“Religion comes from the period of human history where nobody, not even the mighty Democritus, who concluded that all matter was made from atoms, had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our own inescapable demand for knowledge, as well as for comfort, reassurance and other infantile needs.” - Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great
Once you get past the pomposity of Christopher Hitchens and the mockingly condescending tone and flattering of science of Richard Dawkins, what you find in the determined and powerful writings of the “new atheism” is that they are, well, right. “New atheism” is stupid nomenclature. There is nothing new about it, except that for reasons one could debate at length, it’s suddenly on the best seller lists.
Perhaps their only misstep is to characterise atheists as cultured, fey intellectuals who despite their rejection of god and his various incarnations, are nonetheless still up for a good cognac before a majestic production of Handel’s Messiah. Appreciating, of course, the majesty of the music and not the message. This, I think, is damaging to those atheists who have no particular interest in high European art forms, but just simply don’t buy the bullshit.
Following on from this, is the apparent assertion that we atheists are all peace-loving democrats who have no problem with people practising their own brand of religious devotion as long as they leave us well alone (which, of course, they rarely do). That too is disingenuous I think, particularly since both these writers (and others) hold little back in solidly attacking god and all the various religions, often in amusing and scathing passages (such as the one quoted above).
The truth is that we atheists hold religion, and its gods, in some contempt. We are contemptuous of its tendency to cause suffering and conflict. Of its arrogant claim to know truths which not even the greatest geniuses alive would ever claim. Of the paltry and insulting body of evidence it wields in its own defence. And of the, to paraphrase Hitchens, childish stories it offers as moral guides, ethical tools and metaphysical insights.
And we are contemptuous with or without a taste for fine wine and Degas.
Dawkins’s “The God Delusion” and Hitchens’s “God is not Great” have both succeeded as very popular books in Europe and, crucially, in the US. The Hitchens got to number two on Amazon.com, just behind Harry Potter. This is no small achievement in a country still so obsessed with god and Christianity — arguably, as close to being governed presently by the church as it ever has. Not the Catholic variety, of course, which would no doubt simply be angling to pinch some of the state treasures.
These kinds of sales and readerships imply that these authors are right in another sense too: atheism is growing. Perhaps for the first time, people are willing, at least, to understand the case properly. And I think a lot of people are realising, as they read Dawkins in particular on evolutionary biology, that the explanations offered by atheism to compete with some of the simple-minded myths of Christianity or Islam or Hinduism, are satisfyingly right. There is a certain kind of note that is struck when these theories sink in that sounds a hell of a lot like the truth. Or, at least, a lot closer to it than anything the bible or similar have to offer.
Madeleine Bunting wrote in the Guardian, in a piece that was syndicated in the Mail & Guardian some months back, that “The danger is that hostility to religion in all its forms deters engagement with the really interesting questions that have emerged in the science/faith debate. The durability and near-universality of religion is one of the most enduring conundrums of evolutionary thinking”. This in an apparent attack on Dawkins’s and similar stances.
However this seems like more an attack on method than on conclusion. Bunting never tries to defend religion per se, simply to argue that the phenomenon is worth understanding more before dismissing it. And on this she may be right, although all of these writers, Hitchens in particular, come across as extremely well-read and educated on religion in all its many forms. Just because they are hostile does not mean they have not done their homework.
I too think that it’s past time for niceties. The horrors in which religion has a hand are too countless to list. From paedophilia in the confessional to female circumcision; from religious war to fanatical terrorism; and from banning contraception (and thereby encouraging unwanted children and the spread of HIV/Aids) to raging against homosexuality. Organised religion has done enough damage. Perhaps at some point in the past it may have held to argue that it played an important role in making sense of an unfathomable world. Or instilled hope where there was little to be had. But in the first we no longer need it. And in the second, we should all be ashamed of allowing poverty and misery to be comforted in this way.
And the attack isn’t just on religion, though that is the prime evil. God himself, itself, herself, is also equally to be renounced and shed. This idea, that the universe was designed and created. Or that there is some figure lurking behind each moment, listening to our prayers and directing us this way and that according to his will. Even in the most abstract sense, even decoupled from the Bible or the Qur’an, even simply relegated to a force of nature, even this must be stamped out, because it encumbers us. It prevents the generations that succeed us from thinking as big as they need to; from facing and feeling the true enormity of the life and the universe; and from sitting with the bewildering mysteries in which, I believe at any rate, true wisdom lies.
These fairy stories and fairy characters belong in the past. And it’s time we stopped worrying about offending people by saying so.
This entry was posted
on Monday, August 20th, 2007 at 6:21 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
96 Responses to “Why atheists are just plain right”
I disagree with a lot of the premises in the work of Dawkins and Hitchens. Probably most importantly, I disagree that religion is the cause of so much evil. Yes, it is one cause, without doubt. However, explicitly secular movements have caused at least as much death and destruction - if not more. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler weren’t exactly pious. The violence repressive states inflict on their subjects does not have to be motivated by religion.
Religion, when imposed by a state, can become totalitarian, which is what formal separation of church and state is intended to guard against. But totalitarianism can exist independent of religion, and religion can exist without causing state oppression.
Hitchens and Dawkins make a very seductive argument, but even though I consider myself for all practical purposes an atheist, I’ve come to reject their simplistic hostility towards religion.
Peter Berkowitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is far more eloquent than I am in his rebuttal of Hitchens in particular, and the new atheism in general.
Ivo, thanks for taking the time to read my piece. I have also taken some time to read the piece in the Wall Street Journal — thanks for that!
This is one of those debates you can’t quite decide how to land up on the right side of. Which is cooler? To be an atheist or to be someone who has realised that atheism is too simplistic? Or a new atheist who packs into large volumes the complexities of science to make a decidedly non-simplistic case?
I am being a little trite, but the thing is this: once you’re at the level of engaging in this kind of reasonable, rational, coherent debate, you’re well beyond the confines of the kind of narrowminded, bigoted and dangerous religious drivel that is the real target in the first place. A lot of what the Journal article attacks is HOW Hitchens or Dawkins attack religion or god. Not THAT they do.
And it’s fine to argue that the flaws in the bible are a straw man, and they are in fine intellectual discussion. Worth it for the humour, and little more. But fundamentalists are not in the discussion. The Jerry Falwells and Ayatollahs are not lounging around in upmarket coffee shops amusing each other with who is the more narrowminded: the scientific, rationalist atheist or the spiritual, cultural relativist atheist.
So while I tend to agree that a lot of what Dawkins and Hitchens are up to are linguistic and semantic gymnastics of the most self-satisfying sort, I also think that attack misses the point. As does taking them to task on pointing out that religion is the root of ALL evil.
We need only accept that religion is the root of a good deal of evil, that it is premised on claims about the universe that are at best unsubstantiated, and at worst laughably naive and small-minded. And the world would be better off without it.
I stick to the simple horrors of the oppression of women, the denial of medical interventions, the religious wars. Whatever complexities these writers leave out of their analyses of these occurrences, is there any real debate that religion is a key reason for their existence?
I’m not convinced the world would be better off without religion. This is, perhaps, a somewhat patronising view, since I’m not religious myself. However, a broad view of history supports the observation that religion has done at least as much good as it has done bad.
For one thing, it motivated people to adopt moral values, most of which are universal, and many of which I believe have been crucial to building a free, prosperous and civilised world. Like your Jerry Falwell and Ayatollah (great quote, by the way!) most of these people weren’t going to sit around the plough or rum barrel philosophising about the nature of natural rights, the social contract, and the limits of government. Yet they adopted and spread universal values about the sanctity of human life, property rights and charity because their religion called upon them to do so.
Recognising the evil that has been caused by, or in the name of, religion, doesn’t negate the good. Nor do I feel comfortable challenging the beliefs of good people, when those beliefs are philosophically beyond the bounds of science and reason. That’s why I don’t object to people practising religion, voting their religious conscience, displaying their faith, or advocating their beliefs.
The same individual liberty that gives rise to this view, however, also implies objecting to attempts by anyone to impose religion on others by force, whether informally through popular protests and violence, or formally through the coercive power of the state. That’s when the irrationality of religion as a motive becomes very dangerous indeed.
In short, while Hitchens et al want to replace “freedom of religion” with “freedom from religion”, I think both flow from individual liberty. This appears to be semantic nitpicking, perhaps, but in fact it changes the argument in a fundamental and essential way.
I wonder what connection there is, if any, between religion as expression of a universal moral code and religion as the originator of that code. These writers — and I — would be quick to point out that with the complete absence of religious belief, in fact with a sarcastic, biting contempt for it, we routinely behave in a “good” way toward our fellow humans. Just as the religious frequently behave the opposite.
I’m not sure how you’d settle such a debate. Is it a question of statistical fact? Could you measure how much “good” or “moral” behaviour was motivated by religion? Do the good samaritans outnumber the fundamentalist fanatics? Do the non-theistic Hilters and Stalins outpace the Bin Ladens and Bushes?
Of course when one argues from liberty, one has to grant people whatever choices they wish to make. When you take the debate to the colossal stupidity of Scientology or Mormonism, it’s perhaps a little harder to bear. And maybe that is what it comes down to: the capacity for the smart, informed, forward-thinking to accept and bear with the rights of the foolish or (worse) the uneducated and manipulated to make choices that are so obviously wrong.
All of this is supreme arrogance from one perspective, but maybe only inasmuch as being smarter and more educated tends toward a certain kind of legitimate arrogance.
Atheists can never be right. Atheism is as intellectually indefensible as religion. There is no difference in my mind between the arrogance of an atheist and the arrogance of a religious person. They are two extremes that proclaim their truth as the only truth but unfortunately they are both possibly right and also possibly wrong. Those that say they know (either way) are intellectually challenged
Firstly, how the hell are you, it’s been a long time. Your photos are awesome.
Secondly, your argument is a bit of a non-argument. If both atheism and religion are equally indefensible, what’s left? Since all atheism needs to establish, by definition, is that religion is indefensible, it is de facto established by your argument.
If your problem is with the arrogance of someone claiming to know, absolutely, that there is no god, then I think you misunderstand the point. The burden of proof is on the believer. One cannot magic beings into existence merely by stating that one cannot prove they don’t exist. That’s a four year-old’s logic.
That said, I agree atheists and intellectuals can be arrogant and pompous, which is how I described Christopher Hitchens in the article. And he does no-one any favours by being that way.
I am fantastic thanks! And thank you for the compliment.
As for what’s left…
“Agnosticism (from the Greek a, meaning “without”, and Gnosticism or gnosis, meaning “knowledge”) is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims—particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of God, gods, deities, or even ultimate reality—is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently unknowable due to the nature of subjective experience.
