 |
|
|
|
August 4th, 2012
10:00 PM ET
My Faith: The danger of asking God ‘Why me?'
(CNN)–When I was diagnosed with cancer, the question “Why me?” was a natural one. Later, when I survived but others with the same kind of cancer died, I also had to ask, “Why me?” Suffering and death seem random, senseless. The recent Aurora, Colorado, shootings — in which some people were spared and others lost — is the latest, vivid example of this, but there are plenty of others every day: from casualties in the Syria uprising to victims of accidents on American roads. Tsunamis, tornadoes, household accidents - the list is long. As a minister, I’ve spent countless hours with suffering people crying: “Why did God let this happen?” In general I hear four answers to this question. Each is wrong, or at least inadequate. CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories The first answer is “I guess this proves there is no God.” The problem with this thinking is that the problem of senseless suffering does not go away if you abandon belief in God. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said that if there was no higher divine law, there would be no way to tell if any particular human law was unjust. Likewise, if there is no God, then why do we have a sense of outrage and horror when suffering and tragedy occur? The strong eat the weak, there is no meaning, so why not? Friedrich Nietzsche exemplified that idea. When the atheist Nietzsche heard that a natural disaster had destroyed Java in 1883, he wrote a friend: “Two-hundred-thousand wiped out at a stroke—how magnificent!” Because there is no God, Nietzsche said, all value judgments are arbitrary. All definitions of justice are just the results of your culture or temperament. My Take: This is where God was in Aurora As different as they were, King and Nietzsche agreed on this point. If there is no God or higher divine law then violence is perfectly natural. So abandoning belief in God doesn’t help with the problem of suffering at all. The second response to suffering is: “While there is a God, he’s not completely in control of everything. He couldn’t stop this.” But that kind of God doesn’t really fit our definition of “God.” So that thinking hardly helps us with reconciling God and suffering. The third answer to the worst kind of suffering – seemingly senseless death – is: “God saves some people and lets others die because he favors and rewards good people.” But the Bible forcefully rejects the idea that people who suffer more are worse people than those who are spared suffering. This was the self-righteous premise of Job’s friends in that great Old Testament book. They sat around Job, who was experiencing one sorrow after another, and said “The reason this is happening to you and not us is because we are living right and you are not.” At the end of the book, God expresses his fury at Job’s ”miserable comforters.” The world is too fallen and deeply broken to fall into neat patterns of good people having good lives and bad people having bad lives. The fourth answer to suffering in the face of an all-powerful God is that God knows what he’s doing, so be quiet and trust him. This is partly right, but inadequate. It is inadequate because it is cold and because the Bible gives us more with which to face the terrors of life. God did not create a world with death and evil in it. It is the result of humankind turning away from him. We were put into this world to live wholly for him, and when instead we began to live for ourselves everything in our created reality began to fall apart, physically, socially and spiritually. Everything became subject to decay. But God did not abandon us. Only Christianity of all the world’s major religions teaches that God came to Earth in Jesus Christ and became subject to suffering and death himself, dying on the cross to take the punishment our sins deserved, so that someday he can return to Earth to end all suffering without ending us. Do you see what this means? We don’t know the reason God allows evil and suffering to continue, or why it is so random, but now at least we know what the reason isn’t, what it can’t be. It can’t be that he doesn’t love us. It can’t be that he doesn’t care. He is so committed to our ultimate happiness that he was willing to plunge into the greatest depths of suffering himself. Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter Someone might say, “But that’s only half an answer to the question ‘Why?'” Yes, but it is the half that we need. If God actually explained all the reasons why he allows things to happen as they do, it would be too much for our finite brains. What we truly need is what little children need. They can’t understand most of what their parents allow and disallow for them. They need to know their parents love them and can be trusted. We need to know the same thing about God. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Keller. |
  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: Timothy Keller is senior pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York and author of The New York Times best-selling book "
Thank you for the varity of differing opinions.
I agree to disagree and will continue believing with all my heart and soul that my salvation was bought and paid for by a man that knew no sin Jesus.
I respect all that participated in this blog and am off to the next onr.
One final note I was formerly lost and without hope now I have peace and as long as it works for me I will carry on.
Good bye and may God bless all of you.
"The problem with this thinking is that the problem of senseless suffering does not go away if you abandon belief in God."
It doesn't go away, no, but the mere fact that it IS senseless at least, well, makes more sense. If there is a god and suffering is (apparently) senseless, then there is a question of "why?" But if there is no universal provider of order or sense then the question of "why" is either invalid to ask at all (in the metaphysical sense) or one that can be answered scientifically.
Shiloh,
Show me one thesis from a Young Earth Creationist from an accredited universty that supports the creationist position. Just one!
They don't have to know each other, they have an agenda, their religion. They are shoe horning information into what the WANT to believe. Science doesn't work that way. Why do a vast majority of scientists, including christian believers like Dr. Francis Collins, head of the human gnome project, reject the creationist arguments? They actually don't have an agenda other than science. For creationists to be correct practically every scientist, from every country and every related science to evolutionary biology (geology, geneology, palentology, taxonomy, ect.ect.ect.) would have to be lying! Now THAT would be a conspiracy. None of these scientist have anything in common except for science. Your scientists ALL have a religious agenda. Show me one creationist that does not have a religious agenda. I, on the other hand, can show you many scientists that are believers that completely reject creationism.
It always amuses me when people argue that there can be no God because there is "so much" suffering in the world. "So much" compared to what? Do they not realize that if the amount of suffering in the world were one-tenth of what it is today, they would still be saying that? Once you allow for a God who permits *any* amount of suffering, then you have no grounds upon which to object to the degree of suffering that is actually visited upon the world.
Call me crazy but you just confused the heck out of me. Let me ask you this; can you prove there is a god?
Compared to heaven. If god can create a place of no suffering in heaven, after death, why not in life on earth?
Suffering simply points to an indifferent universe or an uncaring god. It's not proof of anything except that IF there is a god, he doesn't care that there's so much pointless pain in humans.
it always amuses me when folks say that we are getting nearer and nearer the "end times" because this generation (or the next) is somehow less "moral" than those in the past
I can say one thing from reading these various blogs, the athiest community has to be one of the most hateful arrogant groups of people on the planet – and that's generally not a compliment. What I want to know is if things are that black and white then why is there an argument – apparently something is missing on the proof side, or there wouldn't be such a debate.
