Christian response to the Atheist vs. Christian Debate

May 11, 2007 at 6:32 am 36 comments

Christian Commentary

ABC News Nightline Christian-Atheist FaceoffFirst let me say that I was disappointed in the documentary. It wasn’t nearly long enough and didn’t do justice to the event – But on to some thoughts.

Granted, I have a bias (like everyone does) on this issue, and mine happens to be a Christian one. Yet, before any tenets of the arguments were discussed, the first thing I noticed was the anger – and this theme continued throughout the whole documentary. Perhaps they caught the atheists on a rough day, but I have never seen a group of people so consumed by anger. I truly feel bad for them. Unfortunately, this anger led to disrespect. Interestingly, the atheists were the ones sporting the “Holier than thou” attitude as it was evident through their remarks, reactions, and body language. The Christian debaters trumped the atheists in regards to civility.

Two things I want to harp on from the debate and then I’m done. First, Kelly made a rather interesting statement, something along the lines of (this isn’t exact, but the message is the same), “There’s not sufficient evidence that Jesus was even a man”. Wow. To begin, the debate was about God and not Jesus, so it would have been better for her to stay on topic (yes, Jesus is God, but the title of the debate was, “Does God exist?”).

The reason that she should have stayed away from this is because we (”we” meaning historians) have sufficient evidence everywhere regarding the existence of Jesus. Josephus is often cited as a source, and it should be (atheist will cry ”foul” b/c it is said that it was altered…but if one takes out the added text, it still says Jesus existed, had a following, and was put to death by Pontius Pilate). No matter though, there is still (with no Christian bias) evidence in the letters from Pliny The Younger to the Roman Emperor, The Babylonian Talmud, ancient Graffiti regarding Christians and Christ, evidence from Tactitus, and Lucian (to name a few).

Next, Brian Sapient brought up the question, “who created God?”. Very cliche; most likely expected. I haven’t heard/read the response to this, but here is a quick one on the subject. First, this statement assumes that God was created. However, if we perceive of God as outside of the three-dimensional world that we know, then such a question cannot apply. If God is a being that is unlimited in time (outside time), and if He has access to every piece of time as if it were now, the question of who created God is an invalid question. The question is like asking someone to draw a four-sided triangle – the terminology is self-contradictory. God exists outside of time and space, and if He is the Creator of time and space, He obviously was not created.

I chuckled a bit at the end of the documentary when Sapient and Kelly said that they felt like Ray and Kirk needed a hug. I got the impression that they thought Ray and Kirk were overwhelmed by the debate. That obviously wasn’t the case, both men appeared at ease, calm (not angry mind you), and eager to talk more about the subject. I am willing to admit that my interpretation of this particular event isn’t the only one, but it is defiantly what I observed.

In the end I think that the documentary, as well as the subject, elicited more attention. Regardless, at least it started up some dialogue, and likely millions of blog posts from passionate Christian and atheist believers alike.

- Justin

Entry filed under: Justin. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Christian Patriarchy and Women’s Self-Censorship Hot, Cold, Lukewarm? Or not at all?

36 Comments Add your own

  • 1. agnosticatheist  |  May 11, 2007 at 6:39 am

    Justin,

    Did you watch the entire debates or just what was shown on Nightline?

    I believe the Nightline version was very biased against Brian and Kelly. You are right, however, that their expressions were very condescending towards Kirk and Ray.

    If you’re having trouble finding the video on ABC News (not sure why they make it so difficult), go here BSAlert.com

    The atheist won this debate “hands down,” as Stellar1 put it on her comment on the BLOG PARTY.

    Here’s an interesting link on the whole Josephus/Jesus issue:

    http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

    Thoughts???

    BTW, Kirk and Ray claimed they’d prove God existed “without the use of faith.” After watching the full debates, let me know if you believe they accomplished this?

    aA

  • 2. stellar1  |  May 11, 2007 at 9:27 am

    Justin said, “Yet, before any tenets of the arguments were discussed, the first thing I noticed was the anger – and this theme continued throughout the whole documentary. Perhaps they caught the atheists on a rough day, but I have never seen a group of people so consumed by anger. I truly feel bad for them. Unfortunately, this anger led to disrespect. Interestingly, the atheists were the ones sporting the “Holier than thou” attitude as it was evident through their remarks, reactions, and body language. The Christian debaters trumped the atheists in regards to civility.”

    I had mentioned before that I had issues with the presentation given by the atheists – and you have touched on one of the aspects of my concerns (there is another aspect that I will address at a later time). It was disturbing to see my side (the atheists) act so childish by rolling their eyes and making sly remarks while the other side was talking. This is bad form in any debate.

    While I still think the atheists proved their points far better than the christians, I was embarrassed at the level of poor sportsmanship displayed by supposed intellectuals.

    -Stella

  • 3. HeIsSailing  |  May 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

    I did not watch the debate, nor do I intend to hunt it down. It sounded like it would be a snoozer from the get-go. I guess I can be accused of trashing it without even watching it – but Cameron and Comfort strike me as well-meaning but not terribly bright, and anybody who starts a trend as tacky as the Blasphemy Challenge strikes me as pretty arrogant. Outside of those cursory observations, I really have no idea who these four people are.

    What was the format of the debate? Questions from the moderator? From the audience (if there was one)? Or did they question each other?

    Justin is right. If one of Brian’s questions was ‘Who Created God’, then that is just repeating cliches. If there is a God, I expect a certain amount of transcendence from that being. I expect a certain amount that cannot be known. Who created God? Nobody knows Where did the matter and energy come from during the Big Bang? Nobody knows. Either question is a stalemate in debate.

    Kelly jumped to the conclusion that God = Jesus? That is an assumption usually made by Christians during debates of this sort. But she is correct – I do think a man named Jesus did walk the Earth and inspire the Gospels, but it is not inconceivable that he actually did not exist, and is just a conglomeration of Old Testament stories and Mediteranian cults and legends.

    Karen placed a link to a running online debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan that I am enjoying so far. Real food for thought on both sides, not just trite cliches. Check it out. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

    Justin, you did not mention anything about what the Christians brought to the table. What did you feel was the strongest arguement made by the Christians? By the Atheists?

  • 4. arrgjonsmad  |  May 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm

    Agnostic Atheist,

    Could you talk about demon possession and what you think. I dont know much, but ive heard lots of stories, and not one of them told of a demon going crazzy upon hearing the name of any other god, except Jesus Christ. just a thought.

  • 5. agnosticatheist  |  May 11, 2007 at 3:54 pm

    Jon,

    I’ll post a blog on it soon. Thanks for the inquiry.

    In the meantime, check out this thread:

    http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/i-may-be-an-agnostic-atheist-but-i-am-an-adevilite/

    aA

  • 6. Karen  |  May 11, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    I did not watch the debate, nor do I intend to hunt it down. It sounded like it would be a snoozer from the get-go.

    I’m with you on this. It was a publicity stunt, pure and simple, and was guaranteed to go nowhere. Waste of my time, frankly.

    I’ve seen real debates, with real intellectuals, on the existence or non-existence of god, and I’m sure that neither side was up to snuff in this ABC silliness. The theological arguments on both sides have been around for centuries and involve very complex philosophy and theology, far more than Comfort and Cameron could handle, or Brian and Kelly either.

    As for style, Cameron’s an actor and has long been in the public eye. Comfort is a slick orator and preacher who constantly is in front of crowds selling his brand of religion – not to mention his myriad evangelism products.

    Brian Sapient and Kelly are a couple of in-your-face young people with very limited experience in public speaking. They’re obviously not debaters and they’re certainly not the most mature folks in the world. They’ve only gotten some limited publicity due to the Blasphemy Challenge. The fact that they didn’t perform very well hardly surprises me.

    Put a Dawkins or a Sam Harris or a Dan Dennett up there to debate theists and things get a whole lot more interesting, which is why I recommended the Harris vs. Sullivan “blogalogue.” It’s civil, it’s in-depth and it’s a pleasure to read intelligent people’s thoughts on both sides of the issue. Glad you’re enjoying it. I’d be interested in your thoughts when you finish it.

  • 7. Mike C  |  May 12, 2007 at 12:38 am

    I finally got around to watching it, and it was definitely as bad as everyone was saying it was. At least from the minimal clips that ABC chose to show I didn’t hear either side say anything intelligent the whole time. Brian and Kelly were rude, Cameron & Comfort were polite but condescending. I doubt that anyone was impressed by either sides’ arguments unless you were already inclined to agree with them. And it’s pure self-promotion for either of them to declare themselves the “winner”. They were all losers IMO.

  • 8. Justin  |  May 12, 2007 at 12:57 am

    Hi everyone,
    sorry I have been “in and out”, but it is a busy time for me at the moment. I will address some of your specific questions regarding my thoughts/views when I get a solid moment to sit down and watch the actual debate. Unfortunatley, I only saw the nightline coverage – which was very poor.

    In the mean time, have a great weekend!

    -Justin

    http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com

  • 9. Athiest  |  May 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm

    Actually, there is no factual evidence that Jesus existed.

  • 10. Justin  |  May 12, 2007 at 7:10 pm

    Hi Atheist,
    Unfortunately that statement is not grounded in anything substancial.

    -Justin

  • 11. agnosticatheist  |  May 12, 2007 at 7:36 pm

    Justin,

    Outside of the N.T. & Josephus (which is questionable), what proof is there that Jesus’ existed?

    The authentic letters of Paul were the first written documents referencing Jesus. The Gospels followed a few decades later.

    BTW, I do believe Jesus existed. However, it is difficult to prove that he said or did the things written in the gospels.

    aA

  • 12. Justin  |  May 12, 2007 at 8:32 pm

    Hi aA,
    i noted some of the more famous references to Jesus in the post. For example, the babylonian talmud contains Jewish writings. In a reference to Jesus, they have put the following around 70AD:

    On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”

    The Talmud was written by Jews who did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore they were not his biggest fans. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn’t the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 It supports the NT claim that Jesus was crucified on the eve of passover (as metaphorical “passover” sacrfice for the people)

    The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

    Such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus’ miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery (as the Jews often did).

    Just because the gospels followed a few decades later should not come as a suprise. In fact, that time frame is extremely short given the way stories were verbally passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.

    Anyway, sorry about the super long post, just some thoughts. Im gonna check out your new blog (tumbleblog?). I am curious about what it’s all about. What’s the purpose of it anyway?

    God Bless.

    Justin

  • 13. HeIsSailing  |  May 13, 2007 at 12:22 am

    Justin sez:
    “For example, the babylonian talmud contains Jewish writings. In a reference to Jesus, they have put the following around 70AD:…”

    Justin, this is very interesting. This is a source I have never heard of. Can you cite a reference, or post a link where I can read more of this or some further information? I would like to read the whole passage in some sort of context, as this portion intrigues me:

    “For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned ”

    A herald? Who could this be? And why 40 days BEFORE the execution? Very interesting. Yeah, I would like to read more on this source. Thanks.

  • 14. agnosticatheist  |  May 13, 2007 at 7:25 am

    *HIS,

    This is a new reference to me also. Looking forward to Justin’s responses.

    *Justin,

    The quote you gave said “stoned” and then you referred to Jesus being “hanged.”

    I’ve contented that since the Romans do not have any record of crucifying Jesus (and I believe they would if they were crucifying someone of this significance – per Gospel accounts), that Jesus probably was probably stoned (as per the Law) for the blasphemy.

    Of course stoning didn’t quite fit Paul’s intent so he made it crucifying and the gospel writers filled in the gaps.

    aA

  • 15. Justin  |  May 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm

    Hi aA and HIS,

    There are two separate books of writings dealing with Jewish law called the Talmud. The first of these is the Mishnah, which is the Jewish code of religious jurisprudence. It began to be compiled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and was completed about A.D. 200. This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called Gemaras. Together, the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to “Yeshu’a of Nazareth” in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality.

    Here is a few links regarding the Talmud:

    http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm

    http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html

    http://www.breslov.com/talmud/talmud.htm

    The reference about being “hanged” comes from the beginning of the quotation (“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged”). This, being the past tense, means that in fact he was crucified. It is true, it does mention stoning. But the reference says, “he is going forth to be stoned…etc.”

    We know from the scriptures that the Jewish people wanted to stone Jesus bc of his teachings. They wanted him stoned, and tried various times but it never succeeded.

    The Jews knew that they couldn’t stone im b/c he had a following, so they brought him to the Roman government to have them execute him under the charge of treason/disobeying the emperor.

    “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah a king” (Luke 23:2)

    They knew that criminals under Roman law would be crucified (it wasn’t of Jewish practice). Therefore, when Pilate sentenced Jesus, he was “hanged’ b/c he was breaking Roman law.

    Hope that clears some things up. I’m in and out with my/this blog lately as I am in a transition at the moment. I’ll check back periodically.

    -Justin

  • 16. Badger3k  |  May 13, 2007 at 7:53 pm

    Tacitus seems to be merely relating what he had heard about Christian beliefs, as his misidentification of Pilate would indicate. Hardly an accurate historical reference. As for using as 2nd-3rd century document, possibly written in response to the increasing anti-Judaic slant of Christianity…well, again, hardly what many would consider an accurate accounting of history. Since we have a pattern of growth and development of the history of Jesus, from Zero knowledge of Paul, up to the Gospels (and I’m including all the heretical writings of early Christianity as well, such as the infant gospels) with his life being fleshed out more and more, I think a plausible case can be made for a mythical, supernatural/spiritual Christ figure being gradually historicized as in other Founder/Great Man type myths. If we could get anything from the first century that might prove reliable (and not a later scribal interpolation, for instance), then we might have something to go on.

    Having just finished Dr Price’s “Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, I think that, while I am not fully informed in many of the details, he has made some good points that should be looked into. Coming from a historical viewpoint, but now tending more towards the mythological side, I think too many people cannot accept that there might not have been a human founder and so read the texts with an eye towards justifying that belief.

    As for the idea that we know anything about a historical Jesus because of what is written in the manuscripts that people use today, well, we need to start with those first and address whether or not anything in them is historical. I think it can be shown that much of what is in them is a later development. If nothing else, the differences between the four canonical accounts make what is written in them suspect, at the very least. About the most we can claim is that the author of Luke says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because of his teachings. If nothing else, the fact that the current Gospels are the result of centuries of scribal redaction, with some parts of what is now accepted being either known to have been added or modified from earlier texts, that should throw a red flag at accepting anything written as straight history.

    As Justin, my work and other activities preclude an active participation in debates or discussions, I’ll try to come back here later and see if there is any response. Whether there is or isn’t, to recap, my main point is that there are reasons to doubt an actual historical Jesus, and I’m sure that will not be settled any time soon (or ever).

  • 17. HeIsSailing  |  May 14, 2007 at 12:04 am

    Justin, the come-and-hear site has a tool where you can search the entire Babylon Talmud.

    http://www.come-and-hear.com/tindex.html

    I searched for about an hour for any reference to Yeshu, Yeshua, or using all the key words in your reference to Jesus’ execution. I came up solid blanks. I DID find out that there may be references in documents called the Baraitha and the Tosefta, which appear to be suppliments or appendices to the Talmud.

    According to this site, http://www.cuc.claremont.edu/bible/SGuide1c.htm,
    which is a study gude for Catholic students, We have four references in these appendices to what might be Jesus:

    1) It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu…because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. (Baraitha BT Sanhedrin 43a)

    2) Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples –Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni and Todah. (Ibid.)

    3) It happened with Rabbi Elazar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit, that Jacob, a man of Kefar Soma, came to heal him in the name of Jeshua ben Pantera; but Rabbi Ishmael did not let him. He said, “You are not permitted, Ben Damah.’ He answered, “I will bring you proof that he may heal me.” But he had no opportunity to bring proof, for he died. (Tosefta Hullin 2.22,23)

    4) Once, I was walking on the upper street of Sephoris and found one of the disciples of Yeshu the Nazarene, by the name of Jacob, a man of Kefar Sechanaya. He said to me, “It is written in your Torah: “Thou shalt not hire a harlot, etc.” How about making with it a privy for the high priest?” But I did not answer him at all. He told me. Thus did Yeshu the Nazarene teach me: ‘For the hire of a harlot has she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return,” from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go.” And the utterance pleased me..” (Tosefta Hullin 2.24)

    All Four are not only contradictory to Scripture (well, maybe not the first and last one), they are ambiguous at best. Are they really talking about OUR Jesus? I would really like to read them in context, but the only copies of these documents I could find online are no good unless you read Hebrew:

    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/f/f0.htm

    So for now, I don’t know that you can use these references as evidence of extra-biblical testimony of Jesus – they *might* be, but I am pretty suspicious. Does anybody else have any more information on this?

  • 18. Karen  |  May 14, 2007 at 12:26 am

    Whether there is or isn’t, to recap, my main point is that there are reasons to doubt an actual historical Jesus, and I’m sure that will not be settled any time soon (or ever).

    I’ve heard two or three religion scholars speak on this and their conclusion is that there is no absolutely solid evidence for an historical Jesus.

    However, using textual criticism, they all concluded that there probably was a Jewish rabbi who espoused some of the teachings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, though it’s impossible to say if he was killed by the Romans as no records have survived from that era (apparently they were on papyrus).

    I think you’re right that we’ll never know for sure, but I’d say it’s most likely there was some real person that the religion was based on, though he was NOT the divine, miracle working, son of god that later followers made him out to be for their own reasons.

  • 19. Justin  |  May 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm

    Hi Karen and Badger,
    wow, thanks for all your thoughts and insights. Although I admit my response here does not directly address your points, it does touch on a subject which umbrellas our discussion.

    Historically, even the most religious of scholars will admit that information is lacking in the case of Jesus. This becomes tough for non-believers (as well as some believers) because it just doesnt equate. For example, in a court room, not having historical evidence would mean the crucifixion of your case (pun very much intended :) ).

    Unfortunately, beliefs about Jesus tend to always be subject to a “court room” setting (that is, present evidence that validates your belief).

    However, court room analogies fail to give reason why the religious belief should assume the role of plaintiff. While the person making any claim thereby becomes the claimant and has upon him the burden of proof, to be a claimant is not synonymous, nor can it properly be compared, with being the plaintiff.

    Thus, one who makes a claim outside of the context of a court of law or a lawsuit, does have the burden of proof, BUT that proof does not need to be subject to the high standard of the rules of evidence of criminal court in order to be considered reasonable or legitimate; there is no logical basis for requiring that claims of a religious nature be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be considered justified.

    Well, unfortunately I am out of time and need to get going on some things. Have a great week, and God bless.

    -Justin

  • 20. Is Jesus mentioned in the Talmud? « Agnostic Atheism  |  May 15, 2007 at 7:35 am

    [...] 15th, 2007 In a recent article, Justin made the following statement: i noted some of the more famous references to Jesus in the [...]

  • 21. Silly Old Bear  |  October 12, 2007 at 9:21 am

    I would like to point out that Talmud is not a very good source on J*sus, because the term “Yeshu” in Talmud is an acronym for “yemach shemo vezichro” simply meaning “May his name and memory be obliterated” – which was used to denote ANY individual who at any time had committed a violation of Jewish Law concerning Blasphemy, Apostacy or Sedition against a lawful government.

    The punishment for those violation were death by stoning, by hanging or by decapitation.

    I would also like to point out that there are several Xian antisemitic sites on-line that purport to be quoting Talmud, when they are in fact “quoting” falsified or non-existent portions of made-up books of Talmud.

    I would like to know where the reference to Talmud above was copied from, to be able to tell you if this is an authentic quote from Talmud.

    S(o)B

  • 22. Chris  |  March 9, 2009 at 1:29 pm

    Ray and Comfort said they could prove 100% scientifically that god existed.

    All they did was throw out shallow trash arguments.

  • 23. hund  |  March 28, 2009 at 7:40 am

    Kirk and Ray’s proof is not 100% scientifically and even not scientifically.

    the proof of existence of any king of god is the work of believers, it won’t be a matter of non-believers.

    for christian god, it’s quite silly that this god needs, even force people to worship it but never show-up just once for each mentally healthy person. do anybody think that it is so difficult for this god?
    what is this god’s love? just testing people’s faith all the time. people are so tired with these kinds of love and test.

  • 24. ArchangelChuck  |  March 28, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    Have you ever spoken with anyone so pig-headed ignorant — and proud of it — as Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron? If so, you will understand the anger.

    On the other hand, don’t let the Rational Response Squad speak for any group of people except for itself. It ought to be representative of nothing, as it takes part in pointless debates such as the one which you address. Creationists like Comfort and Cameron aren’t to be engaged rationally, they are to be laughed out of the room.

  • 25. South Africa  |  May 12, 2009 at 6:27 am

    Why do we Christians always have to prove that God does exist??
    There will be a day that all of us will know the truth. God will confront us one day and ask us if we believe HIM now. What will you say?? What will you do if he points to hell where you’ll spend eternity at. What do you have to loose if you follow the Bible. If you
    dont believe it why do you fear it???

    God does exist, we cant see Him but we can feel Him. Can you see wind? No, but you can feel it. I feel sorry for the people that denied God as their Saviour because now you’ll never see anything else as just the Pearly Gates.

    Be Blessed to those that thought through reading this that there is more to this story than there was before and to those who still dont believe. Take care.

  • 26. ubi dubium  |  May 12, 2009 at 9:12 am

    Oh, please. If you are not just a drive-by troll, please look for the Big Red Exclamation Point on the right, and read the posts it links to. That should answer all the questions you just asked.

  • 27. South Africa  |  May 12, 2009 at 9:40 am

    ubi dubium, that is what you say. But we believe different than you do. Why do you try so hard to prove that there isn’t a God??

    Im not taking on Atheists. Few of my friends are Atheists but we both believe in something that is difficult to explain at the end of the day.

    There is nothing wrong in what I believe and you don’t believe.

  • 28. LeoPardus  |  May 12, 2009 at 10:19 am

    Since mere assertion seems to suffice as fact for South Africa:
    There is no god. You’ll die and that’s it. You’ll never see the “pearly gates”

  • 29. ubi dubium  |  May 12, 2009 at 4:02 pm

    ubi dubium, that is what you say. But we believe different than you do. Why do you try so hard to prove that there isn’t a God??

    I don’t. I also don’t need to prove there is not an invisible dragon in my garage. The Theists have simply failed to prove there is a god. I find insufficient evidence to support the “god hypothesis” at this time.

    And I really have no problem with you believing what you want. I never go to Christian websites and try to de-convert them, that would be rude. Believe what you want, I don’t care. Until you get in my face about it and insist that I, or my children, have to believe it too, or burn in hell. Or until you insist that your mythology be taught in public school science classes. It’s not “god” I have a problem with, it’s the behavior of his fan club.

  • 30. RLWemm  |  May 12, 2009 at 4:32 pm

    Why do we Christians always have to prove that God does exist??
    The burden of proof rests with Christians because the existence of a supernatural being is an extraordinary claim which is not supported by obvious objective tangible evidence. No-one believes in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny or a god unless they have been told that these things exist by someone whom they find persuasive. This usually happens in childhood before a person develops the ability to question authority and sift evidence. Children’s brains are wired to believe anything which an authoritative figure tells them. Some people just never outgrow that stage.
    Adults tell children that there is a Santa Klaus and kids believe this without question. One of the stages of mental development is to question this authority and independently consider the evidence for such a being. Kids give up their belief in Santa somewhere between the ages of 4 and 16. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/12/1325 They do so because it is not a socially sanctioned belief for adults and because adults generally assist, rather than hinder, a child’s intellectual development in this realm. If a child asks parental figures for confirmation that there is, in fact, no Santa at least some adults in the child’s environment will admit that it is a playful hoax. Older children who have outgrown the belief will also assist in this process.
    The process of outgrowing a belief in a god (usually a very specific god with very specific properties) is hindered because the society the person lives in actively supports these beliefs and actively discourages people from questioning them.
    Other people are seduced into believing things for which there is no objective evidence due to the use of marketing ploys, trance induction and other techniques of persuasion which turn off the parts of the brain which engage in critical thinking. Religious events include trance-inducing phenomena such as hand clapping, repetitive phrases, lilting voice patterns, music which causes mood change, vibrations know to cause alterations in mind functioning and physical sensations, topics which induce fear and then provide the promise of relief if the victim believes or does what is hypnotically suggested. The rest is achieved by post hypnotic suggestion and powerful social pressures to conform to the norms and expectations of the group.
    Discovering that you have been duped in this way almost always a long and painful process. It is hard to accept that people you admire have betrayed your trust or are sufficiently human and fallible to have been soundly duped themselves.
    People who have not reached this stage merely parrot what they have been told by those who they unwisely trust. This is what you repeatedly demonstrate.
    There will be a day that all of us will know the truth
    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.
    God will confront us one day and ask us if we believe HIM now.
    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    What will you say?? What will you do if he points to hell where you’ll spend eternity at.
    This assumes that the previous evidence-free assertion is true. It also asserts that there is a hell without providing proof.
    What do you have to loose (=lose?) if you follow the Bible
    This is an echo of the well-known Pascal’s Wager which has long been taught in introductory philosophy classes along with its rebuttal.
    It assumes, among other things, that people can choose to believe (or follow) anything regardless of whether they find it compelling.
    It also assumes that the consequences of believing, or acting as if you do believe, are totally good. There is a vast array of evidence which shows that acting on one’s interpretation of what the Bible says is very often far from benign. The rise in witch burnings in your county is a good case in point.
    From the very beginnings of the religion, Christians disagreed about what the Bible was, which parts of it should be followed and which parts should be discarded or ignored. Paul asserted that all scripture was inspired by god. He was not referring to his own writings (because he was not aware that his writings would one day be referred to as scripture). He was not referring to the rest of the New Testament because this was written until decades to centuries later. He was referring only to the Jewish writings. He also argued that the new sect of Judaism which he was shaping was free to discard many of the practices demanded by the Jewish scriptures he stated were divinely inspired. James, the brother of Jesus, disagreed and there was some considerable heat generated over it. Historically, the original disciples of Jesus of Nazareth lost and it was Paul who won. Ironically Paul had never met the physical Jesus or heard him preach. His writings show him to be entirely ignorant of the life and teachings of the physical Jesus.

    Today there are huge and irreconcilable differences in how various Christian groups interpret the Bible, including whether this collection of ancient books supports the notion that their version of Christianity is the most correct, or the only correct form. Several factions argue that they, and they alone, are the only True Christians and that others have no right to the label.
    In other words, whose Bible and whose fallible interpretation of it are you talking about.

    If you dont believe it why do you fear it???
    This is a nonsense question because there is absolutely nothing in the previous postings which suggest that any ex-Christian on this forum has any “fear” of the Bible.
    God does exist
    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    , we cant see Him but we can feel Him.
    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.
    Personal feelings are an extremely unreliable way of knowing anything. The scientific study of psychology is full of evidence that the brain is subject to all kinds of biases, illusions and delusions. The brain is good at seeing patterns, even if they do not exist. It will fill in gaps and make up stuff in order to achieve this. It makes things up in line with our past experiences and knowledge and in line with the things happening in the environment at the time of the experience
    One example (of thousands of possible ones) is our brain’s constant denial of the blind spot that we have in each eye. Your brain processes the information in such a way that you have absolutely no awareness that you actually have a couple of holes in your vision. In spite of the fact that your brain convinces you that you are seeing things in the holes, objective testing will prove that you cannot really see anything in those holes. If you want evidence that your brain fools you into thinking that you see what you cannot see then you will find it here. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005949/fun/blindspot.htm

    Certain trance-inducing phenomena cause a brain state where part of it is turned off (the part which helps us separate external from internal experience). This results in the experience of a “presence” which is not objectively there. Everyone interprets that experience in line with their past experience, knowledge, expectations and environment. People in this state are usually very vulnerable to outside influence. If a preacher tells you that you are experiencing their version of god then you will very likely interpret your sensations in this manner. People with different backgrounds and traditions will interpret the experience in mutally exclusive ways. Catholics will sense saints (even ones which their church later says really did not exist), evangelicals will sense their version of a loving Jesus, Hindus will sense one of their gods, Australian Aboriginals will sense one of their Dream Spirits while Buddhists who do not believe in a supernatural being will simply experience a state of oneness with the universe.
    In other words, what you feel depends entirely on what you have been primed to feel.

    Next time you have a think you are sensing your community’s version of “god”, remember that you brain is already fooling you that you can see in your blind spots. If you cannot see two black spots in your vision, then how can you hope to tell whether what you are sensing is not simply a guided product of your imagination? And if you can see two black spots in your vision, how can you be certain that you are not hallucinating these?
    Can you see wind? No, but you can feel it.
    We can measure wind. We cannot measure supernatural concepts.
    I feel sorry for the people that denied God as their Saviour
    There is absolutely nothing on this forum which indicates that de-converts have “denied god”, only that they have discarded beliefs which they do not find to be logically tenable.
    now you’ll never see anything else as just the Pearly Gates.

    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.
    To see how silly this sounds to a deconvert replace the word “god” with something you no longer believe in because it is logically untenable. For example:
    I feel sorry for people who have denied that the Easter Rabbit brings eggs because they will no longer receive chocolate eggs at Easter time.
    I feel sorry for people who have denied that Santa Claus brings presents to good children because they will no longer receive rewards at Christmas time.
    That is the kind of thing you might hear from a child who has yet to figure out the truth and learned to live with the reality. If you heard this kind of thing from a child you would simply laugh because you know that it is ingenuous magical thinking and that the child will grow out of some time soon. If you heard this kind of thing from an adult (whom you could reasonably expect to have reached mental maturity) you might feel sad, concerned, alarmed or assume they were trying to be funny.
    Few of my friends are Atheists but we both believe in something that is difficult to explain at the end of the day.
    It is you who are having trouble explaining and justifying your beliefs. In fact, you do not even try. This suggests that your beliefs are based on subjective and personally interpreted emotional experience rather than on observable and tangible evidence. You may be intellectually immature. You may have a credulous personality which is programmed to believe what people tell you without demanding that they provide reasonable proof. You may lack an education in critical thinking and the scientific method of determining truth. You may be living in a community which has strong taboos against independent thinking and the questioning of authority figures. You may be subject to social conditioning to conform to the norms and values of the group and subject to social punishment is you express different views or simply admit to entertaining them. You may be frequently subjected to hypnotic suggestion, misdirection and other mind manipulations. You may be subject to sub-conscious influences which persuade you the sensations which result from induced alterations in brain functioning should be interpreted as a “god experience” of the kind acceptable to your community. You will no doubt lack the knowledge that such experiences are subjectively interpreted in an extremely varied way with the only common factor being that they are consistent with the background knowledge of the person and in line with opinions being loudly expressed by whoever is in the vicinity at the time.
    The only thing which is certain is that you did not arrive at your belief set in the absence of close contact with other human beings. Many aspects of morality appear to be innate or develop naturally as the result of contact with others. On the other hand, god beliefs are purely social constructs. They are not inherently obvious or innately developed.
    There is nothing wrong in what I believe and you don’t believe.
    Assertion without proof.

    This is easily demolished by pointing to a very long history of atrocities and malignant actions caused by belief in the Jewish-Christian god.

    The list begins with the horrendous acts reported to have been carried out by the Jewish people at the command of their Yahweh god (read the books of Exodus and Leviticus for some of the worst of these horrors). It continues with Paul’s denigration of women and support of slavery, the slaughtering history of the Crusades, the incredible cruelty of the Catholic Inquisition, the torture and death of those believed to be witches (happening in your own country right now), the discrimination and abuse of those with genetics which produce a brown skin color and of those who have began their existence in a womb environment which bathed them in hormones with resulted in the later development of sexual preferences which differ from the norm.
    Today, there is ongoing evidence of Christian believers who suppress or attempt to suppress scientific development and of those who deliberately mis-educate or omit to educate children in crucial elements of science and critical thinking. There are those who seek to

    Finally, there are the many instances of physical and psychological child abuse in the name of the Christian god and of the physical and psychological abuse of adults who do not believe exactly the same things as their Christian family or surrounding community. The waiting rooms of mental health professionals are full of such people. Therapy results in changes which are far more profound and benevolent than any of those attributed to a religious conversion experience.

    In summary, you have clearly demonstrated that your beliefs are merely repetitions of what you have been told to believe without question by others. There is nothing at all glorious about credulous acceptance.

    If you want to have our ideas respected by this community then you will need to show that you have thought them through carefully. This includes investigating alternative explanations, both for the beliefs of your community and for your subjective and emotional experiences. You clearly have not done so. Nor does it appear that you have any interest in doing so.

    That leaves us with few alternatives other than to treat you as we would a person who insists that Santa really exists simply and entirely because he has a strong emotional feeling that he does, and all his friends agree with him. In the light of what has been said above, would you take such a person seriously?

  • 31. RLWemm  |  May 12, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    Ooops. Sorry for the badly formatted post. Can someone delete it? Here is a better version.

    Why do we Christians always have to prove that God does exist?

    The burden of proof rests with Christians because the existence of a supernatural being is an extraordinary claim which is not supported by obvious objective tangible evidence. No-one believes in Santa Claus, the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny or a god unless they have been told that these things exist by someone whom they find persuasive. This usually happens in childhood before a person develops the ability to question authority and sift evidence. Children’s brains are wired to believe anything which an authoritative figure tells them. Some people just never outgrow that stage.

    Adults tell children that there is a Santa Klaus and kids believe this without question. One of the stages of mental development is to question this authority and independently consider the evidence for such a being. Kids give up their belief in Santa somewhere between the ages of 4 and 16. http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/167/12/1325 They do so because it is not a socially sanctioned belief for adults and because adults generally assist, rather than hinder, a child’s intellectual development in this realm. If a child asks parental figures for confirmation that there is, in fact, no Santa at least some adults in the child’s environment will admit that it is a playful hoax. Older children who have outgrown the belief will also assist in this process.

    The process of outgrowing a belief in a god (usually a very specific god with very specific properties) is hindered because the society the person lives in actively supports these beliefs and actively discourages people from questioning them.

    Other people are seduced into believing things for which there is no objective evidence due to the use of marketing ploys, trance induction and other techniques of persuasion which turn off the parts of the brain which engage in critical thinking. Religious events include trance-inducing phenomena such as hand clapping, repetitive phrases, lilting voice patterns, music which causes mood change, vibrations know to cause alterations in mind functioning and physical sensations, topics which induce fear and then provide the promise of relief if the victim believes or does what is hypnotically suggested. The rest is achieved by post hypnotic suggestion and powerful social pressures to conform to the norms and expectations of the group.

    Discovering that you have been duped in this way almost always a long and painful process. It is hard to accept that people you admire have betrayed your trust or are sufficiently human and fallible to have been soundly duped themselves.

    People who have not reached this stage merely parrot what they have been told by those who they unwisely trust. This is what you repeatedly demonstrate.

    There will be a day that all of us will know the truth

    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    God will confront us one day and ask us if we believe HIM now.

    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    What will you say?? What will you do if he points to hell where you’ll spend eternity at.

    This assumes that the previous evidence-free assertion is true. It also asserts that there is a hell without providing proof.

    What do you have to loose (=lose?) if you follow the Bible

    This is an echo of the well-known Pascal’s Wager which has long been taught in introductory philosophy classes along with its rebuttal.

    It assumes, among other things, that people can choose to believe (or follow) anything regardless of whether they find it compelling.

    It also assumes that the consequences of believing, or acting as if you do believe, are totally good. There is a vast array of evidence which shows that acting on one’s interpretation of what the Bible says is very often far from benign. The rise in witch burnings in your county is a good case in point.

    From the very beginnings of the religion, Christians disagreed about what the Bible was, which parts of it should be followed and which parts should be discarded or ignored. Paul asserted that all scripture was inspired by god. He was not referring to his own writings (because he was not aware that his writings would one day be referred to as scripture). He was not referring to the rest of the New Testament because this was written until decades to centuries later. He was referring only to the Jewish writings. He also argued that the new sect of Judaism which he was shaping was free to discard many of the practices demanded by the Jewish scriptures he stated were divinely inspired. James, the brother of Jesus, disagreed and there was some considerable heat generated over it. Historically, the original disciples of Jesus of Nazareth lost and it was Paul who won. Ironically Paul had never met the physical Jesus or heard him preach. His writings show him to be entirely ignorant of the life and teachings of the physical Jesus.

    Today there are huge and irreconcilable differences in how various Christian groups interpret the Bible, including whether this collection of ancient books supports the notion that their version of Christianity is the most correct, or the only correct form. Several factions argue that they, and they alone, are the only True Christians and that others have no right to the label.
    In other words, whose Bible and whose fallible interpretation of it are you talking about.

    If you dont believe it why do you fear it???

    This is a nonsense question because there is absolutely nothing in the previous postings which suggest that any ex-Christian on this forum has any “fear” of the Bible.

    God does exist

    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    , we cant see Him but we can feel Him.

    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    Personal feelings are an extremely unreliable way of knowing anything. The scientific study of psychology is full of evidence that the brain is subject to all kinds of biases, illusions and delusions. The brain is good at seeing patterns, even if they do not exist. It will fill in gaps and make up stuff in order to achieve this. It makes things up in line with our past experiences and knowledge and in line with the things happening in the environment at the time of the experience

    One example (of thousands of possible ones) is our brain’s constant denial of the blind spot that we have in each eye. Your brain processes the information in such a way that you have absolutely no awareness that you actually have a couple of holes in your vision. In spite of the fact that your brain convinces you that you are seeing things in the holes, objective testing will prove that you cannot really see anything in those holes. If you want evidence that your brain fools you into thinking that you see what you cannot see then you will find it here. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005949/fun/blindspot.htm

    Certain trance-inducing phenomena cause a brain state where part of it is turned off (the part which helps us separate external from internal experience). This results in the experience of a “presence” which is not objectively there. Everyone interprets that experience in line with their past experience, knowledge, expectations and environment. People in this state are usually very vulnerable to outside influence. If a preacher tells you that you are experiencing their version of god then you will very likely interpret your sensations in this manner. People with different backgrounds and traditions will interpret the experience in mutally exclusive ways. Catholics will sense saints (even ones which their church later says really did not exist), evangelicals will sense their version of a loving Jesus, Hindus will sense one of their gods, Australian Aboriginals will sense one of their Dream Spirits while Buddhists who do not believe in a supernatural being will simply experience a state of oneness with the universe.

    In other words, what you feel depends entirely on what you have been primed to feel.

    Next time you have a think you are sensing your community’s version of “god”, remember that you brain is already fooling you that you can see in your blind spots. If you cannot see two black spots in your vision, then how can you hope to tell whether what you are sensing is not simply a guided product of your imagination? And if you can see two black spots in your vision, how can you be certain that you are not hallucinating these?

    Can you see wind? No, but you can feel it.

    We can measure wind. We cannot measure supernatural concepts.

    I feel sorry for the people that denied God as their Saviour

    There is absolutely nothing on this forum which indicates that de-converts have “denied god”, only that they have discarded beliefs which they do not find to be logically tenable.

    now you’ll never see anything else as just the Pearly Gates.

    Assertion without proof. Blind repetition of what someone you trust has told you.

    To see how silly this sounds to a deconvert replace the word “god” with something you no longer believe in because it is logically untenable. For example:

    I feel sorry for people who have denied that the Easter Rabbit brings eggs because they will no longer receive chocolate eggs at Easter time.
    I feel sorry for people who have denied that Santa Claus brings presents to good children because they will no longer receive rewards at Christmas time.

    That is the kind of thing you might hear from a child who has yet to figure out the truth and learned to live with the reality. If you heard this kind of thing from a child you would simply laugh because you know that it is ingenuous magical thinking and that the child will grow out of some time soon. If you heard this kind of thing from an adult (whom you could reasonably expect to have reached mental maturity) you might feel sad, concerned, alarmed or assume they were trying to be funny.

    Few of my friends are Atheists but we both believe in something that is difficult to explain at the end of the day.

    It is you who are having trouble explaining and justifying your beliefs. In fact, you do not even try. This suggests that your beliefs are based on subjective and personally interpreted emotional experience rather than on observable and tangible evidence. You may be intellectually immature. You may have a credulous personality which is programmed to believe what people tell you without demanding that they provide reasonable proof. You may lack an education in critical thinking and the scientific method of determining truth. You may be living in a community which has strong taboos against independent thinking and the questioning of authority figures. You may be subject to social conditioning to conform to the norms and values of the group and subject to social punishment is you express different views or simply admit to entertaining them. You may be frequently subjected to hypnotic suggestion, misdirection and other mind manipulations. You may be subject to sub-conscious influences which persuade you the sensations which result from induced alterations in brain functioning should be interpreted as a “god experience” of the kind acceptable to your community. You will no doubt lack the knowledge that such experiences are subjectively interpreted in an extremely varied way with the only common factor being that they are consistent with the background knowledge of the person and in line with opinions being loudly expressed by whoever is in the vicinity at the time.

    The only thing which is certain is that you did not arrive at your belief set in the absence of close contact with other human beings. Many aspects of morality appear to be innate or develop naturally as the result of contact with others. On the other hand, god beliefs are purely social constructs. They are not inherently obvious or innately developed.

    There is nothing wrong in what I believe and you don’t believe.

    Assertion without proof.

    This is easily demolished by pointing to a very long history of atrocities and malignant actions caused by belief in the Jewish-Christian god.

    The list begins with the horrendous acts reported to have been carried out by the Jewish people at the command of their Yahweh god (read the books of Exodus and Leviticus for some of the worst of these horrors). It continues with Paul’s denigration of women and support of slavery, the slaughtering history of the Crusades, the incredible cruelty of the Catholic Inquisition, the torture and death of those believed to be witches (happening in your own country right now), the discrimination and abuse of those with genetics which produce a brown skin color and of those who have began their existence in a womb environment which bathed them in hormones with resulted in the later development of sexual preferences which differ from the norm.

    Today, there is ongoing evidence of Christian believers who suppress or attempt to suppress scientific development and of those who deliberately mis-educate or omit to educate children in crucial elements of science and critical thinking.

    Finally, there are the many instances of physical and psychological child abuse in the name of the Christian god and of the physical and psychological abuse of adults who do not believe exactly the same things as their Christian family or surrounding community. The waiting rooms of mental health professionals are full of such people. Therapy results in changes which are far more profound and benevolent than any of those attributed to a religious conversion experience.

    In summary,
    you have clearly demonstrated that your beliefs are merely repetitions of what you have been told to believe without question by others. There is nothing at all glorious about credulous acceptance.

    If you want to have our ideas respected by this community then you will need to show that you have thought them through carefully. This includes investigating alternative explanations, both for the beliefs of your community and for your subjective and emotional experiences. You clearly have not done so. Nor does it appear that you have any interest in doing so.

    That leaves us with few alternatives other than to treat you as we would a person who insists that Santa really exists simply and entirely because he has a strong emotional feeling that he does, and all his friends agree with him. In the light of what has been said above, would you take such a person seriously?

  • 32. Anonymous  |  December 2, 2009 at 10:37 am

    you make no sense…i just dont really have enough faith to believe in everything your saying….you back track on your own words..and you just made me believe god/jesus doesnt exist even more…try to clarify your words…there are plenty of teens trying to understand you words hun..
    Thanks..

  • 33. Rosita  |  December 2, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    @Anonymous

    Honey, you need a grammar lesson if you’re going to make sense yourself. Even the adults have trouble understanding “you words”.

    It is not even clear whom you are addressing.

    The author of the original post? (In which case others seemed to understand that person quite well so what is your problem.)

    The last person who commented? (That would be me.) Are you one of the teens who is having difficulty with comprehension or are you referring to your school mates?

    Kirk and Ray? I can understand that one but the point of the posting here was to frown on the lack of common politeness by those from the non-believers side who were debating against them. Why join the ranks of the impolite yourself? That kind of behavior falls short of the ideal no matter what side of the fence people are on.

    Are you annoyed at one of us for making you doubt the existence of the historical Jesus or the god you were taught to worship as a child? If that is a viewpoint you already hold, then why engage in put-down remarks to whoever it is that you are addressing here?

  • 34. Jezeus Krishna  |  August 2, 2012 at 6:22 am

    the christian religion is one of the most insane and immoral that has ever been created. I’m sure most christians haven’t done much if any research on their own religion, they just believe it blindly without looking into any of it so i’ll “enlighten” you. First off there NEVER was a messiah named jesus christ. The name jesus is the latin translation of Isous (which in greek meant “hail zeus”) the greeks didn’t want to let go of their “pagan” beliefs and didn’t want to use the hebrew name Yeshua(which in hebrew meant “to rescue” or “deliver”) Christ comes from the greek word Christos(meaning “the anointed one”) which is the greek translation of the name Krishna. Your religion is a bastardization and amalgamation of older religions and has been used to justify such wonderful events such as the inquisition, the crusades, various historical witch hunts, and a plethora of other atrocities. If you genuinely believe that your religion is the only moral code of ethics, the true word of god or that it is even moral at all you should really read your bible(which ever current revision of which you ascribe to since its been rewritten so many times for political and moral reasons and not a single original manuscript or authentic account of your “saviour” exists) here are a list of bible passages that demonstrate how immoral and insane your religion is Exodus 22:17, Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 20:27,Exodus 21:15,Leviticus 20:9,Leviticus 21:9,2 Chronicles 15:12-13, Zechariah 13:3,Deuteronomy 13:13-19, Deuteronomy 17:2-5, Leviticus 24:10-16,Exodus 31:12-15,Numbers 1:48-51, Romans 1:24-32. have fun looking all of the passages up and burn in your non-existant hell for trying to live by those rules. Anyone in their right mind can see that hell and heaven are complete fabrications and tools of social manipulation that any child psychologist knows it is akin to Santa claws(being the modern materialist version of the tool of manipulation through guilt) most christians never actually read their bible or if you have they have they just pick and choose sections that ARE moral and disregard the rest or try to rationalize their choices by saying that the laws of the old testament no longer apply to those who follow the new testament even when “Jesus” said that they clearly do see Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17, Mark 7:10. your very faith is nothing more than a shield for your ignorance and you’ll die and rot in the ground just like everyone else and your beliefs won’t lead you to an everlasting bliss while those who didn’t believe by choice or circumstance are burning forever in hellfire. If you could add up all of the murders, rapes, genocides, and other atrocities committed by your religion or any religion for that matter and compared it with those committed by atheists you would see that your beliefs are insane, immoral and not entirely your own.

  • 35. Neil C. Reinhardt  |  August 19, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    An Athiest having anger toward those who have been discriminating, persecuting, beating torturing and killing we Atheists for over 2,000 years?

    MY, Why should we have any anger?

    An Atheist having anger with those who are so stupid they deny Evolution is a fact, and homosexals are born? Who pass stupid laws and do stupid things because some Ignorant Camel drivers who were riding around the deserts of the Middle east over 2,000 years ago said they should?

    Programmed Religious Robot fools who are so clueless they do not realize the odds are about 100 percent the ONLY reason they believe in their one god and are not Jews or Moslems who do the same is because of who raised them.

    Or the only reason they do not believe in MANY gods is because they were not raised by any of the more than a Billion who do believe in them.

    Christians who are so ILLLOGICAL they just do not understand that IF their “god”
    is ALL POWERFUL & ALL KNOWING as well as being Just, Compassionate, Kind, Caring, Fair & Moral who created a world which has Earthquakes, Floods, Land Slides, Hericans Tornado, etc., etc. & all kinds of LIFE which must kill other LIFE to live, is one totally INCOMPETENT god!!!

    Neither an Incompetent, or a non-existent god are worthy of my friendship much less my worship.

    This Agnostic Atheist Activist knows ALL gods only exst in the MINDS of the those who believe in them. And NO god exists in the Real World!

    http://www.Atheists.org/

    http://www.AtheistsUnited.org/

    http://militaryatheists.org

    Neil C. Reinhardt

    religionsucks@webtv.net

  • 36. yoursite.wall.fm  |  December 22, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Your way of describing all in this article is actually good,
    every one be able to simply know it, Thanks a lot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 2,016,906 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers