 |
|
|
|
|
May 19th, 2011
03:00 PM ET
My Take: Doomsdayers show what’s wrong with all religion
By David Silverman, Special to CNN Let nobody doubt that religion hurts people. Good, intelligent, caring people suffer every day and everywhere at the hands of religion, the happy lie. Religion is used by dishonest people who claim to know the way to the one thing humans want most: immortality. To combat fear of death, religious people ignore their intellect, believe the lie, and follow the preacher, usually blindly and sometimes to the point of insanity. We are witnessing one very good example of this right now, as a group led by Christian ministry leader Harold Camping prepares for the end of the world this Saturday, May 21. Of course, the weekend will pass without incident and thousands of Camping's followers, having spent or donated huge amounts of money on his behalf, will be gravely disappointed. Victims will be broken. Families will be damaged. Lives will be ruined. All because someone made a good pitch, and followers believed. Opinion: May 21 Doomsday movement harms Christianity I am not sure if Camping is a liar, but I think so. He realized that religion is a great way to make tax-free money off the backs of well-meaning people, through donations to his ministry, all without fearing eternal damnation. You see, I suspect that he, like many others of his ilk, doesn’t believe in God at all. It may seem odd that I would accuse this man of being an atheist like me, but rest assured that he is nothing like me. Like most atheists, I’m a pretty nice person and would never scam someone out of his or her life savings or convince someone to quit a job just to line my pockets. The truth is that religion and ethics are completely independent of one another. Follow CNN’s Belief Blog on Twitter Consider how Newt Gingrich could campaign against President Bill Clinton's adultery as the darling of the Religious Right while actually being an adulterer himself. Consider how evangelical superstar Ted Haggard could preach against homosexuality, in God’s name, while hiding a gay lover. And consider Camping, who can get donors to cough up what appears to be a lot of money in God’s name while ruining his followers’ real lives on Earth. These are not people who fear God or hell. In my opinion, they know very well that gods are myths. They are just bad people. Atheists have bad people, too, the worst of whom feign religion for their own personal gain. Next week, Camping’s victims will ask our forgiveness for being so foolish, and we will forgive them, because we’ve all done stupid things. They will ask for money and we will help them, because most people are charitable. And then Camping victims will ask us to forget all about this whole ugly scam. That is something we must never do. We must remember that Camping, atheist or not, is no different from any other preacher. Religion thrives on fear–the constant threat of any-time-now Judgment Day coupled with eternal punishment in hell for those who don’t believe strongly enough. Since rational minds question irrational things, believers constantly have doubts, and therefore fear that they don't have enough faith to pass muster during the eventual Rapture, when the righteous will be saved and the unrighteous will be damned. Fear of hell makes believers desperate to ease those doubts so they can be sure to get into heaven. It’s a recipe for fear-based obedience, which is exactly what religion craves. It’s the method used by Camping, and by the rest of Christianity, too. If we forget about Camping, this apocalyptic madness will happen again. Next year is 2012 and, just as was supposed to happen in 2011, 2004, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1997, 1994 and other years that the world is supposed to end, according to one religion or another. What will we do in 2012? Will we sit still while preachers take advantage of the gullible again? Will we refrain from confronting the fools and continue to revere religion? Or will we, as a society, demand that people use their intellect and pay attention to their preachers, priests, rabbis or mullahs and see them as the scammers they really are? This weekend, preachers from coast to coast will talk about why they are right and Camping is wrong, and I ask you all to listen closely. They will try to justify why one interpretation of the Bible (theirs) is right while the others are wrong. In the end, they are all interpreting the “perfect word of God” in their own imperfect way so that God agrees with their own agenda. It’s obvious if you look for it; no preacher ever says "God disagrees with me." Yes, this weekend we will giggle at the fools who follow the preachers that earn their living spreading happy lies. Religion will have been proven wrong yet again. But we all must remember that people have been hurt this weekend. We hope the victims of this year’s end-of-the-world will lift themselves back up, dust themselves off, and come out of this as better, less gullible people. Hopefully, they will use their experience to help others avoid future scams by shouting loudly at tomorrow’s victims, without fear of being irreverent about something which deserves no reverence at all. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Silverman. soundoff (1,927 Responses)1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next »
Next entry »Mel Gibson's passionate faith
« Previous entryMy Take: Obama yokes Arab Spring to civil rights movement
|
  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 with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
Editor's Note: David Silverman, an atheist since age 6, is president of 
"You see, I suspect that he, like many others of his ilk, doesn’t believe in God at all."
Wow..he is an expert on everything isn't he?
This man represents a real problem that includes some within religion and some of those that are even athiests. He can't just say he disagrees with someone else's belief. He wants to ridicule them for their belief and try to make the regret they ever believed in something that he doesn't.
The man is welcome to his opinion....but it's just that....an opinion.
He sure does state alot of opinions like they are fact, that's for sure.
"Let nobody doubt that religion hurts people"
"To combat fear of death, religious people ignore their intellect, believe the lie, and follow the preacher"
"Like most atheists, I’m a pretty nice person"
I'm just glad he put so many issues that we debate on to rest!
@Ryan- Let's clear up some truth for you shall we.
1) "Let nobody doubt that religion hurts people"- You can replace "religion" with any other noun and it wouldn't be wrong would it? This is an opinion from the author..not fact.
2) "To combat fear of death, religious people ignore their intellect, believe the lie, and follow the preacher"- Another lie with not facts. Follow a Preacher?? Who does that? I don't and I am a Christian. Guess the author is wrong yet again.
3)"Like most atheists, I’m a pretty nice person"- Wishful thinking there. Of course there is nothing that can be offered to make this assumption a fact right?
Odd how some atheists are all over wanting "facts" unless they are talking. Then their opinions are good enough.
There are a few things that upset me when reading this article. I have no problems with this writer saying he's atheist. The problems arise when he tries to generalize things. He's claiming he's like most atheists. Okay, I won't argue with that. That's something other atheists have to decide.
Now, I don't know about other religions, but Christianity from what the Bible teaches does not scare people into believing. Yes, there are judgements from God on people, but it is due to people doing what is wrong in God's eyes. Most of the time God just allows the demon forces to take over in your life. A father has love for his children, but punishes them if they do wrong. God is the same in this respect.
The other thing is that this writer is generalizing Heaven and hell to all religions. I'm pretty sure there are religions out there that don't have a hell. Some may not even have a place like Heaven.
One thing that this writer does have in common with most atheists, is that they don't read the Bible before talking about Christianity. To other atheists they look like bigshots, but to people who have read the Bible, much of these words contradict it. Don't follow denominations, but follow God's word (the Bible), and build a relationship with Jesus. No need to have 40000+ denominations.
Lycidas
@BRC- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you (unlike some) have worded yourself in a very nice manner. In my peticular case, I was raised by atheists (or maybe more accurate a unreligious home) and decided when I was a teen that there was a God. I guess we can all come to different conclusions away from our background.
----–
Yes we can. I was raised a christian and actually wanted to become a preacher. Eventually, I changed paths and I am agnostic.
@Artist- ??? How did that response get there? Did CNN goof again or did you hit the wrong reply button? Just curious since CNN has made many goofs on here.
"David Silverman, an atheist since age 6"
What kind of crap is that? Are we really suppose to think that at age 6 he had any real concept of what atheism is? He might not have believed in God or any deity, but that does not make him an atheist since most atheists I know say they chosen to be an atheist. A six year old doesn't have the life experience yet to make that kind of call.
We're all born atheist, religious beliefs come after, just like we're all born non-stamp collectors. By 6 I certainly can believe people are cognisant enough to realise "well I don't believe any of that god stuff people talk about".
But I'll go further and directly say I've been an atheist my entire life, there was never a point I believed in any deity.
Babies are baptized in many denominations. What do parents say to their children when they ask, "What religion are we?" Many just say, "We are ____."
@ Lycidas.
You stated: "A six year old doesn't have the life experience yet to make that kind of call."
That's why religions get to children even earlier, and indoctrinate them from the beginning, starting with baptism, then sunday school, then confirmation, religious schools, marriage, death. Religion has worked it's way into all the important times in life. Interesting that there is usually a fee ($$$$) for all these events..... Follow the money.
@JJ to that end, I've never understood how the CC justifies having seven year olds perform the sacrament of the Eucharist, when they can't possibly understand the concept of transubstantiation, if not to indoctrinate. If you're used to believing in transubstantiation, then you're likely to continue not question those beliefs (or, if you're like many Catholic, you don't understand it to begin with). I would imagine if they waited much longer to present this concept, you'd get a much more skeptical reaction.
