Digging a hole while trying to find God

Rita says:

12:17pm | 01/02/11

Why do people that don’t believe in a God have to bully people that do. Youd don’t want beileive then don’t. but do you always have to throw   jibe’s in, especially you Tory. Is it just for headlines. God does not intervene, we have free will, like a child you can advise them but they don’t have to listen, but the parents are always there when they need to be, to offer love and support. believe what ever you want but don’t ridicule people that do.

Sherekahn says:

12:28pm | 01/02/11

NATURE IS GOD!
‘GOD’ is in each of us.  It is our subconscious mind.  When we PRAY we ask our conscious mind to pass on the ‘prayer’ to our subconscious mind.
“Sleep on it” is an old Adage that solves these ‘prayers.’  If it can it passes a solution to the conscious mind.  If it cannot, it triggers hormones to be released that allow the body to cope with any shock.
NATURE is all-powerful; no other ‘GOD’ exists.

Tubesteak says:

12:32pm | 01/02/11

Rita
If people have free will then why the opposition to abortion and euthanasia?
They seem to be for religious reasons where religious people seek to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
Thankfully, abortions are legal as long as you pass a few hurdles (which aren’t that difficult). But should I contract some sort of painful illness that will eventually kill me I can’t choose when and how I die and die with dignity without suffering months of pain or so high on drugs that I don’t know what’s happening.

Keep your beliefs to your own house and don’t try to impose it outside of that.

Steely Dan says:

12:33pm | 01/02/11

@ Rita

Why do you think that the article was ridiculing religion?  Disagreement is not ridicule.

If you don’t want to discuss whether your beliefs are internally consistent then you have the right to ignore the whole discussion.

Brissy Boy says:

01:01pm | 01/02/11

Rita, you think your church / god/ religion gets some bad criticism. You should see the hate mail we get at the church of the FSM- heres just some of it (http://www.venganza.org/category/hate-mail/) actually most of it seems to be from followers of your god.  Maybe you should check it out and you too might be touched by his noodly appendage.  May the sauce be with you.

Sam says:

01:57pm | 01/02/11

Tubesteak
Rita means God gave us freewill from him/her.
God gave us the rules to live by and we can choose when and if we want to follow them.
If God had not given us freewill we would not be having this discussion.

Tubesteak says:

03:47pm | 01/02/11

Sam
God did not give us free will. Free will existed because we are an animal capable of thinking like many other animals. Man invented god to explain things he did not have the scientific means to explain.

We owe nothing to “god”

Stephy says:

04:07pm | 01/02/11

Why is the common belief that “God is sent to give us what we want, when we want it, how we want it, regardless of whether a) it’s good for us, b) He wants it or not, c) it contradicts with what someone else wants”? God is not a genie. Nowhere in Christianity is it advocated that God is here to give us our three wishes. Or, in the case of God, a zillion wishes. What if someone wanted God to strike their enemy down but the enemy didn’t want to die and asked God to spare them? Bit of a corondrum for our resident genie there. What if one saintly human looked to the sky on a rainy day and said “God, seriously, did you have to make it rain today? I have a fete I need to attend! and tomorrow I’m going out with friends to lunch. Can’t you keep the rain off for a couple of days?” and God, in his infinite wish to bestow us with all we ask for, holds the rain off for a couple of days. After those days pass, some other bright spark asks for rain-free days so they can enter a gymkhana, or go on a picnic, or something. And, in the end, after a rainless season, the crops start to wither, nothing is growing, no water in dams or tanks, etc.
But, of course, according to Tory, God is here to serve us. Screw what He believes is best (and I can see someone coming back and saying “drowning those people is best how exactly?” Perhaps filling the dams and nurturing the earth is somehow second in interest to humans? We all have to live. Even the animals. Even the trees. There will be a good thing come out of this, and just because YOU can’t see it, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Thinking only about ourselves is selfish). We, the priveliged human, must always, always come first.

Why do natural disasters happen? Because somewhere, there’s a benefit to the land.

Why do young children die? Somewhere, their death has affected someone else. Everyone has a purpose to live. If we’re destined to only live for 10 years, then He will take us, regardless. Yes, friends and family will grieve, but maybe somewhere something good will come out of it. Maybe someone who was going to commit suicide looks at the needless death of they young child and thinks that life is precious, and subsequently they don’t commit suicide and instead do their best to make sure no one else dies the way that little child did. Maybe that person will go on to save countless other lives.

Maybe.

But this explanation isn’t good enough for some. God should be there to SERVE, not to keep the world running efficiently. He should BOW to us, not we to him. Of course, WE don’t owe HIM anything. Not our life, not our wellbeing, not our soul. I mean, if a natural disaster killed someone, why should I do anything for Him?

In a way, worshipping God is a bit like living under a Government system. The Government is there to help things run smoothly. Our lives are made easier by the government doing its job. Yes, new taxes come in, new systems we may not agree with - we grit our teeth, complain, and move on. We know that what the Gov’t are trying to do is help us.
God is our leader. He’s a parent as well as a guardian. He knows what we need. We don’t need to tell Him what we need. We don’t need to blame Him for what He has “done” to us because He, unlike the Gov’t, knows exactly what is good for us as a whole. We may hate some of the things He asks us to do, but in the end, it’s to our benefit.

Of course, as a Christian, I believe what I’ve written. Posting this on the punch might be CMOT (Cutting my own throat), but since the topic is here and brought up, let’s have a few Christian opinions here too.

And actorel, I think global warming is BS. NOT because it’s Science (which should, in theory, work in harmony with religion), but because not enough evidence has been given for me to believe the Scientific Flavour of the Week.

Steely Dan says:

04:51pm | 01/02/11

@ Steph

“Why is the common belief that “God is sent to give us what we want, when we want it, how we want it… Nowhere in Christianity is it advocated that God is here to give us our three wishes.”
For one, it’s promised in the Bible (prayer).  So some people buy it.

“What if someone wanted God to strike their enemy down but the enemy didn’t want to die and asked God to spare them? Bit of a corondrum for our resident genie there.”
It is indeed!

“Why do natural disasters happen? Because somewhere, there’s a benefit to the land.”
Really?  That’s not an ecological fact.  Sometimes what’s bad for species A can be good for species B, but sometimes volcanoes go off and it just kills what’s around it.

“Why do young children die? Somewhere, their death has affected someone else.”
Not as much as it affected the child.

“Maybe someone who was going to commit suicide looks at the needless death of they young child and thinks that life is precious, and subsequently they don’t commit suicide”
Or they find it depressing.  I may not be suicidal, but I find kids dying depressing.

“Of course, WE don’t owe HIM anything. Not our life, not our wellbeing, not our soul. I mean, if a natural disaster killed someone, why should I do anything for Him?”
And if your conception of god is true and he exists, that’s all consistent.  Just so long as you don’t call him ‘good’.

“We know that what the Gov’t are trying to do is help us.”
In modern Australia, that’s probably true.  But it’s not true across the board.
“NOT because it’s Science (which should, in theory, work in harmony with religion)”
Which theory?  Science tests claims about the material world.  If it’s incompatible with a specific religious claim, then too bad for the religion.

Stephy says:

07:49pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan, I was expecting a full on thrashing with a cat’o'nine and all. You went easy on me.

Prayer is a method of communication. It’s talking, but not as you know it (Jim). Just because we *can* communicate doesn’t mean we use our ability to beg for everything. It also doesn’t mean that if we do ask for everything, we’re going to get it.

The death of a child analogy was an example. I would find the death of a child depressing too - who wouldn’t? - but people can still use bad things to do good. As observed with the volunteers in natural disaster aftermath and donations from people, sometimes after the worst happens is when the true goodness of the human nature shines the brightest.

Eh, I’ll reply to the rest tomorrow.

Lisa Meredith says:

08:43pm | 01/02/11

Dear Stephy,

You say not enough evidence has been given for you to believe the Scientific Flavour of the Week.

The evidence can be found in the veracity of the underlying physics and chemistry of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model, the predictions of which describe and quantify: -
1. The behaviour of atoms and molecules.
2. The way they absorb and emit photons, eg, the way CO2 absorbs long-wave infrared photons emitted from the earth and open water as it heats up during the day.
3. The magnetic dipole this sets up in some molecules such as CO2, as the absorbed photon pushes an electron into a higher energy orbit and causes an asymmetry in the static electric field of the electron cloud.
4. The way the oscillation caused by this dipole injects extra kinetic energy (heat) into each collision in the atmospheric gas.
5. The way, when each photon is subsequently emitted from the molecule back into the atmosphere, it can be released downwards or sideways into the atmosphere so it can be absorbed by another molecule and the process begins all over again. This behaviour is called scattering.
6. The behaviour of radioactive decay, which identifies the carbon emitted from the burning of fossil fuels.

The stability and accountability of the science of the Periodic Table and the Standard Model is evidenced in the reliability of the technology we use in everyday life.

The corroborative evidence lies in the long-term trends, which show a doubling in the human carbon footprint and its attendant temperature rise every forty years.

If our society expects science to deliver technology we rely on everyday, I believe it is incumbent upon us to understand this trust we place in it.

Steely Dan says:

09:30am | 02/02/11

@ Stephy

“Just because we *can* communicate doesn’t mean we use our ability to beg for everything. It also doesn’t mean that if we do ask for everything, we’re going to get it.”
Are you a Christian, Stephy?

“As observed with the volunteers in natural disaster aftermath and donations from people, sometimes after the worst happens is when the true goodness of the human nature shines the brightest.”
Ask them if they’d prefer a world where the flood didn’t happen.

Steely Dan says:

11:17am | 02/02/11

@ Lisa

How dare you drag established science into this!  You’re staining a perfectly good political stoush!

Lisa Meredith says:

01:49pm | 02/02/11

Dear Steely Dan,

Sorry for the Pretzel Logic but the Monkey In My Soul got distracted by all the Bad Sneakers and Gold Teeth. I promise I won’t Do It Again, but I might Let George Do It. I can’t help but get excited about a band that includes Avogadro’s Number in a song…

Johan says:

10:25am | 04/02/11

Rita, you MUST be joking right? What about the church bullying the Jews and the Muslims in Spain (and Europe generally) into conversions or face expulsion during that little episode fothe Inquisition? What about the Crusades who wanted to force conversion on entire populations? What about the mass forced conversions across the ANew World by the European colonialists?

Dino says:

07:55am | 01/02/11

Hear, hear. I totally agree. There does not need to be sky fairies for people to do good things.

Muttley says:

09:35am | 01/02/11

yeah, and if people choose to use their belief in sky fairies to motivate themselves to do good things, why is it necessary to pull apart their fantasies? Why do many of us athiests feel the need to prove they are right?

Mayday says:

10:06am | 01/02/11

Muttley maybe because we atheists are sick and tired of being told we are wrong when science and common sense tells us your beliefs are unreal!

Muttley says:

11:51am | 01/02/11

Mayday, Who is telling you that you are wrong? And can you excuse this behaviour by saying “well they did it first!” Thats a fairly childish response to a childish insult. Surely, at some point, one party needs to step back and act with an ounce of maturtity. And since i doubt the religious side of the argument will do so, it makes sense for the followers of the scientific argument to take a logical postion? I’ve been an athiest for over 25 years. I am comfortable enough in my thinking that the churchies can say what they like. I dont need to justify myself to anyone. And in case you missed it, they arent my beliefs. I’m athiest. But i also feel we need to live and let live. I know, i know. You are going to say they arent that way. Please reread the second sentence.

anon says:

11:52am | 01/02/11

sky faeries!!! thats a keeper!

Zac de Spudnut says:

12:45pm | 01/02/11

Muttley ,

I’m athiest. But i also feel we need to live and let live..>>>

Good to know you feel that way. I think you pick it up living in a Western Christian society. It never happens in any Atheist states former or present. Gulags come to my mind. You should be grateful you can practice your Atheism here.

Tubesteak says:

12:48pm | 01/02/11

Muttley
It’s the churchies that are trying to stop us from doing anything
“god doesn’t like abortion so you can’t do it”
“god doesn’t like condoms so you can’t use them”
“god doesn’t like euthanasia so you can’t do it”
“god doesn’t like blah blah blah so you can’t do it”

It’s up to the churchies to prove that god does exist and to get god here to tell us how we are to live if we are meant to be prevented from doing anything.

There is volumes of evidence denying the existence of god but nothing more than ex post facto rationalisation supporting god’s existence.

The churchies need to prove themselves. The atheists and scientists have done so and continue to do so.

Muttley says:

01:36pm | 01/02/11

lol. In fact, lmfao. How gracious of you to allow me to practice my own beliefs. Mighty big of you. In fact, i dont pick it up from Western Christian society whatsoever. I pick it up because i was raised to respect others. Regardless of their beliefs. You seriously think that Christian society is the source of that? What a self righteous, deluded idea. But you’re right. Christians have been just so tolerant of others over the last 2000 years, how can we not all follow their example. Oh wait, the hard line athiests are doing just that! And as for the gulag reference, absolutely ridiculous. How many examples of atrocities carried out in the name of religion over the last thousand years would you like? And did those same religion based socities support free thinking? I think not.

Muttley says:

01:39pm | 01/02/11

Tubesteak, Unless the church is trying to convert you, why do they need to prove anything to you? And also, where has anyone proved that god does definitely not exist? That would be pretty damn hard to do. Just as it would be difficult to prove a yellow giraffe isnt flying a scooter around the galaxy. Sure to most its a silly idea, but how do you prove it doesnt exist?

Tubesteak says:

03:51pm | 01/02/11

Muttley
God is a construct from the bible (or Koran or whatever other teachings one ascribes to). Since pretty much everything in the Bible has been shown to be false or a fairytale (eg Earth only being 6,000 years old) then that disproves the existence of god.

Also, it’s the churchies that are forcing their way of living based on the bible down everyone’s throat. If they had their way life would be much different. Sometimes they even manage to get their way. No abortion. No euthanasia. No condoms. No cloning. etc etc etc

It's Life says:

03:53pm | 01/02/11

I know it’s hard for modern day atheists to accept their worldview is as destructive as Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc. but you guys do generally support the 42 million abortions each year, no?

If there was no procedure, there would be a life. So what is it, really?

Steely Dan says:

04:24pm | 01/02/11

@ It’s Life

“I know it’s hard for modern day atheists to accept their worldview is as destructive as Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao etc”
I do, but then again I have a history of not accepting things that are plainly incorrect.  If atheism led to totalitarianism we’d have seen a rise in the number of these atrocities in recent times, and you wouldn’t be talking about long-dead leaders.  You’d be talking about the horrors of the Scandinavian region, that hotbed of atheism that oddly enough has a low rate of violent crime.  You’d be talking about a rise in the rate of violent crime in Australia.  Instead, your reference point is limited to dead communists and you mysteriously leave the pagan-influenced Christian Adolf Hitler off the dishonour list of the World’s Worst Dictators.

“but you guys do generally support the 42 million abortions each year, no?”
Depends on the case.  But yes, I support abortions in some situations.  As does god, evidently.  There are far more natural miscarriages than abortions.  If there was no miscarriage, there would be a life.

muddabikes says:

06:10pm | 02/02/11

Muttley 01:39 01/02/2011 says “Unless the church is trying to convert you, why do they need to prove anything to you?”

But they are trying to convert us. Very bloody hard at converting us. All religions exist only through agreement. The bigger the flock, the more real a belief system becomes. All religions have at their core the message to the faithful to go forth and spread the good news.
The various faiths all make extraordinary claims in their belief set but few offer the extraordinary evidence to back up such claims.

Laura says:

12:19pm | 03/02/11

haha. sky fairies.
fantastic.

acotrel says:

07:43am | 01/02/11

I’m not an athiest, I’m just NOT INTERESTED in religion!

MrMac says:

07:47am | 01/02/11

Of course atheism is not “the real force behind [all] the mass murders of history” - such bare assertions are simplistic.  Conflating communism or fascism with atheism is easily done, yet ignores the fact those governmental regimes were really born of other doctrinal belief systems.  Read here where a few Christians and Christian commentators describe Marxism as an offshoot of Christianity or Judaism

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/jan/20/terry-eagleton-interpretation-christianity-marxism?INTCMP=SRCH

Atheism is not a religion because it does not invoke what religions invoke - a fantasy supernatural power, or an afterlife, or both.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

07:55am | 01/02/11

Atheist Jihadists..what a load of s… here is a challenge Zac de NUTspud you show me one physical piece of evidence of the existance of an imaginary sky fairy and I will congregate with the other misguided believers and ritualize him the loadest of all. I have offered this challenge on hundreds of occasions to extremely pious souls and not one has been able to deliver, remember the challenge is a physical piece of evidence, not a belief of evidence. I fully expect you to come back with some standard reason or mantra as to why it cant be done. Atheist Jihadists what a load of s…

Trevor says:

08:08am | 01/02/11

I’m surprised you didn’t throw the moral/ethical relativism argument in there as well. This is the same old tired argument that the religious apologist throws out anytime some expresses an opinion that god doesn’t exist. I have come to the conclusion that it is little more than trying to shift the focus off of religious atrocities by saying “Look, atheists are just as bad!” because they are incapable of presenting a convincing argument that supports their belief. Hitler was a Roman Catholic, Stalin studied at the seminary and Hirohito was not just the emperor but also a self styled god! This so called Atheistic killing spree was committed by men that were demonstratably not rational and attempting to model society in their own image and I have certainly never come across any documented evidence of any of these lunatics identifying themselves as atheists. The webpage that is at the end of the link is simply a systematic attempt to discredit all atheists on the basis on a few examples, aside from the erroneous labelling of the above mentioned as atheists the best that the site is able to come up with on the front page is 1 Finnish lunatic that is patently not rational and 21 extremists. Hardly holds a flame to the millions who participated in the crusades on both sides squbbling over some desert backwater wholely and soley in the name of religion!

TChong says:

08:12am | 01/02/11

Zac -What a strange defence of religios violence - no denying ( from you) that evil things like crusades, pogroms and inquisitions have been committed by all religions ( except Quakers) since religions began, but because overall numbers may be less than those killed by Stalin, Pol Pot, etc , then its OK?
“slay them all, God will know the just from the unjust"attributed to a pope who became a saint. - what a marvellous philosophy ,dont you reckon ,? Zac

Gregg says:

08:18am | 01/02/11

Are you claiming with not being quite the two bob potato head that the has not been massive inter and intra religion warfare and deaths!
Shiites against Sunni, Muslim against Christian, Catholics against CofE, The Crusades, The Inquisitions etc.
So all that has been because of Athiests has it?

Paul says:

08:19am | 01/02/11

As an atheist I do not agree with the assumption by Spudnut that atheism is “a conscious decision to disregard the gods”.
To me it is a considered point of view that questions the scientific validity of a personal, loving, powerful, all caring God who hears our every thought.
I am seeking a more realistic truth.

Steely Dan says:

09:06am | 01/02/11

@ Zac

I knew it wouldn’t take long for someone to quote Dinesh D’Souza or Ben Stein.  Tell me, Zac, if we atheists are the root of all this evil, why aren’t the highly non-religious Scandinavian countries fountains of atrocity?

Luce says:

09:25am | 01/02/11

Haha!

“Just a few decades ago the Atheistic killing spree to create Atheistic utopia around the world ended up with 300 million victims but Atheists still claim to be rational and blame the religious.”

That is a seriously flawed and misleading statement. No mention till later in the post that you’re actually talking about communism. Never mind that the majority of atheists are not communists, and that the safest, most peaceful and prosperous countries today are also the most godless (Sweden, Norway, Denmark). And forgetting the fact some of the world’s longest running conflicts are based around religious belief (Muslims and Jews in the middle east).

No blood thirsty individual comes out and says “I did this because I don’t believe in God”, yet more people then one can count have said “I did this because my God is superior to your God / lack of belief”.

James1 says:

09:27am | 01/02/11

Indeed Zac.  Floods are exactly what happens when people refuse to give the proper animal offerings to Poseidon.  Silly non-believers.  Lucky Zeus is more forgiving, and decided to motivate all those helpers and SES volunteers engaged in the cleanup.

Also, where is your figure of 300 million drawn from?  I think you made that up.

Elphaba says:

09:37am | 01/02/11

Don’t bother, guys.  You can’t argue logic with the certifiable.

SalC says:

10:09am | 01/02/11

Zac what has this got to do with the god-disaster paradigm?

Oliver says:

10:16am | 01/02/11

Wow, what amazing logic! Let’s put this another way; you, I assume have religious beliefs for one particular god. Surely your belief in this god denies the existence of all other gods imagined by the human race over the last 50,000 years? Does not active denial of another religion’s belief make you an atheist?

Additionally, you make an error in your argument that non-acceptance is in itself a form of belief. Science begins as a belief called “theory”, however the critical distinction is that it must be demonstrated consistently to be correct. Religion is a theory that has consistently been demonstrated to be completely bunk.

Zac de Spudnut says:

10:54am | 01/02/11

SalC,

Zac what has this got to do with the god-disaster paradigm?>>>

Premise of the author “cognitive dissonance” and I am being more inclusive than the author.

Oliver,

Does not active denial of another religion’s belief make you an atheist?>>

Does not active acceptance of God by different religions make them Theists?

Religion is a theory that has consistently been demonstrated to be completely bunk.>>

Ask the pioneer of Atheism and now Ex - Atheist Antony Flew.

Steely Dan says:

11:46am | 01/02/11

@ Zac

“Does not active denial of another religion’s belief make you an atheist?”
No, not necessarily.  You, a theist, actively deny that Thor exists, correct? 
Atheism is a lack of a belief in all god/s.  That means that you can be an atheist if you simply disbelieve, and if you go a step further and believe that all god claims are incorrect.

“Ask the pioneer of Atheism and now Ex - Atheist Antony Flew.”
“Pioneer of atheism”?  You really are confused.

Luce says:

11:52am | 01/02/11

Zac, I challenge you to find more people who have converted TO theism then AWAY from theism.

Zac de Spudnut says:

12:37pm | 01/02/11

Luce,

Why should I do your home work? Then to ask me to do more? Why are you not interested in his conversion to theism? You are doing your best to deflect but here is why Antony Flew’s belief in God is of huge importance.

“Towering and courageous… Flew’s colleagues in the church of fundamentalist atheism will be scandalized.”—Francis S. Collins, New York Times bestselling author of The Language of God

MC says:

12:38pm | 01/02/11

Zac,

Please correct me if im wrong but i have always been taught that people like Stalin and Pol Pot commited their crimes because of their political views and not their religious views, where as all of the crusades, pogroms and inquisitions where commited because of their religious beliefs.

Steely Dan says:

01:29pm | 01/02/11

@ Zac

“You are doing your best to deflect but here is why Antony Flew’s belief in God is of huge importance.”
And then you quote a one-line book review from a man whose belief in god stems from a frozen waterfall that he saw on a hike once (there were three streams, therefore trinity, therefore god exists)?
It would appear Francis Collins isn’t a good judge of what constitutes compelling evidence when it comes to god claims.  Some very smart people have drastically lowered their standards of evidence to let religion in.

Zac says:

01:56pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

Why are you and other Atheists very hesitant to discuss about Antony Flew, instead you choose to attack Francis Collins?

It would appear Francis Collins isn’t a good judge of what constitutes compelling evidence when it comes to god claims.>>

Really? I’ll let the readers decide.

Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D. is the former director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). On August 17, 2009 he was sworn in as director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Dr. Collins led the successful effort to complete Human Genome Project (HGP), a complex multidisciplinary scientific enterprise directed at mapping and sequencing all of the human DNA, and determining aspects of its function. A working draft of the human genome sequence was announced in June of 2000, an initial analysis was published in February of 2001, and a high-quality, reference sequence was completed in April 2003.

Some very smart people have drastically lowered their standards of evidence to let religion in.>>>

So that simply means “some very smart people” do not believe what the Atheists believe. That should tell you lots about the Atheist movement.

Steely Dan says:

02:26pm | 01/02/11

@ Zac

“Why are you and other Atheists very hesitant to discuss about Antony Flew”
Who said I was hesitant?  You’re the one who referenced him as an authority then deferred to a book review!

“instead you choose to attack Francis Collins?”
You offered no argument from Flew.  I ‘attacked’ what you gave me.

“Really? I’ll let the readers decide.”
Imagine what state the scientific world would be in if our scientists decided to back faith over research?  I’m not denying Collins is a great scientist.  His science is solid, but his religious philosophy is plainly absurd.

“So that simply means “some very smart people” do not believe what the Atheists believe. That should tell you lots about the Atheist movement.”
No, it doesn’t.  What you’re trying for is a fallacious appeal to authority.  Every decent scientist knows that Collins is a great scientist as evidenced by his research.  He did the work and produced the results.  But his waterfall revelation does not constitute evidence for a god, regardless of how he’s applied himself successfully in other areas of his life. 
Newton was a genius, even though he was a creationist who thought the world is going to end this century.  Does that mean that scientists need to accept that the world will end in 2060, or be forced to ditch his work on physics?  Of course not.

Luce says:

02:27pm | 01/02/11

“So that simply means “some very smart people” do not believe what the Atheists believe. That should tell you lots about the Atheist movement.”

Unfortunately academic intelligence doesn’t always stretch into the realm of emotional need, in which emotions override reason and rationality, and which is also the place where religion resides.

That said, you can’t use single examples of this to try make a point about a whole group. Anthony Flew is one of few converts to theism, while many more have converted in the opposite direction (the proportion of atheists in the general global population is rising). The fact that you cling onto this one example, while refusing to come up with more, claiming its my “homework” not yours, is just a symptom of that.

In general, levels of religiosity are negatively correlated to levels of intelligence and education (note: in general, not in every single case). The more educated a group, the less religion needs to take hold.

n_dude says:

03:11pm | 01/02/11

I guess 911 was committed by hardline bloodthirsty atheists trying to impose their beliefs on us. The Christians are just as guilty as other religions and atheists of extermeism.

Stephy says:

04:11pm | 01/02/11

@Zac,

I like the post. Good on you.

Stephy says:

04:16pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

Athiesm is a claim God does NOT exist. It’s a stance on the existence of God. It is a theistic stance. Choosing not to believe is Agnostic. By defition of Theism, Athiesm is a stance on God. Google it.

Zac de Spudnut says:

04:25pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

Who said I was hesitant?  You’re the one who referenced him as an authority then deferred to a book review!>>>

Here is New York Times on Antony Flew: “Antony Flew, an English philosopher and outspoken atheist who stunned and dismayed the unbelieving faithful when he announced in 2004 that God probably did exist.” And you think he not an authority? I again ask you and others Atheists, instead of going hesitantly in circles and claiming “Religion is a theory that has consistently been demonstrated to be completely bunk” are you willing to take the path (pl read the following excerpt) Antony Flew took? What have you got to fear? .Again from New York Times “Mr. Flew was a mild-mannered polemicist, respectful of his opponents and driven, as he often said, by simple curiosity and a determination to go where the facts led him.”

You offered no argument from Flew.  I ‘attacked’ what you gave me.>>

So is that how you debate and make your case? Your rationality is shining through. When it was claimed “religion is bunk” I asked what do you think of Ex-Atheist Antony Flew? Is that not an argument? Along the way you also made the following comment (yes in relation to Francis Collins) “Some very smart people have drastically lowered their standards of evidence to let religion in.” That includes Antony Flew. This tells me why you find people like Antony Flew and Francis Collins confronting, coz it shakes the foundations of your Atheistic beliefs.

His science is solid, but his religious philosophy is plainly absurd.>>

Antony Flew and Francis Collins both very high intelligent people had the - “determination to go where the facts led him.” And to Atheists like you it is absurd, people like Luce will claim “emotions override reason and rationality” and come up with any number of excuses.  Because it doesn’t meet your pre-determined belief that God doesn’t exist. This just tells me Atheism is a “belief system”. It is not FACT based. In this belief system people are not allowed to go “Where the facts lead them”. I don’t have a problem with that as long as you don’t tell us you guys are rationalists and scientific. This is nothing more than a cult.

Luce,

The fact that you cling onto this one example, while refusing to come up with more, claiming its my “homework” not yours, is just a symptom of that.>>>

But what do you think of his belief in God? The truth is you are not interested in this “one very prominent example” I cited. And you want me to locate (which you can do yourself) more examples which is the tactic of Atheists like you. That gives me an idea why you find this example troubling.

FYI, no where Atheism is increasing, with USSR gone, Easter Europe and China opening up, Atheism is on the downer. No doubt about that.

Zac de Spudnut says:

04:36pm | 01/02/11

n_dude,

The Christians are just as guilty as other religions and atheists of extermeism.>>>

Christians are accused for everything, so thats not surprising. But Atheists are guilty of extremism? You mean rationalism, logic and science is not helping and neither is it making Atheists more loving. But the idea was once Atheists get rid of Christians and religion the world would live in peace and the lions and lambs will be living together. So what happened to that “Hopey Changey” utopia?

Steely Dan says:

05:01pm | 01/02/11

@ Steph

“Athiesm is a claim God does NOT exist.”
No.  It’s just not theism.  That includes those who don’t believe in a god, and those who go a step further and say that they also believe that god/s does not exist. 

“Choosing not to believe is Agnostic.”
No. 
1) Nobody ‘chooses’ to accept or deny things.  Here’s a test - try disbelieve that the earth is (roughly) spherical for just two minutes. Tell me how that works out.
2) Agnosticism relates to what one claims to know about the existence of a god, not what they believe.  You can be both an agnostic and an atheist.

“By defition of Theism, Athiesm is a stance on God. Google it.”
Thanks for the tip.  Atheism is indeed a stance on the existence of god - but it’s non-acceptance of his/her existence, not denial.  If the answer to the question ‘is there a god’ is yes, you’re a theist.  If your answer is anything else - including ‘I don’t know’ - you’re not a theist.  You’re a non-theist, aka an atheist.

Steely Dan says:

05:10pm | 01/02/11

@ Zac

“Here is New York Times on Antony Flew… And you think he not an authority?”
I’m waiting for the argument, Zac.

“instead of going hesitantly in circles and claiming “Religion is a theory that has consistently been demonstrated to be completely bunk” are you willing to take the path (pl read the following excerpt) Antony Flew took?”
Oh good, you’re about to give me an actual argument from Flew.

“Again from New York Times “Mr. Flew was a mild-mannered polemicist, respectful of his opponents and driven, as he often said, by simple curiosity and a determination to go where the facts led him.”
Wait, that wasn’t an excerpt of an argument.  That’s a mini-bio from a newspaper.

“So is that how you debate and make your case? Your rationality is shining through.”
Thankyou.

“When it was claimed “religion is bunk” I asked what do you think of Ex-Atheist Antony Flew? Is that not an argument?”
No, it’s not.  Do you think ‘Richard Dawkins is an atheist’ is an argument?

“This tells me why you find people like Antony Flew and Francis Collins confronting”
How about you confront me with an argument for the existence of god?

“Antony Flew and Francis Collins both very high intelligent people had the - “determination to go where the facts led him.””
So are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Stephen Hawking… but just saying their names is not an argument for atheism.

“I don’t have a problem with that as long as you don’t tell us you guys are rationalists and scientific. This is nothing more than a cult.”
If we re-define cult to mean ‘not willing to accept a claim before evidence is provided’, I am indeed a cult member.

One last try - got any argument for the existence of god that is not just the name of a religious person?

Zac de Spudnut says:

06:00pm | 01/02/11

Stephy,

Thank you. If you carefully observe Steely Dan’s reply to your post on what Atheism is, you will find he is being dishonest and is trying to play games with words. I’ll get to that in the next post when I find some time.

You are fully right with your description on Atheism (however in practice is much, much more broader, I’ll get to that in a minute and half right on Agnosticism. Agnosticism is a fence position.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Agnostic as:

“a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god”.

Holds the view, probably unknowable, not committed to believing should tell us, certainly there is a CHOICE being made.

However Atheism is a definitive position, again from Merriam-Webster on Atheism:

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Origin of ATHEISM

Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

For more on Atheistic beliefs please click on the link in the main post and then and click on the third link “Atheist Beliefs” under categories.

Chris L says:

06:37pm | 01/02/11

Zac, I see you are using the argument of “If a scientist believes in god it must be true”. I’m a little surprised that you are following those lines since the vast majority of scientists do not believe in god.

A census of members of the National Academy of Sciences in the US found the following percentage results for years 1933 & 1998:

Belief in personal God   1933   1998
Personal belief           15       7.0
Personal disbelief         68       72.2
Doubt or agnosticism     17       20.8

Forgive my if the table ended up looking crooked. I tried to line it up but posts seem to change their parameters once publihed. I’ll provide the appropriate link below:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

I also noticed that Anthony Flew announced a belief in Deism, a belief that would not have any problem acknowledging natural disasters (the topic of this article) as it involves a creator that leaves its creation to its fate (and thus does not require worship, obedience nor any kind of acknowledgement).

Stephy says:

08:09pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

You start telling me to think the earth is flat and my mind goes straight to Discworld, and there’s no getting any sense out of me after that.

Zac de Spudnut says:

09:55pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

If you are seriously interested in the existence of God and you are “willing to go where the evidence leads you” then go and buy your Ex-Atheist Antony Flew’s book. You can certainly identify with this person. He was a passionate and outspoken about Atheism. It can’t get any better than that. Here is the link for you:

There Is a God: How the World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

http://www.amazon.com/There-God-Notorious-Atheist-Changed/dp/0061335290

But bear in mind the Atheists didn’t need God to commit violent crime on 300 million people and you are yet to reply to the “cognitive dissonance” of Atheists.

Atheists living in societies built with Christian civilisation (like you say Scandinavian countries) is not an example. Mind you these societies are underpinned by Christian values/laws. Atheists have to be thankful they grew up in Christian west. You have to tell me why Atheists behave the way they behave in China, North Korea, Cuba etc? Why they ended up killing millions all through the history?

So on one hand Atheists claim to be lead by logic, rationalism and science but on the other they have no qualms about killing millions to further the cause of their utopia. The calls of mass murder of Muslims by Christopher Hichens and Sam Harris come to mind. I rest my case.

Chris L says:

08:19am | 02/02/11

Zac, North Korea is a theocracy that worships Kim Jong Ill, not even slightly atheistic. Communist Russia worshipped Stalin, the man who studied at a seminary to become a priest (where he no doubt gained his knowledge of how to control the masses) and reintituted the church during WWII. Hitler was a catholic who maintained a concordance with the Vatican, referenced god and Jesus in every speech, spoke often about the new church for Germany and never once described himself as an atheist.

Oh, by the way, law in the western world very much predates Christianity. I can tell because civilisations that existed in the BC era had laws against murder, theft, etc. They also had democracy so you can’t credit that to the church either. In fact they also had Christmas and Easter, although under different names, so I really wouldn’t trust the rewriting of history that your church has been involved in.

Steely Dan says:

10:59am | 02/02/11

@ Zac

“Merriam-Webster dictionary defines…”
Zac, dictionaries refer to common usage of words, including misuse.  Which is why the origin of the term is important.  Fortunately you’ve actually included ‘Origin of Atheism’ text, and it validates my position (godlessness does not require denial of the existence of a god, just lack of a belief in one) and contradicts one of the two definitions Merriam-Webster has.

“then go and buy your Ex-Atheist Antony Flew’s book.”
Wait – after all that you don’t provide any of Flew’s arguments?  Do you actually know what his arguments are?  I wouldn’t respond to your criticism of atheists by sending you to an ad for ‘The God Delusion’.  Why don’t you tell me which of Flew’s arguments you find compelling?

“But bear in mind the Atheists didn’t need God to commit violent crime”
Did I say that they did?  What you need to show is that atheism is at least a factor in these atrocities.  Would you like to try?

“Atheists living in societies built with Christian civilisation (like you say Scandinavian countries) is not an example.”
That’s a fantastic cop-out!  They’re not Christian countries, but they used to be, so Christians get the credit!  Hang on, the USSR was a formerly Christian nation (actually a group of ex-Christian nations) – doesn’t that mean that Stalinist Russia was Christians’ fault?  China and North Korea were originally Buddhists, shamanists and Confucianists (and their official head of state is dead!), and Cuba was very Catholic.  Your faulty logic cuts both ways, Zac.

“So on one hand Atheists claim to be lead by logic, rationalism and science but on the other they have no qualms about killing millions to further the cause of their utopia.”
Their cause is not my cause.  And I don’t make any claim that you have to be logical, rational, scientific or ethical to be an atheist.  Just as I’m sure you don’t believe you have to be a good person to be religious.
Tell you what, have a look at Stalin, Mao etc and tell me what other prominent ‘isms’ they all share.  Hint: it’s not secular democracy… 

“The calls of mass murder of Muslims by Christopher Hichens and Sam Harris come to mind.”
1.  I’m not Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris, and don’t take orders from them.
2.  Source?  And don’t link to a book you want me to read.

Stephy says:

04:19pm | 01/02/11

Back two thousand years ago, He did.

Jay says:

10:10pm | 01/02/11

or so a book not written until over 40 years after ‘said events’ happened says so. Admit it, thats all you have to go on.

Mr Subramanian says:

03:21pm | 02/02/11

The book is based on the oral accounts of those who were at said events, so it’s a little closer than the “40 years after” you’re suggesting…

There’s some super stuff on this by an Australian, Paul Barnett, who was Anglican bishop of North Sydney.

muddabikes says:

06:19pm | 02/02/11

The history of the manipulation of history in “factual” documents is well documented. It would be naive to assume that the bible was not and has not been manipulated by those in power over the past 2000-odd years.
Hell, there was even decisions made at it’s inception about which bits (and who’s accounts) to include and who’s to leave out.

Servaas says:

07:57am | 01/02/11

TChong, why do you choose to believe the people’s views of God you mentioned above? You reject God because someone probably told you that missing mass pisses God of. Where do they come from with that? Why do you see ‘Lord Buddha’ as God? Seek God yourself, don’t believe what others say and then make your decision purely on that.

TChong says:

08:44am | 01/02/11

Correct Servaas - if the need exists in us, then most people can find some type of understanding with / via a god, or whatever type of spirituality rocks their boat.
Its when a religion becomes “official"with regulations , dogmas and sanctions , then the problems arise.

Sir Ronald Bradnam says:

08:49am | 01/02/11

ahh servas the age old “why do you reject god” argument well i personally no more reject god than I reject santa claus or the tooth fairy, they are all cute little beliefs that children grow out of as they age and start to understand these fairy tales for what they are. However there are still some people that still get caught up in a belief that they believe will help them in some imaginary afterlife.
How can you reject something that doesnt actually exist?

notsurprised says:

09:08am | 02/02/11

Sir Ronald, just wondering if you choose to believe that the universe is made up of tiny vibrating strings and the possibility of multiple coinciding dimensions where sub atomic particles pop in and out of existence? Are you aware it’s theorized that around 73% of the universe’s mass is made up of an energy that can’t be seen or measured?
Sounds like more fairy tales, would you agree?

Trevor says:

08:11am | 01/02/11

The difference, Sam, is that non-religious people do good things because it is good but religious people do good things in the hope of reward and/or fear of punishment. Which is truly altruistic?

Chris L says:

08:26am | 01/02/11

Those who believe in a god also tend to believe he/she is allknowing and allpowerful. So again… what’ up with the floods? How come he didn’t stop this devil from causing them?

Elphaba says:

08:34am | 01/02/11

Bravo, Trevor.

Tedd says:

09:49am | 01/02/11

the ‘non-religious’ look forward to reflecting on a good life of things including service, care, and appreciation.

Brissy Boy says:

08:13am | 01/02/11

Oh you mean consistent with the bible like God telling his people to slaughter everyone in the whole city except for the vigins which you may take as your own sex slaves.  Or how to treat your slaves.  Or any of the other evil, hideous crimes in the bible.  If you were to truly follow the beliefs in the bible you would have been out there throwing the non-believers into the water as it is a kinder way of killing them than stoning at the city gate.  My guess is you have not read the whole bible, including the parts were Jesus says that the OT is to remain true.  The best way to ensure someone is not a christian is to get them to read the bible, it’s evil and so is the made up guy in it.

Horse says:

08:45am | 01/02/11

Servaas says (07:52am | 01/02/11) ... town councils thwarted G-ds instructions to save their villagers from the Boxing Day Tsunami??

undertow says:

12:52pm | 01/02/11

Apparently God has created some kind of clandestine Tsunami Early Warning System exclusively for a limited number of isolated Christian congregations, showing he is not so benevolent after all, or Servaas has a lot in common with Mrs Murphy’s cow.

Stephy says:

04:27pm | 01/02/11

Servaas, I like your post.

It’s true, Christian opinion differs from person to person. My mother believes her non-christian husband will go to Heaven with her when they die so she’ll be happy. It’s not a Christian belief, nowhere is it sanctioned in the Bible, but she believes it all the same. It helps her feel better.

It’s nice to meet other Christians on The Punch. Hopefully we’ll see each other round more.

Servaas says:

11:41pm | 01/02/11

Hectic Brissy Boy! Where did you attend Bible classes? Did you read it all as you expect me to do?

You probably mean if I was a Jew under their old laws (think it was Talmudic Law?) I had to do the kind of things you mention here. Jesus came to fulfill the law and therefore those in Him are not under it anymore - no rocket science there, you confuse me with what you mentioned above? People are evil, the Bible is a document believed to be inspired by God, with historical accounts, poetry, proverbs and other philosophical outlooks on life, etc, but looking at how you were taught to understand what it says shows just how easily evil people can point to the Bible as the source of their inspiration for doing evil deeds.

Hi Horse, to answer your question: no. I do know of one town council (I understadn it was in fact the Muslim leader of the area) who did not want that particluar church to have a picnic up in the hills that particular day. because they don’t always enjoy religious freedom as we do in the West, the government prescribes to Christians where, when, how long , etc they may meet and the picnic they wanted to go on wasn’t one of them but because they were convinced that God told them to get to the hills, they persisted with their request and the guy eventually said it would be fine. The other village I know of weren’t under those restraints, god woke their pastor up to get the people to the hills, he took a pot and a spoon and ran around like a mad man urging the people to get out of the town - both Christians and non-Christians ran up and were saved. God’s ways isn’t tailored specifically for Christians, whoever follows it wins, those who doesn’t loses out. If you go to India for instance you will find that many Christians there received the gospel message from Jesus himself in dreams or meetings with him which again highlights the fact that God is not so much interested whether you walk around with a Christian lable above your head, He’s message is out in the open and it is up to us to respond in whichever way we prefer.

I can unfortunately not answer to on when and how exactly God intervenes and also we try and judge God on whether he is good or evil from a very narrow-minded perspective. We consider Him to be evil as soons as a human endures some form of discomfort while the Bible teaches it is all the result of our own evil, He gives us over to our choice of walking in our own ways.  His primary idea is not to see how smooth he can make us sail but to free us from the state we’re in.

That is what the bible teaches, believe it, reject it, whatever but be weary of following strange teachings.

undertow: funny

But yeah, you can see the above as well.

Tedd says:

08:48am | 01/02/11

“on your knees” - yes, there’s still cleaning up to do.  Cleanliness is next to godliness, eh?

Steely Dan says:

09:22am | 01/02/11

@ mary

The ‘it could have been worse’ defence!  Haven’t seen that one in a while!  And I’m sure the families of the flood victims are comforted by your dismissive attitude to unecessary tragedy.

Adam Diver says:

09:24am | 01/02/11

“Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer”

kyzz says:

10:15am | 01/02/11

Mary, I’m pretty sure it that fewer people died because of advances in technology and infastructure. For example the flooding in Brisbane was much less severe than it would have been without Wivenhoe Dam, the helicopters that pulled people off roofs, computerised flood modleing, the qld police on facebook providing accurate updates, mobile phones that helped people contact their loved ones. Not because of God.
@ Tedd - good one

mary says:

11:47am | 01/02/11

An absolute miracle that not more people died during this national disaster. Praise God and may He be a comfort to the family and friends of all those who were casualties and victims during this tragedy.

Sparkie says:

12:11pm | 01/02/11

God must really hate Brazil then - I wonder why they bothered building that big statue of his son?

Tedd says:

12:37pm | 01/02/11

Sparkie,

Perhaps it was that idolatry that upset G_d.

Steely Dan says:

01:43pm | 01/02/11

@ mary

“An absolute miracle that not more people died during this national disaster.”
How so?  Did you or somebody else expect a greater loss of life?  Did you witness actual miraculous events that saved people - like people building an ark six months in advance and floating to safety, or winged angels snatching drowning toddlers from the waters and flying them to higher ground to a symphony of harps?  I’m going to assume you don’t think anything supernatural happened at all.  My guess is that you’d call every informed decision to move to higher ground before the floods to be ‘miraculous’.  Am I wrong?

muddabikes says:

06:24pm | 02/02/11

Prayer:

The ability to do absolutely nothing and still think that you are helping.

muddabikes says:

06:27pm | 02/02/11

The last time someone told me to get on my knees left a bad taste in my mouth.

Trevor says:

08:37am | 01/02/11

If god is so perfect and omniscient and omnipotent then how come he didn’t create Adam and Eve perfect? He supposedly managed to create a completely perfect universe but couldn’t manage to create two perfect, though insignificant compared to the universe, beings?

Steely Dan says:

09:35am | 01/02/11

@ Rel

“You are all looking for someone to blame so you choose to blame God for the floods.”
No, I don’t.  Neither does the author.  Where is this coming from.

“You can’t expect a God that most of this country has turned their backs on in the good times to come running in the bad.”
Actually if God existed, then I would.  No Christians would have died, lost property or livelihoods.  Unless they all just forgot to pray. 

“God and His values have been taken out of this country.”
So much for personal salvation!  If you’re a good God-fearing Christian but your neighbours aren’t, God will punish you for your regional association with sinners!

“You just have to look at the rate of abortions and the push for gay marriages to see the values of this country.”
Yes, that makes sense.  We all know that there’s a correlation between natural disasters and abortions and gay marriage.  That’s basic science.  Duh.

“Bad things happen to good people all the time. It’s what living in this world is all about.”
Hallelujah!

“If you believe in creation then Adam and Eve stuffed it up for everyone.”
If you believe in creation, the velociraptors on the ark are why we don’t race unicorns at Flemington.

“God designed this world to be perfect and free of all this stuff until a human was disobedient to God in the Garden of Eden and it continues today.”
So God designed a faulty human that wrecked perfection?  You don’t see the problem there?

“Why don’t you ask Him?”
I tried.  Maybe the line was busy.  Or maybe He just wasn’t there.

AliceC says:

09:39am | 01/02/11

@Rel

1) How is gay marriage a bad value?
2) Really, the Garden of Eden argument, humans stuffed it up only 5000 years ago? Really? I assume all of those dinosaur fossils and Abroiginal paintings were planted by scientists?

Luce says:

10:02am | 01/02/11

Rel, with all due respect I’ll decline your invitation to go to church and get to know your God, because I simply don’t believe he exists.

And not believing in the teachings of the bible, I also disagree with religion’s position on gay marriage. Its simply a prejudice which will be overcome in time.

Nat says:

01:44pm | 01/02/11

@ Rel

Yes because gay marriage and abortion is definitely the reason for the floods! Just like everything the bible says is still true today and should be something we all live our lives by to the letter. 
The link below is a letter written by to a US radio show host who condemned homosexuality and it highlights the ‘pick and choose’ attitudes most people who claim to follow the bible seem to have.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/drlaura.asp

Trjn says:

08:55am | 01/02/11

Obviously we’re talking about Thor here. The lack of thunder for most of the flooding is a dead give away.

James1 says:

09:31am | 01/02/11

Duh.  She is clearly referring to Poseidon.  You guys really need to offer him more lambs, or this kind of thing will continue to happen.

Kyra says:

11:26am | 01/02/11

Trjn, I think James1 is right. Definitely Poseidon, Cyclone Yasi is a dead giveaway

Trjn says:

11:43am | 01/02/11

@James1 & Kyra, I was saying that Thor is absent, Poseidon is definitely around and rather angry. If Thor were here, then he could keep Poseidon in check and stop the destruction, but obviously Loki and Cthulhu have teamed up to trap Thor and allow Poseidon’s rage to continue.

Seeing as Thor isn’t around to save us, surely Aquaman must step in.

James1 says:

12:42pm | 01/02/11

What I want to know is where is Zeus in all this?  Is he just sitting back, watching Poseidon go nuts?  Surely mighty Zeus could take care of a little trickster like Loki, and I can’t imagine Cthutlu being a match for Him.  Maybe Mohammed (blessings and peace be upon him) has Zeus distracted.

Brissy Boy says:

12:58pm | 01/02/11

Nah your all wrong. It was the flying spaghetti monster. He sent down the waters so that only his true messengers the pirates could survive and flourish.  Either that or his latest batch of noodly nourishment was getting a bit too dry.  I am planning on consulting his holy noodliness later on today.

HappyCynic says:

01:45pm | 01/02/11

You guys are all way off. 

Don’t you know it’s the Mayan goddess Ixchel (goddess of floods and cloudbursts) who’s responsible for these things?  I mean only a woman could be so effective, afterall those impotent gods of thunder and the sea can’t control storms and Zeus is too busy shagging his way through Ancient Greece to give a damn what Thor, Loki and Poseidon are up to.

James1 says:

01:59pm | 01/02/11

HappyCynic,

As an ancient Greek religion and Mithras cult fundamentalist, I find your Mayan superstitions offensive.

Bryndal says:

10:54am | 01/02/11

Easter? A Pagan fertility festival wasn’t it?

AliceC says:

09:45am | 01/02/11

Have you read that book Rel? What Brissie Boy is saying is pretty spot on…

Steely Dan says:

09:45am | 01/02/11

@ Rel

I had a bad experience with the Bible once.  I read Deuteronomy 22:13-21.

BTW, what did the Hindus do to you to make you so mad at Vishnu?

Luce says:

10:09am | 01/02/11

You don’t need a bad experience to not want to follow the bible, just a bit of common sense.

Brissy Boy says:

12:53pm | 01/02/11

Rel, acually it was satan they got in and made me do it.  You know cause people can’t actually be responsible for their own decisions, it’s either the glory of god that made them do it or they naughty satan guy.  It’s all ok though, cause you know that the next little kiddie fiddlin religous guy that comes along can always seek forgiveness afterwards and all will be ok as long as satan doesn’t tempt him again.  Personal responsibility hey, who needs it when you’ve got the never ending battle between the sky fairy and the horned one.  And I thought it was only people with mental illnesses that hear the voices in their head, actaully maybe that still is right.

Nah, no bad experience. I just actually read the bible. Not the happy clappy bits all of it.  Only bad experience is wih people who choose to believe in something but only the nice bits and can write off all those nasty bits as only applying to other religions.

You have actually got me though, cause I am very religous. I am a loyal pastafarian and upstanding member of the church of the flying spaghetti monster. http://www.venganza.org/  You should check it out and you too could be converted, especially since there is more evidence for his holy noodliness than their is for your sky fairy.  May the sauce be with you.

James1 says:

09:41am | 01/02/11

That wasn’t god, that was Zeus.  Don’t claim the work of my gods for your own god.  Mine were here first.

Steely Dan says:

09:49am | 01/02/11

Free will to choose whether or not to eat a fruit which would give them knowledge of good and evil?

Do you see the problem?

Trevor says:

09:52am | 01/02/11

Rel, exactly my point! If god was omniscient and omnipotent he would have know exactly what would happen by giving his creation free will so why do it? What was the point? Put’s me in mind of Sir Fulke Greville’s line “Created sick - commanded to be well”.

Stephy says:

04:33pm | 01/02/11

Rel, I know this isn’t the place, buuuuuuut….. I don’t agree. I believe the Calvinistic idea of the T.U.L.I.P. If you’d like to talk about arminianism vs calvinism, then reply and we’ll figure something out…

BUT it’s great to see another Christian on the board!

Trevor says:

12:05pm | 01/02/11

JR, I’d like to make two points in response to your post.

Firstly, as a atheist I have no problem whatsoever with people holding a different opinon on anything, not just religion, to myself. Having said that I do enjoy discussing subjects that interest me, religion being one of those. My understanding is that this site and those like it are set up for the express purpose of stimulating discussion on the article presented. If people are offended by other people disagreeing with their beliefs or opinions then I would suggest that this is probably not the place to be airing them.

Secondly, I’ve never had an atheist knock on my door and try and “convert” me to atheism, or use any other medium. I arrived there by myself. I have, however, had Christians try and sell me bibles, Mormons try to convert me to their faith, Jehovah’s Witnesses also try the same thing and then there is the out and out agenda of some Muslims to transform Australia into an Islamic state.  So while they may not be “hurting” me, they have certainly annoyed the hell out of me. So I say to them, leave me alone and I will leave you alone to believe whatever the hell you want.

If, however, anyone would like to have an intellectual and mature debate then I am more than happy to accomodate them but you can’t start calling me insensitive and a bigot or worse when I express a different opinions to yours in a public forum! On top of that, it is perfectly accpetable for religious organisations to proclaim their beliefs from billboards and buses, on television and radio etc but the moment an atheist tries the same the cries of “Persecution!” are deafening and that the “right” to religion is being violated.

Steely Dan says:

12:16pm | 01/02/11

@ JR

“So because bad things happen God doesn’t exist? Not great logic there.”
It isn’t, but that’s not the point of the article.  The point is that conceptions of a loving god common in most modern monotheistic religions are at odds with observed tragedies.  That’s not an argument that a god/s can’t exist, it’s an argument against a common perception of god.

“No comparison of good times to bad. Good times are so good, because you had bad times to compare them to.”
I don’t need to have my family members killed to enjoy good times.  Nice try.

“The cold fact is this, you can’t prove or disprove God.”
So why believe in a god?  You can’t disprove the existence of (insert favourite internet-spawned religion imitator here), so does that make belief in (unicorn/spaghetti monster/teacup) rational?  Disbelief in a claim (until sufficient evidence is provided) is our default position for a reason.  Why are god claims the one exception?

“It is in the uncertainty that faith emerges. Faith.”
And that’s a good thing?  Belief without evidence is a virtue?

“It’s possible good things come out of this horror though. Friends made in the cleanup who may improve lives through these new connections.”
A young Jewish couple meet in a Nazi concentration camp in 1944, they marry shortly after being liberated by US soldiers and have a long, happy marriage with three happy, healthy children.  Does that make the holocaust a good thing?  Hell no.  No tragedy is necessary.

“Could there be a higher power with a plan greater than we can understand at work? Maybe.”
A lot greater than we can understand, apparently.  So much greater that any claim that a god is good is just wild speculation. 

“What bothers me tremendously is aetheists trying to talk people who believe in God…. out of their “delusion”.”
Why?  If people claimed that they were being abducted by aliens but said that they believed it on faith, wouldn’t you class them as delusional?

“Those people have a belief in something that loves them and is driving the world towards something better.”
Is it? 

“Just keep your mouth shut. There’s no good reason to try to knock down someone else’s belief system unless it hurts people.”
And it frequently does.

Jason says:

12:26pm | 01/02/11

That’s the point though.  I have no problem with a believer who doesn’t evangelise or use their belief system to hurt other people.  The problem is that most major religions were developed over a thousand years ago and have been perpetuated ever since by boys’ clubs.  The result is that today, even is Australia, people are hurt because religious based morality can mean:
* They can’t leave their abusive husband because their family and friends would disapprove (and possible force them back).
* You can be raped in wedlock, and it’s expected of you.
* People are given permission to bully and/or beat someone up (sometimes even explicitly) for being homosexual.
* Your family can force you to not have a termination, even if you are pregnant from a rape.
* You can be excluded from your friendship circle, and even prevented from seeing your kids, because you question religious authorities.
* You aren’t allowed to end your life, even if you have a terminal disease and are in constant agony.
* Potentially lifesaving stem cell research is prohibited.

The personal stuff, and more, happens every year, often in mainstream communities.  The regulatory stuff is debated on an ongoing basis.  People are hurt every day as a result.  I haven’t even gone into the more extreme things that happen regularly.

I’m happy to debate the people who do these things on logic and facts.  However, most religious people rely on “faith” instead, and in the end cannot or will not discuss the underlying pinciples and logic.  That’s when I get angry.

James1 says:

10:34am | 01/02/11

The reason behind this is that Christianity, according to another article on this site today, is the basis of our civilisation.  Not Islam.  So Christianity is relevant, Islam is not.

A better question would be why you feel it is not acceptable to question or criticise the Christian faith…

Tedd says:

10:44am | 01/02/11

James1, ah you read Pyne between-the-lines, too

Steely Dan says:

11:58am | 01/02/11

@ Jugg

“Why is it that you feel it acceptable to question or criticise the Christian faith?”
Not a fan of freedom of speech, eh Jugg?  Luckily for you, that freedom covers your right to object to free speech, so you can mouth off about others having a right to criticise your sacred cows all you want.

“We don’t question or challenge other religions.”
Speak for yourself!

“Question the Koran or it’s followers…oh no!  We couldn’t possibly do that!”
We can and do.  What’s the matter, Jugg?  If your faith is robust surely you can defend it without resorting to ‘why don’t you pick on somebody else’?  And the article didn’t refer to a Christian god in particular.  The problem of evil is a problem for Muhammad’s fans too.  The article references a prominent Christian because (believe it or not) the country has a lot of Christians in it.

Jugg says:

01:40pm | 01/02/11

Please Steely Dan,

Please point me to the articles published by The Punch questioning the faiths of other religions.

I am grateful for your assistance.

Jugg says:

01:52pm | 01/02/11

Try to act maturely in your responses Steely Dan.

I realise this is The Punch and its creators condone endorse personal attack and abuse as acceptable, despite their ‘policy’.

Don’t attack me personally, I didn’t attack you.

Steely Dan says:

02:03pm | 01/02/11

@ Jugg

“Please point me to the articles published by The Punch questioning the faiths of other religions.”
I’ll repeat, Jugg - this very article that we’re both commenting on questions more every religion that contends that god/s is/are good.

If you want to look for articles on religion, scroll to the top of the page and look at the Hot Topics links.

Jugg says:

02:48pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

This article mentions Christians all over the place.  I can’t see where it refers to other religions and other God’s.

You refer me to the other religous articles on the site.  I failed to find the article questioning Islam or the Prophet or Buddha or any other faith?

Tory is of course conspicuous in her absence.

Tomorrow I expect we we will see an article from her questioning Islam, in the interests of fairness.

Thursday we will no doubt see one from her questioning atheism, in the interests of fairness.

James1 says:

03:12pm | 01/02/11

So I take it you are not interested in an actual explanation, Jugg, and prefer instead to nitpick with Steely Dan.

If you want fairness, how about this.  Muslims make up less than 2 percent of Australia’s population.  This is an Australian opinion site, so once we get to 49 articles about Christianity, we will need one on Islam.  That fair enough for you?

Steely Dan says:

03:28pm | 01/02/11

@ Jugg

“This article mentions Christians all over the place.”
In an article on an Australian website?  I wonder why that would be…

“I can’t see where it refers to other religions and other God’s.”
The article is talking about a ‘god’.  It implies monotheism, but that’s it.  If you read the article you’ll note that after Tory introduces the problem of evil (as it relates to the floods), she then looks for rebuttals (related to the floods).  She quotes a Brisbane Archbishop, then includes this statement: “Other Christians - and I could only find Christian references - said God was in the miracles”.  She was looking for non-Christian rebuttals and didn’t get any - and in a country with a heck of a lot of Christians, is that really a surprise?

“You refer me to the other religous articles on the site.  I failed to find the article questioning Islam or the Prophet or Buddha or any other faith?”
I’m confused, Jugg.  When did I promise you that article?
And I don’t think you looked very hard, either.  I typed in ‘Islam’ into the search function and guess what popped up?
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/nicholas-sarkozy-is-right-the-burqa-is-misogynist/

In the “interest of fairness”, frequent Punch contributor and Director of the Centre for Public Christianity Greg Clarke must be due for an anti-Christian article by now, right?

Jugg says:

04:31pm | 01/02/11

No problem James1 and Steely,

Clearly I am wasting my time talking to you.

Muttley says:

12:57pm | 01/02/11

to some it is. To others it forms a kind of crutch. A support in a big, confusing world. Who are we to deny that crutch to those who (foolishly in my eyes) want and need it. As athiests, we derive much confidence and comfort in our ability to rationalise. Thats fine for us, others dont want to forge their own paths. They gain comfort from being led.

Boort says:

12:33pm | 01/02/11

Yet when i ask the average door-knocker ‘how much will i get for selling my daughter to slavery’, or would they help me ‘smite’ my neighbours for complaining about the smell of the sacrifice in my back yard, or if I were to impregenate my 2 daughters woudl he complain…?  (these are all Gen29, Lev24)  The door-knocker typically says ‘thats old testament, we only follow the new testament…’ I usually ask him to read 2Tim3:16 - and then tell me the basis of deciding which bits to follow - where is this criterium??

Muttley says:

12:06pm | 01/02/11

oh my lord! The most sensible comment here and its from a follower of religion. Kerryn, i am an athiest and feel exactly the same way. Well said. Its amazing how with all the students of logic and common sense on this site, i had to scan down this far to see some common sense. I dont know what it is about so many athiests that they feel the need to educate those with opposing views. Live and let live.

Kerryn says:

02:02pm | 01/02/11

@Muttley

I’d tell you I’m also a Gen Y who does her own housework, but you’d have a heart attack lol

I don’t see why people’s beliefs are such a big deal unless they are being forced down your throat with a good serving of peas (in which case I’d be more ticked off about the peas than anything-YUCK!).  If you hang around people who force their beliefs on you, hang out with different people.  Learn to say ‘NO’ to door knockers (if they come into your home without permission, it’s tresspassing folks!).

Chris says:

02:04pm | 01/02/11

Muttley, probably because that’s what the article is about?
I wish alot more religious folk were like you Kerryn, it’s just sad that so many are not.

Tim the Toolman says:

02:15pm | 01/02/11

“I dont know what it is about so many athiests that they feel the need to educate those with opposing views.”

Because it’s not a valid opposing views and it’s hellbent on influencing every aspect of society, perhaps?  FFS, ignoring religion is like turning a blind eye to the crazy guy with a stick of dynamite and fifty kids around him.

Kerryn says:

02:45pm | 01/02/11

@Tim the Toolman:

If it wasn’t hell-bent on influencing every aspect of society and we all kept to ourselves, would you be cool with that then?

If I am not forcing my beliefs on anyone, in fact, if only my close friends and family know of my beliefs (which are not forced on them), who is it hurting?

I do wish people would leave each other alone on that particular front, because I believe it’s wrong to try and change someone just because you disagree with them.

Stephy says:

06:19pm | 01/02/11

Kerryn.

You sound like my twin.

ZOMG! There’s another person out there who’s a) religious, b) a GenY who does all the housework, and c) hates peas.

I do totally agree with your comments, though. It would be nice to live and let live. Believe and let believe, sort of thing. Unfortunately, it doesn’t happen….

Chris L says:

06:54pm | 01/02/11

I would fully agree with you Kerryn if organised religion were not trying to impose bans on euthenasia, abortion, prostitution, stem cell research, etc.

Of course there could be perfectly rational arguements against the above examples but people don’t seem to mention them (if they exist). Crafting law on the basis of religious beliefs is an attempt to make the rest of us act like religious people. I can only assume they look up from their self-denial, see us having a good time and want to put a stop to it.

Zac de Spudnut says:

12:22pm | 01/02/11

Atheism obviously aligns more with science and reality>>>

Really??? Then why do Atheists practice many absurdities like “de-baptism” ceremonies, “Sunday atheist mass” like the one in North Texas etc?

Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2009/07/the-absurdity-of-religious-ath.html

Steely Dan says:

12:30pm | 01/02/11

1. It’s ‘atheist’.
2. Non-believers are atheists.  If you don’t believe in a god or gods, then you’re an atheist, whether you think religions are good, bad, useless, pointless, awesome, funny or boring.

Steely Dan says:

12:44pm | 01/02/11

@ Zac

“Then why do Atheists practice many absurdities like “de-baptism” ceremonies, “Sunday atheist mass” like the one in North Texas etc?”
The first one is a tongue-in-cheek novelty, and atheist churches are simply community organisations for people who don’t want to be preached at.
The differences between these actions and religious baptisms and church services is that the atheists know that there is no magic in these joke-rituals and meetings.  They’re simply humans meeting and converting with other like-minded humans.  No mysticism necessary, and none of it conflicts with what we know of science and reality.

Elphaba says:

12:50pm | 01/02/11

@Dodge, I agree.  Militant atheism is just as bad as militant Christianity.

This is me:

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

@Zac:

Can there not be different atheists, just as there are different believers?  I don’t think people who practice an atheism mass quite get what atheism is either, but live and let live.

You on the other hand -  your intolerance is astounding.  Your sources are biased.  Your lack of knowledge is frightening.

Seriously - your belief in an atheism/communist conspiracy designed to take over the world suggests you are in dire need of some mental help.  Please note, this has nothing to do with your belief in God - it’s the attachments that go with it that are making you sound like you are two stops away from Crazy Town.

Shifter says:

05:53pm | 01/02/11

“The absence of religion would be such boon to modern humanity”

Until it was replaced by something else people use to belittle others. Religion as a whole is practiced by those who believe it makes them better. Better than what? Usually people will say themselves as they used to be, but this can be brought into check by comparing the person as they were to someone who exists now. Thus the religious person believes their faith makes them better than others who do not share their beliefs, and even better than those who do not have the same strength and conviction in identical beliefs.

So an event occurs and some how religion past, present and future ceases to exist. And suddenly people get the notion that since there are more people with mongoloid features then they must be better. The extremists of this belief find a power base where they can take action on their choice of belief, and enforce it onto others.

The absence of religion would not mean an absence of extremists and fanatics who deem their views the sole correct perspective, and therefore it becomes their right to push and enforce these views on others.

So my question is: Do you believe religion gives these fanatics an outlet, or an excuse to imprint themselves on others using whatever means necessary?

Jugg says:

11:34am | 01/02/11

‘the atheist works toward a better life in the living world.’

In what way?

Steely Dan says:

12:37pm | 01/02/11

@ Jugg

I give to charities, for one.  I obey our laws.  I pay taxes that help the less fortunate.  I volunteer my time for community associations.  All these actions make the one world that we know exists more pleasant to live in.

Jugg says:

01:45pm | 01/02/11

...and only atheists do this right Steel Dan?

Christians don’t try and better the world we live in.

They don’t give to charities, obey our laws, pay taxes that help the less fortunate, volunteer for community associations, do they?

Christians don’t do this do they?  Ochrebunyip was suggesting that the religious work towards a better life after death and the atheist works toward a better life in the living world.

You haven’t demonstrated that this is peculiar to atheists.  You haven’t shown that Christians don’t contribute to a better life in the living world.

Steely Dan says:

02:07pm | 01/02/11

@ Jugg

“...and only atheists do this right Steel Dan?”
Tell you what, Jugg, how about you respond to the comments that are made, rather than the comments you wish were made?

You asked in what way atheists work toward a better life in the living world, and I gave you an answer.  How you interpreted those examples as an attack on Christians I will never know.

Jugg says:

02:53pm | 01/02/11

Steely Dan,

I asked OchreBunyip to qualify the difference?  You answered on his behalf.  You have so far failed to indicate a difference.

Then you tell me to address your comments in a specific manner.

‘Not a fan of freedom of speech, eh Jugg?  Luckily for you, that freedom covers your right to object to free speech, so you can mouth off about others having a right to criticise your sacred cows all you want.’

So we can only have freedom of speech if it’s your definition of freedom of speech, addresses your thoughts and accords with your demands?

Some freedom.

Steely Dan says:

03:35pm | 01/02/11

@ Jugg

“I asked OchreBunyip to qualify the difference?”
Maybe you wished you did.  Read what you wrote at 11:34am.

“So we can only have freedom of speech if it’s your definition of freedom of speech, addresses your thoughts and accords with your demands?”
My definition is the one that the High Court found to be implied in our Constitution.  When did I suggest that your freedom of speech was limited?  Didn’t I say that you could ‘mouth of all you want’?

Shifter says:

06:49pm | 01/02/11

@Steely Dan - you’re being very literal about Jugg’s first comment. Given the context of OchreBunyip’s words, it is clearly implying a difference between the religious and atheist.

Jugg, presumably as a Christian taken that as an example of someone who is religious. You, as an example of someone who is atheist have stated “I give to charities” amont other things, as if this was to imply this was one of the differences Jugg was questioning.

Reading in the context of the original statement, rather than the selective half-quote, Jugg is quite correct in his line of questioning and response to comments.

OchreBunyip says:

07:35pm | 01/02/11

@Jugg - the atheist has only one life, if they are rational beings they work towards the best life they can. Whether they work for a better life for others depends upon the person.

Tedd says:

09:36pm | 01/02/11

Jugg
Shifter

a general question stood out, and Steely Dan answered.  Trying to over-analyse Steely Dan’s straight-forward response is a red herring.

Jugg says:

06:23am | 02/02/11

OchreBunyip,

Christians also work towards a better life in the living world.  Some would suggest, more do so than atheists.

Steely Dan says:

11:09am | 02/02/11

@ Shifter

“you’re being very literal about Jugg’s first comment. Given the context of OchreBunyip’s words, it is clearly implying a difference between the religious and atheist.”
That’s right.  So I provided examples that highlighted what atheists like myself do to ‘make a better life in the living world’.  I can provide examples of how religious people preference the afterlife if you need it, but I would have thought they were obvious.

@ Jugg

“Christians also work towards a better life in the living world.”
Only if they think that it will lead to a better life in the dead world.  They’ll give to charities (which does help in this world), but they’ll also oppose gay people marrying (which does not help in this world.

“Some would suggest, more do so than atheists.”
Some do suggest it.  None have proved it.

Shifter says:

11:11am | 02/02/11

Tedd - he’s misread the statement and basically crucified a bloke over it.

Steely Dan says:

11:19am | 02/02/11

@ Shifter

A list of non-selfish acts is a crucifiction?  Poor Jugg must be traumatised.

Shifter says:

11:47am | 02/02/11

He is, he’s a Christian, right?

True Believer says:

07:30pm | 09/02/11

@Stu:

One thing is sure about atheists they are wonderfully predictable in their tactics and replies.

I told you in my post, you crave that which will fit into your narrow reality so your mind, so tiny (and that is not to be derogatory, my human mind without the Holy Spirit was equally tiny) can only accept that narrow reality. You put your trust in scientists and other human thinking. I put mine in Him whom I KNOW (not just believe - so please get that straight if you can.)

So your argument is inhibited by the restrictions of your ability to comprehend. You choose to have this limited view and cling to the sad little fantasy of atheism. Your choice. Sad, but hey your choice and your right to restrict your knowledge to that is that which you think you know.

I know those who believe in the things you mention cannot prove their case, just as you cannot prove that faith in atheism is any more than a vain trust in a fantasy of the human mind. 

I am not applying “logic” as you call it. That is your belief system, bound by the restrictions of the carnal mind.  I apply knowledge, sure knowledge that comes only from knowing Him who is the foundation of all true wisdom.

I think human intelligence and ingenuity is wonderful and amazing - thanks be to Him who gave it to us - but it is very far from being able to comprehend all that there is.  I know this because by the grace of God I have moved from being an unbeliever, as you are, to having the privilege of knowing my Lord.

Stu - do not be deceived into denigrating that which you , as yet, cannot comprehend.  It is a deception - there is much, much more. You are missing the best.

I wish you as ever all the very best.

Shifter says:

06:55pm | 01/02/11

Perhaps.

But perhaps it lacks an understanding of what religious belief aims to achieve.

It could be argued that living a life strictly according to the tenets of religious beliefs could be more fulfilling and valuable to the person and society than one without.

So perhaps the quote is comparing a destination with a different journey, rather than comparing both journeys. Either way, you end up dead, and who knows what happens then?

Elphaba says:

07:09am | 02/02/11

@Shifter, true, no one knows what happens when we die.  But no idea is more valid than another - whether you believe in Heaven or nothingness, both carry exactly the same weight in terms of validity - and someone who says “My belief is right/better than yours” is a twat.

But what OB says strikes a cord with me, nonetheless.  It’s all about what speaks to you.

As for further in-depth analysis, I don’t have it today.  I have family in Cairns, my energy today is focused on trying not to worry.

Shifter says:

11:41am | 02/02/11

What makes you ‘better’ than another is always an interesting discussion when it comes to non-quantifiable items, such as beliefs. It’s why some governments legislate things such as state religions to quantify that a particular belief system is better for the country.

That said anyone who pushes their system onto me is also a twat (love that word).

On to the more real threat, being from Cairns I presume the family has been through this before, and although Yasi looks pretty bad, I guess you need to trust in the family’s experience and knowledge how to stay safe. Plus a little worry is good for you, shows you care

muddabikes says:

06:57pm | 02/02/11

Reminds me of the work of one Mother Theresa.

muddabikes says:

07:02pm | 02/02/11

Ahh, I see. That make so much more sense. Thankyou.

Shifter says:

07:05pm | 01/02/11

On the other questions, 1 and 3 in particular:

The difference in the 3 religions mentioned are the belief in who is the major prophet: Moses, Jesus or Mohammed. This changes the outlook on how believers of a particular prophet interpret information from the others.

For example, Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God. Muslims believe that Allah had no mortal son. Hence the conflict of belief.

The written works in the Bible, Koran and Torah have no new additions are these are works based on the lives of the main prophets, Mohammed, Jesus, and Moses, and since these mortal lives have ended as well as those directly influenced, there are no new works are written as they cannot be verified or placed into canon.

Kinda sounds like we’re hitting the Star Wars expanded universe here, but I’ll continue. The Catholic Church (or the one I’m most experienced with) has continued the written works with the induction of various people into sainthood, or as it is more correctly known, canonisation. So we end up with more written works about these saints, which are generally less accepted and not nearly as popular as the original movies… er.. Bible.

Shifter says:

07:12pm | 01/02/11

Your statement is dependent on one thing: there is only one possible future.

Is it not possible that with all the different iterations of futures based on our choices that the omniscient deity is aware of all future outcomes, rather than just one?

The deity guides the way, whereas the person is free to choose their own path and the consequences that arise. Thus fate is not all possible futures,  but the one future a person chooses themselves.

Rita says:

12:40pm | 01/02/11

Kate I couldn’t have put it better myself, well done, you put into words what I could not express myself.

Zac de Spudnut says:

01:01pm | 01/02/11

Kate,

You are kind in describing it as “reaction”, what we are witnessing in front of our eyes is pure “Atheistic Intolerance”. While Atheists have used secular laws to promote Atheism in Christian West, on a positive note, as of now they haven’t gained real military power. Once that happens it will be French Jacobine revolution and Atheist-Communist revolution all over again with millions of victims. That is where all this so called rationality and logic will lead Atheists. As witnessed in history rationality and logic will not make people to love and respect others. That is the sad reality.

Seano says:

01:19pm | 01/02/11

From what I’m reading there’s a fair bit of contempt being thrown about godly as well.

James1 says:

01:29pm | 01/02/11

Dammit!  Zac is onto us, guys.  Call off the plans for taking over the world to turn it into a rational atheistic—Nazi-communist logic bloodbath.  Thwarted again…

Chris L says:

07:18pm | 01/02/11

Quite an interesting prophesy there Zac. There may be a gospel yet to be named after you. If, by the way, you’re concerned about atheists using secularism to force atheism upon you please point out what laws are doing this.

Kate, do you support laws and bans that force religious ideals upon the populace based on the idea that it’s what your god wants? I’m talking about such things as censorship, banning stem cell research and forcing public school students to either attend religious indoctrination or waste their school time doing nothing. If you lend support to such initiatives with no better justification than “god wants it” you act to repress our freedoms, and we take that personally. Can you blame us?

If you do not lend support to such initiatives you are, indeed, practising the “private faith” of which you speak and I applaud you.

kyra says:

12:48pm | 01/02/11

Not sure waht you are trying to say (god real/not/good/bad/indifferent?)and that’s my fault, but I suddenly have a strong urge to throw away the can of mortein and any flea treatments for my pets.

Shifter says:

07:15pm | 01/02/11

Zeta. You’re disgusting. Are you a Liberal?

Steely Dan says:

01:35pm | 01/02/11

@ KRS1

“IF the topic were something else… say Islam… all commenters here would be labelled racists….”
If that were to happen, that labelling would be incorrect (unless all the commenters here were criticising an ethnicity and not a belief.

“Somebody please… explain this concept to me.”
Which concept?

KRS1 says:

06:29pm | 01/02/11

...the general acceptance of any other belief system/value system/world view OTHER than Christianity.

OchreBunyip says:

07:50pm | 01/02/11

Islam is not a race, and not all Jewish believers identify with a specific Jewish race so neither discussions could be legitimately labeled racist. I think Christianity is more relevant to Australian correspondents because it is the predominant religion though by no means the only one of significant numbers in Australia. Discussions of Islam are probably as relevant considering national and international events.

What I do not appreciate is why the religious and atheist cannot have a civil discussion about their belief and lack of belief without using personal attacks. Just because I do not believe what you do, or do not, believe does not make you or me a bad person. Belief, or lack thereof, is not a measure of intellect or morality; they are personal choices. As long as everyone is happy with any consequences of their own choices then what is the harm in discussing an aspect of our society that has an influence upon much of what we do? Some people think debates have to be won rather than participated in.

James1 says:

01:31pm | 01/02/11

You have totally missed the point Jan.  Zeus does this kind of thing because he likes to mess with people and see them suffer.  You Christians with you Johnny-come-lately religion…

Zeta says:

01:53pm | 01/02/11

Actually Zeus did things like that to stock Valhalla with more willing soldiers for Ragnorok.

James1 says:

02:09pm | 01/02/11

Odin will be pleased.

Zeta says:

02:30pm | 01/02/11

Oh yeah, it’s Odin I was thinking of. Not Zeus. I’m not sure why Zeus did anything. He was just angry. All the damn time.

True Believer says:

06:35pm | 02/02/11

@Jan:

Spot on. These in their ignorance do not realise how lost and pathetic their plight is. They can mock, but sadly it will most certainly come back to haunt them unless they humble themselves to accept the Truth.

Jesus died for them, carried the sins of the world, loved them then, loves them now, but no, they prefer to throw rocks at Hjm and we who follow Him. Their minds are closed to the greater things there are for them. It is easier to throw rocks like children than be mature enough to realise there is more, much more. Then that takes faith and faith takes courage to believe.

James1 says:

11:11am | 03/02/11

True Believer,

Prove that Zeus does not exist, before you reject Him.  I pity you in your lost state.  One day Zeus will reveal the awesome Truth of His existence to you, and you will cease to live your lost and pathetic existence.

True Believer says:

12:00pm | 03/02/11

@james:

Thanks, but no thanks, I do not need or want your pity.  You speak about what you do not know. I speak of what I know beyond a doubt. That for me is unshakeable, but I do appreciate you cannot yet comprehend that. I would not have either when I was an unbeliever. Keep searching but not in mythology, open your heart He will answer if you ask.  Take care, I wish you well.

James1 says:

02:11pm | 03/02/11

Then you are a hypocrite, demanding standards of others that you will not apply to yourself.  How very Christian, sir.

True Believer says:

08:46pm | 03/02/11

@James1:

“Then you are a hypocrite, demanding standards of others that you will not apply to yourself.  How very Christian, sir.”

See how wrong your assumptions can be - I am not a “sir.”  If you are mistaken on such a basic thing surely you cannot be full of all the knowledge there is about everything that is???? Your knowledge is fallible as is all human knowledge of itself.

I demanded nothing - another assumption - I told you what I know to be true beyond a doubt and further I explained that I understood that you could not yet comprehend that.  Quite simple, nothing hypocritical in that at all. I have been where you are at.

Then I explained to you fairly simply how you could go about finding this sure knowledge of God through Jesus.  I do not know Him because of any cleverness in me, but merely because of His grace and my eventual willingness (after many years of unbelief) to accept the free gift of eternal life and spiritual awakening that Jesus died to bring me and you.

I think that should help you understand.  I only wish for you and all others in these posts who mock and deride God what I know of Him, His love, His faithfulness, His Truth that what you and they too can know of Him. But only you can choose. No one can choose for you. Follow the crowd if you must but know they are on the wrong road.

The invite is there, tis free, tis eternal - God said “I put before you life and death, choose life”  - so many choose death (spiritual death that is) and that is sad. To miss out on His unconditional love, the “peace that passes all human understanding” and the abundant life (not abundance as the world perceives it) plus the assurance of eternal life is such a loss. I nearly missed it because of my unbelief, I urge you not to miss it either. I wish you well.

Kika says:

04:41pm | 03/02/11

My point exactly - the baby! Babies with immature minds can’t fathom what they can’t see, feel, taste.

Kika says:

04:36pm | 01/02/11

Trying to explain why people have faith to those who don’t is like trying to convince a baby that the ball they saw and is now under the cup is still there, even if you can’t see it.

Steely Dan says:

06:07pm | 01/02/11

@ Kika

When the ball goes under the cup, we know it’s still there.  But not on faith, but because we saw it go in there, and (unless it’s a trick cup or a trick table), our understanding of physics tells us that the ball can’t get out through the cup, or through the top sheet of the table. 

Science is not a good analogy for explaining non-science.

muddabikes says:

08:13pm | 02/02/11

Kika, does that mean that all those people who have faith are actually thinking like babies?

Kika says:

09:56am | 07/02/11

No. Maybe my point wasn’t clear. I meant that people who don’t understand ‘faith’ in a world which cannot be seen or felt in the here and now are like babies in that they can’t fathom the existence of things which they can’t physically experience right there and then.

mary says:

03:31pm | 01/02/11

Most religions are good, some religious interpretations are bad.

muddabikes says:

08:16pm | 02/02/11

Surely all religion is just interpretaion?

Steely Dan says:

04:07pm | 01/02/11

@ Simon

“The argument that God can’t exist because He doesn’t stop evil doesn’t make sense to me.”
The article doesn’t say that.  But a good god who allows evil is internally inconsistent.

“The case is that we clearly don’t know everything and if God is truly transcendent (all knowing and all powerful) then maybe He has a reason for all the evil that we can’t see!”
Maybe.  Or maybe he just isn’t good (or maybe he doesn’t exist). 
If a person survives a disease with a 1-in-100,000 survival rate, God is called “good”, but if a seemingly healthy baby dies of a rare undiagnosed heart condition, God is called “mysterious”.  Admitting that we don’t understand the nature or reasoning of a god is a double-edged sword.

“Secondly, in the personal experience of people, many of them argue that it’s out of the great trials of life that they have grown.”
I bet nobody who has died from a natural disaster has ever made that statement.

“but when it happens these difficult circumstances often produce tremendous change.”
Finding good in bad situations doesn’t justify the bad.

Kika says:

04:38pm | 01/02/11

Wow - amazing. So it’s true. St Francis of Assisi tried to teach us all the same thing.

Lee from WA says:

04:08pm | 01/02/11

Or that God is both omniscient and humans make uncoerced choices that they are responsible for.

If God is all-powerful, why is it unbelievable that God would be in control of humans making decisions for themselves?

Shifter says:

07:38pm | 01/02/11

So is God interventionist or does he want to see how it all plays out?

sparks says:

10:35pm | 01/02/11

The good/evil knowledge thing? I’d liken it to putting some knives and cigarette lighter/box of matches in front of a 5 year old in the lounge room and saying don’t touch, whilst not giving them any reason or explanation then hiding behind the wall and jumping out saying “Gotcha!”  after the child sets fire to your lounge room.

Shifter says:

11:46am | 02/02/11

I can just imagine that happening with the deity yelling “A-HA!” in a Seinfeldian George tone.

Lee from WA says:

12:07pm | 02/02/11

@Shifter: God is behind all things ultimately for the good of those involved, even if the other players responsible aren’t.

Best example of this is the death of Jesus: Is God responsible for unjust and cruel death of an innocent man, Jesus? Yes absolutely.

What was God’s motivation? To rescue humanity from death and judgement.

What was the motivation of the Jewish leadership and the Romans? To rid themselves of a nuisance and to dispose of a threat to their leadership.

Is God a passive player in the whole affair? No, because in his sovereign, unlimited power, even the uncoerced actions of rebellious humanity aren’t outside his control.

Who is responsible for the death of Jesus? Both God (for the good of both Jesus and us) and the Jewish leadership/Romans (for their own selfish purposes).

God’s sovereign purpose and human responsibility in the Bible aren’t contradictory things - they can both be at work at the same time.

Lee from WA says:

12:09pm | 02/02/11

@Shifter: God is behind all things ultimately for the good of those involved, even if the other players responsible aren’t.

Best example of this is the death of Jesus: Is God responsible for unjust and cruel death of an innocent man, Jesus? Yes absolutely.

What was God’s motivation? To rescue humanity from death and judgement.

What was the motivation of the Jewish leadership and the Romans? To rid themselves of a nuisance and to dispose of a threat to their leadership.

Is God a passive player in the whole affair? No, because in his sovereign, unlimited power, even the uncoerced actions of rebellious humanity aren’t outside his control.

Who is responsible for the death of Jesus? Both God (for the good of both Jesus and us) and the Jewish leadership/Romans (for their own selfish purposes).

God’s sovereign purpose and human responsibility in the Bible aren’t contradictory things - they can both be at work at the same time.

Kika says:

04:41pm | 01/02/11

Well said. Good post.

Chris L says:

07:31pm | 01/02/11

At one point anyone suggesting that the Earth is not the centre of the universe would be accused of blashpemy and often-times burnt alive. What was that passage about being made in god’s image about if it wasn’t arrogantly human centric?

Lee from WA says:

01:22pm | 02/02/11

@Chris L: It is one thing to have a high view of humans within the scope of creation (which is biblical), it is another to try and box God in for the purpose of analysing him and taking him apart.

This article and most of the comments to it assume that if God is out there, then he must submit himself to us and our logic and then if he passes, he’ll be cool with us.

That has it completely backwards. God doesn’t need anything from us and we rely on him for everything (including our ongoing existence). We are to submit ourselves to him and if we don’t, we should expect God to come sucking up to us. God shows us in his word that he feels no need to play popularity games with the so-called ‘intelletual elite’ of this world.

It is only those who humbles themselves before God and submit to him who will see him.

Chris L says:

05:41pm | 02/02/11

Fair enough Lee, and I do not disagree with your interpretation of your own faith. I do disagree with your interpretation of the atheist point of view. We’re not so much demanding that any deity submit themselves to examination so much as withholding our credulity due to lack of evidence. I take the same stance on the possible existence of ghosts, vampires and Nessy. I don’t mean this as ridicule, I will have no trouble accepting the existence of any of these if they are proven.

If there is a god/gods and it/they are beyond our ability to detect it would seem illogical (to me) for such entities to punish us for not believing in them.

Zac de Spudnut says:

09:16pm | 01/02/11

Can’t agree more True Believer. There certainly is a bias in how comments are published. That is my experience as well. But all the bloggers/columnists are not like that. While many jurnos make big speech about “free speech”, most don’t practice “free speech”. That is the result of secularism.  I think it is a good idea to be selective in where you post your comments. The truth of the matter is most media/publishers are dominated by leftists/secularists/Atheists and they are disproportionately represented. In some cases they hardly represent the opinion/views/values of the society they live in. So what do we do about it? It is high time we move into media and educate and encourage our kids to work in media and arts. We should use our money (which many Christians have in heaps) to buy media channels. We can and should do this. We run the most excellent and large schools in this country. So this is not a big thing.  What we need is something simillar to FOX in the U.S. Think about that. I am seriously working on this.

Horse says:

09:41pm | 01/02/11

Occasionally seemingly-reasonable comments are not published for unkown reasons - I think they have been lost in cyberspace.  TB seems to have a problem posting as there have often been duplicates or triplicates of posts.

It seems to be an unfounded assertion to say not practising free speech is a result of secularism.

True Believer says:

05:33am | 02/02/11

Zac de Spudnut:

Thank you for your post, it is good to know it is not just me.  I believe your idea of getting young Christians into the media is a good idea. The cynicism in some of the posts here I find depressing.  If that is the culture of young people our nation is producing God help us.

Sadly I do not have heaps of money, but I do have a wealth of prayer initiatives and I will make this one of them.  Let us also pray the Punch will show a balanced approach to what is published. 

@Horse:

Your patronising comment re my multiple posts is not helpful.  That was to do with the vagaries of my computer at that time.  As you are not presumably privy to what is sent against what is published I don’t think you are in a position to judge on the reason behind non-publishing of Christian’s comments.  If it is not secularism - what is it?

Zac de Spudnut says:

08:34am | 02/02/11

Horse,

It seems to be an unfounded assertion to say not practising free speech is a result of secularism.>>>

Secularism is NOT = democracy or free speech. It is a front to impose leftist/Atheistic views/values on a nation through legislation. It is the best ideology to defeat the will of the majority or dominant social values.

For example the imposition of multi-culturalism on an unsuspecting population, all in the name of tolerance and diversity. But the question is should we tolerate intolerance, that is exactly what has happened here. What it does is destroys the dominant culture/religion and the make up of any western society where it is introduced. In U.K it has destroyed the entire society. I have never subscribed to secularism and I have been very open about it for a long time. It is high time the Churches and Christians wake up.

True Believer,

While it is true as a culture/society (and our young ones) we are not heading in the right direction but the question that needs to be asked here is, are we going with the flow and allowing “secularism” to define what Church is and who Christians are, all in the name of some new utopia. Christians/Churches have to be counter-cultural. Christ had time for the destitutes and the rulers. If he had time for Zacchaeus, the Pharisees and Sadducees, He will certainly have time for Hollywood and Hugh Hefners of this world.

Whilst prayer is good and helpful, Christ was more about counter-cultural Revloveution and very much in touch with society. He defined society not the other way around.

Horse says:

09:34am | 02/02/11

TB, my comment was not meant to be patronising, but a reference to computer issues as you subsequently explain.  Some of my posts are not published, and mostly I think it is because they are lost in cyberspace i.e. not received by Punch. I suspect that may happen to you more than censorship.

Secularism used to mean just “of the age” or “of the time”, but has come to mean a variety of things around belief systems.  It can be used to mean inclusivity of all belief systems with none dominating, which is what I prefer, or it can mean excluding beliefs and their conflicts from public spheres such as government or public schools.

Multiculturalism is not imposed as a planned policy or scheme to suppress any belief system it is just the way the world is.  It does not destroy society, it just changes it. Lawfully. Fairly. Openly.  Society does not need direction, yet is not directionless. 

Altruism and community care are the domain of all belief systems.

Stu says:

10:39am | 02/02/11

@ True Believer:
Yes you do sense a bias and a double standard. It is you own. I can show anyone posting on the Punch examples of where you have implicitly demanded proof and dismissed the faith of others while declining to do the same in relation to your own beliefs. The closest mirror will show you your double standard.

True Believer says:

06:22am | 03/02/11

@Stu:
Deary me you are still struggling with the concept of the reasonable question. I have answered you several times.  I have said I cannot “prove” my God (although for the person with eyes to see there is proof throughout all of creation). Now my question has been to the atheist, ‘prove to me He does not exist’. I am still waiting.  My God is not so small that He can be put under a microscope although the wonders of His works are there for examination and what amazing things we see.

You choose to believe it is all the result of an accident, including yourself. I know my God created it. I know also that when sin entered into the world with man/woman wanting to put themselves equal with God. With that sin came all the pain, destruction and horror we witness. 

Jesus carried that sin on the Cross, but in their pride man/woman chooses to mock Him rather than adopting the humility to accept that Jesus is who He said He is, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.”

True Believer says:

06:28am | 03/02/11

Zac de Spunut:

I totally agree, institutional denominations are often miles away from what Jesus encouraged of His followers. As such they can do much damage. Jesus confounded even His disciples with His approach to people and their problems, He brought a new way of interacting with one another and the creation, but man organised many of those truths our of denominations.  I say to people searching for Him, if you want to find Jesus don’t look at His people or churches, we all let Him down because we are forgiven but it does not make us perfect.

Stu says:

08:37am | 03/02/11

@ True Believer:

You may have responded to my posts several times, but you have never answered my question. So I will ask you again: Why have you repeatedly referred to the the belief systems of others as unprovable (for example astrology and reincarnation) while not applying this same standard to yourself? If you have understood this simple question, you will have no need to refer to atheism at at all.

True Believer says:

07:29pm | 03/02/11

@Stu:

I have answered you many times my friend, but one more time as plainly as I can - I know astrology, re-incarnation, atheism cannot be proved. 

I do not have a “belief” in God - I know God. It is not about belief it is about knowledge. It comes with one’s spiritual eyes being opened and that through repentance of sin, acknowledging Jesus as Saviour and accepting His free gift of life and that eternal.  Once one’s spiritual eyes are opened by God (only He can do it) there is no longer any doubt.

You choose not to turn to Him therefore you are unable to see the eternal Truth of who Jesus is and ever will be.

I urge you not to settle for second best. Unbelief is second best, I know because I have been in that spiritually empty place. I wish you well.

Aidan says:

08:36pm | 03/02/11

Would you like a Nurofen for that headache Stu?

Stu says:

08:40am | 04/02/11

@ True Believer:
I will not get into the difference between belief and knowledge - not yet anyway. However you still haven’t answered the question. I’ll re-phrase the question with out using the world belief and substitute it with your own terminology. Here it is: Given that there are people on this blog who have posted that they know the truth about astrology and reincarnation and that you have used the words “unproven” and “myth” to describe these, and given that you cannot provide evidence that proves that your knowledge of Christianity is true, is this not a standard that you apply to Christianity and not astrology or reincarnation? Just to make it extra clear I’m not asking you to provide evidence of your knowledge or discuss your views on atheism.

Stu says:

08:47am | 04/02/11

@ Aidan:

Thanks for the Nurofen offer. I can ignore unsubstantiated assertions in blogs like this, but people who apply different standards to the unsubstantiated assertions of others than to their own should be exposed for who they are. I consider it a public service!

True Believer says:

12:12pm | 04/02/11

@Stu:

Same old, same old from you - you do not want to hear what I say, so why keep pretending you do?

I told you God cannot be “proved” to the satisfaction of the carnal mind - although in His creation, proof abounds. He is God, not at the beck and call of atheist bleating for “proof”.  If He could be “proved” by the human mind He would not be God.  I know Him, you choose not to, your choice. You could know Him just as I do, but you prefer to air your own opinions - that is ok, but it is just your opinions, nothing more. Tis not Truth as I know it to be.

It appears to be a ploy by some atheists insecure in their own belief in no God - that they can only answer a question with a question when they choose not to listen to what the other person has told them over and over.  Argument for argument’s sake isn’t it?

There is zero proof that atheism is any more than the individual or collective imagination of people who do not wish to acknowledge their Creator.  Equally there is zero proof for re-incarnation. I know you will not accept it, but that is your problem. You seem to be stuck in the same groove - hey get out look around - there is more. Don’t take my word for it - a free gift of life - available 24hours a day, 7 days a week, no charge. Eternal guarantee…...............

Stu says:

05:43pm | 07/02/11

@ True Believer

No, you haven’t answered my question. Atheism has nothing to do with my question. Not have I asked you for proof of your God. If I ask you if it is your birthday today and you answer “Pelicans” it hasn’t answered my question. If I ask you the same question again, and you respond “I already told you: Pelicans”, I have to assume (amongst other things) that you have not comprehended the question.

True Believer says:

05:39am | 08/02/11

@stu

Here you are again with your sad little repetition of the same old same old atheistic rant. It is not that I have not answered, or comprehended your question, you are unable, or perhaps unwilling to accept my answer.
Get off the roundabout and have a look around without being blinded by your prejudice. I know what I know, you only think you know there is no God. You have the weaker position. Admit it.

Stu says:

08:27am | 08/02/11

@ True Believer:

If you had understood my question, you would know that it has nothing to do with atheism or trying to prove the non-existence of anyone’s god. Maybe you could try re-phrasing my question in your own words to demonstrate how you have comprehended the question, and then explain to me how anything I have posted on The Punch could be reasonably interpreted as an “atheistic rant”?

True Believer says:

11:29am | 08/02/11

@Stu:

Re your question, yes I believe astrology and reincarnation have no basis in reality - I do not compare them with my relationship with Jesus as a Christian because I know He is there. Nope cannot prove it to your satisfaction, but He is there and yes, I know Him well. Cheers.

True Believer says:

12:10pm | 08/02/11

@Stu:

My reply is on the other string.  Hope that satisfies you. I find it pointless often to answer atheist because they ask questions, but are not really interested in the answer, merely use it as a springboard to their next attempt to put down the Christian faith in Jesus.  I have done you the courtesy of replying assuming you do wish to take notice of the answer.

Stu says:

02:29pm | 08/02/11

@ True Believer:

You still insist that my question has something to do with atheism or proving the existence of your god. It hasn’t. Neither am I interested in the reality of astrology or reincarnation. So you have not answered my question. What I am interested in is on what basis you decided that these two beliefs are subject to any standard of proof all?

True Believer says:

05:56pm | 08/02/11

@Stu

Ah well that is easy. When you know the Truth, and Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, and I know HIm. Not just belief, KNOW Him, (can you get your rationalistic head round that fact, you know the rest is a load of rubbish at best, a huge deception by the evil one at the worst. 
If people believe that, they will probably avoid cracks on the footpath, have a fear of black cats crossing their paths, walking under ladders, avoid the number 13, stay in bed on Friday the 13th, believe in aliens, go to fortune tellers, “channel” angels, rub Buddha ornaments tummies for good luck, rub pokies for good luck and so on ad infinitum, ad nauseum. 

Now I know you will not accept that, so why bother asking me???? You do not really want to know the answer. Tis easier (you think), more intelligent, (you think) and lazier (I think) and more of a lost “cause” (I think)  to be an atheist.

I wish you well. :0)

Stu says:

09:55am | 09/02/11

@ True Believer:

OK, this is a start - at least you didn’t refer to atheism or proof. So how you know Christianity is true and reincarnation (for example) is not? The word you need to focus on with this question is ‘how’. How do you distinguish between your “knowledge” and another persons “belief”?

True Believer says:

12:31pm | 09/02/11

@Stu

I KNOW because I repented of my sin and accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour - a very simple prayer, open to anyone who really wants to “know” as opposed to mock.  At that moment knew Him - now I understand you cannot rationalise this, ergo it cannot be true, in your opinion. Well for many decades I have known my Lord - I mean really known Him - once one comes to that spiritual awakening of being born again of the Holy Spirit then the full dimension of who God meant us to be is open to us. It is there for you as much as it was for me. Your choice.

Then I realised how the other things are without foundation, they are a deception aimed to lead people away from the truth and many fall into that trap, that includes atheism. Tis a deception.

The sort of “proof” you want is the craving of the carnal, rationalistic mind. You have not yet reached that level of maturity where you are prepared to explore the greater picture. 

I know when I stood spiritually where you stand, i.e.spiritually dead, I had no idea of the amazing dimension of humanity that I discovered in that moment.  Prior to that moment it was hidden to me, as it currently is to you. I met the Author and then I read His book. Not the other way round.  Every Christian has a different way of coming to Jesus, the way the Lord meant for that person. I hope and pray one day you will accept His gift of life.

You will probably revert to type and be unable/unwilling to accept my answer, but that is it. Have a good rest of the day.

Stu says:

02:45pm | 09/02/11

@ True Believer:

Your answer implies that you cannot distinguish between belief and knowledge. Asserting that you know something without evidence is one thing. But to then ask someone who knows that Islam is true or that reincarnation or astrology is true, and then ask for proof makes the person a hypocrite due to the double standard applied. If an atheist applied your logic, then that person could assert to you that Christianity is false and you would no reply to the contrary.

True Believer says:

06:20pm | 09/02/11

@Stu:

One thing is sure about atheists they are wonderfully predictable in their tactics and replies.

I told you in my post, you crave that which will fit into your narrow reality so your mind, so tiny (and that is not to be derogatory, for my human mind without the Holy Spirit was equally tiny) can only accept that narrow reality. You put your trust in scientists and other human thinking. I put mine in Him whom I KNOW (not just believe - so please get that straight if you can.)

So your argument is inhibited by the restrictions of your ability to comprehend. You choose to have this limited view and cling to the sad little fantasy of atheism. Your choice. I think it is sad, but hey your choice and your right to restrict your knowledge to that is that which you think you know.

I know those who believe in the things you mention cannot prove their case, just as you cannot prove that faith in atheism is any more than a vain trust in a fantasy of the human mind. 

I am not applying “logic” as you call it. That is your belief system, bound by the restrictions of the carnal mind.  I apply knowledge, sure knowledge that comes only from knowing Him who is the foundation of all true wisdom.

I think human intelligence and ingenuity is wonderful and amazing - thanks be to Him who gave it to us - but it is very far from being able to comprehend/know all that there is, it is limited.  I know this because, by the grace of God, I have moved from being an unbeliever, as you are, to having the privilege of knowing my Lord.

Stu - do not be deceived into denigrating that which you , as yet, cannot comprehend.  It is a deception - there is much, much more. You are missing the best.

I wish you, as ever, all the very best.

Stu says:

08:43am | 10/02/11

@ True Believer:

“I know those who believe in the things you mention cannot prove their case, just as you cannot prove that faith in atheism is any more than a vain trust in a fantasy of the human mind.”

So TB based on your words you must be able to accept this argument:

I know those who believe in Islam, Astrology and reincarnation cannot prove their case, just as I cannot prove that faith in Christianity is any more than a vain trust in a fantasy of the human mind. 

You words, your standards. If you want to be able to assert knowledge without evidence, then you should be able to accept people with other forms of “knowledge”  can do the same. To do otherwise is double standard.

True Believer says:

09:43am | 10/02/11

@Stu:

I wonder sometimes if ‘Stu” is an abbreviation of stupid the way you keep avoiding what I say.

Your knowledge and logic are inhibited because you will not accept there is knowledge beyond this narrow reality in which you choose to operate.

You keep trying to fit the knowledge of God I have (every born again believer in Jesus will understand)  into your human knowledge and logic.  I keep telling you it will not fit.  You do not have this knowledge yet and yet it is there for you as it was/is for me.  All you have to do is ask with a repentent heart - “you have not, because you ask not.” - it is there in the Bible.

You seem content with second rate so you opt for atheism. Your choice, I respect your right to that choice and the Lord will not intrude.  He will come if you ask Him however and open you up to His grace, love, joy and amazing peace.

I wonder why you hesitate?  Are you afraid? No need to be, He loves you more than you could ever imagine and with unconditional love - it is not dependent on your being good, doing good works etc etc - it is by grace and grace alone you will be saved.  I wish you well.

Stu says:

12:03pm | 10/02/11

@ True Believer:
Interesting that you choose to resort to insults rather than consider the double standards of your own words.

“You keep trying to fit the knowledge of God I have (every born again believer in Jesus will understand)  into your human knowledge and logic.”

I thought that you didn’t believe in Jesus - that you knew him? Again TB your words, your standards.

True Believer says:

01:25pm | 10/02/11

@Stu, stu, It was not an insult - I said I wonder. I am entitled to wonder surely, or is that out of bounds in atheist land?

As for the use of “believer” - it what Christians are often referred to word-wide apart from in Israel where believers call themselves Messianic Jews - those who have accepted Jesus is the Messiah.

Surely you are scraping the bottom of your barrel if all you can do in replies is play semantics?

Yes I do KNOW Jesus - first I believed then I got to know Him. Cheers.

Stu says:

02:01pm | 10/02/11

@ True Believer:

“stu, It was not an insult - I said I wonder. I am entitled to wonder surely, or is that out of bounds in atheist land?”

Disingenuous indeed, because there is no evidence that I am stupid based on my posts. The play on my name of course was childish. Not sure where Atheist land is.

‘Yes I do KNOW Jesus - first I believed then I got to know Him. Cheers.”

No you don’t. He’s either dead or never existed in the first place. I’d go with the latter.

True Believer says:

02:54pm | 10/02/11

@Stu

Well now who is being insulting?  I say I KNOW Jesus, which I do and He and I both know that is the truth of the matter, but hey you Stu (who has met neither of us) is making the grandiose assertion that I don’t!!! Now that is calling me a liar and that is insulting.

You make this statement based presumably on your ignorance of spiritual matters, you have nothing else to base it on.  Another atheist fantasy. Ho Hum. 

Well sorry Stu, you know nothing and it shows. One day you will know, that I can promise you, but just now be humble enough to realise many of us through the grace of our Lord know more than you do about Him and about how to know Him. Cheers,

Oh well - back you go to atheist land - I don’t know where it is either and think it would be so boring there with all the God-mockers I would not wish to go there anyway.

Stu says:

05:39pm | 10/02/11

@ True Believer:

I wouldn’t call you a liar, but based on your posts I would call you deluded (because of your unsubstantiated claims about Christianity) and hypocritical (because of your demands for evidence in relation to other faiths). I have evidence of your delusions and hypocrisy in this thread alone, so be as insulted as you choose to be.

True Believer says:

07:58pm | 10/02/11

@Stu

“I wouldn’t call you a liar, but based on your posts I would call you deluded (because of your unsubstantiated claims about Christianity) and hypocritical (because of your demands for evidence in relation to other faiths). I have evidence of your delusions and hypocrisy in this thread alone, so be as insulted as you choose to be.”

Deary me Stu - now as well as being an “expert” on there being “no God” (in your opinion for what it is worth) you claim to be able to diagnose psychiatric symptomatology - I think you are little out of your depth on this one. :0)  You classify my knowledge of my Lord Jesus as “delusional” -  how very clever you think you are, but how pathetic your attempts to belittle my faith are.  You are no psychiatrist so stop your foolish talking further of things you know nothing about.  You do not even have insight into your own delusion of atheism. 

You do not really insult me, I just think how pathetic you are. You have no spiritual knowledge and even your human knowledge is flawed.

You just go on clinging to your little plastic life raft of atheism my friend, but it has a great big hole in it and it will not save you.

Tedd says:

10:07pm | 10/02/11

True Believer - ” I say I KNOW Jesus, which I do and He and I both know that is the truth of the matter”

How do you know Jesus beyond the stories of the Bible?
or, beyond the thousands of commentaries on those stories?

True Believer says:

08:09am | 11/02/11

@Tedd:

“How do you know Jesus beyond the stories of the Bible?
or, beyond the thousands of commentaries on those stories? “

Because Jesus is a Person and I know Him - I do not know you - but I accept you do exist - but yes I know Jesus beyond a doubt He is more real to me than you are.

I met Him first and then I read His Book.  Beyond the comprehension of the carnal mind I know, but He is there and He can be known for the Person He is.  Have a good day. :0)

Stu says:

08:27am | 11/02/11

@ True Believer:

Your last post is just a series of unsubstantiated assertions to which it is pointless to reply. BTW I’m not really interested in your delusions - believe what you want. However the kind of hypocrisy you display when referring to the beliefs of others should not go without response.

@ Tedd:

She won’t understand this question.

True Believer says:

09:12am | 11/02/11

“Your last post is just a series of unsubstantiated assertions to which it is pointless to reply. BTW I’m not really interested in your delusions - believe what you want. However the kind of hypocrisy you display when referring to the beliefs of others should not go without response.”

Again you carelessly use language which you very obviously have no real knowledge of.  You would not know a ‘delusion’ if you tripped over it so stop trying to be clever.

I am not a hypocrite either for you information. I know that “beliefs” of others are not true and I know that Jesus is real.  They are just that, “beliefs.” What I tell you I know to be true beyond a doubt. I have known Jesus longer than you have probably been on the planet.

You condemn that which you cannot comprehend. You have the problem not me. So put your rude comments back into your backpack and head off to school, there’s a good lad. When you mature you will probably be able to consider these things with a wiser head.

“@ Tedd:

She won’t understand this question.”

That is just plain rude. I understand the questions - it is your minds, which you choose to close to the Truth,  that cannot understand/comprehend/accept my answers.

Your choice - second best. There is more…...............

Stu says:

09:52am | 11/02/11

@ True Believer:

“I am not a hypocrite either for you information.”

If you demand evidence from someone who expresses their beliefs, and do not apply the same standard to yourself, you are by definition a hypocrite. No amount of assertive proselytising can save you from this fact.

“That is just plain rude.”
“I wonder sometimes if ‘Stu” is an abbreviation of stupid the way you keep avoiding what I say.”

Hypocrisy exemplified.

True Believer says:

10:46am | 11/02/11

@Stu
I realise you have a problem with the English language - I was asking people for proof of their “beliefs” - I do not have “beliefs” - I KNOW.

Your opinion of me is quite irrelevant in the scheme of things.  If it makes your day to accuse me of being a hypocrite, which I and my Lord know I am not, so be it.

I am not “proselytising” as you accuse - I am just telling what I KNOW. You asked, I told you. Get over it.

On your name - well before I was just wondering - but your pathetic behaviour in your posts confirms what I suspected.

Why ask questions when you have absolutely no intention of accepting what I tell you. None so blind as those who will not even try to see…..............

Stu says:

11:25am | 11/02/11

@ True Believer:

“I realise you have a problem with the English language - I was asking people for proof of their “beliefs” - I do not have “beliefs” - I KNOW.”

If you demand evidence from someone who expresses their “knowledge” of the supernatural, and do not apply the same standard to yourself, you are by definition a hypocrite. Shouting (ie use of capitals) will not change this fact nor does your inability to differentiate between belief and knowledge.

True Believer says:

12:47pm | 11/02/11

@Stu

Because I know God – I also know these “beliefs” in weird things like reincarnation, atheism, astrology etc are not true. There is only one divine Truth – Jesus said, “ I am the Way the Truth and the Life. So those without the Lord can “believe” in something but they cannot “know” it.

If, for the sake of engaging you I pretended to “believe” these things that I know are untrue – yes then I would be a hypocrite. I can differentiate between belief and knowledge, but by your posts you show you are unable to.

I for instance have no evidence you exist, apart from the written word – I “believe” you exist, because not even a fantasy could produce such predictably boring and unadventurous posts as you do. However, I do not “know” you exist – because I do not “know” you. 

So there is a difference. People are entitled to their “beliefs,” but when an honest person says “I know” God – it would be a wise person who would respect that.

Don’t fret though I have no expectation of you being wise. :0) Perhaps one day………..

Stu says:

01:09pm | 11/02/11

@ True Believer:

“I for instance have no evidence you exist, apart from the written word – I “believe” you exist, because not even a fantasy could produce such predictably boring and unadventurous posts as you do. However, I do not “know” you exist – because I do not “know” you.”

This is evidence of the fact that you do not know the difference between belief and knowledge. You, and anyone else that reads this thread knows that you and I exist, precisely because of the existence of the written word. That is why you believe in god rather than know of the existence of god, gods or the supernatural.

True Believer says:

02:20pm | 11/02/11

@Stu

Well in knowing God I have not had to rely on just the written word you see (although sadly at this point you can’t).

As for knowing you exist because someone who calls themselves “Stu” writes on these strings does not prove you exist. You may be a made up person emanating from a Punch editor’s desire to show that atheists love trying to trip Christians!! I would have to meet you to “know” you, just as I have met God, but if you do exist have a good weekend. :0)

Stu says:

07:25pm | 11/02/11

@ True Believer:

“As for knowing you exist because someone who calls themselves “Stu” writes on these strings does not prove you exist.”

Yes it does prove that I exist, because someone who didn’t exist could not post a response to this thread. Of course it doesn’t prove my name is Stu (it is), nor does it prove that there is someone in Australia with “True Believer” printed on their Medicare card.

“You may be a made up person emanating from a Punch editor’s desire to show that atheists love trying to trip Christians!!”

Any evidence to support this wacky theory?

“I would have to meet you to “know” you, just as I have met God, but if you do exist have a good weekend. :0)”

You don’t have to meet me to know that I exist. For example I know that Barack Obama is a person who exists and is the President of the USA. But I haven’t met him.

True Believer says:

06:03pm | 13/02/11

@Stu

Nice try - I give you a ‘T’ for trying - but very weak argument.  Proves not a thing, least of all that you exist.  I rest my case.

Stu says:

03:42pm | 14/02/11

@ True Believer:

“Nice try - I give you a ‘T’ for trying - but very weak argument.  Proves not a thing, least of all that you exist.  I rest my case.”

Interesting you think you can respond to someone who does not exist. Explains a lot.

True Believer says:

09:34am | 15/02/11

@Stu:
“Interesting you think you can respond to someone who does not exist. Explains a lot. “

I ‘believe’ you exist, but I do not ‘know’ you exist. I am replying to you on the basis of my belief you are there. There is a difference. :0)

Stu says:

10:15am | 15/02/11

@ True Believer:

“I ‘believe’ you exist, but I do not ‘know’ you exist. I am replying to you on the basis of my belief you are there. There is a difference. :0)”

Explains even more. Do you know I’m is responding to you on the Punch, or do you just believe it?

Jay says:

10:16pm | 01/02/11

OK, so is god all powerful as suggested? Or just a random bastard? Hardly sounds ‘all knowing and just’ to me. But hey, god ordered the slaughter of thousands in Joshua for a bit of dirt, so they mustve been all bad, right? Was that god being good? And are you only good because you fear gods retribution? Why then are atheists under-represented in prisons?

But dont let that little dichotomy stop you.

True Believer says:

06:07am | 02/02/11

@Jay:  Where is your proof that atheists are under represented in prisons?? I would be most interested to see proof that this is anything more than a figment of your imagination. 

My experience, having worked with prisoners, tells me a different story. However, I also found that having time to contemplate their miserable situation some used their time in cells to ponder their human plight and came to know Jesus as a result.  Prior to imprisonment they had been confirmed atheists.

Ed says:

06:14am | 02/02/11

@Jay

Your comment is one typical of someone who takes the bible out of context. What you have to understand is that in the Old Testament, God gave the Amalekites, Jebusites, etc. plenty of time to stop their evil practices of child sacrifices, etc. but they didn’t. They continued with their horrible rituals. But Jay, given what I wrote above, you are still evading the question that I posed to every atheist here, why does anything have to be “fair” in your worldview?
And to everyone complaining as to why do christians feel the need to shove religion down their throats, keep in mind that it wasn’t an evangelizing christian who originally wrote that attacking piece in The Punch.

Tedd says:

02:26pm | 02/02/11

In the USA atheists make up about 8-10% of the population but under 1% of prisoners

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

True Believer says:

12:24pm | 04/02/11

@Tedd:

Two little sites from the prejudiced about the supposed US system does not make it a universal truth. Research can be and often is skewed to agree with the authors point of view - sometimes innocently, sometimes purposely.

Steely Dan says:

01:02pm | 04/02/11

@ TB

“Research can be and often is skewed to agree with the authors point of view - sometimes innocently, sometimes purposely.”
So you reject it because it doesn’t concur with your presupposition.

If you actually cared about the truth of the study you’d maybe critique the methodology of the study, or the analysis of the results - but you don’t.

Your response reminds me of somebody I conversed with on the Punch once who was trying to claim that the Howard Govt was the lowest taxing in Australia’s history.  When I sent links to Treasury data showing that federal tax rates have trended consistently upwards since Federation and that the Howard govt didn’t come close to being the lowest taxing - I was told that my response was inadequate because ‘those are just statistics’!

True Believer says:

01:32pm | 04/02/11

@Steely Dan:

Oh there you are, I wondered where you had got to.

Having done research I know it can be faulty.  Had the sites been Australian and therefore more relevant to the discussion I probably would have look at them further.

It may be true for the US gaol system, but it does not follow that the Australian system would show the same results.

Little question for you though? Jay made the sweeping statement “Why then are atheists under-represented in prisons?”

How come my statements are open to your criticism, but not that of a fellow atheist???? Mmmmmm - could it be prejudice??? :0)

Have a good weekend. Cheers :0)

Steely Dan says:

01:51pm | 04/02/11

@ TB

“Having done research I know it can be faulty.”
So presumably once you realised research can be faulty, you didn’t attempt to work out where you’d gone wrong, you just never researched again.  Of course research can be faulty.  That is a terrible reason to dismiss any research out of hand.

“Had the sites been Australian and therefore more relevant to the discussion I probably would have look at them further.”
How are US statistics irrelevant?  Is there some theological reason to suppose that American atheists are less likely to commit crimes than Australian atheists?

“Little question for you though? Jay made the sweeping statement “Why then are atheists under-represented in prisons” How come my statements are open to your criticism, but not that of a fellow atheist???? Mmmmmm - could it be prejudice??? :0)”
That’s the easiest question I’ve ever been asked.  Because from the research I’ve seen, I think he’s correct!

True Believer says:

02:19pm | 04/02/11

@Steely Dan:

Goodness you make some amazing statements - it is easy to see your feet are planted firmly in the air! :0)

And your references for reaching the conclusion that Jay was right are…................................??????????? And you have checked them against which alternative research??????????

When you let me know them, I will check them too and give you my opinion, like yours though, it will be just that.

Steely Dan says:

03:35pm | 04/02/11

“And your references for reaching the conclusion that Jay was right are…................................???????????”
The same references he provided.  I haven’t seen any more studies than the ones he referenced (apart from some many-centuries-old data that differentiated only between Christians and ‘witches’).  Religiosity in prisons seems to be hard data to come by, presumably it’s offered on request to some researchers, but it’s not regularly published data.  Many countries don’t appear to keep records of religiosity.  So we go on the data we have.  And the US-based data we have is relevant because they are a large, democratic nation with a similar religious situation to ours.

“And you have checked them against which alternative research??????????”
Is there any alternative research?  I haven’t found any.  Whenever this comes up (and it comes up often) I’ve never seen alternative data presented.  Presumably you have?

Not to mention that the outcomes of these studies is consistent with other studies of society and religious observance.  There is a negative correlation between religiosity and education - the more educated you are, the less likely you are to be religious.  There is also a well-known correlation between education and crime - the more educated you are, the less likely you are to commit a felony. 
Note that I’m not saying that there is a relationship between religiosity and intelligence - there isn’t.  Some IQ tests show non-believers having very slightly higher IQs, but this is probably an error as IQ tests tend to give artificially higher results to those with more education.

True Believer says:

06:04pm | 04/02/11

@Steely Dan:

Thank you for your honest answer as far as having no other research to draw on. You and I both know two research results are precious little on which to base to a sweeping conclusion that this is a incontestable truth as Jay has done.  Your believe his sources, I question them.

Now let us examine some other variables.  The author of the first site quoted by Ted is one which obviously was searched on the net to support the atheistic views already held.  The author states in his/her disclaimer “Throughout this essay I assert my opinion” - so he is using whatever material he can find online to support his position, which happens to be against Creationists.

He further states, “This site is not an attempt to educate and correct Creationists about how the universe was formed, how the solar system was formed, and how life evolved here on Earth—- their occult indoctrination makes that impossible.” 

“Occult” in Christian terms is the antithesis of Christianity - it is concerned with things of Satan, not God so he misuses the word in its normally accepted definition. (I am aware it can be defined many ways, but I am speaking from the Christian perspective and that is the what he/she has used it in relation to.) 

Now I must state I am not a Creationist. I am a Christian, My God created all there is, when He did it, how He did it is His business, not for my human mind to question.  I think such arguments are futile. I do not believe for one moment that my past rellies hung from trees but if others are happy with that so be it, their prerogative, their perception of themselves.

So I find it hard to take that site seriously and I will further extrapolate my reasons for dismissing this “research” later.

The second site, surprise, surprise is from the Skeptics - so they too have an ulterior motive in selecting the research they did, because again it supports their own beliefs in atheism.  They are using the same research to prop up their pathetic ‘no God’ arguments.

Now let us examine this research - it is based on people saying they belong, acknowledge, accept, were born or baptised/christened into a particular Christian denomination.  That does not make them Christians. Sorry to disappoint you.

Now did the researcher just ask for their denomination?  Did they ask if they really follow Jesus? Did the respondents answer honestly? Do they know the difference between “nominal Christianity” and true believers? Do the researchers know the difference? 

Neither you, nor I nor the authors of the two sites Ted quotes, know. So the “research” in my opinion is seriously flawed. All it proves is that people claim to identify with a particular denomination, it in no way “proves” they are true followers of Jesus.  So I don’t believe it. Only God knows the true followers of Jesus. Declaration of a denomination counts for nothing with Him.

On the business you state about education and human intelligence. First and foremost, whilst these may be incredibly important to you and other atheists it is of no account with God. He loves us for who we are, not how clever or not we may be in the estimation of other humans. He judges the heart, a concept which I appreciate would be foreign to you, but that makes it no less true.

I have been an unbeliever and a believer. I am intelligent and well educated and I have a wealth of human experience through the Grace of God, but in Him I am not more nor less that any other of His people.  The least of my brothers and sisters in Christ is as important.  It is for Him to judge not me, not you.

You make the mistake of thinking God judges by human standards. He doesn’t. He says, 
My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts.” Isaiah 55:6-11

God’s exists. You denial of him, may be supported by a cast of thousands or even millions, but it in no way changes the immutable fact He is, was and forever will be.  Praise be to His name. No greater love has he - Jesus laid down His life for you, for me, for all those who repent and follow Him. Our choice.

Have a good weekend. :0)

Steely Dan says:

08:32pm | 04/02/11

@ TB

“Thank you for your honest answer as far as having no other research to draw on.”
Did you have a look at the sample size of Swift’s survey?  It’s huge.  I have no problem stating from them that ‘atheists are under-represented in the US prison system’.  If you want to say that the Australian outcome would be different, you’re welcome to.  But it doesn’t look likely.

“You and I both know two research results are precious little on”
There were two linked articles.  There were much more than two citations.

“Your believe his sources, I question them.”
After that last blunder, I’m not sure you’ve read most of them.

“The author states in his/her disclaimer “Throughout this essay I assert my opinion” - so he is using whatever material he can find online to support his position, which happens to be against Creationists.”
So what?  Do you think the statistics are bogus?  Do you think the email is a fake?

““Occult” in Christian terms is the antithesis of Christianity - it is concerned with things of Satan, not God so he misuses the word in its normally accepted definition.”
Fascinating - what’s that got to do with the email with the statistics?

“So I find it hard to take that site seriously and I will further extrapolate my reasons for dismissing this “research” later.”
You really should.  Because otherwise you’ll look like you’re dismissing data because you don’t like the person who presented it.

“they too have an ulterior motive in selecting the research they did, because again it supports their own beliefs in atheism.”
Again, who cares?  What matters is the data.  It could come from a Nazi Satanist Moon-Hoax Reptoid Cult for all I care.

“That does not make them Christians. Sorry to disappoint you.”
Two can play at that game!  No true atheist commits crimes.  Or is even wrongfully incarcerated.  Therefore no atheist has ever been to jail. 

“I have been an unbeliever and a believer. I am intelligent and well educated and I have a wealth of human experience through the Grace of God, but in Him I am not more nor less that any other of His people.”
Lovely.  But I didn’t say that you couldn’t be intelligent or well educated and be a Christian.

“You make the mistake of thinking God judges by human standards. He doesn’t.”
Let’s get off track for a second.  No, wait, you’ve already taken us there!  I don’t think God judges us by any standards.  I don’t think he exists.  Remember?

You had the opportunity to respond to data but you chose to use the space on the page to proselytise instead.  In hindsight I really should have seen that coming.

True Believer says:

04:01pm | 05/02/11

@Sleely Dan

My friend we could go on debating this and I can show that your answers do not stand up. You are selective in what you choose to answer e.g. the “occult” question - I mentioned it because someone who develops a site to argue his case, uses “statistics” but does not even appreciate the meaning of a word which all true believers would understand shows himself to be open to question as to his comments, as to his arguments, ergo what “statistics” he uses to prop up discussion. Therefore his arguments/statistics selected are very much open to scrutiny.

You obviously regard yourself as some sort of intellectual giant with all the answers to all there is. You quote human sources as if they are infallible and of course they are not.

Steely I have admiration for your fortitude in defending your position as an atheist, but I wonder why, if one is so secure in knowing there is no God, you have to keep trying to prove your argument.?

The problem is you see, you may be well-read, as obviously you are,  very intelligent and I do not doubt that for one minute, in your eyes a giant of discussion and knowledge, however, spiritually you are a midget, even less.

You have no knowledge of the spiritual realm, I take no pleasure in denting your ego, but you are discussing something of which you have no knowledge, no experience, therefore your arguments lack a huge dimension.  Therefore they lack the substance of Truth as I know it to be.

It is pointless discussing the spiritual things of God with someone who is spiritually ignorant and I hasten to say I do not mean that disparagingly. I too was where you are at.

Jesus said “I tell you the truth to enter the kingdom of God you must be born again” when Nicodemus questioned him as to how a man could re-enter his mother’s womb Jesus explained to him that this re-birth was of the spirit not the flesh.  I know what it is to be re-born spiritually, sadly at this point, you do not. It is not something we cannot come to by being clever, it is something God gives us by His grace when we come to Him seeking Him in humility (something which humans find hard to do I admit).

I cannot discuss these things with you because it is beyond your comprehension. For many wasted years I spent investigating the knowledge of humanity without the wisdom of God and I was where you are now.  Full of human knowledge, but spiritually, so ignorant.

If you wish to really use your intellect, gifts and realise your true potential, which I believe is fantastic, look to this dimension you have yet to explore and accept there is more.

It is so amazing, so mind-boggling and it comlpiments and in no way diminishes who we are. He adds to us that which brings us to fulfillment in every sense.

Till then my friend I really wish you all the best and hope you will come to realise you were made for a purpose and the Lord is just waiting for you to ask Him to show it to you.  I can promise you in all honesty and humility you will lose nothing and gain so much.

I wish you well.

I really do wish you well.

True Believer says:

08:26pm | 05/02/11

@Steely Dan

I did reply to your post - again just telling the truth as I know it, but again Punch chose not to publish it. Guess it was too Christian. I was not rude, not insulting, did not use the “c” - word, only C words I use in here are Christian and Christ - perhaps they are the problem? Seems atheists have a free rein to spout their insults about my Lord, but not ok for me to tell the truth about Him. Oh well….........................guess tis an indication of what we can expect in secular media.  Freedom of speech is only for some apparently, especially if you are a God-mocker.

True Believer says:

07:12am | 06/02/11

OOops I apolgise Punch, you did publish my answer to Steely Dan, I had given up - thanks for restoring my hope that you are impartial. :0)

Steely Dan says:

01:18pm | 06/02/11

@ TB

“You are selective in what you choose to answer e.g. the “occult” question”
I did answer it.

- I mentioned it because someone who develops a site to argue his case, uses “statistics” but does not even appreciate the meaning of a word which all true believers would understand shows himself to be open to question as to his comments”
Does the word ‘occult’ even appear on the page with the statistics?

“ergo what “statistics” he uses to prop up discussion. Therefore his arguments/statistics selected are very much open to scrutiny.”
Then scrutinize them.  Don’t dismiss them out of hand.

“You obviously regard yourself as some sort of intellectual giant with all the answers to all there is.”
That’s a lie, TB.  When have I claimed human infallibility?  Isn’t lying a sin?

“You quote human sources as if they are infallible and of course they are not.

“Steely I have admiration for your fortitude in defending your position as an atheist, but I wonder why, if one is so secure in knowing there is no God, you have to keep trying to prove your argument.?”
I could ask you why you keep trying to prove your argument.

“spiritually you are a midget, even less.”
Prove there are spirits.  Oh no, I dragged reason into the conversation again!  I apologise.

“I cannot discuss these things with you because it is beyond your comprehension.”
Wow.  And you accused me of thinking I was an intellectual giant.

“I did reply to your post - again just telling the truth as I know it, but again Punch chose not to publish it. Guess it was too Christian.”
Persecution complex much?

True Believer says:

04:26pm | 06/02/11

@Steely:

““You are selective in what you choose to answer e.g. the “occult” question”_
“I did answer it.”

You did not “answer it“, you played the usual boring atheist game of asking another question.  I have no problem with people asking questions if they are interested in hearing the answer, but you follow the atheist trend of using questions to:

a) hide behind

b) to avoid having to think about the person’s answer. It is childish

c) to play silly mind games .

Don’t you have a Nintendo or something else to play with??

If I had taken seriously all the statistics I have heard in my very long life my friend I would have had a head full of rubbish. I choose to be more discerning. Blind faith in human knowledge is something I will leave up to you. That seems to be where you put your faith without question. So be it. Your problem.

““You obviously regard yourself as some sort of intellectual giant with all the answers to all there is.””
“That’s a lie, TB.  When have I claimed human infallibility?  Isn’t lying a sin?”

It cannot be a lie, it is an observation made from reading your posts where it appears you never can admit you may not have the whole truth.  Yes lying is a sin, Jesus said Satan is the author of lies, he is also the author of unbelief.

Your dogged persistence in relying only on human wisdom strongly indicates you believe it to be infallible. You never admit there may be endless errors in science, philosophy, etc etc ergo you must place all your faith either in what you learn from others or what you think yourself - sounds pretty close to claiming infallibility to me. :0)

““but I wonder why, if one is so secure in knowing there is no God, you have to keep trying to prove your argument.?””
“I could ask you why you keep trying to prove your argument.”

As I have already pointed out - a tired ploy of the insecure atheist. Answering a question with a question, but of course not at all interested in the reply - only as fodder for feedback of the same old tired rhetoric.

““spiritually you are a midget, even less.””
“Prove there are spirits.”

Again another tired old atheist comment - “prove”  - no, oh clever one, you prove there are not. I know there are. So much more exists that you really do not have a clue about You are not interested it seems in coming down off your lofty perch of rationalism to examine those areas of which you have no knowledge. You prefer to sit up there like some wise old owl, gazing down on those of us who know differently from you.

“Oh no, I dragged reason into the conversation again!  - To back up your pathetic stance you bring in sarcasm. I was always told that “sarcasm is the wit of fools“.

“I apologise.”  Oh really - you do not mean that for one second so do not be insincere as well as foolish.

““Steely I have admiration for your fortitude in defending your position as an atheist, “I cannot discuss these things with you because it is beyond your comprehension.””
“Wow.  And you accused me of thinking I was an intellectual giant.”

You see this is where you display your spiritual ignorance. It is not about intelligence - and no I know these things through not one iota of cleverness in me.  It was when I sought God my spiritual eyes were opened. That is what happens when you are “born again” as Jesus said we must be.  At the moment we repent and believe our spirit is awakened to God. Prior to that my spirit, like yours currently is, was dead to Him and to all there is in Him.

““I did reply to your post - again just telling the truth as I know it, but again Punch chose not to publish it. Guess it was too Christian.””

A reasonable comment as myself and other Christians have at times not had our comments published. No reason is given so that leaves one to draw one’s own conclusions. In this case I was wrong and I did not hesitate to apologise and I meant my apology.

“Persecution complex much?” - I am not sure what this grammatically pathetic attempt at a sentence is even means.  I presume you are trotting out yet another tired old barb of the atheist against the Christian. Ho hum. Boringgggggggggggggg.

As I said, it is pointless to try to discuss spiritual matters with you. You run back to your little hidey hole of rationalism like a rabbit to its burrow and come out with the same old atheistic same old. That is not discussion that is just you enjoying regurgitating your purile prejudice.

Grow up and get real - I mean really real, not just your narrow little reality. There is more. As always I wish you well.

Stu says:

06:03pm | 07/02/11

@ True Believer:

“You are selective in what you choose to answer e.g. the “occult” question”.

Thanks for making my day. The the fact that you choose to reply to my posts, but select to answer no part my of question (a one part question at that) is hilarious.

Ed says:

06:36am | 02/02/11

@Matt. What happens to such a boy is indeed terrible. But, get this, in the bible, all kids (all of them without exception) get to Heaven.

So, the onus is on christians to show God exists, is it? Okay, in a few words, you assume the laws of logic, science and universal morality exist. You assume all these transcendental, unchanging, law-like properties exist, but you deny the law-maker. How is that for a proof and how is that for the irrationality of the atheist? Now, how about you prove that God doesn’t exist? If you think that showing that the existence of evil and suffering prove He doesn’t, then obviously your grasp of logic is not as great as you might think.

Ed says:

06:59am | 02/02/11

“Whenever I’m challenged on my atheism (which by the way, is nobody’s business but mine) “

But you feel the need to challenge christianity. You like debates to go one-way, do you? Please tell us again how logical and intelligent you are when you tell everyone to mind everyone their own business regarding your own thoughts in a theological debate but then feel the need to post a piece in a blog.

Matt Livesey says:

07:28am | 02/02/11

Ed, you fail to see how terribly flawed your argument is.

Firstly, I don’t think the little African boy going blind is too concerned about whether or not he’s going to “Heaven” or not: He has a life of blindness to contend with first.

Your ignorance is unflattering.

Secondly, I don’t assume anything, I am a human being, we are the law-makers on this Earth. Our brains have developed over thousands of years, and we are intelligent enough (most of us) to identify a logical pattern of thought, to seek evidence when a theory is put forward, and to study and investigate the ways in which our world has developed and evolved over the last 6 Billion years.

How dare you accuse me of being irrational.

When I want to know the answers in regards to the Earth’s origin and our rise as a dominant and sentient species, I can find the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE in scientific papers, journals and theses.

You then come along and claim that “God” created the Earth, some 6,500 years ago, and then sent his son back to Earth 2000 years ago, and we all have to live by his rules, or we’ll burn in “Hell” for all eternity.

Which one of those stories sounds irrational?

As I said, the onus is on those of religious faith to show evidence that their deity’s are real.

You cannot advertise something that does not exist.

You cannot claim the existence of a deity without proof.

You insult the very nature of those people suffering the floods in Qld.
To claim that God saved them, or was there in the recovery, is an insult to the courage, strength, bravery and kindness shown by so many people in such a time of tragedy and loss.
Give them some credit: They were actually there, and yes, those people do exist. Not Gods, just regular Australians.

Why should your God take the credit for the recovery, yet dodge the blame for the disaster?

No doubt you will again attempt a typical reply that tries to turn the argument back on to me.

It didn’t work the first time, so don’t attempt to engage me again:

You won’t win.

Matt says:

07:33am | 02/02/11

Oh Ed…

Christians like you invite these challenges because you preach a faith that is just so very open to scrutiny.

I on the other hand, have nothing to preach.

The only faith I have is in myself.

Since when did I specifically challenge an individual on their christianity Ed? I never said you couldn’t believe in it, I just pointed out a few very good reasons why the christian faith is so flawed.

People are entitled to their own beliefs, but when they start pushing their beliefs onto others, then they must expect that they will be taken to account over their claims.

Lola says:

09:44am | 07/02/11

Hi Matt.  The world is full of sadness and misery. If it weren’t, we would already be in heaven. According to Christians, God created us and saw the world full of sorrow, sin and turning away from Him. So he gave us his sacrificial lamb (Jesus - PBUH) so that those who follow and live his way would have ever lasting life. All this sin and evil was atoned for what Jesus did for us on the cross.

It’s very easy to believe in science, I know I do myself. But science can’t explain everything. FACT. Nobody can explain what happened the day before day 1 of the universe - or the big bang. Not once scientist today can answer that question. That to me leaves a massive gap in knowledge which forms the basis for the evolutionists faith in science.

Tedd says:

06:35pm | 07/02/11

Lola,

Evolution doesn’t explain the start of biological life - abiogenesis, and has nothing to do with the start of the cosmos (“cosmogenesis”) or its first few million years as a vapour.

Chemistry and organic chemistry will help explain abiogenesis.

Nobody knows whether universes repeat themselves.

Lola says:

12:52pm | 08/02/11

Nobody knows. That’s right. So then you can’t conclusively prove that God did not create the universe.

Shifter says:

02:33pm | 02/02/11

I’ll bite.

1. I love negative questions. No.

2. Yes.

3. Genetic mutation. Probably from all the incest. Here’s a thought: in modern times Adam and Eve are generally depicted as caucasian homo sapiens. Wouldn’t it be more likely that they were homo sapiens neanderthalensis?

4. You’d notice that the different deities were generally all God(ess) of something. Different personalities. What’s to say these multiple personas are not just aspects of a single deity, that is, they are the same thing?

5. Are the two mutually exclusive? What about ‘God’ setting off the big bang and seeing what happened, nudging things here and there.

6. Various belief systems don’t actually worship a deity. As far as I’m aware it’s not written explicitly that this is. On the belief systems that do include a deity, see #4.

7. Yes. Similar to sects of Islam, Judaism etc.

8. No. 2000+ years of Chinese whispers is bound to distort things. However the interpretation of certain historical documents such as the Dead Sea scrolls tend to add weight to certain current ideologies.

Naomi says:

03:41pm | 02/02/11

Hi Ben, I’ll attempt to answer some of your questions but I am not a scientist nor a historian, nor a theologian, but some of the questions I have an understanding of.  Firstly Adam and Eve the way I understand genetics were probably a light brown colouring they could have had children that were both fairer and darker than themselves, this could mean that if two of their children were darker and had children those children could be darker etc.  Incest was accepted by many cultures as not something terribly wrong the ancient Egyptians would marry there brothers and sisters especially royalty.  Even in some cultures today marrying a first cousin is considered acceptable.  We know now that genetic problems can occur with this.  If you are genuinely interested in this stuff then Creation Science magazine is probably a good source of info.

Question 8 from my understanding the finding of the dead sea scrolls actually verified much of the bible and it’s reliability.  You have to understand that the bible has undergone so much criticism and testing and scrutiny probably more so than any other document and yet it has withstood the test of time.

Also at the time of King Henry the viii Martin Luther had begun his own scrutiny of the Catholic Church and I think King Henry took advantage of them being undermined by Luther to form the Anglican Church.  Churches can differ in a few ways, let me say this I am a Christian first I happen to go to a Baptist church but was brought up in a pentecostal church.  Basically the foundational premise of these two churches is that you accept Jesus as your Lord and repent of your sins.  They might differ slightly in their emphasis on other issues such as worshipping God but the basic foundation is the same. 

Now can I ask you some questions, If evolution is true and we are becoming more advanced then our primate ancestors why are human babies possibly the most vulnerable of any other species, they can’t walk for a year, can’t even cling to mum’s back and we think that that is evolved?

How did our food source evolve relative to our own evolution?

Why do we care about endangered species of animals shouldn’t that be a normal evolutionary process?  Survival of the fittest after all?

I do like thinking about this sort of stuff and discussing it without the insults
Cheers

Jugg says:

05:41pm | 02/02/11

Naomi,

Some people need to throw insults.  It makes them feel important to deingrate others.

Ed says:

07:24pm | 02/02/11

hi Ben,

I’ll also try to answer some of your questions and if I happen to make a mistake, I sincerely hope a fellow christian brother or sister will help me out. Here it goes:

1. Yes, dinosaurs certainly existed, but I don’t believe it was million of years ago as the evolutionists would like to think. Passages such as Job 40:15-24 suggest that humans and dinasours lived side-by-side at one stage.

2. At the beginning yes, sister and brother did procreate. But, you have to understand that at this stage we did not have the possible genetic problems that we have nowadays. Our DNA, so to speak has become and more correpted through the ages.

3. Adam and Eve contained all the genetic information possible for all the races. An analogy is of a blue-eyed couple having a brown-eyed baby.

4. Quite simply because they wanted to be build their own little Gods. Moses experienced this also when he came back down from the mountain and found the people he was leading were worshipping a golden calf.

5. You see, when Adam sinned, this is what brought all the illnesess, death, pain and suffering. God didn’t create that way, Adam brought it with sin, kind of like an airborne virus, if you like.

6. Quite simply, they will go to hell. I’m not here to defend every single other faith, it’d be just as unfair to lump all atheists with Pol Pot or Stalin. What I can tell you is that a cursory look at those other faiths renders them logically incoherent.

7. and 8. You’re right. Part of it are bible misunderstandings resulting in bible mistranslations. Another reason is that some take an unbalanced view on some issues, eg. God’s love without the need to repent from our sins. On other occasions, it is quite simply distorted - the gospel of health and wealth preached by so many pentecostal churches. But, some of the differences (eg. Conservative baptist and Presbyterian) are fairly minimal.

However the essential difference between the Protestant churches and the catholic is fairly fundamental. The protestants believe that salvation is a gift of God and all that is required is faith. Further, they believe that the bible is the only and sufficient rule of life regarding God. The catholics believe that although the bible is important, other aspects such as liturgy and traditions are also needed. They also believe that salvation is not merely through faith, but good works are also needed. The protestants believe that good works are a consequence (or “fruits”) of true faith and not independent of it. Hope that helps.

Servaas says:

08:16pm | 02/02/11

1. How many years ago? I believe they roamed the earth with man, some of them still roam earth I believe - I think it is accepted by most actually, depending on your definition of a dinosaur.

2. Yes.

3. A&E were most probably MIddle Eastern looking/ mid-brown coloured but maybe not. All people today are considered to be variants of brown - we just use terms such as black, white, yellow, red. The darker skinned people generally have more information to reproduce other types which technically means that a black couples can have black, white, yellow, red offspring while a blonde, fair-skinned, blue eyed individual like myself can only contribute others like myself - so unless I marry a black woman, or a brown-eyed one my kids will necessarily have blue eyes and light skin themselves. A&E could thus have produced offspring of most shapes and sizes.

4. So your argument here is that you will only worship that which created you? So me worshipping Yahweh God is an argument against atheism for instance or cancels out the possibility of alien life forms being my creator?

5. I reject the fact that the earth is millions of years old and that once crawling animals grew wings (if there is such claims as part of evolution theory) as time passed by to put it in short. I do not reject the fact that things change as time passes, only that no information gets added to existing beings.

6.According to my belief that Jesus is as He claimed the Son of God and that only He can save us from judgment, those who do not turn to Him as saviour will not be saved. Many Bhuddists, Hindus, Atheists do accept Him as saviour and are thus saved but hen they are technically not under that religious banner anymore. The reality is that we are all cursed to start with, no ‘religion’ can save you, even attending church and singing songs of praise does not save anyone. Because I believe that God is fair I believe He gives everyone a fair chance to accept His offer of salvation and it is not me who decides what happens to whom, I can only decide for myself whether I want to take up the offer. God’s mercy actually triumphs over His judgment, He has no obligation to save anyone but chooses to put salvation on offer.

7. Well, as I understand there are basically 2 main groups: Protestants and Catholics. But under Protestants you would also find Orthodox Christianity which has been around before the modern Protestants protested against Catholic teaching - they might even be older than the Catholic church? The Protestants broke away from what they saw as a religion which developed out of christian teachings which was focussed on earning salvation rather than just relying on Christ’s sacrifice of His life to pay for our salvation in full. So orthodox isn’t a result of that I’d say while most other protestant denominations is. The major breakaway occured under Luther in Germany but there could have been other, previous and latter, ones as well. Don’t know if it answers your question but that is how I would answer you in the most concise way to my current understanding of church history.

8. No, you won’t. There are different English version for instance, where some are closer to original texts that others. When doing Bible study it is better to use the versions the closest to the original text while others might communicate better in modern English say to be used when delivering a sermon for instance. The messages of the various versions will not differ really but concepts might be misunderstood possibly. Therefore study from English commentaries from the ground texts would be the best to realy understand what a writer was getting at and also know the history and culture the work was written in.

Another interesting thing to take note of is that the bible differs from the Qur’an, for instance, in the sense that the truth which it communicates is considered inspired by God, not the actual words and book. Muslims consider only the original Arabic as truly of God while in christianity to say God ‘created the earth’ or ‘God constructed the earth’ is just as good as the Hebrew version. The Bible is also meant to be read with the assistance if the Holy Spirit, as God is more interested in building relationship with an individual than having you memorise scripture. We get to know His character through the scriptures though as His Spirit teaches us. The bible is also not a magic book of chants, it was written by real people in real life situations but inspired and put together by God, therefore the great logical flow between a library consisting of documents written over 1500yrs by more than 40 authors - not even considering its historical accuracy and the miraculous element of prophecies fulfilled.

I hope this adds to the conversation, thanks Ben C. I will also read through the other Christian’s responses.

Steely Dan says:

09:24pm | 02/02/11

@ Ed

“Passages such as Job 40:15-24 suggest that humans and dinasours lived side-by-side at one stage.”
Only if you interpret ‘Behemoth’ as ‘dinosaur’.  And only if you believe it.  Though if you’ve read and accepted the unicorn in Job 39, you’re probably not going to be shocked by the Behemoth in the next chapter.

“sister and brother did procreate. But, you have to understand that at this stage we did not have the possible genetic problems that we have nowadays”
Incestual relationships don’t have a higher risk of genetic abnormality because of ‘correpted’ DNA, it’s because the more closely related breeding couples are, the higher their chance of passing on deleterious recessive alleles.

“Quite simply because they wanted to be build their own little Gods.”
Why would they want to do that?  Creating gods is a way of attempting to explain something you don’t understand, not a fun way to fill up a rainy day.

“Moses experienced this also when he came back down from the mountain and found the people he was leading were worshipping a golden calf.”
Which tells us something about the gullibility of his followers!

“You see, when Adam sinned, this is what brought all the illnesess, death, pain and suffering.”
When Adam sinned, he didn’t know what good and evil was – he only learned what it was after biting the fruit.  Is it wrong to sin if you don’t know what sin is?

“God didn’t create that way, Adam brought it with sin, kind of like an airborne virus, if you like.”
Adam created an airborne virus?  So Adam had magical powers?

“Quite simply, they will go to hell.”
It’s a lovely sentiment, isn’t it?  ‘Where’s that poor persecuted Jewish girl Anne Frank now, Father?’ ‘Why, she’s burning in hell where she belongs, my son!’

“What I can tell you is that a cursory look at those other faiths renders them logically incoherent.”
I thought it was about faith… Shouldn’t they just believe for believing’s sake, like you do, and hope they pick the right one?  Arguing for the logic of your faith is – well, unfaithful.

Ben C says:

10:29am | 03/02/11

Thanks for the responses guys, it’s interesting to see where you’re all coming from.

@ Naomi

In response to your questions (my understanding):
- Interesting point you make, especially considering that calves and many other animals are able to walk from birth. Physical development, when humans are comapred to other animals, is relative to our lifespans. As to vulnerability to diseases, yes, babies are most vulnerable, but they also inherit their parents’ traits, which is where the evolution occurs, each generation is developing immunity from diseases as diseases themselves evolve to overcome these immunities. Vicious cycle, not necessarily aided by the increased use of medication.
- Given the rate of consumption and the intervention that humans have had on the growth and development of food sources, I feel that we have meddled too much in the natural process to the point that we don’t know what our food sources are capable of if left alone. We’ve been “playing God” too much in the search for the ultimate infinite food source. (Which raises a new question, if God is doing the same thing, are religion and science really that far apart?)
- Survival of the fittest definitely, if we have a look at the recently extinct species (Tasmanian tiger, dodo). But for currently endangered species, it’s more a feeling of a sense of responsibility, the fact that we’re hunting them for food, or destroying their habitats, that we feel we need to assist them. It could well be doing them more harm than anything, not letting them adjust to a different environment. If we can adapt to new environments, what’s to say other animals can’t? Why do we need to constantly intervene in nature’s processes? I think that’s the main problem, we don’t let nature take its course. If you’re a creationist, God will have made plans for its survival or demise. If you’re an evolutionist, whatever doesn’t kill it only makes it stronger.

@ Jugg

Unfortunate fact of life of a dog-eat-dog world. The world would be boring without it though, you have to admit.

@ Servaas

In response to your response for Q4, if He created the people of the ancient civilisations, would he not have preached to them that He was the only one to be worshipped? Shifter’s suggestion that these multiple gods/goddesses were a single God, just different aspects of Him, is a possibility, in Greece and Rome, but what about the Egyptians, who worshipped their past pharaohs as gods? And what about less documented ancient civilisations, like the Chinese, who followed Confucianism/Taoism, religions as such but not worshipping Him? Or did he preach to them, but they turned their backs on him for some reason?

Thanks to those that responded, hopefully there are more people that can contribute their understandings of the Christian faith to this discussion.

Servaas says:

11:37pm | 03/02/11

Ben C

In response to Q4 again, as I undersatnd scripture God mainly (or exclusively actually )revealed Himself to the Jews of old through various forms of their leadership. Even in those days though, people from other tribes came into their ranks and adopted their religion. I am not sure how widely known He was outside of the jewish tribes though. There are traces pointing to the fact that Chinese culture actually has Jewish cultural roots when their language is studied - I think due to the trade routes that went there.

I believe that any culture, when left alone, will decuct that there must be a god-figure/gods and try to make contact through rituals, worship, appeasement, etc. and therefore religious activity was present everywhere. Probably a combination of that and talk of a responding god/gods.

To come back to the question though, consider Australia or Britain for instance, how many have not ‘turned their backs on God’ if you considerthe faith of generations past. So it is possible that some might have known or even believed but that it faded out again. But I think during all the time covered by the Old Testament and also the gospels even God was mainly concerened with the Jews and even among them God’s Spirit only moved among certain people it seems but after Jesus paid the debt of sin, die, rose and ascended the Spirit was poured out and the gospel and knowledge of God truly started to infiltrate all cultures, and individuals came into relationship with God as opposed to individual members or whole people groups.

Servaas says:

05:52pm | 02/02/11

@bigdaddy
The Bible HAS most decidedly withstood the test of time. There are a wealth of examples showing that it is not self-contradictory, historically accurate (in fact the most accurate ancient document around - should you reject the Bible you’d better reject most other bits of that history as well) or accurate in many number of ways and these have been pointed out ad nauseam by learned scholars and scientists.
So it is that it has been proven to make perfect sense in this life when we consider human behaviour, philosophy, and science it’s just that those with a vested interest in the bible’s falsehood and those who are determined not to hear anything that calls their beliefs into question have stuck their fingers in their ears and refused to listen to reality!

Obviously, we have had access to different information.

Maybe you should name a few examples of where the bible is inaccurate or historically incorrect and we can share our info on it?

True Believer says:

06:48pm | 02/02/11

Atheist have all the questions, but sadly no answers of any depth.  When questioned they back off at the rate of knots.  They miss the best and settle for very much less. God given choice though.

Naomi says:

06:53pm | 02/02/11

Where’s the apologist when you need him?

True Believer says:

05:38am | 03/02/11

@Big Daddy:

So you profess to know all there is possible to know?? If you don’t that means there are many things you have yet to know. Knowledge is great, wisdom is greater.  The latter comes in abundance when one knows Jesus. 

Your clumsy attempts to dissect the Bible reflect your level of wisdom.

Have a great day and stop trying to put God into your cosy little box of “reality”. He is greater than you could ever imagine, but till you know Him that is hidden to you.

bigdaddy says:

10:03pm | 02/02/11

Ed, Ed, Ed, my response cut it like a knife. The self-interest factor in co-operation and the foundations of modern morals are not only borne out by philosophers and sociologists for hundreds of years, they are backed up by modern studies through things like game theory - and the results reconfirm the same pausit every time.
Going by your example, maybe it won’t be a huge aid to your future life, it’s just a nice thing to do. But like is so often done by religious people, you chose one example out of literally millions within the realm of the argument and used it, while ignoring the myriad of other possibilities that support my claim. Lending your neighbour $50 when he has fallen on hard times only increases the odds of him returning the favour if you find yourself in trouble. The fast, small guy in a pre-historic tribe sharing the rabbit he was quick enough to catch with the huge tough guy who was too slow increases the odds the tough guy will protect him when the neighbouring village attacks so he can catch more rabbits for the big guy. It’s good and decent but ultimately self-serving (which is not to say it is bad).
As for the “proofs” you offer to Matt, may I respectfully suggest you learn the definition of “proof”. Proof must be either observable or repeatable or both and must be able to stand up to independent scrutiny.
What you have offered meets none of those criteria, your statements are merely leaps of faith.
And that is fine. That is enough for you. faith is the backbone of religion. What the religious folk on this blog should be saying is: “True, there is no proof but I have faith and that is enough for me.”
That is perfectly reasonable. But going back to what i said before, what is unreasonable is for you to thrust your beliefs onto others as FACT and try to have the secular laws of the land - laws that affect everyone, regardless of their creed - reflect your minority viewpoint.
Laws, standards, policies should be grounded in proof, studies, logic, reason and religious faith has no place there.
Believe whatever you wish but keep it to yourself and I promise you people will stop having a go at you. And if they don’t - under those circumstances - I will be the first to stand up and defend you!
Cheers!

Ed says:

05:40am | 03/02/11

@bigdaddy its called “proof by contradiction”. Its a well-known mathematical construct. I only have to take your assumptions to be true, and then find one example for the whole thing to fall apart like a house of cards. I could find you other examples, but all I ’ need is one(which means its not a law, is it?); so I disagree, you haven’t cut anything. Your theory is arbitrary and suits you for the bits you like. BTW, you still haven’t answered how we have an evolving law of mathematics, logic, etc.
And please tell me which part of evolution theory is observable and repeatable; and did you also actually replicate a big bang? So, please at the very least you should desist from being scientifically dishonest by claiming yours is not a faith - again read up on some non-religious scientific philosophy (esp Thomas Kuhn, Kurt Godel) that talk about the presuppositions of science, as well as the actual meaning of the scientific method. Yours is still a faith, only unlike the christian faith, you can not account or justify why physics, mathematics, logic and morality (at least for not all the examples) should be uniform. Not only that, a cursory look at modern science will tell you that the reason why it flourished in the west instead of the east is because people like Faraday, Pasteur, Newton, Keppler, Kelvin, Mendel, etc assumed a lawmaker who gave fixed laws regarding the workings of the universe. Science is great, but don’t make the error of assuming it is free of bias or presuppositions.

Jugg says:

07:20am | 03/02/11

benevolent atheist

Is that what it ‘actually means’ or is this ‘your’ interpretation of what it actually means.  One would suspect it’s the latter.

muddabikes says:

02:15pm | 03/02/11

Umm, what do you mean exactly Servaas? I’m a little bit confused.

Servaas says:

11:47pm | 03/02/11

muddabikes

Mainly the last bit:
“The first step to knowledge is ignorance.”

I didn’t get that.

And further I don’t understand under what circumstances it could be good to have no answers?
I undersatnd that we should be open to alternative possibilities all the time but there comes a point when we have to trust our judgement otherwise we would always think we no nothing which will sort of bring us nowhere. No one moves or acts unless they think they know the answer, bar the few times peopel take risks of course.

Maybe we actually agree on this but the ignorance leading to knowledge thing confused me.

Servaas says:

10:46pm | 02/02/11

Benevolent atheist, it seems that your post is directed at Christians and not religious people in general?

If I, as a Christian, do not stone people to death am I overlooking the Old Testament you would say? (Take into account the New Testament follows on the Old one and concludes what is written in the Old one - the people who nitpick tend to read only one of the two)
In my Bible I read about crazy stuff people did but no where do I understand it telling me that I’m supposed to stone people - unless you were referring to another religious movement?

I’d just like to hear you out on that before I answer the rest of what you wrote.

Steely Dan says:

11:03am | 04/02/11

@ Servaas

“If I, as a Christian, do not stone people to death am I overlooking the Old Testament you would say? (Take into account the New Testament follows on the Old one and concludes what is written in the Old one - the people who nitpick tend to read only one of the two)”
Servaas, the New Testament does not negate the OT.  Jesus says so in Matt 5:17-20. 

“In my Bible I read about crazy stuff people did but no where do I understand it telling me that I’m supposed to stone people”
You haven’t actually read the Bible, have you?  Let’s start with Deut 22:13-21.

Ryan says:

02:59pm | 05/02/11

Above your weight class rather (damn you autocorrect!)