs. I propose to you that it's more benificial to human society to have a faith/religion within than to not have one.
"you're retarding all of humanity with your ignorance."
Your factless opinion is noted."
Uncouth. Of course known societies have always had a religion – we've evolved from primitive humans who had no explanation for such things as day and night, summer and winter, floods, droughts, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcano eruptions, etc. etc. We do have an understanding of all of those things and more. Unfortunately some people cannot let go of their superstitions.
"Actually....there have been no known societies in human history that have held a non-religious background. But there have been numerous societies that have thrived that held religious beliefs. I propose to you that it's more benificial to human society to have a faith/religion within than to not have one."
Wait you just made the claim "no known societies in human history that have held a non-religious background" then go onto state it's " benificial to human society to have a faith/religion within than to not have one."" But since you just admitted you don't know what that would look like as non-religious it's never been done why did you assume being religious is better?
yes – well – you're still guilty of positing an appeal to ignorance.
i'm telling you – no one needs to prove that gods are a concept born entirely and only in the minds of men.
the onus of evidence for the existence of imaginary men in the sky still rests entirely on the shoulders of those who posit "gods exist" – and that includes the delusional men who wrote about it a very long time ago.
the evidence points to it... clearly.
if you believe in imaginary men in the sky or not... positing that someone must prove the idea of an imaginary man in the sky was born entirely in the imaginations of men is simply foolish.
that you attempted – more than once... to apply an appeal to ignorance - caused me to assume that you're perhaps one of those delusional people who "believe"... because that's really the only people i see such retarded arguments spewing from.
your rationale just serves to prove that although you may not believe in imaginary men in the sky you still suffer from a distinct flaw in your reasoning.
one last time: the fact that there are no gods – and all the other evidence and non-evidence is really tremendously excellent evidence that gods were invented by men. men wrote the books – and men made up the rules.
deal with it.
In Santa we trust- "We do have an understanding of all of those things and more. Unfortunately some people cannot let go of their supersti tions."
Understanding the way the world works does not instantly eliminate faith. There is no reason to think that faith/religion will ever leave us as a species any time soon.
Wait?- "Wait you just made the claim "no known societies in human history that have held a non-religious background" then go onto state it's " benificial to human society to have a faith/religion within than to not have one."" But since you just admitted you don't know what that would look like as non-religious it's never been done why did you assume being religious is better?"
Meaning, since there are thousands upon thousands of societies that have religion/faith inside them but none that were primarily non-religious....it stands to reason that it must be more evolutionarly beneficial to have faith within society than not. I would be more than happy to consider a society that was non-religious that would be considered advanced compared to the average of most human societies if anyone knows of one.
the AnViL- "yes – well – you're still guilty of positing an appeal to ignorance."
No- well- I'm not.
"i'm telling you – no one needs to prove that gods are a concept born entirely and only in the minds of men."
Ok..no one needs to prove that God exists.
Perhaps you want someone to prove it but not one needs to.
"the onus of evidence for the existence of imaginary men in the sky still rests entirely on the shoulders of those who posit "gods exist" – and that includes the delusional men who wrote about it a very long time ago."
I disagree. To say that something does not exist as it is claimed in essence makes a new claim. If you want to be intellectually lazy and say God doesn't exist but not care to show through science how it came about...then you are just whallowing in your own ignorance.
"the evidence points to it... clearly."
Yet none have been given clearly.
"if you believe in imaginary men in the sky or not... positing that someone must prove the idea of an imaginary man in the sky was born entirely in the imaginations of men is simply foolish."
Why? Because the exploration of our human history and culture is foolish? You will forgive me, the archaeologists, anthropologists...etc that would disagree with you.
"that you attempted – more than once... to apply an appeal to ignorance – caused me to assume that you're perhaps one of those delusional people who "believe"... because that's really the only people i see such retarded arguments spewing from."