@Andrew- No Andrew..we are born ignorant. We don't know anything beyond the instinct of nursing. We are not born atheist...when was the last time you was around any number of children? They have a greater ability to believe than not to believe.
@JJ in CT Nominus- Not all Christians are "indoctrinated" into belief. That is a gross misunderstanding of faith.
If a person was raised by atheist parents and became an atheist as an adult....would you call them indoctrinated as well?
@ Lycidas – "They have a greater ability to believe than not to believe." Yes, that's because parts of their brains are not fully developed yet. That's why it's easy to make them believe in Santa Claus, Jesus' reanimation, and that you've got their nose between your thumb and forefinger.
@Linda- Thank you.....you have expressed right well why a child cannot be an atheist or Christian. They just don't know yet because their brains aren't developed enough.
@Lycidas
You said: "What kind of crap is that? Are we really suppose to think that at age 6 he had any real concept of what atheism is? He might not have believed in God or any deity, but that does not make him an atheist since most atheists I know say they chosen to be an atheist. A six year old doesn't have the life experience yet to make that kind of call."
All children are born atheist. They don't believe in any god. Almost from birth, their parents start to program the silly into them.
If you were born and raised in Iran by Muslim parents, you would very, very likely be a follower of the Muslim faith. What your parents believe and where you were raised, has the most significant influence on what religion you will embrace.
Ask yourself, "Would this be true if there really was a one true god?" Be honest in your answer.
Cheers!
Interesting, since he writes like a six-year old.
@Lycidas
I have to disagree with you. My parents gave me no proding or direction at all when I was a child, and when I was 5 I went to church with one of my friends to see what it was about. It took me about 15 minutes to decide that nothing they were saying made any sense. You're right, at that age you may not have the fully developed argument (many adults don't), but there is absolutely nothing to stop a young person with an unbiased and active mind from seeking answers, and determining that religion doesn't really provide any (for some people it does, fine, for me it did not and does not). 22 years later and with constant seeking on the topic (I find what other people believe truly intruiging), I still don't buy it.
"All children are born atheist. They don't believe in any god."
Again..this is not correct. You are confusing ignorance with knowledge. A child's ignorance about the world around them is not the same as an adult making a choice that they do not believe in God.
Would you say that an atheist by ignorance and a atheist by choice are at the same level?
""Would this be true if there really was a one true god?" "
I have yet been shown why this couldn't be.
@BRC- I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since you (unlike some) have worded yourself in a very nice manner. In my peticular case, I was raised by atheists (or maybe more accurate a unreligious home) and decided when I was a teen that there was a God. I guess we can all come to different conclusions away from our background.
Good article.
Thanks.
Lycidas
@Stevie7- I see you got lost also. "No god" isn't an alternative to my statement. If one believes that existence came from God and you disagree....then you must believe in something other than God. You got it? "No god" doesn't explain existence.
.
One alternative is the creator or creators might not fit the mold of magic guy in the sky and always watching over. We might have had a creator or creators but it seems they left the building a long time ago.
Possible...if that's what you believe.
CW @ Jesusfreaker,
Since were on the subject of "mind"....How is it that your 100% certain in "your" mind that God doesn't exist. Since you always want my "proof"...Where's your so called proof? Please try to stay to answer this question.....
--------
This statement is a common defensive response from christians and geting quite boring. Saying that is like me saying prove that fairies don't exist. The burden is on the "believer" to establish their god or evidence. The lack of and zero evidence is the benchmark of no magical god. The ball has always been in the "believer's" court regardless if they try to throw it back without proving their point.
@ Artist,
Okay since you response to me was this
Since were on the subject of "mind"....How is it that your 100% certain in "your" mind that God doesn't exist. Since you always want my "proof"...Where's your so called proof? Please try to stay to answer this question.....
--–
This statement is a common defensive response from christians and geting quite boring. Saying that is like me saying prove that fairies don't exist. The burden is on the "believer" to establish their god or evidence. The lack of and zero evidence is the benchmark of no magical god. The ball has always been in the "believer's" court regardless if they try to throw it back without proving their point.
--------------------------------------------------
I say: STEP UP TO THE BAT!!! What are you afraid off....I know....you can't NO more prove that GOD doesn't exist just like I can't prove he DOES exist to you. That is the reason for your so called "boring" response. That is exactly my point....let me end on this...I've made my bet....you've made yours....all I can do is pray for you....that our Lord will open your eyes. Let me ask....since I can pray for you and you're a good person I as.sume...what or whom can you pray to in order to help me?
"what or whom can you pray to in order to help me?"
No one needs to do anything for you that is the problem with society all these people who WON"T take responsibility for their own lives and stop looking to others for a handout. Artist doesn't have to do anything for you, just like your God doesn't do anything for you.
"just like I can't prove he DOES exist to you. "
That's exactly why it's all in your imagination, he doesn't exist. You apply God to things you can't explain to make yourself believe it's true.
@CW "The burden is on the "believer" to establish their god or evidence."
I love it when atheists hide behind the "proving the negative". It is so cute and elementary. That is why I would never ask for an athiest to prove that God doesn't exist. Obviously you must believe in something else. Something that runs opposite of a faith in a religious being. Fine...what is it and prove that it is true. In true debate, one half of the debate can't just be a person saying "prove God exists" without them having to prove an alternative to God existing.
@Harold- "he doesn't exist"
And you have yet to offer an alternative that you can prove. Doesn't that make you actually worse than those that state a belief?
Lycidas, that's exactly how a debate like this works. Replace 'god' with 'Unicorns' or 'A flying teapot orbiting jupiter too small to be detected by anything' and you would never ask the person who doubts their existence to provide an alternative. The alternative is pretty straightforward. 'Unicorns don't exist, nor does the teapot'. Why should religion be treated any differently?
"I love it when atheists hide behind the "proving the negative". It is so cute and elementary. That is why I would never ask for an athiest to prove that God doesn't exist. Obviously you must believe in something else. Something that runs opposite of a faith in a religious being. Fine...what is it and prove that it is true. In true debate, one half of the debate can't just be a person saying "prove God exists" without them having to prove an alternative to God existing."
A true Christian work around to not being able to prove god exists they point at the Atheist and say you have to prove he doesn't or you have to prove what you believe in. Typical.... keep pointing at the Atheist and placing the burden on them because you don't have any proof. If you did you would be happy to share so you could convert us into believing as you do.
Lycidas
@CW "The burden is on the "believer" to establish their god or evidence."
I love it when atheists hide behind the "proving the negative". It is so cute and elementary. That is why I would never ask for an athiest to prove that God doesn't exist. Obviously you must believe in something else. Something that runs opposite of a faith in a religious being. Fine...what is it and prove that it is true. In true debate, one half of the debate can't just be a person saying "prove God exists" without them having to prove an alternative to God existing.
.
As I mentioned the benchmark is already established, there is no evidence or lack of. Are you going to keep avoiding it. I will give you a hint, your faith is based on zero evidence, this is why you have to have faith. You can come keep dodging it or providing as sumptions but the reaility is this...not one god has come forward and through history of man there isn't one shred of evidence or proof of "any" god. Because all religions and faith lack evidence in their magical beings, one must have faith.
.
So are you going to admit the obvious? To deny the obvious is to deny you have faith.
"Replace 'god' with 'Unicorns' "
Why would anyone do that? Do you believe in unicorns? I think next you might see a straw man.
"Why should religion be treated any differently?"
Religion should be challenged...note the word use. Merely dismissing it is hardly scientific or rational. I am a firm believer that those that believe in God should have a good understanding of what they believe. Same goes for atheists. Merely saying "God doesn't exist" is intellectually lazy unless real thought was done by the one that feels that way.
Harold. Can I assume that the same logic applies to the gods/beliefs of the Hindus, Buddhist, Muslims, Jews, etc. It must, right? As such, you accept the existence of all their gods because "one can't disprove them".
If not, please expalin what gives your god special status.
@Artist- Let's first be clear that no benchmark has been established because no one is able to do that. Plz admit that at least. You are wanting to examine the infinite when you are quite finite. Let us just say that we all are below that pay grade.
"I will give you a hint, your faith is based on zero evidence, this is why you have to have faith."
I guess you ignore the historical records and archaeological finds. My faith is built upon reason, study and evidence both supporting and to the contrary of my faith. Though I would assume you are basing your judgement of my faith on your limited understanding of religion and trying to shoehorn a general perception to me...an individual.