The only thing that is black and white is that the proof of god does not exist. That's all.
Yes because condemninng every group that doesn't think like a certain denomination of christian to eternal torture is the height of tolerance and peace.
Please provide a reason as to why opposing a viewpoint is "hate"?
I can say one thing from reading these various blogs, the christian community has to be one of the most hateful arrogant groups of people on the planet – and that's generally not a compliment. What I want to know is if things are that black and white then why is there an argument – apparently something is missing on the proof side, or there wouldn't be such a debate.
I guess I'm just relating to the response I see to Christians – I figure it must be applicable both ways or else there is an agenda going on.
Faith is not about proof – I'm grateful that the Lord has provided an intellectual component to faith as is evidenced over the centuries, but ultimately it's about a willingness to trust that someone bigger than me cares about me.
And about the hell and torment – you need to take that up with God, it is his edict not mine. And it's only if you choose it, He's a gentleman.
@Interesting
Ok, we could get into a huge debate on hell, faith, and various other things in doctrine, or we could just drop it at a disagreement. Which would you prefer? I'm ok with either one.
interesting
What intellectual component was added? I have studied religions my entire life and I have seen nothing of the sort...please enlighten me.
@Hawaiiguest
I have to go bed soon, I own a restaurant and have a big event tomorrow, so I don't think I'm up for the long haul tonight. What I was trying to say about hell is that as a Christian I don't condemn anyone to hell – that is strictly between God and the individual – and I know that God doesn't take any joy in that process, Scripture says that His wish is that all would come to repentance, but because He is who He is He knows that many won't – such is life, very sad but still life. I wish you the best and perhaps we can share again sometime.
@ Who invited me
What I was referring to was throughout history, until perhaps the last century or so, academia and Christianity were often intertwined.........Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Yale, Princeton and so forth all have their roots in Christianity. Have you ever been to Oxford, Cambridge or Edinburgh? Christ College, Jesus College, Wycliffe Hall – their roots are steeped in God, kind of ironic in these days of question. Hebrew and Greek were mainline curriculum .......why?, so they could reference the Biblical texts in the original language. Oxford and Cambridge are beautiful and it's amazing to walk through the stone breezeways there and realize how many greats of Christendom walked those very breezeways, and I trust that since they were at Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard and so on that they had an "intellectual" component about them. If you haven't gone there you should – it is so beautiful!
I see, we'll leave it at a disagreement then.
intersting
All of these places you mention...created by men, as was your god, your bible and your religion.
Just because someone studies something does not automatically make it intellectual.
If I study the Silmarillion, and the other tolkien works, am I an intillectiual?
forgive the typo's ...in a moving vehicle
@Who Invited Me
Definition of intellectual – of or relating to the use of the intellect, guided by the intellect rather than emotion or experience, rational. Given to study, reflection and speculation.
Intellect – the power of knowing as distinguished from the power to feel and to will; capacity for knowledge. The capacity for rational and intelligent thought, especially when highly developed.
The men that built such referenced universities were intellectuals as well as devout believers. If you read their works you can't help but see the depth of their writings. They studied classical academia including languages, math, history, literature and so on. That is how they were able to accomplish some of the things they did. The founder of Princeton was Jonathan Edwards who was a key player in the Great Awakening here in this country in the 1700's.
If I study fiction, I am an intellectual of fictional works.
If I believe that fiction is true, I am a fool.
arrogant? as oppose to those who feel they speak for god?
Sam Stone
I don't speak for God, He speaks for Himself – I do forward the messages on.
"God did not create a world with death and evil in it. It is the result of humankind turning away from him." Sadly, that's just not true. Death and evil (i.e., suffering) were around for millions of years before humankind ever hit the scene. If Christianity is to be taken seriously, that has to be accepted and incorporated into the Christian understanding of Genesis. It's noteworthy that in Genesis 2, God creates Adam from the dust of the ground, and only then does God place Adam in the Garden of Eden, where there is no death or evil. And when Adam and Eve sin against God, then God casts them out of Eden - casts them out where? Into the world from which Adam came, which is this world of suffering and death: the natural world. So, rather than viewing this natural world as having been created perfect and then fallen into decay through man's sin - something that the fossil record simply does not support - Christianity must, if it is to survive, recognize that Eden was a special place with special conditions, and that man was taken out of the natural world and placed in Eden for a time to experience union with God, until man sinned and was returned to the world to await union with God by another route: that of God coming to redeem man out of the natural world through the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ.
Whatever.
Why is it that god-believers usually present a false dichotomy of "goddidit or blind, random chance?" Scientists and atheists are NOT claiming that natural selection or biological evolution or stellar evolution is "blind, random chance."
Because that's the best they can come up with ?
the dark side of tradition; the dark side of pride – please take your seats and prepare to defend yourselves.
Straw Man
Our first Logical Fallacy is the Straw Man Argument. This is a great one to start with on our journey because it’s quite common and easy to spot.
A straw man: a dummy stuffed with straw. It’s too weak to fight back.
Arguing against a position specifically created to be easy to argue against, rather than the position held by someone who opposes that point of view.
So, when you state your position, your opponent replies not to what you said, but to a distorted and exaggerated caricature of what you said, that is obviously harder to defend.
The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
news flash: you're not as smart as you'd like to believe
Is our universe a blind concatenation of atoms, evolution a random walk across a meaningless landscape, and our sense of purpose a pathetic shield against a supremely indifferent world? Or does the universe and our place within it click into place, repeatedly? These starkly different views open up immense metaphysical and theological questions, and at least part of the answer must come from science and the unfolding triumphs of cosmology, astronomy, and evolution.
In a book of magnificent sweep and daring Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards drive home the arguments that the old cliché of no place like home is eerily true of Earth. Not only that, but if the scientific method was to emerge anywhere, the Earth is about as suitable as you can get. Gonzalez and Richards have flung down the gauntlet. Let the debate begin; it is a question that involves us all.
Simon Conway Morris
Professor of Evolutionary Paleobiology, University of Cambridge
Author of Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe
"When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."