Ah...a nice ad hominem. You don't offer any evidence of any kind and yet throw in an attack on me. I question if you even understand what an appeal to ignorance is. In no way have I once said that since you cannot prove that God was created by a man that therefor God exists. If you cannot prove that the concept of God was created by a certain man....then you cannot and that's that.
"your rationale just serves to prove that although you may not believe in imaginary men in the sky you still suffer from a distinct flaw in your reasoning."
Your factless opinion is noted.
"one last time: the fact that there are no gods – and all the other evidence and non-evidence is really tremendously excellent evidence that gods were invented by men. men wrote the books – and men made up the rules."
Probably not the last time: you have no fact...you have an opinion. Perhaps a correct one but to lean on the idea that since the majority seems to aim in a certain direction...therefor it is absolute...is a flawed position to take.
"deal with it."
I "deal" with this and much more everyday...just like you.
"Meaning, since there are thousands upon thousands of societies that have religion/faith inside them but none that were primarily non-religious....it stands to reason that it must be more evolutionarly beneficial to have faith within society than not. I would be more than happy to consider a society that was non-religious that would be considered advanced compared to the average of most human societies if anyone knows of one."
How about looking at Denmark and Sweden they are the most non-religious modern societies that could give you and idea if it's possible or not. From the NY Times "Anyone who has paid attention knows that Denmark and Sweden are among the least religious nations in the world. Polls asking about belief in God, the importance of religion in people’s lives, belief in life after death or church attendance consistently bear this out.
It is also well known that in various rankings of nations by life expectancy, child welfare, literacy, schooling, economic equality, standard of living and competitiveness, Denmark and Sweden stand in the first tier. "
"How about looking at Denmark and Sweden they are the most non-religious modern societies that could give you and idea if it's possible or not. "
Eh....kind of hard to agree with them as examples. They are probably the closest one might find but the majority of their background is based on a population that was religious. Even now, about half of the Danes believe in some kind of spirit or life force. 80% of the population belong to the Church of Denmark.
Anyway, while their current standing is good in reagrds to health and other services....is it sustainable? Is it due to their more non-religious background?
Maybe I am wrong but I do not see a thousand year existence of either of these nations.
@Honey Badger Dont Care : Evidence is necessary for the person who is making the positive claim.
You're advancing a positive claim that God doesn't exist or more specifically: God isn't needed for this world as we see it. Would you care to provide evidence for the natural creation of matter, energy and time?
Admitting you don't know is much better than claiming you do, when you don't
the positive affirmation that goes does NOT exist...how is this a positive? pretzel logic from the illogical thinker.
As far as positive evidence of what caused the big bang, we are still looking, with many theories being worked and re-worked as data and observation ar colated. We know it is fact that the big bang happened, we are now trying to show the cause. Saying god did it is irrational and illogical, bacause you are attributing something to a creature you have not shown actually exists.
@Blessed are the Cheesemakers : Admitting you don't know is much better than claiming you do, when you don't
So you admit that God IS a possibility?
apolpogies for the typos...typing in a moving vehicle.
@Live4Him
Which god?
Sure God is possible, so are aliens and unicorns.
@Really?? : the positive affirmation that goes does NOT exist...how is this a positive?
Do you admit that God IS a possibility?
Glad it is illegall to teach in public schools in US remember about prayer.
Have a common sense day.
L4H
While it is a possibility that there is a god, it is an extreme improbability. The difference would be obvious if you actually took some science and math classes.
Going on the assumption, that your god theory is correct is scientifically irresponsible as you ahve absolutely nothing to back up the theory. Come up with a scientific method for testing for the presence of god, and you might have something. Since I know you can't, I'll just assume you WANT to jump to irrational conclusions based on a 2000 year old book of myths
@Live4Him:
I'll admit that I don't know if you'll admit that you don't know either. Actually, I'll admit it anyway... and I think that you are fearful of death and are greedy for a spiffy afterlife, and are a participant in wishful thinking.
"You're advancing a positive claim that God doesn't exist or more specifically: God isn't needed for this world as we see it. "
absolutely wrong. that something does not exist is a negative claim - that god exists is a positive claim. you can't prove a negative. if YOU say there is a god - you are making the claim. YOU must provide proof for your claim. again, you can't prove a negative. prove my left nut isn't god. can't? then by that 'logic', my left nut must be god, since you can't prove otherwise. see how silly that is? if i say my left nut is god, then i'm the one that has to prove it. it's not on someone else to disprove my nuts' divinity.
"So you admit that God IS a possibility?"
Yes, A god is possible but not the christian god, it is a contradiction and next to impossible for that god to exist, not to mention the christian god is not a moral concept.
I do not believe in any concept of god that humans have ever postulated, but one is possible.
Even if one accepts that a deity created the universe, simply because they can't explain where matter came from, (ignoring the fact that one has to assume said deity had no begining, but that's ok), it is meaningless without proof of an eternal soul and consequences for believing in one god over another. "Which god?" is much more important than "god or no god."
@hawaiiguest : Which god?
At this stage, any god.
Live4Him
Ever study statistics? I did for about a month before my brain almost exploded from the tedium. I did however learn a thing or two about 'the null hypothesis'. Read up on it then come back and apologize.
@Live4Him
Well, if it's any god, then sure it's a possibility.
Is it likely? No.
Is it plausible? Not really
Is the god of the bible possible? Not even a little.
@Rational Libertarian : Ever study statistics? I did for about a month before my brain almost exploded from the tedium.
Every day. If you do, then you should be able to interpret the results on the recent post on SBNR. Give it a go, if you would.
As in spiritual but not religious? I have no idea what you're talking about or if it bares any relevance to this. From your ilk I guess it has something to do with the argumentum ad populum fallacy.
L4H: So you admit that God IS a possibility?
@Blessed are the Cheesemakers : Yes, A god is possible but not the christian god, it is a contradiction and next to impossible for that god to exist,
Why?
The concept of the CHristian god is illogical. The christian god is "perfect" and therefore needs nothing, and yet that same god requires belief. Contrary to Christian teaching, "belief" is not a "choice", yet Christianity teaches it is a "choice" and those who do not "believe" are actually "rejecting" the belief. Can you "choose" to suddenly believe that Vishnu, the Hindu god is real? Of course not. Therefore rewarding and punishing people based on belief or non-belief is immoral. A perfect god would know and understand this. The Christian god does not exist.
@ Live4Him
Im one of the Atheists that knows there is no god....the agnostic approach that nobody knows for sure lends weight that 2000 year old religions MIGHT be right. This to me is like saying there MIGHT be magic.
Whats going on in the universe I may not fully comprehend (im not a scientist) but so far,without fail, every event has a logical expanation... science is the only known tool we humans have at our disposal to explain the things going on around us with any kind of acuracy... The notion that a mind blowingly powerful mind just wish it all into being is just beyond....
Lets put it this way, supermassive blackholes (the ones appearently at the center of every galaxy0 are the most powerful active force that i can even BEGIN to imagine- and That kind of power is beyond frightening..... Magnetars... ect are just ...try to imagine that kind of power.....now your God would be realms more powerful- try and truly wrap your brain around that...now imagine that kind of power bothering to write a bible, and leaving the pathetic instuctions contained within.
@Rational Libertarian : I have no idea what you're talking about or if it bares any relevance to this.
Can you interpret the following results?
group A vs. Group B and Group C on test 1 : (OR = 0.73, 95% CI 0.60–0.88)
Having glanced at the study, that seems to be the statistic that proves religious people were less likely to have used drugs. Even though I'm staunchly anti drugs, it still doesn't infer any proof of a deity's existence.
the statement “gods exist” is a positive claim.
the statement “gods do not exist” is a negative claim that only responds to the positive one.
it wouldn't make any sense to anyone except the enemies of reason to go around denouncing the existence of unknown or flatly fictional beings, if there isn't anyone making the positive claim that those things do exist.
to state that the assertion “gods do not exist” is a positive claim really misses the mark entirely.
positing a concept-being (god) is adding, not subtracting.
to state that “gods exist” is a negative claim in response to “gods do not exist” entirely ignores the fact that ‘gods’ is still an added or positive consti tuent to the conversation.
stop being ignorant
The same goes for you religionists. Would you care to provide evidence that a invisible flying sky wizard exists, and that it actually holds the crazy, illogical and sadistic attributes and moral preferences you christian cultists ascribe to it?
On a tangential note: The discovery of the existence of god would surely be the greatest scientific feat of all time (assuming it exists.) As yet no such discovery has been made, and not even a single scientific hypothesis has been proposed to even TEST for its existence. Yet the jesus cultists claim to not only KNOW that it exists, but also claim to have a personal, chatty relationship with it and claim to know and represent its moral leanings. On that basis, they have made life UNBEARABLE for millions of people throughout history through everything from murder to psychological attacks..
Now if that isn't arrogance and evil of the vilest variety, then I don't know what is.
Ha
=>3,400 years after Moses wrote Genesis everyone still clearly understands regardless of culture, race, time, or education. So simple a child can understand and so complicated theologians cannot comprehend. It covers all the basis needed for those interested and further reveals the heart of the reader and exposes the reality of the disposition of his or her heart. That is Devine and that is the word of God.
=>”In the beginning God” – First cause or causation remains the prevailing thought since the Greeks and to this very day as to origin of the universe
“created the heavens and the earth” – all baryonic matter we know resulted from causation is the truth as we know it.
That is just the first line of the Bible that has captivated man since writing was known. The biggest selling book of all time and every year since it was bound.
Ahem, fredso, writing predates the buybull by tens of thousands of years. Longer than the bible says the earth has existed, in many interpretations.
Ted
Yes, and there is evidence of worship among the Neanderthal as well. Interesting that God was self evident even then.
Well of course, fred. And it's the neanderthals that are still worshiping.
Excellent article! I'm an atheist because there is no real evidence for the existence of any god. It's a wonderful way to live – I know I'm responsible for my own actions, and don't live my life to be good because an invisible power in the sky says to – I am a good person because it's the right thing to do. I refuse to indoctrinate my children with any religion. They can make up thier own minds on that when they're old enough to understand what it means. And a side note...I don't shy away from religious information. I've read (and continue to read) all kinds of books on religion, and the more I read, the more I know gods are a myth. Reality is awesome, and the best way to go.
Would you like to present your position on atheism while I present my position on Christianity?
@Live4Him re: Would you like to present your position on atheism while I present my position on Christianity?
No thanks, I have no need to prove anything to you. I'm confident in my views, and I'm happy with the way I'm living my life, as I'm assuming you are. Or not, if it bothers you that much that not everyone lives as you do.
agreed. excellent article. and sorry Live, there is zero evidence for god.
god = fail
It's the parents right to raise thier child as they see fit. I just hope they don't hinder their child from exploring what they believe in when they get older.
My parents did not raise me with God but they also didn't stop me from learning about Christianity, Judaism and other faiths when I was curious.
@Uncouth,
" I just hope they don't hinder their child from exploring what they believe in when they get older."
How wouold not teaching them about the notion of God do that?
The way to vaccinate against religion is to teach children how to think, not what to think.
"How wouold not teaching them about the notion of God do that?"
It wouldn't. What I mean is that they don't make their atheistic views an absolute when it comes to their children. If their child want to explore other faiths or such, then they shouldn't make that seem horribly wrong.
"The way to vaccinate against religion is to teach children how to think, not what to think."
Close but it would be more accurate this way: The way to vaccinate against ignorance is to teach children how to think, not what to think.
Having a faith does not mean a person cannot think for themselves. Just like being an atheist does not mean you can think for yourself.
the lady said she was fine with her kids going to church. she said she even discusses it with them afterwards. so doesn't sound like she is preventing them from learning about religion.
"Having a faith does not mean a person cannot think for themselves."
People of religious faith can think and reason, they just don't apply it properly to their faith. They believe in something without proper justification. "Faith" is pretending to know something, you don't know, and contrary to popular opinion it is not a virtue.
"the lady said she was fine with her kids going to church...."
And that's good.
My ignorance, my limitations, my intelligence???, my self sufficiency, my wellbeing, even my foolishness, wickedness tells me that someone loved me and REVEALED HIS LOVE for me because i surrendered my unbelief.
HE showed me that ALL that I have is garbage and dung!
So HE rewarded me with FAITH to KNOW HIM!! For this I REJOICE daily for that BLESSED ASSURANCE and HEAVENLY HOPE! May you it have too!
@Honey Badger Dont Care : You have ABSOLUTELY no evidence that your point of view is correct. NONE.
What's your evidence for what you believe?
they have zero proof. their parents were religious and told them what to believe. they never questioned it.
According to the Bible, God appeared on numerous occasions, sent Angels a bunch more times, and topped it of by spending 33 years doing magic.....So appearing isnt a problem...
So why is it that Humanity is stuck today with a bunch of graping middlemen?
what proof would we accept? ...how about an appearance or two..maybe some magic tricks... raising the dead should do
after all it was no problem on several occasions.
waiting for reply L4H
If the bible is true where the hell is your rely on the bones from Eve or the skins from the talking snake I asked you about on page 1
oops reply
A complete and utter lack of evidence anywhere in the known universe is VERY strong evidence that there is no god or supernatural entity. Add to that the errors, contradictions, and absurd claims in the bible, as well as the places where Jesus makes grand statements that are provably wrong, and you have 99.9999999999999999999999999999% certainty that there is no deity, and in that .000000000000000000000000000000000000001% possibility, that it is 99.999999999999999999999999% certain it is NOT Christianity.
Evidence is necessary for the person who is making the positive claim. i.e. God exists. If I say that there is insufficient evidence to believe the claim that a god exists then that is the proof of what I believe. It is your job to provide evidence in support of your claim.
I wouldn't expect someone who is religious to understand logic or reason.
@L4H: "What's your evidence for what you (atheist) believe?"
Bootyfunk : "they have zero proof."
I'd like to agree, but I must be honest. You're wrong, there is some evidence.
@science : the bones from Eve or the skins from the talking snake
Do you know anything about decay? Or do you believe that Biblical things never decay?
Sure do have a bucket full of fossils Fossil Redord fact
"Yes, you and I deserve Hell, .... Why can't you see how loving and kind that is?"
oops misposted.
Should have been @Topher on page 2
St. Peter: So Mr. Jones, let's go over your life... You helped run a cancer charity organization. You have been faithful to your wife and raised three loving children. You've worked hard your entire life and helped people when you could. Oh... wait a minute. It says here you don't believe in God...
Mr. Jones: All of that is correct.
St. Peter: Burn in hell for all eternity!
Mr. Jones: But I've been a good person. You said so!
St. Peter: Yes, but you said God didn't exist - so now you have to be tortured for all eternity by our loving creator.
Mr. Jones: But that's not fair. God didn't put any evidence on earth. I was just using my brain.
St. Peter: Using your brain is the biggest sin of all.
Mr. Jones: What do you do in heaven all day anyway?
St. Peter: We sit on clouds all day and worship God.
Mr. Jones: Send me to hell.
@ME II : Why can't you see how loving and kind that is?
Which is more loving – to allow the individual the choice or to force them a certain direction?
@Live4Him,
(just for clarification, I was quoting someone else.)
How is it loving to create someone without any possibility of meeting some arbitrary standard and then punishing them for not meeting it.?
Whether we have free will or not seems immaterial at that point, except that it provide an excuse for eternal torture, although a weak one.
@Live4Him
Which is more important, belief and obedience or acts? According to your doctrine, belief and obedience is the greatest good.
Any god who makes imperfection is not a worthy god. A god who loses 1/3 of his angels is not worthy to be a god and lacks good leadership.
Live4,
"Which is more loving – to allow the individual the choice or to force them a certain direction?"
Believe or Burn is not a valid conceptualization of 'choice'... anymore than a thug in an alley who says, "You have a choice. Give me your wallet or I will shoot you in the head."
Well MEasly II, just stop sinning and show us how holy you are. Then pay off your debts.
@lol??,
What?
Theist: What is the proof that Scientists are telling us the truth? They carry out experiments in their labs, do their research, write it in their books. I think Darwin never existed either. Atheists just made something up. I'v never seen a bone of an ape like human. Those pictures of prehistoric apes were all made up as well.
Atheist: No you idiot, read the books, do research, spend time learning, do the experiments yourself, go to labs and look for yourself the bones you uneducated idiot.
Theist: Do you do the same for the scientific miracles of the Quran? or do research from the authentic sources of Islam? Or just google it or youtube it and listen to all Mozlem-haters lying and deceiving and taking things out of context? Exactly, evidence requires sincerity and effort. I havent met a single Muslim who blindly follows Islam. There is enough evidence.
Atheist: But as Atheists, we must have double standards you know. You should listen to me but I dont care what you hvae to say because I am arrogant and I am the best.
"What is the proof that Scientists are telling us the truth?"
It's called the peer review process. That is another part of science that you probably think is a conspiracy though.
christians are allergic to proof. it doesn't matter how much evidence you show them - they will deny it in favor of their invisible sky-fairy. there are MOUNTAINS of evidence that you can confirm yourself, if you get an education.
"I havent met a single Muslim who blindly follows Islam. There is enough evidence."
*** LOL! what a joke. ALL religions follow their god blindly - when people think for themselves, they stop being religious. and name ONE shred of evidence from ANY religion that proves ANY of their bullsh.it. just one.
"Atheist: But as Atheists, we must have double standards you know. You should listen to me but I dont care what you hvae to say because I am arrogant and I am the best."
*** we have reality on our side. again, we can prove what we say - you can't. see the difference? i guess you think human curiosity is arrogance. you think human ingenuity and reasoning is arrogance. basically, you're saying thinking for yourself is arrogant. it's obvious you've been taught to turn your brain off and obey.
I'm confused,
Did you decide to use a non existant atheist because you were afraid to debate a real atheist or are you just upset because you're wrong?
P.S. telling someone to read the books and do the research themselves isn't arrogant or rude or an impossible thing to do. If someone were to give a hypothesis, do the experiment and either confirm or deny that hypothesis based on those results, it's no good unless they can prove their method was right and the results can be reproduced.
Apparently home schooled 14-year-old brats like Wei have plenty of time to come there and parade their bitter ignorance.
So young, so stupid – poor Wei.
Peer pressure and career savin'...."Hsa 7:3 They make the king glad with their wickedness, and the princes with their lies."
Answer your question in your handle.
Wei,
Muslims do not blindly follow?
Surah An-Najm :
{2} Your companion has not strayed; he is not deluded;
{3} he does not speak from his own desire.
{4} It is nothing less than a inspiration that is inspired to him
{5} It was taught to him by one with mighty powers,
{6} great strength, who stood
{7} on the highest horizon
{8} and then approached––coming down
{9} until he was two bow-lengths away or even closer
{10} and revealed to God’s servant what He revealed.
{11} [The Prophet’s] own heart did not distort what he saw.
{12} Are you going to dispute with him what he saw?
How dare they even think to open their eyes and think for themselves!?
Proof is in the numbers.