My Thanksgiving post, Can Atheists Really Give Thanks apparently provoked a lot of heated discussion, some of which is still going on. But maybe what’s surprised me more than the amount of discussion the topic has generated, has been the tone.
The site’s moderator, Austin Cline, recently recapped our “exchange” in this way:
Update: Mike Duran has been posting about this in comments on this own site. He falsely claims that his “point” has been “dismissed,” even though anyone can see that his claim that “in a temporal / amoral universe, doing good, appreciating beauty, experiencing pleasure, doesn’t really matter” has been addressed more than once. Specifically, he has been challenged more than once to support it and rather than doing so, he simply refuses to continue to engage in conversation. He walks away.
By dishonestly pretending that others are simply dismissing his point, Mike Duran is implying that he made some great, insightful statement that others are afraid of. No one is afraid of it, though, and no one has ignored it. Duran, however, can’t seem to take it seriously enough to invest even a couple of minutes to defend it and if he can’t take your own points that seriously, then neither should anyone else. How often has Christians come to this site, made similarly bigoted claims, and then disappeared after being challenged? Most of them, actually. What does this say about Christians and Christianity?
I wanted to take some time to address Austin Cline’s characterization of our exchange, reiterate some of the points he feels I left unsupported, as well as comment on the “ground rules,” or lack thereof, that inflame such blog skirmishes. Whatever I say from here on out will, no doubt, be viewed by him as a perpetuation of my “bigoted claims” and cowardice. So be it. Perhaps, however, I can quell the suggestion that I’ve simply “disappeared after being challenged.”
At this writing, the thread at Austin Cline’s Agnosticism / Atheism Blog is well over 120 comments and many subsequent points have been made since I exited that conversation. Cline suggested my departure inferred that I don’t take it “seriously enough to invest even a couple of minutes to defend [my position].” I’m unsure how long Cline thinks I should remain to answer objections at his site in order to convince him I take this subject “seriously”. My three lengthy comments (#’s 3, 7 and 18), all of which required more than “a couple minutes” to compose, are apparently not enough.
As I said in my last comment there, one reason I withdrew from further involvement was the “name calling” going on. Comment #66 by marc is indicative of the tone of that “discussion”:
To Mike Duran. . . You were bested. Plain and simple. Wherever you are, I’m sure it’s safe and no one confronts you on your idiotology.
Folks like marc don’t strike me as individuals who want to dialog, but as those who look for ways to “best” their opponent. As such, whoever has the best sound bite or the wittiest comeback, has “the truth.” That such an important topic as the nature of existence can be “proven” in such short measure, with so little evidence, on an internet forum, by lay people, makes marc’s chest-thumping all the more sad. Thankfully, truth is not determined by who’s “bested.”
Even more disheartening to me is Cline’s, similarly inflammatory tone. In the above quote, he portrays me as making “false claims” and “dishonestly pretending that others are simply dismissing [my] point.” He summarizes, “How often has Christians come to this site, made similarly bigoted claims” (emphasis mine). Along those lines, Nancy referred to my “inane reasoning” (#2), Jason said it was “ridiculously stupid” (#15), and marc added that I was “delusional” (#8). I’m sure there’s been more unflattering tidbits sprinkled along the way. Perhaps it’s just me, but charges of bigotry and dishonesty, calling others delusional and inane, and labeling others’ belief systems as “idiotology” don’t do much for the spirit of healthy debate.
Frankly, this type of rhetoric is one reason I did not continue the “discussion” at Cline’s site. If this is how he and his fellow atheists defend their position in the marketplace of ideas, it’s no wonder that the vast majority of Americans still believe in God. I’ve always held that civility is one of the “rules of engagement” in debate and that once we throw that out the window, logic will surely follow. I fear that both have been breached in this skirmish.
One of Cline’s charges is that I “falsely claimed” that my point has been “dismissed.” I’d still assert that my main point has been skirted and here’s an example of why. From comment #26:
Duran: Classic atheism has, for millennia, acknowledged that the absence of God intrinsically affects one’s morals and meaning.
Cline: I never claimed that there was “no effect” it’s just that the only “effect” is that gods don’t enter into the subject. That’s all. For someone who complained so strongly about alleged mischaracterizations, you sure are quick to misrepresent others.
Please look at this carefully. Austin Cline asserts that, “the only effect” of postulating the non-existence of God “is that gods don’t enter into the subject” (emphasis mine). This is either (a) disingenuous or (b) evidence of ignorance of classic atheism.
Most serious philosophers have wrestled with the moral / ethical / existential implications of a world without God. David Hume in his Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, addressed the issue of ethics and morality. Morality, he taught, is not based upon reason, fact, or God, but upon feelings. Immanuel Kant spent considerable time attempting to provide rational grounds for social ethics apart from the existence of God, for instance his Inquiry Concerning the Distinctness of the Principles of Natural Theology and Morality (often referred to as “the Prize Essay”). Nietzsche is often viewed as the father of the “God is dead” movement in the early sixties. His parable, Thus Spake Zarathustra, directly addresses man’s quest for morality without God. Zarathustra, as the story goes, is a master ethicist who abandons his quest for virtue as unreasonable and false. Bertrand Russell vehemently argued against God and a moral law. French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre was an atheistic existentialist who in his most famous work, Being and Nothingness, concluded that there is no explanation for the brute existence of things. Because life is absurd, Sartre taught, man must authenticate himself and author his own values. And on a less scholarly note, the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair, in her book What on Earth Is an Atheist, said:
We need a decent, modern, sophisticated and workable set of standards by which we can get along with ourselves and with others. (pg. 39)
So while the Christian’s standards are defined outside of him (by God’s Law), the atheist must establish a “workable set of standards” to “get along with [himself] and with others.” In other words, the absence of God affects one’s existence. Is it any wonder that Will Durant, the popular historian and philosopher, categorized the greatest question of our time as “Can man live without God?”
As you can see, Austin Cline’s assertion that “the only effect” of positing the non-existence of God “is that gods don’t enter into the subject,” fails to acknowledge the long historical discussion, by theist and atheist alike, concerning the moral / ethical / existential implications of living in an amoral, godless universe. The point that I made in my original post, my comments at his site, and reiterate here is that THE ABSENCE OF GOD RADICALLY AFFECTS ONE’S MORALS AND MEANING.
However, instead of simply acknowledging the relevance of the point, the philosophical tension it creates, and its historical tethers, Cline continues in comment #26:
Duran: By way of example, I Googled “Morality without God” and found 2,010,000 results. Guess my “assertion” isn’t so “ridiculously stupid,” huh?
Cline: So, you actually believe that if lots of people think or assert something, then it can’t be “ridiculously stupid?” What do you suppose that tells others about the quality of your reasoning skills?
If Austin Cline would have taken just “a couple minutes” to peruse these links, he’d see that many (if not most) of them are atheists addressing the problem of meaning and morality without God. The Google reference is not intended to prove one cannot find meaning and morality without God, but that it’s a major issue for atheists. Instead, Cline mischaracterizes my point, makes a false assumption about my intention and questions “the quality of [my] reasoning skills.” The volume of Google hits only buttress my assertion that finding meaning apart from God is a major issue for atheists. C’mon, how hard is this?
Cline’s basic reply to my assertion that atheists cannot find meaning without God was this, from comment #26:
Duran: Once again, if you’re just an animal, an advanced collection of cells, who will dissolve into absolute nothingness along with all your good deeds and efforts, then yes: Life is ultimately of no value.
Cline: OK. Prove it.
Duran: Attempting to find meaning in a meaningless world is tantamount to madness.
Cline: OK. Prove it.
With rejoinders like this, why debate? My statements, like his, are philosophical assertions not scientific equations. “Proving” that the search for meaning is futile in a meaningless world is as nebulous as trying to “prove” it isn’t. To illustrate this point, let me invert Cline’s response in this mock exchange:
Cline: Attempting to find meaning in a meaningless world IS NOT tantamount to madness.
Duran: OK. Prove it.
How exactly would Cline go about “proving” that finding “meaning in a meaningless world is not tantamount to madness”? If he said that many atheists don’t go mad, I’d say that some do. If he said that some live happy, satisfied lives, I’d say that some don’t. Judging the validity of a philosophy by its adherents is double-edged — no one perfectly embodies any single belief system and there’s always exceptions to the rule. If Cline thinks he “proves” his point because some atheists DO find meaning, I’d argue, as I have all along, that there’s no logical reason or necessity that they do so. Atheism offers no compelling argument for why one must believe or behave any way. This is why Hume and Kant and Nietzsche and Russell spent so much time trying to articulate a reason to live and be ethical — because they understood the danger of extrapolating their unbelief to its logical conclusions.
I’d also float this idea: Many Christians find happiness and meaning. No doubt, some of that “happiness” is contrived and shallow. Nevertheless, I think Cline would agree that the fact that some Christians find meaning in Christianity DOES NOT validate Christianity. Likewise, the fact that some atheists find meaning in atheism DOES NOT validate atheism. The validation of any belief system involves a fragile combination of logic, evidence, and humility.
If anything, my encounter with Austin Cline and his readers reinforces the caricature of the “angry atheist.” Atheism is not a passive unbelief in God, but a brazen assertion in his non-existence. For the most part, atheism is really anti-theism — an aggressive counterattack against religion and the religious. After my encounter with Cline, I’m wondering if this “hostility” against theists is actually what drives many atheists.
I’ve always felt that, at the heart of atheism, is a terrible, unspoken philosophical inconsistency. For only until every possible dimension and nook and cranny of the universe can be explored, can someone, with confidence, say there is no God. But no one has done this. Thus, the atheist is left to staunchly defend something he CANNOT EVER PROVE. For this reason, agnosticism has always seemed like a far more reasonable, and less hostile, stance.
Finally, if atheism is true, discussions like this don’t matter. If there’s no god, and no heaven or hell, when we nuke ourselves into oblivion, the sun burns out in a million years, or the universe contracts again, the fact that I was “bested” by a bunch of atheists won’t flippin’ matter. If, however, Christianity is true, these discussions are infinitely more important.
Infinitely, indeed.
You were right about the tone, for sure. I guess I read along until maybe the 40th comment. Anger, arrogance, name-calling, slander, insults. It was ugly.
There’s definately limits to what debates can solve. I personally believe there is much evidence and logic to support God’s existence, but there is the needed element of faith. One must be seeking to find Him. I know that I know that I know that I have a relationship with God. He has done things in my life, answered my questions, helped me through hard times. But these are not things I can “prove.” They are experiences I have had. No one can say I didn’t have them. No one can say God hasn’t spoken to me or changed my life. They’d have to meet Him and see for themselves…
Oddly, I tried to get into a conversation similar once, and honestly people kept reading far too much into what I was saying. Eventually I just realized that internet debates don’t work well, however well-stated.
Second…While, yes, some things can only be experienced, the question then becomes “Does what I experienced actually reflect reality?”
I mean, I know someone whose experience has been that men can’t be trusted. For me, it’s that women can’t be (I’m female, btw). So…Who’s right?
Survey says: Neither. Or both, depending on the way you look at it.
Anyway. Some things can’t be proven, no. Actually, I never understood the “prove God exists” thing. If God speaks, and is a person (or so we believe), then who am I talking to if he doesn’t exist?
Or rather, why would you ask me if my mother exists? Prove my mother exists?
It’s just weird to me. Prove Mom exists. Okay, birth certificate, grandparents, social security card…hospital records…
All of which can be fabricated.
At some point, honestly, are you really going to ask me to prove my mother exists?
I guess for me this is the same kind of logic. Prove God exists? Well….but anything I even offered you’d accuse me of fabricating. I mean, we exist. There’s Scripture. There’s that he speaks. There’s all these things…
And anyone asking me to ‘prove it’ would assume I fabricated it.
Or maybe I’m just bullheaded. Anyway, lovely post.
I posted this on Becky’s blog on the 6th, it tells the truth about my atheism, I was, just as you said, the angry atheist, I used it to fuel my anger towards God and anyone who believed in God.
(copied and pasted from comments at Becky’s:)
“The real issue, I think, is that they cannot imagine an all knowing God who is greater than Man.†-Becky
When I was atheist, it was a combination of choices and reasons for putting away all I had learned of God because I didn’t believe bad stuff could be good and couldn’t figure out why I had to be “punished†as I saw it, I didn’t feel I deserved the life I had and believed with all of my heart that if God was real, He’d choose to give me a life that was easy and nice and always peaceful.
It boils down to pride. I knew better than some “imaginary†being who wasn’t at all dependable, in my opinion. One who watched me be abused physically, sexually, emotionally, and didn’t intercede to help.
Then, in a bigger way than I could ever have possibly fathomed, I learned He was there the whole time and didn’t like what happened but taught me that it was for a purpose.
From my experience, I wanted to believe that something bigger than me existed, that I was here for a purpose and that all of my pain was for anything other than just to suffer. But I got mad and basically told God to fuck off, I could do it better than He could. That’s pride and immaturity. But, there are some of us who learn the hard way.
Every time I argued with a Christian, I hoped someone would come up with something that wasn’t idiotically stupid. On the beach, drinking a beer with my friend Ed, arguing over God’s existence, I said, “If there is a God, He’ll prove it to me.â€
God didn’t reach down and crack me on the head and say, “Here I am you idiot,†He took His sweet time and eventually I’ll get around to writing my memoir…
After 15 years of not seeing one another, I got an email from Ed saying his dad died and he was back in our hometown and wondered how I was because he had to pass by my old house to get to his dad’s place to clean it out. I was then leading women’s ministry at our SBC church and told him, “I’m great, but I’m not the girl you knew on the beach†and told him about God–not knowing that he was leading Collegiate ministries in Wyoming for, you guessed it, the SBC. That’s when he told me he’d been praying for me non-stop since that night at the beach. Every time he’d go home for a visit and pass my old house, he’d pray. Every time he talked with a college student like me, he’d pray for me. For 15 years.
Not that my story proves God’s love to anyone, but the fact of the matter is that deep down, I don’t care if it is a sweeping statement, deep down in that place that no one else knows about, everyone wants to be loved and wants to have a purpose for being here. I didn’t know having someone pray for me for all those years would mean so much, but it is the single most humbling experience I have yet to live through. Even though I had accepted Christ without that knowledge, what I saw was a guy named Ed who showed me a little of God’s character.
Rather than argue or try to convince someone why I believe in Jesus, I’ve taken up Ed’s stance, I just love them and pray for them and trust God for the rest.
I can’t explain everything about God, but what I can do is love people for who they are no matter what they believe.
The discussion at Austin’s site has been … insightful.
A couple of observations:
1) None of us have suffered to the point of death. Having people question my intelligence and truthfulness and motives is not really all that big a deal if it means someone might have a glimpse of the truth because of something I’ve said.
2) Having people question my intelligence and truthfulness and motives wears on me, takes a toll.
3) Spiritual things really are spiritually discerned.
4) Those who wish to reduce God to that which Man can examine and pass judgment on concerning His existence, have already rejected Him.
5) A soft answer turns away wrath—unless the wrath is really directed at God.
6) The anger of atheists is directed at God but spills out on those of us who bear His name, something Scriptural. (Hmmm, I wonder if I should have used that as a proof of the veracity of Scripture. 😉 )
7) I’ve never been more aware of how much I have because of Christ, or how much I wish others knew Him.
Becky
Mike, answer me these two questions: 1)If you were born to a Jewish family, would you be Jewish right now? 2)What happens to all of the people who never get to hear about Jesus through no fault of their own, not just now but throughout history and this includes babies who die at birth or soon after. I’m not looking for an opinion, I’m looking for what the Christian scripture says. If it doesn’t say, then you can give your opinion but note it as such.
I am willing to continue this if you can answer there two questions.
Your website… very nice aesthetically.
By the way, you made it clear that you didn’t like the way your were addressed on Austin Cline’s message board. Well, is it any wonder when you imply that your life is better because you get to thank the god that you believe in while atheists don’t do this? And you wrote that for atheists nothing has any real meaning and used words like pointless and “swept away.” Gee, that kind of riled me. And for you to act like, “Poor me, what did I do to deserve this negative tone?” Ask yourself this, why did you even feel the need to write about what atheists do on Thanksgiving.
To start with, I am a vegetarian. Secondly, I am thankful for my family, especially my wife and beautiful son. By the way, I have nothing against the idea of god(s) or a creator. However, I have something very much against the belief in specifics about this god and that this god should play favorites based on one’s beliefs while alive on this earth. To suggest that one must believe in Jesus or go to hell is absurd. Period. Of course, I don’t expect you to see that. It appears you’re to caught up in it. Also, when you get “yelled at” on a message board, you have to understand that you are there representing every hardline evangelist whether you intend to or not or like it or not. That’s just the way it is. But again, you certainly played a part even if you don’t want to acknowledge it. To suggest that Christians are above this themselves would not be an accurate statement. And one does not need to believe in god to live a moral life. There are plenty of people who say they believe in god, including Christians, who commit crimes. Morality and ethics is a personal thing, not a fear of god thing. Although if that works for you, so be it. But I would argue then that a moral atheist is better than a moral Christian, because the atheist is good without any fear of hell. I am a great father and working on an historical project that will be around long after I am gone. So I have contributed an intelligent son to this planet who I will raise to be open-minded and to think scientifically and hope he goes on to do great and wonderful things as an adult and I’m preserving a part of our history for future generations. I’d love to do more and may even do so, but I work a full time job right now. I consider both of these things to be positive contributions.
Hey Marc! Thanks for the questions.
In answer to your first question, If I was raised in a Jewish family, I’d probably be Jewish. Of course, there’s lots of people raised in various religious traditions that grow up to eschew those traditions, so one’s “religion of birth” is not necessarily one’s eventual “religion of choice.” I think that distinction is really important both logically and Scripturally.
Your second question has been debated for centuries, so there’s no easy answers even amongst believers. What I’ll offer is my opinion, but hopefully informed enough by Scripture to give it some weight. “What happens to all of the people who never get to hear about Jesus through no fault of their own. . .?” The simple answer: God judges them according to the Light they have.
I believe the book of Romans chs. 1-3 gives us the most important paradigm for deciphering these questions. According to the Apostle Paul, God has revealed Himself to all men through creation (1:18-20) and written His Law on our hearts (2:14-15). He metes judgment according to our compliance or non-compliance with the Truth we have. Romans 2:6-16 is, in my opinion, the crux of that argument wherein we are told that “God does not show favoritism” (vs. 11) to Jew or Gentile, those inside or outside the faith community.
While some faith traditions believe that infants, heathens, and those of other religious persuasions go automatically to hell, I am not one of them. I believe that God loves His creation immensely and has many, many ways to woo us to Himself. Whether or not we follow is another story. But ultimately, God judges us by where our hearts are at, which means I cannot render any definitive judgment on a person’s eternal state. Scripture is clear, however, that God is both 1.) Just and 2.) Loving. Any discussion of His “handling” of those outside the Christian faith must be informed by those facts.
Thanks for the questions, Marc.
Mike,
You are right that a person’s religion of birth will not necessarily be his/her life’s religion, but will you agree that this scenario is quite statistically low? Working in a religious atmosphere, I can tell you that I see people converting away from Christianity but it is always for marriage purposes. I think it’s kind of funny that people have to concern themselves so much with religion and who believes in what. In my opinion, there are much more interesting things to do with one’s life. Anyhow, you acknowledged that you’d probably be Jewish if you were born to a Jewish family. This would be even more likely if that family was orthodox are at least more religious than a secular Jewish family. So your Christianity (as so many others) can be considered nothing more than an “accident of birth,” so to speak. Imagine if you had grown up in an orthodox Jewish home. The odds of you growing up and dismissing all that you had learned, all that had been instilled in you since birth, all that your parents and peers followed and believed, are something like .00000000000001 percent. And perhaps even less than that. Now think about this: Is it fair for a life-long Christian to hold the belief that anyone who doesn’t believe in Jesus will go to tell. It’s staggeringly unfair to anyone who grew up differently. It means that most of god’s creation (assuming we are god’s creation), was doomed to hell right from birth. This hardly seems reasonable. I find it difficult to believe that a fair-minded person doesn’t see that. So what would cause a person to hold such a belief? Well, fear is the obvious reason. A fear of death, a fear of the unknown. Imagine this: Suppose Christianity didn’t exist. Now suppose I told you that a man who claimed to be the son of god was killed and came back to life, his mother was a virgin, etc., and that if you didn’t believe in this you’d go to horrible place called hell when you died. Mike, I’ve got to believe that you would tell me to take hike and more than likely some curse words would be thrown in there for good measure.
Now, let us change topic slightly. Religious people will tell you that god (if such exists) is all knowing and all perfect. But why they would be have need of an Old Testament and New Testament (and let’s not forget the Muslim holy book, the Book of Mormon, etc.)? Wouldn’t an all knowing and all perfect god have gotten it right the first time? And why would god have revealed himself to so few in the ancient past with the expectation that EVERYONE for all time to come should believe them? An all knowing and all perfect god would have known the consequences (such as holy wars) that would result. Wouldn’t this got want to make its presence known to everyone in the here and now and straighten out the mess we’re in? So even if there is a god who is our creator, clearly this god is not all knowing and all perfect. The facts speak for themselves.
And let’s present the scenario that god exists and did indeed speak to the people of earth in no uncertain manner in unison and revealed that the Jesus story is just that, a story. Never happened. I can see it now… the hardcore Christians wouldn’t believe it was really god; they’d say it was the devil trying to trick them. The same that I’ve read they do with dinosaur bones. So in the end, a true-believer will only believe what he/she wants to, even in the face of scientific discovery or that very god telling the believer that he/she has been wrong.
So why has religion lasted all these years? Well, for one thing, parents overwhelmingly pass it onto their kids. Even when these kids grow up they may not believe fully in the religion but pass it onto their kids because it is tradition and it offers community. But none of this makes it true. The other major reason why it has lasted so long is because it was put down in writing. If it was purely oral history there might be some people who still followed as best they could, but it would be more like a cult and nowhere near as powerful as it is today. Being in book format gives the information an air of authenticity that would not otherwise exist. But again, none of this makes it true.
If you said to me in friendly conversation over a glass of wine something like this: “Well, Marc, our existence is just so incredible and astronomical that I just can’t help but feel that somehow we have a creator. But that’s where I will leave it. If this creator is true, it appears that we have been left to our own devices. All these religions vying for which one is the truth is just foolish. The bottom line is no one knows.” I would have no problem with this.
Funny story. I recently read online (don’t remember where) a Christian making the claim that science exists because of Christianity. And just a few days prior to this a religious Jewish man that I was talking told me that it is because of the Jews that we have science. I don’t remember the reason the Christian gave but the Jewish man said something like this: “The Torah encourages us to question and this led to science.” Kind of comical and speaks volumes, if you ask me.
So where does this leave us? Well, the atheists and agnostics don’t really care what others believe (yes, there are always exceptions to the rule, same with religious people). We just don’t want any particular religion trying to run the United States government based on their holy book. This can only turn bad in the end. If not in your lifetime, perhaps in your kid’s lifetime. For you it might be no big deal so long as the Christians are running the show, but there is no guarantee that that will always be the case. And this scenario will only lead to religious intolerance and worse for the non-believers of the ruling religious party. Why are our presidential candidates being questioned so much about their religious beliefs with Jesus being the focal point? Didn’t people learn their lesson with George W. Bush? Do you really, truly believe that Bush or the Pope talk to God? In my opinion this is so laughable that these two men should be led to the nearest psychiatric ward. If we are to believe this, what if someday someone with this kind of power states that god told him/her that all the non-believers must convert or be killed? In such a scenario Mike, what would you do?