Agnostics claim either that it is not possible to have absolute or certain knowledge of the existence or nonexistence of God or gods; or, alternatively, that while individual certainty may be possible, they personally have no knowledge. Agnosticism in both cases involves some form of skepticism.”
Agnosticism and weak atheism are the same thing. Being agnostic about god is the same as being agnostic about garden gnomes and grey visitors from outer space. In essence, as an open-minded person, you’d agree those are both possible. Everything in this quantum universe is possible in that weak sense. But, let’s face it, you don’t really hold a 50/50 view on that stuff. You believe, probably somewhere at the 99% level, that there is no tooth fairy, or flying spaghetti monster.
I am also not a 100% atheist. I’m an agnostic somewhere at the 95% level — which is pretty much the same damn thing. Sure, if god appeared to me in a flash of blinding light, I’d probably change my views. But I believe at a 95% level of confidence that that’s not going to happen.
One can’t live in a state of agnosticism with regards to every conceivable possibility. We make judgement calls all the time, even if the evidence is not 100% one way or the other. We have to. And someone who is agnostic generally speaking is an atheist who wants to leave open the possibility of being wrong. Ok, fair enough. But it’s not that different from the real deal in practise.
Well said Jarred. I do agree with you. I just have issue with the headline “Why atheists are just plain right”. Point is that they cannot be plain right. Possibly? yes, definitely? no. The burden of proof lies with anyone making absolute statements.
I guess what I meant with that headline is that there’s this satisfying kind of clunk I get when I read the atheist literature that just feels right. It fits, it makes sense, it adheres to Occam’s Razor and leaves us with just the right number of objects in the universe.
Of course I can’t say they’re factually right in the strong, absolute sense, so in that way you are correct.
Ah! Another great blog, Jarred. Where do I sign up for the fan club?
But don’t be mistaken and think that I agree with your narrow (in my humble opinion) view of religion. I just have an extraordinarily high tolerance for opinion that I violently disagree with.
I personally think that atheists suffer a tragic handicap. In attacking religion, they commit the same cardinal (no pun) sin that the Rev. Meshoe’s of this world commit i.e. speaking with 100% certainty on the absoluteness of their own superstitions. That’s right; I think atheists are just as superstitious as the religious right. There is a word for absolute certainty; a god-complex. The irony of atheists with a god complex is not lost on me.
I’m more comfortable with the guys who tend towards the middle such the agnostics and “almost Christians” such as myself. I know, the weasels.
My own religious beliefs are founded upon a solid pragmatism. I call it the ‘what if’ approach to religion. When rabid atheists are dogmatically forthing at the mouth pontificating on the evils of religion, they have no idea just how much they sound like Pastor McCauley.
The question you have to ask yourself is the following. Does God exist?
These is a natural phenomenon that not many people know about it’s call the Golden mean (phi ) http://goldennumber.net/ This phenomenon can be found in many different places Like in the proportions of your face, The proportions of animals and plants, it can be found in the universe and even in your DNA. This is the design of God and everything He created is based on this design. That means everything from the smallest atom to the universe itself was made by God.
Evolutionism has one purpose and one purpose only. To prove that God does not exists. The evidence for evolutions is flawed. Darwin himself said if there are organisms that contained irreducibly complex structures his theory would be incorrect. These organisms exist.
I do not believe that any of the religious organizations in the world is correct. I do believe in God though.
There is a South park episode that looks at the future of the world where there are no religion just atheism. In this episode there where 3 factions of atheists, they were fighting about what to call the global atheist movement. They were brutally killing each other about something stupid like a name. So your statement “We are contemptuous of its tendency to cause suffering and conflict” are incorrect. Religion does not cause suffering and conflict, People cause suffering and conflict. We might blame religion for our actions but ultimately we are to blame. The bible gave us two rules to follow. The fist rule is to love One God and the second rule is to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. If we did this there would be no stealing, no suffering and no conflict.
Being an atheist means there are no consequences for ones actions. No ultimate punishment or reward just nothing. Does being an atheist mean that when you die you are just reduced to nothing?
What if you are wrong? What if God does exist? Do you really want to gamble with eternity like that?
Consider, first, the outrageous non-sequitors that litter your comment.
1. Because there is some observable phenomenon called “The Golden Mean” therefore this is proof of God. Huh? Like there could be no other explanation?
2. Everything he made is based on this design therefore every atom was made by him. Huh? What causal link are you pointing to here exactly?
3. Being an atheist means there are no consequences for actions. Huh? Ever heard of prison?
This is to say nothing of the fact that one of your core arguments appears to be supported by nothing other than the storyline of an episode of South Park. I have a newsflash for you. In addition to there being no God, there is also no Kyle, Kenny or Mr Hand. Mr Hanky, on the other hand, may be real.
Yes, when you die there is nothing. Or at least, nothing we can conceive of. And the “what if I’m wrong” argument is tired and wilted. The onus of proof is on you people, not me. An argument indicating a lack of proof for one extreme is not an argument for the opposite. You need some positive evidence, of which some inexplicable mathematical proportions will not do.
What I want to know is, have you arrived at a final resolution? Because if you have, then there really is no reasonable discussion is there.. If you’ve made up your mind about the flying spaghetti monster of naturalism, and greet all points raised against it with mockery, then we have a Jerry Springer show, disguised as a discussion.
Also, by the tone of your headline, and your comments above, you seem to bring to the table that same conceit and disdain that you criticise in Dawkins’ writings.
One of your other posts says the most sure-fire way to evoke an active blog is to discuss religion. Is this your aim? To bait us simple minded folk who have bought the fairy tale?
If it is not, and you have an honest interest in discussing this, then we can proceed to talk about the darker side of athiesm, Nietzsche and evolutionism. Perhaps you’re even up for reading some commentaries or responses to Dawkins’ book? There again, this comes back to my first question, if you’ve resolved that you’ve stumbled upon the thing that explains it all and that it cannot be challenged, then respectfully I must leave you to it.
Ah. Very condescending. Listen, my debating style is kind of harsh. And I do proceed with, if you like, methodological arrogance. That said, I am deeply fascinated to hear what the rational counter-argument is, if there is any. And I’m especially interested in how you’re gonna weave Nietzsche into it.
I can’t promise to be either polite or even-handed, I hold my position strongly if that’s not obvious from everything above. But surely you can’t hold as a standard that you’ll only debate with those who can be nice?
I am, despite what you may think, open-minded. That is not inconsistent with holding a strong, current view on the subject. So within that context, I’d love to hear the retort from the believer side of the spectrum.
I love debates about religion, because I am a sucker for punishment! Religious people are never wrong, because they feel they don’t have to prove anything. Heresy, I say! Religious fanatics have for centuries killed, tortured and maimed anyone disagreeing with them. We have many Emperors wearing invisible clothes. Can’t you see it? My God, you are not a person of integrity, that’s why you cannot see it! Infidel!
I find it all quite amusing how someone can believe in a God that created the world as it is today. It follows then that God created evil and he is therefore responsible for all the bad things happening today. What did the children dying of aids do to deserve their suffering? I thought the bible said that children are born without sin? What kind of god stands by idly while millions of people starve to death? Oh.. I forgot, we must not question His will! One day after you have died you will learn the truth. How convenient. Wake up! God was created by man to control the masses and make them toe the line. So yes, if you believe in God (without any proof) then you are feeble minded.
Answer me this one question. If your brain dies then your memory has died, not so? People that have brain damage sometimes get amnesia. In many cases they never regain their memory, because there was physical damage to the brain. So if I go to heaven or hell after I died I won’t know it will I? I will die but my soul (without my memories) will go to the next world. So what difference does it make because clearly my soul is not connected to my brain. Therefore I will never know what happened to me after I died…
I’m dying to hear some intelligent counter-argument. Will some devout, rational believer please stand up and make your case.
The argument about the soul, btw, has been raised by philosophers of mind for centuries. They put it like this: if you have, in the one hand, your mind, memories, thoughts, feelings, hopes, dreams and ideas; and in the other, your soul, which by definition is something MORE than all that, which would you prefer to keep?
I would rather keep all the things that make me me, not some metaphysical battery that has no characteristics and which, it seems, wouldn’t be missed if it were gone.
No, not at all. I am saying that if god supposedly created all humans, including the evil ones, then god is an accomplice in their crimes. So if humans are capable of evil then god created evil. Therefore god is as guilty as they are. If there is a god, then I simply don’t like him because he is then, in my opinion inherently evil, which is a moot point anyway because there is not a shred of evidence of his existence.
I am not saying that god cannot exist. There is no evidence either way. Therefore I am an agnostic. A “draad-sitter” I do know however that if some evidence of his existence suddenly appeared tomorrow and all of mankind fall on their knees then I will be standing and I will certainly ask him to explain himself. I will not become religious out of fear of being wrong or going to hell.
Like JV said; “What if you are wrong? What if God does exist? Do you really want to gamble with eternity like that?” He is the perfect example of 99% of religious people in the world that go to church just because they are afraid.
I really should have picked up that you were agnostic (and the definition you have given) from your earlier posts. Thanks you and please forgive me for making you repeat yourself. :O
I believe in absolutes and I am Christian. I disagree with you when you say 99% of people who subscribe to a faith in Christ do so out of fear of eternal damnation but I get what you’re trying to say. It is true however that there are many and it is sad because that would be a pitiful reason for subscription to anything.
I also think there is a flaw claiming that god is inherently evil because evil exists (I paraphrase). We know what evil is simply because we know what good is. e.g We all seem to agree that contributing towards a better life is something good. We also agree that following in the footsteps of Hitler is something we are all opposed to and evil.
If we were all wired to just do good I don’t think we’d be think about it making us puppets, robots or something similar. It is because we have a free will that we are able of making a choice between good and evil. We do wrong simply because we choose to and not simply because it is in us to do so.
Shmoo, I don’t see how your argument presents anything new in argument FOR a god. You’re simply arguing for an absolute morality, which is entirely different and entirely independent of any kind of god.
In fact, you said it “I believe in absolutes AND I am a Christian”. In fact, if you’d said “I’m a Christian” that would have covered both. Saying you believe in absolutes does not, hence the need to add the second fact.
What kind of perverse god creates evil and suffering simply as a contrast to their opposite? And you haven’t, in fact, answered the question about the suffering of innocents. In fact, you haven’t answered any of the pertinent arguments against god and religion.
Surely your whole case doesn’t simply rest on the idea that without god there would be no morality? Because if it does, that is child’s play to refute.
I ask again: would the rational believer with the devastating, rational arguments FOR god and FOR religion please stand up and make yourself heard.
i like your point about the onus of proof being on the believer’s shoulders… you’re right.
i do think though that believers in god do have considerable evidence and reason for a belief in god.
what i don’t appreciate about the new athiesm is how it seems to totally disregard that. whenever the comment is made “that there is little or no proof for a belief in god” i find myself quite offended
sure - so evolution disproves the idea that the universe is 6000 years old - but when i think about evolution i still find it perfectly compatible with the idea of creationism…
rather than say “evolution created life - therefore God didn’t” i see it is “evolution created life - God created evolution - therefore God still created life”
rather than having found the amoking gun that disproves the idea of a creator - we have found the very hammer and chisel by which we fashioned the universe.
i think religion and God still have a major role to play in the world - because the fact of the matter is we humans don’t know everything. we know alot - and it is wonderful - but we don’t know everything… and religion is another system of knowledge we can rely on to explain that still pretty significant chunk of the universe we don’t know…
it is very important however - that religion be in harmony with science. if a belief does not submit itself to reason - it can be nothing other than superstition.
but on the other hand - knowledge without any moral compass or humble acknowledgement of the fact that our knowlwdge is not all encompassing - is also very dangerous.
the fact is that there is still a side to the human being that we don’t fully understand and can’t explain. that side is their consciousness… the spirit that holds their being together.
yes, i know we are coming closer and closer to understanding how the brain works and which parts are responsible for which attributes or behaviours - but we still can’t reduce a humna being to an exactly predictable system.
there is an element there that we don’t understand - and to proclaim confidently that we undoubtable will one day is to make an assumption you don’t know will be right.
for the moment certainly - the belief in a human soul or spirit is as good as any explanaition for the consciousness we see seated in the mind of human beings.
what is it that controls our will? what is it that gives rise to our consciousness? what gives us the ability to reason and understand things? what is the source of the emotional power we find in our lives? why does love uplift us and hate makes us feel sad?
the fact is that we are in many ways still in our infancy and in need of religion to explain the unknown… because as mighty and advanced a scientific civilisation we have built up - we still can’t make peace amongst ourselves to share the earth’s resources and behave civily toward our neighbours
the parables and wisdoms that ancient religions provide us with are as relevant today as they were thousands of years ago… so i think we still have alot to be humble about and alot of room left for religion and belief in something greater than ourselves
Again, a very naive presentation of some well-worn arguments, pretty much all of which have been completely rubbished long ago.
I’m not trying to be unkind, but I really advise you to go and read something on the subject before attempting to make a case like this. If god created evolution, for example, that not only discredits the entire bible (and all of Judaism, Christianity and Islam in the process), but it also reduces god to something we don’t need in that story at all. It’s simple deism which (again) has already been discredited.
Do yourself a favour: read “The God Delusion” and “God is not Great” and then come back here and tell me what you think.
For the obvious reason that the two “theories” (a very generous term for what’s in the bible) completely contradict each other. Unless of course you want to take the bible “metaphorically” in which case who gets to pick which bits are metaphors and which are not?
Is stoning an adulterer or homosexual a metaphor? And for what, pray tell?
If not, then how do you maintain the argument that the creation story of 7 days, creating the animals, creating humans was a metaphor for evolution? Or do you maintain that Genesis somehow says the same thing as The Origin of Species?
As I’ve said already, it’s pointless me re-hashing the arguments that Dawkins has made far more eloquently and comprehensively than I ever could.
you make a good point about who gets to decide what’s metaphor and what isn’t… that certainly is an important question…
i personally belive that deciding what you believe is an individual’s responsibility - and that a major major weakness of religion is that people just subscribe to what their parents teach them or what is generally accepted and they never really think for themselves… its a tragedy… and in fact, that more than anything else is what lead to Christ’s crucifiction - the ability of the pharisee’s to control and manipulate the majority of people’s views without the stopping to actually think for themselves
the fact is that religion is a powerful motivator and that unfortuntaley leaves it open to being a motivator for wonderful good (perhaps mother theresa is a good example here) and despicable evil (pick any one of the totally insane fundamentalist terrorists that afflict our world)
but, for the purposes of our debate - let’s consider that the story of genesis was meant as a methaphorical explanation… when i look at it - this is what makes the most sense to me… cause, as you’ve said - science and reality are in total contradiction to taking it literally.
so - taking genesis metaphorically…
it’s most salient and important points are that basically
- God created the universe
- the universe was created in stages
- everything in the universe was given by God to sustain man
now, if i look at the theory of evolution what i see is
- a universe
- that the life in this universe did not just spring up all at once in an instant but rather that there has been a process by which it has come into being, and that that process continues to occur every second of every day
i can reconcile those two views quite naturally by believing that genesis says that God created the universe… that my initial impression of this is of a little child in his bedroom with lego blocks stacking and piling and things and moulding little birds out of putty and setting them off… but then realising - hey - that’s a little simplistic - maybe what it was more like was God created a system with natural laws and conditions that would ultimately culminate in “creation” as we know it today… and one of the most fundamental and important aspects of that system that He set in motion was that of natural selection - or evolution.
in genesis it does give some detail about how the seas were first filled with life before creatures spread onto the land and other such stuff… a line that is totally in keeping with modern scientific thought… but i don’t think that was the purpose behind the story…
the story of genesis is a very simple explanation for why the earth was created and what our (that beings humans of course) place in the whole system is…
it is a story told thousands of years ago and everything we have discovered about evolution and the unfoldment of life on this planet is still in keeping with it… but what remains of value in the story is the moral message and the meaning behind it…
that ultimately the universe was created by God and that everything in it is there to sustain us… mankind…
and we still haven’t - and don’t believe we ever will - get to a state so advanced that we won’t need the universe to sustain us?
is the interpretation i have presented of genesis not one possible explanation or interpretation of it that makes sense and still leaves open the possibility of the existence of God?
what is a more important question - does the interpretation that i have presented not still leave us with a valuable moral. namely that we are dependant on the world that he has created for us for our survival? that it is the world around that we draw our life from… it is something that points in the direction of understanding that we had better look after it and not destroy it because our own existence is intimatly mingled with it?
i don’t know?
like i said when i joined this discussion… well, this was actually a comment i made at the end of ndumiso’s article… no one knows the answer for sure and nobody can prove it one way or the other… to believe or not to believe in the existence of god is personal choice every human being needs to make for themselves…
but from a scientific point of view there is definitely still a logical and pragmatic space for a belief in god…
Perhaps you should propose a metaphorical reading, with some actual quotes from the good book, so we can talk details instead of generalisations.
For instance, when the bible says: “Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”
What exactly is this a metaphor for? Specifically, rather than in general?
Ariel, for some reason your latest comment is filed in the wrong order on this page.
Look, from my perspective you are committed to believing in god, and nothing I say is going to shift you. You intersperse an attempt at a logical reply to my message with bits of the Christ story presented as historical fact, for which you offer no proof.
To be honest, you’re just saying the same thing over and over. You want to twist the extremely childish biblical creation story into something that has the sophistication of Darwin and Einstein, go for it. If that makes you happy that’s entirely up to you.
However I could make the story of Alice in Wonderland or Hamlet a metaphor for creation just as easily. Once you start reverse engineering one story to support a truth which is now unavoidable, your case is already lost.
Deism — and that is all your argument actually is — is the last resort of believers whose texts and stories have been made irrelevant. Cling to it all you want, but be assured: this line of argument has absolutely no persuasive power to anyone else.
sorry about the delay… i had some issues this morning bringing up the thoughtleader website…
anyways…
look - all i am trying to demonstrate is that a belief in God is just as valid today as not believing in God… and that there is in fact evidence for it
the evidence for it is in the world all around you… the air you breathe, the earth you stand on and in the relationships you have with other people.
The evidence for a creator is and always will be in His creation.
It is one model for explaining the existence of the universe and life and everything we see around it - and it is a model that has not been shown to be invalid by modern day science - but rather refined.
We still don’t know what caused the big bang - and one day when we find out what it was - we still won’t know what cause whatever caused the big bang… and so on and so on… blah blah blah…
all i want to get out of this debate is the point that a belief in God is one possible choice that people have… and that to say that it has been shown to be wrong or that there is no evidence for it is not complete and true.
as for the pursuasive power of that evidence or of my argument for the existence of God - i don’t think that is in your domain to decide for “anyone else”… unless you’re the very deity we are all arguing about
oh - and about the verse you mentioned in the bible…
well, i would say it is about the fact that in this world we find ourselves in there exists good and evil…
god has provided us with many good trees from which we can pick the fruit and eat - among them being science and reason, arts and culture, walking in nature and goin to the beach but there are also some unhealthy or evil trees from which we can pick - among them being an excessive attachment to material things (thinking that the car you drive is going to define your happiness) or
is it not so that in this world there are healthy things and unhealthy things… and we would do well to understand that somethings build up our emotional spiritual wellbeing and others cause us to become unhappy and depressed…?
If you want me to agree and accept that a personal belief in god is your (or anyone else’s) right, then of course you have that. It is certainly not for me to decide what other people believe.
However you are running “god” together with creationism, the bible, christ and whole lot of other stuff that simply cannot be slipped in the back door.
If you want acknowledgement that there is as much proof FOR the creation story as there is for science and evolution, then I must say to you: that is absolutely and utterly wrong-headed and false. Twisting the story around into a metaphor actually weakens the likelihood of it being true rather than strengthens it.
Again, I strongly encourage you to read the literature. I honestly think you’ll get a lot from it.
Noting surveys that showed that half of all scientists are religious, Gould commented amusingly that “Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs–and equally compatible with atheism.”
Stephen Jay Gould - one of the most well known and respected paleontologists of our modern times has no problem with a belief in God and a belief in evolution?
Apparently there is a book called the “Dawkins Delusion” written by a molucular biologist and his wife that points out clearly the shortfalls in the absolutist claims made my Dawkins.
Gould was correct to think that both conventional religious belief and atheism are compatible with natural science, in part because “there are many questions that by their very nature must be recognized to lie beyond the legitimate scope of the scientific method.” Such questions–toward which the mind naturally wanders, though it is susceptible to ambush by the crude scientism of which Mr. Hitchens occasionally avails himself–include: Where did the universe come from, and is it governed by purpose?
As i have been trying to point out - Modern day science does not by any means discount a belief in God.
Can we agree on this point?
It is a matter of personal choice that has to be decided by the individual?
“If you want acknowledgement that there is as much proof FOR the creation story as there is for science and evolution, then I must say to you: that is absolutely and utterly wrong-headed and false”
I believe in science and evolution. I believe that they are compatible with a belief in God and a belief that God created the universe…
all i am saying is that if anybody asks for evidence that God created the universe - i would say - well, look at the universe… there’s some pretty compelling evidence
do you understand what i am saying here?
you can look at the universe and say - well, i see that and i in fact believe it was cause by a giant interspace worm and not by god - and i will say “ok”… fine… but when i look at this evidence i think it was created by a God
Its like to detectives at the scene of a crime looking at a knocked over lamp… one looks at the evidence and says “i think it was knocked over in a struggle” and the other looks at the evidence and says “i think the window was open and the wind blew it over”
they are looking at the same evidence and they get different things from it.
you have to agree that one way to look at the universe (our evidence in this case) is to say… well hell, something must have caused this… let’s call it God…
this would then lead to the belief that God created the universe.
That is what i am saying. its one possible explanation… and i personally find it very compelling… you don’t have to… but you do have to stop denying it as evidence on the basis that we have discovered the principle of evolution - because as the quote by Stephen Jay Gould undoubtable points out - evolution is not at all in any way mutually exclusive with a belief in God as a creator
Of course modern science does not discount a belief in God. Modern science does however discredit the bible. The point is that purely because you believe in god that does not make his existence a fact. That’s why it’s called faith. Unfortunately I cannot believe in something that there is no evidence for. That is my right. That does not mean that I do not believe in the possibility that there may be a God.
I just think that it is improbable because there is no evidence to support his existence. The bible is not evidence in the same way that Dune, written by Frank Herbert is not evidence of great big worms living in the desert. Any person that proclaims the existence or non-existence of god as the absolute and only truth is wrong. We can debate probabilities but that’s all. We can speculate and debate but we cannot be certain, until such time as either god appears before us or science comes up with irrefutable evidence either way.
Religion will always be compatible with natural science until this proof appears because the religious will not easily accept defeat and are very capable of changing their beliefs and modifying their interpretations in order to convince themselves that they are right.
Some simple questions that every Christian should ask himself/herself. If you have answers for these then please let us know:
1. Did God create ALL things?
2. Did God create evil?
3. Did God create the devil?
4. Is God omnipotent and almighty?
5. Can God destroy all evil?
6. Why doesn’t he?
7. Why are millions of children dying each year?
8. If God created evil then he is also responsible?
7. Why does God not appear before us today?
8. If he exists, does he care?
9. Why is the bible written in riddles?
10. Why did he not write it himself?
11. What is his interest then to allow this speculation?
Any sane, logical person who read the above questions will come to the same conclusion. There is a very low probability that God exists. If he does exists then he clearly has very little interest in us mortals.
Last question for the religious:
**** Is it possible that the bible was written by people that embellished the truth and created god from generations of folk lore because there was a need for people to believe in something? ****
This is from the Stephen Jay Gould website, and it claims that in 1998 only 7% of ‘greater’ scientists claimed to have a personal belief in God. (as opposed to 15% in 1933 and 27% in 1918)
Regarding the two detectives: This is exactly what scientists do. They are in fact detectives looking for truth.
Imagine a 3rd detective walks in and says: “You guys are both incorrect… The lamp wasn’t pushed over in a struggle nor was it knocked over by the wind. It is absolutely obvious that this is the work of the flying spaghetti monster.”
You can’t simply look at the universe, and because you don’t understand it, conclude that it was the work of a deity.
Marthinus, i think you expressed it perfectly… “modern science does not discount a belief in God…”
it is clear and simple…
perhaps there will come a time when modern science does bring incontrovertible evidence that GOd does not exist… but that has not happened yet - and evolution certainly isn’t that evidence…
Now guys - if we start talking about religion it can become a very sticky debate… religion has done some terrible things in the past… some people look at the bible and believe some crazy things from it… i wouldn’t deny this for a second.
But what i would say is that we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater…
Is the reason why religion has caused so many problems in the past because of the inherent religion itself - or because of the men who proclaim to follow a religion but then carry out their own personal agenda’s in its name.
Consider something like paedophilia in the church…
ok - there are plenty of homosexual men who become priests and then get privileged access to young choir boys and end up abusing them… that is a fact… we hear about it all the time…
Now i would say that these men are disturbed and sick… unfortuntaley their position as a priest enabled them to commit some pretty dodgy stuff - but does that mean that we should totally throw out the idea of all priests and people who dedicate their lives to God and serve others.
take someone like mother theresa for example - to be honest i don’t much about her - but i know she was a nun and she believed in God and this motivated her to do some wonderful service to other people and to generally make the world a much better place
does the fact that religion gets distorted by some mean that religion in itself is inherently bad - even when we evidence for the practical good it can bring to the world?
The crux of the matter is this - religion is a very powerful motivator and unfortuntaley it can be used as a motivator for good and for bad…
I would say that if we look towards the people that originally started the religions themselves… i’m talking about the source of christianity (christ of course) and the source of islam (muhammad) we find in the lives of these people a wonderful example of how to live on this planet… and that religion can be a wonderful force of good
there are many unanswered questions around god… and i certainly don’t know the answer to all of them (see next post though for an answer to marthinus’s list) but that doesn’t take away from the fact that we can derive so many answers from religion…
as for the belief (or lack thereof) of modern day scientists - wow. that is hectic… sheez. i don’t know what to say…
i will have to do some more reading into that. i know i was always encouraged by scientists like einstein and newton who held firm belief’s in God.
1. Did God create ALL things?
Depends on how you define God doesn’t it… from the monotheistic idea we get from Christianity, Islam and Judaism - yeah, he did.
2. Did God create evil?
This is how i personally think about evil - evil is the non-existence of God. It is kinda like the sun and the shadow. God created the sun and everything that exists - and then anything that goes contrary to God and turns away from him becomes “evil”
3. Did God create the devil?
i also don’t personally believe in the physical or literal existence of a “devil” but rather think of it as a metaphorical explanation for that inherent ability to do goodness or evil that exists in each and every human being… so, yeah, according to the bible, god created the devil as his most beautiful angel - but the devil filled with pride and turned away from God - like i described above… God creates everything, but the things that turn away from him end up being “evil”
4. Is God omnipotent and almighty?
Yeah - god is described as being omnipotent and almighty… its like when your dad says i brought you into this world and i can take you times a thoudsand
5. Can God destroy all evil?
I am assuming that if he is omnipotent and almighty then he probably can
6. Why doesn’t he?
well - here is an interesting question - if you take the explanation of God and all the religious teachings we are told that we are God’s crowning creation… even higher than angels… and the reason is that we have free will. the reason why god created man is so that man could grow and develop and know god… but in this he gave man the choice - he created in man 2 possibilities - for us to turn towards god and reflect his characteristics and qualities (such as love and care and all the cool qualities we see in the world) and the second possibility is to turn away from god and become embroild in our own interests (maybe become totally materialistic or whatever)and effectively become evil… like the devil. so in creating this inherent choice for us… god gives us the oppoortunity to turn away from him (ie to become evil as i have defined it above) and that’s why i don’t think he destroys evil. because it is part of his creation… he doesn’t just want a bunch of angels who didn’t even have a choice of obeying himor not… he wants servant who love and obey him out of the genuineness of love. its kinda like when your mom asks you to clean you room and you miserably moan and complain the whole time you do it… that’s not very nice. it would be much nicer if you just did it to make your mom happy - don’t ya think?
7. Why are millions of children dying each year?
millions of children are dieing each year because the resources on this planet are so unjustly distributed… you have people who have so much money that they have to employ a personal chef for their pets… while you have starving children dying in the same planet. this is a result of the unjust and unfair manner in which the world is set up - the world is set up in an unjust and unfair manner because humankind as a whole does not institute the principles that the bible (and all the other holy books) teach us about how to live our lives. Lets take the golden rule as an example - that which is hurtful unto you - don’t to it to anybody else. SIMPLE! do you think that that is how people and countries are governed? i don’t - and i can tell you that if they were a hell of alot less children would be starving. but - we as humnity don’t want to listen to what religions have to teach us - so we turn away from them and rather focus on amassing our own wealth and out own materialistic pursuites and as i have defined previously - turning away from god or the principles of god - we have acted in a way that is evil and therefore there is this evil in the world. The world has more than enough resources for us all to be abundantly happy - if we share it and organise ourselves properly. I know thi is very simplistic - but it demonstrates the point
8. If God created evil then he is also responsible?
i think this one is answered - yeah - he created us and we turned away from him to become evil… so no - he is not responsible because we are the ones that did the turning away
7. Why does God not appear before us today?
i would say that the religions that we have today are all instances of god appearing before us and instructing us how to order and live our lives. i would also say that perhaps god appears before us in the smallest tiniest ways - if we had out eyes open and the faith to believe it. but tell me quick - remember that whole free will thing - what would be the point if god appeared out of the clouds shooting thunder at us so no one dared even hint at not believing in him. it would kinda cancel that free will thing… so i think he doesn’t appear before us in that way because we wants us to still make the choice… clean your room cause it makes you mother happy - not just cause she’s moaning at you
8. If he exists, does he care?
i think so
9. Why is the bible written in riddles?
personally i think the very most absolutist best way to convey something is by story or by metaphor. i think the bible is very clear in many parts… in many other parts it is very obscure - but that is cause it was written so long ago… i don’t know man… why do you think… there are still plenty of valuable insights i can get from it. many of which are explained on the posts above
10. Why did he not write it himself?
many people do believe that the bible is the word of god… this is kinda like saying he wrote it himself… it is his word. what that means is the wisdom of it was his.. yes, i know it is a collection of books written by many guys and blah blah - but the spirit and the wisdom behind it are from God
11. What is his interest then to allow this speculation?
that one is clear - clean your room cause it makes your mother happy!
And the last question:
**** Is it possible that the bible was written by people that embellished the truth and created god from generations of folk lore because there was a need for people to believe in something? ****
Yes - it certainly is one explanation for the bible.
Everybody has to look at the bible and decide for themselves what value they get out of it. Just like if it was a chemistry book that taught you how to make cool bombs…
you could say - this book was written by a chemist who knew stuff - or it was written by a thousand monkeys sitting at a type writer…
well, what is the best way to find out. try and make one of the bombs in the book and see if it works
i find from my experience and this is my personal belief that i am not forcing on anybody but humbly expressing… is there is a hell lot of great stuff in the bible that really works and i wish that we as a collective mankind could do a better job of instilling its principles into our lives so we had less starving children…
the 3 detectives - so how do you decide which of the 3 detectives is right…
they must all explain why they think what they think and then we must decide for ourselves
the religionist is still one of the detectives… except his explanation involves a deity…
i have tried to show the value of the religionists point of view and the value in it… that is all. it might very well have been a flying spaghetti monster - but i like the whole God thing with the whole love and happiness and generally good feeling explanation more…
you decide for youself… oh and while you’re considering… go and see “lives of other people” and see what life was like in east germany when mankind tried to reduce human beings down to a simple materialistic creature… socialism - man just needs this and that to live. we are all equal… don’t take into account the human spirit…
just see what the world looks like when we as human beings think we know everything…
The questions you’ve raised have been raised on MANY theology debate sites, and have been more or less addressed. I’m not brushing you off, I’m saying there are answers, which obviously are not enough for everyone because the questions keep coming up. Check out http://www.theologyweb.com.
See, it’s very easy to put forward a question (or 11) which one could spend a whole lifetime answering and not cover it in full, and then when there’s no pithy answer one can easily write it off and think ’see, i’m right’. But then you’re just being dishonest. A pursuer of truth will look into things properly, and when he finds something he deems to be true he will stick with it, and it should stand well against it’s attacks. Which is why I love debating, but only when it doesn’t become a mug-slinging character attack
Back to your questions - Many of these issues deal not just with the mind, but with the heart. Why is the bible in riddles - well, Jesus was asked why he spoke in parables; not everything is for everyone - and one point that comes through again and again from scriptures is that it’s my heart condition that determines the capacity I have for truth.
In my own life I have found my capacity for truth diminish as I got wrapped up in various evil desires and passions. It wasn’t that my intellect was dulled, it was that my wrong desires had an effect on my understanding. I didn’t become stupider, I became more susceptible to error.
I don’t think this is addressed enough in some of the loftier intellectual debates: namely, is your reason for not believing in God really because 1) you can’t imagine him being infinite yet not control evil sufficiently? Or could it be a more hidden motive of 2) you knowing you have things in your life you know are wrong yet are unwilling to change. Things God knows about, so the only way you can keep on keeping on is by denying his existence…
Often the same people who criticise God for not intervening in the evil in the world, are the ones who [would] criticise God for wiping out a bunch of people save Noah and his family in a worldwide flood [if they believed in that].
People haven’t changed. Jesus said that men’s hearts were evil. Man says that people are generally ok except for Hitler and maybe Mussolini. Jesus spoke words that convict men’s heart to this day, which is why he is mocked and put down whenever possible by men that won’t change.
Is the truth discoverable, certainly. Is there one ultimate absolute reality - there has to be, common sense dictates this. Will everyone find it - no. Does everyone want to - not really.
Billy, with respect, that’s a load of hogwash! The reason why I doubt (please note doubt, not disbelieve) in the existence of god is because I cannot find any logical reason to believe in him. If you read the previous posts, you will know that I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Big difference.
I do not say there is no god. I do however say that if there was a god and he is all that the bible says he is then I don’t particularly like him.:)
You have not answered any of the questions because like everyone else you don’t know. Yet you still prefer to believe. I understand why, because as Karl Marx said, “Religion is the opium of the people”. People need something to believe in. In all probability the fictional character Moses in the bible, as a leader of a community realised that in order to regain control over his errant populous, he needed to give them something to believe in and rules to follow, with the threat of everlasting damnation as the incentive. Hence the 10 commandments. It all makes perfectly good sense and not at all bad. Morality was created by religion and that’s not a bad thing.
However, that does not mean that because you or anyone else is blind to this probability that I must believe in god. I prefer to wait and see, but I do think that atheists are probably right purely because my logic tells me so.
I say again; Any person proclaiming that god exists as an absolute truth is not a logical person. It’s as simple as that. Can you without a doubt and with certainty say that there is a god? Can you?
If you cannot but still go to church and pray every night, then you are a hypocrite.
If you cannot but would like to, then you are like many people out there who need something to believe in. Nothing wrong with that either.
If you can, then please tell me what makes you “know”. Not faith or belief, because that does not imply knowing. Knowing is when you have evidence or proof. I am not trying to be converted, but every now and again some religious nut tries his best to do just that. If a person tries to convert me then he needs more evidence than the bible and the godly proclamation that it was written by the hand of god, blah blah. The onus of proof is on him, not on me.
So, here is the question and please this time try and answer it directly. If you are so sure then it should be really easy….
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS? (and please no bull**** about the heavens and the earth and flowers and there can be no other explanation.)
“i find from my experience and this is my personal belief that i am not forcing on anybody but humbly expressing… is there is a hell lot of great stuff in the bible that really works and i wish that we as a collective mankind could do a better job of instilling its principles into our lives so we had less starving children…”
I agree that there’s some good stuff in the bible, but that doesn’t make it true! The problem is with the nut cases that become fundamentalists. Burning at the stake etc. etc.
“8. If God created evil then he is also responsible?
i think this one is answered - yeah - he created us and we turned away from him to become evil… so no - he is not responsible because we are the ones that did the turning away”
This does not make sense mate. If he created us then he also created our minds and he also created our free will. What you are describing is like Dr. Jospeh Mengele experimenting on children. What they turn out to be is not his responsibility or his fault. That’s nonsense. This question has been answered. I am answering it. If he exists, then he is responsible. He is a collaborator and and accomplice. Our evil is his evil. He created evil so he must be evil. Real simple.
I see the battle rages on. Highly entertaining stuff gentlemen albeit pointless.
Atheists and religious people debate from such departing paradigms that it’s like two individuals, one Swahili-speaking and the other one Russian-speaking, trying to understand each other. Shouting harder in Swahili is not going to make the Russian understand the language any better.
Trying to convince a believer in God to read ‘The God Delusion’ as proof of the non-existence of God is the same as a believer asking an atheist to read the Bible as proof of the existence of God.
Until atheists and believers alike realize that they are singing from completely different hymn book (excuse the pun), each side will always be convinced that the other side are fortresses of impregnable stupidity. To quote a Catholic priest friend of mine;
“Atheists took hypothetical ideas that we, theologians, used to toss around in medieval times to amuse ourselves in monasteries and latched on to them as if they were gospel truths.”
Does this sound like a man whose mind can be changed by asking him to prove the existence of a God?
Ndumiso, I really think that discouraging this debate on the grounds that there is no common ground is equally unhelpful. I actually think differently. If religious people are making FACT claims about the universe, they must substantiate them. And they must do so with more than just dogma.
I say: let the debate rage on. I want to hear what the Christians have to offer us as proof — it’s long past time for them to step up properly.
PS: God Delusion and The Bible is a disingenuous comparison, and I think you know it. The one is presenting a theory and an argument; the other is presenting, as fact, an historical account and a bunch of rules. God Delusion can be disproven in a moment: God appears, Dawkins is wrong.
Disproving the Bible is, very conveniently, impossible because it actually offers no convincing proofs to knock down. Therefore, as I’ve said many times, the onus is on the believer here because rather than offer a book full a proof, they have offered a bunch of stories with no proof at all.
You admit to not particularly liking God. You’re supporting my point of things not being merely an intellectual or scientific issue, but an issue of the heart. Some people can’t find enough evidence to believe in God the same way a criminal can’t seem to find a policeman. ie. no intention of ever finding it.
I’m trying to explain how one can be very sure of something, yet for someone else it’s not so easy to follow. Man, naturally, is in a state of rebellion against God. He sees God as the enemy. His natural tendency is to blame God for the problems, and blame himself for his successes and blessings.
There are plenty of evidences to support the Christian faith, and you keep bringing this up as if it’s an issue of lack of evidence. It’s not. What I’m saying is that all the evidence in the world won’t be enough for some people. If you want evidences, there are stacks of books I can point you to. Will you read them honestly? I’m guessing not.
I once told someone who also didn’t believe in God or miracles - that even if he saw a miracle right in front of him right this minute, something completely and undeniably supernatural - he would still not believe it but find some natural explanation. He told me I was right.
Jesus faced the same thing with people who wouldn’t believe what he was saying. He said that if the people didn’t believe the law and the prophets, they would not believe someone who had a personal testimony and pleaded with them.
You ask me how I know for sure that God exists. I can tell you that I know more than anything because of what he has done in my heart, in my life and the lives of those around me. Knowing Jesus Christ has changed me as a person. Am I perfect? - no, have i got it all figured out? - no. But the evidence in me cannot be discounted to some delusion. In the most volatile times in my life, when I’ve sought His council, I’ve been overwhelmed with a peace that was not made by me, nor was it a result of things or people around me. It has an overwhelming force which works against my natural desires to fear or get even. It subdues me and allows me to calmly relish the taste of the divine. How do you scientifically transfer this to someone else? you can’t - it’s too subjective. What can you do - you can hold up the objective truth that is Jesus Christ, you can declare the things he said and show that his very life was an expression of the authority, love and holiness that he has. The scriptures say that in Him is eternal life, which is why rejecting him ends up in rejecting God’s offering of eternal peace and love.
To put it another way - my faith doesn’t benefit me because I have faith and i get all this cool peace and stuff… no, the power of the faith is in the object of my faith: Jesus Christ. I can have a weak half-doubting faith in Jesus - that wouldn’t make me a hypocrite (as you suggested) - it would make me a weak and fearful Christian, but it would still be powerful because the faith is in a real person, the Son of Almighty God.
I like this analogy that Mr R Zacharias used: that a weak faith in Jesus is better than a strong faith in anything else for the sake of faith - just as being nervous and quivering while skating on some solid ice is fairly safe compared to being extremely confident yet skating on thin ice.
To move along to a more historical and verifiable event to substantiate my claims - because, unlike what is often portrayed - our faith is not mere speculation but based on very real events. The core historical event of my faith is the death on the cross and bodily real resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. If this even did not happen. Or if the corpse of Jesus was found, I would be without anything robust to base my faith on, and it would in this case be (as it is often accused of us) - blind faith. But - no body was found, the tomb is empty. If you want to dismantle my argument, do some research and start here…
The creation being proof that there is a creator, just as a painting is proof there was a painter, is all secondary to what I’ve just said.
Let’s just keep it respectful please… as soon as people stop listening to one another - the debate becomes worthless because it becomes more about winning than seekign out the truth…
mmhhh.. sorry Billy. Not working for me. Maybe some other gullible guy will fall for it. Just as a matter of interest I have read most of the books and find them lacking in any substance.
As you said, your faith is based on the fact that Jesus died on the cross etc etc. Just because the tomb is empty and because the body is missing that does not prove that he existed at all.
As for the creation being proof that there is a creator, I agree. That does not mean that the so called creator is god! They could be little green men from Mars. Point is Billy, that deep inside you.. you really don’t know. Just like me.
Marthinus: i don’t think Billy sauid anywhere that we know for sure that God exists… i think we all agreed that this is essentially unknowlable… or that at least at this stage we do not KNOW it…
NO - at this point i would just like to point out that what you are reacting to is quite clearly all teh religion in the past that people have tried to shove down your throat… it has happened to each of us… there are crazy people out there.. who think they are right and they don’t listen to anybody or to anything except themselves and they try to tell everybody else that they are wrong if they don’t believe their particular theology… their crazy - and wuite honestly i understand why you and many other people (richard dawkins the most prominent of all) react so drastically toward religion
but step back for a second and ask yourself - isn’t richard dawkins diong exactly the same thing - but just the other side of the coin?
if you simply go and read through the posts above - i think you will find time and time again either jarred or someone else making a sweeping statement about “how there is no evidence for God” or the “idea that god exists is totally made up and irrelevant”
now - all i am saying as a believer in god is “there may very well be no god - noone knows for sure… i look at the evidence and i choose to believe there is a god. i believe there is evidence for a god”
What a religious person would say is: “i look at the world and one possible explanation for the world is that it was created by a God… the bible is one possible account of how what that God is like… i think this makes sense… therefore i choose to believe it”
we are all in agreement that this is a matter of choice so i don’t know where your question:
HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT GOD EXISTS? (and please no bull**** about the heavens and the earth and flowers and there can be no other explanation.)
comes from - because noone here said they can prove that to you. we also said that no athiest can prove it the other way either… TRUE?
Yeah, you’re right on one point - it’s not working for you.
See, if you’re still raising “did Jesus really exist at all” I must honestly question the extent to which you looked into things. And brushing things off with “i’ve read most of the books”.. What books have you read exactly? What was weak about their points?
And deep inside I just don’t know? What on earth is that based on?
Thats about as logical as me going “deep inside you really believe passionately, just like me” - it doesn’t make sense.
I’m withdrawing from this discussion for a bit - it’s taking too much of my time. Thanks for an engaging discussion Martinus… Hope you doing well that side. Let me know when you hungry to read more books again.
marthinus - with regard to what you said about whether god is responsible for evil or not…
my friend - one of the most important principles you will ever come accross in your life is that of responsibility?
you are responsibile for who you are? no matter what happens to you - you choose how to react to it… read seven habits of highly effective people. read most modern day psycology - one of the most powerful principles we have today is that we are responsible for our own selves…
this idea is completely in line with the ideas that i presented on god giving us free will - he gave us free will - thus making us responsible for ourselves - and gave us 2 possibilities.
to do good and to do bad.
just because he made the option of diong bad available for us - doesn’t mean that he did bad.
you can understand this right? i also explained why he made the option to do bad available - because if we didn’t have a choice what would be the value of believing in him anyways… remember - clean your room withouth your mother moaning?
what do you think about the rest of the answers to your questions?
i am not asking you to believe them - but they do make sense and they form a consistent answer with everything else i have said - if you have the time to actually read through everything i wrote
Jarred, I’m not discouraging the debate at all. I’m merely providing commentary from a safe distance to avoid getting splattered with blood because I honestly do not believe that the debate is moving forward - or that it has the potential to do so. I say let the debate go on only for the entertainment value. I’m all for entertainment.
To begin with; between atheists and the religious faithful, you wouldn’t even be able to agree on what constitutes a ‘FACT’, which you’ve highlighted. I bet you your definition of a fact will be scientific.
Problem right there. The ‘truths’ in the Bible cannot, by definition, stand up to the rigours of scientific scrutiny. These truths existed long before modern science. Because I have studied and internalized scientific principles, stories about a bearded dude who had ‘conversations’ with burning bushes and parted the Red Sea armed only with a stick seem like hocus pocus.
By age 18 I could not make sense of it and wandered the wilderness of atheism looking for answers until I realized that scientific reasoning is full of holes as well. Placing proof as the sole criterion for promoting theory to fact is problematic on many different - and I know I don’t have to tell you all about it. Unless you are one of those people who actually believe this;
Scientific fact = truth.
In which case; good luck.
My point? Unless both sides agree to use the same definition for the word ‘fact’, no one will ever provide you with satisfactory evidence for the existence of God. They will inevitably have to bring in the spiritual dimension that you cannot, by definition, accept. They’ll start asking you questions such as ‘can you show me proof of the emotions that rage inside you such as anger, love and pity?’ and you’ll start accusing them of hallucinations, deism and all manner of other isms.
I’m really enjoying this discussion, but do us all a favour and stop quoting “The God Delusion”. It’s unscientific at best. Do read Platinga’s analysis of it here: http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/002/1.21.html
(Don’t let the website’s name fool you. Platinga isn’t your run of the mill Christian ignoramus. Just read the damn review.)
ok, i’m almost out of it… one last post (darn this is addictive)…
Ariel -
I believe that God is real, and I know this too. Let me try illustrate. A small kid sitting in the lounge gets told not to touch the red element because it is very hot. At this point, with this information, the kid can choose whether or not to believe his parent.
If the kid decides to grab onto the heater to see if this is true, and he burns his fingers, he no longer just believes the heater is hot - he now knows this. I believe an encounter with Christ is similar. After that, it’s not mere theory, speculation, philosophy - it’s an encounter that leaves you knowing.
Yes, there is faith - that’s based on my trust that God in His character is true to what He says about Himself and willing to follow through with what He says… but there’s knowing, where you know for certain. There is a level of faith in this, but there’s also an experiential element, which I tried to describe in a previous post (and think I failed at dismally - based on Martinus concluding that deep down I doubted just like him).
I believe that Jesus KNOWS that God exists, just as the other apostles, just as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - just as many people today know.
I hope I’ve cleared up my stance on this.
Over and out. (seriously - I have deadlines people! )
Jarred, Billy’s comment at 5.13 pm is exhibit A of what I’m talking about. That kind of response can only serve to infuriate an atheist and send him into an orbit of frothing-at-the-mouth fustration.
You can respond to that in only one as an atheist, “are you smoking pot?” I know, I’ve been on the other side. You guys are exactly where you were at the beginning.
The Swahili guys are just shouting harder in Swahili to make the Russians understand.
To be able to meaningfully respond to the enormous amount of material published here today is a big job, one that I will need to put some serious time into.
However I do want to try and unravel things a little.
There are two basic things up for debate here:
1. Does god exist?
2. Is the bible true?
A lot of confusion has come from either treating these as one argument, or trying to insist that these aren’t one.
Ndumiso, I have no idea why you think I could never agree with Billy, say, on what a “fact” is. A fact is a statement about the world that is true. True means: true for everyone.
“Does god exist?” means, therefore, is he out there, finished. There is no meaning in a “personal god”. And that means arguments from personal belief, no matter how powerful or moving, are inadmissible in establishing the FACT of the matter.
“Is the bible true” means are the claims made in it historical facts, things that actually happened in the way described in there. Did Jesus live, did he raise the dead, did Jonah get eaten by a fish, did god create the world?
Billy, I challenge you to put together a proper summary of the arguments FOR both god and the truth of the bible, excluding your personal life experiences which I am not diminishing, but which do not add up to anything more than autobiographical information.
You have supplied some website addresses, but that’s almost cheating. Go away till you’ve spent 6 months reading up on the subject. Do the right thing here, and write up a neat summary so we can at least understand the arguments, as I have done with the atheist’s arguments.
Yes, you have deadlines, but this is the biggest question of them all. Surely you can spare an hour to write up some bullet points?
My contention, and Marthinus’, is that there is just not enough evidence (if any) for the FACT of god’s existence or the bible’s truth. Plenty of people with moving personal stories. No real proof.
Maybe you can get away with that on a deistic argument for god, but the bible is making actual historical claims. So let’s see some archaeology, some ancient Roman texts.
- I know what you are saying and I agree that there is a level of futility to this. But when people try and explain what I mean by something and they miss it (not maliciously, just misinterpreted), surely I should be able to make my view clear, even if it means I’m thought of as smoking pot?
I agree with your Russian/ Swahili analogy in terms of language used and understanding, but not on the level of truth. Then it’s more a case of flat earthers screaming at round earthers and earth-on-a-turtle-back’ers chirping some sarcastic remarks for good measure… ie. there is some ultimate reality and not all views are equally viable.
ps. if all views are equally valid, then my view of not all views being equally valid, is, by definition, also valid…
I will submit to you the stuff that convinced me, specifically regarding the two points you mentioned. It will by no means be exhaustive, and I’m convinced now more than before that it will not sway anyone here from their current stand. Even so, it would be an exciting and interesting exercise for me also to do this.
Any Christians reading this please pray that I do this properly. I will post it on my blog first for general comment and refinement..
Everyone has a right to an opinion and making use of the soap box provided by M&G is everyone’s right. I am not knocking any opinions. I am trying to understand the psyche of a person that believes in something without proof of it’s existence.
So far I have learnt the following:
Most religious people here agree that there is no real evidence that god exists and that no-one can be absolutely certain.
The rest (Jarred and I) agree that neither god’s existence or his non-existence can be proven.
So.. fundamentally we all agree.
“An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable”
i liked the way you answered my question… i really really do.
i am personally convinced of that argument… i mean - i inderstand what you mean when you say you know…
but on another level - we can also understand why jarred and marthinus are getting frustrated by that “knowledge”
i would like to ask jarred and marthinus a question regarding this:
if picked up a stone and held it arms length in front of you and let go - do you know it will fall, or do you believe it will fall…
the only answer you have is that you believe it will - granted - with much evidence and reason - everytime you ahve done it before it has worked that way - but mathematically and scientifically you don’t KNOW… einsteins general theory of relaitivity doesn’t even explain why… it just describes it a little more detailed than newtons very basic laws of gravity
do we know anything… well 1+1=2… but much more than that on the level of the existence of god or whether or not you even exist… not really?
just one more thing… to quote jarred
“Maybe you can get away with that on a deistic argument for god”
i am glad we have established this point. thank you for your willingness to listen and actually debate this thing without being torn off into all teh emotional and hectic baggage that accompanies this debate. I really have appreciated that
i personally, arguing about religion and the existence of god are 2 very distinct things (although related) and i look forward to the following posts
good luck billy! i don’t know much about christian theology - but i look forward to learning a little…
oh - and ndumiso - dude - science and religion need to work together… they are 2 systems of knowledge aiming to accomplish the same thing… to answer the questions that linger in the hearts and minds of men. keep taming the beast cause as you expressed earlier - it has all the potential in the world to get messy!
I am an atheist myself and find this to be one of my favourite debates. Strangely this is a debate that I have been having a lot recently.
I find that when I talk to religious people about religion or “god” as it may be, the ultimate answer for them to anything and everything is “Just have faith”. That is really not answer or solution or rebuttle in my opinion.
My point however is this:
I read an interesting blog post - no idea where - that made one of the clearest summations of this debate for me.
It goes something like this:
You believe that god exists. I do not. I can never, ever, ever, at all, ever see the your reality as you see. Thus your reality is entirely real to you and so is mine. This is fantastic and ultimately says what I try to.
You have your views and I have mine. Why must one be right and one be wrong?
As an atheist I firmly believe that religion and god work for some people. It does not work for me, the concepts do not work in MY REALITY. Thus I choose not to believe. Simple. I am not saying all christians are wrong, I am not saying all jews are right or the muslims and hindu’s are messed in the head. But I know of many other “faiths” that condemn or “faiths” to eternal damnation simply for not believing the same thing. At the end of the day everyone is pointing fingers at everyone and everyone thinks they are entirely correct in their assumptions and beliefs.
This argument is a massive one that I could write an essay on here, but I wont. I’m done.
“if picked up a stone and held it arms length in front of you and let go - do you know it will fall, or do you believe it will fall…”
This sets us wading into deep epistemological waters, and turns on the discussion of internalism vs. externalism. I could try and recall all of my honours Philosophy course to try and debate it, but I don’t think that’ll take us anywhere.
Maybe nothing is absolutely certain, and maybe everything demands faith, including the everyday stuff we all take for granted. Even if that’s true, though, that doesn’t propell the kind of god you’re looking for into the picture. It really only deepens the mystery of life, and confirms (in my opinion) how deep and unsolvable that mystery is.
Lack of an explanation does not make a readily available, easy-to-grasp but highly questionable one preferable does it? There is no gun to our heads, we don’t HAVE to decide. We have the option to say “we don’t know”.
Let’s also just remove this idea of “my reality” and “your reality” from this discussion. This new age, hippy attempt at tolerance really just reduces the concept of truth and reality to dust. Maybe in literary criticism or political studies you can apply put this kind of stuff to good use, but if there is no one, single REALITY out there, then we have much bigger problems.
Nic, I’m sure we can all appreciate your desire to have a nice, friendly environment in which both atheists and Christians can get on. And indeed we can. But they cannot, under any circumstances, both be right.
PS: I took some time last night to read some of the literature Billy linked us to on sites such as “Stand To Reason” and so forth, as well as the article critiquing Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”.
I have to say that it’s refreshing to read solid, strong material from the other point of view, based on logic and not a simple appeal to faith. I await Billy’s summation with great interest. I hope you’ll post the link here when it’s done.
Jarred - its great to see a fellow atheist indulging in quality debate here, and to see that this conversation hasn’t (yet) descended into the fundamentalist quagmire that normally results from posts like this.
I have just finished reading a brilliant book called “How to Read the Bible” that you might enjoy. You can read a New York Times review here: http://tinyurl.com/ysbmpa
I don’t agree with the author’s conclusions, but I found it a thought provoking, entertaining book that should be required reading for anyone who actually believes that there was a woman called Eve who was given an apple by a snake.
“See, if you’re still raising “did Jesus really exist at all” I must honestly question the extent to which you looked into things. ”
What the hell are you talking about? There is no proof that Jesus existed at all. Why should I not be asking this question? Has it been answered in your opinion? Do you know something we don’t then please share it. The rest of the world is waiting in anticipation. Oh.. I get it.. It must be the Turin Shroud that convinced you. How stupid of me.
“And brushing things off with “i’ve read most of the books”.. What books have you read exactly? What was weak about their points?”
Billy, you don’t know me so please don’t make assumptions about what I have read or have not.
“Martinus… Hope you doing well that side. Let me know when you hungry to read more books again. :)”
Do you have any value to add to this debate or are you just going to be sanctimonious.
I apologise for getting your name wrong, it’s not a name I type a lot and my thoughts were more on my discussion than on your name. It irks me just as much when people call me Billie so I mean this apology!
Ok, let’s start in the middle. I don’t know you, you’re right, (I think we picked that up when I spelt your name wrong) and I don’t know what books you’ve read - which is why I was asking you.. Which books have you read that you found weak arguments, and what was weak about them? If you’d rather not say, that’s ok - but I was just wanting to know. I wasn’t making any assumptions.
Also, I wasn’t trying to be sanctimonious, you had implied that you’ve read all the books on the subject and they weren’t up to much. I was wondering if you were done with reading up on the topic. Sounds like you are.
Now to the first bit. Did Jesus really exist.. Not a lot of digging on the topic will reveal there is ample evidence of his existance as a real person, in the place and time that the bible describes. This is actually generally accepted amongst secular and biblical historians, biblical scholars, and other lofty learned folks.
But that aside, there are a few questions one can raise on this:
- Can the biographies of Jesus (in the New Testament of the Bible) be trusted?
- Do these biographies stand up to scrutiny?
- Were they reliably preserved for us?
- Is there credible evidence outside these biographies?
- Does Archaeology confirm or contradict these biographies?
I think I’ll delve into this a little when I form my response to Jarred’s challenge.
To put it plainly, let me quote FF Bruce, Rylands professor of biblical criticism and exegenesis at the University of Manchester: “Some writers may toy with the fancy of a ‘Christ-myth’, but they do not do so on the grounds of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historacity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians which propogate the ‘Christ-myth’ theories”.
This was the reason I asked if you’d looked into it. I wasn’t trying to be flippant. I was just shocked that as someone who has read loads of books on this, you would raise something like this.
Ok, that being said - I don’t want this to turn into another thread of debate (PLEASE) - else I’ll never get done with my other assignment
For me its pretty obvious God doesn’t exist. Empirically — look at all the suffering, inequality and mass murder that has been committed in God’s name now and throughout history. Forget whether its committed in God’s name or not, the fact that these atrocities happen at all on such a grand scale is indicative. I don’t buy the fact that this is all part of a plan.
Also what about a non-christian brought up in deep rural Russia… someone who has never been exposed to christianity, but who is a kind, generous soul. Is that person condemned to hell? Maybe God will make a plan for him/her? But his/her future in heaven is less certain than a mass murderer who has had a turnaround in the last years of his or her life and then repents and is “reborn”. Doesn’t add up for me.
On a deeper level — personally, I think things like “the soul” and “god” are unsophisticated and ancient ways of expressing things we know more about now (and still discovering) thanks to modern science — such as energy waves. Roughly equivalent to a “soul”, when you die energy passes from one form to another. Energy never dies, but just converts into a different form. Nothing religious, mystic or even ethereal here, just science.
that might be proof enough for you… but we have already established in this debate that a personal testimony of something is not sufficient proof for it to be real…
how are you going to prove it to me?
show me the evidence that athiests exist…?
oh, and lots of book sales is not a proof because again that is just people’s own personal beliefs. in fact - the bible is the best selling book of all time so it clearly never will be a proof.
i think the closest you will ever get to objectively proving the existence of athiests is when you show me someone who dies and doesn’t have an belief or hope whatsoever in anything beyond… nothing… but how are you going to show me that convincingly anyway - because again - the matter of how they feel will again be a personal testimony.
so - just to explain what i meant to say cause it wasn’t clear
define an athiest to be someone who doesn’t believe in god…
jaxon says - i don’t believe in god. well that is jaxon’s own personal statement… how do i know what he is saying is true. where is the external evidence that you don’t believe in god?
a believer in god says… god is real… well, that’s their own personal testimony? where is the external evidence
Ariel, I don’t agree. A believer in god does not say god is real. “believer n 1: a supporter who accepts something as true”. The emphasis on “accepts”. That does not imply proof. Conversely, someone who does not believe does not have to have proof that god does not exist. Someone that believes in god is using the same faith that someone uses when not believing.
Ariel, you obviously missed non-sequitur class at school, and I hate getting sucked into these things but here goes:
Lets rather define an atheist as someone who rejects theism. It’s a small point, but it matters.
Absolute proof is difficult, but there is a preponderance of evidence that atheists do exist. We could assemble interviews with professed atheists and perform polygraph tests to ensure the veracity of the information. Based on the evidence in favor of the existence of atheists, and the lack of any evidence to the contrary we could state with some certainty that they do indeed exist.
Similarly we could state that theists also exist.
When you say that you believe that god is real, it doesn’t make it suddenly real. All it makes you is a theist.
Aristotle is usually totted around the most by some ignorant or misinformed person as having no contemporary evidence of his existence - as a standard if you will to suggest that Jesus should be considered to be on the same level of accepted historicity as Aristotle. However when comparing the list of evidences between the two, there is no compatibility. Here’s a brief list of the differences between Aristotle and Jesus:
ARISTOTLE
* 1. Facts about Aristotle’s life are not in question. We know when he was born, when he died (384-322 B.C.E), who his parents were, (Nicomachus – father – who was a physician to King Amyntas III, and Phaestis his mother) who his friends were and who his teacher was (Plato).
* 2. Most importantly, over 45 works are attributed TO him, although some of those are said to be dictated by some of his students in one of his many schools which he taught at.
* 3. Aristotle never claimed to be perfect, or a God, or even a son of a God. Nobody has a dogmatic philosophy on the life of Aristotle. If Aristotle didn’t exist, nobody’s world view would change.
* 4. Aristotle changed the course of time, coming up with several new schools of thought, including new ways to look at math, science, philosophy, politics, and ethics. His original thoughts and views helped form and shape the politics of a world.
* 5. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle.
* 6. Every Greek philosopher and scientist throughout the ages has used Aristotle as a base for their works. Including Harpalus, Hephaestion, Nicomachus and Theophrastus. Even Aquinas used Aristotle.
* 7. All of the information we have about Aristotle does not conflict with history.
* 8. There is no reason to doubt the existence of Aristotle, because there is such a large amount of evidence for his existence, as well as nothing that conflicts with history and historical accounts of Aristotle and his life.
JESUS
* 1. Jesus’ early life is obscure. We do not know his birth date, or even the year. We don’t have the year of his death. If you are claiming Jesus was just a man, of course nothing exists to prove a natural birth so this evidence is non-existent. We know nothing of his childhood, save at 12, and then he vanishes again. And we know his parents first names.
* 2. Jesus never wrote one book, one sentence, not even as much as a letter.
* 3. Jesus claimed to be all three of these attributes, and more. And over 33 million people around the world follow the idea that Jesus was these attributes and more. If Jesus was shown not to exist, his message would be lost and people would no longer be Christian (Because the definition of a Christian is to believe in Christ as the Messiah, that he died for our sins).
* 4. None of Jesus’ supposed teachings are original. Justin Martyr also admits to Trypho that Jesus’ teachings and that of the Christians were documented earlier in the Greek philosophies of Aristotle (ironically), Socrates, and Plato. All of the teachings of Jesus can be found in religions that existed hundreds if not thousands of years earlier. In John 1:1, a similar passage can be found in Heraclitus.
* 5. No major figure in History ever had direct contact with Jesus. No historical commentary about any major figure in history ever places them near or around Jesus in any fashion. In all the volumes of Josephus, never once does it state that Herod murdered a great multitude of infants at the birth of some savior figure. Nor does it state anywhere that Pilate killed Jesus in any Roman record.
* 6. No great work of science or philosophy ever came from Jesus, or one of Jesus’ followers. All are void of intelligent thought, and contain evidence of following in the footsteps of servitude.
* 7. In the trial alone of Jesus, there contains anywhere from 14-27 infractions of Sanhedrin and Roman law. This does not include a large sum of historical contradictions outside of the trial, which traverse into the hundreds.
* 8. In every aspect of Christ’s supposed life, there is reason to question his existence because of the errors, contradictions and fallacies not only within the Bible, but concerning the utter lack of evidence concerning the events of his life.
And this is not the half of it. Aristotle not only wrote tomes of prose in his time, by his own hand, but also contemporary accounts exist of Aristotle. As Richard Carrier states on Aristotles contemporary accounts, “There is one fragmentary inscription dedicated to Aristotle still extant at Delphi that I believe was erected in his lifetime. We have substantial portions of the Elements of Harmonics by Aristoxenus, a contemporary of Aristotle, which mentions him briefly. Anaximenes of Lampsacus (not the presocratic of the same name), also a contemporary, wrote an Art of Rhetoric that survives, and it addresses Aristotle. Theophrastus was his pupil and contemporary and we have some few of his writings, but I don’t know off hand if they mention Aristotle by name. Isocrates was his contemporary and sometimes opponent and he may have mentioned him, too, but again I can’t say for sure if he ever actually names him in extant works. There was certainly a great deal of contemporary writing about Aristotle, but as far as I know little to none was preserved, except in later sources. TLG shows a few hundred contemporary, named references to Aristotle, which are cited or quoted by later authors.” Carrier also suggested a book, “Lloyd’s book “Aristotle” would probably say what else there is.”
This is vital because we have NO accounts of contemporary evidence for Jesus. None. The earliest extant manuscripts for Jesus date to Paul, thirty years after Jesus supposedly died, written by a man who never met Jesus, knows nothing about him, or about any of his deeds, or miracles or speeches. Paul doesn’t attribute any words to Jesus nor does he seem to - in any fashion - refer to Jesus in a physical, literal sense.
After Paul, we have a forty year gap of nothingness. At the very end of the first century CE, we have rumors (just rumors) of hearsay about a being Jesus. The earliest Gospel fragment we possess is the P52 fragment, and it’s barely a scrap of parchment from what appears to be John. But it’s too weak a source to use to compare. That is it. And when is this P52 fragment from? 130 CE and no earlier. That’s a hundred years after the supposed death of Christ. Now here’s the funny part, we have works from Aristotle that survived from 500 years before THAT, and yet we can’t find one contemporary account of a man who is said to have walked on water, and preformed all these miracles, or even rose from the dead?
@ Jared - Hi, looks like you really started something here!
@Marthinus (is this correct?) - following your latest submission would equally mean that most African history did not happen simply because we didn’t write it down at the time like greek did in the time that Aristotle did. Freak!!! Maybe my great grandfather didn’t exist either…
i was hoping you would carry on down the “i think therefore i am” line of things
i think the evidence that athiests exist is probably most convincing in their actions… if you can see the proof in someone’s life that they don’t believe in God.
A good example was actually in “touching the void”. The guy had fallen down a glacier thing or something - i don’t know - but he was like about to die… and he said that looking back on it he didn’t once think about God and about maybe saying a prayer or something… he just tried to stay alive.
I was just trying to mess with you guys a little bit
Oh, and no offense taken about the non-sequitur comment. To be honest - i don’t know what the hell that means anyways
“Now to the first bit. Did Jesus really exist.. Not a lot of digging on the topic will reveal there is ample evidence of his existance as a real person, in the place and time that the bible describes. This is actually generally accepted amongst secular and biblical historians, biblical scholars, and other lofty learned folks.”
The fact is there is no evidence to emphatically prove that Jesus did exist.
I think Marthinus’ point stands Simunza: there is actually NO evidence for the existence of Jesus. African history stands up to archaeological scrutiny, personal testimony from people still alive and is consistent with the geographical and cultural history of the continent. He is not arguing that writing things down is the tipping point.
Ariel, I’m sure it comes as no surprise to anyone here that you’ve never heard of a non sequitur (that’s mean, I know, sorry, couldn’t resist).
An atheist was taking a walk through the woods one day and thought “What majestic trees! What powerful rivers! What beautiful animals!”.
As he continued walking alongside the river he heard a rustling in the bushes. Turning to look, he saw a 7 foot grizzly charging towards him. He ran as fast as he could up the path. Looking over his shoulder he saw that the bear was closing in on him. His heart was pumping frantically as he tried to run even faster.
Alas, he tripped and fell to the ground. He rolled over to pick himself up only to see the bear raising it’s paw to strike him dead. At that instant the atheist cried out: “Oh my God…”
Time stopped.
The bear froze.
The forest fell silent.
It was then that a bright light shone down upon the man and a voice came out of the sky saying: “You deny my existence for all of these years, teach others that I don’t exist, and even credit creation to a cosmic accident. Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer? The atheist looked directly into the light and spoke “It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps, could you make the BEAR a Christian?”
“Very well,” said the voice.
The light went out.
And the sounds of the forest resumed.
Then the bear lowered his paw, bowed his head and spoke: “Lord, bless this food which I am about to receive and for which I am truly thankful. Amen.”
[…] I have been reading Jarred Cinman’s blog on ThoughtLeader recently and he has made some great arguments on the topic, see “Why atheists are just plain right“. […]
Having read the interesting deviations that all of you have taken this thread along, it fills me with trepidation to enter at such a late stage when so much has been said, so I will try not to repeat what others have overdone.
The two questions that led to this all, namely ‘Does GOD exist?, and is the Bible true?, lead this whole argument down the road from a distinctly Atheistic point of view.
It seems to me that it is almost impossible for a religious person to fight the first question because as soon as you enter the fray you are immediately taking the opposing view to something that in your view does not exist! The definition of a person who is religious, is someone who BELIEVES that GOD exists. NOT a person who knows that GOD exists! By entering this argument it is like the well known saying ‘by arguing with a fool, you become one’.
So I am not going to try and enter into the foolishness of arguing the point of whether GOD exists, because my own personal view is simply that. It is not your view and I don’t want to make my view yours! No one person can convince another that GOD exists, because by using standard HUMAN terms of reference you can only prove what you know, not what you believe.
Entering into an argument over whether the bible is true is another thing entirely, and THAT can take you down many paths of foolishness. Many secular divisions exist within each and every religious sect which already shows the deep and divisive BELIEFS that show how many people have a view on whether the bible is true AND how much of it is simply a story.
Does the view that the bible IS true add any value to the argument at all? I don’t think so, because the bibles value comes in it’s moral direction (enter the fray to attack it’s inconsistencies here!) Nevertheless looking at the opposing view, does the view that the bible is not true add any value? I don’t think so, because if you didn’t think it was true does this then mean that the people who use it reduce the value? no – effectively for the same reasons!
During this whole discourse everyone except Jarred have confused religion and THE CHURCH. Do you suddenly become a bad Christian / Muslim / Jew if you don’t go to Church / Mosque / Shul? The answer lies in the point of view of the priest /Imam/Rabbi who will be secretly disappointed that you haven’t added to the coffers but does *GOD* care if you don’t go to church? If he exists in the form and benevolency that THE CHURCH says he does then surely not. Surely someone has noted that through the thousands of years that People in the name of GOD (through the church certainly in the Christian scheme of things) have committed atrocities. It was not following GOD’s WAY that made them do this. It was rather their interpretation or their (church).
The next burning question that was not covered, is the statement that atheists are just plain right. Why? How can you ever prove that with logic when you are mixing belief with fact? An atheist says ‘GOD does not exist, prove to me that GOD exists’. A religious person says ‘I believe GOD exists’
Please dear DOG (sic) how can you BOTH argue and not tell me at least one of you is confused? You are not on the same subject guys?!!
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Jarred Cinman is software director at Cambrient, South Africa's leading developer of web applications. He co-founded Johannesburg's first professional web development company and was one of the founders of VWV Interactive, for many years the premier creative web business in the country, winning numerous Loeries and various international awards. In 2001, Jarred co-founded Cambrient, which has, in its six-year history, built the leading local content management system and serviced an impressive list of corporate customers. Cambrient Contentsuite is also the engine behind Moneyweb.
Media freedom is one of those topics that its easy to raise a consensus around. For those of us that remember that bad days of apartheid, the conseque...
Whatever the truth of the backward and forward between Judge Richard Goldstone and the Sandton Shul is, the heated words that have made it into the pr...
This week saw the news that the UK government is considering shutting off NHS benefits for homeopathic treatment. Their argument is simple: there is n...
In a world buckling under economic recession, in a country of violence and crime and poverty, how can anyone find the time to care about the treatment...
Loading ...
I disagree with a lot of the premises in the work of Dawkins and Hitchens. Probably most importantly, I disagree that religion is the cause of so much evil. Yes, it is one cause, without doubt. However, explicitly secular movements have caused at least as much death and destruction - if not more. Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler weren’t exactly pious. The violence repressive states inflict on their subjects does not have to be motivated by religion.
Religion, when imposed by a state, can become totalitarian, which is what formal separation of church and state is intended to guard against. But totalitarianism can exist independent of religion, and religion can exist without causing state oppression.
Hitchens and Dawkins make a very seductive argument, but even though I consider myself for all practical purposes an atheist, I’ve come to reject their simplistic hostility towards religion.
Peter Berkowitz, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is far more eloquent than I am in his rebuttal of Hitchens in particular, and the new atheism in general.
(Report abuse)