8 Reasons why I no longer believe

January 15, 2008 at 11:35 am 186 comments

I have recently posted a blog about how I have personal reasons to believe in a God, which goes in well with how comforting superstitions can be when it comes to finding easy answers. I’m going to touch on a list of reasons why I don’t believe in Jesus Christ as redeemer, the risen one, alpha and omega, and so on.

1. The Trinity doesn’t make sense

You may find evidence for a Trinity in the Bible, but it’s not clear and wasn’t so until the Nicene Creed was established. The word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, neither is a single verse in the Bible that says that all are of the same yet all are different. The Idea is received from several verses however, so it’s not necessarily a blind assumption. A comprehensive study of the Trinity will still lead to it not making any sense. The result was that I just had to ‘believe’ in it anyways.

2. Clashing theologies, clashing denominations

There’s always a denomination demonizing another and there’s too many churches out there saying they have the select elite going to heaven while everyone else is doomed( even though they believe in Christ). My biggest issue was this is that I could not find a theology I was at peace with – The result was I just had to ‘believe’ I had the right theology anyways. What if you’re wrong? You see Christians are still at risk for eternal damnation according to their opposing denominations. There is no sure fire way a Christian can know they’re saved without just ‘believing’ which in the end makes no sense.

3. Absurd Bible stories and contradictions

I have found so many contradictions in the Bible that I can’t see how anyone can say it’s literal. A talking snake, talking donkey, hundreds of miracles and so on, all seem to be mythological to me. Contradictions are only there when taken at face value, one can remove them if they use ‘theologies’ and ‘interpretations’ – The result was I just had to ‘believe’ even though I thought they were absurd. That’s right, you love Jesus and want the eternal life? Then it’s time to believe in all the absurd stories so you can have it your way.

4. God is said to be unchanging yet he changes so much!

It is so easy to see God change from a violent tyrant to an easy loving God yet people say he’s not changing. It’s so easy to see the evolution of this God in the scriptures, and the OT and NT are the best examples. The books that talk about “The Character of God” are all contradicting and leave out the genocide, rape, and other horrible things the OT Tribal God commanded. So he wants us to stone people to death then he wants us to stop, I thought you said he wasn’t changing? This “God is not changing” idea never made any sense to me.

5. The Hell Problem

There is a serious problem with Hell. The Case for God being Just, and the case for God being Loving, all fall apart with the Hell Problem. The fact that Hell was never mentioned in the OT, neither demons nor Satan creates a real problem unless of course you want to use incorrect translations like the KJV. There are actually a lot of reasons why Hell makes no sense (even scripturally)

6. Eastern Religions pre-date Judaism

If God created the universe then why are there religions predating people even knowing what this God is. The whole Genesis story is a sore contradiction to reality. The only apologetic I’ve heard was the tower of babel, but the ToB story is pseudo-history.

7. Judaism’s rejection of Yeshua(Jesus)

Just go to askmoses.com if you really want a good answer. Basically Jesus the so called Christ does not meet the literal requirements for a Messiah, especially as the Jews understand the scripture. The Jews wrote the scriptures too so they should know. But instead of even considering this aspect, you just have to believe that the Saint Paul and Yeshua were right when they re-interpreted the OT scriptures for us to make their religious ideas seem true.

8. The existence of God cannot be proven

The only people saying his existence can be proven are those who ‘believe’ . So saying God exists because you believe is the most absurd answer. Even Christians who swear up and down their belief in God is from substantial evidence can’t prove the existence of God to anyone but themselves and fellow congregates. I have come to find that there is no proof for any god’s existence at all. To accept Christianity is a huge leap of faith. In the end, you just have to ‘believe’ and that makes the Hell problem even worse.

Well that’s not every reason why I don’t believe, but just a few.

- confusedchristian

Entry filed under: confusedchristian. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , .

“Which God?” Re: Sermon on worldview criteria. Discovering meaning after de-conversion

186 Comments Add your own

  • 1. doubtingthomas426  |  January 15, 2008 at 12:14 pm

    Prepare for the onslaught, my friend! For you know the believers are a’commin’ for you! Or at least your blog.

    Hey confusedchristian, glad I found your blog. All of your points spoke to me. Frankly, I don’t understand how ANYONE can ignore the things you mention. All stand out in glaring ALL CAPS, underlined, bold print, type face. It’s hard to respect the willfully ignorant, and it IS willful for a Christian to ignore the points you make in this post. The question is always how CAN you believe in a god, not how CAN’T you.

    You should check out my site: http://doubtingthomas426.wordpress.com/
    I think you’ll find it VERY familiar. I’ll leave you with this assurance; You’re Not Alone.

    Take Care. And Keep The Faith! Ha!

  • 2. doubtingthomas426  |  January 15, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    BTW, I added your site to my Links (blogroll) list. Hope that’s cool

  • 3. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 12:29 pm

    Thanks for adding me to your blogroll DT, I agree these reasons are major, among many more I assure you.

  • 4. carriedthecross  |  January 15, 2008 at 1:16 pm

    CC,

    You’ve listed a very general synopsis of why (in my opinion) many people have left the faith. When I was a religion major bound to become a pastor in an evangelical denomination, I struggled with these issues and found little support from fellow students or professors. In fact, I was accused more than once of “reasonalotry.”

    It’s too bad that so few Christians even ask these questions, let alone look for answers. It destroys the potential for genuine discussion and debate about the veracity of Christianity between Christians and atheists.

    Anyway, kudos on bringing these points up. If I were to add to the list, I would add, 1. Logical inconsistency in claiming there is nothing uncaused -except- for God. 2. So-called ‘promises’ in the Bible going unfulfilled.

    CTC

  • 5. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 1:37 pm

    So you’re saying 1. is by saying the only reason for existence is God? and by 2. The promises in the Bible going unfulfilled is definitely a problem for sure.

  • 6. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    Hell is something you can put your mind in. Belief is a choice, you are right. Nobody compels you to be a Christian. You made your choice to reject Christianity. Do you resent the fact that you were compelled to be a Christian as a child? It seems so. I feel sympathy for you, there are certainly brands of Christianity that I can not swallow, such as Southern Baptism, even though I am friends with Southern Baptist pastors and their flocks, and they send me their sermons… I don’t know what to say to you. I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy from a philosophical background, and from pagan religions, and I am satisfied with Eastern Orthodoxy. If it helps any, we see all other divisions of the Church as heresy.

  • 7. TheDeeZone  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    CC,

    I want to address the issue of clashing theologies & demoninations. Due to the subjective nature of Biblical inperertation many differant and often clashing theologies or doctirnes have evolved. Some doctrines are more grounded in scripture than others. As a result many demonations have evolved. The problem isn’t a demonation problem but rather a people problem. It isn’t a new problem either, in fact it goes back to the Reformers. The dispute between Martin Luther & Ulrich Zwingli was infamous and sometimes bloody. It is frustrating to see groups of Christians fighting because they don’t agree with someone elses interpretation of the scripture. They claim to be followers of Christ yet forget the 2 greatest commands 1) Love God and 2) Love others. To me this means I am to repsect others beliefs. I may not agree with them or even want to attend their church but I don’t have to fight with them. Further, I am to respect the rights of others to not believe if God if they choose. Not all Christians choose to act like 3-year-olds and engage in petty fights and name calling.

  • 8. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:44 pm

    1) The Trinity was never a problem for me. At least I can make enough sense of it.

    2,3,4) Bother me too.

    5) is sort of a problem, sort of not a problem.

    6,7) Don’t bother me.

    8) It’s not so much that God can’t be proven that bothers me as that the evidence is so strongly against an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being.

    And like you, I have plenty of other issues.

  • 9. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    I’ve made my choice to reject Christianity becuase I have decided to reject any claim that requires a large amount of faith. I’m glad you found a home in eastern orthodoxy, but I see it as another set of superstitions.

    DH, that’s nice and all but itdoesn’t make me feel any better at all, and as a Christian that answer was floated around plenty of times towards me and it did me no good.

    LeoPartdus, thanks :)

  • 10. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:04 pm

    confusedchristian,
    I have a very small amount of faith, but I am not going to break the commitment I made when I got baptized 9 years ago. In fact, as taught by St. Isaac the Syrian, I am called to renew it every three hours. That is why the Horologion of the Church has services every three hours. I feel the EO church is full of superstitions. I am afraid to verbalize what I think at this point. I think once I feel secure that my identity will remain personally confidential I may become more bold. But, despite my doubt, I still participate in the rites and services of the church, and even a ministry of the church. And I am open and honest about my skepticism…

  • 11. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:22 pm

    artisticmisfit, so you’re saying that not breaking a commitment is the reason you’re still christian, not because it makes sense but because you made a promise?

  • 12. Paul S.  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:29 pm

    Due to the subjective nature of Biblical inperertation many differant and often clashing theologies or doctirnes have evolved.

    Can’t God make it crystal clear?

    Some doctrines are more grounded in scripture than others.

    But since Biblical interpretation is so subjective, all theologies and denominations feel that their’s is the most grounded.

    The problem isn’t a demonation problem but rather a people problem.

    But don’t the people involved determine the denomination? These are all man-made entities.

  • 13. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:32 pm

    confusedchristian,
    Yes. The whole thing about unclean spirits being in the water and blessing the waters annually doesn’t make any sense to me, but, I just go along with it. I mean it does and it doesn’t. I guess I have been feeling hurt these last couple of years. I divorced, and I kind of feel like a pariah and a danger in the church, but oh well, I am coping. I don’t care if some of the clergy judges me, and I think they do, intensely. I can survive. I am really struggling right now and suffering, but I am not going to give up, I am not going to apostasize even though I desperately want to.

  • 14. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:40 pm

    artisticmisfit:

    Sounds like you’re in a similar place to where I was about 1.5 years ago. I couldn’t reconcile a number of issues anymore but I did NOT want to leave the faith entirely.

    I hope you find peace with it all one way or another.

  • 15. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:54 pm

    LeoPardus,
    I may not find peace with it, but I am not leaving it. It is good to know I am not alone. That in itself gives me hope. I know that priests suffer crisis of faith, but I also know that some of them are reluctant to go on record with it. I have been feeling quite isolated and alienated lately, like an outcast, but I would rather feel outcast in this life than in the next. Thanks for making my day. Have you seen the movie Ostrov? Fr. Anatoly was not at peace, and yet he was perceived as a living saint. That gave me consolation. Perhaps it is ok not to be at peace.

  • 16. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 3:58 pm

    Some people at our church saw Ostrov and liked it. I haven’t seen it yet. May get it sometime.

    Yes, being at peace is not requisite. Many live with varying degrees of “lack of peace”. I can see how that even might strengthen faith in ways.

    BTW I posted some thoughts to you in the forum.

  • 17. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:00 pm

    Leo,
    Thanks. I am definitely suffering from a lack of peace, for personal relational reasons, as regards to my divorce, which I mentioned earlier. I will check the forum later. Thank you so much for taking care of me. I am starving and thirsty. It is unfortunate you left the Church. You would make a superb priest. I hope you come back some day. As I stated, some priests struggle with their faith, yet won’t talk about their struggles in public, and for you to be honest about your struggle is a beautiful thing. I hope you were not a minor clergyman, that’s even more of a loss to the church.

  • 18. tobeme  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:21 pm

    All good thoughts that support your belief or is it your disbelief?

  • 19. confusedchristian  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Tthey more or less caused my disbelief then “support” it.

  • 20. LeoPardus  |  January 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    artisticmisfit:

    Me clergy? Nah. I don’t know what a ‘call to the clergy’ sounds like, but a ‘call not to be clergy’ seemed pretty clear to me. It sounded like my wife saying, “I DO NOT want to be a pastor’s wife!” :)

    As for me getting back in; all it needs is a miracle, or something of that sort. Basically just a clear reply to Isaiah 41:23 by the god who supposedly issued the challenge.

  • 21. Jon F  |  January 15, 2008 at 5:36 pm

    I’ve been slowely building up a similar list here. I would only add that when you say you “no longer believe” you are actually saying you “no longer believe in the version of christianity you came to embrace”. For me, it was a big step forward to realise first that the christianity I had embraced was in fact just one “version” of christianity, and then another even bigger step when I realised that christianity itself was just one model amongst many that mankind has devised to understand the inaccessible reality of God and Man (which may turn out to be the same thing anyway). Wahtever the final outcome, I am just so so happy to be out of christian fundamentalism!
    Jon

  • 22. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Leo, Last night or this morning someone who is not Orthodox asked me if I wanted to be a matushka or would be a matushka at any cost.I seem to be attracted to alcoholic clergymen myself, which isn’t a problem to me, but was a problem to people like Fr. Arseny and his spiritual children. A call to be clergy comes from within the Church.
    Jon F, Unfortunately fundamentalism also exists in Orthodoxy and that is apparently the first form of Orthodoxy I was exposed to.

  • 23. bmoe  |  January 15, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    God an religion are all things made by human beings. Everything that is made by man can be destroyed. They are all things constructed to control man. Think freely for yourself don’t let religion hold you back expand your mind beyond what you’ve been told is to be true. Your on the correct path to the new way of thinking and the logical answers will come.

  • 24. TheDeeZone  |  January 15, 2008 at 8:03 pm

    CC,

    Not trying to make you feel better. Just responding to the statement about confusing doctrines. Not trying to presuade you otherwise. You will believe what you believe.

    Paul,

    Some demomantions are more tolerant than others. Some groups will allow others to disagree with them and still accept them as Christians. Others have no tolerance for others who do not agree with them. Yes people determine demonations. Some people are just nicer than others.

    Dh

  • 25. frmad  |  January 15, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    This post is very hot, it is high ranked at our site (daily weblog, weblog post ranking site). See http://indirecttoadminor.wordpress.com/indirect-page-to-blog-report/ for more infomation

  • 26. joshm  |  January 15, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    CC-

    I would like to address your last point about how there can be no argument for the existence of God. This is a formal logical fallacy, and therefore cannot be used. Your argument in formal logic would look like “no proof for A exists, therefore A does not exist.” This is sometimes called “argument from ignorance.”

    I have recently (in the last 3 months or so) been wondering if Christianity is not just a form of existentialism (leap of faith), so I feel you there. I would also like to challenge your statement “I have decided to reject any claim that requires a large amount of faith.” I am wondering how much faith is involved in this. Do you are basing this on autonomous reason?

  • 27. joshm  |  January 15, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    CC-

    Sorry to comment twice in a row

    I would like to call into question the historical accuracy of your statement “Eastern religions predate Judaism.” Peter Stearns, a well known World History author, once wrote that the Jews “gave the world the first clearly developed monotheistic religion.” As early as 1400 BCE or 1200 BCE at the latest Judaism was crystallized by the writing of the Torah. At the same time, Jewish origins predate this. Abraham came out of Ur (the strongest city state in Sumer) which flourished from about 4000-2200 BCE. Judaism has its origins in Ancient History (10,000-500 BCE). On the other hand, Eastern religions developed (mainly) in the Classical Era (500 BCE- 500 CE).

    I’m not sure what apologists you are listening to, but I would like to give them an earful. A Biblical answer to your question of why other religions developed might be that because man was made in God’s image, he carries knowledge of God with him. Paul wrote about this to the Romans (see chapter 2). To be honest, this does not seem too far off from what some anthropologists might say.

  • 28. bry0000000  |  January 15, 2008 at 11:31 pm

    “I would like to address your last point about how there can be no argument for the existence of God. This is a formal logical fallacy, and therefore cannot be used. Your argument in formal logic would look like “no proof for A exists, therefore A does not exist.” This is sometimes called “argument from ignorance.”

    I don’t think CC was arguing that there was no argument for the existence of God, just no way of proving it. Technically, it’s a straw man argument, as your syllogism is in concordance with your assumed postulate, but I’m thinking it was more of an honest misinterpretation on your part. I’m sure more than one of us has been guilty of the same thing in the past.

    In regards to your second post, I couldn’t help but notice the assertion that Judaism had established the first clearly developed monotheistic religion, but not necessarily established the first clearly developed religion in general (I’m thinking polytheism). Ancient history is not my specialty, so I’ll leave that up to someone else better grounded (or research it myself, whichever comes first).

  • 29. artisticmisfit  |  January 15, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    joshm,
    I believe Christianity is a form of existentialism as I am a dyed in the wool existentialist, both of my parents are, and my mom is a skeptical Italian Catholic. My dad is an agnostic Russian Jew. It requires more faith to be an atheist than a believer.