Real science is open minded about the itself. It is willing to change its hypotheses and theories, to evolve (couldn’t resist) to new data points. That is precisely why science is not a religion, but is, in fact, an essential philosophy to understand the natural world. It is based on evidence, on analysis of that evidence, and, if necessary, modification of theories based on the evidence. Scientists consider evolution to be a fact based the wealth of evidence supporting it. The theory of evolution is one of the basic principles of biology (along with genetics, homeostasis, and cell theory), but if there were data that essentially disproved evolution, then science would modify the theory.
Setting aside the fact that their so-called science doesn’t meet the basics of what constitutes real science (or the fact that they generally accept the age of life on earth), they go to great lengths to avoid naming the designer. However, it has been determined that, despite the best efforts of the intelligent design movement, the designer represents the Judeo-Christian god. Many have concluded that intelligent design is pseudoscience rather than just bad science..
"I don't know" is not proof of god.
"news flash: you're not as smart as you'd like to believe"
It's called copy and paste.
Not only have Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards written a book with a remarkable thesis, they have constructed their argument on an abundance of evidence and with a cautiousness of statement that make their volume even more remarkable. In my opinion, their Privileged Planet deserves very careful attention.
Michael J. Crowe
Cavanaugh Professor Emeritus at the University of Notre Dame
Author of The Extraterrestrial Life Debate 1750-1900
It's called sharing information
Where do ID researchers publish their findings ?
Gonzalez and Richards have written a book that is at once inspiring, illuminating, and beautiful. Although the 20th century insights in quantum physics should long ago have dispelled the simplistic idea that nature is nothing more than matter in motion, The Privileged Planet suggests that scientific discovery is embedded in the very structure of the cosmos. With uncommonly engaging prose, they offer a virtual tour of the marvels of modern science and the discoveries science has brought to light, from geology to cosmology. The authors also suggest intriguing answers to ubiquitous "cosmic questions": Why have we been able to discover so much about the world around us in such a short time? Is extraterrestrial life common, or is it quite rare? What is Earth's place in the cosmos? Does the universe exist for a purpose? Only those interested in these questions—but who isn't?—should read this book.
George Gilder
Author of the bestselling book Telecosm
Founder, Gilder Technology Report
In this fascinating and highly original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards advance a persuasive argument, and marshal a wealth of diverse scientific evidence to justify that argument. In the process, they effectively challenge several popular assumptions, not only about the nature and history of science, but also about the nature and origin of the cosmos. The Privileged Planet will be impossible to ignore. It is likely to change the way we view both the scientific enterprise and the world around us. I recommend it highly.
Philip Skell
Evan Pugh Professor Emeritus of Physics, Pennsylvania State University
Member, National Academy of Sciences
The Privileged Planet, Gonzalez's authorship of this book played a role in his denial of tenure. It also provoked more than 120 of Gonzalez's faculty colleagues to sign a petition in 2005 denouncing intelligent design and urging all other faculty members to do the same.
It seems our world is a dangerous place. There all sorts of natural disasters that kill thousands of people at a time. There are countless diseases that make us sick or kill us. What is intelligent about cancer or birth defects ? In the end, our bodies fail and we die. These are not the designs of an all powerful and perfect god because they are obviously imperfect. Why would god design typhus or cholera ?
@really?, it seems he failed the test of peer review.
@One one
One of their CVs showed a lot of publications in: The Astrophysical Journal, The Astronomical Journal, some British Fellowship of Astronomy (I think), and then some other science journals
"When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology"
No such thing has ever been found. They HAVE been asserted and then shown to be wrong.
The fundamental error made by Gonzalez and Richards, as with most creationists (including "intelligent design" [ID] creationists), is that they imagine that they can prove the existence of their "intelligent designer" by merely alleging evidence against a particular strawman naturalistic scenario, and, without clearly specifying an alternative model, simply assert that the only other explanation possible is that everything was created by a "designer". Under this strategy, no details are specified about what we would expect to see if the "designer" existed, or why we would expect to see that and not something else. It is, as we shall see, not a scientific theory. It is instead nothing but the usual fallacious Argument from False Dichotomy.
See the entire review by William H Jefferys, Department of Astronomy, University of Texas at Austin at this link:
http://ncse.com/rncse/25/1-2/review-privileged-planet
The response Shiloh got from these clowns is just another proof that they can not reason, neither think for themselves, and that logic is a foreign word to them, although they're infatuated by it..... On, what a bunch of dumb dodo's!
@Uhhhhhh,
You didn't say anything as to why you or Shiloh are right and we are wrong. Just calling us names is not an argument. If you have ANY proof for your position than please provide it.
Shiloh, Biologists are now able to literally create life from nothing more than a collection of cells and an energy source.
Look up J. Craig Venter, the guy who led the project that successfully mapped the human genome. If life is so miraculous, then how are they now able to clone animals and basically create entirely new life forms from basic materials and a computer?
@"Uhhh"
Why do you think we should "open our minds" to what has already been proven to be garbage? You may find comfort in lies, but those of us who seek the truth do not.
The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case
"such as natural selection acting on random variations. "
Evolution by natural selection in modern biology is not an undirected process, because natural selection is not random. Randomness implies that any one out of multiple possible outcomes has an equal probability (i.e., rolling 1-6 on a six-sided die; each number has a 1 in 6 chance of appearing). Natural selection is a non-random process – if the environment lacks abundant food for a particular species, the members of that species that are better able to find food, or survive and reproduce on limited food supplies will pass on their genes, leading to a change in the number of members of that species that have the trait that allows them to survive in a limited food environment.
If everything in existence is "intelligently designed," then how do you test for it? In other words, if everything was white, how would you know it or determine it?
"Intelligent design" is a conclusion, because it does not involve testable hypotheses.
Watch the doc.umentary about the Dover VS Kitzmiller and the evidence is provided that the Intelligent design movement came directly out of the creationism argument that the courts would not allow taught in public school. It is meant to sound "sciencey". It is not. Please point out one intelligent design argument that is accepted by the broader science community.
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
@Shiloh
You said, "Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program"
Uh no, it doesn't. ID is creationism. It's sole purpose is to muddy the waters enough to trick society into letting religion be taught in the classroom. It's pseudo-science (and I'm being very, very generous here).
You said, "as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature."
It's fundamentalist religionists dressed up as scientists. Putting on a lab coats doesn't a scientist make.
You said, "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
It isn't a theory. It's an unsupported hypothesis. At best.
"Intelligent Design" is an effort by christians to fit their god into a process where there is no reason to believe he exists. It's the desperate attempt by theists to keep their beliefs relevant in the modern world. It is by no means an actual science.
Just more mental masturbation: it makes you feel good but accomplishes nothing. No mater how bad things get, or what horrible things occur, or how illogical all the arguments are, some people will always become apologists for god. All of the arguments discussed in this article are well worn, and none of them offer any real justification for a god.
Laws are enacted out of self preservation so that a civilization can live and work in relative safety. There is no need or justification to insert divine intervention or, for that matter, divine law, into the human condition. There have been aberrations to both man-made and "divine" law since time immemorial. People have wants, needs, desires, and some people think that their wants,needs and desires overrule both human compassion and human law. Gods don't really make a difference except in their use to justify certain human actions. The devil can site
PaulBel wrote:
"Gods don't really make a difference except in their use to justify certain human actions."
.. or when gods are called upon to excuse or forgive certain human actions.
I'll tell you what the danger of asking god "why me" is. The danger (in this author's mind) is that you will no longer believe in god. That's what he is really thinking.
Dear Theists,
ALL HUMANS should not only be willing to let go of their current beliefs, they should WELCOME the opportunity! Letting go of old beliefs leads the way to a newer and better understanding of the world around us. I wish you would simply understand that you don't need to tie yourselves to the chains of the past, and that doing so is not in the best interests of you and your families. You can teach your children to be good people, to be respectful, kind, helpful, caring, loving and supportive to ALL other people on Earth. You can teach them to not act wrongly, not because of what might happen to you in some supersti.tious afterlife, but because harming people is wrong, unfair, selfish, and cowardly. No deity is required to make this a reality. We Atheists don't understand why all people wouldn't embrace this as easily as they would embrace an imaginary deity or an old dusty book of stories....UNLESS theists really want to judge, pontificate over, cajole, and restrict their fellow humans into a certain set of moral behaviors based on their own little view of the universe. I suspect that's the real problem. Any thought process that AUTOMATICALLY says everyone but your group is wrong is a sad, mean-spirited way to approach your fellow humans. Most religions do exactly that...you're Christian, or you're wrong. You're Muslim, or you're wrong. It's just ridiculous to approach the world this way, and it surely explains much of the man-made suffering we observe. Mr. Keller is right that suffering is due to us, but he needs to go a step further and say it's also due to the religion in many of us.
You know, ..... when folks say that Athesism is not a Religion, I will remember this sermon today from. 🙂
>>>"ALL HUMANS should not only be willing to let go of their current beliefs, they should WELCOME the opportunity!"
Does that extend to currently held Atheist beliefs also?
Mark,
Yes, absolutely. I will change my mind if I am convinced I am wrong. Do you know why I, as well as many other atheists can say that with complete conviction? Because we were once believers, we changed our minds once because the information was such that to continue believing would be believing a lie.
Now the question falls to you, can you change your mind if presented with better information?
Mark, of COURSE it applies to Atheism. Atheists would be hypocritical to not change their views if truly verifiable existence of a deity were to be revealed. And frankly, I think most of them would adjust their view without losing much sleep over it. I certainly would. Quite a contrast to folks who think you should die for burning their holy book.
Absolutely, Mark. If indisputable proof surfaces that supports the existence of a god, I will believe. I don't that I'd worship (it depends on the nature of that god), but I would believe.
Mark,
Why would you think that it wouldn't apply to atheists? Have you seen cases where indisputable evidence of a supernatural being were presented to atheists and they didn't change their beliefs?
I however, have seen where mountains of contradicting claims were presented to theists (ie. lack of evidence on a monumental scale) with absolutely no effect at all, and sometimes the opposite effect!
Not that Atheism is a belief, but yes, if significant evidence of a supernatural god is discovered, I would expect that most if not all Atheists would become believers.
Thanks, Fellow Atheists, that's exactly what I expected to hear. Now here comes the fun question...
Would Atheists change their BEHAVIORS along with their beliefs?
My take on this is hopefully "no". If we are living in a way that reflects positively on humanity, then we SHOULDN'T need to change our behaviors. Any deity-expected changes would likely be petty in nature (i.e., four of the ten commandments that focus on treatment of God, etc).
So, would CHRISTIANS change their behaviors if they came to realize that God doesn't exist?
What god tells people to kill? What god tells people to starve themselves and their fellow man? What god tells people to hate and kill and cause suffering all over the world? I have heard on the news and from all religions that people kill for their god..goin to war for god. Christians suffer for their god. Good grief...why would anyone really believe that some super being would really ask you to suffer and dill to prove you love them and you have never seen, heard or spoken to this super man. EVERYONE should be good people and help their fellow human being not matter how that person believes...period...cause no harm.
@exlonghorn,
I think reevaluting our behaviors, in light of new data, would be appropriate, wouldn't it?
Any change in my behavior would be entirely dependent on the nature of your hypothetical god. For instance, should the christian god be real and command that I discriminate against gays and lesbians, I would refuse. I have many friends who are gays and lesbians, and I know them to be good people. Therefore, I would be forced to determine that your god was nothing more than a super-powered bully, and I don't worship bullies.
Mark ..what beliefs do we have? we have asked for proof of the god you tell us controls our lives, and apparently created us, but that's it. I have no idea whether the other atheists on here support or reject ..say, abortion, support Obama, or Romney.or think the Moon is made of blue cheese. nor is it important..they are atheist regardless of what else they personally believe. So from your sermon today then, you should let go of God and look at the world the way it really is, and Muslims and Jews think the same thing.. that would be wonderful but "god " is very strong drug and addiction is rife.
How about this: things happen. People interpret them as being good or bad based on the effects on themselves and others. After that, a Christian would say God had some involvement. An Atheist would say it was chemicals in the brain, or an evolutionary trait. A Buddhist would say that is just the nature of the world and all that exists in it.
No one is right or wrong. We're all just people looking at a painting and saying what we see in it. This post is proof of that. The author says the correct answer is #4, which conveniently aligns with the author's belief in a loving, caring God and mankind's sinful nature.
Hardly an objective perspective on suffering.
An Atheist would would say it was chemicals in the brain, or an evolutionary trait, IF the preponderance of the available information pointed to that as a cause. They would further say that God is the least likely explanation for what we observe, and would have the opinion is that God does not exist.
It's funny that so many atheists hang out on a religion blog. Must be looking for some meaning to life.
Naah. We're just exercising our First Amendment rights while winding up the fundies. The lengths that they will go to in an effort to defend their belief is amazing. Honestly, I've never encountered such a bunch of liars in my life as some of the christians on this blog.
Must be interested in a social movement that affects everyone in this country whether or not they ascribe to the same silly supersti.tion.
If people would keep their religion to themselves you would not get must interest from atheists. Stay out of my business and I'll stay out of yours.
... and once again...
Religion, or more specifically believers of religion, impact everyone's lives, especially those who live in the US, arguably one of the most religious countries in the developed world.
When religion, or the religious, no longer attempts to force their stories into the science class and into our laws, then perhaps non-believers can stop worrying about faith, but until then they have every right to offer opinions on beliefs.
I look for people' perspectives on the subject. Maybe I'll be made a believer from some profound comment (doubt it....... but, eh..... y'never know....)
And I like to express my own thoughts on the subject.
Actually there's nothing funny about your beliefs. We're not going to sit here and allow our fellow humans be abused both physically and psychologically. You people are dangerous and we are going to point it out to anyone that will listen with an open mind. So go f*uck yourslef!
@RobK
you're about a week late with that observation. We did the "the internet is the 'church' of the atheists" last week.
We live in a society dominated by religionists. By definition there is no 'church' for atheists and atheists seek a place to call foul where religionists cross the line of separation between church and state. That place is here.
The internet is a defacto meeting place where people are (mostly) free to discuss what they believe and what they don't believe. Given that atheists don't have any churches to go to, why is it surprising to you that we would show up here?
It's not a quest for meaning. For most of us that's 'been there done that, got the tee-shirt' ancient history.
In addition to what others have said, I think some atheists probably genuinely feel sorry for weak-minded religious people and want to help them regain full control of their minds. And they realize it is to everyone's benefit for people to take full responsibility for their actions and not run their lives always feeling like they can be forgiven by make-believe stuff when necessary.
No, we are working hard to keep others from subscribing to myths when they do their own searching. It's about helping others help themselves escape from dogmatic thinking, which helps all of us in the run.
Rob –
Speaking only for myself ( but I don't think my fellow non-believers would disgree with me )
I personally read the believe section to CHALLENGE my Atheism. Unlike believers that are threatened by challenging questions to their religion and beliefs. I welcome challenging questions to my reason and logic. I search for a theorum/ process/ arguement that will enhance or change or enlighten ( if you will ) my logical /rational mindset. ... To date I have not found one from the believers that accomplished this.
Brother Maynard, most often God reveals Himself undeniably to those who seek Him. It isnt' just a matter of challenging your beliefs through logic (1 Corinthians 1:19 -For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.") and coming to some scientific conclusion. Quantum theory is now proving some of the things that spiritual folks have understood for millenia, but that won't answer all of your questions. One comment here expressed the concept that humans were made to serve God, but Jesus taught that if we love Him we will serve one another. Some people need more of a structure and a reason to "be good". There is a very real goal here, beyond our physical life, but in order to get the whole picture you need to be reading scripture and praying about what you think you understand. God will answer you, if you are willing to hear it.
R Burns
God reveling himself to those who seek him is all well and good. But I WAS a beliver for 40 years ... and nothing was revealed to me accept more unanswered questions.
Name one thing that is 1 thousand years old that Quantum theory is proving.
I have read scripture ... I found it more disturbing the more I read it.
Why do I have more peace in my heart ( for lack of a better term ) NOW than I did when I was a believer?
R Burns
God reveling himself to those who seek him is all well and good. But I WAS a beliver for 40 years ... and nothing was revealed to me accept more unanswered questions.
Name one thing that is 1 thousand years old that Quantum theory is proving.
I have read scripture ... I found it more disturbing the more I read it.
Why do I have more peace in my heart ( for lack of a better term ) NOW that I'm a nonbeliever than I did when I was a believer?
@R Burns
"God reveals Himself undeniably to those who seek Him..."
"God will answer you, if you are willing to hear it."
Shouldn't that bother you that god behaves in this manner? Why wouldn't he help out the skeptics a little by showing some evidence. Are we "bad" people for this? Are we second rate? Are we deserving of an eternal hell?
Anyway, there are millions of atheists who have "seeked" god in all earnesty and have not had god "undeniable" reveal himself. And what is your definition of "undeniabile"? To me it would mean that he would reveal himself objectively not only to you, but to the rest of the world.
whoops ... sorry 'bout the double post
R Burns,
"Quantum theory is now proving some of the things that spiritual folks have understood for millenia, "
I would be interested in hearing this too..
R Burns write: "God reveals Himself undeniably to those who seek Him"
All kinds of non-physical things are "revealed" to peoples powerful minds every day. It's just as easy for one person to deny another person's mental experience as it is for the person having the experience claim it is true. If Christians want to validate their fear and weak thinking and bring their beliefs to light for non-believers, then they should try to do so without the aid of the biblical writings of some of the most dangerous politicians the world has known, such as Paul. That would be a starting point, but there still would be a long way to go for such proof and encouragement for those of us who are not weak minded nor easy prey. I
Is that what you are doing here Rob ?
@save the world and slap.....
Paul a politician – oh please.......
@Shiloh
To clarify. I actually think people are born (regardless of how or who the designer was long ago) basically good; but physically built-in and not subject to any supernatural force larger than themselves. And so it stands to reason that I should feel the same way about the life of Paul the self-proclaimed "apostle". Which I do, really so maybe I was harsh in my description. There are some interesting stories in that little book where sometimes he does things that many of us would say was civil and proper. But it is clear to me that because of how he wrote and more importantly, how his words have been interpreted since, an enormous amount of politics resulted in teachings under the umbrella of Christianity being thrust upon the world that are enormously dangerous. And frankly, if were a believer in Jesus, I think I would feel insulted at how contradictory some of Jesus' ideals became from the interpretations of writings both before and after the gospels. (Not about what other characters said in those gospels, but the ideas we get from the words of Jesus himself.) And I would most certainly feel betrayed at the weight with which these other writings are used today as justification for war and various kinds of disenfranchisement. Do you really think Jesus (regardless of his supernatural realness) would be happy (based on just the words we supposedly have of his) about christian etxremists "taking back america" by burning and shooting up mosques? About they way they behaved during the civil rights struggle? About raping and pillaging native americans when they arrived?
If I make Paul out to be a bad guy, it's only because of the way christards use his words (and have been doing so since he wrote them).
@save the world and slap.....
Thank you for clarifying your comment. As a believer for 30+ years I can say with reasonable certainty that Christ would not approve of bombings and murders. He did tell his disciples on one occasion to go obtain swords if they didn't already have them. I don't think He was necessarily against war – look at WWII, He worked in the midst of it. But overall He asks us to be long-suffering and kind to our enemies. Paul was actually one of the bomber types – but it was against the Christians. Then, Christ confronted him he had to deal with what he had done. That's what made him such an awesome choice – he was so against the believers, but once he believed he was in all the way! He was one of the Jewish educated elite of his day – he studied with the highest mentors of the day, e.g. Gamaliel. I think about Gamaliel's exhortation to the Sanhedrin when they wanted to flog two of the disciples – he basically told them that if Christ's message was of men it would go away like all the others who had tried to raise a following in that day. But if it was of God they would not be able to stop it because they would be fighting against God. 2000 years later I wonder what his observation would be with regard to his original statement.
If there's nothing that will shake a person's faith today, then the only thing that will need to happen is a 'fading-out' of religion over the generations. Our future, the children of tommorrow, will decide the fate of religion. Once man breaks Earth's grasp, and is able to inhabit other worlds, will Revelations be able to hold up?
It doesn't hold up now.
@Voice Of Reason – true. But escaping the impending 'doom' of Revelations, what will that mean to eave Earth? Everyone imagines Earth being ground zero for Jesus returning. So would if we left Earth? Now what? Revelations in space? This should be the beginning of the end for religion, since people are in such denial. We've left the ball of death. Now what, faithful? See what I'm getting at? There will always be humans near or ON Earth. But we will leave.
@Voice Of Reason – true. But escaping the impending 'doom' of Revelations, what will that mean to leave Earth? Everyone imagines Earth being ground zero for Jesus returning. So would if we left Earth? Now what? Revelations in space? This should be the beginning of the end for religion, since people are in such denial. We've left the ball of death. Now what, faithful? See what I'm getting at? There will always be humans near or ON Earth. But we will leave.
Regarding Revelation, I wish we could somehow find exactly what the author was smoking when he wrote that terrifying escape from reality. Could it have been bath salts?
I'm sure revelations will purport earth means all of god's creation no doubt.
2nd question – would you be willing to die if you actually knew what you were professing was false?
You lack of logic is truly astounding.
Probably not. But believing something is true doesn't mean it is true, whether you die for it or not. Are you trying to prove that your religion is true because people are willing to die for it? By your logic, pretty much every religion is true.
No one will die willingly die for something false (of course I mean the majority of people). There's a core belief that drives them. And trying to prove to the faithful what's false, trying to disprove God, is as futile as trying to PROVE God. There's nothing that can be done. "The unstoppable force meets the unmmovable object". There will always be a stalemate. Only time will decide this arguement. And time is on the side of science.
You can be as willing or unwilling as you want, but you WILL die. Personally, I'm in no hurry. Not out of fear of death (I have none), but from love of life. I have family and friends and myself to live for.
I also have no fear of mythical Hell or wish to live eternally in a Heaven. I am content with my time on Earth (do I really have a choice?)
Maybe there is a god and maybe there is an honest politician. But I expect to see Santa Clause riding the Easter Bunny first.
The reason I asked is that Christianity was founded by eye-witnesses – if something wasn't true they knew it, yet history verifies that all twelve of Christ's eyewitness disciples died martyrs' deaths – horrible deaths. If they knew it was just a fable, and they would have, why would they do that. Plenty of people die for lies presuming them to be true – but people generally don't die for lies knowing they're lies. Just something to think about.
@Shiloh
There were many eyewitnesses to another gunman at the JFK murder. Does it make it true?
"The reason I asked is that Christianity was founded by eye-witnesses"
Shiloh,
Look into the studies of eye-witnesses done by psychologists and criminal justice experts and you will find that eye-withness testamony is the absolute LEAST reliable and yet humans errantly accept it as being one of the MOST reliable.
Next.
"2nd question – would you be willing to die if you actually knew what you were professing was false?"
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.
Eyewitnesses?
There are no eyewitness accounts. Every writing found in the NT was at least a generation or more after the fact.
Shiloh... likely not, IF THEY KNEW.
Most did not, do not. The thing is, this 'buy in' is endemic. Because to deny it, is to accept that people died for nothing. But people die for nothing all the time.
It's pretty easy to convince somebody of something, and get them to do what you want. Politicians do it all the time. To get somebody to do something, even die, for nothing... only requires a skill with rhetoric, and a lack of ethics.
And I think history has proven that many religious leaders have a certain lack of ethics.
I'm not talking about eyewitness as in a police report or an event – I' talking about living with a person every day for other three years. They were also eyewitnesses of his death – they fled when the guards came in Gethsemane but they showed up at the Cross. They saw the Romans verify that Christ was dead, they helped take his body away and prepare it for burial. They also witnessed his Resurrection – no blind faith needed, and they were all willing to die accordingly as martyrs as they spread that good news throughout the known world. That is where I say the difference is – if Christ hadn't risen they would have known and they were all willing to die – people don't die for a lie knowing it is a lie.
@Shiloh
There are no extrabiblical, contemporary accounts to confirm anything that you said about Jesus. Believing something is true doesn't make it so.
Shiloh
These characters in yout bible are fictional, and as such cannot be believed. Just because someone wrote something does not mean you should believe it. Your bible is a work of fiction, nothing more,.
Shiloh,
The Gospels were not written by the people who were there. These are stories that were passed down, changed and embellished, the FIRST written 30 to 40 years after the events AND in a different language. These are not first hand accounts, they could be 500th hand accounts. You are right this is NOT police report type witnesses, they are WORSE, much much worse. The gospel testamony would not be allowed anywhere near a courtroom.
@Hawaiiguest
I am no scholar but I don't think that is accurate – ........Ignatius, Justin-Martyr, Polycarp, Josephus, Clement to name a few.
@No Truth
I think that's where you're mistaken – Matthew was one of the 12, so were Mark and John – all men who spent three years with Christ. Matthew was written anywhere between 40 – 115 A.D. Ignatius of Antioch quotes Matthew's text and he died in 115 A.D., so we know it was before then. And Paul was most likely around Jerusalem during the time of Christ since He was one of Gamaliel's students. Gamaliel is referenced in the Mishnah.
Shiloh
and samewise accompanied frodo in his quest with the ring....also fictional characters.
@Shiloh
Considering Ignatius of Antioch, at earliest, was circa 35, that's not very contemporary.
The one passage in Josephus' (ca. 37) writings that would point to the biblical Jesus and his acts as real has been shown to be a forgery added much later.
Polycarp was born in 69 and was a second century christian bishop.
Clement was born in 150.
None of these people were contemporary, and only one (Josephus), was considered anything close to a historian.
@Shiloh
Keep in mind the dates I gave were their estimated birth years.
No Shiloh,
I am not mistaken, biblical scholars agree that the gospels were not written by these men. The names were attached long after the gospels were written. We don't know who wrote them, but we do know they were not written by Mathew, MArk, Luke And John because it is pretty much universaly accepted that these men were poor and illiterate, nor did they know how to speak or write in Greek, whic is what the gospels were written in. Do some research.
No Truth.....
I have done my research, I suggest you do the same : ).
Shiloh,
Explain how people who did not know how to write, wrote the gospels. Then explain how people who didn't know Greek, wrote in Greek. I gave you real reasons why biblical scholars know as a certainty the gospels were not written by Matthew Mark luke and John. You offered nothing to refute that, which leads me to conclude that you have not, in fact, researched any of it.
@Hawaiiguest
Your dates sound accurate – all of those individuals referenced New Testament texts (written by the eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Christ), in their communications and writings, which affirms that the texts were already in place and being circulated. They specifically name the authors, i.e. Matthew, Paul, Peter and so on – which stands against the presumption of fable – these were some pretty astute, educated inviduals.
"these were some pretty astute, educated inviduals."
Educated in what?
@Shiloh
Whoa back up a bit. The earliest copies of the gospels have been, at the absolute earliest, dated to about 60-70AD. Now, in terms of the people, 3 of 4 of them were very deeply into the church, and, in terms of motivation, would have been very vested in attempting to legitamize their beliefs.
Them writing about it doesn't show that the gospel was in circulation, as that cannot be traced until the 2nd or 3rd century. In fact, until the 4th century and the Council of Nicea, most of the time it was oral tradition. Astute and educated does not equal automatically trustworthy.
Shiloh: 39 people chose to die to go up to the Hale-Bopp comet. Does that mean the Heaven's Gate people were right and Marshall Applewhite was the messiah?
2 Peter 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:
Only for new members of this blog:
Putting the kibosh on god and religion:
• There was probably no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• There was probably no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
prob•a•bly
Adverb: Almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
Added details available upon written request.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
e.g. Taoism
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
I'd be curious to know how many of you are willing to die for what you say you believe?
Willingness to die for a belief does not in any way make the belief true or moral. All that it says is how important the 'believer' thinks the belief is. What is your point?
I am willing to fight and die for your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, does that qualify?
Shiloh,
Here are 23 pages of Muslim "martyrs" (and that doesn't include all of the recent suicide bombers, etc.):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Muslim_martyrs
Now for the second question – how many of you would be willing to die for what you believed in if you knew it was really false?
And thanks for being willing to die for my freedoms, my father was in WWII – I appreciate that.
@Shiloh,
"how many of you would be willing to die for what you believed in if you knew it was really false?"
Not sure what you mean, how would the concept that everyone has a right to freedom of speech be shown to be false? One can disagree, but that wouldn't make it false, I don't think.
Shiloh,
Willingness to die for something does not make it true. It just means the person believed it.
I'm interested in knowing what the point of the question is? People have died for all sorts of causes and faiths.
My question: how many are willing to kill for what they believe?
http://voices.yahoo.com/christian-pastors-denounce-african-children-as-witches-4676553.html
http://bosniaandgenocide.tripod.com/id5.html
I doubt anyone would die for what they KNEW was false. They believe it's valid. Your question is being directed to people on the fence. The faithful will jump off a cliff for Jesus. Abraham nearly killed a child he waited to have for like 100yrs. That's faith.
http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp
Guess you forgot about those that choose to fight and die for America because they believe in their country.
I don't think I am capable of dying for something I believe in based on my pure biology. That would require some subjugation of my natural instincts, which is neither healthy nor logical.
READ AND LEARN:
AND THE INFAMOUS ANGELIC CONS CONTINUE TO WREAK STUPIDITY UPON THE WORLD
Joe Smith had his Moroni. (As does M. Romney)
"Latter-day Saints like M. Romney also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."
Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;
Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tin-kerbell" got around).
Jesus and his family had/has Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented. (As does BO and his family) (As did the lates, beyond-stupid) red-neck Christian aka Wade Michael Page,
The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.
Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty wingie/horn-blowing thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.
Shiloh.. do you really have faith in prayer, and truly believe it will save you? Would you be willing to take a flight which you were told that the pilots would stop flying the aircraft and switch off the autopilot, and bail.. the only way to land would by prayer..do you think it would land by the hand the god you believe in? I would put money on the fact that unfortunately it would end very badly..
@Evolved DNA
I would never do something like that because that would be willfully tempting or taunting God – He does expect me to use my brain. However, I know I personally have had plenty of answered prayers and close encounters to be able to trust God with my big picture. I know all you are a lot smarter than I am – can you answer a question for me – if a car is driving at say 35-40 mph and hits black ice and starts to pirouette around and around how will it stop?
Back to your comment – I also know throughout the history of Christianity there have been too many experiences that were beyond the control of the experiencee to be coincidence. I'd be curious to hear from Christian pilots about their flight experiences. I know many of the physicians I worked with prayed during very intense situations and honored God for the outcomes.
Shiloh. You would never put your life in the hands of your god..you know you would die. Prayer works the same way that random chance does..God apparently willfully tests "us" constantly according to the religious folks..natural disasters, death of loved ones etc.. all sent to test us...apparently. As far as the car questions.. (why do you assume we are smarter than you? ) the car will either hit some thing or you can bring it under control..if you knew not to brake on ice you would not have got into the trouble anyway...Also, both my sons are both professional pilots and I can assure you that it it their skill, as with all pilots that keep the plane in the air. along with the myriad of engineers who designed and tested the aircraft.
Just as some folks avoid death from disease when others may die,,or pull through from a serious car crash..its going to happen..always has, always will it is no more proof of god than the magic invisible unicorn that lives in the garden and protects me.
"It was an unforgettable experience to listen to his lectures on fundamental problems on the evolutionary doctrine and Biblical creation. His outstanding personality, his far-reaching knowledge and his unique talent to fascinate during lectures attracted many listeners throughout the world. In remembering Wilder-Smith, innumerable Christians are grateful to their Lord for this fearless witness who helped many to jettison pseudo-scientific ballast and to find access to the living Word of God. May our Lord grant that the mighty witness of Wilder-Smith may continue to reach many people through this present work even after his home-going, and that it may glorify the Creator of heaven and earth."
—Professor Dr. Dr. Theodor Ellinger
Rector of Cologne University, Cologne, Germany
He was a spreader of lies and the world is better off with him gone. What really makes people like him dishonest is that they propose that if they pokes holes in evolution it will automatically make their postion "true", it doesn't, they still have to prove it. So they try proving it and will lie to do so.
Yeah, right, sure.........
@Shiloh,
You are present someone else's opinion of someone. What does that have to do with the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution?
If it was a popularity contest, which it is not, try Project Steve, http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve/
Wow, nice retort.
The Young Earth Creationist Position is false because they have already accepted what is true (the bible's creation story). They then reject any fact that disproves the bible, and only accept "evidence" that supports their pre-mature conclusion.
Shiloh, if someone told you that they are only going to believe things that are supported by the Iliad and anything that contradicts what is written in that book is not to be believed you would call them dishonest and delusional.
And I am calling YOU and all young Earth creationists dishonest and delusional.
Me II,
All I was doing was sharing affirmation from the world academic community for someone who does not support the evolution theory – that's all – just like atheists quote sources and individuals who support their beliefs.
Generally, atheists quote scientists who have not been thoroughly debunked.
No Truth, Just Claims – when did you research this individual's work to make such a strong statement about it? I presume then that you've read all 30 of his books and his 70 scientific writings.
No Truth, Just Claims –
when did you research this individual's work to make such a strong statement about it? I presume then that you've read all of his books scientific writings.
Shiloh,
It is well known that Young Earth Creationists have gone through college and universities and gotten their degrees in an effort to give ligitimacy to their position. Show me one thesis from a Young Earth Creationist from an accredited universty that supports the creationist position. You can't because they pick fields like Wilder-Smith (chemistry) that do not necessarily conflict with their creationism. It is only after, that they then use theit credentials to support their position. If ANY of them could actually prove creationism they would win a Noble Prize and be the most famous scientist ever.
Shiloh, here's a challenge for you. Cite an experiment that proves biblical creation or intelligent design. Failing to do that, propose an experiment that could support biblical creation or intelligent design.
Evolution is a scientific law: life changes, it adapts. With the advent of modern genetics, this is pretty much an unassailable position. While the theory explaining evolution (aka natural selection) may not account for every known phenomenon, it is best idea we have and is built upon mountains of data. Science doesn't care about quotations or the people who utter them. It cares about data and evidence and creationists have provided neither.
Shiloh,
I don't have to research his every point. I have an education, I went to college, I took science (biology, geology, ect). I was also raised christian so I am versed in the creationist story and position. I can evaluate the claims on my own. I don't have to read every Young Eather's position. I can research a few of their claims to know they are lying, just like I don't have to read every person who has written about Astrology to come to the conclusion that the claims of Astrology are bunk.
@Shiloh,
"All I was doing was sharing affirmation from the world academic community for someone who does not support the evolution theory – that's all – just like atheists quote sources and individuals who support their beliefs."
Well, if you want the "world academic community" why not go to the source:
"The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding."
(American Association for the Advancement of Science – 2002 )
"One of the most important advances in our knowledge has been the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. Since being proposed by Charles Darwin nearly 150 years ago, the theory of evolution has been supported by a mounting body of scientific evidence. Today it is recognised as the best explanation for the development of life on Earth from its beginnings and for the diversity of species. "
(Royal Society, UK)
"Intelligent Design is a religious belief, and Evolution is the only credible scientific position that is defensible."
(Royal Society of Canada)
"We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multi[.]tude of scientific disciplines.
...
4. Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin."
(InterAcademy Panel: The Global Network of Science Academies (IAP))
Intelligent design is a fundamentally flawed concept. It ignores the essence of the design process.
When humans engineer something (ie design) at first we inevitably make mistakes and make things that are non-optimal.
Think of airplanes for example. Compare and contrast the earliest airplanes to those of today. When they crashed we figured out why and made changes so that the next design doesn't crash the same way. We came up with incremental changes in materials and powerplants.
Even 'design' evolves over time – just like biological organisms.
@ No Truth... Don't worry about it. Shiloh hasn't read any of the books and papers either. He just copies and pastes what he foud on a Creationist website. (including the quotes from RECTOR Theodor Ellinger.
@Wrenn_NYC
Considering he's the Rector at one of the oldest universities in Europe, which is also one of the leading research universities as well I think his comments bear respect.
@ ME II
Thanks for sharing – you have infor and references, so do I – it's not an either or situation – there are intelligent minds in academia that support both. You have your beliefs, I have mine – it's just fun to interact, nothing personal.
"there are intelligent minds in academia that support both."
The intelligent minds on your side are lying. And you are gullible enough to believe them.
@No Truth, Just Claims
Don't be silly, there are too many of them and they don't all know each other – no conspiracy except the divine one. You sound a little paranoid – trust is a beautiful experience.
Shiloh,
Show me one thesis from a Young Earth Creationist from an accredited universty that supports the creationist position. Just one!
They don't have to know each other, they have an agenda, their religion. They are shoe horning information into what the WANT to believe. Science doesn't work that way. Why do a vast majority of scientists, including christian believers like Dr. Francis Collins, head of the human gnome project, reject the creationist arguments? They actually don't have an agenda other than science. For creationists to be correct practically every scientist, from every country and every related science to evolutionary biology (geology, geneology, palentology, taxonomy, ect.ect.ect.) would have to be lying! Now THAT would be a conspiracy. None of these scientist have anything in common except for science. Your scientists ALL have a religious agenda. Show me one creationist that does not have a religious agenda. I, on the other hand, can show you many scientists that are believers that completely reject creationism..