"What Evidence is There Against the Existence of God?"
[This is a redated post which degenerated into 197 comments. To see the original post with its comments click here]. Let's start over.
Dr. William Lane Craig asks this question in his debates. Let me attempt to answer it.
In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.
Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.
Dr. William Lane Craig asks this question in his debates. Let me attempt to answer it.
In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.
Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.
81 comments:
Strkes and Seazures disconform tje existance of the Soul, John? Reallythis is sloppy from soemone hwo boasts of his degrees in Philosophy and theology.
Thre Soul is not udnertsood as a sort of GHost that oeprates the body whilst remainign compleltey independant of it. Raher, the Soul is udnerstood as integrate dintot he body.
In fact, many beleive the SOul is enturley emergent from the body. William Tyndale for examole beelived that when youy die, your soul dies with you. He explicitly denied the existanc eof an Afterlife. Thsi same beleif was carried over by Martin Luther, nd several Protestant Denominaitosn currently teach this.
If Mr. Tyndale was correct about hte Soul, then how do Strokes and Seazures prov eit doesnt exist?
Of coruse, not everyone agrees with Tyndale, but I don't know fo anyone ho thinks the Soul is complltye immune form Physical events that occur eint he body, or that imagiens it as a sort of removed Ghst that operates the body like a puppet.
In order for Storkes and Seazures ot disprove the SOul, you'd have to pvoe the Soul can ONLY be undertsood as a sort of Ghost that operates a shell but is not reliant on any part of that shell to out fourth any of that control in our world. This you dont do, you just asusme tis what the soul must be undertsood by.
I don't know anyone who thinks that our Souls in that way. Everyoen I know perfeclty accepts that Physical damage will alter either the way our soul funcitosnint he bidy, or the soul itself. ( I know some Tyndalians, for example.)
It seems you have basically created a strawman in that regard.
Considerin the Soul is the life force or animative principle, it never ceses ot amaze me that people should think it doens't exist. THe soul si the easiest of all Religiosu concepts to prove actulaly does exist. All you need to do is look at somethign that is alive. Thats all the soul reaally is.
Your referneces to the Problem of Evil are also shallow since, as ohers have noted, there are epxlanaitosn to this.
Suffice to say, your other complaint sbaotu God seem empty as well.
IE- not all Christaisn reject Evolutionary theory, not do heyt all think Eden was free of all Death.
How do you reconcile your critisisms that supposeldy tpove "The Christyian God" doesnt eixst with the real theology of men like Tybdale, or Origen, or Augustine?
By simply ignorign them, it seems.
John,
Dr. Craig establishes the structure of these debates so as to put an equal burden on theists and atheists, which I believe is methodologically incorrect.
But your response is strangely contradictory. You say, first, that "Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.This is actually false, and I think you realize that it is, because you immediately go on to write:
"Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God"Isn't that perfectly contradictory with your previous claim?
"Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God."
John, I've never heard Craig put the question in terms of evidence, but in terms of reasons. The latter concept is broader than the former, so reducing reasons to evidence as you did distorts Craig's question. (If he has asked for evidence in debates I haven't heard, I apologize. However, in the many debates I have heard and read, he speaks about reasons, and in his most recent debates he's spoken about reasons.) But, of course, Craig always combines the claim that there are no good reasons to believe that god doesn't exist with the claim that there are good reasons to think that he does exist.
This latter claim, and the arguments he uses to defend it, militate against your point about unicorns and the like. Craig could simply say that there are no good reasons to believe that unicorns exist, but, if you know anyone who has some arguments in favor of their existence, the arguments could be examined and critiqued -- just as you must examine and critique his arguments for god's existence. In the context of a debate about god's existence, you can't simply place god and unicorns in the same category without any supporting arguments or you'll be begging the question. And what must those supporting arguments be? Well, arguments purporting to give good reasons to believe that god doesn't exist, i.e. the sort of arguments Craig would be asking you to provide in the first place.
Zarove, last time. Use a spell checker or this is your last comment. No excuses about being dyslectic. You're just plain lazy and I'm not tolerating it any more, okay?
Landon,
The first 'god' that John is talking about is the abstract concept of a god, in which no evidence would exist in this world for said abstract concept.
The christian god on the other hand, is an implementation of this abstract concept; a defined entity as described in the bible, and supposedly has had numerous involvements in earth/human existence, as John points out a few. This concept you can argue against and debunk, as John did above.
Landon, there's a difference between evidence against some nebulous God out there and evidence against the Christian God. The evidence against the Christian God is specific to the claims he revealed himself in the Bible. There's no contradiction at all here.
Thanks Brian_E, we made the same point at the same time.
Eric, Craig does in fact ask this question. Someone might be able to find it for us.
No john, itsnot OK. Im not being lazy, but I cant psend an horu or two spell chelkcing a bog post that may or may not go through, only to hav he spell checker end up messing the sentence up.
Incidentlaly, you could try to address my actual posts. That'd be a nice change of pace from your ad hom agaisnt me.
The fool who tried to understand the existence of God by comparing infinity to that one man's finite corrupted imagination. This is like a dog who wanted to understand the beauty of calculus and the brilliance of quantum mechanics.
@Zarove
I rarely agree with John about anything, but he is correct that you need to improve your comments readibility. It doesn't take 30 seconds to at least read over them or copy/paste the into word and at least make them somewhat understanable.
@John
Your argument about fairies and such is a much better argument then your attempt to give "evidence" that proves God does not exist. Likewise, you should have included links to this evidence to show that it is in fact credible evidence and not just something you generated to prove your point. That is a requirement for any such claims.
If I were to make the statement, "I can prove to you that God exists." Would you not ask me to provide my proof in the form of credible evidence? Just a thought for future posts. Perhaps even just write one posts that lists and links to the evidence that you can link to in subsequent posts.
Like I stated in an earlier post, I was instantly and mirculously healed by God. Also, God spoke 2 very specific prophecies to me that came true. One prophecy was who I was going to marry. At the time I heard this prophecy, this girl had no interest in me whatsoever, and rightly so. She was a class act and totally gorgeous. I was a jerk and had a train wreck for a face. No coincidence here, and no self-fulfilled prophecy. So I KNOW that God exists! I do not need any convincing from any so called "evidence". God has touched me and spoken to me without any doubt whatsoever. I do not believe in God - I KNOW God - first hand, up close and personal. I have had close encounters of the REAL kind!
Zarov makes the assertion: 'Considering the Soul is the life force or animative(sic) principle, it never ceases to amaze me that people should think it doesn't exist.'
Where is the evidence that life is anything other than a biological/chemical process? There is no scientific evidence of some transcendent life force dwelling within. I posit any belief in a soul must rely on faith and is outside the realm of falsifiable evidence
John, I just checked some of his debates myself. In debates with Tooley, Jesspeh, Washington,
Flew, Dacey, Wolpert, De Sousa, Drange, Curley, Ahmed and Shook, he speaks about reasons for god's existence, while in his debates with Atkins, Stenger, Zindler Slezak, and Pigliucci, he speaks about evidence for god's existence. While 'reasons' seems to be his preferred term, I was wrong, and he has used the term evidence in the past.
Dencol:
Please share with us your miraculous healing story.
Based on 2005 stats, there are about 2 million marriages per year in the US. Your marriage to a beautiful women is not statistically unusual. If this is the extent of prophetic accomplishment, I'm not convinced.
You mentioned two prophecies. Other than the blissful nuptials, what's the other?
Have it your way Zarove. Unfortunately when I ban someone like I just did to you, all of the comments you ever wrote on this Blog will be hidden from view. And you are banned.
Forgiven&heavenbound said: The fool who tried to understand the existence of God by comparing infinity to that one man's finite corrupted imagination. This is like a dog who wanted to understand the beauty of calculus and the brilliance of quantum mechanics.Yes. We are all so far below such concepts of eternal significance as were the fabricators of the books of the Bible. John has listed just a few of the many ways that the Biblical version of history is quite false. Archeology & science prove the Bible wrong on so many of the details that are falsifiable, that one would have to be quite foolish to think it has any veracity on untestable questions of God or metaphysical truths.
Even my dog knows that when I say "walk" that it means something good is going to happen. If I used the word in vain too often he would eventually conclude that it meant nothing useful to him. I may not be able to talk about quantum mechanics with him but he could discern whether I am reliable when it comes to simpler things.
The Bible makes all kinds of claims about our physical world that have been shown to be nothing more than some collection of iron age authors' wishful thinking. If not for the propaganda & brainwashing techniques of the Bible believers, this collection of books would sit right bedside all the other fables of antiquity. Like my dog can with me, I can test & see whether these writings are reliable.
Some of the simpler less infinite claims of the Bible are testable & it does not receive a passing grade - not even close. The more profound claims can therefore be disregarded. There is no god author of these flawed works.
-evan
Hi ccubeman,
God told me who I would marry by name! He told me EXACTLY who I was going to marry.
I use to have major panic attacks. One day God told me that I would no longer have any. I asked Him to please confirm that through another person. Not long after I heard that from God, a friend of mine told me those vert words. He had no idea that I had already heard that from God myself. That was about 15 years ago, and I have not had a panic attack since then! Not one! And I was having them on a very regular basis, at least once a week! I had to stop taking the medication for them because it made them worse! So I know for an absolute fact that God is real, that He speaks, and that He heals.
Correction - those VERY words
DenCol,
People here so far have been nice to you, and explained to you that your silly personal visions/conversations with 'god' will do nothing to convince a true skeptic of anything other than you are delusional. Somehow, you fail to grasp this and continue with your shenanigans.
If you are not going to contribute anything concrete, in the form of a real argument, than just read with interest or go away, cause you're not going to convince anyone of anything, and you're acting like a troll at this point.
Thank you.
Brian,
Did you read the rules concerning being disrespectful? I have posted personal FACTS from my life that are evidence of God and those posts were in response to questions addressed to me. I am sorry if that offends you.
DenCol I agree with Brian_E. No more personal testimonies or you too will be banned. You must reason with us. Just think how such testimonies would sound to you if a Satanist or a Mormon or a Muslim kept spamming your Blog with them. That's how we think too.
One more and you're banned.
I think you should add that there is evidence that god is man made or has a human reasoning etc from scripture
either way, you've made a solid response.
@Marc
"I think you should add that there is evidence that god is man made or has a human reasoning etc from scripture"
Please list this evidence (Scriptural references).
As far as I know, there is no evidence in the Scripture that demonstrates that God is man-made. I could see a case being made that he has human reasoning, but then I would want you to define what you mean by "human reasoning."
Hi John,
People asked me to tell them what my "so called" miracles were. All I did was answer their questions. I read your comment policy, and their was no warning against personal testimonies. And again, I only gave details when asked. Why are people asking me to give details, if those details are going to be considered spam?
This blog is about EVIDENCE - which is exactly what I gave. I did not break one single rule of your commenting policy. So please tell me the real reason you are upset.
DelCon, stupidity. As I said, this is not the place for sermons or High School level argumentation.
Dencol,
A heart-warming boy meets girl story is as old as story telling itself. You seem like an average guy beset with aggravating problems(panic disroder) who also had a cool life experience(met and married dream girl). There's nothing miraculous about what you're describing.
From a cognitive perspective the disappearance of panic attacks is not a miracle. Panic disorder affects many people and is fairly well understood by the psychological community. Some recover spontaneously, some require medication, others therapy. Again, nothing unusual here.
DelCol, what I said in this post goes for every Blog post at DC. Since you went ahead and posted a personal testimony elswhere that's it. You're banned. If you are who I think you are you'll now show your true colors.
eheffa
evan
“the fabricators of the books of the Bible.” Men of God who wrote the Holy Word of God from different times, locations, civilizations, cultures and etc, Amazing facts! Only an All powerful, all knowing, and Infinite pervasive Entity could author such more than extraordinary Holy Book of Revelations.
”John has listed just a few of the many ways that the Biblical version of history is quite false.” And you believed John. Incredible!
“Archeology & science prove the Bible wrong on so many of the details that are falsifiable,” such the likes of King Saul, king David, and the places of Sodom and Gomorrah had existed. Or that in a certain ancient place of Ur was a man called Abraham who became the father of the Jewish nation. What about the stretching of the fabric of Time and Space that the astronomers have just recently discovered and the millions of fossil all over the world?
“that one would have to be quite foolish to think it has any veracity on untestable questions of God or metaphysical truths” Isaac Newton, James Joule Dr. Francis Collins Dr. Jason Lisle and etc.
“There is no god author of these flawed works. “
1.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
What a “flawed work” the best seller of all time!
Forgiven-etc...
I guess you haven't done your homework.
I'm not taking John's word on these things. There is a vast literature dealing with these issues. You need to do a little more reading after you've weaned yourself off the pap of the various Christian apologist writers who twist & distort the facts to fit their presuppositions.
For a start, go get yourself a copy of "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein et al.
http://www.amazon.ca/Bible-Unearthed-Archaeologys-Vision-Ancient/dp/0684869136/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1243632643&sr=8-1
After you have read that & a few of their other references to check their veracity, come on back & tell us how accurate this Old Testament really is.
Sorry to disappoint you (as I was once too) but this holy book is a man-made fabrication. Like many other best-selling works of fiction, the sales figures are no measure of their veracity.
-evan
If I write something about a supernatural deity and claim divine inspiration from same, am I to be believed? If I write a fictional story set in NYC, or Paris or London and accurately describe the setting, does it make my work any less fictional? Or am I simply a fine writer with an excellent imagination?
If the assertion is biblical words were actually penned by a supernatural deity, that claim requires extraordinary evidence. As of now, the best evidence points to human authors. These authors claim divine inspiration, or have divine inspiration attributed to them. How do we know they were not simple story tellers trying to make sense of their tenuous existence?
Why do many believe these writers were divinely inspired? Mostly, I think, because it threatens lots of nastiness to those who do not believe. There's no doubt this contributes to quashing dissent and disbelief amongst the impressionable.
John,
Two points to say to you. First off, I'm not sure that banning people is really the best way to deal with "stupid people." I understand that if someone is being outrageously offensive or derogatory, that they deserve to be banned. But don't you support free speech? I think that diversity of opinion is important - even if some opinions are more or less stupid than others. As well, isn't this blog meant to be directed toward these "stupid people"? How are they ever going to become less stupid if you keep banning them? I'm not trying to tell you how to run your blog by any means, but I think that most blog owners need not be so quick to pull the trigger to ban someone. Just my thoughts on that.
Second, I think it may make your argument more clear if you mention that inasmuch as the existence of God makes falsifiable claims, he can be disproved. We can't disprove God as a whole because it doesn't offer us any testable predictions. The God of the Bible, however, does - at least to a certain extent (certainly theology likes to come up with their own excuses). Perhaps that could be added to this type of argument in the future, and it avoids the contradiction that Landon pointed out in the second comment.
DenCol,
You probably find it very odd that nobody seems to be convinced by your incredible stories. I imagine you've already come up with some sort of "they're intentionally deceiving themselves" argument to help yourself understand it. Perhaps we can put this another way, though. Muslims have many miraculous stories. So do Hindus. Have you ever heard of the Ganesh milk miracle? It's well-known, was witnessed by hundreds, if not thousands, of people, and occurred in the modern day. But you know what? You don't believe that these are true miracles. And why not? Is it because they are any less impressive than your stories? Of course not. You believe because you have a bias toward believing stories about the Christian God. And that's not to say that you're a horrible person - everyone has biases. But we need to try and control those biases so we don't get led away by any ol' crazy story.
What you need to spend some time thinking about is why you are allowed to reject the miracles of other religions, and yet you don't allow us to reject your miracles. Take some time to reflect on that, and I think you may come to the conclusion that stories of miracles are not a good basis for beliefs.
forgivenAndHeavenBound,
I think you need to think about what you just said. "Only an All powerful, all knowing, and Infinite pervasive Entity could author such more than extraordinary Holy Book of Revelations." Have you ever heard of the Apocalypse of Enoch, or the Apocalypse of Adam, or the Apocalypse of Peter? Qualitatively speaking, they are no different than the book of Revelations (also known as the Apocalypse of John). They are of the same genre, and written in the same style. But do you believe that any of these other ones are divinely inspired? And why not?
Jeff, stupid people need to find some place else to fart. That's my opinion. They will not be reached by us. They must first become educated by people they trust. They do not trust us at all. But they can read what we write all they want to.
"The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein et al.” and Also the Da Vinci Code
What archaeological discovery has had the all-time greatest Biblical impact?
"Probably the Dead Sea Scrolls have had the greatest Biblical impact. They have provided Old Testament manuscripts approximately 1,000 years older than our previous oldest manuscript. The Dead Sea Scrolls have demonstrated that the Old Testament was accurately transmitted during this interval. In addition, they provide a wealth of information on the times leading up to, and during, the life of Christ.
—Dr. Bryant;
Just one of the many sites that could help http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/?zoom_highlight
“Sorry to disappoint you (as I was once too) but this holy book is a man-made fabrication. “ The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein et al
“Like many other best-selling works of fiction, the sales figures are no measure of their veracity.” The God Delusion.
Zarove banned? What will Joe do with his time now?
You know what's useful? On Amazon review threads there is a function that 'hides' posts that are voted as 'not contributing to the discussion' by readers.
This allows readers to skip over trolls and graffiti while technically maintaining freedom of speech. It almost lets the readers do the moderating. Pretty neat.
Sorry forgivenetc...
but if you find this site you referenced ( http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/) to have anything conclusive to offer in assessing the veracity of the Bible, I have some ocean waterfront in Kansas I would love to sell you. This is the sort of apologetic pap I was suggesting you disregard if you are actually interested in truth over preserving Sunday School dogma. May I suggest that you read some real archeology or some real science & see whether your beliefs stand up to real scrutiny.
These sorts of sites are like asking a dedicated Mormon to provide evidence for the existence of the Angel Moroni & Smith's Golden Plates. You will get all kinds of confident bluster that in the end is nothing more than a lot of dishonest rationalizations to keep their believers deluded into thinking that they have satisfied the need to be skeptical before retreating back to their comfortable pew. (Kind of like how Lee Strobel pretends to be a skeptic & then spoon feeds you a bunch of comforting BS to reassure you that your doubts are unfounded & fully answerable...). The stuff on this site is not evidence. It is nothing more than pseudo-science dedicated to preserving a set of untenable presuppositions about the Bible.
The DSS do provide us with a lot of insight into the Pre-Christian era & the many cultic off-shoots of Judaism. It's no wonder there weren't more Jesuses to attract the attentions of the devout...oh wait, there were. In the end Constantine & Eusebius had to go to a lot of work to exterminate all those wayward vermin sects disguising themselves as Christians.
Read some History (written by professional historians & not your propagandist apologists) some Archaeology & maybe a little bit of Science too while you're at it. For a start, read Finkelstein & then go back to your site there & see how ridiculous their assertions really are.
-evan
“but if you find this site you referenced ( http://christiananswers.net/archaeology/) to have anything conclusive to offer in assessing the veracity of the Bible, “ This is a pretty straightforward website good for abecedarian in Biblical Archaeology.
“I have some ocean waterfront in Kansas I would love to sell you.” This is enormously abundant on the beautiful vibrant planet Zykiar and is absolutely free for everybody. It took billion of years for this former dead rocky planet to be what is now.
“This is the sort of apologetic pap I was suggesting you disregard if you are actually interested in truth over preserving Sunday School dogma. “Humming bird was a Dinosaur long time ago.
“May I suggest that you read some real archeology or some real science & see whether your beliefs stand up to real scrutiny.” Many secular archaeologists questioned the existence of King David, because there are no records of him dating from the time of his rule (traditional dates 1025–985 BC). As with Joshua and the conquest of Canaan, these scientists speculate that the legend of David may have been added by a scribe recopying documents at a much later date, trying to “improve” the history of Israel. But in modern Israel in 1993 an inscription in stone dating from about 900 BC was found containing the phrases “House of David,” and “King of Israel.” That one inscription was enough to turn skeptical opinion around: now archaeologists generally accept that David really existed.- by Phillip Climer “These sorts of sites are like asking a dedicated Mormon to provide evidence for the existence of the Angel Moroni & Smith's Golden Plates.” Book of Mormons, Book of Evolution, Book of “Richard Dawkins”, Koran and etc.
“The stuff on this site is not evidence. It is nothing more than pseudo-science dedicated to preserving a set of untenable presuppositions about the Bible.” untenable presuppositions of Evolution
“The DSS do provide us with a lot of insight into the Pre-Christian era & the many cultic off-shoots of Judaism. It's no wonder there weren't more Jesuses to attract the attentions of the devout...oh wait, there were.” Karl Marx, Stalin, Polpot, Darwin, Frankenstein, Dawkins, Hitchkins and etc.
“ In the end Constantine & Eusebius had to go to a lot of work to exterminate all those wayward vermin sects disguising themselves as Christians.” Inquisition, Gestapo, KGB, American Civil Liberties Union
“Read some History (written by professional historians & not your propagandist apologists) some Archaeology & maybe a little bit of Science too while you're at it. “ It’s everywhere TV, school, colleges, universities, grad school, Hollywood, Barnes & Nobles, magazines, Barney, sesame street, Disney land, and etc.
“For a start, read Finkelstein & then go back to your site there & see how ridiculous their assertions really are.” He is exceptionally brilliant for pap.
Can fish comprehend the world of the cat? Can cat comprehend the world of man? Can man comprehend God?
forgiven,
The fact that archaeologists can be wrong about things doesn't mean that the Bible is automatically vindicated when they find another name within it. The same sort of thing happened with Belshazzar - they couldn't find any evidence of his existence. Then they found a tablet from the time period that mentioned his name - only it clearly identified him as the son of another king, Nabonidus, that reigned after Nebuchadrezzar. In other words, it's not all about identifying names. At most, all that tells us is that the person that wrote it was someone that probably lived in the area. The fact that a writer can name a city or person doesn't mean that the events described within them are accurate and unbiased, nor does it lend any weight to the notion that the Bible is "inspired" and correct when it comes to supernatural issues.
ZAROVE, do you not have spell check on your computer? My goodness, it is hard to read your post!
forgivenAndHeavenBound said:
But in modern Israel
in 1993 an inscription in stone dating from about 900 BC was found containing the phrases “House of David,” and “King of Israel.”Indeed, this is interesting stuff. If you were brave enough to read the reference I suggested for you, you would appreciate that unlike the site you referenced, real archaeologists are obliged to be open-minded and derive their conclusions from the evidence rather than look for evidence for their already entrenched conclusions. The Stele of David you are referencing would suggest that David may have been a real King in Israel; however, the city of Jerusalem at the time he would have lived was evidently little more than a regional chieftain's village in size. His son Solomon's Kingdom as described in the Biblical record (if it even existed) does not appear to have been anything like the glorious descriptions we read there so we still have a problem with the archaeology contradicting the Biblical accounts.
As Jeff has posted, the ability to use a few historical details to provide verismilitude to the tale does not make it factual or accurate. Archaeology, despite the attempts of Albright et al & his legacy, does not support the chronology or details of the Biblical accounts & in many places directly contradicts the biblical version. (Jericho comes to mind...)
In a test of veracity, the Old Testament fails on too many fronts to list. The assertion that this is a work of godly inspiration is simply not tenable. Only those unwilling to entertain this possibility & deliberately refuse to weigh the evidence could continue to hold to the idea that the Old Testament is a reliable historical source.
As for your site & the "scientific" explanation of why Noah didn't need oxygen in the Ark when the flood waters were higher than Mount Everest? That's a real knee slapper.
I take it you also hold to the notion that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?
Start with the assumption that Genesis to Revelation is god-breathed perfection & defend it with every cheap trick & cognitive distortion you can muster. If you're lucky you will successfully go to your grave & your eternal reward with the comfort of knowing you defended the faith against all those infidel voices of human or scientific reason. What you will have left behind though will be something called the "Truth". This thing called truth doesn't come by wishful thinking but by careful examination of the data & a refusal to draw conclusions before the evidence warrants. Sometimes we don't have enough data to answer the questions at hand & the truth will have to wait for more good evidence to steer us one way or the other. Arguments from those claiming that god told them this or that are not admissible as data as these assertions are not falsifiable or testable. This is a foreign concept to those taught by their mothers & religious mentors to cling first to the inerrancy of scripture & then selectively look for data to support that minority opinion. This is not how you learn the truth; this is how you maintain your "faith" in the face of reality.
I understand your position because I lived & breathed it for many years. The alternative - to be truly open-minded - is somewhat frightening because the Christian God who knows your every thought, might abandon you if you entertain these blasphemous back-slider ideas too seriously. But, in the end, there is a tremendous burden lifted from your mind when you come out into the light of truth & reason & leave behind these childish fantasies.
Good luck in your pursuit of truth - I dare you. ;-)
-evan
Just wanted to share my two cents with you guys if you don't mind.
With regards to creationism: Scientists tell us that everything has a beginning and an end - from our very own bodies, to all the living creatures in the world, to the stars in the sky. They also tell us that matter cannot create itself, but can only be changed. It does not simply appear and disappear on its own volition.
My question is then, couldn't we simply apply this very logical thought process to our planet Earth? Given that everything else that we know of in our earth dimension has a beginning, the Earth must also have had a beginning, correct? We know that planets and stars all had a beginning. And yet, at the same time, we empirically know that matter cannot simply produce itself; within our "earth" dimension, we know that matter can only be changed and shifted, not produced.
Do we not then face a conundrum? If we know the Earth had a beginning, and yet we also know that things cannot pop up by themselves, then where on earth did earth come from? Sorry for the bad pun.
I'm not saying the straightforward answer is God (whoever God even is; although I am Christian I still can hardly fathom the nature of this God, the supposed creator of the entire universe. It is a very very difficult thing to put my mind around, although I do believe it). However, do you not agree that it is quite a logical conclusion to make, given what we empirically observe in our world with our reasoning faculties, to assert that given that the world had a beginning, and that matter cannot begin on its own (can only be changed is what scientists tell us), there must have been something, some entity outside of the Earth realm that caused all these things to come into existence?
I would think that this is quite a logical conclusion to reach (despite what atheists may have to say about us Christians - that the leap of faith signifies the absence of reason. Rather, I feel that I am thinking much much more now that I've become a Christian =)), given what we empirically observe in our world. And again, let's put aside questions of faith for the moment, and simply use our reason (which is what atheists seem to cling to as the basis for your worldview). Would not our reasoning ability get us to this point? What do you think?
Sorry for another long post, but I just wanted to add another food for thought.
Many people believe that death is the end of our existence. In fact, I would argue that even the Bible describes death as the end of life for non-believers. We, who were originally created to live forever, were sentenced to death, and then the "second death" as described in the Book of Revelation due to our sins (unless we believe in the sacrifice of Jesus of Nazareth). And I do not see any reason to believe that the second death will be any different from the first death that we experience in this life (otherwise, why didn't the Bible writers use terms such as eternal torment in hell, or eternal consciousness?) - the cessation of life. What does Christianity provide us? A solution to death, not a solution to hell, I would have to say given a holistic understanding of the Bible. (e.g. verses like "the wages of sin is death" and whoever believes in him will not perish. What do these words death and perish actually mean? Perhaps they just mean what they say! Not hell, whatever hell even is, not spiritual death, whatever that even means, but death, simply and purely! Also, if you read the Old Testament carefully you'll find there is no understanding of an eternal soul that lives on after we die. Rather, we are a whole, integrated being that either lives or dies. The idea of an eternal soul actually is a pagan myth, stemming from Greek mythology and other belief systems outside of Judaism. When we see Christianity in this light, I think we will find that God is a very logical God, not some crazy insane being who wishes to torture his creation, but just a creator who wants us to love him.
Anyway, so many of us believe death is the end. My question, then, is this: why do we behave and act as though we are going to live forever? We show love to our families, our spouses and children. We love our friends and coworkers. But if death truly is the end of it all, why bother? Why do even care for our kids if we know that their ultimate destiny is death, or the cessation of their existence!! I would wager that death makes our lives utterly meaningless, because we cannot take any of our accomplishments, and our love towards others, to our grave. After all, we all meet the same fate. The paradox to me, however, is that we humans in fact live as if we will never die, given the way we care for others and try to improve our abilities and talents.
So again, wouldn't the logical conclusion to make here be to say that humans were in fact created to live forever? This, I know, is a very difficult and other-worldly idea to ponder. It is outside of our realm of understanding, so of course it is easy to disbelieve. But is it not the only logical conclusion to make given the way we behave in this world? What is the other alternative? Utter meaninglessness, but the strange thing is we do not behave as though our lives are utterly meaningless, as though our lives will end in death! Rather, we live as though there is a lasting meaning to our our for others.
Does this make any sense?
dtkwon said:
Does this make any sense?Jim says:
Not really to the well-informed atheist on this blog. Your "reasoning" has been hashed and rehashed and dissected a thousand times in a thousand discussions and in a thousand blogs.
You tell us that:
Scientists tell us that everything has a beginning and an end . . . Then you ask why we can't use this reasoning with the planet earth. ummmmmm . . . O.K. . . . why can't we use this reasoning with God?
God must have had a beginning since scientists say everything has a beginning and an end, right?
Look, you needn't bother answering that--I (we) already know the christian "answer" to this dilemma. It's an unsatisfactory answer to the informed atheist.
No offense, but saying that scientists say everything has a beginning and an end is probably just a bit sloppy and itself leads to poor "logical" conclusions such as those you have made.
The rest of your posts could be dissected similarly . . .
Regards,
Jim
Could it not be argued that the intrinsic probability of God is low, as it is one among many supernaturalistic hypotheses? Supernaturalism seems to me as intrinsically probable as naturalism, meaning that the prior probability of theism would be significantly low.
I don't see why this wouldn't give one good reason to reject the existence of God if no evidence for God is found.
-evan
“But in modern Israel
in 1993 an inscription in stone dating from about 900 BC was found containing the phrases “House of David,” and “King of Israel.”Indeed, this is interesting stuff.” - Bible is always true.
“ ...than look for evidence for their already entrenched conclusions.” - It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” said Chris Beard, a curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
Ida’s unveiling was highly scripted (with some “Barnum and Bailey aspects,” said paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University).
...this event causes the public to distrust science and media, that distrust is well placed.
“Ida Fossil Hype Went Too Far”
Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience, May 20, 2009
“…David may have been a real King in Israel...little more than a regional chieftain's village in size.” - Well, they’ll believe everything except the Bible.
“Jericho comes to mind...” - Be open minded. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/05/Did-the-Israelites-Conquer-Jericho-A-New-Look-at-the-Archaeological-Evidence.aspx
“ In a test of veracity, the Old Testament fails on too many fronts to list.” - The Bible speaks about Babylon, Persia, Greece, Egypt, Palestine, Arabia, Mesopotamia, Mt. Ararat, Sodom and Gomorrah, Cyrus, Belshazzar, Esther, Pharaoh, Syria, Jericho, Damascus, 7days a week and etc. Were these entities mere products of brain chemicals reactions?
“…the "scientific" explanation of why Noah didn't need oxygen in the Ark when the flood waters were higher than Mount Everest? That's a real knee slapper.“ - The old world is not the New World.
“If you're lucky you will successfully go to your grave & your eternal reward… “ - Luck and Good works have nothing to do with man’s salvation. It is the gift of God so that no one should boast.
“What you will have left behind though will be something called the "Truth".” - The Lord Jesus Christ is The Truth, He is The Creator and the Sustainer of the Universe. Science has already confirmed it; The Universe has a beginning and presently being sustained by an unknown force and since, they have their presuppositions and prejudices; they call this unknown force as Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
“…but by careful examination of the data & a refusal to draw conclusions before the evidence warrants.” - “That rings all sorts of warning bells,” Professor Brown cautioned...the paper did not provide sufficient proof that Ida was the ancestral anthropoid.
...but they’ve cherry-picked particular characteristics ”
“Scientists Divided on Ida as the Missing Link”
Leigh Dayton, The Australian, May 21, 2009
“…this is how you maintain your "faith" in the face of reality.” - The faith in Evolution
“I understand your position because I lived & breathed it for many years.“ - You became a devout religious person. Not Born Again.
“When you come out into the light of truth & reason & leave behind these childish fantasies “ - All these beautiful wonderful realities, Justice, Love, Beauty, Compassion, Humility, poetry, Music, Mathematics, Arts, Science and etc. came from nothing, nothing created everything, and at the end it will be nothing at all, well, not the end really, for nothing will start creating all over again and hopefully we will appear, and reappear, and etc.. This is false religion. The reincarnation of the Universe or multiverse
“Good luck in your pursuit of truth - I dare you. ;-)” - The Truth has already found me.
Jesus said “I am the Way, The Truth and The Life…”
dtkwon,
I'll forego responding to your first comment, since I'm not an astrophysicist, and the Big Bang is a challenging topic to discuss. Needless to say, don't you think scientists would realize that, "Hey, this Big Bang idea really doesn't work with our whole law of conservation of matter/energy thing!"
Anyway, the idea that we act as though we will live forever does not mean in any way that we will actually do so. If I act as though I will receive a million dollar cheque in the mail, this will not help me receive one in any way (although if you'd like to do so, I can CERTAINLY give you my address :) It only means that we are not perfectly rational beings, and sometimes we have "delusions" that help us live life. I say delusions with quote marks, since I don't mean to give it the negative connotations that the word normally has.
Ultimately, though, you're right. If we die and that's it, there is no objective, ultimate purpose for our existence. But who cares? Even if a billion years from now, my contributions to humanity don't matter, so what? Does that mean I shouldn't love my family because they're going to die - I shouldn't waste my love on something that fades away? Why do we spend so much on giving flowers to people, then? Just because the flowers do not last forever, doesn't mean that they have no meaning at all. They have meaning to people, because people create meaning. And as I show love to those around me, I create purpose for myself. In the grand scheme of things, that purpose does not matter. But we don't all need to be masters of the universe, and I have begun to grow content with having my own purpose.
I've heard a quote at various times that goes something like this: "Do you dance while the music is playing, or sit down and cry because you know it will end?" I think the analogy is apt. So what if the song will end? Why not enjoy it while it lasts? In fact, because our life ends, it gives us all the more reason to squeeze every ounce out of it that we can. It doesn't matter to the universe whether we do, but it matters to us.
forgivenetc.
You are starting to annoy me with your assumption that somehow my faith was less than genuine.
I was indeed "born again". I was a committed, Spirit-filled Christian in active fellowship with my local church for many years from my youth onwards.
I was involved in evangelism, & Christian ministry as a lay person... In my "witness" to others I was often engaged in debates around the question of whether the Gospel was the Truth & would advocate for Jesus, the Way, the Truth & the Life etc...just like you. But unlike you (seemingly), I would tell people that if it could be shown that the Gospels & the Bible were unreliable & that I was committed to a falsehood, I would have to cease being a Christian. I was quite sure that God would want me to value the truth over some errant religious dogma only claiming to be the truth.
Can you say that you would pursue truth even if it took you out of the faith? I somehow doubt it.
Fast forward to today. I have investigated the Christian claims. I now believe that I was mistaken to believe in Jesus as a committed Christian. When you investigate the Bible & the Gospels, they do not stand up to scrutiny. There is no evidence that they are inspired scripture or that they are historically accurate accounts. When you leave the safety of your apologetic falsehoods & half-truths this becomes quite apparent. The Christian faith has all the hallmarks of a pious fabrication.
Perhaps I should be a little more plain speaking.
I have carefully & with an open mind looked into the veracity of the Bible. The data strongly supports the following conclusion:
It's BULLSHIT.
Pious, high-minded, inspiring stuff, but it's still BULLSHIT.
I didn't want that to be so but this isn't about what I want but about what is true.
You and your like-minded born again folks are deluded. I was too once; fully, completely, totally. Please don't give me any more of this rationalizing Calvinist rubbish that I couldn't have been really "saved".
-evan
Hey Jeff,
Thanks for your response, appreciate it. For some reason I hadn't thought of that alternative =), that the fact of death is the very reason for people to live each moment as their last, to enjoy their lives to the fullest. That actually makes a lot of sense to me, and in fact, it seems the only logical way to live given that we were birthed into this world and none of us have experienced whether there is an after-life, so this world is all we know.
Jim, I'll have to do some background research on the origin of the universe. I admittedly do not know enough to comment on it, I was just putting out my own thoughts regarding this which were not based on evidence. I would like to read the Elegant Universe sometime.
But Jeff, I would like to say that I do find it strange that we experience in this world both beauty/love and something that goes totally against all of that - death. I'm sure you've heard this before. But it is just difficult for me to reconcile these two things together; if there is such a transcendent thing as love, why must it then be destroyed by death? Sure, we could say we'll live for 50 more years so we can enjoy that love for all that time, but if I die next year, is there not something wrong with this picture? I am just having difficulty reconciling these two things together; why is there even love in the first place! Perhaps it is just me.
But I do believe that my Christian faith holds the answer to that. And what I've actually learned quite recently is that Christianity provides a solution to death, not a solution to hell (whatever hell even is). As I've been reading the Bible more and more, I've come to understand that its depiction of human beings is one that is a whole, integrated living being. The idea of an eternal "soul" that exists after death is, surprisingly, biblically unfounded. In fact the Hebrew word "nephesh" (meaning living creature) which translates to the english word "soul" often throughout the Old Testament, actually is used not only in reference to humans but also to animals and even plants! And there are various instances in the Bible where it indicates that certain nephesh or "souls" have been destroyed or have died. Surely our traditional view of "soul" is one that does not die!
When we see that Christianity is about saving our living beings from a literal death, or non-existence, the gospel may become much clearer to us, does it not? For I am no longer an amorphous soul wandering around the earth, but rather a whole, integrated being that either lives or dies. Further, the God that then emerges from the Bible is not one who enjoys torturing his creation for all of eternity, or one who has most of us planned for a somewhat alive/somewhat dead state in which we continue on and on in our sins (i.e. CS Lewis' grumbling machine), but rather, we then encounter a God who detests sin so much that, although we were originally created to live forever, he sentenced all of us to a real, physical, literal death. While this is a cruel punishment for our sins, it is nevertheless quite a just punishment, right? When I see God in this way, he is a God I want to love and to learn more about, not the traditional God we have become accustomed to knowing.
Hi eheffa,
You say you were a Spirit filled Christian. How can you say that if now you no longer even believe they is a Holy Spirit? So by you own admission you were deceived, right? If there is no Holy Spirit then you were never a Sprit filled believer! You cannot have it both ways. So either you were Spirit filled and there is a Holy Spirit, or there is no Holy Spirit and you were not Spirit filled. Which is it?
dtkwon,
These are certainly excellent thoughts. I think that the existence of love can be explained from an evolutionary standpoint, though. For social creatures, the advantage of parents who love their children, brothers that love their sisters, and indeed people that get along with others as a whole is huge. Startlingly huge. And so, love can be explained as an evolutionary mechanism that promotes the survival of our species. It sounds so unemotional, I know, but I think it's fairly reasonable. I don't think we need to necessarily compose a philosophical argument as to why we love - it's simply something we do. Why do I love my mother? Because she's my mother! But at any rate, at the same time I do see the difficulty with trying to reconcile temporary love with permanent death. It's a tricky one, but I think it's possible to do.
I also find it interesting that you've been able to strip away some of the later Christian theology and get back to some of the earlier Jewish thought on issues such as the soul and the afterlife and such. Studying the development of religious thought is a very important and useful thing to do. I would tell you to go ahead and throw the rest of the religious stuff out too, but I guess that's your decision :)
DenCol,
Keep in mind that your criticism cuts both ways. If the Holy Spirit does not exist, then you never were a spirit-filled believer either, even though you thought you were. With only a couple small changes to your sentence, I can turn it around on you: "So either you are Spirit filled and there is a Holy Spirit, or there is no Holy Spirit and you are not Spirit filled. Which is it?" Hopefully you can see why trying to accuse him of not being a "true believer" is fruitless - without some independent method of determining whether the Holy Spirit actually exists, nobody can be sure of whether they are true believers or not.
Hi eheffa,
You say you were a Spirit filled Christian. How can you say that if now you no longer even believe there is a Holy Spirit? So by you own admission you were deceived, right? If there is no Holy Spirit then you were never a Spirit filled believer! You cannot have it both ways. So either you were Spirit filled and there is a Holy Spirit, or there is no Holy Spirit and you were not Spirit filled. Which is it?
Hi Jeff,
There is a HUGE difference! How can someone say they were a genuinme Spirit filled believer whaen they do not even believe there is a Holy Spirit????? By their own admission, they were deceived! By their own admission, they were NOT Spirit filled! So how can they claim they were bonafide and GENUINE Christians??? That makes no sense whatsoever!
eheffa -evan
”You are starting to annoy me with your assumption that somehow my faith was less than genuine. I was indeed "born again". I was a committed, Spirit-filled Christian in active fellowship with my local church for many years from my youth onwards. I was involved in evangelism, & Christian ministry as a lay person...” Religious activities does not make a person/s a born again spirit-filled Christian, Neither attending seminary, getting an Mdiv or a Phd and learning Christian apologetics.
What is born again?
What is the meaning of Spirit-filled Christian?"In my "witness" to others I was often engaged in debates around the question of whether the Gospel was the Truth & would advocate for Jesus, the Way, the Truth & the Life etc...just like you." A person may seriously get involved in such rigorous activities and still is lost, damn, and spiritually dead. One excellent example of this was JOHN WESLEY (1703–1791) English evangelist; theologian; cofounder of Methodism. For years he had labored so hard as a missionary in the American colonies, but yet he was a damn lost soul. On May 24, 1737-38, He was Born Again upon hearing Luther's preface to the Epistle to the Romans at a Moravian meeting in Aldersgate Street, London, - in which explanation of faith and the doctrine of justification by faith is given. "I felt," he wrote,” my heart strangely warmed. I felt I did trust in Christ, Christ alone, for salvation; and an assurance was given me that He had taken away my sins." Two or three weeks later he preached a remarkable sermon, enforcing the doctrine of present personal salvation by faith, which was followed by another, on God's grace “free in all, and free for all." H. K. CARROLL. http://www.tlogical.net/biojwesley.htm "Can you say that you would pursue truth even if it took you out of the faith? I somehow doubt it." You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free. If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed. "When you leave the safety of your apologetic falsehoods & half-truths this becomes quite apparent. The Christian faith has all the hallmarks of a pious fabrication." Shut your eyes, ears, and mind from other obvious evidences that supports the inerrancy of the Word of God, stop listening to these babbling “delusional” professional Christians, and pay attentions only to the new jesuses of today’s era the Hichkens, Dawkins, and etc.
Obviously and undeniably you were an honest sincere pious overzealous religious person.
The sharp axe of justice would soon fell the barren tree if the interceding voice of Jesus did not cry, "Spare him yet a little." - Charles Spurgeon
Dencol said:
You say you were a Spirit filled Christian. How can you say that if now you no longer even believe they is a Holy Spirit? So by you own admission you were deceived, right? If there is no Holy Spirit then you were never a Sprit filled believer! You cannot have it both ways. So either you were Spirit filled and there is a Holy Spirit, or there is no Holy Spirit and you were not Spirit filled. Which is it?Hmmm, how to respond to such semantically challenged question...
Perhaps I can rephrase this to make it a little clearer for you.
I was a full-on committed Christian. As a person committed to experiencing Jesus in my daily life, I would set apart time to pray & read etc. I had the experience on many occasions of the presence of God & had the warm heart of spiritual energy & "zeal for the Lord". I was accountable to & in full fellowship with other believers in the churches I attended ( moving around with career changes - medical residencies etc. took me to a number of churches.)
During this time, I was generally unwavering in my faith & the confidence that I was in a living relationship with God and indwelt by his comforter, the Holy Spirit. I was full of energy & desire to see others come to know the Lord & looked to the Bible for the important answers of life but also to the Lord himself in my daily "walk".
So to answer your question. I was under the impression that I was "filled by the Spirit" as were my family & friends. The evidence for this was that after surrendering my life to him, I received a gift of assurance & a life changing reduction in anger & other sinful attitude that I felt could only be explained through his direct sprirtual intervention through the Holy Spirit. I was at a certain point involved in more Charismatic churches & received the gift of tongues etc. but was later disillusioned with some of these more showy manifestations of Christian spirituality. But on the whole was this action of the Holy Spirit in my life real? It was certainly real & important to me at the time. (By your criterion, I would guess that I would have fulfilled all the features you would have looked for in a fellow Christian believer.)
I now look back at these experiences & realize that there is nothing in all of this that can't be explained by neurological & psychological phenomena shaped & interpreted by my community of beleivers & our holy book. Our brain chemistry can provide some very real "other-wordly" sensations. We interpret these as manifestations of God's activity in our hearts & minds because we are told that this is His way & we are open & hungry for such experiences and need ratification of our beliefs. I now view these experiences as manifestations of my intensely sought after delusions & NOT an indication of God's activity in my heart..
Was I sincere? Without a doubt.
Was it real? Without a doubt.
Was it God / the Holy Spirit working in my life? No. I don't think so but it wasn't for lack of holding back. It was a manifestation of desire & delusion.
I now believe that the whole Christian Life idea is a delusion reinforced by other like-minded Christians around you.
I now believe that the Bible is a man-made fabrication & have a deep suspicion that the Jesus described in the Gospels was not even an historical entity but a later construct to satisfy the desires of the common man to have a more concrete down to earth Cosmic Christ.
I now believe that Christianity is little more than wishful thinking run amok.
I hope that answers your question & encourages you to be a little more suspicious of the desires that allow you to embrace delusion.
Cheers.
-evan
eheffa,
I am just curious, what about Christianity did you believe in before you deconverted? What was the main message of Christianity to you?
Also if you could refer to me some sources that expose Christianity as a complete fabrication, a man-made lie - I would appreciate it. While I did know that there were many discrepancies throughout the Bible (although I also read the other side as well, which is that these can actually be seen as supplemental facts that make the biblical accounts more legitimate, such as the resurrection narratives), I did not know that a complete disproof of our faith existed, but I would be interested to hear about it.
I am very curious to see what Christianity originally meant to you. Did you see it as a messiah movement stemming out of judaism, with all the new testament writers professing the messiahship of Jesus (which does not connotate divinity, but first and foremost refers to his kingship), or did you see Christianity merely as a miracle that allows us to go to heaven?
Hi eheffa,
You said: "I was a full-on committed Christian. As a person committed to experiencing Jesus in my daily life, I would set apart time to pray & read etc. I had the experience on many occasions of the presence of God & had the warm heart of spiritual energy & "zeal for the Lord". I was accountable to & in full fellowship with other believers in the churches I attended ( moving around with career changes - medical residencies etc. took me to a number of churches."
So you experienced the Christian RELIGION and churchianity with it's hoopla and ritual formats. All of your testimony has to do with church and church activities, and praying and bible reading. All you experienced was RELIGION - not God. I have heard your same experience manty times with the arm heart, the fussy feelings, and religious activities of praying witnessing, bible study etc etc
I have been through all that also. Paul says that he counts all that religion as DUNG in comparison to knowing Christ. You were in the church movement and church environment. Many Christians think they know what "born again" is, when in actuality, they do not have a clue. People spend many years as a Batist or Luthera, etc and never know Christ. They know religion. That is what happened to you.
DenCol,
You seem to have a lot of Cognitive Dissonance that you are intent on quelling.
If my "Knowing Christ" could be de-bunked then, who knows, your knowledge of him could be next...
Nahhh. Just make sure to tell yourself that that other guy must have only "pretended" to be in a relationship with Jesus.
Keep on saying this & you'll be OK.
My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.
My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.
My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.
etc.
I'll bet you feel better already. Reality is whatever you want it to be, don't let all these voices of reason & skepticism shake your resolve. They can't prove that Jesus wasn't speaking to you on that tennis court.
My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.My Jesus is different; it's the real thing.My Jesus is different; it's the real thing....
-evan
dtkwon,
You ask some good questions that could warrant a full essay.
If you are interested I will try & respond to you in a brief but more careful format later when I have a bit more time to lay out my current state of thinking.
The attraction in science is that it constantly tests its hypotheses. I too seem to be in a state of constant testing to try & understand what we can know about these questions of the veracity of the Bible & the Christian assertions.
I was an evangelical Christian of a pretty mainstream variety. I counted CS Lewis, Francis Schaefer, Deitrich Bonhoeffer, & Philip Yancey among my heroes. As a youth, I had good portions of the NT memorized & could pull verses from all over to make my case for a certain theology or point. I was nauseatingly keen & outspoken about my faith, even in medical school & at work... I was, as a Christian, inclined to question assertions from the pulpit or in books & weighed them against "scripture" to see whether they stood the test of scrutiny. I accepted the inspired authority of the Bible despite my quiet but persistent doubts about the process of how they derived this authority. (How could the Council of Nicea decisions have any validity today etc.?)
I regarded the personal relationship with God through Jesus to be the most important question in a person's life. I rejected religious form without this personal relationship as empty & meaningless.
I hope that answers some of your questions.
I'll try & address the rest of your query later.
-evan
DenCol,
Seriously, how do you expect eheffa to answer you? You say he wasn't a "true Christian", so obviously in order to defend that he needs to point to evidence. What kind of evidence could he possibly give you other than, "I felt God's presence, I went to church regularly, I loved God, I worshipped God, I prayed..."? Seriously? What else is he supposed to say? "Well you can know that I was a true Christian because I had open heart surgery and the doctor took a picture of Jesus inside my heart." The only things that are possible for him to point to as evidence that he was a Christian are the ones that he pointed to. We all know the tripe that there's a difference between religion and relationship, but how can one prove that one has a relationship?
Seriously, think about it. I challenge you to prove that you have a relationship with your wife without saying anything about actions, thoughts, feelings, or motivations. Go ahead. Try it. It can't be done. You can say "I love my wife, I do everything for her, I do my best to protect her, we had a marriage ceremony, we live together, etc. etc." but that doesn't prove you have a relationship with her, does it? I think that you only THINK you have a relationship with her, but that you're deceived...
Alright, I'll stop ranting, but eheffa, I don't know if this is true for you, but if it is, I'd simply suggest saying, "In every way that it is possible for someone to be considered a Christian, I was one." I know that was true for me. No matter what definition of "Christian" you go by, I was one. If you want the relationship stuff, I had that. If you want the mushy feelings, I had those too. If you want the outward religious appearance, add that to my list. I asked Jesus into my life, I got baptized, I was on fire for Jesus and I prayed and read my Bible regularly. In every possible sense of the word, I was a Christian. I obviously can't speak for you, but I think that you likely could say the same.
Jeff said:
Alright, I'll stop ranting, but eheffa, I don't know if this is true for you, but if it is, I'd simply suggest saying, "In every way that it is possible for someone to be considered a Christian, I was one." I know that was true for me. No matter what definition of "Christian" you go by, I was one. If you want the relationship stuff, I had that. If you want the mushy feelings, I had those too. If you want the outward religious appearance, add that to my list. I asked Jesus into my life, I got baptized, I was on fire for Jesus and I prayed and read my Bible regularly. In every possible sense of the word, I was a Christian. I obviously can't speak for you, but I think that you likely could say the same..
Amen brother! ;-) That was me in a nutshell too.
Thanks for your post.
I really is tiresome to have people dismiss your deconversion on the grounds that you were never a True Scotsman to begin with...
-evan
You will never stop believeing that your wife exists unless she dies. That is the difference. When you TRULY meet someone and have a relationship, there is never any doubting their existance. If there is a doubt of their existance, then there was not a relationship. It is really very simple.
Do children have a relationship with Santa Claus? NO! But they do believe he exists. Do they have warm fuzzy feelings about Santa Claus? YES! Do they write him letters? YES! Do they "know" he is real? Of course!
Even when I turned away from God and even when I got mad at Him, I could never deny His existance. NEVER!
DenCol said:
Even when I turned away from God and even when I got mad at Him, I could never deny His existance. NEVER!.
All this may attest to, is the strength of your delusion. You are offering nothing in the of evidence as to why your "relationship" with God is qualitatively different than the "relationship" I or others like me, had with him. I eventually concluded that my so-called relationship with God was nothing more than wishful thinking mixed in with a bit of psychological/meditative emotion.
On the strength of the total lack of objective evidence for his existence, the positive and damning contradictions to the biblical records by science & archaeology, as well as the lack of reliable subjective interaction, I am forced to conclude that he is not really there. The Christian Faith must be a delusion. This was not what I wanted to be true but this is a much more plausible conclusion.
(God has not yet attempted to set me straight on my misunderstanding, despite my requests to be corrected.)
If you are interested in truth over your own version of happy dogma, you owe to yourself to look at the evidence with an open mind.
If God really is there he won't get mad at you for looking for the truth but if he isn't there you've got nothing to lose & everything to gain.
Good luck to you.
-evan
DelCon: So you married a beautiful woman...while somewhere in the world (this happens every day)a defenseless 3 year old died due to hunger, accident, 'acts of God', etc...so you are telling me your God values your happiness over the life of an innocent 3 year old? What kind of God would do this?
Hi eheffa,
I do not need to look at evidence that my wife does not exists, do I? My knowledge of God is not based on wishful thinking, emotions, or any psychological reactions.
Try not believing in electricity after being struck by lightning. Try not believing in gravity after skydiving. My knowledge of God is based in material and physical reality, not in hopes, dreams, or wishes. I do not believe in God, I know God, just like I know electrical shock from working on my TV set!
I have experienced electricity, not just seen it's effects. I cannot deny electricity and I cannot deny God. Gravity works, electricity works, and God works. All 3 are based on factual reality. Electricity existed before they discovered how to harness it and put it into usage in our homes and communities. Now we all know that electricity is real! We can see light bulbs illuminate the room when we flip a switch!
Do you want God to zap you with HIS supenatural power and electricity? Once He does, you will never deny Him again! NEVER!
DelCon: So you married a beautiful woman...while somewhere in the world (this happens every day)a defenseless 3 year old died due to hunger, accident, 'acts of God', etc...so you are telling me your God values your happiness over the life of an innocent 3 year old?
What kind of God would do this?
Hi Leavenfish,
What happens to the 3 yr old after she dies? Have you read any of the countless near death experiences about the great light and being welcomed into heaven? These near death accounts are numerous and they all speak of very similar experiences from all over the world and people from all sorts of religions or no religion at all.
So the 3 yr old is much better off and much happier than the rest of us!
DenCol -
"So the 3 yr old is much better off and much happier than the rest of us!"
Can't argue with that logic. And by that logic, any believer should hope to be struck down while crossing the street. Heck, maybe that wife of yours (please don't take this as an attack, it is not) would have been better off dying of malaria when she was 5 instead of meeting you? Carelessness is a blessing? Sorry, that's just some twisted rationalization.
Seriously, have YOU read of how this same thing happens when there is oxygen deprevation? When certain parts of the brain begin to shut down? Probably...
In any case, you did not address my question: so you are telling me your God values your happiness over the life of an innocent 3 year old? What kind of God would do this?
Don't take me to be unkind. It's seeing thru to the truth of such rationalizations that moved me squarely away from calling myself a Christian years ago.
My having and wife and the death of a 3 yr old have no coorelation whatsoever except in your delude concept of the fairness of God. Some die in the womb or at birth.
What about all of the millions of abortions each year? Does that trouble you? Who's decision was that? Is there a double standard when it comes to abortions? A woman can decide that is ok, but God cannot??? You judge God but not the woman?
Do women that have abortions claim to be all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful? Of course not. This is a red herring. God declares himself to be the absolute standard of justice, and so we should expect him to be at least as just as we are.
And I have serious issues with the idea that you can "know" God exists in the same way that you can "know" electricity or gravity exists. These things have demonstratable, repeatable, and most of all CONSISTENT effects on the world, and scientists have come up with mathematical formulas to describe them. Can the same be said about your God? I don't think so. You can imagine that you know God exists, but that's only because most people don't like to believe that they've been a victim of a very powerful psychological phenomenon. It's okay. It happens to the best of us.
DenCol says:"My having and wife and the death of a 3 yr old have no coorelation whatsoever except in your delude concept of the fairness of God. Some die in the womb or at birth."
Not just 'some' my friend, millions die in the womb or during birth. Which tells us what...only that YOU believe in the greatest abortionist of all!
And as to my orignal observation that your very words indicate that God values your happiness over the life of an innocent 3 year old. Your words are there for all to read. If there is a God who thinks to bring you such happiness while turning a blind eye to those 3 yr olds...he's not someone I could even think about worshiping. Indeed, I would say 'depart from me, I knew you not' quicker than he ever could.
Hi Brian,
Like I already said, The 3 yr old is now much happier that the rest of us, so I guess the reverse is true. God cares more about the 3 yr iold that dies because we are still here suffering from heartache, physical maladies, etc etc while the 3 yr old is now in eternal bliss!
There will one day be a new Heaven and a new earth where righteousness dwells. No more sin, sickness or death. Until then, just keep bitching about life and denying God.
Hi Jeff,
God's love is demonstrated to me on a daily basis. It is repeated over and over and over again. This is no myth, fantasy, or wishful thinkink. It is absolute reality, testable and provable.
Before electricity was discovered and harness, it still existed, but people did not yet know that it existed. You are one of those people who have not yet discovered God's existance. For you, the earth is still flat and the sun is what moves in the sky. You judge things only through your very limited and (in this case - mistaken) logic and reason.
DenCol, do you not even think that there is a possibility that you could be wrong about the source of this love you feel? How is it demonstrated? Because you pray to God that you will have a good day, and then you do? That is easily explainable based on your own general mood, as well as your own self-fulfillment (thinking about having a good day will make you more likely to bring it about for yourself).
The point I am trying to make is that no matter what "evidence" you give to show God's love, there are always other explanations - and ones that don't require a supernatural explanation. Always. ALWAYS. And merely repeating to yourself "This is no myth, fantasy, or wishful thinkink. It is absolute reality, testable and provable." does not make it so. I have no doubt that you experience something that you interpret as God's love. That's not the issue at all. But my question is how you can possibly prove that such experiences come from God. How could you even point to evidence that says, "This is supernatural"? Anything you mention must necessarily be natural, because we can have no comprehension of something outside the physical world anyway.
And again, your analogy to electricity is bunk. Like I mentioned already, electricity is observable, testable, repeatable, and consistent. It always reacts in the same way under the same conditions, and we can test that. But if I pray to God to give me a sign, it rarely happens. In fact, the number of times it occurs is very consistent with what would be expected from random chance. Seriously. Pray to God to give you 100 "heads" in a row, and then flip a coin a hundred times and see what happens.
Hi Jeff,
I lived for 20 years BC (before Christ. :-) So I know the difference between before and after. If you want to blow it off as purely a psychological experience, then fine. Explain instant healing and fulfilled prophecy to me.
Sorry DenCol...my last post on this because you will never see the light.
Yes, if there is a caring, loving, interventionist God, he is the greatest abortionist ever.
When you say: "The 3 yr old is now much happier that the rest of us, so I guess the reverse is true. God cares more about the 3 yr iold that dies because we are still here suffering from heartache, physical maladies, etc etc while the 3 yr old is now in eternal bliss!"
I think anyone reading would be able to tell you are beyond hope with all your rationalities...
I'm pretty sure we already have. Your unwillingness to accept our arguments doesn't mean we didn't make them. If I remember correctly (although I could be misremembering), I also explained why anecdotal evidence is a poor basis for a belief system.
Mind you, I do fully admit that there are strange things that happen in this world. People do get healed and we don't know why. But not knowing why doesn't mean we must insert a supernatural explanation. It just means we haven't discovered the natural one yet.
And btw, I too have experienced the before and after (although in the opposite direction). I have seen strange things happen. I have seen fulfilled prophecy, and while I have not witnessed a miracle in action, I have certain heard the stories of people whom I trust explain what happened. (In other words, I wasn't present at the actual time the "miracle" happened, but I knew them before and after.) I just now realize a very important philosophical mandate that I think all people should live by: "Don't invoke a supernatural explanation if a natural one will do the trick." After all, which explanation is better: that lightning is caused by God throwing lightning bolts, or that it's a discharge of electricity that occurs under such-and-such conditions? If people applied this general rule to more things (although they already do unknowingly in most areas), then I think we'd be much better off.
Hi Jeff,
The natural cannot explain fulfilled prophecies.
No, but random chance can. Think about this: It's very unlikely that any one specific person will win the lottery. The chances are statistically nil. And yet it is very, very likely that someone in general will win. Why? Because there are millions and millions of people playing it. The more trials you have, the more likely that it will come about.
In the same way, while it is very statistically unlikely that any one person will witness a fulfilled prophecy (referring to very specific ones here, as I have heard plenty of "you will have a sense of peace" prophecies that are obviously bunk), due to the sheer number of trials - the vast number of people making prophecies all the time - it becomes very statistically likely that some of them will be fulfilled. If you are one of them that has witnessed one, great. You're like a lottery winner. But I don't think you'd assume that God is causing each specific person to win the lottery. Same thing here.
Add to that the natural tendency to fall victim to confirmation bias, the spotlight effect, and a whole host of other cognitive biases that make us more likely to remember fulfilled prophecies and forget unfulfilled ones, and you've got yourself a plethora of reasons why fulfilled prophecies and anecdotal evidence in general are horrible evidence to base beliefs on. It's the same reasoning that starts superstition - "well, I walked under a ladder and something bad happened, so I won't do that again!"
Yes, mand "prophecies" are religious hype and wild imaginations.
But the Lord told me who I was going to marry. At that time, this girl had no interest in me whatsoever ans was way out of my league. If I won the marriage lottery, then what a great coincidence!
correction - MANY "prophecies"
...what a great coincidence!
Exactly!
-evan
Post a Comment