  • 30. Slapdash  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:23 am

    DeeZone: “Yes people determine demonations.”

    DEMONations?

    Ha ha ha. How has nobody caught that little slip yet? :)

  • 31. Quester  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:22 am

    It requires more faith to be an atheist than a believer.

    Artistic Misfit, what do you mean by that statement? I’ve heard it before, but it makes no sense.

  • 32. artisticmisfit  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:33 am

    I mean that it takes more faith to deny God then it does to affirm God. Somebody else told me they did not have enough faith to be an atheist, and that rang true for me as well. Where did you hear it before?

  • 33. bry0000000  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:34 am

    I second that Quester. I want an explanation of that axiom.

  • 34. artisticmisfit  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:36 am

    I suggest you ask a priest what that means since my explanations have not sufficed.

  • 35. frmad  |  January 16, 2008 at 4:40 am

    This post is very hot, it is high ranked at our site (daily weblog, weblog post ranking site). See http://indirect1.blogspot.com/ for more infomation

  • 36. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

    josh, it’s not that ‘God doesn’t exist’ because of lack of evidence, it’s that we Cannot prove his existence. I’m open to the idea of a God or multiple God’s existing, as anything else unprovable. Anything is possible in this large and vast universe. But in the end, it’s hard for me to be religious because God’s existence cannot be proven.

  • 37. cipher  |  January 16, 2008 at 9:48 am

    RE: other religions – the earliest forms of what later came to be called Hinduism (I don’t really like the term; it’s a made-up Western concept – Indian religions are in reality widely diverse) were well underway by the time Abraham and God began having their little chats. If you accept this as historically accurate (which I don’t, speaking as a secular Jew). And, even then, the Hebrews probably weren’t pacticing a pure form of monotheism; there is linguistic evidence in the bible to support this. Even later, during the kingdom periods, it appears that, although they were worshiping Yahweh exclusively (when they weren’t backsliding, of course), they didn’t regard him as the only deity – merely as the most powerful.

    The Indians see the deities within their pantheon as expressions or manifestations of one underlying reality – although, when this attitude emerged, I’m not certain.

    And, prior to Abraham, there were plenty of other Near Eastern religions, largely related by a common mythology, with numerous elements in common with Hebrew/Israelite religion. And this doesn’t even take into account Egyptian religion, which seems to have influenced all of the others. There is evidence that the educated classes had a view similar to that of the Indians, seeing the various deities as expressions of one underlying reality or supreme being.

    And, of course, this doesn’t include the myriad indigenous religions, those of “primitive” peoples.

  • 38. Stutz  |  January 16, 2008 at 10:21 am

    As an ex-Christian, I guess I should feel at home here, but once I finally admitted to myself that I did not believe in God, I realized that I didn’t ever REALLY believe all that stuff in the first place, even though I’d been heavily involved in my youth group and had fairly religious parents. I thought I did at the time, but in reality it mostly just scared me to think that God is always watching/judging, that heaven and hell exist, that it is so hard to live normally and be a human being and yet still have to be responsible for my eternal soul. Anyway, the point is that I don’t feel like one of the confused because after just a few short years of clarity and honesty I feel like some kind of seasoned atheist.

    My advice to anyone struggling with faith is not to let your circumstances or obligations dictate your religion. Believe or do not believe because you think it is right, logical, and true to the best of your knowledge. Come to a conclusion after having honestly examined yourself and the issues. Do the mental work. Don’t de-convert because your church sucks, or because you’ve been wronged by a believer, or because it no longer makes you happy. By the same token, don’t stay an unthinking believer just because you were raised that way, or because all your friends are Christians, or because it gives you peace of mind to think about your departed loved ones waiting for you in heaven. I’m not saying to throw your life into a tailspin if a doubt crosses your mind. I’m saying that if that doubt nags at you, don’t repress it–take it seriously. OWN your beliefs, and make them truly yours. Be proud yet humble in the knowledge that, by having thought more deeply than most people ever will, you have avoided living the unexamined life.

  • 39. choward  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:18 am

    CC-
    You wrote, “But in the end, it’s hard for me to be religious because God’s existence cannot be proven.”

    And yet, it is not hard for you to be non-religious even though God’s non-existence cannot be proven either. If God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven (I am assuming, from your posts/comments, that you agree that God’s non-existence cannot be proven…afterall, you said, “Anything is possible in this large and vast universe.”)…where does that leave us? Why choose non-belief over belief? Seems that that would make it an arbitrary, unfounded decision…and if unfounded and arbitrary, then why attack those who believe in God? Why not just let people go about their business of making an arbitrary decision?

    And, yet, the very fact that you attack belief in God shows that you really don’t believe it to be an arbitrary decision. Your 8 Reasons for not believing tell us that you at least think that the question of God’s existence, while perhaps not proveable one way or the other, is at least a question that can be answered to a degree of certainty based on a preponderance of evidence.

    So, now we have non-believers claiming that their evidence leans towards the non-existence of God…and we have believers claiming that their evidence favors the existence of God. How does one decide? If both positions are unproveable, then we have reached the point of faith, either way you go…belief in something that cannot be proven. It does not mean belief in something for which there is no evidence…simply belief in something that cannot be proven. But, how many things are there to believe that can be proven? Some would say experiential beliefs, “Seeing is believing”…but then how do you prove that you can trust your senses, that you have an independent mind, that this “reality” is not all some Matrix-like illusion, that every thought you have is not controlled by chemical reactions in your brain, programed responses to stimuli?

    So, here we are…We all believe in something, many things, that cannot be proven. Like axioms in Geometry, beliefs that can be tested by their use, but must be accepted before we can work any problems. We all establish our world-views based on some basic, unproveable beliefs. We all rely on faith.

  • 40. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:30 am

    choward, you are correct that I say that God’s existance cannot be proven nor proven. You are incorrect though in thinking that somehow proves God exists.

    If you want to believe God exists then go ahead, because freedom of religion is great.

    The 8 reasons why I dont believe are the 8 reasons why I fell from Christianity. If you want to think that one can just walk out of a faith unscathed from emotional distress then you haven’t given deconversion much thought.

    Also, I’m curious as to why you consider me “attacking” a bleif in god when all I am doing is stating what has caused me to doubt blind faith and why I feel that blind faith does not work for me.

    I have never, ever, ever said that I believe in any absolutes. I believe that everything and anything is possible but it is important to recognize those which are most plausible. With the scientific method, which by its own right is in no way fallible, one can really find what is most plausible and confirm things using evidents and tests. It is the best thing we humans have because with it we have accomplished much.

    I believe that NOTHING is 100% certain. I don’t understand how your whole idea that because nothing is certain that any one of these religions (out of millions) is truer than the others. If anything it just shows agnosticism, definitely not religion.

    I would trust a scientific fact with my life, not a religion.(like wearing a helmet while driving a motorcycle will better save me than a simple ‘prayer’) Even though science isn’t 100%, atleast it surpasses all available scrutiny, which is eons beyond ‘blind faith’ (there is a big difference you know)

  • 41. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:33 am

    I meant to say the scientific method is not infallible and it doesn’t claim to be either. I also wanted to state that it has been GREAT to get all these doubts and my deconversion off my chest because the family and friends give nothing but emotional grief. Instead of even reasoning with me they just try to guilt me into believing again.

  • 42. Marc  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:37 pm

    > I meant to say the scientific method is not infallible
    I think you mean the results of science are provisional. I doubt any scientist would agree that the method is fallible. Indeed, how could you test this hypothesis?

  • 43. notabarbie  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:49 pm

    Well put CC!

    You said, “I also wanted to state that it has been GREAT to get all these doubts and my deconversion off my chest because the family and friends give nothing but emotional grief. Instead of even reasoning with me they just try to guilt me into believing again.”

    Welcome to my world and to the world of most de-converts. Doesn’t it just piss you off sometimes?

    Great post too BTW!

  • 44. LeoPardus  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm

    joshm:

    I would like to address your last point about how there can be no argument for the existence of God. This is a formal logical fallacy, and therefore cannot be used. Your argument in formal logic would look like “no proof for A exists, therefore A does not exist.”

    Point of logic to make here. I think that CC’s argument would be better rendered, “proof for A has not been found, therefore I don’t believe A exists”. I know that’s not in the neatest form for formal logic, but it encapsulates the argument better. Anyway I always hated shoehorning everything into formal forms.

  • 45. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:02 pm

    Marc the beauty of science is its not supposed to be infallible and I’m not sure how you could test the scientific method because the scientific method is itself: testing.

  • 46. confusedchristian  |  January 16, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    For the record I believe there is a possibility for God’s existence, but definitely not a God as defined by humans. (like the Bible or Koran, etc)

  • 47. joshm  |  January 16, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    LeoPardus-

    Wow, lots of new comments up!!!

    “I think that CC’s argument would be better rendered, “proof for A has not been found, therefore I don’t believe A exists”. I know that’s not in the neatest form for formal logic, but it encapsulates the argument better.”

    I think your rendering is better than mine, however it is still a classic argument from ignorance, and therefore does not hold up.

  • 48. joshm  |  January 16, 2008 at 5:18 pm

    CC-

    “The 8 reasons why I dont believe are the 8 reasons why I fell from Christianity. If you want to think that one can just walk out of a faith unscathed from emotional distress then you haven’t given deconversion much thought.”

    I understand that these are your reasons for de-converting, but surely you are willing to call them into question, just as you called “blind faith” (which I also hate) into question. Everything is should be subject to question.

  • 49. Doubting Tom  |  January 16, 2008 at 5:41 pm

    I’ve been on a doubting road recently but have come to realise that Christians have got so much wrong. We are taught that because you go to church, don’t smoke or drink heavily, love your neighbour etc…etc…you are a good christian and will get to heaven. It’s true- Christians think that if you read the bible enough or pray enough then you are saved.
    However- if we are saved by grace, then salvation is completely independent of our actions. God’s love is bigger than our feelings, doubts, unbeliefs, actions, words or anything else. Nothing can seperate us from His love. It is only when I feel free to just be who I am – I’ve been created to be who I am- and i’m not aspiring to be anyone else or be better than I am now, that I find the freedom in my salvation. On such lines, I believe that anyone who has been saved is STILL saved. God knows the hurts, the guilt (which I believe He hates just as much as we do), the shame and all the other feelings that we have and truly NOTHING can seperate us from His love. It is unconditional and not dependent on anything that we do, say or believe..

  • 50. choward  |  January 16, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    CC-

    Ok, point number 1. I never said that God’s existence was proven by the fact that there is no proof. That was not my point at all. I was simply addressing (primarily) your last Reason for not believing in God…”The existence of God cannot be proven.” I was showing that it is not logical to reject belief because there is no proof, and then turn around and accept non-belief…for which there is no proof. I can just as easily say that I reject atheism because there is no proof that there is no God…an argument I am sure most atheists would not accept.
    I did make an assumption here…perhaps I’m wrong. I assumed you were using “proof” in the sense of a logically sound argument for which it necessarily follows that God exists. If by proof you simply meant to say that there is no evidence that God exists then I have overstepped the boundaries of your language…and I apologize…although I will whole-heartedly disagree since I believe there is plenty of evidence (thought not proof) for God’s existence.
    I also didn’t mean to imply that your deconversion was an easy transition…but that you seem to be certain of your current beliefs (hence…”it is not hard for you to be non-religious”). Again, I apologize for any misunderstanding. Believe me, I know how religious people can be when family members reject their religion.
    Point number 2 – regarding the word “attack”…I certainly did not intend to offend in anyway…I was simply describing what you are doing. You made a post regarding reasons for not believing in God. I thought it was evident that this could be termed an “attack”…afterall isn’t your point to explain why belief in God is not logical/reasonable? You certainly aren’t defending belief, or sitting on the sidelines.
    Point number 3 – you stated in your comments that you do not believe in any absolutes…but then you made this statement in a later comment: “For the record I believe there is a possibility for God’s existence, but definitely not a God as defined by humans. (like the Bible or Koran, etc)” Would you explain your reasons for this, and why you don’t consider it an absolute? Perhaps this is not what you meant, but “definitely not” is absolute language. It would seem that there are some absolutes you believe in….if only this one: that there are no absolutes (again, absolute language, which makes this belief a logical contradiction).
    Thanks for your time and discussion. You have put a lot of thought into your deconversion…I appreciate the thought. Too many people don’t think about what they believe.

    BTW – I don’t believe in blind faith, either…and I don’t believe any Scripture calls us to blind faith. I am saddened by fellow Christians who ask people to believe blindly.

  • 51. LeoPardus  |  January 16, 2008 at 6:22 pm

    joshm:

    it is still a classic argument from ignorance, and therefore does not hold up.

    It is an argument from insufficiency or ignorance true. As such it cannot make a conclusive argument. But then it isn’t meant as a conclusive argument. It’s just one in a string of data to support the hypothesis that God does not exist. Just as a theist would put a string of data together to support the opposing hypothesis. Neither hypothesis can be proven conclusively. So no argument will “hold up” if formal certainty is being sought.

  • 52. robd  |  January 16, 2008 at 7:52 pm

    choward,
    no proof of God and no proof of no-God are not
    symmetrical positions;
    I do not need to believe the negative,
    I just not believe the positive.

    Also, it is religion that makes the extraordinary claims:
    to believe Jesus did walk on water requires a good deal of faith, because those things don’t happen;
    to believe it is a made-up story requires little faith, because stories are made up everywhere anytime; it’s human nature.

  • 53. HeIsSailing  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:48 pm

    Wow, we left Christianity for very different reasons, it seems!! I am going to have to cook up a similar list someday soon.

    #1 I considered a mystery – a paradox. It made no sense, but it never bothered me.

    Also #2, 6, 7, 8 never bothered me.

    #4 was a thorn in my side, but not a real showstopper.

    #3 and 5 were my biggies, but I had several others that you did not list.

  • 54. joshm  |  January 16, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    On the issue of argument from ignoracne, I think choward has done a good job outlining the difficulties (see comment 50, point #1)

    From robd-

    “no proof of God and no proof of no-God are not
    symmetrical positions;
    I do not need to believe the negative,
    I just not believe the positive.”

    To not believe that God exists (in other words, deny the “positive”) is to believe in no God (which is the negative). This is a trueism. They are mutally exculsive. If you believe one, you disbelive the other.

  • 55. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:20 am

    joshm, are you sayin that because we can’t prove God exists or doesnt exist we should believe he does? Also, are you talking about the Christian God or just God in general?

  • 56. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:28 am

    choward, I dont think that any religoin or human could understand God and I believe that using a Bible as inerrant is just a way of putting God in a box. I do not believe at all that any religion, or any human being, could understand or fathom a God. Therefore I indeed find that an absolute, so I guess the only absolute I believe in is that there are no absolutes, including an infallible bible or an infallible religion, or an infallible idea.

    On the other points, no, I really don’t believe that the “God” you call “God” exists. I think that there is a shot of a creator or something people could call “God” God, but definately not what the bronze age folks thought, or any other ancient civilization. It just doesn’t really work for me. But I would never say that “God can’t exist” but I could say that “we cannot know if God exists or not” – and I would never turn that into an apologetic argument. Really I think it’s a self-defeating argument from the Christian standpoint because the Christian has to prove that his religion is the right one. It’s not all about Christianity and it’s definately not Atheism vs. Christianity. There are literally millions of other religions out there.

  • 57. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:29 am

    I would consider an attack more like getting a bullhorn and yelling at passer-bys that their world-view could be wrong and they should convert.

  • 58. TheNorEaster  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:44 am

    Even as a Christian, I could discuss in detail each of the 8 Reasons you mentioned, but what stands out to me is the clashing denominations experience. But that, I think, is the fundamentalist “bubble,” a closed atmosphere that cannot let in outside light or heat or air. It gets stuffy after a while and so sooner or later one needs a breath of fresh air. When I had finally gotten away from fundamentalism–and I’ve mentioned this several times before–my faith grew tremendously. And I realized that it wasn’t my place to judge (meaning, “to determine value”) other denominations, sects, religions, or atheism.

    As for matters of faith, I can only say…Well, faith is faith. Mine works for me. And it is always fluid, always changing, always growing, always freezing, always evaporating, always raining.

    thenoreaster.wordpress.com

  • 59. joshm  |  January 17, 2008 at 1:04 am

    CC-

    “Are you sayin that because we can’t prove God exists or doesnt exist we should believe he does?”