In closing, I really haven’t given this topic too much thought.
Marc
Excuse some of the above typos. Now, let us change topic slightly. Religious people will tell you that god (if such exists) is all knowing and all perfect. [After which it should read:]But why then do we have an Old Testament and New Testament?
Marc
Hey, Marc! To be really, really honest with you, your thoughts are so scattered, unfocused, and involve so many leaps, it would be hard to answer with any clarity (on my part) or satisfaction (on your part). We simply must take this slower.
In my previous comments, I felt I answered your two questions as succinctly and forthrightly as possible. However, you barely mentioned, in agreement or rebuttal, those comments. What are your feelings about my positions?
You make several sweeping claims about the “unfairness” of being judged for being raised in certain belief systems. As I said, what one chooses to believe is far more important than what one is conditioned to believe. Furthermore, I stated my belief that God judges us for the Light we live up to, not the “exactness” of our religious / philosophical heritage. This is a very important point that, I think, takes some of the wind out of the sails of your argument. In fact, I was raised a Catholic, defected from the Church in my teens, embraced Hinduism and various New Age ripoffs, before becoming a Christian at the age of 22. So I think I fall into the “.00000000000001 percent” you mention. My guess is that that percentage is far too inflated. People, as they mature, often rethink their beliefs and traditions.
I get the sense that many of your opinions are the result of your experience with professing Christians. Is this true? And if so, is this the best way to determine the validity of Christianity? I am embarrassed by many religious folk, as I’m sure you would be by some non-religious folk. So it’s kind of a wash to argue too much from experience. Truth must be independent of the people / groups who claim to have it, or it’s not truth, but propaganda.
Also, you make many speculations (and then, assumptions) about how an “all knowing and all perfect god” should or should not act. The truth of the matter is, If there really is an “all knowing and all perfect god,” then he/she/it is free to act any darned way they want. Our duty is to determine whether or not that god actually exists, and whether or not we want to serve him/her/it. But, for the record, the notion that that “all knowing and all perfect god” is good and gracious and merciful is ENTIRELY a biblical / Christian construct. Serving the Hindu god Shiva is a whole other story.
I’d love to continue dialogging, but I’d encourage you to refine your points. If you had a main point you are making, a synthesis of your arguments against theists, in the briefest possible paragraph, what would they be?
Thanks for taking the time, Marc!
Mike… When I type in a forum such as this, I do it very fast, sort of as a breather between playing with my kid and working on a project that is a tremendous weight on my shoulders right now and very time consuming. So I would need leisure time to get back to you in the way you wish, time that I have precious few seconds of. I will say this: Your answer as to what happens to a person who dies (including a child) who never had the chance to learn about Jesus (which I think is totally irrelevant) was, as you stated, an opinion. I think that a lot of what religious people believe is only an opinion. One might say that Christianity is a religion of opinions. For you the answers have to be deciphered (your word). Many people will decipher according to their inclinations. Some will never decipher but only believe what others tell them to believe. At least you appear to be trying to think for yourself somewhat, though I disagree with your views.
Based on your various religious beliefs in your life it is clear that religion is important to you and that you are searching (but the search has now stopped at Christianity). Fine. I’m sure you realize that not everyone will come to the same conclusion.
Whether or not Christianity (even Judaism) stands for anything good or has anything good to offer has nothing to do with them being true in terms of origin. Those are myths in my book. Yeah, that’s an opinion. So in the end, no matter where you stand on the spectrum, everyone can only offer an opinion. Some opinions are more worthy than others. For me, “revealed religion” is not a worthy opinion. For you, it is the reverse.
I know you think my answers/statements are all over the place, but I think that the various points can be answered by you if you wanted to. Each paragraph is another point. Answer if you like.
Hope there are less typos this time around.
Marc
Marc, may I summarize what appears to be a major emphasis of yours? You use the word “opinion” a lot — seven times in your last post alone. The following statements may be a good distillation of your thoughts. You said, “I think that a lot of what religious people believe is only an opinion. One might say that Christianity is a religion of opinions.”
For the record, I am much more interested in CLARITY rather than AGREEMENT. With that in mind, I’d like to make two brief points regarding your (apparent) perspective, which may help us clarify our positions.
First, I view my faith resting more on FACT than OPINION. One of my initial inquiries into Christianity regarded the Scriptures. I was rather shocked to discover that the Bible is one of the most authentic ancient historic documents in the world. There is far more manuscript evidence for the Bible than anything from Socrates, Aristotle, Shakespeare, Siddhartha Gautama , the founder of Buddhism, and many other reputable historical figures. It is both internally consistent and historically accurate. While a person can disagree with its message, the FACT of its authenticity is largely indisputable.
Christianity is the only world religion built on historical events (FACTS), rather than just precepts or principles. For instance, the Jews are real, Jerusalem is real, Golgotha is a real mountain and a man named Jesus actually lived. These are FACTS, not opinions. There is historical evidence to corroborate it. Jesus died by crucifixion — a verified form of Roman execution of that time. His grave can be visited today. After His supposed resurrection, a group of largely ragtag followers ventured into the world and started what would become one of the greatest world religions. Coincidence? All but one of His apostles were martyred for their beliefs. Furthermore, these events occurred amongst people who could actively refute them if they were not true. Nevertheless, Christianity swept the world.
While there may be many opinions about these facts, their FACTUALITY is the basis for my faith and should be the basis for arguing the relevance or absurdity of Christianity.
Second, by inference, you suggest your positions are more than just opinions, they are FACTS. If your positions ARE just opinions, then no arguments are sustainable because nothing is ultimately provable, everything is a matter of personal perspective. It’s my opinion versus your opinion, so no one wins. If, however, your positions are FACTUAL, then these should be the basis, at least springboard, for our conversation.
So maybe we should begin there: 1.) What FACTS about Christianity do you dispute? 2.) What FACTS about atheism do you offer?
Great discussion, Marc. Thanks for taking the time!
Mike… My previous posts have included several points that you never addressed, and then you go on to ask me more questions. Additionally, things that you declare to be fact I am in complete disagreement about, even the very existence of Jesus. Maybe he lived, maybe he didn’t. IF he did, he was not born of a virgin mother through some god. I even read somewhere (wish I had taken note of where) an alternate version to his dying on the cross. If he lived, he either died outright and the rest is false information or he never truly died the first time around. We are at an impasse. Bottom line, you think I make no sense and I think you make no sense.
I find that what you believe to be dangerous for two reasons:
1 – You talk about facts that aren’t facts in the view of millions of people, not just myself. Therefore, political power for Christians is dangerous for everyone who doesn’t see your version of truth.
2 – I wrote in a previous post about the danger of Christian governmental power in the way that the extremists are pushing for. You never responded. This tells me you don’t have a problem with it and that perhaps you lean this way yourself. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Mike, if Christianity were the truth, then EVERYONE would believe in it. After all, who denies that 1 + 1 equals 2? If anyone does that, don’t let that person build you a house! Truth is universal, not subjective. Religion is subjective. There are even various beliefs among Christians.
Marc
Fair enough, Marc. Before I respond to your objections here, I’ll go back and answer some of your points in the previous comments. Once again, however, your points are not lucid.
As I said in my last comments, I believe the thrust of your arguments have to do with opinion, and how opinion differs from factual analysis. I addressed these in my previous comments.
Okay, I think one of your points is this: “Whether or not Christianity (even Judaism) stands for anything good or has anything good to offer has nothing to do with them being true in terms of origin.” I agree. But that’s a double-edged sword because goodness is not a validation of atheism either. Just because some atheists are moral / ethical / content “has nothing to do with [it] being true.”
I think another one of your points is this: “For me, ‘revealed religion’ is not a worthy opinion. For you, it is the reverse.” My answer: It depends upon the weight of the evidence revealed. If flying saucers suddenly descended upon earth for all to see, I’d probably have to adjust my view of extraterrestrial life. Likewise, “revealed religion” depends upon what’s revealed. You appear to have a negative view of religion, Marc, which predisposes to reject religious revelation. However, if you can’t look at the evidence objectively, no evidence will change your point of view.
All right. Did I answer your previous points? Can we move on to the discussion about FACTS?
Mike… One person’s religion is another person’s superstition. You believe the writers of the bible had revelations from a god that you choose to believe in. I deny that any revelations took place. I don’t believe in the bible as the word of the god that you believe in. For me (and millions like me), the bible is the word of man. The old and new testaments are a mix of history and myths, with the myths [inexplicably] taken as actual historical events.
Answer this: Could the bible win in a court of law as being the absolute infallible word of the god the Christians believe in to the exclusion of all other religions or no religion at all?
Just take a look at what happened in Dover, Pennsylvania. Are you familiar with it? The school board wanted to teach intelligent design in the science class. It went to court. The judge, who owed his position to Bush and Rick Santorum (a former republican senator), ruled in favor of science and not to include intelligent design in the Dover classrooms. There was a very good documentary on the subject. It looked like the deck was stacked in favor of the creationists but the judge, who was in a very difficult situation, after viewing all the evidence, found that he had to rule in the favor of science.
You want to debate with me about facts. But the facts about the bible such as so and so a person really lived doesn’t make the bigger story true, that being the part that gets into the unknown and supernatural. I won’t argue the bible with you. Why? Because again, it is not a book that I believe represents the word of god (should this god exist). For instance, the old testament certainly includes some real historical people, but I don’t believe for a second that god spoke to Moses.
I have been to Jewish, Christian and Muslim websites, each of which claims that their religion is the one and only true religion and each sets forth their reasoning, while discounting the other two. So it all amounts to a hill of beans. My stance is they are all wrong. Whatever the truth is, we just don’t know it. And I’m okay with that (although it is fun, interesting and intellectually stimulating to wonder about). Why do you feel the need to choose one over the other or any at all?
Marc, I must say that you don’t seem to stay on topic very well. In my last comment, I purposely went back and answered some points that you said I ignored. However, you barely acknowledged them. Instead, you spent a paragraph on Dover, PA, and then go on to reassert your disbelief in the Bible.
For the record: This is why blog debates are so difficult. There really aren’t any parameters (save the webmaster’s) to hold the discussion and the “combatants” on course. As such, our discussion here continues to fray into many rabbit trails, unanswered questions, and un-rebutted challenges. This is my (re)attempt to keep us on course.
In my previous comments, I asked: “1.) What FACTS about Christianity do you dispute? 2.) What FACTS about atheism do you offer?” Both of these comments you did not directly, substantively address other than to say, “I won’t argue the bible with you. Why? Because again, it is not a book that I believe represents the word of god.” You appear to negate the FACTS simply because you disbelieve their ultimate verdict.
This is a very important point because, as I see it, it is the MO of many atheists. #1: They DO NOT want to believe God, therefore #2.) They approach the evidence with existing presuppositions. It’s like going into a murder trial and, before really looking at the evidence, make up your mind to find the defendant guilty. My experience is that most atheists categorically reject Christianity but HAVE NOT really studied the facts (evidence), nor can they articulate them. In other words, they find the defendant guilty without looking at the FACTS.
You concede that some Bible characters / historical figures are true. But while you may reject their message, THE CONCESSION OF THEIR FACTUALITY IS ESSENTIAL TO THE VALIDITY OF THEIR TESTIMONY. While you may disagree with a witness’s beliefs, if that witness’s credibility is reliable, you must, like it or not, add weight to their testimony. In other words, if the Bible tells us that Abraham was a real historical figure who fathered the Jewish nation, AND ARCHEOLOGY AND HISTORY VALIDATE THAT, you don’t have the luxury of just, ad hoc, dismissing Abraham’s witness just because you disagree with his premise (i.e., that a god spoke to him). But, BECAUSE YOU’VE ALREADY REJECTED THE PREMISE (that a god exists), YOU DISMISS THE FACTS.
Just because something is FACTUAL, i.e., corresponds to TRUTH and REALITY, does not require people to believe it. There are people who still believe O.J. is innocent. Do you? The evidence says otherwise, but peoples’ presuppositions allow them to tweak, dismiss the evidence. There is a group called The Flat Earth Society that believes the earth is, uh, flat. Do you believe this, Marc? I doubt it. But have you ever personally seen the earth from outer space? No, not from some Discovery Channel film clip (which can be doctored). Like me, you trust that the evidence has been presented to you objectively, that there is enough of it, that you exercise faith in an orbital earth. Yet even though the preponderance of the evidence tells us the earth is an orb, the Flat Earth folks believe in some vast conspiracy. There are many, MANY examples of FACTS being ignored or twisted for one’s philosophical / political ends. This is why honesty, objectivity, and humility are so important to these debates.
Lee Strobel, an investigative reporter with a legal background, researched Christianity for the purpose of disproving it, but instead converted. His books approach the facts of Christianity through a legal lens. Those books are The Case for Christ and The Case for Faith. He does not skirt tough issues. Who Moved the Stone is another book written by a former skeptic of Christianity. Frank Morrison sought to disprove the Resurrection of Christ and, after looking at the evidence, became a believer. There is much Extra-biblical Evidence for Jesus Christ, but especially read William Lane Craig’s Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Are the Biblical Documents Reliable? and the link page Authenticity of the Bible are good.
I appreciate your time, Marc. But in light of this stuff, again I ask: 1.) What FACTS about Christianity do you dispute? 2.) What FACTS about atheism do you offer?
Peace. . .
The Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ is incorrect above. You can find the right link HERE.
Mike… If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that if myself, and millions of other individuals, would only take the time to study Christianity that we would be believers. Therefore, we are at an impasse. You CHOOSE to believe. I stand by that statement. You will have to further your arguments with someone who has the time to give you. I don’t have it.
And by the way, for someone with my beliefs, I have a very full life and wonderful family and interests and I am currently involved in a project that will preserve a part of our history long after I am gone. All of this without a belief in your god. I believe that we just can’t know the truth about a god or gods but you choose to believe in a virgin birth (by the way, not an original story to Christianity) and that a man died and came back to life and that this man is a god. Well, if this works for you, good. For me, I see it for what it is and I’m not the only one. Again, if you want a more in-depth argument you will have to look elsewhere. But I have made some very good points above that make my position a very logical one. It seems that for anyone to debate with you he/she first has to read all the literature that you have read. Would you be willing to read all the literature that I suggest that supports the opposing point of view? Of course not, who’s got that kind of time. I have logic and science on my side. And there are millions of people who see this topic the way that I do, with variations along the way, no doubt. And for every Lee Strobel there is another person who experienced the same thing in reverse.
For the debate that you really want, you should check out this site:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/
These people will definitely have the time to debate you more fully.
Marc, I take this as your concession to move on. That’s cool. Like you, I’ve got a large family, significant projects, and a full-time job. I am very familiar with Rational Responders and Debunking Christianity, atheist and pro-evolution literature. These are, in part, how I arrived at my beliefs.
You said: “If I understand you correctly, you seem to think that if myself, and millions of other individuals, would only take the time to study Christianity that we would be believers.” Then you absolutely misunderstand me. People can CHOOSE to believe what they want. Marc, listen: FACTS ARE IRRELEVANT WHEN A PERSON’S MIND IS MADE UP. All I’ve done is pointed out that there are plenty enough FACTS about Christianity to warrant, at least, some belief. Christians are not all brain dead, rightwing, imbeciles.
Our brief discussion has reinforced my feelings that atheists are driven by presuppositions and a resistance to honestly / humbly / objectively searching for TRUTH. You have taken very little effort to actually address any of my challenges. Your mind is made up.
Either way, I really appreciate the time you’ve taken and trust we will both remain open to philosophical readjustments and good-natured to those who believe differently. Thanks, Marc!
I don’t want to be obnoxious, but there’s just no other way to go about it. I have found the people at the atheism.about site to be- not particularly fond of thinking. (You’ll probably see I found your site doing a google search for “Austin Cline is an idiot”- not terribly mature of me, but…) I’d liken them- probably especially Mr. Cline- to kids with their fingers in their ears yelling “I can’t hear you.” (Only instead they are shouting “lalala logical fallacy lalala”) Reading comprehension is sorely lacking on the internet, which fact is extremely obvious there.
I would ignore them. They’ll come around or they won’t, but one thing’s for sure- arguing with somebody who can’t hear you is useless.
Very pretty site. I think I’ll have a look around now that I’m here.
Mike,
Really like your site – and honestly appreciate your thoughts about the dialog with Austin. I’ve been most fortunate to enjoy a good debate with an agnostic friend of mine – and realized yet still more how much I’m grateful that the dialog has been civil. My friend sent me a Hitchen’s article cutting down Mother Teresa. In my reply, I noted that nasty name-calling in my mind forfeited the debate.
There was one key point I noticed in the stream above where the question was asked about what to do with those who have never heard (young children or people from other faiths) about Jesus. I really have appreciated all of your replies – but wanted to add the following observation. While most of our speculation on that topic is subjective, what we do know for sure is that God is Just and Loving – and however he judges those before Him will have both of those qualities. Ultimate justice and love can only be truly found at the foot of the cross. Whatever God does with those who don’t know about the cross will be, of necessity, less loving and just than it could be – but I have no doubt it will be loving and just no matter what.
Just a thought… Thanks for standing in the gap!
(this reply is about two years too late, but I figured, since I read the article, might as well offer my thoughts)
This sort of thing always manages to irritate me endlessly. I have many friends of many different beliefs–some even atheists–and yet none so militant, so mindlessly aggressive, as the atheists you find lurking around the internet.
As Christians, we are often misrepresented by those speaking the loudest and the most frequently. Those minor parts, though more visible, do not always represent the whole body of Christ. In the same way I know that atheists of this sort do not represent all atheists/agnostics (thank goodness). Even so, the Dawkins' and Clines of the world continue to disgrace, not only atheists, but people in general. The sort of harsh name calling–or call it what it is, BULLYING–should not have to be tolerated by anyone for any reason.
Reasonable atheists everywhere, I'm sure, are hanging their heads in shame (that or laughing it off) at the ridiculous treatment exhibited in the mentioned discussion. Correction, reasonable PEOPLE.
Thanks for clearing this up.
I can't help but notice, Mike, that your characterizations of atheism are strawmen. Atheism only entails one thing: the lack of belief in gods. There is no unifying structure, no beliefs, no dogma that goes with it. As the cliche goes, it isn't any different than ones lack of belief in leprechauns or unicorns, which are undeniably constructs of humans. Gods are the same way.
In order to talk about atheists in any meaningful way outside of "do they believe in God or not?", you have to construct strawmen to explain them. For example, your previous post about "Can Atheists Really Give Thanks?", you say
Atheism doesn't say anything about our meaning. The philosophy that various atheists prescribed to doesn't really state anything about atheism itself. Christianity might answer the question of "the meaning of life," but it is just an empty question. This is what Austine Cline was speaking of in his blog. Atheism doesn't imply anything about the meaning of life. An individuals struggles with their meaning actually has little relevance to atheism itself.
Also, atheism doesn't say anything about the origin of life either. The sciences have various theories, including cosmogenesis, abiogenesis, evolution, and others, which are not random processes. It all comes down to physics, which isn't random. Moving past the atomic particles, we still don't see randomness. This may imply a lawgiver but doesn't necessitate one. Things may be because they cannot be the opposite.
Further more, even conceding that a lawmaker exist, the leap in logic from necessity of a higher power(s) to God is massive.
This post is an absolutely perfect description of every conversation I've ever had with an atheist either electronically or in person. It must be frustrating to define your beliefs solely as an opposition to other people's beliefs, and I posit this is the source of the hostility.
Konraden:
You said: “I can’t help but notice, Mike, that your characterizations of atheism are strawmen. Atheism only entails one thing: the lack of belief in gods. There is no unifying structure, no beliefs, no dogma that goes with it.”
This is incorrect on a number of fronts.
First of all, the lack of belief in gods is itself a belief.
Secondly, while atheism may have no highly detailed and formal systematic theology (At least that I’m aware of), some have tried to lay down the basic tenets, a process that mimics other religions. We see this in Humanist Manifesto’s I & II.
Thirdly, atheism (also known by some as secular humanism), has been defined as being a religion and there’s Supreme Court precedent to support this.
In 1961 in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment protects citizens of both theistic and non-theistic religions. In case documents the court specified secular humanism as a distinct religion that does not believe in God.
To be fair I must mention the 1994 decision by the 9th Circuit Court in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District. The court stated that as it pertains to Establishment Clause purposes, neither evolutionism nor secular humanism are “religions”.
Note the unconstitutional double-standard that this ruling created. If you want to avoid military service or gain tax-exempt status, then your secular humanism is a religion. On the other hand, if you want to proselytize students via the theory of evolution in public schools, your secular humanism is not viewed as being a religion.
By definition, a religion is simply a system of belief. I’ve heard historian Bill Federer explain that if we look up the word, “belief” in a dictionary, you’ll see that at some point in the definition it mentions thoughts or opinions upon which you base your actions. If you commit yourself to actions, and you have thoughts that inspire those actions, that collection of thoughts is your belief system which is also your religion.
This means that it doesn’t matter if a religion is theistic or not, nor does it matter if a person goes to a building once a week or more to celebrate it. Those factors are irrelevant. The point is, everyone maintains a loyalty to religious beliefs that are the basis for their worldview.
You also said: “Atheism doesn’t say anything about our meaning.”
Again, there may be no formal systematic theology of atheism that explicitly teaches it with regard to the issue of our meaning. However, because it is a worldview, it does implicitly communicate on the subject.
In one sense I can understand your “straw-man” accusation. The problem is, if that were true, and if atheism had no beliefs as you described, and if it really had nothing to say about our meaning, there’d be little reason for atheists to defend their position much less use the inflammatory tone as Mike noted concerning Austin Cline.
So why do some Christians feel the need to question atheism and why do atheists often respond with such vigor? Over time I’ve discovered that it isn’t because atheism lacks belief or doesn’t say anything about our meaning. It’s because of the arbitrary way that atheists approach belief and meaning. Atheists tend to communicate that the beliefs and meaning they do embrace are unique to and for each individual. In other words, they embrace the idea that they are autonomous.
I’m interested in your thoughts concerning atheists and autonomy.
Konraden:
In my previous post I mentioned two court cases but failed to provide a source for the information. The source I used was the book, “Today’s Conflict, Tomorrow’s Crisis” by the late Dr. D. James Kennedy (pages 211-213).
I had the unfortunate luck of running across Austin Cline’s blog and made the further error of trying to engage him on some of the points made in The God Delusion. We had a short interchange, yet when I posted a fairly coherent list of Dawkins’ fallacies for discussion, Austin clammed up and would not publish my comment. So much for intellectual honesty on his blog.
It’s unfortunate, because I think that dialogue between Christians and non believers does improve our faith as well, even if it does not convince others. That, unfortunately, is not Austin’s goal at all.
I guess changing definitions to prop up his arguments is no new thing to our friend Austine Cline
And he even thinks he’s excluded from the burden of proof for his claims as he’s an atheist, all the while proposing the existence of walking contradictions
You are lucky that Cline did not ban you from posting comments on his blog, as he did to me when I challenged him on the basic points of atheism.
One atheist commenter agreed with me that without a belief in God one has no reason to save a drowning stranger instead of a drowning puppy.
But Cline hates dissenters. He holds us in contempt, which is why he ignores our arguments with the approval of his own conscience.
By the way, Mike, I can tell from your exchange with Marc that you’ve listened to Dennis Prager on the radio. He’s definitely my favorite.
I enjoyed the dialogue of this blog article.
This video response is in no way a judgment on the author or on Cline. This is something that helps me to communicate with others in person or on blogs. I’ve had my fair share of futile blog debates, and learned that charity never faileth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2_PzNUYprw
Hope this helps. I know its by a Mormon, (and hope that doesn’t open another can of worms) but I feel it spans Christian truth.
This post is pretty funny to me, because I have a profound dislike for Humanism. Not because I am a Christian, or even a Conservative – it’s because I am an egoist and a reader of Nietzsche.
To me Austin Cline, Dawkins, et. al. are obnoxious and irrational precisely because they accept the same slave-morality and social tropes that Christianity does. They feel the need to justify themselves according to the vices (charity, hope, etc.) and are unwilling to face up to the existential nihilism that is the real world. They are driven by what is essentially a Protestant Pietism without the God; they’ve simply secularized Heaven and crowned the democratical State as God.
As a person who believes that morality is mythology, that government is a criminal gang and that charity corrupts everyone involved I could not be more disgusted by fake-skeptics like Cline and Hitchens.
As Stirner said, “Our atheists are pious people.”
Is an Atheist in his honest mind does not believe in some sort of god?
Why is an Atheist say he does not believe in God yet he is a law abiding citizen and appreciates Gods law is there a distinction between the laws and God; isn’t being a bit of a hypocrite not to believe in God or is it not admitting that the rules are not made by Him; because one cannot separate the two subjects from each other, the law is God and God is the law you cannot defy or separate one and not the other because they are bonded together at this point an atheist is defying himself. Where ever a low is being perfected or is being administered through honesty in the sight of God. That low is God’s low any other man made is devils law like few examples hanging abortion permitting prostitution and permitting once own gains for a huge percentage beyond once pocket to defend someone etc yet in this case an Atheist is a devils worshiper, he is not a Atheist.
Albert
Response to Austin Cline’s Agnosticism / Atheism Blog
Most of the Comments I read are nothing but insults and injustice to other intelligent people I believe that if one doesn’t know any better what is the use of criticising one’s believe, some are full of talents other are born no fault of their own illiterate big thanks to those school that there subjects does not include some spiritual value. The logic of this all is to teach and correct that misguided comment. The question is anything that wrong around us is in powering all mankind what I mean what is wrong is good and what is good that’s bead the whole point of it all I say it again; each of us has an empty hearth each individual has no one to turn too and that emptiness is nothing more but spirituality the body alone can’t survive on its own. It’s a shame that we spend more time on books that made their name by writing a novel or fantasy story that came in that authors mind dreams are our fevered wonders we intend to make these authors our gods even follow their footsteps. Yet the only one that showed as the past present and future, oh no His book doesn’t make sense which is the Bible yet why is it on sale till today and it baffled millions of people. Do not play with your time life one minute you are here and the next puff you’re gone.
Albert.
Sunday15 ‘April2012 John20,1923 The first day of the week the apostles were afraid from the Jewish the doors were locked Jesus entered and stood in the middle of them and said peace be with you then He showed His hands and chest, after again said peace be with you how my Father send me so will I send and blow unto them and said take the Holy Spirit. Those that you forgive their sin shall be forgiven in Haven, and those that you shall be withholding will be withheld in Haven. What does this means, it means that the apostles the Church their successors have the right and power in the name of Jesus to hear the confusion and forgive in the name of Jesus to the people.
Albert
Original Sin in the Bible.
Genesis to me it means; History of our Race. In the past humans didn’t know how to write so they left some kind of signs or told us stories through excavation we learnt a lot but it’s not enough. Through Jesus we learnt mostly during his speeches quite often He did mention the past and thanks to him we inherit most of our knowledge. My opinion the original sin incorporated in one word (disobedience) nothing more nothing less; we all know what it means, if God purely and simple was obeyed He would not have to go through all the discomfort of having to tell us what to do. Disobedience is the negative of all the wrongly doing on Earth. Let take the first disorder weather you believe it or not what was it? It was the disobedience No 1 between Lucifer and God. God wanted us which means those angles or spirits having a body, but Lucifer hated humans from the beginning. No 2 Adam and Eve to have a bit of inelegance it cost humans more negative problems then positive thinking. God knows what will happen, but the love he has for us, God gave us so many prophets and steel repeatedly dishonour and disobey him what was the results; wars famine diseases you name it and you can incorporate all of this and name it (Negativity)God even send us his own spirit in Jesus Body then what do we do, we kill Him to inherit without giving God the least of all a simple word thank you is it too hard to appreciate his gifts His love is so much for us that the still send and keep the earth fertile so we can survive. Jesus resurrection meant that He won death itself and gave the same condition to us which is life after death.
Albert.
Corruption!
The church is made of Humans and it’s very easy to penetrate in the human mind to break his vows and make any priest or anyone involved venerable with in the surroundings of each and every one of us. What amuses me is that why is it, us you and me everybody are hitting each other to proof something as we are the perfect once without sin. We say to each other in so many different ways every day of our lives the minute we read, or there is a story to tell our minds are ready to jump into conclusions instead of trying to find out who is the author behind this seen whatever it might be. Why it is God, in this case is the centre of attraction. Did not Jesus say do not point your finger to any of us, and also who is perfect in the eyes of the God? If someone whose power can give a corrupted order to his assistant say in the white house why is the President to blame? Take any religious group instead of collecting sheep like Sheppard try to find out which one of them got flees we end up more than a day or two to bring in some twenty sheep’s in the barn. Going back to where we started, we are forgetting that our enemy is the devil and his job to brake or shatter that kingdom so it want stand on its feet. When the high priests side to each other that Jesus is doing all this in the name of the devil that moment Jesus new being able to read their minds He told them straight forward if a kingdom does not sick with inn itself that kingdom will fall. Let always put in our minds that where people are involved there is some kind of corruption. One more thing why is it that the devil is always out of the picture yet again to make us think that he does not exist; he is the Joker of the living human kind.
Albert.
Marc December 27, 2007 at 2:46 AM
Marc December 28, 2007 at 12:38 AM
People that never heard of Jesus are not lost because He came to save the human race from everlasting hell. You say that you never heard about him, but Jesus know you and where your hearth is, you know very well the moment you have asked for him through this web without knowing you have knocked on his door that alone is already a revelation He said knock and the door shall be open strange enough apart from myself I am sour that more have read your comment. The New Testament is an improvement of the Old Testament the prophesy of the Messiah was written from the Old Testament; what happened was that the Jews were given a Kings and they expected a king as a Messiah infect some of the Jews wanted to proclaimed Jesus for a King. But Gods intention was to honor the Ten Commandments. These Rules are the opposite of the past which makes everyone equal in the eyes of God Having Jesus perfecting and explaining through his teaching, history turned over a lot of Jews including High priests and the old wise man by becoming Christens Now this amounted to a very large Number. In the Roman Catholic Church you find that most of the first reading at Mass is from the Old Testament second reading is Jesus own words which are from in the Gospel.
Albert
Remade December 9, 2007 at 8:43 PM
Of what I read it can’t be helped if you are wondering who is telling the truth or to believe or not if it’s a fantasy reality or fiction the world is full disillusions and betrayal there is two sides of the coin. The existence of life is a fact trough time and history many people fabricated and expanded words into stories and a legend is created. But there is a difference for instance if words are said in the open from someone who’s teaching is the reality of what is happening with inn our hearth body feeling so many time often during the day our mind try to create the Menu of the day, how are we to spend that present day. What is real; that most of the time we cannot measure the timing of what we choose for that day. All of us go through these stages at one time or another. The answer of it all is that we do not wont to except that with inn us there is an emptiness. Which is a spirit in us that we neglect although not realizing how much we are helped by it in our every day decisions? This spirit is a tool that can hold us from misbehaving or doing the wrong thing, Most of our lives we can get so carried on that we neglect that spirit and the remedy can only be helped from someone that is beyond anything on earth. No shrink can cure such power. That is why from the beginning man always wanted something or somebody to adore. We have to except that there is someone beyond our intelligence and from the beginning as I mention before in other webs that someone come to reveal to us the truth and that someone was Jesus the Messiah. Before any criticism read the Bible. And judge for yourself.
Albert.
Albert, I appreciate your commenting here, but I must ask that you to stop. You’re not adding to this conversation at all. At this point, you’re just sort of rambling. Thanks!
Mike Duran April 23, 2012 at 4:39 AM
I do apologies for my comments that keeps rambling, you see not everyone get my meanings some needs more explanation others are bright. All I know that there are those that appreciate me since I get a lot of E mail.
Albert.
Classification between people
There is no distinction between one another in the eyes of God. I would like to tell you a story, once there was three trees standing near each other and talking to each other how they love at the end of their day to be used for some useful to be remembered off one of them said I wood liked to be the front door of a Kings palace to serve because I am toll and huge not like you two you are too short and was boasting about herself, the second was short and said, I do not mind to be used as furniture for a King, now the third one was tiny and said what about me I do not mind being used for anything as long it’s for a King. Now time has come for their copping and was taken to their destination. A king was born and rested in a Major which was made from the tiny tree. The King grow up and stood on a ship that was made from the big tree, then after was crucified on a cross which was made from the other tree. What does this story teaches us that there is room for every one of us from the lowest to the highest person. The Bible is full of explanations similar to this one so please try not to under estimate the Mystery of God just learn by it.
Albert.
The Devils work.
Today I am going to preach against Christians instead. God forgive me for most of us, there is a need for explanation may be some sense clicks in their minds. I want to make it sound as if the devil is whispering in each and every one of us. Starting from now. I am seeing this little girl happy playing with a Doll, I wonder if I turn the hole seen into reality I know what to do I get her father to lose his Job with few bill here and there I get him frustrated at home and at the same time I will depress her mother by taking some of her fancy habits’ by leaving her in short of money in this way her comfort at home get frustrated and bit of quarrel won’t do any harm. In fact I get some more devils to help; I think I need to tell some of my corrupted minds to give them a hard time. It does help to stop him from finding a job and get her to start a new life by finding a hard job, I think in a super market will do temptations are great to steal won’t let her get coat for the first time or two then some policeman save her for being sorry but that policeman must be sex maniac and good looking she would prefer having sex instead of jail. Something must be done with her husband I know what to do show him some porn on his computer plus a bottle of wine I will see with inn six months no hurry that family must be mine I gave them enough to start for now in future they will begging me for anything if I introduce them to the right connections. The devils bible.
Albert.
To Mike Duran;
When I first wrote I was thinking about most of the comments which were about hate and grudge against God and Religion without knowing you were so much sarcastic at that time I cried when I see very clearly that so many haters shows in their comments what is their character is like. Take for instance the picture you sent me don’t tell me you are in the voodoo Business. As a religious person you did heart me, and I tell you why because it does not do you any good at present or in future you must remember that those people you heart are the once that might think twice before they buy your Novels. I have been over twenty four years studying the Bible and never get fed up of looking at it because I find all the answers that I need to know to survive. If to you was some sort of revenge as you stated? I feel sorry for to have such imagination and memory for revenge. I never in my mind by answering your criticism you take it personal I believe if you cannot take it you should listen love and understand the pain of others. Still I wish you best of luck for your Novels.
Albert.
“Further more, even conceding that a lawmaker exist, the leap in logic from necessity of a higher power(s) to God is massive. ”
Not at all. It obviously logically follows. It also depends on what you think ‘God’ is. A higher power is God.
As for atheism not saying anything about meaning or origing of life or etc –yes its true and that’s because atheism is an intellectual dead end, a home for people who need a philosophy that DOESN’T say anything about alot of things. That way you are free to say whatever you want about everything. Sounds good huh? I lived that philosophy for 20 years. I grew up in Russia and helped my comrades spy on churches and ‘religionists’ . We thought that they needed a crutch and that we were the strong ones. But the truth is if you have no belief in any ultimate principles then you are not strong for you have nothing to strive for that is of ultimate value. Athiesm –Its garbage. Atheism is for the weak.
To bad Mr. Cline does not at all recognize that religious people were killed by atheist regimes. Instead he continuesly asserts that “No one died in the Name of Atheism.”
Here are some quotes for Mr. Austine Cline to examine:
“Atheism is the natuaral and indespensible part of Marxism; of the Theory and Pratice of Scientific Socialism.” -Vladimir Lenin
“We Communists are atheists.” -Chou-En Lai
The struggle against religion is a struggle for Socialism.”
-main slogan for the Society of the Godless
I have got plenty more quotes where that came from…
I can’t stand Austin Cline.He copied an article from Slate on Buddhism.Most people were refuting it but he acted like a “I am smarter than you because you live in a magical fairy tale world.”
He tried to use ad hominem on me,which is ironic considering he was bitching about someone else doing the same to him.
I don’t mind atheist,but a lot of them act like jerks.I used to be an atheist and now that I look back,I was one hell of a jerk.It’s different if someone just doesn’t believe in God,and a whole other thing if they attack people’s beliefs.The other About.com religion authors didn’t write articles attacking other people’s faith.
All in all,Austin Cline’s appearance suits him.Smug.
Yeah, he acted the same to me. He was just so insufferable with all his “Prove it” and other self-righteous crap.
The Church condemns behaviours which many love and do not wish to give up. Could this be a reason for many atheists/agnostics being atheistical and agnostic?
Hi Mike, I read some of the above and it certainly reflects the frustration of dealing with the worldview of the non-believer. I cannot commit the blasphemy of calling them “atheists” since that word is so contradictory to the Word of God. Blasphemy is defined as any word, deed or thought contrary to the Word. I challenge you to find a reference to atheism in God’s Word. In the Garden were TWO CHOICES, Jesus Christ (Creator) or satan. No “atheism” there. When Jesus walked the Earth He identified TWO CHOICES, “Render unto Caesar” representing “the god of this world,” or “Render unto God.” Did He identify a third choice? No “atheism” there. In the tribulation there are ONLY TWO CHOICES, the satan worshiper will be identified by the mark, the Christ worshiper (and ONLY the Christ worshiper), will be identified by his refusal to take the mark. Who but a Christ worshiper will have ANY reason to refuse the mark? And for eternity, is there a third destination for eternity? In Revelation 13:4 and 8 Christ declared, “”And they worshiped the dragon (satan)…And ALL that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (satan), whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” Do you see any suggestion of “atheism” there? Christ or satan, THAT’S IT, NO THIRD CHOICE! “Ye must be born again,” to have your name writ into the Lamb’s Book of Life. The lies of “atheism,” “evolution,” “separation of church and state” are corollaries of satan’s biggest lie, “I do not exist!” Can you see how clear is the evidence from God’s Word “atheism” is impossible. As are “agnosticism,” “deism” “separation of church and state” and all man-made, Christ rejecting “religion,” “religion” being man’s feeble attempt to achieve what Christ has already accomplished for the born again Believer, the assurance of Heaven.
What else do we know about the “atheist?” He is lazy and he has no interest whatsoever in the TRUTH. It is his laziness that prevents him from doing the honest, unbiased research that is necessary to find TRUTH. We can point to any number of famous, but honestly sincere “atheists” who, persistent in their search for TRUTH, discovered the TRUTH for themselves and became some of our greatest Bible expositors. For those “christians” who became “atheists,” their “atheism” is testament to their laziness and, in their defense, I must presume the adversary has been party to their fallen condition. I must also assume those fallen ones might have been great in the Kingdom of God, and that potential may have come to satan’s notice and he expended greater effort to bring them down. It is my conclusion there are no “atheists” on the other side. How many near death experiences have turned the hearts of the most ardent “atheist” to Jesus Christ? I am quite comfortable in declaring “There are no ‘atheists’ in the afterlife!” A few seconds after passing makes believers of everyone.