"Same goes for atheists. Merely saying "God doesn't exist" is intellectually lazy unless real thought was done by the one that feels that way."
You are assuming they are lazy and didn't do the research before coming to their conclusions. I have seen many comments stating they have read the Bible and other literature before making their decision. Have you taken the time to read all the science theories, archeology, or astronomy? Or where you intellectually lazy and just kept to what would agree with your limited view point.
"If not, please expalin what gives your god special status."
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
@Colin: Harold's on your side. He just didn't do a real good job of delineating his post from the one he was quoting.
@Harold- I like your ego..thought quite typical. Let me be blunt, you are not that important. My faith does not require me to prove anything to you because you are unable to believe anyway. Am I right?
"Typical.... keep pointing at the Atheist and placing the burden on them because you don't have any proof. "
So.....you think that being irrationally dismissive to one thought while not giving a counter position is the correct way to do things on here? Good luck with that.
@Harold- Easy now....don't get all fired up. Hate it when atheists get there thin skin scratched.
"You are assuming they are lazy and didn't do the research before coming to their conclusions....Have you taken the time to read all the science theories, archeology, or astronomy? Or where you intellectually lazy and just kept to what would agree with your limited view point."
To look at what I have seen of you....I might be tempted to say you have been lazy. I've seen little to counter that thought yet on here but you saying others have done research.
I have studied science, archaeology (including visiting sites in Israel, Jordan and Egypt), and I loved astronomy. Check out the new info on Gliese 581...cool stuff they are discovering there.
Lycidas, I replace it with 'unicorns' because it is a similarly unsupported claim lacking in evidence. The point is that when you ask me as an atheist for an alternative, I consider it the logical equivalent of asking me for an alternative to unicorns. I believe neither, therefore asking me for an alternative to belief in either proposition seems silly, because I hold the alternative.
Non-belief IS the alternative to belief. If you ask me to give you an alternative to believing in god, the alternative is quite simply, not believing in god. Which is what I defend. So if you ask me to provide an alternative to believing in unicorns, the same argument goes.
It's not a straw man if you cannot first distinguish how religious belief is more substantial than belief in unicorns. If they have the same evidence basis (see: none), then they are equivalent claims.
Lycidas, you can't just say religious beliefs are more substantial than belief in unicorns, you have to demonstrate that to be true by providing evidence for religious beliefs. I dismiss religion on the same grounds I dismiss unicorns, or that teapot, because there has never been any evidence provided which would make me accept said beliefs.
The default is always non-belief. Claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, claims of unicorns without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and similarly, claims about god without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
@Andrew- "I believe neither, therefore asking me for an alternative to belief in either proposition seems silly, because I hold the alternative."
Nice slight of hand. Obviously when I asked for an alternative I did not mean something else you do not believe in. In the case of religion, it is some ppl's faith that existence is here because of God. You say no...that is your right of course.
So when I ask for an alternative, it should be quite apparent I am asking for an alternative view on existence. You can squirm away from this or not. It doesn't really effect much.
"claims about god without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Ah, but what evidence would suffice? No one ever says that in a clear manner. Also, you clearly put that you are the one deciding and not a method od understanding. You are already in a biased position from your own beliefs and you are challenging others to not only counter your unknown beliefs but convince you of theres. I am sorry but I don't think you have an open mind on this topic. I could be wrong.
Lycidas that's a very different issue altogether. Atheists all agree that they don't believe in god, but actual worldviews shift radically between individuals. I myself, being a physics major, I base my worldview around two (admittedly large) a-sumptions. First, that the universe we perceive through our senses carries some truth value about the universe itself. Basically I a-sume we're not a brain in a vat or being tricked by some trickster god. Second, which must be true for the first to be true, is that the universe itself is orderly, rather than chaotic. That means that if ANY methodology can accurately describe the nature of the universe, it is inherently an empiric scientific type methodology, as the methodology is valid first as-uming that the universe behaves orderly, and that laws of physics which are true today won't suddenly stop being true tomorrow. Gravity won't suddenly go backwards in the next ten seconds.
I admit, both of those are rather large a-sumptions, and I cannot prove conclusively that either are not true. But, if the first isn't true, then there isn't much point in discussing the matter anyway, and if the second isn't true then any and all beliefs about the nature of the universe are equally invalid, since any accurate description of the way the universe functions would inherently be a uniformity which implies the universe is in some way uniform which would then lead to some scientific type methodology being valid.
That's how I view the world. I then base my beliefs on what can be emperically demonstrated. Granted, I recognise I cannot evaluate all claims myself, so I rely on others to preform research and rely on their conclusions. I after all can't redo the entire history of science myself. But I recognise that some sources have fewer possible sources of error than others. People who follow a strict scientific methodology to arrive at evidence are seldom as wrong as people who just think they understand the universe without examining it in an empirical manner. I trust astronomers more than I trust astrologers for example.
I'm a physics major, so I tend to view the universe in a fairly reductionist sense, much akin to Feynman or Dirac. I don't try to make too big an issue about my woldview possibly being wrong though because while it's possible when I see food in front of me, nothing is really there... if I let that paralyse me from eating (in a very Pyrrhonian manner no mater what S-xtus might say), I'll go hungry.
Lycidas I at least understand your argument now, and you're right, someone must adopt a worldview by which they are willing to adopt beliefs. I misunderstood what you meant by an 'alternative', and I agree, atheists should be able to explain the process by which they gather their own beliefs, as well as christians or any other individual.
I don't really believe though that terribly many people actually spend time analysing their own epistemological foundations, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof. Hell, even I don't really like looking at my own epistemological foundations because at some level you cannot escape the skeptical hypothesis, so looking at the foundations for worldviews you tend to find they could all be torn apart anyway. Epistemology is an incredibly dull subject in that regard, I much prefer getting my a-sumptions out of the way and dealing with things that are not so silly.
@Lycidas
As a wise man once said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You want people to prove an alternative to god – but you're still just asking people to prove a negative since the obvious answer to an alternative to god is no god. Replace god with mermaids, alien encounters, and ghosts. People have all, at one time or another, believed in all three. There has been 'witnesses' to all three. Now, you tell me, where does the burden of proof lie in those instances? It is not unreasonable to assume the negative given the lack of any shred of evidence. It is completely logical to take the atheists position.
"To look at what I have seen of you....I might be tempted to say you have been lazy. I've seen little to counter that thought yet on here but you saying others have done research."
All you do is counter with questions without backing it up facts about this god. Now that is lazy.
CW-
Christians claim that, amongst the many thousands of gods that humanity has invented, theirs is actually real and the only one to be so. It's a pretty big claim, and one that they have to prove. It's the same as saying that you've stumbled upon a perpetual motion machine, or an alchemy solution to turning lead into gold, or a cure to all cancers. Not being skeptical is what con artists count on in order to cheat you, isn't it? So, what's wrong with being skeptical of such a claim? Just common sense.
"I don't really believe though that terribly many people actually spend time analysing their own epistemological foundations, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof."
The world might be a better place if they did.
@Stevie7- I see you got lost also. "No god" isn't an alternative to my statement. If one believes that existence came from God and you disagree....then you must believe in something other than God. You got it? "No god" doesn't explain existence.
@Harold- You will note that I have yet to call anyone's belief's wrong and that my beliefs are the right one. You do realize that I don't have to defend a position I have yet to make right?
@Lycidas
That incorrect line of thinking is getting really old. If I say that there are mermaids, then, by your line of reasoning, you must have an argument other than there are no mermaids because there is no evidence of them. So what is your belief system regarding the lack of mermaids?
A lack of a belief is not a belief just as not playing football is not a sport. Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The logical view is that there is no god becuase there is zero evidence of a god. Just as the logical conclusion is that there are no mermaids because there is no evidence of such. If you say that you have faith despite the fact that you have zero evidence, great, I can respect that. That's pretty much the essence of faith. But to say that such a belief is logical, or that no belief is belief, or that you KNOW anything without having any evidence of such, completely misses the mark.
"If I say that there are mermaids"
Do you believe in mermaids? I would guess no and that in of itself makes your argument mute. You can't just interchange anything with a certain faith as if it proves a point. If there is no true belief, then whatever you plug in doesn't mean anything.
What if I say evolution? Would you make the same argument or not?
"A lack of a belief is not a belief "
Never said it did. But you do have a belief of something don't you? Or do you just turn your brain off and not ponder existence? What you have been trying to wiggle from is that there are only two things being debated. What your opposition believes and what you believe. You keep trying to make it something else.
Stevie7 I think the issue here is that Lycidas wants something other than the dictionary definition of atheist. If you ever read PZ Myers blog, think of what she's saying akin to his complaints of 'dictionary atheism', where while technically true atheism is simply lack of belief in a deity, the reason we claim 'there is no evidence' is because we've adopted a foundational wordlview centered around empiricism. Others might not share the same philosophic grounds, so to simply state 'we don't believe' doesn't actually tell anyone what we do believe.
Chances are you're very much like me, that you only believe what can be emperically supported, but to do so we clearly have grounded our epistemological beliefs around certain types of evidence. Divination for example could be considered a form of evidence, but it isn't very reliable, so in founding our basis for what const-tutes evidence, we have a philosophy concerning how the world works.
Being a dictionary definition atheist doesn't really expand very much on what you do believe, nor why you consider the statement 'god exists' to be logically equivalent to 'unicorns exist'. To explain that, you have to explain the process by which you gather evidence.
Wrong, it's the opposite. "You can't prove the negative" is rather the canard of the lazy (I mean "New") atheist. I cannot make claims like "there is no life but on planet earth" or "there are no integer n greater than 2 such that x^n + y^n = z^n for integers x,y,z" (Fermat's Last Theorem) and expect those claims to be accepted without proof, simply because "you can't prove the negative." The atheist (not the agnostic) is making a claim just as the theist is, and if neither can present proof for their claims, how come somehow the atheist comes out on top?
CNNreader-
Did anyone have to provide proof that Zeus, Thor and the thousands of other gods were myth? No, of course not. We all came to realize that they had always been myth without any proof whatsoever, leading us to the conclusion that humans love to make up gods.
Christians claim that their god is actually real, which defies the general rule that gods are myth. So, it's up to them to make their case. All the rest of us have to do is fall back to the general rule, the same one that Christians themselves use to discredit all other gods.
Your argument is actually like saying that drug and car companies aren't responsible for proving that their products are safe for people. Christians are selling a god they say is actually real. I require proof of this before buying it. Simple as that!
"Others might not share the same philosophic grounds, so to simply state 'we don't believe' doesn't actually tell anyone what we do believe."
Well written Andrew.
"Christians are selling a god they say is actually real. I require proof of this before buying it. "
Who is selling anything? I think you need to follow the general rule of not making random a*ssumptions about large groups and trying to apply those a*ssumptions onto individuals.
CW
@ Artist,
"I'm not putting my faith in "the man" as you say. I'm putting my faith in God's teachings...yes these were written by man's hand ....."
.
And that is a fact and can be proven. Your faith is in man's writings and what it states. Your faith is that what man has written is true. The core of your faith is in those writings of man. You can deny that reality but then you wouldn't be in reality if you deny it.
Curious CW, I assume you believe the "flood" was regional as well?
Interpretation of information should not be blamed on the source, but on those who misunderstand it or misconstrue it. Secondly, Christianity is not a religion. Religion focuses on rules that must be met to please the one/thing that is worshiped. Christianity is about knowing and believing in Christ and what he did for all of us. One cannot be saved by his own morality, as we all fall short of perfection. Everyone should strive to act out of love, and do what is “morally” right. That is just common sense for the better good. However, this alone cannot make someone “good”, as we all have sinned in the eyes of God. All sin carries a long-term penalty (I’m not talking about Karma). However, the sacrifice of Jesus was to pay the price of our sin once and for all. As long as one truly and fully believes in him and accepts his sacrifice.
@MOH
Belief in the supernatural is not necessary to live your life in the image of Christ.
If someone lives humbly, compassionately, charitably and offers love and acceptance of those around them, are they not moral and living according to Christ's message? Even if they reject virgin births, miracles, and divine zombification?
Finally, the first decent post I've seen. Thank you!
Everyone else (athiests and anti-Christians): Don't blame the bible for Camping's twisted interpretations... and setting a date to the rapture is just the beginning. His followers believe in him and his interpretation rather than what the bible plainly says, and claim they are special because they see "deeper" into it. So my neighbor's dog is really a cat, too.
As MOH hints at: faith does not require religion. Religion does require faith in the system. Go ahead and attack the system - but respect our faith, please.
"but respect our faith, please." I respect your right to have the faith that you have, but I am not obliged to respect the content of your faith and in fact decline to do so.
@MOH,
"Interpretation of information should not be blamed on the source, but on those who misunderstand it or misconstrue it."
Without some way to objectively test whether an interpretation is correct, all interpretations are equal, how do you separate the wheat from chaff.
@BigMal,
I'm not sure the Bible "plainly says" anything. It seems to me that you can justify about any position from the Bible, case in point the Bible was used quite frequently by both pro and con sides of slavery.
@Doc Vestibule
To me, it’s not supernatural at all. Just to take the resurrection for instance. There is proof of his existence (outside of the bible). There is proof of his death, and proof of his resurrection. Archeological evidence is confirming much of the bible, and I have not seen any that contradicts the bible. Either way it’s every person’s free will to believe what they wish. We all believe in something, just a matter of what we chose to believe in.
In regards to living by Christ message….his ultimate message was to accept him, and to recognize and have faith in what he was doing for us. If living by the law of God, then no matter how good any of us want to be, we all fall short of this.
I don’t say these things to antagonize. I say these things because I care. The same way people speak positive for material products that work well in their life…I speak positive of what has brought me great joy in mine. With that said, I do not hold hate in my heart for anyone who does not agree with what I believe.
MOH
Interpretation of information should not be blamed on the source, but on those who misunderstand it or misconstrue it.
-------–
Actually it should. You are talking about the pure word from a god. There is no confusion when something is so clear and perfect. *cough* Perhaps if the god had actually written it it would be different. However man wrote in his own words and it was his own creation
@JohnR- As a Christian, my faith does not require you to respect it's aspects. Works out for everyone eh?
@Nonimus
The bible is clear; but only if one takes the time to truly seek out the clarity. As with most things in life, it takes study to understand it. If you understand the context in which each book was written, it helps tremendously and takes out the ambiguity.
I thought advanced genetics didn’t state anything plainly either, until I took the time to actually study it.
Your second point, affirms my initial point. You cannot blame the source just because people misconstrue the message for their own purposes. An analogy is money; Money can be used to benefit one’s self and the others around you….or…it can be used to bring harm and hurt to those around you. It’s not the fault of money, but the person who is using it.
@Luycidas Yep, you don't need me to respect the content of your faith and I am under no obligation to respect it, and I don't. So yes, that does indeed work out fine for both of us. But I've seen and heard SO many people confusng their right to believe with some totally imaginary right to proclaim their faith without fear of rebuttal that I felt I had to respond to MOH's post, which was less than perfectly clear on the matter.
@MOH,
"The bible is clear; but only if one takes the time to truly seek out the clarity."
But how do you know when you have taken enough time? Perhaps the clarity you see is not the real meaning. Unlike advanced gentics, in which understanding can be tested with real-world experiments, there is no way to know when you have the "real" meaning.
I think you can blame the source if the source is not clear. In your money analogy, if the money did not provide the denomination, wouldn't you then blame the source when the I claim to be paying with a $100 bill and you think it is only a $10 bill?
@MOH: "There is proof of his existence (outside of the bible). There is proof of his death, and proof of his resurrection. Archeological evidence is confirming much of the bible, and I have not seen any that contradicts the bible"
ok, 1) no one said that there "wasn't a jesus christ", yes he existed & back in the day of being a historical person to which gained the massives of followers, yes he was a prophet, yes he was a herbalist (in a way or another) far as healing people, yes they found they death shroud from his death, but 2)his body was NOT resurrected, his body was simply moved from that stoned covered cave-like grave for his body from either by grave robbers or simply by his own followers during that same night he was put in there.
"2)his body was NOT resurrected, his body was simply moved from that stoned covered cave-like grave for his body from either by grave robbers or simply by his own followers during that same night he was put in there."
You have evidence of this statement you are declaring a fact?
The only thing wrong with religion, is that the god(s) don't exist. It is really simple.
Cheers!
No..the only thing that is simple is ppl that say one thing cannot be while not giving a provable alternative. Dismissing a faith because YOU don't agree with it is hardly clever or simple. It's rather rude.
Lycidas if you had any proof you would be happy to share to convert the non-believers. It's the fact you don't have this proof that you play games with words to wiggle out of the fact there is no god except the one in your imagination.
@Harold- "if you had any proof you would be happy to share to convert the non-believers."
I have no idea what proof would convert non-believers. I never felt the need to try because my faith does not require it.
Perhaps you could tell us what proof would make you believe? Is there any?
Everyone should send the church After the Rapture Mints. It'll be great.
@DocVestibule
Hi Doc,
As you may know, every single human on the face of the earth has been proven to be related genetically to a single African female I believe from about 2 million years ago. That's why they call her Mitochondrial Eve. The relationship is considered as proven through the separate DNA passed on directly from mother to baby in the cellular sub structure called the mitochondria, which has a separate and distinct DNA signature from the DNA in the cellular nucleus. None of this is even remotely in dispute in paleontological circles. Everyone who has taken biology 1-0001 in the past 20 years knows this. The business of the flood mythology, while interesting on a cultural level, is not now, nor ever was meant to be taken as a literal historical truth. It is interesting because so many of the other ancient Near Eastern cultures also had their flooding myths, and the Noah stiory is thought to have been lifted from it's remarkably similar "cousin" in the Sumerian Gilgamesh Epic.
I applaud your efforts to try to reason with this sort of nonsense, but I think of it as trying to play tennis, as an advanced player, with a beginner. It just slows you up, and is a waste of time.
@Dorianmode Mitochondrial Eve lived more like 120,000 years ago, if I recall correctly. Certainly a lot less than 2 million years ago.
@JohnR
I stand corrected.
Silverman still hasn't a clue that Noah's flood was regional instead of global. This is the best the atheists have? Good grief, no wonder you folks are trekkies.
Amen.
Abbott's arrived, where's Costello (Adelina)?
@HeavenSent
Whether global or regional, other aspects of teh story simply defy reason.
Even if we postulate a TARDIS Ark (bigger on the inside than the outside) to allow for a zoo inside, what about the inbreeding?
Are we really to believe that 4 breeding pairs of humans (including a 500 year old man), several of whom being directly related, were able to avoid the pitfalls of inbreeding and repopulate a whole town at minimum, or the whole human race if the story is to be taken literally?
I know that many Christians reject evolution, but are we to reject simple mendelian genetics as well?
HeavenSent
Silverman still hasn't a clue that Noah's flood was regional instead of global. This is the best the atheists have? Good grief, no wonder you folks are trekkies.
Amen.
--------–
“And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. “
“And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. “
“And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.”
....
So I take it that the new view of "regional" was adjusted after it was shown that it was clearly BS. So you are not accepting you "word of god" and adjusting it?
Heavensent, you eather accept the "Word of God" or you do not. Your "regional view" clearly demonstrates your lack of faith in "God's Word".
HeaveSent, what you are doing is classis what christians have no choice but to do when light is cast on ignorance...they must adjust their "word of god". What christians are now believing today, they were not 50 years ago.
@ Doc,.....
HeavenSent.....Good to see ya again.
Good ol' Doc....Okay let me address using some of your "science". Lets look at it a bit.....When God created Adam an Eve(notice not Steve) he made them perfect in every way....no dis.ease...no nothing. So in wouldn't seem to you of all people that believe in evolution that it would have took many many generations for the imperfections of imbreeding to occur....Ponder that one.
Peace.
CW I'm not really sure what to make of what you just said. Those of us who 'believe' in evolution wouldn't say Adam and Eve existed in the first place, nor hold to any concept of 'perfection'. Inbreeding isn't a problem among evolutionary thought.
Regardless, if you're a creationist, would you mind answering a question for me? You probably say 'I accept micro-evolution, not macro-evolution, only changes within kinds are possible'. Correct? Would you mind stepping back then and identifying a 'kind'? We have, for example, seen the evolution of a population of the Italian Wall Lizard with new cecal valves which had grown genetically distinct from the original Italian Wall Lizard population. You'll say they're the same 'kind' as the species it evolved from, the Italian Wall Lizard itself. But then what about the rest of the Wall Lizards? Did god really create some 20 something different genra of Wall Lizards? Or did Wall Lizards evolve from true lizards and true lizards are their own kind? Or did 'true lizards' evolve from 'lizards' in general?
I've never had a creationist actually step back and identify the point at which "micro-evolution" stopped, where we can identify a "kind". Please, it'd be kinda useful to know what you people mean by that word, cause it seems to be thrown around a lot by you without robust definitions.
On the topic of evolution....when does a species become a new species? Might seem like an odd question...but when you think about it, it's quite reasonable. If evolution can be measured and defined scientifically....then it stands to reason that one should be able to point and say, "There! It is no longer _______ species but something new!"
"History does not record anywhere at any time a religion that has any rational basis. Religion is a crutch for people not strong enough to stand up to the unknown without help. But, like dandruff, most people do have a religion and spend time and money on it and seem to derive considerable pleasure from fiddling with it."
– Robert Heinlein
You know when you look at the percentage of humans who are and have been superst i tious in man's time on this earth, it is amazing we have made it this far. Seriously. Present day tards would rather accept 2000+ year old writings of man, rather than simple common sense??????? This goes for all religions. If there are aliens watching us, they have to be laughing. Like watching cavemen running around and clubbing each other.
Wow artist...if anyone is being rather primative....I would say it is you. Comparing ppl to caveman (since when is that a scientific term anyway?) and invoking the r-word (in your own way of course). I believe the advanced aliens would be wagging their heads at you.
Ty Doc..I am sure that in his indepth studies while writing science fiction, Robert Anson Heinlein must have gotten deep into theology. Maybe he was focusing on grok.
"History has the relation to truth that theology has to religion" True?
Honestly, I find the whole thing amusing but sadly, it will reflect poorly on Christianity as a whole.
I feel pity for those who sold everything, that, in the end, will find nothing happened. I seriously doubt that Harold Camping sole his possessions. He'll still be fine, he'll find some excuse for things not happening but those who believed him, while they still have their lives, they'll have to start all over again.
I wonder how many will simply give up and quite Christianity after this. Camping did more harm than good.
@Rn: You said, "I wonder how many will simply give up and quite Christianity after this. Camping did more harm than good."
A lot of us feel that's more good than harm.
Ron, this is going to serve as a great learning opportunity for some foolish people. Lets us pray they learn from it.
What I find interesting is the christians on here proclaiming he is a fraud. It is so bovious in their eyes but telling this to his followers is quite useless. The christians pointing the finger can't appreciate they are acting no different....meaning no one else can tell them they are dleusional or wrong. Interesting wouldnt you say?
Artist, true Christians are watchmen. Do you comprehend this statement?
Amen.
HeavenSent
Artist, true Christians are watchmen. Do you comprehend this statement?
Amen.
-------
You are not addressing what I stated. Try again please.
Artist
"...no one else can tell them they are dleusional or wrong. Interesting wouldnt you say?"
--------–
You're kidding, right? You and those who think like you call us delusional and wrong all the time.
Steve (the real one)
Artist
"...no one else can tell them they are dleusional or wrong. Interesting wouldnt you say?"
--––
You're kidding, right? You and those who think like you call us delusional and wrong all the time
.
Well let me ask you a couple of questions...perhaps you are not....do you talk to god? Does god talk to you? Do you hear his voice? Do you believe in fairies? Do you believe in magical creatures like unicorns? Do you believe that Santa flies around the Earth in one night delivering presents?
Artist
Well let me ask you a couple of questions...perhaps you are not....do you talk to god? Does god talk to you? Do you hear his voice? Do you believe in fairies? Do you believe in magical creatures like unicorns? Do you believe that Santa flies around the Earth in one night delivering presents?
-------
Let me answer your question with a question. Do you understand the concept of prayer?
"Let me answer your question with a question. Do you understand the concept of prayer?"
nice answer by re-asking same question over again. do you seriousllly think that doing your little prayers will be answered, ummm i think not. think most "religious people" should be committed into an insane asylum where they belong. i believe you would so fit into there without question along with the other "religious people".
laughing hard
"Let me answer your question with a question. Do you understand the concept of prayer?"
nice answer by re-asking same question over again. do you seriousllly think that doing your little prayers will be answered, ummm i think not. think most "religious people" should be committed into an insane asylum where they belong. i believe you would so fit into there without question along with the other "religious people".
---------
Well laughing hard, yes prayers work. So you think we should be placed into an Insane asylum? And you call that thinking? Using your your words, "ummm i think not". Why do you "think" I answered a question by asking a question? Simple, the concept of prayer is not understood by you or Artist. Prayer is communing or having a conversation. Real simple. Maybe too simple
@CW. Dear god man, the whole "believe or burn" krap again. When are you Christians going to knock off the Dark Ages threats. Why not just threaten to send him to "Spo-okyLand".
or sent to sit in the corner for eternity...BAD BAD PERSON
I doubt that Gingrich and Haggard are atheists. They are hypocrits who don't believe in the morality they espouse, as opposed to the sky-fairies they attribute them to. I doubt Haggard is even smart enought to be an atheist. Gingrich clearly is smart enough, but based on everything I have ever seen him write or say, I think he has drunk the Christian Kool Aid too.
As to Camping well, quite frankly, who cares....
Thank you. It will, unfortunately, fall on deaf ears.
I'm not an atheist, but am thoroughly disenchanted with organized religion. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the very act of "organizing" spiritual experience into set doctrine robs spirituality of any genuineness and real benefit it might have (if indeed it does have any, which I consider a wide open question). In any case, this is a great article.
JohnR, I suggest you read the God Delusion by Dawkins.
Colin, I'll probably take a look at Dawkins' book some day, but I'm not a huge Dawkins fan. Indeed, I used to do extensive readining in evolutionary biology and am less than impressed by some of his work in his own specialty and therefore have little faith (hahaha) that he'll be particularly insightful in the realm of spiritual matters. But I'm glad to see ANYONE unabashedly banging the drum against organized religion, as there are teeming millions always banging the drum FOR it, despite the multi-thousand year history of damage religion has done.
Understtod. I am not a biologist, so I cannot comment on his work there. One thing I liked about The GD was it is an easy read. He is more aggressive than Sagan, but it is not a technical read.
One thing I will grant without hesitation: Dawkins is a great writer. Simple, lucid prose even when he's discussing things that require some real intellectual rigor. For some strange reason, of the sciences, biology has spawned an impressive stable of lucid writers.
Indeed, but if you think it through, there competi-tion for clarity of expression in popularizing science tends to be engineers. Engineers are smart people but tend to write like the family Parrot with Tourette Syndrome.
Family parrot with Tourette's? Bwahahahahaha!!!
@Colin – that's actually what I liked about Sagan – at least when I was really starting to be skeptical of my beliefs. He was rational and thoughtful without beating you over the head with it (though I do like GD)
Mr. Silverman,
I submitt to you this John3:16. Its your choice...not religion..but a relationship with God. Its your choice. I do agree with you on that good people who are good christians sometimes fall into the hands of these so called "false prophets"...BUT that doesn't mean that they are ins-ane. It just means that they cra-ve what all christians want and that's to be home in heaven with God so they get blinded a bit with someone who claims they have the exact date. If you such a scholar you would also know that this according to the word of God that "no one not even the angels in heaven know the time and date that our Lord will come back".
Anyway....you can go to the gr-ave with your er.ro.red thinking...that is your choice. You can lean on your "own" er.ro.red understanding or put you faith in the one true God. Hope you come to your senses.
CW, do you think Silverman hasn't heard that particular "happy lie" about 144,000 times already????
@ JohnR,
I'm sure he has heard it. What does it mean? Guess we all will find out on Judgement day....No I don't know when that day will be but rest as.sured it will happen.
CW
@ JohnR,
I'm sure he has heard it. What does it mean? Guess we all will find out on Judgement day....No I don't know when that day will be but rest as.sured it will happen.
------–
You do realize your faith is in man/men.
Would you abide by the recommendations of a medical guide thousands of years old? What makes you think that people back than had any idea of what goes on in the world other than what a group of mind-control hucksters managed to sell them? The bible has no more information than the Iliad or other works of fiction... to base your life on such myths is sad if you had no choice but to be brainwashed during childhood... to voluntarily follow such guidelines as an adult is tragic... to impose it on others is criminal.
CW, you state: "It just means that they cra-ve what all christians want."
That's exactly the point. The CRAVING, the WANTING. You want it to be true so much, that you believe it to be true. We can't prove whether god exists or not because their is no evidence either way, but we can look at human nature and see why people want to believe they will be "raptured" to "heaven."
We are afraid of death, so man invented heaven. We have lost ones loved ones we did not want to lose, so man invented heaven. We want a father figure to look up to, so man invented god. We don't understand our purpose in the universe, or our origins, so man created the bible. We want to have an overarching philosophy that governs all man, so religion was invented to expand knowledge of the bible that man created. People didn't understand the natural world, so god was invented to fill in the answers. We simply need to look at ourselves to see why religion exists.
Our lives can be fine without religion. The loved ones I have lost, will live on in my memories, and I will pass their good teachings on to my children. I understand that when I die, my existence will cease to exist, so I will live my life to the fullest here and now. I have seen and studied the horrible things people do to each other over the course of history, and I will live to make sure they are not repeated – I will follow the evolving morality of humans, and the laws man creates to ensure this. I will be a good person to others, because that is how I wish to be treated. The bible has some great teachings on this, but I believe they are the work of man, not a god.
John 3:16 is literature written by man. In your "relationship" with God, how many times has he spoken to you? Seriously? The mind works in mysterious ways.
JJ, you'd know God exists if you had eyes to see and ears to hear.
Amen.
"JJ, you'd know God exists if you had eyes to see and ears to hear."
So you can see and hear your God huh? What does he look like and how does he sound?
@ Artist,
I'm not putting my faith in "the man" as you say. I'm putting my faith in God's teachings...yes these were written by man's hand but God was the author make no mistake about it.
@PraisetheLard,
Your comparison wasn't a very good one. Anyway....you said that we are brainwashed ehh? Okay....call it whatever you want...I know I'm on the right side. I don't force my beliefs on anyone...I will only point out sin if that is what you was say forcing is. Anyway...I've placed my bet....you've placed yours....hope you change your bet before its too late.
@ JJ in CT,
Being a good person is a good thing but God DOES desire to be the center of mine and all our lives. Its your choice......peace
@ Jesusfreaker,
Since were on the subject of "mind"....How is it that your 100% certain in "your" mind that God doesn't exist. Since you always want my "proof"...Where's your so called proof? Please try to stay to answer this question.....
I worship Thor. Prove to me that he doesn't exist. I can see him in 3D and hear him in surround sound.
@ CW
You stated: "I'm putting my faith in God's teachings...yes these were written by man's hand but God was the author make no mistake about it."
How do you know the bible is god's word? Is it because the bible states that it is god's word? That's circular reasoning. Is there any proof that it's god's word?
There is certainly proof that it is not the work of an all knowing, omnipotent, and omnicient god, beacuse there are so many errors and contradictions. It's historically and scientifically inaccurate. It only addresses concerns in the middle east. Why put it in one book, in one language and in one place? Why not the same word around the world, with different cultures, and people? Why not write it on the side of Mount Everest? And why all the violence in it if this was the word of a loving god?
So many of the stories in the bible are just like stories from other cultures that existed before. It's not even an original work. The ten commandments came after Egytian law was already in place? Seems a little fishy....
It just doesn't add up.
@CW
You said: "Since were on the subject of "mind"....How is it that your 100% certain in "your" mind that God doesn't exist. Since you always want my "proof"...Where's your so called proof? Please try to stay to answer this question....."
Actually, since it is the believers that are positing a god, it would be their burden to supply evidence that god does indeed exist.
Extraordinary claims, requires extraordinary evidence – Carl Sagan
No one can prove a negative. I can't prove that god does not exist. I also can't prove Santa Claus does not exist. But in life, we decide what is real and not real, based on what we feel is probable.
I think we can rule out god, in the same way we rule out any other mythological creature. Never actually proving there is no god, but close enough for arguments sake. A preponderance of the evidence if you will. In life, we decide if things exist or not, all the time. You have ruled out Santa, the Easter Bunny and all the other gods, man has concocted...except yours. Hmmm...
One of the most compelling to me, is the fact that there are so many versions of god(s). Some, not even human (The elephant-faced god – Ganesha etc.). Each religion, each denomination of each religion, defines god's wants differently. All of these religions cannot be right. But they can all be wrong.
Perhaps man has not yet found the one true god, or perhaps He does not exist.
The Christian god is said to be: Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnibenevolent.
Why would the Christian god leave room for confusion? If He exists, wouldn't He want everyone, or most everyone, to know He exists and is the one true god? There are many biblical verses that would say this is true.
1. If the Christian God existed, this fact would be undeniably obvious.
So obvious in fact, that EVERYONE, or nearly everyone would believe in His existence. There would be only worshipers of the one true god.
2. The Christian God's existence is not, in fact, obvious.
This fact is evidenced by all the different religions, plus us nasty atheists.
3. Therefore, the Christian God is very unlikely to exist.
In the same vein as the above, notice how many denominations of Christianity there are (~ 38,000). Each denomination can show you scripture, that "proves" they understand the wants of Jesus/god.
All of the denominations could not be correctly interpreting the bible. Many are contradictory.
Many of these denominations believe only their members will be saved.
If the Christian god exists, and He is all knowing and all powerful and all good, why didn't He provide a bible that could not be misinterpreted? That everyone's comprehension of His wants would be the same?
ambiguity – a word or expression that can be understood in two or more possible ways : an ambiguous word or expression.
1. If the Christian god exists, He would want everyone to know His wants, without ambiguity.
People attempt to discover and comprehend god's wants, by reading the bible.
2. The bible god provided, is ambiguous.
This fact is evidenced by there being 38,000 different denominations of Christianity.
3. Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
Another reason to reject the idea of a god, is because there appears to be no need for one. Each hour of each day, science fills another gap in man's knowledge, that god once filled. The explanation, "God did it", no longer satisfies us.
We don't need to postulate what isn't necessary.
If the Christian god so loves the world, why does he allow / cause so much suffering? Disease, famine, floods, earthquakes etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum. ?
I can explain the existence of these horrors as being due to natural causes, but my explanation fails when I include an all loving god in the equation. I keep getting a "Can't divide by zero" error.
1. If the Christian god is all good, He would want to rid the world of suffering / evil.
2. If the Christian god is all knowing, He would "know" about the suffering / evil
3. If the Christian god is all powerful, He would be able to rid the world of suffering / evil.
4. Evil persists.
Therefore, the Christian god is very unlikely to exist.
The Christian god is said to be omniscient and omnipotent. But these attributes are not compatible.
If the Christian god is all knowing, if the future can be known, then even god would be bound by events in the future. Everything would be predetermined.
1. If god, knows what will happen in the future, and does something else...then, He is not all knowing.
2. If god knows the future and cannot change it, then He is not all powerful.
3. The attributes attributed to the Christian god conflict with one another. The Christian god is very unlikely to exist as postulated.
Evolution, with its evidence of transitional fossils, geological column, DNA evidence, vestigial organs etc., is very damning to the biblical Creation Story.
If god created all the organisms on the planet, then He must have created even the germs and sickness that have caused and are causing so much death and suffering for humans and animals.
He would have had to fashion the tick and the flea. The mosquito and the tapeworm. The worm that bores into a child's eye.
How could an all good god do such a thing? Why would He spend His time creating gruesome things to cause human suffering? Yet, these horrors exist. Who made them?
Evolution explains the diversity of the planet's organisms, including the germs and the parasites that have caused so much human misery. Evolution is impersonal. It bears no grudge against humanity.
If the Creation Story is a fable, then Adam and Eve did not exist.
If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there was no original sin.
If there was no original sin, then it cannot be the reason there is so much suffering in the world.
If there was no original sin, then there was no need for a redeemer.
If there was no redeemer, then Christianity is based on a false premise.
If the Creation story is a myth, then there is no reason to believe any of the bible. No reason to believe in the Christian god.
LOL, which is why the fundies fight so hard against evolution.
Studies have shown prayer does not work. Any miracles or answered prayers are the result of random chance, coincidence and selective observation. Believers tend to remember the perceived positive outcome of prayers and forget the failed.
There is no evidence for an immaterial soul. The very material brain contains all that we are. When the brain dies. We simply cease to be. If the mind / soul existed outside the body, disease and injury to the brain would have no affect on our thinking. This is clearly not so.
The Christian god is no more likely to exist than unicorns, satyrs, fiery serpents, or talking snakes.
Cheers!
David. Congratulations on putting this together. All very clear and compelling – which unfortunately dooms it to rejection by most bible cuddlers.
@ David Johnson
Fantastic, really well done. Couldn't have said it better myself. Prepare for a whole lot of stupid that's going to head your way as some people are going to try and use illogical means to refute your statements (ad hoc, strawman or otherwise) but really and truely, well done.
@ David Johnson,
Good to see you again. Anyway....you post shows one major thing...."Your" mind and "your" research has told you that God doesn't exist. That is your choice....What you forgot to reason if you will is God gives us all "free will". Just like it didn't "force" Eve to pick the apple he has never forced man to follow him. In addition you trying to "second guess" God by saying "wouldn't he make it clear so that no one can mistake things" doesn't really fly. You see....if you read the Bible then you can back what one person says against it teachings...IF...you read it yourself and ask for the WISDOM needed from God to always do what He would want you to do. As the Bible states God gives wisdom to all that ask.
"God gives wisdom to all that ask."
So CW ask your god to give you the wisdom to prove he exists.
What I want to know is, why is the biblical canon closed? god talked to a lot of people over the years, but all of a sudden he decided to go mum. Did he tell someone that he was checking out for a bit? i'm sure it couldn't be because anyone today who said that they got their messages from talking burning bushes would be tossed in the loony bin...
Stevie7,
Many times I have wondered the same thing. It seems to me that the only form of Christianity that is somewhat up to date is the Mormon religion. At least God has given them an update. The others haven't heard anything in almost 2,000 years. If you look at the current prophets of God they are just as kooky as the ancient ones. Warren Jeffs comes to mind.
@CW
You said: "What you forgot to reason if you will is God gives us all "free will". Just like it didn't "force" Eve to pick the apple he has never forced man to follow him. "
You are one of the worst ones, for expressing the choice offered by god, as if we are being propositioned by Vito Coreleone. Accept gods offer or spend an eternity in agony. Do as I ask or I will kill you. Hmmm...This is not free will. This is not an act of acceptance driven by love.
The Christian god's attribute of omniscience (all knowing) makes human free will impossible. If the future can be known, then it is not random. It is not dependent on choices or events. Everything including events and human actions – good and bad – are predestined. It doesn't matter if god resides in another dimension or is made of spirit or yellow marshmallow like an Easter Peep.
If god has a plan for each of us, then free will is an illusion.
As evidence I offer the word of god:
"You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]
You will want to reply, that god has a plan, but it is up to us to follow this plan. You would be wrong. By my not following god's plan for me, it may well affect other human's ability to follow god's plan for them.
A child attacked by a monster has no free will. Did the child get a choice? Was this the plan god had for the child? Children, including babies, murdered in the bible had no free will. And the murders were the plan of god. A people enduring genocide at the hands of a stronger army (or a god), have no choice. They are not free to choose not to be destroyed.
This free will is certainly not a gift that is given in equal measure. The strong and powerful have been given it in greater proportion. Following god's plan or not, is not even your choice alone. Are abortions part of god's plan, or is someone else preventing god's plan from coming to fruition?
Any biblical predictions, claimed to have come true or claimed to be coming true, depend on events and people's action being predetermined. A prediction is not a product of chance? Right?
What about Jesus' predictions about Peter and Judas? Did they have the free will to opt out of their parts? Not, if Jesus was omniscient. Peter and Judas had no choice. Could Pharaoh have prevented his people from enduring the plagues, seeing as how god would not let him?
Your free will argument is poor CW. There is no evidence that god grants or preserves human free will. We have free will because there is no god or predetermination. The future is largely a matter of random chance.
You said: "In addition you trying to "second guess" God by saying "wouldn't he make it clear so that no one can mistake things" doesn't really fly. You see....if you read the Bible then you can back what one person says against it teachings...IF...you read it yourself and ask for the WISDOM needed from God to always do what He would want you to do. As the Bible states God gives wisdom to all that ask."
As I stated in my post, there are about 38,000 DIFFERENT denominations of Christianity. Many contradict the others. Many believe only the members of their denomination will be saved.
Each of these denominations came about their beliefs by reading their bible and asking god for WISDOM. Do you deny this? Hmmm...the wisdom differs. Different bible = No. Different god = No. Different comprehension = Yes.
Can you show proof that your interpretation, your "asking of wisdom" is any better than the rest? Bet not.
CW, you are probably a good man at heart. But, your beliefs don't hold up to reality.
Cheers!
@David Johnson- "since it is the believers that are positing a god, it would be their burden to supply evidence that god does indeed exist."
Can't always agree with that but that's a topic for another post. But my question to you is...what evidence would be good enough for you. You are implying by your comments that the evidence must convince you...not anyone else or to work through a method of reasoning. You are the judge...very well...what evidence would convince there is a God?
@Lycidas
I said: " it is the believers that are positing a god, it would be their burden to supply evidence that god does indeed exist."
To which you replied: "Can't always agree with that but that's a topic for another post."
The topic is straightforward and not worthy of another post. I also say that Santa and his elves are a fantasy, as is the Easter Bunny. If I must prove extraordinary things do not exist, then much of my time will be spent in this activity. You could run me ragged, claiming talking snakes, Zombie Messiahs and the like. Instead, it is the burden of the person making the extraordinary claim, to supply evidence that what they are claiming, indeed exists. If the evidence cannot be produced or is insufficient, I am free to discount your claim.
Example: I have fairies living in my left shoe. It is not upon you to show / prove that the fairies do not exist. You could and should demand proof from me, that the fairies are real.
You said: " my question to you is...what evidence would be good enough for you. You are implying by your comments that the evidence must convince you...not anyone else or to work through a method of reasoning. You are the judge...very well...what evidence would convince there is a God?"
Hmmm... To name a couple:
God appearing on all the television stations of the world simultaneously. That would do it.
Prayer actually working better than random chance. It doesn't. Prayer is worthless.
Finding a group of people who have lived in total isolation and yet, were Christian or Muslim... No accounts of this. Isolated people tend to worship nature and ancestors. Not Jesus.
There is really no reason to believe in a god. No evidence suggests god is needed for anything. Science certainly hasn't found a need.
Belief without a evidence is not possible, without delusion. People making the claim there is a god give no evidence, for His existence. They talk about their personal revelation and feelings in their hearts. But, all members of every religion report these. They are not exclusive to any one faith.
People believe, have believed, in different gods throughout history. No one that I know of worships Ra anymore. Yet, there is just as much evidence that Ra exists, as there is for the god of Abraham. You could not "prove" that Ra is not real.
Ra would leap to life, if people once again believed in him! Ra would answer prayers, fill the believer's heart with the warm and fuzzy, and would take away the fear of the dark. The gods are powered by the Energizer Bunny called faith.
People's faith animates the gods. Once that faith is taken away, the gods lie silent. Forgotten.
Cheers!
@David Johnson- I don't know a single person that has asked you to prove fairies or anything else you mentioned exists or does not exists. That's just you bringing up off the topic stuff. Now if someone on here says they believe in fairies...then you got something to complain about. But to all reasonable ppl, the topic is revolving around the God of the Abrahamic religions...right?
"I am free to discount your claim."
And what claim is that? I believe you are making a*ssumptions. Oh and plz don't use terms like zombies if you cannot use them correctly. Obviously no one with any theological training would compare the transfigured bodily remains of one to that of a decomposing locutionaryhusk of a human.
1) God appearing on all the television stations of the world simultaneously. That would do it.
~No, you are lying here because if that did happen you would want to see how it was done right? Be honest.
2) Prayer actually working better than random chance. It doesn't. Prayer is worthless.
~There have been studies that shown those that pray seem to have better health and well being. Who knows for certain since I didn't do the study but it's worth noting. I am also under the impression that you think prayer is a "gimme" list. If so, you need to renew your studies in what prayer actually is and not what you think it is.
3) Finding a group of people who have lived in total isolation and yet, were Christian or Muslim... No accounts of this. Isolated people tend to worship nature and ancestors. Not Jesus.
~No evidence is not evidence...you do realize that right? Also the Torah is quite clear that God came to man and decalred his presence. No where in any of the scriptures does it ever imply that mankind should just know about God anymore than they should just know they are human.
4) There is really no reason to believe in a god. No evidence suggests god is needed for anything. Science certainly hasn't found a need.
~This is your opinion and not a fact. What you mean is that there is really no reason YOU need to believe in God. Again...no evidence isn't evidence.
"They talk about their personal revelation and feelings in their hearts. But, all members of every religion report these. They are not exclusive to any one faith. "
~So? Are you trying to dismiss first hand experience from the formulae? Shabby method of ana*lysis.
"People's faith animates the gods. Once that faith is taken away, the gods lie silent. Forgotten."
~Ever read Neil Gaiman's Sandman series?
Shalom!
"But we all must remember that people have been hurt this weekend. We hope the victims of this year’s end-of-the-world will lift themselves back up, dust themselves off, and come out of this as better, less gullible people."
.
Otherwise see religion for what it truly is and walk away.
I agree that religion is at fault! God is not and neither is Christianity! Christians are told that NO MAN KNOWS. That would include Camping! People will get hurt and some may walk away from God! Some already have given away and sold their material goods. Children are being scared to death! Camping will be held responsible. Unfortunately, this is what happens when folks do not know God's word for themselves and follow a false prophet! In addition, it gives you more opportunity to color all of us with the same board brush strokes! Sunday will be a day of misery for a whole lot of folks but they will have brought this upon themselves. I am more concerned with the welfare of the children. The young ones had no say in this.
@Steve (the real one)
You said: "I agree that religion is at fault! God is not and neither is Christianity!"
Hmmm... I think it is god's fault for not existing. And religions fault for insisting that god does exist. And your fault for not being able to see your desert war god has no clothes... Give it up. There is not 1 smidgen of proof, that any god exists.
Cheers!
David Johnson
You said: "I agree that religion is at fault! God is not and neither is Christianity!"
Hmmm... I think it is god's fault for not existing. And religions fault for insisting that god does exist. And your fault for not being able to see your desert war god has no clothes... Give it up. There is not 1 smidgen of proof, that any god exists.
--------
Interesting you used the "no clothes" metaphor as it will be you who will be exposed in due time! No excuses, DJ, not one! There will be no "I did not know"! You are being told now. At that time all the fault will be only yours!
Your comments here are sweeping, biased, a little contemptuous, and blind to the possibility that there are lenses other than the atheistic lense that reveal additional demensions about belief in God. This makes your comments non-credible. If you want to pursuade people of other beliefs that your perspective is valid, consider theirs before you rant, lest you sound like a fanatic fan, content to lambast the other side while you sit comfortably among your kind. And, I agree that Camping sounds like a fool; he apparently didn't read the bible passage where Christ states that even he didn't know when the end would come.
Skipped this paragraph, huh...
This weekend, preachers from coast to coast will talk about why they are right and Camping is wrong, and I ask you all to listen closely. They will try to justify why one interpretation of the Bible (theirs) is right while the others are wrong. In the end, they are all interpreting the “perfect word of God” in their own imperfect way so that God agrees with their own agenda. It’s obvious if you look for it; no preacher ever says "God disagrees with me."
He's probably read it, but that's kinda like saying "Even Harry Potter doesn't know when Voldemort will attack!"
A book he considers fiction is not likely to carry much weight on his opinion of religion. Statements made in said book isn't likely to change his opinion on the nature of blind faith.
Jon,
First, you assume I am an atheist. Secondly, I have no intention on changing someone's mind. Not sure why you assume I would? Thirdly, I don't think Camping is a fool. I think he is shrewed and making some money on insecure, weak and delusional people. I hope this clears some things up. I doubt he even believes his crap he says.
.
Back to the first thing, I simply reject what man states he thinks to be the truth. Whatever truth there was, has since been lost. Do I think there is a chance of "design" possibly yes but it is not in the form of magic and flowting gods. If there are creators and if they ever return, I think the weak and ignorant of this world are going to be greatly disappointed.
flowting???? jesus its been a long day...floating...lol
Jon. I thought you Christians believed that god the father and god the son were one. How can it know and not know when it is returning at the same time? Perhaps its time for you to put down your lens.
@Jon Thompson
Jesus didn't give the date and time of His expected return, but He did predict He would be back in the 1st Century.
Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.” – Matthew 24:34
Spin it how you like, but Jesus said what He said. It is what it is.
Cheers!
"Preachers take advantage of the gullible again?"
.
The foundation of christianity.
Christian failure, yes there will be another by May 22, 2011. Only difference between these nutjobs and every other christian is they disagree on the date of the magical rapture/zombie day.
This is not Christian failure! This is a religious (and Camping) failure. We as Christians have been declaring this to be wrong and Camping a FALSE prophet.
@Steve (the not too bright one)
You said: "This is not Christian failure! This is a religious (and Camping) failure. We as Christians have been declaring this to be wrong and Camping a FALSE prophet."
All Christians are idiots. You all share in this god lunacy. All of your prophets are FALSE, by definition.
Cheers!