    In no way, shape, or form! If I have proposed this at all let me give my deepest apologies. I am merely saying that it is a logical fallacy for this argument to be used by either side. We cannot accept belief in God because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s nonexistence. Conversly, We cannot accept belief in Athesim because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s existence.

    Although this goes for any theistic belief, I do believe in the “Christain God.” However, I believe the concept of the “Christian God” has been greatly misconstrued by the the modern western church. I seek to understand God as he reveals himself to mankind.

  • 60. HeIsSailing  |  January 17, 2008 at 6:55 am

    joshm gets formal:

    We cannot accept belief in God because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s nonexistence. Conversly, We cannot accept belief in Athesim because of lack of a deductive proof for God’s existence.

    Gag. This kind of logic talk of whether we should believe this or that based on lack of proof bores me stiff. I see it constantly in these types of blogsites from theists and nonthesists of every kind. We never treat any other part of our lives with this kind of logical rigor and formality, so why do people suddenly turn into Mr Spock from Planet Vulcan when discussing the existance of God and whether or not we should believe based on proof or non-proof??

    The argument goes round and round who has the burden of proof, and the claims that formal logic prohibits absolute proof of a negative claim, etc etc.. Frankly I get bored with such tedious talk.

    This is what I am certain of: God does not exist outside of our brain. Jesus was a man who died 2000 years ago and whose corpse rotted. There is no afterlife for any of us.

    I have no proof of any of this. Yet I am certain.

    I am certain in the same way I am certain about many other things in my life. I just look at it this way – Every evening I have to drive home from work. I am *certain* that I will make it home safely to my wife without getting in a fatal accident or crash. I leave work every afternoon without a doubt in my mind that I will arrive safely. Now, strictly speaking the very slight possibility exists that I may die a horrible death in an auto crash. But I never think about that when I hit the road because that possibility is so remote that I never even consider it. As I turn the ignition key, I can state with utmost confidence and certainty that I will arrive home safely.

    I think of the existence of God in much the same way. I am certain that a supernatural being does not exist. Yes – as certain as knowing I will drive home from work safely tomorrow, I am certain that God does not exist in any way. This is just being practical, like we are practical about every other thing in our lives. Now, I admit that logically speaking, there is a possibility of a supernatural being of some sort that exists. But it seems such a contrivance to me, such a remote possibility, that I don’t waste time wondering what, if anything, this god wants from me.

  • 61. John  |  January 17, 2008 at 10:46 am

    When someone says prove God existence they dont mean a formal logical proof. They just want observable evidence thats convincing. Sure atheists might have to full back on the anthropic principle for the fine tuning problem and we dont fully understand how single cell organisms emerged on earth but theres not many gaps left for a god to fill.
    Also some people dont care about science/nature at all or think science its just a tool or whatever but I reakon you’ll the ones who are missing out.

  • 62. confusedchristian  |  January 17, 2008 at 12:16 pm

    I’ve pretty much have someone telling me I’ve never been a Christian before because of my cognitive dissonance. I also see them getting offended when I say they let the bible think for them and not themselves. I think it’s quite frustrating when Christians get judgmental. I was also told that the knowledge that nothing is certain with the belief that God doesn’t exist is a contradiction but it’s because they simply do not understand how epistemology works. Rather annoying yet continues to prove to myself how dumb Christians can be. Not saying atheists aren’t stupid either, but man some Christians can be really stupid.

  • 63. TheDeeZone  |  January 17, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Slapdash,

    As I have said before I have dyslexia. I try to catch the spelling errors but sometimes it just happens.

    DH

  • 64. carriedthecross  |  January 17, 2008 at 1:27 pm

    “Rather annoying yet continues to prove to myself how dumb Christians can be. Not saying atheists aren’t stupid either, but man some Christians can be really stupid.”

    I try to remind myself that it is in many ways similar to a pathology. How do you deal with a cleptomaniac? You don’t blame him for the root of the problem. But you do correct the behavior.

    Much the same with Christians, many have been set in their beliefs for year, and it can seem very real. And part of the belief system is that everyone else is, by default, wrong. So even if they say and do asinine things, I try to remember that its the behavior that needs to be corrected. Only they can change their beliefs.

  • 65. bullet  |  January 17, 2008 at 5:52 pm

    I apologize if this has already been mentioned.

    RE: 2. Clashing theologies, clashing denominations

    Catholics are all saved. Protestants are crazy so who cares what happens to them. Since the Jews don’t believe that Jesus is the Messiah, they will suffer until he comes again to redeem them, but not for eternity.

    That’s the way I learned it. Never had a moment of doubt right up to the day that I decided that the whole mess was bullshit.

  • 66. LeoPardus  |  January 17, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    bullet:
    :)

    FWIW the EOC position on everyone else was, “We make no declaration about what God, in His mercy, may choose to do with others. We simply, humbly hold that we have the fullest revelation of the Faith given once for all, by Christ, to His apostles.”

    Nice; tame; not out to condemn anyone. Still BS in the end though.

  • 67. Jersey  |  January 17, 2008 at 9:22 pm

    Why can’t I believe in God? Anything that demands blind obedience or faith is not reality. Anything that relies on emotion rather than some form of logic is not reality. Telling me to believe or be damned to hell (or constant rebirth/reincarnation) is not reality. And saying anything of the lines “one size fits all” is not reality.

  • 68. Hmmmm  |  January 17, 2008 at 11:07 pm

    Jersey,

    I am not sure that you are necessarily correct in saying that anything that demands blind obedience or faith is not reality. To some extent, even believing in atheism demands huge elements of faith. In reality, we all live by faith in something. “Reality”, as we know it, is ultimately explained by humans who are resting their arguments on presuppositions. In the end we all individually choose which presupposition makes the most sense and it is usually that presupposition that shapes the rest of our belief system and the way we view the world. That, my friend, is faith.

    So the big question is “Why?” Why should I believe in Christianity over another belief system? Why should I view the world from as an Atheist? Why should I be Hindu? Why not Islam? Does anyone have an answer for this? Honestly, I have looked at all these different ways to live my life, and I have a hard time figuring out what the heck I should believe. I would jump the boat and simply be Christian or maybe I would be atheist, but why? What makes one better than the other? There is absolutely an element to faith in all of them, and really, there is an element of logic- at least in some form- to most of them. I don’t think the question is, “Why can’t I believe in God”, but “Why should I or why should I not believe in God and if I do, then what?” Can someone help me on this?

  • 69. confusedchristian  |  January 18, 2008 at 1:32 am

    Hmmmm, I would suggest to view the world as you. Not as a Christian, not as an atheist, but as to what makes the most sense to you and nobody else. In the end it’s just you by yourself having to sweat out the details. If you are comfortable with any belief system then keep it. If you think that your belief system is wrong then by all means change it. If you are unsure or confused about your belief system, then continue to explore and ask the tough questions until you are satisfied.

    All the best,
    CC

  • 70. choward  |  January 18, 2008 at 11:07 am

    Hmmmm,
    I know where you are coming from. If everything is based on basic presuppostions, how do we choose our presuppositions? I will have to say that certainly, from a logical standpoint, some presuppotions have to be right, and some wrong, since many are mutually exclusive. Is there a God or not? Is He this kind of god or that? Did he create the world or have no hand in it? Logically, one position must be right to the exclusion of all others…whether we have all the options is another matter. But, at least we can conclude that there is some kind of truth to pursue.

    So, we pursue it. We test presuppositions. They may not be “proveable,” but they certainly can be tested by experience and logic. What presuppostions best explain the available evidence? Take John’s comments about the anthropic principle and the origin of life…they certainly pose major problems to atheistic presuppositions. Take the problem of pain and suffering…it certainly tries the theistic presupposition (not all theistic views, but those that believe in a benevolent, loving God).

    Don’t ever stop testing and searching. 1Thessalonians 5:21 says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good.” (a little tidbit for all those who think the Bible asks for “blind” faith). These matters are extremely important. They determine how we view life and how we live. And, there is at least the possibility that they will determine our eternal fate…after all, if the majority of theists are right (which represents a majority of humanity), there is some kind of afterlife to look forward to. If there is no God…all’s well that ends well. But, if there is a God…what’s next?

    I appreciate your honesty.

  • 71. confusedchristian  |  January 18, 2008 at 11:30 am

    The only part I don’t really grasp is “If there is a God….” then you should be in a religion and all that.. I dont understand how “If there is a God” its time to surrender free thinking and engage in letting a religious text have all the answers or letting leadership do the thinking for you.

    It differs from Person to Person. The most fascinating thing about Religion is that I honestly can say that everyone has their own. Even if you are put in the same room with 10 southern baptists, no single person is a clone to another having the exact same belief system.

    I suppose this is why people can get so offended when you give them reasons why you think their belief system is wrong. It takes security from them, and it’s not pretty.

    IWe as humans have a tendency to be pack animals and “group think”, so its no suprise that when it comes to God we all start combining what we think about this God and saying God is like this or like that yet there’s no for sure way for me to really test it and know.

    I remember in the past seeing prayers answered across different religions and wodnering if demons were answering prayers and posing as a god too. I couldn’t understand how there was no difference between “proofs” and that everyone was so convinced.

    If anything I just need to take a really long break from the whole “If God exists” thing and be more like “If I’m accountable for everything I do in the here and now” – Just as an experiment.
    You never know.. life has it’s way of changing.

    People change.. all the time.. It’s not a surprise that decovnersion or even Re-conversion occurs in people, all supernaturalism aside.

  • 72. choward  |  January 18, 2008 at 7:12 pm

    CC-

    Just a quick answer to your question…
    If there is a God that made everything, then He made you.
    The next logical question is, why?
    Why did He make me? And what does He want from me?
    We don’t make and create for no purpose….and certainly the creation would answer to the Creator…even belong to the Creator. We expect no less from our copyright laws.

    Also, give the question you posed a try. Ask, “Am I accountable for my thoughts and actions?” That would be an interesting study. Let me know what you come up with because I have not really delved into that question from a logical standpoint.

  • 73. Hmmmm  |  January 19, 2008 at 10:48 pm

    Thank you guys for your input. I’ve been thinking about what I’ve read and have a couple more questions.

    What does it mean to “view the world as you”? What happens when people view the world with the ego in mind? This is one of the biggest challenges to me simply accepting atheism. It seems that our self-centered society has not improved itself a whole lot. (Has anyone tried to do something as simple as driving down the road? We are selfish people!)

    If I were to accept that there is a God, then there could possibly be given a reason for me to be other-person centered. I guess that would depend on which “God” was real and if he expected anything from me such that He would require or ask me to act in any certain way.

    So assuming that there is no God and everyone gets to choose their own way to view the world, what would that look like? I can’t help but think of that dreaded 9/11. (And please, let’s have some respect toward those who choose to believe in God even if that is not how we view the world.) In 9/11 those terrorists did what they thought was the most ethical moral heroic behavior. They thought that their actions would earn them virgins and riches in heaven. Of course, we who have been rocked by the tragedy of 9/11 don’t see that as a moral behavior, and it really doesn’t matter whether it was done in the name of religion or not.

    The point is that we who wish to be our own self and view the world as we choose it will come to odds with those who are doing the same thing when it infringes on our personal comfort or wants. But the worst part is that if God does not exist, then what is my basis to refute the behavior of that person who is simply doing the same thing that I am doing (Many religious people submit to their belief system because the want to. That is how they choose to view the world)- except it happens to cause me pain or discomfort? I guess it would boil down to the survival of the fittest. History has seen this played out in people like Hitler, Sadaam, and other tyrants. But then again, what’s the problem? They are being who they want to be, and at the end of the day when they have tested their own presuppositions, they accept and even desire the outcome, much to the dismay of those who suffer the painful consequences of that person’s actions which are deeply rooted in presupposition. Is anyone picking up what I am putting down? If “immoral behavior” (whatever that is) is OK to me, who is to say that I cannot do what I want to do when there is no Reality to help make boundaries for the choices I make? With this thought, I can see some help in being dedicated to some sort of religion. The instruction manual for determining right from wrong would certainly help bring clarity to the confusion of what is acceptable and what is not, as well as justify the reasoning for what we accept as right from wrong.

    And lets just say that one were to accept a God and that this God happened to be the only one God who gave us a purpose and helped establish some behavioral boundaries for us- more as a service so that we don’t destroy ourselves because he values us. I don’t think that it would necessarily mean that:

    Its time to surrender free thinking and engage in letting a religious text have all the answers or letting leadership do the thinking for you.

    What if that God were to create you and me with the ability to think freely and gave us a resource to help us along the way so that we can live a life that is beneficial and enjoyable?

    At the end of the day, even if that God tried to reveal himself to us, unless we met Him face to face, we would still have to accept his being as faith. And we would have to live understanding that we may not know his every thought.

    So I have to say that religion may not be that bad of a thing, I guess. Who knows? I think I need to go chill somewhere. This is some heavy stuff. Any thoughts anyone?

  • 74. Quester  |  January 19, 2008 at 11:42 pm

    So assuming that there is no God and everyone gets to choose their own way to view the world, what would that look like?

    Is there any reason to think that the world would look any different than it currently does? Philosophy, ethics and a reality that helps “make boundaries” for the choices you make all exist in the world as it currently is. If there is no God, they exist independent of God, and the world looks no different than it always has.

  • 75. Hmmmm  |  January 20, 2008 at 1:51 pm

    Quester,

    In a great sense we do live in a world where we see one’s philosophy and ethics existing independent of the idea of a God who gave us any such boundaries. There is also a majority of people, a large majority, that believe in a higher being that is directly tied to their moral and ethical system. The reality is that we live in a world that many/most people choose their own way to view the world…thus look at the the world and make some observations. There is some peace and harmony in some places, and there is a lot of discord and strife in many others. People do not always get along and many times it is because there are two opposing or conflicting worldview systems butting heads. The world is not necessarily getting better…it may not necessarily be getting worse. Philosophy is a realm that merely describes our presuppositions. Ethics has no justification in a belief system that does not include a Reason for ethics. If there is no being that is greater than me to define my choices as either right or wrong, then who are you and who is anyone to tell me whether I am right or wrong?Thus, atheistic reasoning for ethics and morality spirals in the sense that it always comes down to what a group or individual thinks is right or wrong. What does that look like? Survival of the fittest. The bigger/louder voice wins. But what justifies that voice? I’m not even saying that there is a God, but if a God does not exist or some sort of Reason that brings accountability and justification for our actions, then why is there morality and how did it ever come to exist? To tell me something is right or wrong is meaningless if there is no standard greater than a human. I don’t really care what you think is right or wrong. It is irrelevant to what I think is right or wrong because in my world, I am deciding what I think is good…and it just happens that I did not think of you when I made that decision. Do you see what I am saying?

  • 76. choward  |  January 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm

    Hmmmm,
    Very good point, regarding morality. If there is no God, where did morality come from? If there is no God, why accept any form of morality over another? What right would we have to condemn anyone? And, yet, we do. Every civilization throughout all time has set similar moral limits…and why? Where did their limits come from, and why choose those over any other? But, if there is a God who, as you mentioned, is looking out for us, and trying to help us, then it makes sense that there would be some sort of morality.

    And the current state of affairs says nothing about whether this morality is or is not from God…it only tells us that many people reject morality, make up their own morality, or don’t always act according to their morality. Think about it. If everyone adhered to the basics, put others before self, then we would have a wonderful world. This says a lot about the merits of morality (and the God who made it, if there is a God who made it). Think about it some more…our problems are caused by people who do not adhere to this morality. Therefore, the state of our world says nothing about whether or not there is a God (at least not from this angle), but only tells us about people and their choices.

    Good thoughts on this. I know exactly what you are saying. Why should I feel wronged when someone does something to me if there is no God who gave us morality? My judgment of right and wrong becomes arbitrary.

  • 77. Rachel  |  January 21, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    confusedchristian:

    You bring up some really great points. I’m just wondering where the idea that God is “unchanging” came from. I can’t recall hearing that at all in any theology class or church homily that I’ve slept through. :)

    Just wondering!

    — Rachel

  • 78. karen  |  January 21, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    I’m just wondering where the idea that God is “unchanging” came from.

    “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.” Hebrews 13:8

    If there is no God, where did morality come from? If there is no God, why accept any form of morality over another?

    There are many, many theories about where morality comes from, absent an all-powerful deity who handed it down from the mountaintop. Check out Wikipedia’s take on secular sources of morality. That’s just a start. There’s been a ton written about this topic.

    In other words, you don’t have to have god to be good.

  • 79. kerrin  |  January 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm

    CC,

    what happened to your blog? everything all right?

  • 80. Hmmmm  |  January 22, 2008 at 1:16 am

    Thanks Karen,

    I understand what you are saying. This has been a primary thought among my many thoughts these days. I absolutely agree with you. You don’t have to have god to be good…in a sense that goodness is not contingent on personal belief. The greater disturbance I am having is justice and accountability in goodness in the absence of God…or maybe not necessarily” God”, but something greater than human. There is nothing to define right from wrong in a meaningful way other than the survival of the fittest. A history teacher of mine quoted Hitler who once said that if you tell a lie loud enough and long enough people will begin to believe it. (I am not the smartest person in the world, so if this is the wrong person who said this and I am attributing this quote to the wrong source, please correct me…I am just quoting a history teacher of mine and trusting that he gave credit to whom credit is due) Anyway, the point is that I am not so sure that I am willing to bet my life on people as the highest authority. This is a huge struggle I have right now. We get it wrong too often, and the worst part is that it our wrong is committed in the form of “goodness”. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor. Osama & Obama think the same. So does Sadaam. So does Hilary Clinton. So does Huckabee. So does Ron Paul. So does President Bush. So does your mom. But on their best days none of them are good enough for me to bet my life on. And depending on your personal views on each of the above mentioned, you may want to think again to entrusting yourself to the leaders that this world have esteemed or currently favor. It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you are. Man cannot define morality by measuring himself/herself. Your opinion based on presupposition will be different than John Doe’s opinion which is based on presupposition. Take a look at the Wikipedia site you referred me to and study the rationale:

    A few possible axioms in morality are:

    Every person has their own feelings and desires, and they are more or less similar since they are based on the same brain chemistry.
    When I look inward to my own desires, I fundamentally desire to pursue happiness and avoid pain and suffering.
    Other people have these same basic desires, and these desires are valuable to them.
    With all else being equal, it is better for people to be happy than not be happy.
    Conflicts arise mainly because people’s desire to be happy and avoid suffering conflict with each other. The goal of secular morality is to resolve those conflicts in the best possible way for all concerned.

    These are all less than weak in explanation.

    One quick question that popped in my mind is, “What does it mean to be good or happy? or What is true suffering/pain? Can suffering/pain be good?

    My favorite axiom of all that were mentioned is the last. It is painfully obvious that the natural consequence of that axiom is survival of the fittest. Who do you determine is worthy to live and what world view survives? Hitler believed that the Arian race was supreme. He was merely living out what it looks like when one resolves a conflict in the best possible way for all concerned. “All concerned” in this context boiled down to “All concerned who have the resources and power to dominate (and sometimes destroy) the life of the one whose opinion is different than mine and whose lifestyle does not mix with mine.”

    Taking a higher standard than human out of the equation in morality has created a big problem for those who do not want to submit to such a being. I am interested to see how arguments develop in this area. There is no consistency in morality without a higher being. It is like having a ruler that stretches or shrinks every time it is used.

  • 81. Hmmmm  |  January 22, 2008 at 1:18 am

    Clarification:
    You don’t have to have god to be good…in a sense that goodness is not contingent on personal belief.

    I mean that one’s personal belief in whether or not God exists is independent in the reality of the ability for good to be accomplished.

  • 82. thinkdeep  |  January 22, 2008 at 8:54 am

    Well, a book could be written, and many have so I’ll just comment on one item, #8.
    God’s existence can not be proven. You are correct. It also can not be disproved.
    Some times I wonder, if God exists, if maybe God is like the CIA. He operates on the concept of “Plausible Deniability”. All that “free will” stuff. ;^)

  • 83. cawoodm  |  January 22, 2008 at 10:50 am

    Whatup with CC? Been lifted?

  • 84. choward  |  January 22, 2008 at 11:25 am

    Karen,

    Certainly some kind of morality (regulation of behavior) could exist independent of God…I suppose we’d have to admit to that. But, the point is, as Hmmmm has pointed out, how do you choose a morality if there is no God? If we are all the products of chance, natural forces, however you want to look at it, then, as Hmmmm has put it, survival of the fittest would be the moral law. And, if that is true, then, essentially, each individual can make their own morality based on their survival and that of their progeny. And, if that is true, then how can we make judgments regarding someone else’s morality? I would have no right to judge someone or some action as good or evil because their actions would be based on their morality, which can neither be right or wrong.

    Here’s what the problem comes down to: in order to determine good and bad we must have a standard. If there is no standard, then all judgments in these matters are subjective and arbitrary. But, if there is an objective standard, then we have reason to make judgments regarding good and bad.

    If there is no God, then the standard is developed by individuals or societies (as your resources regarding the origin of morality claim). If it is developed by people, then why should I accept one standard over another? What right do I have to judge another’s standard? Who’s to say that Hitler was wrong for adopting his moral standard?

    And, yet, we object to Hitler’s actions. You could say it is because of the moral standard of our society, but that still doesn’t make it logical or reasonable. Why is your standard the basis of judgment and not his? There is no proper way to make such a choice without a universal standard.

    But, atheists and theists make these judgments all the time. Even those who deny a universal standard operate as if there is one. If there is no universal standard then those who deny it but act like it are being illogical and unreasonable. If there is a universal standard, then we have to ask where it came from. If you admit it, but say it came from society (people) or nature, then how are we to determine if it is the standard, and how are we to determine that it is good or right? Only when we entertain the idea that the standard exists because of some Higher Being do any judgments of right or wrong, good or evil make any logical sense.

  • 85. karen  |  January 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Hmmm, I empathize with your struggle. It is no doubt comforting to believe that there’s some divine entity by which we measure morality and who exists to mete out cosmic justice in another life where the good are rewarded and the evil get their comeuppance.

    You may well feel differently, but I cannot believe in something just because it is comforting or because it “feels right” to my own sense of justice. I cannot base all kinds of supernatural beliefs on such a flimsy foundation.

    Choward: I disagree with your statement that judgments of right and wrong must come from the standards of a higher being. I don’t think we need the supernatural in order to understand why we have an innate sense of how we can all thrive if we treat each other with respect.

    Morality (as best as I understand it and my understanding is very provisional) developed out of the tendency of our mammalian ancestors to bond with their kin through affection. This led them to develop empathy through their highly developed brains. We have something called “mirror neurons” that allow us to feel emotional pain when we see someone else suffering. This is well-documented not only in human beings but in many other mammals, including in a recent rodent study.

    Combine empathy with the human and primate tendency to form social groups that share common DNA and you have the inklings of moral societies that evolve rules and taboos. If a member of the group breaks the rules or commits a taboo, such as murdering a clan member, that person may be driven off to a certain lonely death by others who had emotional bonds with the victim, shared his DNA or felt empathy watching him suffer. This example strongly impacts the other group members, who are less likely to murder because their brains are developed enough to link cause and effect and imagine their own future censure if they let their tempers get the best of them.

    Over time (we’re not talking just a few generations, we’re talking about over the scope of human development) the clans who have developed a primitive morality thrive and spread, at least in part because they aren’t killing each other all the time! As those groups become more successful and more established, their taboo “thou shalt not murder” becomes codified in religious theology and government legislation.

    Just because we see morality codified in religious tradition does not mean that humans didn’t recognize that murder was bad long before Cain and Abel. If society understood murder was evil before god condemned it in Genesis, where did that morality come from? Many evolutionary biologists propose that morality arose naturally over time along with human evolution and social development. I find their explanations more plausible than the “god did it” explanation I bought as a Christian.

  • 86. Hmmmm  |  January 22, 2008 at 7:55 pm

    Karen,

    That was somewhat insightful. But I am not sure that I completely understand. Everything you mentioned is based on theory and more important, presupposition. Development of morality over time certainly takes greater faith to believe than the simplicity of “god did it.” Also, it is incorrect to equate emotional pain/suffering with morality. Pain is amoral, but is often cause by immoral behavior. Pain can actually be good sometimes. I.E. when I place my hand on a hot stove. Pain tells me to move it. Suffering is not necessarily bad either. People who train for a marathon suffer, but those who suffer and endure their training will benefit from their suffering when they run the race.

    If a member of the group breaks the rules or commits a taboo, such as murdering a clan member, that person may be driven off to a certain lonely death by others who had emotional bonds with the victim

    This is clearly survival of the fittest: I.e Hitlar is a great example why this doesn’t work.

    The aid of Religion/God providing a basis for morality is much more than comforting and provides a much more stable basis to explain morality and justify morality and provide accountability for morality. It is clearly based on presupposition: faith. But as you have explained to me such a grande idea involving evolution and survival of the fittest, and theory about what is more or less “learned behavior” patterns in response to pain/suffering, I now see a world view based on incredible presupposition which takes an extraordinary amount of faith to believe. In fact, it is so amazing to me that it almost makes me lean more toward the very idea that there is a God or something that must justify the morality that we cannot escape. Natural science doesn’t seem to solve the problem, it seems that it creates a more glaring picture of great faith.

    Just because we see morality codified in religious tradition does not mean that humans didn’t recognize that murder was bad long before Cain and Abel. If society understood murder was evil before god condemned it in Genesis, where did that morality come from?

    Actually, that is so interesting that you brought that up because I totally agree. What a great point! I have this friend that I asked that question to once and he provided me with an interesting answer. He was a Christian though, but His response was nonetheless interesting or at least entertaining. I remember him explaining his view (again, faith based on a presupposition of God). He referred me to Romans 1 and then explained about people being made in the “image of God” in Genesis 1. He said that means we would take on a lot of His characteristics and act in many ways as God does. Basically my friend said that morality in a nutshell love. Love God and love people. When you don’t, then that is immoral. But then again, this would require an element of faith to believe. But there seems to be structure, reason, purpose, accountability and justice for morality. None of the former are provided in Natural Selection. We all have to admit that. So is that really a flimsy foundation? It’s based on faith, but there is an element of reason to it. Natural Selection is not based on reason, provides no justice or universal standard (well put Choward). Natural selection is at the heart of what Hitler based his actions on. It doesn’t work. Natural selection leads to death in many ways.

  • 87. HeIsSailing  |  January 23, 2008 at 12:19 am

    CHoward says:

    If there is a universal standard, then we have to ask where it came from. If you admit it, but say it came from society (people) or nature, then how are we to determine if it is the standard, and how are we to determine that it is good or right?

    CHoward, Hmmmmmm… anyone else interested,

    See http://de-conversion.com/2008/01/25/there-is-no-universal-standard-of-morality/

    Well, that’s my lousy opinion anyway. Hope that helps.

  • 88. Quester  |  January 23, 2008 at 1:37 am

    Hmmm and Choward,

    You both seem to be expressing the thought that if there is a god, and thus a source for a universal morality, then we have a right to make value judgements over conflicting moralities. If not, the only other option is social darwinism, with all its faults.

    This presumes that the divine source of universal morality has revealed that morality clearly and in a way that can not be mistaken, which is clearly not the case.

    This week, my town is celebrating the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity. This year marks the one hundredth anniversary of this week of prayer. Sadly, after one hundred years of dedicated prayer, Christians still argue over what god has revealed to be proper, moral and righteous. And when we include non-Christian religions who feel they have received a clear revelation from a divine source of universal morality, things get even more muddled and your image of a social darwinist approach to morality where the loudest voice wins appears to be the goal of the theists- each depending on their god to give them the loudest voice.

    But let us set god to the side for a moment, along with evolution, since that seems to be a red herring in this search for universal morality.

    Hmmmm, you described as morality, in a nutshell, as loving God and loving people. If we take God out of the nutshell, we are left with ‘love people’. It can be hard to define a word like ‘love’, but if we define it as ‘treating others as you would like others to treat you’, we may indeed be approaching a universal principle of morality that does not require a god to derive.

    Simply speaking, a creature can be considered to have some level of intelligence when it shows itself capable of learning what can benefit itself, what can hurt itself, and begin to seek the former and avoid the latter.

    A creature can, arguably, be considered to be sapient when it can apply the above education onto others, and realize that they, too, would seek to benefit itself and avoid harm.

    So far, so good.

    I argue that a creature can be considered moral when it has reached the levels of intelligence and sapience described above, then goes further to treat others as it would like to be treated.

    And thus, in issues such as slavery and personhood of women, for examples, instead of going to a set of scriptures written for a certain culture to help it define itself in contrast to other cultures around it (to list one purpose), we look instead at how we would feel if we were denied personhood for any reasons.

    Yes, there are mental disorders that keep even an ethic of reciprocity from being a universal guideline, but advances in psychology help us reduce that issue.

    We do not need an external source for morality, let alone a divine or supernatural one. All we need is to know what can help or hurt us, the ability to generalize this knowledge to the point that we understand others may seek to have or avoid these same things, and the will to treat another in such a way you would wish for them to treat you.

  • 89. karen  |  January 23, 2008 at 3:00 pm

    Everything you mentioned is based on theory and more important, presupposition. Development of morality over time certainly takes greater faith to believe than the simplicity of “god did it.”

    Says you. ;-) For my part, it’s much easier to accept that morality developed alongside of and as a necessary element to successful cultures than it is to believe in an all-powerful being who lives up in the sky and used to communicate with people but for some reason is in hiding right now.

    And yes, my theory is indeed theory. I don’t hold to it with any kind of iron-clad “faith” and I’m perfectly willing to be persuaded otherwise if new evidence comes in from the folks who study this kind of thing. And I agree with HIS that morality is not a universal and it’s developed with different priorities in different cultures.

    Still, I think in our modern world we can probably get a majority to agree on a basic standard of morality, like “do unto others” (which did not originate with Jesus, btw) or the humanist philosophy of “reason and compassion.”

    The aid of Religion/God providing a basis for morality is much more than comforting and provides a much more stable basis to explain morality and justify morality and provide accountability for morality.

    Yes, but comfort and stability is not a reason to believe something, for me. Just because an idea makes me feel good doesn’t mean it’s true. I require more than that. If I didn’t, I’d believe all kinds of crazy nonsense that “feels good” but can’t be proven to any satisfaction.

    In terms of your equating natural selection (a biological evolutionary process) with Hitler’s campaign of genocide, you’re completely off base. Hitler’s insane ideas about eugenics have long ago been completely repudiated by reasonable people. Besides, Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist.

  • 90. TheDeeZone  |  January 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

    CC,

    What happened to your blog?

    DH

  • 91. Hmmmm  |  January 24, 2008 at 12:40 am

    Karen,

    In terms of your equating natural selection (a biological evolutionary process) with Hitler’s campaign of genocide, you’re completely off base. Hitler’s insane ideas about eugenics have long ago been completely repudiated by reasonable people. Besides, Hitler was a Catholic, not an atheist:

    You miss the point completely. How about this? Hitler wasn’t wrong. Hitler was morally just and pure in what he did. Is that a correct statement? Besides who were the reasonable people? Try Winston Churchill and a western-minded civilization (America) built on Biblical principles. (I am in NO way saying America was ever “Christian”, but History without a doubt suggests that our founding fathers held high esteem for the Bible)

    You wrote:
    Still, I think in our modern world we can probably get a majority to agree on a basic standard of morality

    You wrote exactly what Hitler believed. It makes no difference whether he was catholic or atheistic or whatever. That was never the point intended. The point is that humanism based on atheism has no way to refute that Hitler was wrong. There is no consistent standard to hold Hitler accountable to. Do you get it? How in the world can you say he is “insane”? If there is nothing to define sanity or morality then your statements about Hitler are meaningless because who are you to impose your beliefs on Hitler? Or me or anyone else? (**By the way, this is all rhetorical and not my personal beliefs, but I am pointing out the huge problem that atheism cannot address**)
    Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau’s ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the “Aryan race”—guided by “Providence”—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. That is natural selection. It turns out that I wasn’t ‘off base” in my comments.

    Yes, but comfort and stability is not a reason to believe something, for me. Just because an idea makes me feel good doesn’t mean it’s true:

    I agree and live by what you say on that one. You miss the point that the faith that one lives by is just as great, if not much greater than one who gives credit to a higher being for morality. Everything you pointed out is based on your presuppositions. You, my friend, live by faith. And going back to some of my very first comments on this blog, what makes your faith better than anyone else’s?

  • 92. karen  |  January 24, 2008 at 3:23 am

    You miss the point completely. How about this? Hitler wasn’t wrong. Hitler was morally just and pure in what he did. Is that a correct statement?

    It doesn’t take biblical principles to understand that genocide is wrong. If we live by basic standards like “don’t do anything to someone that you wouldn’t want them to do to you” then mass murder, bigotry and banishment are off-limits.

    Really, c’mon. It doesn’t take a genius to get this. I’m starting to think that you’re being deliberately obtuse because you can’t find any way to legitimately press your point.

    The point is that humanism based on atheism has no way to refute that Hitler was wrong. There is no consistent standard to hold Hitler accountable to. Do you get it? How in the world can you say he is “insane”? If there is nothing to define sanity or morality then your statements about Hitler are meaningless because who are you to impose your beliefs on Hitler? Or me or anyone else?

    Yes, I get it because I heard it a thousand times myself. It’s a common (and cheap) Christian talking point that tries to prove that without god there’s no standard for goodness.

    But that’s just nonsense, and if you think about it you’ll “get it” yourself. Many philosophies do not include god – Buddhism, for example. And yet they are able to define good and bad perfectly well, just as humanism is able to. There are standards for behavior that govern humanists without any belief in the supernatural, just as there are standards for religionists who do believe in god.

    The god-belief part of it doesn’t make one bit of difference in the validity of the moral code and it also doesn’t make one bit of difference in whether people follow that moral code or not. In fact, studies have been done that show fundamentalist religious people are MORE likely to be in prison than non-religious people are.

    Hitler believed in Arthur de Gobineau’s ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the “Aryan race”—guided by “Providence”—was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization. That is natural selection. It turns out that I wasn’t ‘off base” in my comments.

    No, that is not natural selection and if you think eugenics is equal to natural selection you don’t understand either one. Eugenics is a sick and twisted idea – long ago repudiated – that takes its cue from natural selection but has nothing to do with the theory, which simply posits an explanation for how organisms evolve.

    You, my friend, live by faith.

    I don’t hold to anything on faith alone, especially not fairy stories about invisible supermen up in the clouds.

  • 93. Quester  |  January 24, 2008 at 3:46 am

    If there is nothing to define sanity or morality then your statements about Hitler are meaningless because who are you to impose your beliefs on Hitler? Or me or anyone else? (**By the way, this is all rhetorical and not my personal beliefs, but I am pointing out the huge problem that atheism cannot address**)

    I can’t see why atheism can’t address this. I can’t see why a standard for morality and sanity have to be externally defined, let alone by a divine arbitrator. You did not respond to my post above, Hmmm, about the common sense approach of “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you” as Socrates said somewhere around five hundred years before Jesus of Nazareth was born. It’s a simple principle, though philosophers and psychologists can argue about specific applications. It does not require a god, an evolution of morality, nor an ability to shout down differing viewpoints. I can’t see any point of western law or ethics that some may claim to be biblical that can’t be naturally derived from this principle.

  • 94. Hmmmm  |  January 24, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Karen,

    You live by faith. The way you interpret the world is based ultimately on your presuppositions. In the end you live by faith. Your faith is no better than anyone else’s. I agree that it doesn’t take a genius to prove that Hitler was wrong, but in the end the faith you live by is defining what you believe is right or wrong. Your standard for right and wrong is a lot different than other people’s standard, as well is mine. Hitler thought that he was doing moral good; not only did he, but so also did the multitude that followed him. Osama thought he was doing moral good (and he still does) and so did those people who crashed into the towers. In the most sincere part of their heart they believed that they were doing good. The way they define morality, like you, is based on presupposition. If you do not believe that morality is related to your presuppositions in life, you do not know reality and are in denial. I do not know why it is so hard for so many people to recognize that. It is simply living in denial if you do not believe that. It has nothing to do with being obtuse, but a simple question to help people understand that there are serious problems because people live their life by different presuppositions. People all live by faith and when one’s faith interferes with another’s then there will be conflict, sometimes minor while others catastrophic.

    And just food for thought…Humanism is a recognized religion by the US government. Humanist institutions have non-profit status and are self-acclaimed religions. I would be happy to provide you with literature printed by different leading Secular Humanists to support this. Also, there are several universities (probably a majority) that have humanist chaplains. The military has humanist chaplains. If that does not sound like religion, I don’t know what does. Feel free to Google “Humanism, religion”…you’ll figure it out.

    Quester: atheism does indeed address the point you made. It has a way to answer the moral dilemmas we face. But what makes anyone think that way is superior to another belief system that answers moral dilemmas? This has been my original struggle that I had been dealing with.

    Also, I like your point, “Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you”. But then again, that’s something you choose to live by but who are you to push your beliefs on another? You live by that because you believe in something that is based on presupposition. There is ultimately something that cannot be proven- and the way that you use science and factual evidence can be used to support your ideas in the way you want them. On the flip side of the coin, other people can use any data set you come up with to help support the way they interpret the world to be. Does that make sense?

  • 95. Quester  |  January 24, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    Actually, Hmmm, no. It doesn’t make sense. My presupposition is that others want to be treated as I do. In the actual act of application, this presupposition should not be taken on faith, but should be tested. If I liked strawberry ice cream and therefore gave you some, you could respond by saying that you did not like strawberry ice cream. I would then have new information to return to my moral standard and realize that I would not like others deciding for me what I would and would not like, and next time should ask. You could say that I’m taking it on faith that others are telling me the truth, that I can understand what they are expressing, that any of us know how we want to be treated, or that any of us even exist, but all of that can be tested, if not proven one hundred percent beyond a shadow of a doubt. It can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Entire schools of thought, including anthropology, sociology and psychology, study, among other things, what it means to be human. As we learn more in these fields, we are better able to use this common sense principle of treating others as we wish to be treated. No faith is necessary. No beliefs are required. Everything can be tested, then looked at again in the light of the results of those tests. More than that, everything should be tested, and looked at in the light of the results of those tests, lest we all end up stuck with strawberry ice cream.

    This isn’t just something I choose to live by. It is the base minimum required for anything to be described as ‘moral’.

    If you can use any of the premises I’ve listed in a way that supports any other viewpoint more than it does the one I’ve described, feel free. Don’t just tell me it can be done. Show me.

  • 96. Quester  |  January 24, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    As a side point, an interesting completely fictional novel about the development of morality in an artificial intelligence that I’ve read recently is The Two Faces of Tomorrow by James P. Hogan. It doesn’t prove anything, but I found it to be quite an enjoyable read.

  • 97. karen  |  January 24, 2008 at 4:51 pm

    You live by faith.

    I’ve already disagreed with you, Hmmm. But apparently you’ve decided that you know me and my motivations better than I know myself. You’re telling me what you KNOW about me after a few minutes of reading my posts. You’re not asking me what my motivations are, or why I disagree with you about faith, so apparently you’ve got me all figured out.

    Why should I bother discussing this with you then? You don’t want to hear my perspective, apparently, you just want to draw your own conclusions and keep your mind shut on the issue. Go right ahead.

  • 98. Michelle  |  January 25, 2008 at 2:07 am

    CC:

    Where are you? I hope everything’s OK – been trying to find you for days.

    Michelle

  • 99. The Bible does not contain a guideline of moral absolutes  |  January 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

    [...] January 25, 2008 (The following entry was originally posted as a comment #87 on 8 Reasons why I no longer believe) [...]

  • 100. Mark  |  February 6, 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Artistic misfit:
    You don’t have to become apostate and forsake your commitment. A Christian is someone who is committed to following Jesus in the way of peace and love. You don’t have to believe in things that don’t make sense to do that. Christian communities exist to nurture those who have answered the call to follow Jesus in the way of peace and love. Followers of Christ need that kind of encouragement, not because their commitment require them to believe in ridiculous things, but because the way of peace and love is the hard and narrow way–there is so much pressure to go the other way and one gets weary.

    Because the community of believers is important, you have two choices when faced with rituals, beliefs, or practices you cannot understand. You can silently and respectfully allow others to believe and practice what is meaningful to them–you can even participate to the extent your conscience allows.

    But if the beliefs and practices of the community are not only mysterious but harmful, then you have to become a reformer, and challenge your fellow believers to rethink their beliefs and examine their practice.

  • 101. artisticmisfit  |  February 6, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    Mark, I am a reformer, and I think I became one early on. Its really important I maintain my decorum. I am being stalked on the internet and have to be extremely discreet. I am not keeping secrets, but I also want to honor those relationships I have which are important to me, which means for me keeping quiet. Anyways, I am glad for this blog. I feel safer commenting on other people’s blogs, then leaving mine open to the public.

  • 102. karen  |  February 6, 2008 at 9:45 pm

    Who is stalking you? People from your church, or what? That sounds really frightening.

  • 103. artisticmisfit  |  February 6, 2008 at 9:53 pm

    karen, people from outside my church, people who are anti-church. It is frightening. They have done things to me in my real life and I can’t talk too much about it in public because that will give away my real identity. I don’t know the identity of all of my stalkers, but I do know the identity of some of them, I could point them out to you. One of them may be here on wordpress, writing on another blog, so I need to be careful here too.

  • 104. TheDeeZone  |  February 6, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    Artistic,
    That is scarry.

    DH

  • 105. artisticmisfit  |  February 6, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    TheDeeZone, yes it is, and if I told you what they did to me, you would be even more scared. Yesterday someone threatened to out me from under another pen name in another network as well. In some ways it easier to write in my name because then I don’t have to go through all this nonsense. Anyways, if you like, I can comment on your blog and then you can email me and then I can add you to my blog or we can correspond, in personal confidence.

  • 106. TheDeeZone  |  February 7, 2008 at 4:52 pm

    Artisticmisfit,

    Your welcome to comment on my blog. Sorry that you are having such a rough time.

    DH

  • 107. artisticmisfit  |  February 7, 2008 at 5:59 pm

    TheDeeZone, thanks. Does anyone here read Glory to God for all Things? I need to pray again for protection from danger. I thought I was out of danger. This is absolutely insane. I don’t know why I am under attack again. This is scary. I am sick and tired of it.

  • 108. karen  |  February 7, 2008 at 6:13 pm

    I’m sorry for your difficulties also, art.

  • 109. artisticmisfit  |  February 7, 2008 at 7:04 pm

    Thank you karen. I appreciate the support on this blog.

  • 110. cj  |  May 9, 2008 at 6:56 am

    you’re an evil not to believe in God!..

  • 111. cj  |  May 9, 2008 at 6:59 am

    What will you lose if you lose God?
    …….you probably say you will lose a lot..& God will lose NOTHING!

  • 112. cj  |  May 9, 2008 at 7:00 am

    What will you lose if you lose God?
    …….you probably say you will lose a lot..& God will lose NOTHING!
    So why does God send His son 2 save U and do all things 4U? He seems so afraid to lose U, right?!..

  • 113. The Apostate  |  May 9, 2008 at 10:28 am

    “you’re an evil not to believe in God!..”

    ack! me an evil!

  • 114. guest  |  December 16, 2008 at 2:07 am

    I would encourage the author to ask himself where the reasoning he appeals to (i.e. the laws of logic) comes from.

    “Now, in fact, I feel that the whole of history and civilization would be unintelligible to me if it were not for my belief in God. So true is this, that I propose to argue that unless God is back of everything, you cannot find meaning in anything. I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted. Arguing about God’s existence, I hold, is like arguing about air. You may affirm that air exists, and I that it does not. But as we debate the point, we are both breathing air all the time. Or to use another illustration, God is like the emplacement on which must stand the very guns that are supposed to shoot Him out of existence.”

    http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html

  • 115. guest  |  December 16, 2008 at 2:15 am

    #67:

    See the Bahsen-Stein debate, here: http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/

  • 116. Quester  |  December 16, 2008 at 2:52 am

    I would encourage the author to ask himself where the reasoning he appeals to (i.e. the laws of logic) comes from.

    Well, guest, start with the premise, “a=a” or “that which is, is” and when you find a ‘law of logic’ that can’t be derived from that premise, come back and we’ll talk some more.

  • 117. sheeplewatcher  |  December 16, 2008 at 4:00 am

    The movie on the right at zeitgeistmovie.com clearly explains the myths that have eminated from the old book of Jewish fairy tales aka the bible. Most of which have been “borrowed” from Egyptian lore. L2read, its the sun they refer to…the sun can walk on water, turn water to wine, watch over you all day and it has almost all of the other attributes of the imaginary “son”. But admitting that you worship the sun, something almost all life can not exist without, is just too simple for the social controlled/brainwashed goo that pack special buildings on sundays to listen to misinterpretations of a book that was written too long ago. I have faith, faith the sun will come up again in the morning and warm the earth.

  • 118. EndTimer  |  December 16, 2008 at 4:29 am

    OK, I can only read so much without needing to reply, so here it is. Someone was equivocating an argument from ignorance (“There is no proof, therefor there is no god.”) to the logical, well-reasoned position of “There is no evidence, therefore I don’t believe in a god.” The difference is in the falsification. An argument from ignorance seeks to establish a concrete fact, CC was merely taking a logical path and stating his belief based on the lack of evidence. Belief and fact are two entirely distinct beasts.

    For instance, let’s say pink unicorns inhabit the darkside of the moon, but always hide in craters to avoid being seen by us. Is it possible, in some limited, highly unlikely, ridiculous capacity? Yes. Do I believe it? No. I would only believe it if sufficient evidence was presented for it. It’d be absurd to believe everything until it was proven true or untrue.

    On a related note, some one tried calling a lack of belief in something being equal to a belief in the negative a truism. This is not the case, because one asserts a belief, the other is akin to saying “jury’s out.” That’s the simplest way I can put it. Saying you don’t believe in pink unicorns is not akin to saying you believe they couldn’t exist somewhere, it’s saying you haven’t been given sufficient reason to believe they do. Compare the longer ways of saying the statements you want to equivocate: “I do not believe in a god as I have not yet seen evidence to my satisfaction that one exists,” to “I have seen the evidence provided up to this point, and I believe it demonstrates there is no god.” Quite a bit different, eh?

    Now I’ll go back to reading the thread. And best wishes, CC, new doubters, and Christians alike, from yet another atheist.

  • 119. Peter  |  December 16, 2008 at 10:18 am

    Baby/bathwater. Any given religion being false or partially false does not invalidate there being a God.

  • 120. BigHouse  |  December 16, 2008 at 10:27 am

    Baby/bathwater. Any given religion being false or partially false does not invalidate there being a God.

    Correct. But then, how do you know God? Do what he wants?

  • 121. TitforTat  |  December 16, 2008 at 10:31 am

    Correct. But then, how do you know God? Do what he wants?

    I wonder, do you have to “know” it to believe that its possible and also highly likely that there was a creative starting point. Why does a belief in a creator have to mean its religious in form?

  • 122. LeoPardus  |  December 16, 2008 at 11:18 am

    The guest in posts 114 and 115 provides with a link to (I can hardly believe it) apologetics by Van Til !!!!!!!!!!!!!! It staggers me that anyone can read or listen to that nit and think he’s anything but deranged.

    My FAVORITE Van Til quote…….. After constructing a blatantly circular argument for the existence of God, Howie then says, “Some will point out that this is a circular argument, but that’s OK because I’m circling around God.” :D :D :0

  • 123. SnugglyBuffalo  |  December 16, 2008 at 11:40 am

    While I don’t believe the current evidence disproves the existence of a god, it certainly seems to disprove the idea of a god interested in our personal lives beyond the effects of random chance.

    Such a god is a baby I don’t mind throwing out with the bathwater.

  • 124. BigHouse  |  December 16, 2008 at 12:11 pm

    Well stated, Snuggly.

    I find that those that wish to parse ‘religion’ from ‘God’ have a tall order to follow up on: So, now what?

  • 125. a passer by  |  December 16, 2008 at 12:36 pm

    there’s alot of good points here.

    as a believer i find it hard to separate who’s right and wrong.

    one thing i do know though is NOBODY has it right. we are all as clueless as the next person.

    at least it makes me feel a little better about myself.

  • 126. LeoPardus  |  December 16, 2008 at 12:45 pm

    Hells bells, I just looked again at the paragraph in post 114. Van Til is arguing in circles just within that short passage!

    I cannot even argue for belief in Him, without already having taken Him for granted. And similarly I contend that you cannot argue against belief in Him unless you also first take Him for granted.

    Methinks it’s all he knows how to do. As Bugs Bunny would say, “What a maroon!”

  • 127. Quester  |  December 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    TforT,

    Why does a belief in a creator have to mean its religious in form?

    It doesn’t. What you’re describing is called Deism. You can’t disprove a belief like that, nor prove it, and it’s hard to get excited about in either case. I find myself drifting between Deism, Pantheism, Panentheism and Atheism myself, some days.

  • 128. Jeffrey  |  December 16, 2008 at 1:46 pm

    I would encourage the author to ask himself where the reasoning he appeals to (i.e. the laws of logic) comes from.

    Rather like the moral/meaning/cosmological/design arguments, this just puts the unknown in box labeled “God” without answering any of the questions.

    Where does God get his sense of reasoning? If it doesn’t come from himself, then I would like God to answer the argument from reason for the existence of God 2 who gave God 1 his sense of reason. If God’s reason comes from God, then it isn’t reason – it is merely a set of statements that God thinks, and anything goes (and any answer to this also validates godless ideas of reason). If God thinks circular reasoning is stellar reasoning then it is – which would explain a lot actually.

  • 129. LeoPardus  |  December 16, 2008 at 2:56 pm

    If God thinks circular reasoning is stellar reasoning then it is – which would explain a lot actually.

    LOL! :D

  • 130. Richard  |  December 16, 2008 at 5:03 pm

    Its also worth noting that the whole point of presuppositionalist apologetics is to attempt to sidestep issues of evidence and argumentation. Hence their analogies like the one given in #114, about “God” being like air: to even argue against God is to assume God, just like to (speak) an argument against air is to assume air.

    The problem with this, though, is that just because something is asserted to be a presupposition to something else does not mean that it is. In other words, one can claim false presuppositions.

    For example, contrast the (spoken) claims: “all spoken arguments presuppose air” with “all spoken arguments presuppose microscopic armadillos.”

    In other words, regardless of what you claim to be a presupposition, you still need a separate, independent argument for it. Claiming “PS” does not give you a free pass.

    So, PS’ers will have to show *how* arguing against the existence of God allegedly “takes him for granted”, not just that it does.

  • 131. Josh  |  December 17, 2008 at 1:39 pm

    Regarding the trinity not making sense, I remember when the passage in John that says (from bad memory):

    “No one has seen God, the very true God, who dwells in the bosom of the Father.”

    A thought occurred to me that this implied a quad-God.

    1. God (YHWH)
    2. Father
    3. Jesus
    4. Holy Spirit

    So are Trinitarians heretics?

  • 132. TitforTat  |  December 17, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    You can’t disprove a belief like that, nor prove it, and it’s hard to get excited about in either case.(Quester)

    Thats what I like about it the most. It doesnt promote an absolute, yet for me its exciting just because of that. Imagining what it might be. Wow.

  • 133. Jeffrey  |  December 17, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    A thought occurred to me that this implied a quad-God.

    Which brings up my favorite theology-in-a-nutshell quote:

    “That’s an interesting hypothesis…I hope someone tests it.”

  • 134. comment  |  January 9, 2009 at 8:56 am

    I am sorry but your text does not make any sense.Phrases like :

    “I have come to find that there is no proof for any god’s existence at all.”

    Are on the limit of stupidity.

  • 135. AndrejS  |  January 9, 2009 at 8:56 am

    i dont know why people dont see that god was invented by Men … it was done in ancient times, when men did not know how to explain things… that wore “god” like…. in times when life was a lot harder… .. i think i dont have to explain how was living in ancient times.. and so on… religions and “god” brought out a lot good things… but a lot of bad things also… look how many people wore killed in the name of god… and so on…

    for me religion has one value only… thats … and only if its done proper… to teach right from wrong… our children… i was raised as christian… .. but i dont believe in god… i did… when i was a little kid and i was still bealiving things like there is santa clause… and when i learnd to thing for my self…

    i can say .. live.. and enyoj life… dont be constrained by religion… but.. i never did nor will ever.. try to persuade anyone not to believe or to believe in god … everyone has a choice…

    if you respect some one.. then respect they theyr beliefs…

    my gf is muslim.. and i respect her and her religion… and i’m learing about they customs.. so i can better understend in what she believes… but i dont believe in god…

    you could say that i believe in nature :) .. as all atheist hehe :)

    sorry for my bad english :) hope you understand everything i wrote :)

    just my two cents…

    greeting from Croatia :)

  • 136. systym  |  January 9, 2009 at 9:35 am

    this is very true, time to wake up kids. look for zeitgeist!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • 137. Servant  |  January 9, 2009 at 10:35 am

    To logically prove the existence of God is impossible, otherwise there would be no free will in choice to believe in God or not. But remember that by NT references, early Christians did not choose to believe in God because of well designed philosophical argument, but for because of undeniable miracle God had preformed in their lives after 50 days of prayer. So that would work for you too, if you want to prove his existence: praying for single point that would make all this 10 or so points on your list meaningless.

  • 138. BigHouse  |  January 9, 2009 at 10:55 am

    To logically prove the existence of God is impossible, otherwise there would be no free will in choice to believe in God or not.

    Why should ‘believing’ something and free will by linked as you describe? I think you are mixing metaphors here.

    We have brains, why are we to not use them in order to play the game designed by a deity?

  • 139. Servant  |  January 9, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Well if God does exist, if nothing else, you cannot deny that God giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1. in terms of relationship between God and humans. So yes, i think it is essential to link the existence of God and free will.

  • 140. BigHouse  |  January 9, 2009 at 11:48 am

    Well if God does exist, if nothing else, you cannot deny that God giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1.

    I see no reason to support this line of reasoning. It may be necessary for YOUR INTERPRETATION of who god is and what he wants but free will isn’t even in the zip code of ‘necessary’ if a deity of any kind exists.

  • 141. LeoPardus  |  January 9, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    From post 137:
    remember that by NT references, early Christians did not choose to believe in God because of well designed philosophical argument, but for because of undeniable miracle God had preformed in their lives

    From post 139
    giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1.

    Hmmmm……..

  • 142. LeoPardus  |  January 9, 2009 at 12:49 pm

    by NT references, early Christians did not choose to believe in God because of well designed philosophical argument, but for because of undeniable miracle God had preformed in their lives after 50 days of prayer.

    Uhm… you wanna reference that? You know, book of NT, chapter, verse(s).

    So that would work for you too, if you want to prove his existence: praying for single point that would make all this 10 or so points on your list meaningless.

    Almost every person on this list has done just that. Read our stories and you’ll see just about all of us prayed, screamed, begged, cried, and so on for God to do something, anything, to show us He was there. In each case, the non-response was overwhelming.

    you cannot deny that God giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1.

    Yes I can deny that. Wanna see? …..
    I deny that God giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1.

    BTW, you can find plenty of Christians who would deny that too. Please don’t think that your personal understanding, or that of your denomination, local church, etc. is THE only right interpretation.

  • 143. BigHouse  |  January 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    You owe me a coke, Leo :-)

  • 144. Richmond Jeffrey  |  January 9, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    I was raised Catholic, though I don’t consider myself a “practicing” Catholic. I go to church sometimes because it can be a good place to clear one’s head.
    I don’t take organized religion seriously because I don’t believe God can be contained in a doctrine. But I do believe that there is something more to the universe that lead people to believe in the first place, something subtle yet highly pervasive, like gravity.
    It is true that we can’t prove the existence of God, but neither can we DISPROVE it. It’s important to think relatively, and I would read up on ontology, if I were you.

  • 145. Servant  |  January 9, 2009 at 7:08 pm

    Uhm… you wanna reference that? You know, book of NT, chapter, verse(s)./
    Well, forgive me for not doing that, one who is willing can look into NT, every miracle preformed there had a goal to convert people to chirstianity. I see no other reason why would the fire of that faith spread so quickly, against the opposition of the contemporary rulers.

    Almost every person on this list has done just that. Read our stories and you’ll see just about all of us prayed, screamed, begged, cried, and so on for God to do something, anything, to show us He was there. In each case, the non-response was overwhelming./
    I don’t want to pass judgement on that issue, but I believe prayer should not be in a form “God please do something that i can see that You exist”, i think prayer in a form “thank you God for providing me what i need” makes the cut. God actions are always made to fulfill the actuall needs of his people, not made to demonstrate his power.

    Yes I can deny that. Wanna see? …..
    I deny that God giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1. /

    Hehe, point well taken. What I meant that if God exists in Biblical terms, as benevolent and omnipresent, only logical explanation for the lack of His reaction to sin in this world is that God values human free will above anything else. I have ommited omnipotent characteristic of God because He has limitations to his power. He cannot do something against His principles.

    BTW, you can find plenty of Christians who would deny that too. Please don’t think that your personal understanding, or that of your denomination, local church, etc. is THE only right interpretation./
    But ofcourse i agree with your statement. I don’t belong to any local church, denomination, interpretation as you call it. I speak only in terms of logical explanation of God’s behaviour.

  • 146. Servant  |  January 9, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    I appologize for the poor editing of the post. mixed up backslash\frontslash.

    Uhm… you wanna reference that? You know, book of NT, chapter, verse(s).\
    Well, forgive me for not doing that, one who is willing can look into NT, every miracle performed there had a goal to convert people to chirstianity. I see no other reason why would the fire of that faith spread so quickly, against the opposition of the contemporary rulers.

    Almost every person on this list has done just that. Read our stories and you’ll see just about all of us prayed, screamed, begged, cried, and so on for God to do something, anything, to show us He was there. In each case, the non-response was overwhelming.\
    I don’t want to pass judgement on that issue, but I believe prayer should not be in a form “God please do something that i can see that You exist”, i think prayer in a form “thank you God for providing me what I need” makes the cut. God actions are always made to fulfill the actuall needs of his people, not made to demonstrate his power.

    Yes I can deny that. Wanna see? …..
    I deny that God giving humans free will is absolute rule number 1. \

    Hehe, point well taken. What I meant that if God exists in pure local terms, as benevolent and omnipresent, only logical explanation for the lack of His reaction to sin in this world is that God values human free will above anything else. I have ommited omnipotent characteristic of God because He has limitations to his power. He cannot do something against His principles.

    BTW, you can find plenty of Christians who would deny that too. Please don’t think that your personal understanding, or that of your denomination, local church, etc. is THE only right interpretation.\
    But ofcourse i agree with your statement. I don’t belong to any local church, denomination, interpretation as you call it. I speak only in terms of logical explanation of God’s behaviour.

  • 147. Servant  |  January 9, 2009 at 7:15 pm

    forgive me again, It seems that backslash/ frontslash doesn’t work here as i thought it does :)

  • 148. The Baroness  |  January 11, 2009 at 12:25 pm

    This is not so much a condemnation of God, but of the Bible and organized religion. This doesn’t tell me why you don’t believe in God, except for the last reason. I do agree that organized religion and the Bible are a load of hooey, for the most part, but I still believe in God. Just not the way they do.
    It is true that the existence of God cannot be proven, but it also cannot be disproven. That is not a reason to believe, but it’s not a reason to stop believing either. In the end, it is a personal choice, and one that admittedly involves one’s own way of thinking about life.
    I appreciate your being intelligent about this article, and I did enjoy it. One of the problems with believing in God lately is being called a fool all over the internet, and I appreciate your refraining from saying something like “believing in God is like eating sand”.

  • 149. SnugglyBuffalo  |  January 11, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    The Baroness-

    That is not a reason to believe, but it’s not a reason to stop believing either.

    I disagree. The fact that there is no evidence for a god is a pretty good reason to stop believing. That one can’t disprove God exists is no more meaningful than the fact that you can’t disprove the invisible pink unicorn.

    Servant-

    I don’t want to pass judgement on that issue, but I believe prayer should not be in a form “God please do something that i can see that You exist”, i think prayer in a form “thank you God for providing me what I need” makes the cut. God actions are always made to fulfill the actuall needs of his people, not made to demonstrate his power.

    Do you have anything to back this up? It honestly sounds like, at this point, you’re just making stuff up that suits you. It certainly flies in the face of the Bible.

    And if God’s actions always fulfill the actual needs of his people, why doesn’t he fulfill the actual need of some people to have actual evidence that he exists?

  • 150. Servant  |  January 11, 2009 at 7:32 pm

    @snuggly
    Do you have anything to back this up? It honestly sounds like, at this point, you’re just making stuff up that suits you. It certainly flies in the face of the Bible.
    Well, look at any miracle that was documented in Bible. As I see it, those miracles never happened just for the sake of the miracle. Even if you deny that any of the miracles actually happened, you can’t deny that chirstianity spread in first centuries like a fire, which would be impossible if it was just a case of yet another organized dead religion. The acts of God that filled peoples needs was the true fuel for that fire, and religious doctrines were formed much later, sure sign that death is penetrating.

    And if God’s actions always fulfill the actual needs of his people, why doesn’t he fulfill the actual need of some people to have actual evidence that he exists?
    Well, I believe the only reason is the free will limitation. You have to be able to choose to believe or not to believe, and actual evidence would deny you that choice. Therefore you should never request from God actual evidence, but give Him thanks for the small miracles He performs day by day in your life.

    @The Baroness
    True believer will have no problem when (s)he is being called a fool or sand eater for having faith in God. Actually, it is a sign (s)he is on good path, for in the eyes of this world, believers are fools indeed. True Christian has no pride at all, therefore (s)he can’t be offended.

  • 151. BigHouse  |  January 11, 2009 at 7:43 pm

    You have to be able to choose to believe or not to believe, and actual evidence would deny you that choice. Therefore you should never request from God actual evidence, but give Him thanks for the small miracles He performs day by day in your life.

    This is such anti-intellectual clap-trap it makes me shiver. For what else in the whole world is it RIGHT to suspend your reasoning and natural brain function in order to learn the truth? Here’s a hint..NOTHING.

  • 152. Servant  |  January 11, 2009 at 7:56 pm

    Well, I don’t consider myself to be intellectual, so i’m sorry for the cold shivers :). But i didn’t understand why do you have to suspend your reasoning and natural brain function in order to believe? God wants us to use brains so we can understand His work.

  • 153. LeoPardus  |  January 11, 2009 at 9:09 pm

    Servant:

    chirstianity spread in first centuries like a fire, which would be impossible if it was just a case of yet another organized dead religion.

    Uh huh. So your explanation for the similar spread of Islam is…..? And of course Mormonism has spread wonderfully. And other religions like to point to their rapid spread, or vast distribution, or longevity as “evidence” for how “true” they are.

    I believe the only reason is the free will limitation. You have to be able to choose to believe or not to believe, and actual evidence would deny you that choice.

    What utter rubbish. Read this:

    http://de-conversion.com/2008/04/09/go-ahead-blow-away-my-free-will/

    give Him thanks for the small miracles He performs day by day in your life.

    Ah, the old, warm and fuzzy, everyday is a miracle idiocy. Look in a dictionary for the definition of “miracle”. That done, use the word correctly.

  • 154. BigHouse  |  January 11, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    Servant,

    You said God doesn’t provide us strong evidence of his existence because then we wouldn’t have free will to believe or not believe in him. We just have to believe in the face of our rational minds seeing tons of evidence to the contrary.

    So, in essence, we must “dumb down” our brains to believe in God. Everything else I believe in, I do because of the preponderence of evidence. It’s how humans work, we use our brains to examine our surroundings and reach conclusions.

    Why owuld Gos set it up such that we must go against our own brains to believe in him?

  • 155. Servant  |  January 12, 2009 at 6:49 am

    @Leo
    What utter rubbish. Read this:…
    Well, one expect to produce rubish from time to time, but still you didn’t deny free will, haven’t you? Anyway I’ve posted free will comments on the appropriate page, so i will skip it here.
    So your explanation for the similar spread of Islam is…..?
    The initial spread of Islam is somewhat different then Christianity due to fact that it was the religion of political&military force, which expanded rapidly, and the conversion to Islam was consequence of that expansion. You can even find out that early Arab rulers at that time did not favor conversion to Islam because they expected it would dilute their power. On contrary, the Christianity is the only faith I know that was deemed dangerous by contemporary political structures, and subsequently was prosecuted and banned.
    Ah, the old, warm and fuzzy, everyday is a miracle idiocy. :) Right, basically same shit happens fr anyone everyday , but you know what it is, and I have mistaken the origin of that warm fuzzy mass sliding down my trousers.

