It is good that you are thinking for yourself now, but always remember…just because we do not naturally inherit a religious worldview from birth does not mean that those worldviews are false. I hope your research of religion included a throrough, unbiased reading of their central foundations, which is scripture. If you have not investigated theism by reading the majority of both the Bible and Koran, you are doing a terrible injustice to your own human mind. These are the absolute bases of the most common worldviews of entire history. Do not shrug them off simply because they are “unprovable” and “ancient.” The antiquity of scripture adds to its reliability, coherence, and withstandingness, so that is a benefit rather than a detriment. In addition, clearly there is not, and can never be, proof of God’s existence. If you had researched enough, you would realize that religions exist in light of their unprovability. They do not see this as a weakness, but rather their purpose for existing. The difference between religion and irreligion/anti-religion is that the latter often fails to accept the fact that the nonexistence of God has not been proven either. Yet the religious do not base their decision on this, since it would be an appeal to ignorance. If they did, they would accept their religion only because the works of Dawkins, Darwin, Harris, etc. are unprovable. Hopefully you have similaraly established your atheism independent of the unprovability of religion. Instead we should look at both sides and determine belief based on what side we accept, regardless of claims to proof.

Now, if you assume that atheism can be proven (and naturally, that those religious have simply failed to seek out and recognize this proof) this would be quite a naive view of things. If atheism can be proven, how come religion has existed for some 2000+ years in light of it? I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this is not your view.

The rantings of atheist blogs and what you can find on the internet in general does not count as “research.” You will eventually come to realize that the self-proclaimed “freethinkers” are hardly free at all, but rather the product of an individualist society that encourages elitism.

I hope you will also come to realize that the 9/11 truth movement, the inner workings of our government, the truth about who runs the world, and “conspiracy” theory in general all fit in line perfectly with the Christian worldview. Add one more to your list: http://www.infowars.com

Don’t let what the media shows you about Christians determine your view of them. There are Christians out there (however few) that are tolerant of you. It is unfair to generalize. We do not threat you with damnation. We are glad you exist. We wish to engage in dialogue with you, for what good would it be to have no competing ideologies? I only hope you are openminded and educated enough to realize that WE exist.

Later.

I am certain that any intelligent person (***who is emotionally prepared to be objective) who watches the films you mentioned will at a minimum be convinced that Americans were lied to.

-Julie (iamjulie)

I’ve read 4 articles and I’ve decided that religion or non-religion just doesn’t concern me as much as it concerns you.

I just want to have a happy day, each day.

Thank you, Rob, for making me think!! This is why I have friends from all walks of life and I appreciate them all.

As my sister kept me informed of your sister. I didn’t know you adopted her kid. It’s too bad that didn’t work out, but I only know a little of the story.

As for being vegetarian? I’d like to try it, but I sure do like meat!! I have, however, added more veggies to my diet and want eventually eat WAY less meat.

Now, on to the next article….

It has been common among religious believers to look with misgiving to atheists and Gnostics, and to think that they are mistaken; however, in many instances the opposite is the truth; some religious beliefs are not just irrelevant, but baseless. The “God” of main line traditions simply does not exist. I accepted the challenge of finding the One who may be recognized even by Gnostics and atheists: the Existence itself, “All-That-Is.” If something is there, that is God. Look at the book “Christianity Reformed From ist Roots – A life centered in God” (Amazon.com). I am confident that some of your friends will be relieved of the illusion, as I did myself.

Jairo Mejia, M. Psych., Santa Clara University
Retired Episcopal Priest
Carmel Valley, California

http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Grudzen.htm
http://www.mbay.net/~jmejia/Churcher.htm

(I, too, always hated praying in public. I never felt I was praying authentically.)

Men wrote the bible completely on their own without the help of supernatural beings.

Your reasoning in your comments is proof to me and every other atheist that you are brainwashed.

I think you need to do some more research.

Religion is not for ignorant people; otherwise, the majority of humanity, if not all of it, would be atheistic. On the contrary, the vast majority of the world’s population believe in one god or another.

I am not mistaken. My beliefs are not misguided. And I don’t have ‘Gods’, I have A God, who is not imaginary.

And I can prove that he exists: Take a leaf. Study it, all its complexities. Now look at the complexities of everything else around you, on this planet alone. In your backyard alone. Now tell me that everything just suddenly one day popped into existence, and one day will eventually pop out of existence again.

I can also prove that Christianity is the right way and ONLY way:

Take every single other religion: what are they based off of? Sacrifice, idols, appeasement. The fundamentals of every other religion is that one must appease their god, so as to gain favour with them, so as to pass on to heaven or the next existence or whatever it may be.

Christianity, however, does not do that: The very basic and most well known fundamental of Christianity is that God is merciful and graceful, and that by such grace and mercy He has saved every single believer, regardless of their sins.

Mistaken? Misguided? With all due respect, I believe it is you who are mistaken; I don’t know if you read something and took it out of context, or what happened to make you an atheist, but I’m sorry it happened.

“You can’t convert away from true Christianity. Anyone who “converts” away from following God was very, very, very likely – in fact, almost positively – never a true follower of Christ to begin with.” -Ian, The Mind and Soul of Ian http://www.iansmindandsoul.blogspot.com/

Don’t you see? Religion may have served a purpose for ignorant people but those days are winding down. The internet allows people to be less ignorant about everything.

Mike, I know you have the best intentions but you’re mistaken, you’re beliefs misguided and your gods are imaginary.

I’ve learned that there is nothing I can say or do to make you think otherwise. However, you’ve been lied too by the same people that compartmentalize their own god because they can’t think rationally about religion either. It’s like the blind leading the blinder.

I wish you the worst of luck. And by that I mean I hope no one falls for your fantasy stories of gods and ghosts. I hope that people see through your ignorant book.

Second, Christianity, and our God, are the only ‘religion’ and deity to have lasted through the ages, from the dawn of time. And it will continue to go on FOREVER.

Keep in mind, God is NOT corporeal, he is omnipotent and omnipresent. He can see the smallest atom and the largest galaxy. He made it all. In order for there to be as many complexities as exist in our universe, including the ‘universe outside Earth’s atmosphere,’ there HAD to be divine influence. A universe full of things that are IMPOSSIBLE for man to reach, let alone recreate, CAN not and DID not just happen one day by coincidence. Nor have we [humans] been in existence for millions or billions of years or more; nothing has.

Furthermore, thus far every prophesy in the Bible has or is coming true. Not always in the same century, but they are coming true. Now, mere man alone cannot possibly see into the future; and time machines certainly don’t exist.

Moreover, God most certainly does answer prayers! I have SEEN it first hand!

Anyways, I leave you with that thought.

Have a good night!

—-Mike—- [Member blog of the YCF: Young Christian Force - http://universeofmymind.blogspot.com The Universe that is My Mind -- Mike]

The same day Sadducees came to him, who say that there is no resurrection, and they asked him a question, saying, “Teacher, Moses said, ‘If a man dies having no children, his brother must marry the widow and raise up children for his brother.’ Now there were seven brothers among us. The first married and died, and having no children left his wife to his brother. So too the second and third, down to the seventh. After them all, the woman died. In the resurrection, therefore, of the seven, whose wife will she be? For they all had her.”

But Jesus answered them, “You are wrong, because you know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven.

-Dean

Happy Belated Darwin Day!

on the other side, I have many prayers still hanging out there somewhere.

as for finding God outside of feelings, I fight to have no emotional connections to my faith. That is hard considering some of my life experiences. thankfully, when I put all emotion aside – God is still as prevalent and relevant as ever.

I do have to argue against believing your emotions and feelings will lie to you. I know that is not your intention but feelings and emotions are what drive us to love, care for, hate, nurture, etc. life is not life without feeling.

(sorry for all the late comments on old posts…just getting to know you)

btw, the Bible doesn’t teach you’ll be with your spouse for eternity. just the bond of man and women through intercourse makes them one. if you really study what the Bible teaches on sex and marriage, the americanized church version is pretty off base.

oh, one more thing. The Bible is literally a collection of letters, stories, and history records written for a specific people groups at a specific times in a specific places for specific reasons. We apply it to our lives today because of the connection we have to characters in the original manuscripts. But it was not written specifically for us.

But thanks for trying to degrade my Christianity because I didn’t know something that you do. Regardless of how big a deal you think it is I’m sure you will find all kind of Christians that don’t know everything you think you know.

Really?
I mean, really.
That takes serious dedication.

peace|dewde

It isn’t “faith” that makes something good. It’s humanism. And these 9/11 hijackers had none. Neither do the James Dobson’s, Jerry Fallwell’s, Rev. Phelp’s of the the world.

All that’s required is to see your fellow many as a human as you and treat them as such.

What a crock of shit! I was so dumb to believe this and shut that part of myself down for so long, when I could have been (safely & responsibly) exploring my sexuality with others.

Christianity took this from me and I still deeply resent it.

What do you do in this situation, say in a business meeting?

“If there is a single error in the bible then any part can also be in error.”

I know I’m splitting hairs here, but actually “then all of your preceding conclusions have their validity reset to ‘null’ and you must find another justification.” You can’t conclude it is necessarily false.

If what is presently unknowable becomes known, the agnostic may be able to become an atheist. I doubt that is ever going to happen. So both the atheist and agnostic will remain in the dark with one thinking they know more than the other but neither having any real knowledge.

I think the atheist view point of knowing that there is no God is something of a religious view. In many ways, atheist are more religious in their thinking than agnostics. And some even argue that atheism is a religion of its own although I do not fall into that camp.

There are things that are unknowable. At least at this time. I have named two. How the universe was created and how life began from nothing. It can be speculated about but there is no true knowledge and likely never will be. When there is, the agnostic can become an atheist.

Until then, the atheist believes he has knowledge which does not exist.

I think someone who believes gods are unknowable has fallen for a man made lie.

Agnostic’s that say god is unknowable have simply gone from believing one man made lie to another. The idea that something is unknowable is just as ridiculous as the idea of a god.

You say no one has convinced agnostic’s of anything, have you ever considered where the idea that something is unknowable came from?

Most likely it was a religious man that said god is unknowable, an atheist would never say that and if it were first said by an agnostic then they made it up just like the religious person.

I don’t claim to know things that have no evidence yet you’re claiming that god is unknowable. You see how you still sound like a religious person? Claiming to know something with no proof of it.

Thanks for the conversation, I’m enjoying it.

Your original post about agnostics was off base. You were attempting to define them and you missed the mark. I’m just trying to tell you what an agnostic is. I’m not telling you that you have to be one or agree with the thinking. But if you want to discuss agnostics, at least know a little something about it.

Let’s your review your conclusion again:

“If you honestly think you’ve chosen agnosticism then you’ve decided to be ignorant and not even think about it. Maybe someone has convinced you that nothing can be known and you bought it.”

No one has convinced agnostics of anything. They just recognize that they have no true knowledge about whether or not a God exists or how the universe or life was created. It ends there. The difference in agnostics and atheists is just a small matter of perspective.

If something, anything that has been proposed but never proven then it doesn’t deserve the right to be unknowable. If something ever was truly unknowable then you wouldn’t even know about it to talk about it. Since we know about gods, then they don’t fall in the category of unknowable because we know enough to have a discussion about them.

I don’t need disproof of something to not believe in it. I need proof of something to even consider it.

If you propose something to me and are never able to provide proof, I’m not going to say that what you’ve proposed is unknowable. Do you see how ridiculous that would be.

By saying something is unknowable you’re validating it’s possibility even though no one ever provided proof.

I can say that god does not exist because no one has ever provided proof. I’m not the one proposing a god and it’s not my job to disprove it. Therefore, no proof, no god. It’s simple math.

I think you’re hung up on the currently believed gods. There’s nothing special about Yahweh or Allah, if they weren’t as mysterious as they are no one would believe in them either. Makes you wonder just week early gods were. I don’t where you got this idea that something is unknowable, wait, yes I do, man. You’re using ideas of men do combat ideas of men.

Gods have evolved from strong men, to dead men, to mystery men. I’m not impressed.

When you say: “Your logic means that you believe every god ever mentioned by the mouth of a human is possible because they cannot be proven or disproven.”

That is totally wrong. I have said the opposite. I said humans have no ability to comprehend God so none of them is possible.

When you say: “You cannot possibly believe god is unknowable? If anything were ever truly unknowable then investing any time in it would be the hugest waste of time.”

Also totally wrong. But you are right that investing any time in it is a huge waste of time.

That is the agnostic position. God is unknowable and not worth wasting your time trying to determime if he exists or not because you cannot know.

The term agnostic is rather subjective which I think is the reason for all the debate.

We both basically believe the same thing. But I call myself an agnostic and you call yourself an atheist.

To my way of thinking, I do not believe in any religious God and do not even accept that a God exists. But I cannot say that one does not because I have no explanation for how the universe or life was created from nothing. So I leave open the possibility.

Since I have no knowledge of whether or not a God exists, I do not completely discount it, so I call myself an agnostic.

My idea of an atheist is someone who thinks they have knowledge that a God does not exist. When it comes to definition, I think agnostics have a higher bar for what an atheist is than many atheists.

So when I say that atheists say they have true knowledge that God does not exist, you call that a lie.

In my mind, the atheist view would be that God cannot be proven so he does not exist. When you say God does not exist that is a definitive statement. When someone asks how the universe and life came into being, an atheist would say I don’t know for sure but I KNOW it was not by a God. Knowing means you believe you have true knowledge which you dispute as the atheist viewpoint. So apparently we define atheism differently.

The whole debate is about the subjective view of what an agnostic or atheist is. Some atheists believe that no one can be an agnostic. You either believe or you don’t. Christians have that same basic view. If you do not believe that the Bible is true then you are an atheist.

Our definitions of what it means to be an atheist or agnostic are two different subjective viewpoints. So we can never agree on the two terms. I think that is really the difference between agnostics and atheists. Just how you define it.

As an agnostic, I do not take the position that because you cannot prove that God exists, you can say that he doesn’t. That is not definite proof. For you, it is proof enough. So in the end, I call myself an agnostic and you call yourself an atheist even though our beliefs are more or less the same.

No one needs to disprove any god. And you’re mistaken about me focusing on a particular god or religion. All gods are made up and all religions are retarding.

Your logic means that you believe every god ever mentioned by the mouth of a human is possible because they cannot be proven or disproven. How many gods have you disproven? If your answer is none then you have a lot of gods to chose from. Don’t be like everybody else and pick the current one for this region. There are lists online of all the gods known to have been worshiped at one time.

You cannot possibly believe god is unknowable? If anything were ever truly unknowable then investing any time in it would be the hugest waste of time.

There is a “mental high ground”, just because you don’t believe it exists doesn’t that it doesn’t. Maybe the “mental high ground” is unknowable.

I don’t think I agree with anything you’ve said.

In your case, you seem focused more on a particular religious God as portrayed by a specific religion.

If God exists, I believe he or it is unknowable. So religions have nothing to offer.

But neither does anyone else because no one can explain how life began or the universe was created. It is a neverending circular argument regardless of which side is taken.

The atheist claims the mental high ground when no high ground exists.

The thought of agnostics looking for answers or being afraid to commit is simply a stereotype. It may apply in some cases. But I think it seldom does. It is much like the stereotype the religious person has of atheists. It is all imagination.

Millions of people believed that the Earth was flat for thousands of years. Is that enough for you to continue to believe? I didn’t think so.

Scientology is a good example of crap being made up that people will believe and that only happened in the last 50 years. 200 years from some morons might still believe in Scientology because of their parents.

People make stuff up that other people believe, I’m not one of those people.

That’s a total lie. Atheist know things that are true and don’t believe stuff that has never been proven.

WHY DO I HAVE TO CONSIDER THE VALIDITY OF SOMETHING THAT NO ONE HAS EVER PROVEN?

I don’t know what atheists you’ve been hanging around but when I say “God is not real” it’s because its existence has never been proven, not because I’ve proven that it doesn’t exist.

You’ve got your facts wrong and you’re making incorrect assumptions based on those facts.

I certainly believe in evolution but it is hard for me to think that bacteria simply came into being through some type of spontaneous generation. I cannot explain it and do not feel the need to. There are some things which I can consider unknowable and do not have to make a guess at and declare it as fact.

How life started on earth is grey. It is not black or white. Science has no explanation for it other than a hypothesis.

In any case, there is much which is beyond explanation. Until one has a true understanding of how it all happened then there is no true knowledge and the atheist is just a clueless as the religious person. Even Einstein agreed on that point.

The agnostic simply recognizes that he has no knowledge and accepts it. The atheist claims to have a true knowledge which does not exist.

I don’t have disprove anything, in thousands of years no one has been able to prove any god exists. Why would I think it might be real?

I disagree with the way you think. Everything isn’t grey, some things are black and white. Supernatural things don’t exist. If you follow the rule that supernatural things don’t exist then that will answer lots of questions for you.

I don’t have to remain open to every crazy ass idea ever invented to be a rational thinker.

The agnostic is a person who recognizes that he has no true knowledge of whether a God exists or not. An atheist flatly declares that one doesn’t but it is simply a matter of his belief.

One cannot disprove or prove that a God exists. To make a claim either way, it simply a statement of your belief with no true knowledge.

I remember sitting at a picnic table when I was about 6 or 7, crying my eyes out to my mother about this. She had no answers then, and has only platitudes now.

Why don’t you believe in Allah? Because you weren’t born where those people believe that.

Why don’t you believe in Thor? Because nobody believes in Thor anymore.

You are a product of your environment and your environment tells you imaginary things are real.

You have no proof of what you believe and neither do they. If there were some kind of proof maybe everyone would believe the same thing. But it doesn’t exist.

Would you have faith that a witch doctor could save your child? Unlikely. Your faith is only useful when you need it to be. You don’t apply it to anything else in your life.

You’re hurting yourself and others when you spread the lies of God and the Bible.

Faith is belief without evidence.
Trust is belief with evidence.

I trust my car to start tomorrow because it started today. Having faith in a car to start that you’ve never seen before would be stupid.

You need to read my site from the beginning, by the time you make it back to this article you might be an atheist. Are you strong enough for that challenge?

Click the first entry in my Blogroll in the sidebar.

I don’t have faith in anything. Faith is a useless and dangerous tool.

God is not real, god is a made up tool to control people thousands of years ago and people still believe that garbage today. Scary how stupid people can be.

peace|dewde

I also remember it took me a little time, even after I became an apostate, to fully efface that feeling of being “dirty” or “guilty”. But I’d never have achieved that without losing the idiotic notion that someone out there actually gives a damn about me playing with myself.

You are probably correct…if I were born elsewhere I may have different beliefs but were I born elsewhere…to another family…surrounded by different people I wouldn’t have the quest for knowledge I have. I don’t believe because “that’s how I was raised” I believe because I have researched, talked to people, read and seen. There are a lot of people who just go with what their parents taught them…I’m not one of those people…

I’m not really shaken by the fact that were I anyone but who I am now I may believe differently because I have always been encouraged by people to seek out the truth…that is what I am always striving to do…and it is also why I am so respectful of all views because I hope everyone else does the same.

To my knowledge no one living today has proof of any theory…because none of us were here…I find it much harder to believe a star exploded and here we are our bodies are to complex for me to buy that and the we evolved still leaves the question where did the first thing to evolve come from. No matter what your belief…by the way where do you believe we come from, I’ve never asked….there is always the where did (fill in the blank) come from…yes even in my religion the question is posed where did God come from and no I do not have an answer for that…none of us do….

Let’s address these,
a) Not believing in god in not a belief. That’s the way a believer would look at it. Imagine someone on this Earth that was never indoctrinated, never told god stories and knows nothing of the bible (these people do exist), now ask them about god. They will not have a belief that god does not exist, they will lack any belief of its existence. When you become an atheist you return to the state of being that you would have had all along without your childhood indoctrination.

I do not have a belief that god does not exist. I lack any belief what so ever of its existence.

I’ll go along with the rest of your post, sometimes I act black and white about things that aren’t, my flaw. Your last paragraph right on.

Agree that agnosticism can lead to confusion when discussed colloquially, particularly among people who can’t cope with shades of gray. In such conversations, I tell people I’m an atheist – it’s just easier.

If you’re going to talk about this seriously, you can’t assume things are black and white without saying so first. If your point was that people who claim to be agnostic to cover their arse while they try not to think, I’d be in agreement with you. But, it wasn’t – you’re painting anyone who accepts that their belief has uncertainty associated with it as being mealy mouthed and indecisive, which isn’t fair.

What I’m trying to argue, basically, is that:
a) believing that god does NOT exist is a belief (not a non-belief)
b) agnosticism is the coherent and legitimate position that occupies the space between being 100% certain that god exists and 100% certain that god does not. You even accept this above (for people at the god exists end), but don’t extend it to the god doesn’t exist end.
c) agnostics that lean towards the atheistic end are pragmatically the same as atheists.

I accept your point that people who are floating about in the middle and use the word agnostic to make it sound like they’ve got a point are disingenuous and to some extent cowardly.

I also accept that getting into epistemic details like this makes things complicated, and is thus unsuitable for use in general conversation. However, this was a written post on the subject that makes claims that this undercuts, so I thought it was worth addressing.

I don’t think there’s any substantive difference in our positions regarding the existence of God, the flying spaghetti monster, Great Cthulhu, or even Puedam. Rather, I think we just have different temperaments when it comes to philosophy.

Regarding the claim that someone is agnostic about the Christian god and not the rest: I think there’s probably a subtle distinction worth noting between things that one has considered (and assigned a truth value to), and things that one has simply never contemplated. So, you can be agnostic about the Christian God and undefined about the rest. But, to be agnostic about the Christian God and certain in your non-belief in the rest is inconsistent and makes claims of special knowledge.

Now that you are an atheist, and you have complete privacy in this matter, you announce it on the interwebs.

Oh, the irony.

peace|dewde

Sorry man.

peace|dewde

Curious.

peace|dewde
dewde.com

There’s no proof of God, so it can’t be proof. Then do you believe in Puedam? Puedam is a made up God (by me) only a few weeks ago. What do I have to do to get you to believe in Puedam? That would help explain how you believe in something that has not been proven but is unprovable?

You must find it a little disturbing to know (for a fact) that if you were born in a different part of the world, you would not believe what you believe now, you believe something completely different. And you would believe that just as must as whatever you currently believe.

Let that last sentence sink in.

My belief does not stem from any false patterns in my life. It does not stem from an emotional high at camp or some random coincidence interpreted as answered prayer…I promise you there is much more to it.

People see patterns where there aren’t any. People see (and hear) what they want. People do this with members of the opposite sex, in business, with their children and friends. And with their superstitions in what ever form that comes in.

Data shows that most people have very poor judgement of the facts around them. People put emotions into subjects rather then the actual data represented.

Very sane people can believe rather insane ideas because of the false patterns they see in their lives.

As you said, more after sleep. Unless the insomnia kicks in. :)

Happy Sleeps :)

Have a wonderful rest of the night!!! I need some serious sleep.

Happy Dreams
Ginger

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

P.S. God and and the devil are not real so anyone who hears voices is just hearing themselves think. Or they’re insane.

1. When the bible was written it was not written from a scientific standpoint but from God. I wasn’t there but the perception of the people in that day and time was probably that the bat was a bird and God wanted to be clear so He included it in the winged things category…birds.

2. Upon researching your view that the Bible teaches the world is flat I have found that if you really read all surrounding text carefully the Bible was actually eluding to the fact that the world is spherical 500 years before the argument ever began. Again my interpretation…

3.I don’t actually read where the bible states the earth is the center of the solar system…let me research this one a little more.

4. I’m not sure how to respond to that one…God created the moon and the stars…I don’t believe he ever gives a source for the light…it’s from God and we dont know what he used to make it glow.

5.You are correct, the bible does condone slavery…I will not argue with you there. How exactly does that make the bible wrong? It’s merely a fact. After Jesus came we moved toward a more peaceful, more loving existance.

6. Adam did not die a literal death…it was a spiritual death, a death of his community with God. The bible uses a lot of non-literal wording. While there are places in the bible where God literally struck people dead for their sins…it speaks more of a spiritual death.

7 – 10. I have never read of a unicorn in the bible…you will have to point that out to me. The mistranslation you speak of regarding the virgin Mary you will also have to show me. What the bible addresses as far as going to heaven…you must believe in your heart that Jesus IS. If you don’t believe in God, then no, you don’t go to heaven but then again you probably don’t believe in hell either so no worries for you there. The only way to indefinitely get yourself out of heaven is blasphemy toward the spirit…

That’s all for now….perhaps more later. Have a wonderful day Rob Jones :)

I enjoy doing this and it’s a release for me.

Your assertion that the religious people need to “stop praying for bread” seems intellectually dishonest to me. While many people pray when in dire need, it is exceedingly rare to see someone subvert their survival mechanisms by deciding pray instead of act – when there is a clear and reasonable course of action. Religion in general seems to be pretty successful (in that most seem to prefer some religion to none) and I think any religion that advised people to “pray food onto their table” at the expense of hunting and farming would have selected its self for extinction long ago.

My point was that a persons world-view is usually not something that they can be talked into our out of easily. Everyone has an internal list of values and an emotional sense of which of those values are most important.

I am sure you have met people who place a very high value on security and stability. Other people are willing to tolerate increased risks to enjoy other aspects of life. Some people accumulate material possessions to feel worthy or safe, other people are content to live modestly or in squalor as long as heavy demands are not placed on them.

It is my belief that in all of these hypothetical but very realistic examples, people have made emotional decisions that certain things are more important than other things.

The collective or the individual. Prior restraint vs. accountability. Progressive taxation or flat tax. A persons view on these dichotomies is going to depend on their world-view.

Is there a rational argument to “prove” which tax structure is more “fair”? The rich should pay more because they have more – that sounds fair in one sense but how about the idea that everyone should contribute equally – isn’t that fair in another sense? there is no single right answer.

I think a large number of people view religion in a similar way – it is not objectively knowable in the way that the answer to a math problem is knowable.

Because of this uncertainly and the unprovable nature of god (or godlessness), many people “play it safe” and even if they are not certain about god, they take comfort in the idea of god and perhaps think that even if there is no god, it would be nice if there was.

All of these mental shortcuts and beliefs that may exist for the purpose of self comfort all work against you and the logical or rational case against god. Simply put, most people will not be talked out of it unless they already wanted to leave and were just afraid of the possibility that god might be stalking them in their apostasy and messing up their life with traffic tickets and tax audits. You might get those people.

I just can’t imagine why it would be worth your time.

People are far too emotional to ever only hold “right” and “proven” ideas. That you are fixated on religion as a particularly significant wrong idea is again, curious.

That same discussion with a religious person is different in the fact that their answers are based on a lie, make believe, fairy tales and miracles. Could you as an adult have a serious conversation with another adult that still believes in Santa Claus? Remember, reindeer are as real to them as the three wise men.

You can’t do it, you could not talk to them without thinking they’re crazy. But you could talk to a democrat and just think they are wrong. Whether it be your experiences vs theirs or stubbornness.

Your argument doesn’t hold up. A better outcome would be to remove peoples religion so they stop praying for food and wellness. And it would keep a few of them from trying to kill me because their bible says I need to die for being an infidel.

There are secular groups that do the same thing churches do. Religion pretends to be this thing that is trying to help you while convincing you you’re going to hell if you don’t give your life to God. It’s the bait and switch. Want a clean bottle of water? Give your life to Jesus.

I don’t know what perspective you’re coming from but if you’re expecting me to have all the answers I don’t.

I just hope you’re not another theology student. Theology students make me weary

There is so much conversation and arguing and fighting about politics because of the election. How many people are ever actually persuaded? Of course the undecided are because they are generally not partisan. Perhaps they are the agnostics of the political world? Still, I think that their undecided state is, in its self, an ideology – perhaps based on “whats in it for me” or something less lofty than the hard right and left wings.

I am a right leaning libertarian (small L). To me, personal liberty is paramount. This is not a popular value system in America. The libertarian crowd tends to be highly attuned to offers of pragmatic progress – usually in exchange for liberty (Virtually all gun control measures are predicated on that idea – that promise).

I am not here to convert anyone to my belief system – mostly because my belief system is that everyone has a right to their (wrong headed if different from me) belief system.

That said, no amount of arguing will persuade me to become a democrat. No amount of arguing will persuade me to vote for Obama because in my mind, it is settled that respecting personal liberty is not a priority for him.

These beliefs are very similar to religious beliefs. Some kind of world altering, paradigm shifting even must occur in an individual for them to cross over to another belief system.

I could be wrong about this and I am open to persuasion, but I have a high level of certainty that you cannot talk people out of their principled positions.

It is a futile quest and frankly, I think you are on it for what it does for you, not what it might do for some strangers.

If you want to help the human race, there are many, many, many opportunities to do so on a very practical level.

So I will ask you this – which would be a better outcome from a given level of effort (from a person, organization or community):

1. To feed, clothe and heal a population of 10,000 people.
2. To convince that same population to discard their religion and more forward in atheism.

I am curious – where are the atheist groups that are backing humanitarian charity work? Perhaps they exist, but from what I have seen, most of the work is being done by the religious and most of the religious appear to be Christians.

Perhaps they are just atoning for the crusades?

Now that I know what it’s like to be free I will try every way I can to help free someone, whether it be subtle, in you face or a questionnaire. I’m aware that it may never serve any purpose but as long as I know I tried I will be satisfied.

Becoming an atheist didn’t just make me right about one more thing, it made me right about everything I ever learned from religion that was total crap. And I’m still learning new stuff almost every day. I can almost absorb the podcasts faster than they can make them.

I’m dumbfounded when a believer asks me to do things that I have already done in my 36 years as a believer, as if I did them wrong or never did them. Yes, I talked to God, nobody was home.

I think believers belittle the previous faith that atheists had more than other atheists do.

David, You started your comment out with “I honestly do not understand”. Do you understand now? Even if you don’t, I can’t explain it any better. Though that wouldn’t keep me from trying.

First, as to the “evils” of religion. I think it is well established that the religious, irreligious and every race and tribe that has ever walked the earth has, when given the opportunity, abused other humans.

There are so many silly things that people believe in. So many religious, political, economic, scientific and philosophical systems that are both dangerous and wrong.

I would think that becoming an atheist would be a terribly liberating experience.

There is so very much foolishness in the world and you have crossed a line that has allowed you to add yet one more belief system and (all of its subsets) to the dustbin.

By being so hung up on the bible and the religions that adhere to it, you seem to be ascribing them a sort of favored position.

Again, in a godless world, what is the difference between a religious person and an atheist – beyond simply being “right” about one more thing?

People generally go through their life just fine believing that getting too cold caused you to catch a cold or that putting butter on a burn will help it heal better or that *they* have to genetics to withstand the ravages of a fast-food diet.

The 20th century is rife with examples of atheists trying to rid the world of what they saw as evil – to that end, hundreds of millions of people met their untimely end.

The hands of atheism are not clean – because they are the hands of men.

Were you commenting on the post or the comment before yours?

If you think biblical literalism is what’s required then it’s your responsibility to kill me. And don’t try and separate the Old Testament from the New Testament. The New Testament is just as messed up.

It’s the muslim that are the most faithful, they believe the literal words of their bible which is why they’re willing to kill themselves for it. Americans would never kill themselves for their god.

And why if god is real do you have fewer infant deaths in the least religious places on Earth? I’ll tell you why, Science.

I’ve already been religious, I know what it’s like, I prayed to the imaginary god, 36 years of it, I’ve been there, it’s religious people that are behind me. I’ve moved forward, yes forward.

Biblical literalism is key to Christian faith

It is in no way, the key to the Christian faith is the Apostle’s creed, pure and simple:

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost; the holy catholic Church; the communion of saints; the forgiveness of sins; the resurrection of the body; and the life everlasting. AMEN.

As you can see, this leaves open the room for alot of interpretation, even the divinity of Jesus Christ, and still allows one to be labeled “Christian”.

Heck, all the bible says is you have to call upon the Lord for salvation.

I’m sorry you might have had different run ins with various sects, but do not apply your thinking to Xn at it’s core.

By simply asking that question you’re perpetuating the lack of useful dialog. But you’re right, my comment two comments ago was me saying what was on my mind for no reason. Then Robert received a notice that this article had received a new comment and thought he would attempt to label me as partisan against what he had to say. I responded to his comment because I like to set the record straight.

Thanks for your time.

P.S. As much as I try to keep my site, this site, clean and free of useless information (jokes about my articles aside) I apologize to my visitors for those instances when I’m unable to do anything about it. Because If I delete posts, the posters will be offended or think I don’t want to you to see what they had to say. The truth is, I was just trying to keep this site efficient.

How do your most recent comments add to the conversation?

Your last post was you being an ass, you don’t know me, don’t act like you do. What I deleted was not a conversation between to the two of us, you wanted me to prove that man invented God and in doing so you seriously confused me with all your double talk and fantasy beliefs. The fact is that God didn’t invent itself. And then you brought up all of that crap about how do you know stuff is real. You are an absurd theologian that will say or believe whatever you have to so that way you can believe in the one God that you want to believe in. That assessment is based on everything you said through our lengthy private email conversation which I just re-read to make sure.

Based on our conversation through email I don’t think there is a single thing that you could actually prove or convince to a person is true. You simply confuse people to the point that you think you won. As do many other theology students. You don’t have facts so you hypothesize everything.

Christopher, when you deal with me you’re dealing with some who can be painfully honest and open to a real transfer of dialog. I talk with many of my pastor friends on a regular basis and our conversations always end pleasantly. I learn something, they learn something, regardless of whether or not we believe each other.

So to reiterate, I didn’t delete useful dialog that anyone could have learned from between myself and Robert Fischer. I did however, post a full response to Robert after I think I understood what he was asking of me.

Hey Robert, good job of bringing even more useless dialog to the article.

When I tried to call out Rob on the foundation of his analogy — that the Christian God is, at His core, an invention of humanity — he promptly deleted my entire conversation with him. Just so you know the kind of person you’re dealing with.

I worked for a guy for over 6 years that would do that crap and everybody knew he wasn’t confused.

Do you hear me guy I used to work for? No one thought you were confused, that was their cue to leave the room.

Re: xJane. I never even considered myself agnostic even though I must have been when I began to question certain things. As far as I’m concerned I went from believer to atheist in an instant.

Re: Trond Nilsen. Maybe you should have read my other article first.
http://brandnewatheist.com/2008/07/29/im-100-certain-there-is-no-god/

I’m very much Black and White. Your reverse counter arguments only confuse people.

Being agnostic about god is like being agnostic about being able to blow things up with your mind. I might not know how to do it now but to that doesn’t mean I won’t ever be able to.

It amazes me that people are agnostic about one god and not all of them. See how that doesn’t make sense. If you’re going to claim to be agnostic about one god then you must treat all gods ever mentioned throughout history with the same level of probability.

My concern is that you appear to be presenting a black / white concept of belief – either you believe, in which case you’re faithful, or you don’t, in which case you’re an atheist. If you don’t believe but don’t claim to be an atheist, you’re just indecisive or ‘on the path’.

Agnosticism is not simply lily livered atheism. It’s a sane and sound position of non-belief that incorporates the acceptance that it is not possible to prove through reason or empirical observation that God does not exist.

To me, as a student of philosophy, it’s atheism (taken as the belief that there is definitely no God) that requires faith of a sort to defend, as no evidence exists that proves the non-existence of God. Certainly, there’s no evidence for God’s existence, but that fact in itself is not evidence for God’s non-existence.

Agnosticism is simply the most intellectually honest position. That said, in most practical circumstances, its adherents behave the same as atheists. The one exception is that, when confronted with a believer making arguments for God’s existence, the agnostic restricts him/herself to criticizing the believer’s arguments, while the atheist may also criticize the believer’s fundamental belief.

I self identify as an agnostic – I assign a virtually zero probability to the existence of God, but I can’t prove there’s no God-like entity usings its omnipotence to fool me in order to force me to believe only through faith. Of course, that ideas seems preposterous, but I can’t disprove it, and that distinction is, I think, important.

That said, while I self-identify as “atheist”, if I’m completely honest with myself, I don’t know. I have experienced that which cannot be explained. I have not seen any proof for the existence of the divine, nor have I seen any proof for the non-existence of the divine. (I have seen plenty of evidence on both sides.) The only evidence that I can see that humanity is not hardwired to believe in the divine are those few people I meet who were not raised to believe—in their hearts there is no desire to seek for anything other than the known. I would love for the world to reach the point where more people see no need to invent a divine than people who would kill in the name of their divinity.

I agree with your sentiment. It feels like, for some (like my friend), agnosticism is the “gateway” towards atheism while they start questioning religion. I know I was one for a very brief time before coming to realization that I don’t like the whole indecisiveness of being an agnostic. Just my character I suppose.

And for others, like Bill Maher, I think he only claims that he’s agnostic because being one isn’t nearly as bad as being a full blown atheist in the eyes of the religious fundamentalists -he’s having his cake and eating it too.

But in the end, I lump agnostics in to the same boat as my definition of atheists (you can dispute it if you like), anyone rational enough to question theism and believe that humans don’t need some asshole in the sky telling us what to do is fine in my book!

Found you via Twitter (search: Atheist) and I’m digging your blog. I love the premise of this post. =)

I’m following you on Twitter – hope that’s okay. I promise I’m not a stalker.

Stepher

I have a very big problem with the lack of evidence. Why would any logical person believe in anything that can’t be proven? I doesn’t make sense.

Make sure to read some of my posts about the bible, it’s such a bad book. The God Delusion outlines what’s wrong with it very well.

As for evidence, I have no problem with the fact that it is difficult, if not, impossible to PROVE the existence of God scientifically. If God is who He is in the Bible, then He created everything. I am uncertain of the exact quote, but I heard it said that trying to prove God scientifically, is like Hamlet trying to prove that Shakespeare exists. If God created the world, science, even the ability to think scientifically, than why would we think that it is possible to prove Him through our own methods? He is a being outside of anything we know, including time and space. The only way we could know He exists is if He revealed Himself in His own creation. Which, personally, I believe He has in various ways, which for the sake of the length of this response, I will spare you from. I am certain you know all the arguments anyways.

You must understand that I put god in the same category as Santa. There’s isn’t a book or a person or anything that would ever make you or I believe Santa is real. With no evidence of god ever being presented I have no reason in reading every book that theologizes about god’s existence.

Everything that is real has evidence. Even when it starts as a theory. God is not real.

You could also learn a lot from The God Delusion. Even if it doesn’t make you an atheist you will be much better informed about what does and what doesn’t belong to religion.

My answer is the same as there’s only they word it much better than I.

I am new to your blog, I saw you started following me on Twitter so I checked it out. Nice blog! You’re honesty is appreciated. However, I do think you’re argument is missing the point a little bit. I think the issue is a little bit deeper.
Out of complete curiosity, and please do not take offense, but where do you get your opinion of right and wrong anyways? You kept talking about what is right and what is wrong, but if there is no God, than who decides what is right and wrong?
I do not say this out of angst at all, I am just curious to hear your answer.

It’s something fun that we all do around the house, me more than them. But it’s funny when one of them comes to me and says the other is afraid of Q-Tips.

Once those synapse are set it’s difficult to redirect them. I was raised to believe in God and the supernatural, when I learned the truth (god is imaginary) I was able to let go of everything in an instant. I’m sure it doesn’t come as easy for most.

The spiritual world does not exist. The world is governed by the laws of nature. There are lots of mysteries in natural but none of them are spiritual or supernatural.

you may not understand this, but i will quote it anyway .. it is from a letter to the editor in the hindu, a newspaper in chennai, india … “atheism is the summum bonum of a spiritual quest based on truth and reality”

that is a beautiful and profound understanding .. a-theism means without theism … but the magic and mystery of conscious exploration of spiritual realities is a great thing .. it exists, religions just tried to get a belief around such things …

and don’t proseletyze, just keep quient, continue to investigate the nature and substance of your mind, find out where thoughts come from …

all beliefs and rituals are metaphors for something beyond words and beyond mind … there is a great reason behind the truth that he who knows doesn’t speak, and he who speaks doesn’t know ..

you have taken the first step towards enlightenment, lucky …. it does not stop here, keep going…

enjoy, gregory lent

But I have noticed that
During the most troublesome times in my life,
There is only one set of footprints.
I don’t understand why when I needed
You most you would leave me.”

The Lord replied, “My precious, precious child,
I am just a voice in your head,
there never were any footprints but your own,
when you saw the second set you were only hallucinating.
You are afflicted with multiple personality disorder,
for there is no God.”

These are condensed answers so I’m happy to expand on any of them if you want.

Questions 1-4

I’ll deal with these 4 questions in one hit. You can also add that pi = 3 and technically that the earth is a dome with waters above and below (kind of like an inverted snow dome). All of these are really the same critique, that is that the Bible is not scientifically correct. I would argue that the Bible is trying to answer why the world has been created rather than how the world is created which is why much of the creation story is a re interpretation of already existing creation myths with an emphasis on the world being ordered rather than a random accidental chaos. I’ve written a bit about this if you want to read more at http://achurchlessfaith.blogspot.com/2006/06/not-so-intelligent-and-definitely-not.html

Question 5.

I think how you read these texts depends on how you view the Bible. that is whether you view it like a big law book were you can quote random verses from anywhere or whether you see it as an unfolding story or revelation. if you believe the first option then you have to disagree with Paul that you can be Xn without being Jewish as well. to me arguing that slavery is ok is a bit like arguing that neo is still trapped in the matrix by showing selected clips from the matrix.

Question 6.

Personally I think this is very much intentional rather than an overlooked flaw. it is part of an ongoing pattern of God promising to do one thing but then relenting and not doing it, or doing something less severe. This was exactly Jonah’s problem with God and why he goes off to sulk in the last chapter of Jonah (the chapter usually left out by Sunday school teachers)

Question 7

Also the book of Jude quotes Enoch (a non canonical book) as well. quoting texts outside the cannon will disturb you depending on your view of the cannon of scripture. If you view it as divine instructions handed down from God kind of 10 commandments style and the only source of any truth then this is going to be a problem (and you’ll still be arguing that the world is flat and 6000yrs old). however if you view it as something that people chewed over for a while before they decided what was in and what was out (which is historically what happened) then it might not be so much of a problem. Also, if you are happy to accept that there is wisdom to be found outside of the cannon then it’s not so much of a problem either.

Question 8

Yep, the passage in the old testament that Luke quotes (Isaiah 7:14) is best translated as a young girl and was interpreted as virgin in Luke (from the slightly off Greek Septuagint rather than original Hebrew). some people might argue that the intent of “young girl” was virgin, it is also possible that Mary was a virgin even if the passage was mistranslated. I know that people make a big thing about the virgin birth but to honest for me it’s just one small passage in just one gospel and personally I don’t think it makes a big difference to the overall narrative either way.

Question 9

Hey what about the Leviathan (Job 41)? Or has someone found that ;) . See answers to question 1-4.

Question 10

Sure atheists can get into heaven. Any Xn who doesn’t believe that hasn’t read Matt 25:31-46. in this passage those who didn’t describe themselves as Jesus followers (no reason why they couldn’t be atheists as well) get into heaven, and those who do don’t get in.

I hope these answers explain how at least one person is able to believe even though they know this stuff.

Peace.

POS

Can I ask what you mean by natural? Is it possible for anything at all to be unatural? If so, where would that unatural activity take place?

Animals engage in homosexual activity – would that be unatural, or is something else going on here?

Is biology the only thing that keeps us going as a species?

Keep it up mate… the more athiest that speak their minds the better

This morning I had a multi-hour conversation with a pastor. He’s a friend (I have several pastoral friends) and our conversation was 100% civil and neither of us was trying to prove anything to the other person. We were just talking and to a third party it would have been obvious we didn’t agree on things.

One of the keys for me is this website. It allows me to spout off, speak my mind, be an ass, offend strangers and release the pressure. Most of what is on this site that would be considered offensive never makes it into my real world, meaning I don’t to people in person the way I do here.

I appreciate your comments.

My primary point was that it’s a stupid experiment he’s laying out, all based on an assumptions that 1) Biblical literalism is key to Christian faith and 2) that Christians — literalists and otherwise — aren’t aware of the contradictory nature of the Bible.

Also, there are other days that are referred to as their dates: September Eleventh (or just Nine-Eleven) is the obvious one, but there’s also Cinco de Mayo, an awesome American holiday.

Very infrequently, you’ll meet someone who will want to debate you. Some of them are secretly trying to play your game to convert you (but they’ll still play) but most of these people are on their way out and are looking for good arguments.

Good luck!

That lead me to wonder how other believers (who think the bible is the inerrant word of god) would respond if I pointed out the same things. It’s really more an experiment which is why I asked them to write down their answer before they did any research.

Yes I’m aware of other factual arguments in the bible but I’m only talking about these ten.

There are way bigger factual problems in the Bible then the ones you lined up. Just in the Gospels, the whole timeline of the passion contradicts each other. His last words are different. The Lord’s prayer is different.

Biblical literalism isn’t a reasonable position for a Christian to take. Granted.

With regards to the claim, I understood the original entry to claim certainty for the non-existence of God to be based upon the invention of God by men. I was particularly interested in the claim about men inventing God. However, it’s possible there was a misunderstanding on my part. Given the nature of language, this would not be shocking.

It will always be easy to nitpick details that I get wrong. I’ve heard about people trying to have conversations with theologians about their proof of god and they almost always turn the conversation into something different because in the end they rarely admit that they have based their entire life on something that can not be proved.

Maybe this is my first experience with that. It would be easy to make me look foolish because of my lack of knowledge in certain areas of history. But I’m not currently educating myself to be one of those people, I have another career I’m working on. This is just a side project for me.

I’m not afraid of looking foolish, ask my wife, she would agree with that.

That said, how does the issue of the Winter Solstice support the claim that the Catholic Church invented Yahweh?

The Catholic church was in power when they hijacked the Winter Solstice claiming it to be the birthdate of christ.

And assuming the confusion regarding the deity being discussed will be cleared up, there has still been no empirical evidence presented to support the claim regarding the invention of Yahweh by the Catholic Church.

When I refer to there being no god I’m speaking of the christian god Yahweh, aka “The Living God” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh.

I apologize for not being more specific. There were Gods before Yahweh. Most of those gods were invented by man to answer questions they could not understand. Here’s a very long list of gods created by man http://ancienthistory.about.com/library/bl/bl_myth_gods_index.htm. Funny, christians won’t argue that those gods were created by man because that makes sense to them, yet the christian god is real. Those same concepts carried over to Yahweh in which it is used to answer questions man can’t. Yet as time has passed and we do answer those questions Yahweh continues to be believed in. Unlike Thor (God of Thunder), we know what causes thunder and no longer need a god to explain it.

There’s a story in “The Salmon of Doubt” about how man exists on the earth and assumed it was created for him.

I say:
There is an explanation exploring why people would want to create gods. There is an example where the author invents his own god. And with gods left undefined, the author could continue to create and point to his own creations as evidence. However, this is not acceptable. So, let’s narrow down the potential gods. How about we go with the Christian God? What evidence is there that the Christian God was invented by men?

[quote]With all of the divisions of religion at the time the church figured they could create a new god because they knew people would believe in a god as they had in the past. But unlike the other gods this one would benefit the church.[/quote]
The concept of God apparently existed before this time, whatever time it is. You seem to be arguing for a specific God. Yet your claim was “God was invented for crowd control”. Are you now saying that God, which already existed, was used, not created, for crowd control? Sure, religion has been used to maintain power. But, that does not prove that god was created by men for power.

[quote]Why were there churches if god had not previously existed? This wasn’t part of your question but I will attempt to answer it. People have always believed in one god or another, it only stands to reason that temples, places of worship would exist from one god to the next.[/quote]
Again you start by saying that god has not previously existed then you say people have always believe in a god. I’m confused. Did god always exist or was he created at this time you talk about? Just to be clear, what are you talking about when you say “god”?

Thanks.

With the basis of my answer set I will move on to the part where god was created for crowd control. Since governments did not exist at the time and churches ruled, they needed a way to stay in power. With all of the divisions of religion at the time the church figured they could create a new god because they knew people would believe in a god as they had in the past. But unlike the other gods this one would benefit the church.

With the church creating a god and dictating what that god wanted it’s people to do they set forth to preach the word of this god long before the bible. People, being mostly illiterate at the time and easily tricked by magic fell for the claims of the church. I would also assume the church was clever enough to plant some people in crowds to talk about what god did and what it was capable of.

The church created this new god to control the people with unsubstantiated claims that can not be proven. Such as life after death and the lakes of fire in hell. They convinced people these things existed even though they are completely unprovable.

The church continued on with tithe, how much god wants from you. Which went straight to the church and added to its ability to rule. Money is power.

God was created by the church to control people so the church could remain in power.

Why were there churches if god had not previously existed? This wasn’t part of your question but I will attempt to answer it. People have always believed in one god or another, it only stands to reason that temples, places of worship would exist from one god to the next. Therefore whatever building the priests were occupying would have become the new church of worship for their newly invented god. These men at the time were also the smartest, they were educated and they were philosophical. These men were leaders with ideas and they invented their own way to create power and to stay in power.

Got proof?

Faith is just a way to explain why God doesn’t present itself. Faith can be applied to any mythical creature to make it real.

We are not here to make good choices, we are not here for any reason at all. We are here because we are the smartest and strongest of the animals on this planet.

People say they have faith but it’s limited to belief in God. You probably don’t have faith in anything else on this planet. Why? Because faith is belief in the unprovable. Believing in the unprovable is what kids do with Santa Claus.

Your God is not real. I don’t care how much you believe. Admitting that you believe in God (an imaginary being that there has never been proof of and never will be) makes you look and sound crazy.

The bible is not proof. Men wrote the bible based on their own ignorance of the planet at the time. And the bible is a horrible book that no one should follow or believe. The koran was also written by men, but you don’t believe in that book because you weren’t born where people believe in that book.

You have to have faith in the unprovable to receive a reward can’t be proven to exist. Yeah, that’s crazy.

I think you are mistaken, those men were protecting us from the garbage in religion they were already familiar with in Britain. The Constitution is written as if by people who lived in a religious country and wanted to protect this new country from the same religious garbage.

I believe they wanted a secular government while protecting peoples rights to believe whatever they want to believe. The fact that our government has chosen a religion to promote is in fact a violation of the Constitution.

It’s not just a Motto, it has religious meaning beyond the words. That’s not secular and should be removed.

Great post, thanks

Good discussion here, with civil dialogue and valid points on both sides.

I do, however, take issue with the premise that America was definitely not founded as a Christian nation. There is evidence to support both propositions which is why the debate still rages.

In The Declaration of Independence, one of America’s most important documents, the very first sentence references God. The second – and most famous – line does so as well (“…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…”). Jefferson, to whom the “separation of church and state” concept is ascribed, penned these words. That is not the act of someone who was opposed to having the principles and ideals of Christianity be the bedrock for this new nation (the finer point of this would be the delineation between “deist” and “Christian”). Christianity had a heavy influence upon our nation’s founders, as evidenced by their frequent quotations from the Bible. In fact, the first official act of the First Continental Congress was to open in prayer.

There are many historical documents corroborating America’s Christian roots here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.html

The revolution which made possible the United States was a political event born from the idea of religious liberty from the coercion of the Church of England. It’s not by coincidence that the First Amendment deals with religion. That said, our Founding Fathers certainly did NOT mean to establish a government religion of their own. And they certainly did not intend to establish America on evangelical Christianity, as some would have us believe. The founders wanted liberty in all things secular AND religious. But the words and actions of our founders definitely did indicate a Christian BASIS.

They did not intend to protect us FROM religion, just against religious compulsion. And in that, I can see some people’s offense at the statement of faith in the Pledge. But I fail to see any reason to remove our motto from our currency or monuments. Therein lies the difference between the historic tradition of the motto vs. the amending of the Pledge’s words.

It gives the air of reassurance they were looking for without conceding to their faith-based notions, and it accomplishes this without alienating anyone.

Sam Harris is an intelligent fellow, but he’s got a whopping anti-Islamic bias. Use your salt shaker liberally. Remember that anti-Islam is good war propaganda, and the powerful wanted the war, so understand that the arguments pro-and-con are not exactly operating on a level playing field, even in the sampling bias of your own mind, subjected for years to data selected by a press to support the appropriate anti-Islamic theory. Even the “good” press like the NYTimes. Don’t get me wrong, I’m against extremist Islam, but I’d like to see equal coverage of the dangerous extremism in Christianity, Judaism(check out Baruch Goldstein, for example), Hinduism, *atheist totalitarianism* etc. Only a few years ago, there were hundreds of Moslems burned to death in what seemed to be gov’t coordinated purges in India. How much do you hear about that? How about the widespread terrorism of the atheist Chinese government against its citizens who practice Tibetan Buddhism or Falun Gong? Harris likes to play up Islam as uniquely pathological, but he’s selectively ignores all the evidence that doesn’t support his case. Also, as you are an atheist now, you might want to read the philosopher and early popularizer of Zen Huston Smith’s Why Religion Matters in order to see some of the value to it, even if theism is not true.

Noam Chomsky has literally written volumes showing line by line the NYTimes subservience to US foreign policy interests, and to any well-informed NY’er such as myself, its obvious. (The Washington Connection with Third World Fascism focussed on press analysis) NYT didn’t publish a single pro-peace letter, and there were many, from 9-11 families, right after the incident, when they were devoting pages to letters! Truly war-mongering journalism.

In terms of their credulous presentation of the administrations lies in their pre-Iraq pro-war coverage, NYTs actually publically apologized for it, though I regard that rather as “crocodile tears”.

I’d be happy to talk with you, I really like having dialog on the site so post questions and comments to relevant articles so other people can see what it’s like when we talk about this stuff.

I’ve posted something on just about every topic.

I don’t have spirituality, but I think I know what atheist people mean when they say that. They mean a connection with their surroundings, a possible moment in time when you see something so beautiful and the sun is shining on your face and you feel a kind of peacefulness. I think I get that, I just don’t call it spirituality. I notice those moments the most when the sun is shining on my face, there’s a small breeze and the only thing I hear is nature.

Start listening to the podcast below at 1:08 for a good description of the crap they pulled.

http://phobos.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodcast?i=23978368&id=78100566

How are you? :)

I just found your site, I am rather new aethist too. I was agnostic for years, until one day a catholic girlfriend of mine gave me a book from richard dawkins called the god deillusion told me to read this crap, and i would become christian.

Well.. didn’t have the desire effect. I was aethist after a week of reading the book. Funny how that worked out!

Anyways, I was reading your acticle on I AM BEAUTIFUL. I went “WOW, I AM GOING TO STEAL THIS FROM HIM.” It is awesome! I love what it does internally. I do have spirituality, I am exploring something called the power of now from eckhart tolle. It may sound weird, but it is possible to be aethist and spiritual. I think. I really have not got a chance to talk to other aethists, and like minded people about it.

Thanks for the new phrase.

Paul

I’m a huge sci-fi fan and it’s amazing how much stuff I must have seen before and never gave it any thought.

You just figured out that Stargate had strong religious undertones?

Of course, I’m a weirdo who has every SG-1 episode.

Anyway, yes, much sci-fi pokes fun, or condemns religion. If you read much sci-fi you’ll find more of that than on TV or in movies.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/326354

Yes, I agree with your assessment. I do believe it has more to do with tradition (I would actually use the words “historical significance”) than malicious intent. I think we are who we are and we shouldn’t forget from where we came from… even if we’ve become something totally different.

Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me if one day the motto is changed. In that case, what goes on our money may change… then this wouldn’t really be an issue. Bottom line though, I think this is the point where we’ll agree to disagree and there’s probably precious little we can do about that.

I actually think we disagree on the whole money issue because you don’t see the harm. You think it has more to do with tradition of the people than malicious intent. And I think the reason doesn’t matter. I can agree that no physical harm may have ever come from “In God we Trust”. I don’t know that I agree it’s apple to oranges.

I know what it’s like to want something for myself that limits other peoples options.

I know the point you’re trying to make. You’re trying to apply my reasoning to a variety of situations… this one being an extreme and highly unstable issue. I think you’re comparing apples to oranges. I wholeheartedly stand behind the first amendment. Everyone has the right to practice their faith. However, if someones faith involved taking another life, I’m absolutely opposed to the practice of their religion. Why, because the sanctity of life trumps their protection of religion. Am I being wishy-washy by feeling that way? Am I two-sided? Yeah, maybe I am… but are there exceptions to the rule on occasions? In this case, I would say so.

I believe our countries government is suppose to be 100% secular. Our government is suppose to ignore religious popularity. Our government officials are not suppose to impose religious affiliations.

It’s their job to ignore what is happening with religion in this country. They did not do that.

If every person in America hangs a sign on their front door that says “God is Great”, the government should not hang one on the front of every court house. They should not do it one reason and one reason only, it picks religious sides. But it’s motto, doesn’t matter. But it’s what everybody believes, doesn’t matter. But the people want it on the court house, doesn’t matter.

You can’t protect my religious freedoms and violate them at the same time.

“Give me liberty or give me death” Does not choose religious sides. It’s not the same.

I only used the abortion scenario to indicate that when something is wrong it doesn’t matter how much time passes, if it’s was wrong when they passed it, it will be wrong until they overturn it. That could be 100 years.

I’m not exactly sure where you are coming from on the abortion side. I don’t feel like either are less wrong. I know that induced abortion still happens today and I’m just as against it as I am against abortion in a Doctors office. So, I’m not sure the point you were making if you’d like to clarify.

By the same token, I could say that legal induced abortion is part of our culture. I, however, am absolutely certain you wouldn’t give our culture a single thought when overturning Roe v Wade. Am I right?

I’m not equating a simple phrase with abortion. I’m trying to have you use the same thought process.

The passage of time does not right a wrong.

I live in Southern Indiana, my neighborhood is next to a graveyard which is next to a medium size church. The number of churches within a mile of my house is 5.

1. acceptance in the community,
It seems to be a non-issue. Karen and my girls still go to church every Sunday and Wednesday.

2. acceptance of friends from your old belief system,
Also seems to be a non-issue. The two friends most interested in my change and that have provided the most dialog are both pastors. My other very christian friend doesn’t appear to care. My nephew who is in Bible college doesn’t have a problem with it either, I think he actually expected it.

3. acceptance and your future at your job.
I run my own business.

4. acceptance your kids have at their school. Can be extremely worrisome.
My girls have been home schooled, but I don’t anticipate any problems when they start public school in the Fall.

After Karen’s initial adjustment period (roughly 2 months) it doesn’t seem to be interfering with our relationship. But Karen doesn’t see it as a non-issue.

I agree. It’s ignorance that plagues our nation. Too often you can’t have a reasonable debate or discussion because of ignorance or people not clearly looking at the issue at hand because of how it will affect them personally.

I’ve traveled the world and have been to countries where Hindu Gods were on the money, where references to Allah were on the money as well as many others. It didn’t bother me at all to receive, carry or spend their money. I can appreciate their culture, even if it represents a religion different than mine. Some of these countries I’ve been to do offer religious freedoms even though the national religion is Islam or whatever.

But I agree. If they reprinted the money today and it said “In Allah we Trust” it would be wrong. It’s not our history or the culture of our nation’s past, it’s not our motto, it’s expressly a religious statement. Although “In God We Trust” is religious in nature, it is our history, it is the culture of our nation’s past.

Petitioning the Government to add the Klingon God to money, which I think would be very funny, just won’t happen because our constitution doesn’t allow for that. However, I could see people petitioning having the phrase “In God We Trust” taken off money. There’s nothing unconstitutional about that. And, if enough people fought to have it removed, then it very well might be. I’d be disappointed because I believe it to be more than a religious statement… it’s history. And I feel that if we took the first step in removing this from our money, who’s to say that our monuments and other historical places aren’t next. What a tragedy it would be if sections of great speeches of our presidents or founding fathers were censored because of references to their faith. I just wouldn’t want to set that kind of precedent. I’m 100% for religious freedom, I just don’t want religion getting confused with history. I don’t want our history selectively erased.

Then you might begin to feel as though your freedoms were being encroached opon. Because you certainly don’t Trust in Allah.

What if I got ten million people to sign a petition to have the Klingon God used on money (I don’t think there actually is one). Sounds ridiculous to you, but we believe in what he stands for. “It is a good day to die.”

It’s hard to be objective when what seems right for you isn’t for others.

I get what you’re saying about culture and history. I wouldn’t change the monuments either (I think) but money would have already been changed.

Our governments should not apply their personal beliefs to the population in which they server. I understand the level of difficulty in that but they are paid plenty.

Your question is a good one is a good one, but multi-faceted deserving more than a pat yes or no answer.

If “In God We Trust” is a violation of the Constitution, are we just suppose to leave it there because it’s already there?

Yes and no. I’m going to be specific on this because it can become a slippery slope. First of all the phrase is synonymous with American History… so it has value. If the phrase was plastered all over monuments, buildings and whatever else because the phrase was relevant to the culture who claimed it at a motto, then I think we’re equally wrong to tear it down. If it was in violation of the constitution, then I do not think we should leave it there just because its already there. To me… it’s paper that represents value. It’s something we print by the billions every year. I could care less what is on my money. This is something we’re reprinting and to stop printing “In God We Trust” on money we use is far different from tearing down monuments… things that are our history. Does that make sense. One day I can take my son to Washington DC and show him the monuments and the inscriptions that reveled the Christian roots of our country, even if it no longer is. It’s a history lesson, but more personal. Money… that doesn’t matter to me. I’ll show him pictures of what our money used to look like. Big deal. If it is unconstitutional, then take it off the money.

However, I can’t get past the “if it’s unconstitutional” part. I don’t think it is. It was a motto, a saying that what known by our nation.. our founding fathers. Similar to “remember the Alamo,” it was a motto held by the early Americans. Putting “In God We Trust” on currency does not imply that the holder of the money must put their trust in God. It’s not a command, it’s not a law… it’s a motto (although officially adopted in 1956) that is as a part of America as the phrase “give me liberty or give me death.”

Again, I see much of this as being a heritage, historical and cultural issue. Although many Christians would love to put prayer back in school, I believe that would be in violation of the constitution. I feel it would be in violation of the constitution to build a monument of a cross. But I feel there is a difference between legislating laws and honoring the past. There’s no way of getting around it… this nation has strong Christian roots. It doesn’t mean you have to be a Christian to appreciate our heritage.

I’d be happy to read the book. I can’t promise that it will be in the immediate future, but I will read it.

Oh, and I do understand how much our founding fathers did not want the US to be a religiously mandated country. I’m crystal clear on that. I believe the created a religiously neutral government where any religion can flourish. However, so many of the founders were deeply religious. I think they didn’t realized that we’d become a nation that wasn’t as rooted in Christianity as they were then. But I think the fact that as many other religions are flourishing in this country as they are is a testament to their forethought. Sure, there have been some bumps in the road, but there have been no religious skirmishes or civil wars fought in the name of religion since we’ve become spiritually diversified.

The Ten Commandments Vs the Constitution
1. You shall have no other gods before Me
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to have other gods than Jehovah.
2. You shall not make for yourself an idol
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to have and make graven images of other gods. I have an image of Ganesa hanging on my desktop monitor right now. That violates the 2nd commandment, but I am in compliance with United States law.
3. You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to take in vain the name of Jehovah, Jesus or any other god that is holy to any other citizen. It is part of my right of free speech.
4. Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy
By the First Amendment to the Constitution, I am expressly permitted to keep the Sabbath as holy or unholy as I choose. I chose to go grocery shopping this morning whilst Christians were at church celebrating their dead god. There was no one in the checkout line. Thank you, 4th commandment!
5. Honor your parents
While this is a good idea, there is no legal implications of it. I am permitted by American law to not honor my parents. It would make me a dick, but you couldn’t send me to jail for it unless accompanied by an action that was illegal in and of itself.
6. You shall not murder
Commandment #1 that is in line with the law and also one Westmoreland mentioned.
7. You shall not commit adultery
At the federal level, there is no legal implication of this commandment. Depending on the sodomy laws of the state or locality, this may or may not be in compliance with the law.
8. You shall not steal
Commandment #2 that is in line with the law and also one Westmoreland mentioned.
9. You shall not bear false witness
Commandment #3 that is in line with the law and also one Westmoreland mentioned.
10. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife and house
Under United States law, I am allowed to covet my neighbor’s wife, house and donkey. I could not commit an action that was illegal in and of itself to act on that, but there is nothing illegal in thinking about it. If you talk your neighbor’s wife into divorcing him and marrying you, there is no legal implication of that.

A link to the full article http://www.evilgeniuschronicles.org/wordpress/2007/04/08/the-ten-commandments-vs-the-constitution/

This is where it gets sticky. I think it does present itself as an issue for when they build more monuments or courthouses. I can see the side of the argument against putting the 10 commandments on the wall as it is religious and we’re not a nation that embraces this. However, regardless of the current religious majority, it doesn’t change the fact that the 10 commandments was the inspiration for our legal system and provides a symbolic representation of where the system came from. So, I can see that side as well. However, I admit that I am probably biased and will have difficulty seeing this objectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

I was unaware that the phrase “In God We Trust” was not added on money until recently. I did actually find out just two nights ago that the “Under God” was added to the pledge recently. My dad was telling me how he said the pledge every day at school (he was born in 1942) and how they didn’t use the phrase “Under God.” Interesting.

About 10 years ago I studied this whole thing of separation of church and state and came to a conclusion that the “Christian” in me didn’t like. :) I agree with you. In the context of prayer in school, so many Christians are fighting to get it back in school. I’ve come to the conclusion that it would be illegal to do so. It’s against the first amendment. I don’t know the context of “why” they put the phrase “Under God” or “In God We Trust” on money and in the pledge… so I feel like I’d need more information… but off the cuff I’d say that it very well may have been a violation of the first amendment to place them there. The Christian in me doesn’t like this because I’d like there to be prayer in school, and I like the pledge the way it is. I like the phrase on the money. BUT, I also respect the first amendment. The same first amendment that protects my religious freedoms is also the same that is designed to protect the religious freedoms of others.

Here is where you and I may differ… but maybe not. Apparently you have done your homework and are reasonable. I know it’s arguable as to how many of the founding fathers were Christians, how many were deist and whatever else they could have been. However, there isn’t any doubt that America has deep religious roots that certainly influenced our culture. I agree that the United States was not created as a Christian nation, but a good majority of the nation were Christians and they influenced the culture.

So, I think a lot of the hot debates about “church and state” today are dealing more of a culture war. Today, America is a nation where the majority are not Christians… or at least many of them are simply nominal. So what we’re dealing with today is that as the non-Christian population grows, they’re feeling more uncomfortable with the “Christian” segment pushing Christianity on them because they justify that America is a “Christian” nation. It merely “was” a nation with a strong Christian culture because there were so many Christians.

Where I feel the church and state argument crosses the line is when it is used to censor. I have every right to where my Jesus t-shirt to school just as anyone else has their right to wear a shirt that states their religious belief. The line is crossed when I’m told I can’t wear it because of separation of church and state. Or when they’re told they can’t wear theirs. When either one of us is shown favoritism, then that is wrong.

I think the line is crossed when people get up in arms to remove the 10 commandments from a government building. Some documents, memorials and even buildings are historic monuments. Again, many of these buildings, monuments and documents were created within the culture of a Christian nation. Many of our forefathers were greatly influenced by their beliefs. However, just because the 10 commandments are on the walls of the supreme court doesn’t mean you’re going to be judged by the 10 commandments. You’re going to be judged by the law of the land. The 10 commandments are there because of our culture. I think the line is crossed when people feel we have to erase Christian references from our nation’s history.

If I moved to Greece, it would be completely wrong of me to demand they cover up the monuments that represent their ancient beliefs. I can respect the history and the culture that built them, even if it doesn’t at all represent the religion and culture of the day.

So, to wrap it up I would say that I agree with you. Our founding fathers created a religiously neutral government. They were much smarter than we are today. However, I feel that we shouldn’t be christian-phobic and delete and destroy segments of our nations history because it is heavily “christian.” It’s a part of our past and our culture… but certainly not an indication of who we are today.

Does any of that make sense? I feel like I rambled. Just my 2 cents.

We could read the same passage and get a different meaning, but it’s very clear to me that the Bible thinks very little of women.

In the end it doesn’t matter anyway since the Bible was written by men not God, which makes you right all along.

I’ve read a few of your blogs on your site and am wondering if your atheism
is in any way interfering with your relationship with Karen? This is none of my business, I know, and I don’t expect an answer. I also wonder what part of North America, or the world you live in. Location, location, location, the old real estate idea about the value of your home.
Location, when it pertains to religion
or lack of it, plays an important part in quite a few things:

1. acceptance in the community,

2. acceptance of friends from your old belief system,

3. acceptance and your future at your job.

4. acceptance your kids have at their school. Can be extremely worrisome.

I’m hoping that you have no problems with the above mentioned conditions.

It has never been a problem for me to be an atheist because I live in Alberta, Canada where there are no real
religious communities like there are in the southern states.

Wishing you the best in your new role.

I wrote this earlier this year:

I am a 73 year old male and have never really been subjected to religious beliefs. My father died when I was nine years old and my mother attempted to bring me up as she thought best in those days. All her attempts at getting me exposed to religion went awry. First Sunday school, I was more or less evicted from the class because I asked to many pertinent questions. Then I had to sit in the church itself by her side while the preacher rambled on about the most uninteresting stuff. I guess she could see my discontent and gave up on me, which allowed me to run freely on Sundays.
I guess what I’m trying to tell you is that I have always had a serious concern about what to believe. I have never been able to accept what I was hearing about God, heaven and hell etc.
So, now, with my access to the internet I have found that there are millions more out there that
have had the same problem with religion that I have. I have found this very encouraging and now I don’t feel alone in my thoughts.

Your situation is real and you have now began to live.

so many thoughts so little time – Rob