  • 156. Servant  |  January 12, 2009 at 7:03 am

    @BigHouse

    You said God doesn’t provide us strong evidence of his existence because then we wouldn’t have free will to believe or not believe in him. We just have to believe in the face of our rational minds seeing tons of evidence to the contrary.
    Yes, in essence, after i read what Leo pointed out, I am wrong in that statement, because even with strong evidence people would have choice to accept or find yet another rationalle explanation. Tons of miracles during the Exodus didn’t stop Israelites to murmur against God while crossing Sinai, right? However, I have the same question for you: If you see strong evidence of divine existence, how we can know it’s from God and not from his Enemy?
    So, in essence, we must “dumb down” our brains to believe in God.
    Hm, i can’t agree that conclusion. I had to really stress and focus brain to find the link between message of God and conditions that humans live in, and in that process I didn’t lose faith. But it’s only the matter what do you and what do I consider to be good evidence. For me evidence is good enough to feed my faith and I do’t ask for more.

  • 157. BigHouse  |  January 12, 2009 at 10:03 am

    Hm, i can’t agree that conclusion.

    Then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    I am willing to bet if you were presented with the same type of evidence of pink unicorns that you have been presented from God, you’d scoff at their existence.

  • 158. Servant  |  January 12, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    Then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Well, i think in this case you are wrong, because atleast I am living proof that faith does not neccesarily shuts down reason. Well, maybe it does in your case, that’s why you always believe and hope your favorite team will win the championship :)

    Regarding pink unicorns.. I can only conclude that I see pattern in this world that can be explained by reason, I see the pawns of God and Devil moving on the board, and I don’t care if they both are in form of pink unicorn, as long as God is there for me and my brethren.

  • 159. BigHouse  |  January 12, 2009 at 6:28 pm

    Well, i think in this case you are wrong, because atleast I am living proof that faith does not neccesarily shuts down reason.

    Living proof? There’s no evidence on this blog to support your claim.

    Your second paragraph doesn’t make any sense.

  • 160. Servant  |  January 13, 2009 at 4:08 am

    Living proof? There’s no evidence on this blog to support your claim.
    Well, what can you do with argument like that? :)
    You said: Faith shuts down reason.
    I say: No it doesn’t, I require reason to be able to believe.
    Who is correct here?

    Your second paragraph doesn’t make any sense.

    Well, maybe not now, but you try to write in 1 in the morning :) My point was: I see in the world evidence of action from divine forces. I can tell what will be future events from the regression analysis of history.

  • 161. orDover  |  January 13, 2009 at 4:18 am

    Servant, what BigHouse was getting at is that you say that reason lead you to your faith, but you have yet to tell us how you used your powers of reason to come to accept the Christian God. You say you see “pawns” of the Devil. What is your evidence to support that claim? Can you prove using your rational brain (aka evaluating physical evidence) that you see these pawns? Can you prove by evaluating physical evidence that the Bible is true, or that God exists? You say you “see” evidence of forces. How do you explain this? How can you tell if these are actual forces or not your own projection? How can you tell that they are forces and not just random events?

    And by the way, intuition, or “just knowing” doesn’t count here.

  • 162. Servant  |  January 13, 2009 at 8:13 am

    How can you tell that they are forces and not just random events? And by the way, intuition, or “just knowing” doesn’t count here.
    Yes, your words make sense, only valid proof of the functional theory “that God and Devil are making their moves” and not that events are random would be to make certain predictions, how will the events unfold in the future.

    You say you “see” evidence of forces. How do you explain this?
    This is how it works for me. I create a Hypothesis “God – creator of living beings exists, and has certain attributes”. From there I can explain using reason the creation of beings with free will, and then chain of cause and consequences starts to unravel itself, in shortest words possible:
    law ->free will -> rebellion -> fall -> punishment -> sacrifice -> redemption.
    It logically works when I apply it for me and my children, if i take the liberty to look at myself as father of beings with free will (more-less :) ) So every piece of puzzle that I see in the world falls into logical place and makes sense: dinosaurs – ancient civilizations – religion – aliens – spirits. I found no field of human experience that defies the logic and reason of the consequences that result from the Hypothesis I started with.
    Therefore, I believe, for the world makes sense.

  • 163. BigHouse  |  January 13, 2009 at 8:41 am

    An alternate hypothesis that would fit your method of analyzing the evidence is that God is really a sadistic SOB who in his omnipotence, created the world exactly as we see it and also gave certain people these inner ‘feelings’ that the Bible is correct. However, when you die, you find it it was all a big trick and God was just messing with his created playthings and you burn in hell forever.

    Why can’t this hypothesis be right?

  • 164. Servant  |  January 13, 2009 at 9:01 am

    @bighouse

    I’m kind of short with time, so I will only comment this witty answer now :)
    Hypothesis you stated can surely be correct. Think of it as a XY field where all elements of history and future and unexplained misteries of the world are represented with dots. You can derive approximately 3 functions that could cover all dots:
    1) God exists and is benevolent, omnipotent, etc (my theory) and has set up the Law which differentiates Good and Bad
    2) God exists and is NOT benevolent, omnipotent, etc (please explain does the Law exists)
    3) God doesn’t exist (Law doesnt exist, no difference between Good and Bad)
    For me 1) is the one most probable for me, from my own experience, and also bearing from the idea that as a father I am benevolent and omnipotent (mostly) to my Kids
    2) has some problems explaining what God wants to teaches us, or atleast does He want to teach us anyting at all?

  • 165. Ubi Dubium  |  January 13, 2009 at 9:42 am

    @Servant

    3) God doesn’t exist (Law doesnt exist, no difference between Good and Bad)

    You are making an assumption there without justification. You are assuming that the existence of “good and bad” is dependent on the existence of a god. You have not established that. “Good”, as in “what is beneficial to humans” certainly can exist without the influence of any supernatural forces.
    Perhaps you need a fourth option:
    “4. God doesn’t exist, laws must be developed by humans, good and bad (which are not black and white, but many shades of gray) must be figured out by humans.

  • 166. Servant  |  January 14, 2009 at 6:18 am

    yes, by all means your no 4) is stated well enough, it removes need for no 3)

    You can derive approximately 3 functions that could cover all dots:
    1) God exists and is benevolent, omnipotent, etc (my theory) and has set up the Law which differentiates Good and Bad
    2) God exists and is NOT benevolent, omnipotent, etc (please explain does the Law exists)
    3) God doesn’t exist, laws must be developed by humans, good and bad (which are not black and white, but many shades of gray) must be figured out by humans

  • 167. Ex Christian  |  April 8, 2009 at 2:41 pm

    What you say makes sense on number 8…. There is no real evidence that god exists at all.

    Why should we believe in God when we cannot see him? That is absolute crap.

    I think that whomever initially wrote the laws in the first kingdoms on earth decided to create the whole idea of God ( kind of like the idea of Santa Claus for adults ) to make people think that if they do good behave properly they will go to heaven. Think about it… If you really knew that there was nothing at all after death then why would anyone be nice to anyone. If people really knew that God did not exist, do you think that people would just let themselves live that crappy lives that have been handed to them? I think that if everyone knew that God did not exist that there would be more killings and rape and stealing than what goes on right now!!!

    Watch that goofy movie called: Zeitgeist and it all might make more sense.

  • 168. BadBibleQuotingDetector  |  July 25, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    You say in the Hell problem:

    The fact that Hell was never mentioned in the OT, neither demons nor Satan creates a real problem unless of course you want to use incorrect translations like the KJV.

    Satan is absolutely very clearly mentioned in the Old Testament unless you want to make a linguistic argument so absurd, that none of your bible quoting can be taken seriously.

    7The LORD said to Satan, “From where do you come?” Then Satan answered the LORD and said, “(A)From roaming about on the earth and walking around on it.”
    Job 1:7

    The whole book of Job is filled with conversations between Satan/The Devil and God.

    There appear to be numerous mentions of Sheol in the Old Testament.

    http://religi3.securesites.net/jesusbible/job6c4.htm

    Reread the first three chapters of Genesis. Remember the talking snake? That was Satan. That was the Devil. I guess you can say – oh no it wasn’t. I guess you can say anything you want. It just sounds completely unconvincing if you make these statements without seriously qualifying them. Anyone who is familiar with the Bible, who has studied Hebrew, Greek and used concordances would immediately know that Sheol, Satan/Devil/Snake/Adversary is mentioned in the OT.

    I am sure that if you have an explanation, it is a convoluted one if it exists. I would love to hear it.

  • 169. Free to think  |  August 7, 2010 at 11:08 pm

    We think we have outgrown superstition. We look at the aztecs who worshiped the sun and wonder why when we ourselves worship a God whose been given so many forms as to exist everywhere and nowhere at the same time.

    I have seen miracles with my own eyes when I was a believer and yet I still question God’s existance. When you are taught something from birth is it brainwashing or simply handing down what you were taught as a child.

    The more you study God’s existance from an adults eyes instead of the open imagination of a child, the harder it is to believe. Is the fact that it is easier to believe in Satan and demons simply our child hood fears that have been so deeply thrust into our minds by Fire and Brimstone preachers.? In no other place but a church would loving parents allow someone to instill such fear into the minds of children.

    Only those whose eyes and mind are closed too tight do not question God’s existance.

  • 170. Timex  |  February 10, 2011 at 4:00 am

    Yes I listen, and do as I hear

    Please look over this whole message, so that you can answer these points of truth, and tell what your findings are.

    The sabbath = Jesus = the word (Holy Bible) = 7 Days a week = KEEPING THE SABATH = in everything you do:

    (Mark) (02:27-28) Christ is the Sabbath. Jesus said unto them, The Sabbath (Jesus) was made for man, and NOT man for the Sabbath (Jesus). Therefore the son (Jesus) is Lord of the Sabbath.

    (St. Luke) (06:05) And he (Jesus) said unto them (You), that the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.

    (St. John) (05:17) But Jesus answered them (You), My Father (God) worketh hither to, and I work. (7) Seven days a week. LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOUSELF: Please read all of this to see my understanding.

    This ONLY MEANS to show the truth of chousing life. For if they won’t accept it, then they ARE NOT YOUR BROTHERT OR SISTER, and we are to dust our feet off, and have NOTHING to do with them. We are NOT to pay their way in to more sin, for Christ said you are a partaker in their deeds. If they accept Christ, and walk his way, then by all means get them a new car, sign for a bank loan, goto the store for them, baby sit, that kind of thing, and be a true friend, one who lays his life down for another brother. You all need to understand, Christ said your eather for him, or against him, NO middle ground.

    Now I have a QUESTION: How is it that I see “Saint Paul” as the writing on the wall?, The written word of a False Prophet?

    For below is what has been given to me, and it has to be Christ, or God. All this is in your KJV Bible.

    My understanding of Paul, from what Paul himself has shown, and said, and NOT out of CONTEXT:

    About Lies ______________________________________________

    (Revelation) (21:08) No LIE is of the truth, ALL will be in the lake of fire.

    (1st John) (02:21) I have not written unto you because ye (you) know not the truth, but because ye (you) know it, and that NO LIE is of the truth.

    ________Paul says women are obedient if they don’t speak in church: ________

    (1st Corinthians) (14:34) let your women keep silence in the churches for it is not permitted unto them to speak.

    Answer: Christ said way shoulden women teach, for they raise our chrildren.

    ______You reject Christ by doing what Paul says even when Paul is shown for what he is:____

    (John) (05:43) I (Jesus) come in my father’s name, and ye (You) receive me

    not: If another shall come in his own name (Saint Paul) him ye will receive.

    Answer: Paul speaks to different, for it to have been Jesus, or God.

    _____________________________Paul makes up the truth__________________________________

    (Acts) (09:03-07)

    3) And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:

    4 he fell down, no one else did:

    4) and he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutes thou me?

    5) And he said, who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecute: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

    6 This is the lie about when paul was told what he was to do: (go into the city)

    6) And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him (Paul), Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

    7 was one of the lies: (heard something, seen nothing):

    7) And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man

    (Acts) (22:06-10)

    6) And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.

    7 is one of the lies:

    7) And I fell onto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutes thou me?

    8) And I answered, who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecute.

    9 is one of the lies (seen something, heard nothing)

    9) And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

    (Acts) (26:12-14)

    12) Whereupon as I went to Damascus with authority and commission from the chief priests,

    13) At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

    14 is one of the lies:( they all fell down this time, and only paul heard anything:

    14) And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto

    below is what paul was told while still in the desert, not in the city;

    (Acts)(26:15) to (Acts) (26:18) Paul is told what to do see above (09:06)

    ANSWER: 3 different accounts of the same context all 3 from one day, and one meating from christ so paul says.

    1) Paul is a lie at it’s core or his words are not his anymore, meaning not to be spoken or trusted he speaks with Guile.

    (Guile)” is twice the translation of (mirmah) (deceit) (fraud)

    2) He lied about who heard anything.

    3) He lied about who saw anything.

    4) He lied about who fell down.

    5) He lied about where, and when he was told what he was to do.

    __Paul says to get in the face of anyone who is wrong before god:

    (Galatians) (02:11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

    Answer: Christ said remove the log from your own eye, then you can see to remove it from anothers eye. I say Paul judges others, then by his words, we judge him looking for blame.

    _Not under the LAW Paul said, how about reading below. Paul Double Talks:

    (Galatians)(05:02-04)Indeed I, say to you that if you become circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing. And I testify again to every man who becomes circumcised that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justified by the law; you have fallen from grace.

    Here he even drops his own name before telling the Galatians a severe doctrinal-lie.

    Below Paul says the law, and commandments are holy, just and good:

    (Romans) (07:09-12) for I (Paul) was alive without the law once, but when the commandment came. Sin revived and I (Paul) died (in the spirit), and the commandment, which was ORDAINED to life, I (Paul) found to be unto death. For sin, taking OCCASION by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandments holy, and just, and good.

    Answer: Paul knows the difference between the commandments and the 300 plus man made laws. he says your saved by grace, not of works, nor the law to the point you’ve fell from grace. Then he says the commandments, and the Laws (300) are Holy, Good, and Just.

    Pauls teachings are the “Tear” from the “Wheat” , and the “False Doctrine”

    which Christ warned us about.

    ____________The truth to keeping the commandments___________________________________

    (Matthew) (22:36-40) “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?” Jesus said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind” This is the first and the great commandment. And the second is like it: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”

    (St.John) (02:04) He (You) that saith, I know him (Jesus Christ), and keepeth NOT his (Gods) commandments, is a LIAR, and the truth is not in him.

    (St.John) (14:15) If Ye (You) love me (Jesus), Keep my commandments.

    (Matthew) (05:18-19) For verily I (Jesus) say unto you, till heaven, and earth pass, NOT one jot or one tittle shall in NO WISE pass from the law till all be fulfilled.

    (Luke) (06:46) And why call me (Jesus) Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say.

    Paul says John, James, and Peter speak a different Gospel then he does

    (Galatians) (01:06-07) I (Paul) marvel that ye (You) are so soon removed from him(Me) that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel. Which is NOT another, but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

    (Paul comes across these 3, about 4 or 5 passages after he makes this statment and Paul never knew Christ, these 3 did)

    Answer: It is Paul who teaches another Gospel, for his is the Synagogue of Satan and he who is not stiff necked will see Paul, and his teachings for what they really are.

    _Paul’s Dishonesty, lies, and Craftiness (Paul said he doesn’t, then hours later he does it)

    (2nd Corinthians) (04:01-02) Therefore seeing we (Paul and Timothy) have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; but have renounced the hidden things of DISHONESTY, not walking in CRAFTINESS, nor handling the word of God DECEITFULLY.

    (2nd Corinthians) (12:16) But be it so, I (Paul) did not burden you: never the less, being “CRAFTY”, I (Paul) caught you with “Guile”.

    (Guile)” is twice the translation of (mirmah) (deceit) (fraud)

    (Job) (05:12) He (God) DISAPPOINTETH the devices of the CRAFTY, so that their hands cannot perform their enterprise.

    Answer: Paul lied, while he works those things which blames others, while he breaks them also with craftiness. Christ said they are “SNAKES” and “SPIDERS” how will they excape the gates of “HELL”? Yet you follow paul your God.

    Paul is the example of how” NOT” to teach the word-by lies, craftiness

    (Paul-1st Timothy) (03:16) and without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:

    God was manifested the in flesh: ?????

    Definition of Manifested: Show something clearly: to make something evident by showing or demonstrating it very clearly.

    (The answer from Paul about Jesus being God in the flesh)

    (Paul-Colossians) (01:15) Who (Jesus Christ) is the” image” of the invisible God, the first born of every creation.

    (Paul-Colossians) (01:03) We give thanks to God, and the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you.

    (Paul-Colossians) (03:01) if you then be raised with Christ seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the RIGHT HAND OF GOD

    PAUL’S LEGACY SHOW’S IT’S SELF BY THE MESSAGE WHICH SATAN SPEAKS.

    NOW SOMEONE TELL ME HOW PAUL IS NOT THE WAY GOD SHOWS US THE OTHER DOCTRINE, AND A FALSE PROFET?

    NOW I SAY THIS TO YOU, ASK ME, AND THE REST OF THE TRUTH SHALL BE SENT TO YOU BY E-MAIL, BUT TRY TO REJECT, OR SALE IT AND YOU HAVE NOT FELT GODS WREATH FOR YOU AND PAUL ARE ONE…

  • 171. cag  |  February 10, 2011 at 3:14 pm

    Timex #171 – “In the beginning god created the heaven and the earth.” The implication of this is that the earth is the centre of the universe. Educated people know this to be false. From your screed, it appears that you actually believe the bible and therefore the geocentric universe. If so, please explain how geostationary satellites work. How do they stay in place? How far away are the stars that they manage to revolve around the earth on a daily basis?

    When reality conflicts with the bible, reality wins. Quoting scripture to people who know that the bible is a collection of fallacies and myths (that is, the bible is all bullshit) is totally unconvincing.

    Go spread your lies where the readers still haven’t recovered from the lies they were told as believing children. The rest of us no longer believe in the demonstrably false.

    Grow up.

  • 172. Eve's Apple  |  February 14, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    “try to reject it or sale it and you have not felt God’s wreath . . .”
    God’s wreath? What kind of wreath is that? Like a Christmas wreath? Oh, that could be kind of prickly. I’m so afraid.

    Timex, I really think that you need to spend some time with a dictionary or a thesaurus. There is a big difference between “wreath” and “wrath”. I presume you meant the latter. However, I am puzzled by “sale it”. “Sale” is past tense of “sell.” Yeah, yeah, I know, minor distinctions. But if you can hair-split Bible verses to suit your message, then you can understand why the rest of us hair-split over grammar and spelling. Because it really does change the whole intent of your meaning if you carelessly use the wrong word.

    Personally, I am not impressed with appeals to religion that are misspelled and incoherent. I don’t find it attractive. It is saying by example that God can only be honored by throwing one’s brains and education out the window. THAT I REFUSE TO DO!!!

  • 173. Anonymous  |  December 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    1. your right, the trinity is not in the bible. but true fact is god is three in such as water, ice and steam.
    the bile does talk about the father the son and the holy spirit as one.
    2. We are in christ hands when we believe in him we have internal life. Christian who believe in the true word of god. it does matter what any one has said. christ is the truth and the way.
    3.The stories you hear are in the old testiment, when god made this thing, happen whe he spoke to true believers and talking of animals all done for gods glory.
    4.God is not unchanging he is the same always.
    if bad things didnt happen, how could we see the good of god.
    he is unchanging your father gets angry etc. but still love you cares for you etc. he doesnt make bad things happen it is the people who are not good hearted.
    5.the lake of fire. it is real no need to explain it is in the bible old and new testiment.
    6.people who are not really inform , people who want their own power.
    7.Jews are still wainting for the messiah and there are jews, who know that the messiah is jesus christ send by god to be our savior.
    don’t miss the boat that god has sent.
    8. God is as reall as the wind that blows, we cannot see it but the affect. want a wonderful world he has made, it is the wicked heart of people who destroy it. he has given us. free choice.
    what will yours be?

  • 174. cag  |  December 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Anon #173, please proof read your fiction before posting. I must admit that “bile” comes close to the truth. Being in the bible is not the same as being true. If it was, the earth would be the centre of the universe, an obvious falsehood.

    Please provide evidence for this Jesus character. Being in the bible that claims that the earth was bathed in light before the sun was created(Genesis1:3-5) does not constitute proof.

    4.God is not unchanging he is the same always.

    What does that mean? That which is the same always is the same as unchanging. You may want to rethink that.

    A parent who deliberately made bad things happen when they had the power to avoid the bad would not be considered a good parent. What lesson is learned by millions of children starving to death every year?

    The lake of fire is just another bit of fiction in a book of fiction. Nothing frightening there.

    You provide assertions, not evidence. Your assertions are ridiculous to anyone not poisoned by superstitious beliefs.

  • 175. Anonymous  |  May 16, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    The biggest flaw to Christianity is you have to just *Believe* which sounds almost like the Obama’s *Hope and Change* except backwards.

    The real belief is that we live in a world of polar opposites and it’s up to US to make the boundaries so we won’t cross into each others paths.

    There is a HUGE difference between preaching and expressing you’re faith so I DO respect Christians who are mature because the media refuses to acknowledge the ones that do good deeds.

    The media is only interested in showing the violent side so if you are basing you’re ideas off of what the media says then you have already been hoodwinked!

    I don’t believe in Christianity but not because of what the media or schools tell me but what I learn in life. I don’t follow societies agendas.

  • 176. Kyle  |  May 16, 2013 at 5:06 pm

    By the way other then those issues I applaud you for coming forward with enough maturity to not get into the *blame game* or name calling.

    I hope I am not too late for this due to my bad luck timing curse but I want to point this person’s post out.

    This person’s post below proves points #1 and #2 of you’re own posts:

    173. Anonymous | December 29, 2012 at 3:17 pm

    1. your right, the trinity is not in the bible. but true fact is god is three in such as water, ice and steam.
    the bile does talk about the father the son and the holy spirit as one.
    2. We are in christ hands when we believe in him we have internal life. Christian who believe in the true word of god. it does matter what any one has said. christ is the truth and the way.
    3.The stories you hear are in the old testiment, when god made this thing, happen whe he spoke to true believers and talking of animals all done for gods glory.
    4.God is not unchanging he is the same always.
    if bad things didnt happen, how could we see the good of god.
    he is unchanging your father gets angry etc. but still love you cares for you etc. he doesnt make bad things happen it is the people who are not good hearted.
    5.the lake of fire. it is real no need to explain it is in the bible old and new testiment.
    6.people who are not really inform , people who want their own power.
    7.Jews are still wainting for the messiah and there are jews, who know that the messiah is jesus christ send by god to be our savior.
    don’t miss the boat that god has sent.
    8. God is as reall as the wind that blows, we cannot see it but the affect. want a wonderful world he has made, it is the wicked heart of people who destroy it. he has given us. free choice.
    what will yours be?

    174. cag | December 29, 2012 at 6:22 pm

    Anon #173, please proof read your fiction before posting. I must admit that “bile” comes close to the truth. Being in the bible is not the same as being true. If it was, the earth would be the centre of the universe, an obvious falsehood.

    Please provide evidence for this Jesus character. Being in the bible that claims that the earth was bathed in light before the sun was created(Genesis1:3-5) does not constitute proof.

    4.God is not unchanging he is the same always.

    What does that mean? That which is the same always is the same as unchanging. You may want to rethink that.

    A parent who deliberately made bad things happen when they had the power to avoid the bad would not be considered a good parent. What lesson is learned by millions of children starving to death every year?

    The lake of fire is just another bit of fiction in a book of fiction. Nothing frightening there.

    You provide assertions, not evidence. Your assertions are ridiculous to anyone not poisoned by superstitious beliefs.

    Leave a Reply

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

    Gravatar
    Email (Address never made public)
    Website

    Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

    Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
    Today’s Featured Link
    Visit our new community site. Forum discussion. Share photos & videos. Post articles. More….
    Most Recent Discussions

    Rayann on Are de-converts open to re-converting?
    cag on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    PYislove on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    cag on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    ubi dubium on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    PYislove on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    PYislove on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    personal injury attorney on Does God love everybody?
    ubi dubium on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    cag on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    PYislove on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    Kairii on Does God love everybody?
    Namari on Does God love everybody?
    Kiona on Does God love everybody?
    Alban on 33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church

    Navigation

    Community Site (NEW!!!)
    Submit your de-Conversion story
    Top PostsTop Posts
    SU Users: StumbleUpon It!!

    Add to Technorati Favorites
    Attention Christian Readers
    Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.
    Today’s Most Read Posts

    33 Reasons why I left the Mormon Church
    10 Reasons Atheists Are More Moral Than Religious Fundamentalists
    God loves you….

    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.
    Contributors

    Jersey
    Quester
    athinkingman
    Simen
    carriedthecross
    confusedchristian
    CrimsonMai
    deconversion
    evanescent
    the chaplain
    exevangel
    Joshua
    The Apostate
    HeIsSailing
    Justin Ferriman
    Jeffrey
    karen
    Laura
    lostgirlfound
    Lyndon
    LeoPardus
    mysteryofiniquity
    neece
    orDover
    Phil Stilwell
    rfogue
    Richard
    The de-Convert
    stellar1
    writerdd

    Twitter

    RT & Vote: Can #Twitter help Alayah get from 0 to 167425 (current leader) http://tinyurl.com/3xjtjxj (takes a couple seconds) #gap 2 years ago
    Thanks to you all, I’m now the most viewed profile on #PBS and #USATODAY ‘s #FAITHBOOK http://to.pbs.org/9FjWF5 2 years ago
    Let’s tell #PBS and #USATODAY what we believe about God http://to.pbs.org/9FjWF5 for their series #GodInAmerica 2 years ago

    RSS Atheism Central

    Statue of Ganesh Offends Visitors at Calgary Zoo
    Help Washington State Ban Displays of Faith in the Capitol Building

    Archives
    Blog Stats

    1,855,276 hits since March 2007

  • 177. Kyle  |  May 16, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    For me number 4 is the biggest grip I have about God.

    All around me Christians say he never changes yet I see nothing BUT change. In fact when I point out that God almost sent plagues if he can’t find any person who hasn’t sinned in which God decided to hold back I get brushed aside and totally ignored.

    Talk about ignorant!

  • 178. Kyle  |  May 16, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    However one thing interesting is that despite all this the cathaholics are the ones that feed the most to poor children especially in places like Africa.

    We have donated school material to a certain person in Africa to help them thru school as the source is trusted and the person benefited.

    However the root of the problems there is the corrupt government in Africa that only care about themselves.

  • 179. cag  |  May 17, 2013 at 1:45 pm

    Kyle, god is in fact unchanging. Ever since some human came up with the concept of god, god has been imaginary, god remains imaginary and god will be imaginary in the future. No change there.

    Your mention of Africa and the catholics immediately brought up the image of a smarmy individual in a dog collar asking a little girl if she would like some candy. Creepy. Catholics do not practice charity, they practice coercion.

  • […] sites (Many of these may be opposition to what we have presented above):  1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 […]

  • 181. Alpha and Omega, The First and the Last - Jesus and His God  |  August 24, 2013 at 8:33 pm

    […] (Many of these may be in opposition to what we have presented above):  1 * 2 * 3 * 4 * 5 * 6 * 7 * 8 […]

  • 182. Bonnie  |  March 14, 2014 at 10:00 pm

    I am not going to get into the details numerically, I will say this, obviously you haven’t been blessed with the Holy Spirit. Once you received the gift of the Holy Spirit, you become a new person, and you feel the peace and love of Jesus. I know because I was baptized by water when I was 13 years old, and baptized with oil when I was 35, it was about a week after the oil anointment that I received the gift of the Holy Spirit. I can tell you without a doubt there is a Living God, and He still performs miracles today. It was the Holy Spirit that spoke to my heart that my granddaughter was going to be okay when she was born, even though the doctors said she would be dead by Sunday. She is now 20 years old. It was the Holy Spirit that told me to get my father to the doctors because he had cancer and if I didn’t get him there quickly he would die. I took him the next day, turns out he had the faster growing cancer there is and he would have been too far gone to survive if I had not of listen to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comforts me, guides me, fills me with peace even when I am going through turmoil I know without a shadow of a doubt that everything will be okay, because He is with me.

    Knowing the angry God you spoke of in the Old Testament, then you should know that if He says all non believers will be sent to the fire and brimstone you best believe they will. Jesus was our salvation, and Jesus was the one that made the sacrifice for our sins. Speaking of other religions well of course there where other religions, don’t you understand what you read. When God created Adam and Eve they were the first Jews that were created for God’s companionship. But when the Jews denounce Jesus and had Him crucified that is when Saul (who became Paul and the leader of the Gentiles) that Christianity was open to all.

    Maybe you have been looking for so many reasons to not be a Christian, and not looking into the heart of being a Christian.

  • 183. cag  |  March 15, 2014 at 12:41 am

    Bonnie, where is your god when millions of children starve to death every year? Where is your god when malaria kills millions of children? Where is your god when children go blind from swimming in a river? Why are miracles not happening for these children?

    The ancient Greeks, Romans, Norse, Egyptians and many others knew that their gods were real – turns out they were wrong. The people who practised human sacrifice to appease their gods would surely be considered committed to their gods, yet we now know that they were wrong. Some of us know that you are wrong. May you live long enough to realize that your god is exactly the same as all the other gods.

  • 184. Bonnie  |  March 15, 2014 at 1:58 am

    So you want God to come down and cure everything when the people don’t want to believe in Him, He doesn’t cause all of this destruction Jesus is compassionate and caring. He does care about us and all we have to do is accept Him and ask Him and He WILL heal you. I have seen people being cured when the doctors have given up. People on this earth are mostly greedy, lustful, uncaring people. There are a few that care, but there are more that don’t, if we all banded together and cared for one another as the Bible says we could make this place a better place. Scientist, doctors, and pharmaceutical companies are finding cures for this diseases, who do you think gave them the knowledge.

    Every time something goes wrong in someone’s life they are quick to blame God, but when things are going great well that is just luck and nobody believes in Him. Do you want Him to force you to be obedient like He was in the Old Testament. I think not, Jesus came to take on the sin of the world and to teach us to love one another, forgive one another and to help one another. But we have the super rich that care not for others, we have the poor that don’t want to try to help themselves except take from the rich. Don’t blame God for the errors of man, we are the ones that are causing all of the damage and not Him.

  • 185. Bonnie  |  March 15, 2014 at 2:00 am

    In answer to the gods question. I know my God is real, and one day everyone will know that He is real and not a figment of anyone’s imagination. Jesus doesn’t ask us to sacrifice anyone to rid of sin, He was the sacrifice. Nothing else can change it but to believe and accept what we can’t see, but can feel.

  • 186. cag  |  March 15, 2014 at 1:24 pm

    Bonnie, I hope that you do not have children, or if you do you treat them better than that imaginary god of yours. How many millions of children have to die each year for you to realize that allowing children to starve if you have the ability to feed them is not loving. These children do not have the ability to “accept Him”, does that make it OK to starve them?

    You are full of excuses why your god is unwilling to do anything for “his children”. Would you make the same excuses to keep from helping your own children? Of course, christianity is full of excuses for why its imaginary god is MIA (Missing In Action). It is called apologetics and is the most convoluted excuse generator ever devised. Refined for over a thousand years, the excuses are only effective in reinforcing the god delusion, they do not work on all of us.

    You gloss over the Old Testament, but how does that fit with Matthew 5:18 where the law (OT) remains?

    Your jesus is another character like in a Shakespeare play. Made up to play a certain role. There are no contemporary ( 20 -35 CE) writings of the most important individual in the history of christianity, only vague reports from unreliable sources decades later. Not really dependable.

    Your feelings are no indication of anything. You have been indoctrinated into belief without any evidence, just words without substance. Some of us are less prone to be scammed, we require evidence not hyperbole.

    Your god is just one of thousands that do not exist. Unless you have solid evidence for your god (the bible is not proof or evidence as the bible claims to be the word of god and the claim for god is that it is written in the bible, which is circular reasoning. Hopefully you can understand the difference between making a claim as the bible does, and proving a claim which the bible does not do.), do not make claims that you can’t back up.

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

  • 2,019,419 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers