Is there a life after God?

LM says:

08:28am | 04/04/11

I think this may be a narrow look at Christianity’s morality as well, though. I would argue that Christianity is more about ethics than following rules… bear with me… The overarching message that Jesus spoke of time and time again was to love God and love others, and all else will flow on from this. Yes, there are some clearcuts, but if seen in light of this command to love, they are pretty clear flow ons from love. Many of these that seem at odds with love obviously have to be considered in terms of context and writing style, etc, and the more they are understood, the more the reflection of love is clear.

For example, slavery in the bible is at first glance awful to us, but at the time slavery was a perfectly normal part of entire societies. Instead of being told to abolish it entirely, making their way of life entirely dismissable, God’s followers were told to engage in slavery in a just way, paying slaves a wage, financially setting them up to be able to leave, and has to let slaves leave after a certain period.

skepdad says:

09:00am | 04/04/11

LM: if christian theists limited themselves to the humanist qualities they attribute to Jesus, there would be a lot less idealogical conflict between them and nontheists.  They somehow took “love others” and ended up kneeling at altars and not eating a particular animal and hating gays and proscribing condoms and all the other things that human religion has developed.

On slavery, you’ve hit the nail on the head.  It was common practice at the time the bible was written.  By humans.  The bible is just a morality textbook from the Iron Age, according to Iron Age ethics.

acotrel says:

12:52pm | 04/04/11

@LM What do the teachings of Christ have to do with the way most professed christians behave?  Hypocrisy reigns supreme, and Christ’s teachings, and his ethos are largely ignored in favour of mean spirited cynicism.  The first type of person who will do you a disservice is the power seeking bible basher!

Human says:

02:42pm | 04/04/11

@LM = THANK YOU! someone who knows what Christian is TRUELY about - not following mutated rules controlled by MAN, but the ethics Jesus taught. I am amazed someone else understands it.

Human says:

02:44pm | 04/04/11

@acotrel - you’re correct, but thats what these people have to realise. bashing people with your own beliefs is like spitting in the face of God - it is evil, satan has control over these blind fools.

Empire says:

02:50pm | 04/04/11

I have no desire to get into any religion vs atheism arguments, and I have no problem with most of what is written here.
I just don’t understand acotrel, why you would say that there is only about two concepts of risk in the bible.
The book is pretty much based on risk, When Eve eats the fruit she risks death, when David sleeps with the naked chick he sees having a bath on her roof he risks getting her pregnant, and she does.
Most of the thou shalt not’s are about not taking risks,and that’s just off the top of my head Without looking. Everyone has the right to believe what they want, I just don’t think you need to make incorrect generalizations about a book you don’t seem to like, or I assume spend much time reading. (oops now I’m assuming,sorry about that ; )

Leah says:

02:53pm | 04/04/11

Skepdad said “They somehow took “love others” and ended up kneeling at altars and not eating a particular animal”
Uh… that’s Jews, not Christians. Christians have symbolic altars but we don’t kneel at them, and it’s the Jews who won’t eat certain animals (eg. pigs). Christians have no such rules.

And you think the bible was written in the Iron Age with Iron Age ethics? Clearly you have very little education and knowledge in regards to the origins of the bible, not to mention its contents. The rules outlined in the bible regarding slavery were very different to how most people treated slaves back then. If it were just being written in line with the social norm of the day, there would not be rules such as freeing slaves after a certain period.

Cam says:

09:23pm | 04/04/11

Leah, there are many Christian sects which kneel at altars and don’t eat particular animals. Clearly you have very little education in regard to beliefs outside your own sect.

acotrel says:

10:02pm | 04/04/11

@Human.  Several times I’ve ha d a debate with my wife about ‘evil’.  I don’t believe in ‘good’ and ‘evil’, -  only sanity and insanity!  One of her rellies, an ex-nun who was dying of cancer, asked me if I was a christian.  My answer to her was ‘I’m a christian, only by default’.

acotrel says:

10:14pm | 04/04/11

@Empire I suggest that most of society’s ‘rules’ only exist because we’ve already had the incident that they’ve been written to control.  Risk management involves taking a speculative approach, and looking at what could happen in va rious scenarios in terms of likelihood and consequences.  In my mind the likelihood that there is a God has a probability of 0.5 . The consequences of that is that the concept cannot be relied upon where safety requires a higher probability.  So if you think putting a St Christopher’s medal in an aircra ft cockpit is OK - let me tell you it’s NOT.  We must all recognise our duty of care , and act to control the risks appropriately. The ‘rules’ don’t necessarily cover every situation, and interpreting the bible doesn’t improve that !

Empire says:

01:20pm | 05/04/11

@acotrel, I don’t know if you will read this as the thread is nearing its end.  I just wanted to let you know that I don’t believe in saint Christopher either, and I probably hate religion as much as you do along with its putrid hypocrisy. Although I believe in a Higher power and enjoy reading the bible, especially the parts where the messiah humiliates the religious leaders of their time. I also respect your right to believe in Atheism, even though I think religion has driven many people towards this belief system because of its many lies, hypocrisy and and blind misinterpretation. It is also my belief that if the one the bible calls Jesus (and I dislike that word, because any one with half a brain knows that couldn’t have been his name) came today there would probably be more Atheists who would believe in him than Christians.
(another word I don’t like)

Kate says:

03:31pm | 05/04/11

I really recommend that everyone on this thread read the article ‘Why I’m an Athiest’, by comedian Ricky Gervais (Google it, it’ll come up).
The logic within it is so beautiful and simple that the likes of TB and Thomas A would spontaneously combust.

rick says:

08:49pm | 05/04/11

Agnostic….................with doubts

acotrel says:

09:08am | 06/04/11

I don’t see myself as an atheist!  I’m just generally NOT INTERESTED in religion, as long as the bible bashers stay away from me! When they become purveyors of psuedo-science such as intelligent design, I start to take notice!

Breach of peace says:

03:52pm | 12/04/11

Whatever you believe in there has to be a faith that has placed you where you are today.  Faith is one part of the many attributes that make up mankind.  Everyone has some form of faith in something whatever that may be.  It is what you place your faith ‘in’ that is important in the end.

What atheists fail to do, is to clearly delineate the difference between religion and Christianity as the differences are profound and distinct as failure to do this is missing the basics and authors go off in a tangent.

Your statement of ‘The retreat of religion…’ is inherently a false statement as there is a profound increase in the various religions, however there is a decrease in Christianity in the Western culture.  Hopefully you see the difference a you cannot automatically say there is a decrease in religion meaning Christianity only.

Yes most religions are ‘often stifling, overly conformist and traditionalist, fear and guilt inspiring’, certainly defines most religions or some Christian churches that have ‘stepped outside’ mainstream Christianity or the Bible and start making up all sorts of concoctive beliefs and become sects or cults like the Roman Catholic Church, Exclusive Brethren, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Jews with the Talmund etc.

Yet neither is secular society with all its ills today to be a model to follow.  Humanism, false philosophies, rationalism, evolutionism and all the other irrational views have created wars and murdered and created destruction beyond comprehension as it is still continuing to do today.  Morality of caring for the other person wherever he or she may reside on this Earth has disappeared with a vengeance.

The teaching of Jesus to love thy neighbour still stands the test of time today and there will be a remnant of people who will follow and are following at the present,  as taught through scripture.

Tedd says:

07:56am | 04/04/11

To say “there exists no god or gods” is more like fundamentalist anti-theism.

Atheist position at the bottom of the social strata was a mid-20th century post-WW2 western thing - atheism had occupied a reasonable position in the late 19th century and into the early 20th century.

It was the conflation of religion with politics that pushed atheism down the social ladder, and still is with the preponderance of special pleading for religion, through politics, in institutions like schools and social-service providers

Tubesteak says:

09:47am | 04/04/11

No, you said it well. No need for lengthy essays. Leave that to the paid navel-gazers in philosiphy schools at our universities.

To add to what you said, atheism recognises the practical reality that there is no god, that it is a figment of our own invention and desperation to believe something more exists. Once we die we are dead and there is no more. Lights out.

To exist harmoniously as a society there is a “social contract”. This is what one school of jurisprudentialists believe. (another school says there isn’t one and that we’re just a collection of individuals that happen to follow some laws)

This social contract isn’t necessarily entered into explicitly but we agree that there are certain taboos such as murder. We then agree how to govern ourselves.

Ultimately though we are individuals and most of our freedoms should not be limited. As long as we do no direct harm to others we should be free to do as we choose. Unfortunately, this has been corrupted expecially by religion which seeks to interfere with every part of our lives.

braunman says:

12:06pm | 04/04/11

A very good breakdown of the situation that doesn’t alienate anyone. Part of the problem with discussing the topic is that many people think religion is required for someone to have personal morals. In reality religion is an ethical system seperate to personal morals, just like the modern legal system. Even if a person has no ethical structure (religion/law ect), we still have personal morals which are built in to the very nature of society. It’s all part of being a social animal.

Thomas Anderson says:

01:03pm | 04/04/11

Your morals come from Christianity, whether you like it or not. “Do onto others” is a moral teaching that can apply to any given situation, from poisoning your neighbour’s cow to humiliating someone on Facebook to throwing rocks at your neighbour’s flying car.

A strict atheist ought to believe in survival of the fittest and not be bound by any morality - thus murder or theft should not be “wrong” for an atheist, as long as they advance his position. If you are an “atheist” who is also a “humanist”, you are just following some of Christianity’s teachings without subscribing to all of them.

Atheism is ridiculous anyway, blind faith in the lack of a Supreme Diety requires some serious commitment. If you are a person who values studying the facts before forming an opinion, you can be agnostic at best.

braunman says:

01:26pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson

Is a belief in Christianity the ONLY thing preventing you from doing evil? If all that’s stopping you from going on a killing spree is a belief in religion then…I am genuinely afraid to be around you!  In reality however there are many other things which stop you from doing so.

To correct you with reference to my previous post, religion offers a system of ethics, not morality. Ethics is an enforced code of behaviour, but morality is based on our personal choice. Our personal value system comes from many sources, such as parents, friends, the media, society at large ect. Some things are built into our very DNA, protecting children from harm being a good example. Only really sick people would knowingly hurt a child. If doing acts like that bother you it’s not because of religion.

It’s because you’re human.

Elphaba says:

01:30pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas, morals existed long before Christianity.  They might have written them down, but anthropologically speaking, morals were in existence long before the concept of God - otherwise humans wouldn’t have stood a chance at surviving.

So you can have morals and still not believe in God - because morals didn’t come from God.

Thomas Andersen says:

02:01pm | 04/04/11

A man who came out of the cave and saw another man carrying meat killed that man and took his meat - no morals.

A man who is part of a tribe does not steal from his tribesman, because there is a risk of being excluded from the tribe. He will, however, steal from other tribes - no morals.

A man whose apple was stolen by a poor child takes his knife and chops off the child’s hand, because that is the law at the time - no morals.

A man who does not believe in a Deity helps an elderly woman who has fallen over next to him - he has morals.

Our modern understanding of right and wrong comes from religion, specifically from the Abrahamic religions.

A man who speaks badly of his Pharaoh in ancient Egypt is killed. The society deems this normal and just, because they do not have the same morals as the society of today.

There were no morals, as we know them today, back then. People refrained from stealing for fear of punishment. Today, most people in Australia would refrain from stealing because there is something in their head telling them that it is the wrong thing to do. In most cases, this “something” was put into our heads by our parents, and into them by their parents before them. And this “something” originally came from a religion. You do or do not do something because it is simply the right / wrong thing to do, not because of the consequences etc. That is morality.

Tubesteak says:

02:27pm | 04/04/11

Thomas Anderson

The Jews had morals long before the Christians so you can’t claim that Christians invented morals or all our morals derived from Christianity. They didn’t. The Christians just stole them from everyone else.

Further, your examples are hopeless

“A man who is part of a tribe does not steal from his tribesman, because there is a risk of being excluded from the tribe. He will, however, steal from other tribes - no morals.”

Actually, that is morals. It just depends on how big the “tribe” is. Many civilisations have acted precisely in the manner you speak and many of those latter civilisations under the guise of Christianity - have a look at Africa or other white settlements, such as Australia and our “Christian” treatment of the Aboriginals.

“A man whose apple was stolen by a poor child takes his knife and chops off the child’s hand, because that is the law at the time - no morals.”

Again, wrong, that’s the morals of the day. Actually, it’s eye for an eye type of stuff from tha big book your type likes to bash so much.

“Our modern understanding of right and wrong comes from religion, specifically from the Abrahamic religions.”

Who got it from….????

“There were no morals, as we know them today, back then. People refrained from stealing for fear of punishment. Today, most people in Australia would refrain from stealing because there is something in their head telling them that it is the wrong thing to do. In most cases, this “something” was put into our heads by our parents, and into them by their parents before them. And this “something” originally came from a religion. You do or do not do something because it is simply the right / wrong thing to do, not because of the consequences etc. That is morality.”

No, most people don’t do it because they don’t want to go to gaol. However, where there is little risk of punishment they will do it.

Matt says:

02:28pm | 04/04/11

@ Thomas..

That’s the biggest ball of hooey I’ve ever read!

Try actually researching this before you spout your opinions. Greek philosophers wrote extensively on morality 600 years before christianity was even conceived. Their willingness to follow rules for fear of prosecution was the same as ours is today, and it undoubtedly plays a part in people’s behaviour: but morality has always grounded civilisation. Without it, no amount of law and enforcement would be able to stop us from tearing our own civilisation apart.

Elphaba says:

02:38pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson, and yet 2000 years later, people steal and murder fully aware of the consequences.  Funny, that.

Yet others who have no God in their life, do the right thing because morals are an intrinsic part of our DNA.  Humans would not have survived if they didn’t establish a code which meant not killing every rival human that wandered across its path.  And it’s not just humans - many creatures exhibit the same characteristics. 

Our modern laws have Christian roots, yes.  But moral behaviour existed way before Christianity.  And just as Christianity has not managed to clean up society, so some early humans didn’t exhibit morality - why, I’m sure, is a question psychiatrists still puzzle over when interviewing psychopaths.

If you only do right because God tells you, you are an extremely dangerous person.

Not to mention someone who knows nothing about human evolution.

braunman says:

02:48pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson

While I don’t agree with your conclusions it is an interesting discussion never the less. Actually these two examples of yours provide a good discussion point:

“A man who came out of the cave and saw another man carrying meat killed that man and took his meat - no morals.

A man who is part of a tribe does not steal from his tribesman, because there is a risk of being excluded from the tribe. He will, however, steal from other tribes - no morals”

These are worth expanding on because they show that people can come around with their own morality without religion. In the first case man 1 may not kill man 2 because doing so would mean that in the future there would only be one person left to hunt that big scary animal, putting them both at a disadvantage. In the second case killing someone from another tribe will likely make them want to retaliate, sparking a war which benefits no-one. Besides which their cheiftan’s daughter is hot. In both situations co-operation benefits all, and with it comes things like respect, trust, friendship and yes, morality. See? No need for religion to impose rules. The very nature of being a social animal encourages us to “do unto others what you would have them do unto you”.

Actually you can see this happen nowadays, given how all countries (tribes) rely on each other for trading resources. Look at North Korea for a country that isolates itself and constantly wants to provoke armed conflict. As a result the whole country lives in poverty with next to no electricity, clean water or food. Look at Australia and you see a country that respects others, cultivates allies, and reaps the benefits.

I may have worded my argument badly but the essence is that if you do bad things there will be consequences, doing good will lead to good things. It’s a very self serving way of putting it but it shows how people tend to gravitate towards morality because it promotes social order.

Thomas Anderson says:

03:06pm | 04/04/11

@Tubesteak

Yes, Jews had morals. Because they believed in God. Although their morals were different to Christianity, ie: theft is inherently bad, but it’s not bad to take revenge on someone (eye for an eye).

Evil deeds under the guise of Christianity were done by non-Christians, eg: one who kills in the name of Christ is acting in direct contradiction to Christianity, and thus is not truly Christian. Crusaders were not true Christians, priests abusing children are not true Christians etc. Christianity cannot be blamed for human acts against which it preaches.

Judaism, Islam and Christianity are all Abrahamic religions. I won’t address the rest of your comments because they contradict themselves or make no sense.

@Matt

Ancient Greeks believed in pantheons of Gods. They got their morals from Deities. Different morals to those of today, because of different origins.

@Others

Well, I do not kill or steal because of my own morals, which definitely came from the Christian faith, but other acts which are not so black and white, yeah, I think to myself “Does this feel bad according to God’s justice?” and if it does even a little, I try not to do it.

You don’t need to be religious to have good morals, but your morals definitely came from a religion.

Brian says:

03:40pm | 04/04/11

Thomas Anderson - the Greeks believed in a pantheon of Gods. The Greeks had morals. These two facts are not inherently linked - in fact the Greek gods tended to be rather immoral, and morals were considered part of humanity, not deities.

I have the moral urge not to kill my fellow man. Most religions have the same moral teaching. This does not mean that they caused me to have my morals, any more than the fact that Amnesty International holds it means that I got it from them.

braunman says:

03:48pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson

After reading your replies you keep saying morals can only come from religion, yet you never say why. I’ve explained why, even if the sole motivation is self-interest, acting in a moral way benefits all. Now it’s your turn to explain in detail.

Why does religion make you moral?

Jason says:

05:01pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas - Lot offers up his virgin daughters to ravenous townsfolk (so they wouldn’t bother the strangers in his house), but ends up nailing the girls himself anyway in a cave a couple of nights later. NO MORALS.

Tubesteak says:

05:12pm | 04/04/11

Thomas Anderson

So now you’re saying that some Christians aren’t Christian or some Christians are more Christian than others

Sounds eerily familiar to the usual “I am more holy than you”

But you clearly don’t have the intelligence to discuss your propositions because you couldn’t understand my arguments so I won’t bother explainign it further. They were pretty easy to understand.

True Believer says:

05:17pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson

Great posts, you are spot on. The fact you come under attack from the atheists proves that. They seem to hate to hear the truth.

@Elphaba

It would be nice to believe that morals and human nicety was/is innate. However, history can show us otherwise. Have you every read the book by Colin Campbell,(author of “The Mountain Peope,”  anthropologist who lived some years among the Ik people of Uganda who had been displaced from their lands and put to a place where survival was all there was. These people had had a religious belief system but in the struggle for survival they lost that and all their finer feelings and consideration for others. It is an interesting and somewhat frightening.  Here is a quote from a review of the book.

“He shows in detail how survival becomes a personal affair. Food is no longer shared. Men hunt what they can and eat it far from the village and women collect only for themselves.

As starvation sets in children and old people die as they are not fed, the tribe becomes known for its cattle thieving among the neighbouring groups. The thieving becomes intense among themselves and Turnbull interestingly shows how this becomes the new norm. Honesty becomes foolishness and lying becomes an art.” 

I recall reading in the book that a woman had her baby at the waterhole, a lion came down and took it - the mother laughed. I found that hard to imagine, a mother laughing as her baby was eaten by a lion.

The religion of these people would have been worlds away from Christianity I guess, but it seemed that that connection to something bigger than themselves having been lost left only this personal survival.  Worth a read.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:18pm | 04/04/11

@braunman

Because the morals we hold dear in our society come from Jesus’ teachings. We do not support corporal punishment, we help the less fortunate etc etc.

If we lived by morals which existed before Jesus, we would be casting stones at criminals.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:24pm | 04/04/11

@Tubesteak

I said that a person who commits evil acts cannot be Christian, because Christianity preaches against evil acts. Where did I say I am “holier” than others? Murder is not a Christian act, even if I say I murdered in the name of Christ. What’s so hard to understand?

I am sorry for not being intelligent, I made up the word “Abrahamic” to sound more intelligent, but you got me when you correctly pointed out that because you do not know the meaning of the word, it must not be a real word.

Chris L says:

05:32pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson - Wolves generally work together, don’t kill each other arbitrarily and will come to each others’ assistance when needed. Is that because they have religion or simply because they couldn’t have evolved to this point without co-operation being a part of their nature?

Elphaba says:

05:54pm | 04/04/11

@TB, I stand by what I said.  But we’re going to drift in two different directions because you don’t believe in evolution.

Cheers.

braunman says:

05:57pm | 04/04/11

@True Believer
Sounds like an interesting read but I can’t find it in google, any more details that would help me refine my search? And with regards to Thomas Anderson I genuinely want to try and understand why he thinks that morality comes exclusively from religion. If we all took the time to understand each other the world would be a better place. On that note…

@Thomas Anderson
That doesn’t really answer my question though, that’s just another way of saying morality comes from religion. What I want is an explanation as to WHY morality comes from religion. All I want to do is understand your position.

Elphaba says:

06:03pm | 04/04/11

@TB, and one example does not necessarily mean by extrapolation, the whole system is broken without religion.

There are f*cked-up people in modern times too.  With 2000 years of religion there are still people who break laws.  So if there are morally bankrupt people in existence today, why can’t it be assumed that early man operated with a set of morals not dictated by a creator?

Not to mention animals like Chris L mentioned - how do they act with cosnsideration if they’re not influence by a spiritual?  Are they animals or something more?

Early man needed to cooperate in order to survive because we are social animals and not built for being loners.  A lot of that has been lost along the way I guess, with an abundance of food and money, we rely less on others and become more insular.  But early man, millions of years ago, required rising above bashing heads in with rocks because they ‘didn’t know any better’.

But like I said, we’re drifting into stuff you don’t believe in.  Humans didn’t evolve, they were created etc.

I respectfully disagree.  As usual.  What else is new?

Thomas Anderson says:

06:05pm | 04/04/11

Wolves kill innocent people. They attack other packs. They fight for leadership. They do not have a sense of morality, and their behaviour can not be explained by morals..

I take it you do not consider it wrong to murder someone, and the only reason you abstain from such an act is for a fear that the person you murder might come in handy to you in the future?

Jay says:

06:13pm | 04/04/11

It says more about your morals that you rely on the fear of punishment in the afterlife to guide your actions rather than a genuine sense of wanting to be good to your fellow human beings.

The golden rule is older than all of the abrahamic religions too, btw.

Chris L says:

07:12pm | 04/04/11

“Wolves kill innocent people” - wolves will kill to defend themselves or for food. This can involve innocent people (by our standards) just as we kill innocent cattle, sheep and other creatures for food. Wolves do not kill for pleasure nor for money nor out of idealogical differences.

They will fight each other over territory and leadership, but this seldom ends fatally. Indeed wolves seem (at face value) a far more noble species than man and they need no gods to tell them to be thus.

Besides, there a records of moral laws that outdate Judaism, such as the Sumerian Code of Ur-Namuu from a little over 2000 BC. This code even skipped the whole “eye for an eye” approach and employed the imposition of fines for lesser crimes of assault. I’m afraid your claim that morals come from christianity has no basis.

True Believer says:

07:17pm | 04/04/11

@braunman

Thank you for your query. If you put in The Mountain People by Colin Campbell you should get plenty of sites.  I had the book back in the 70’s. I was not a believer at the time, but it gave me food for thought about what it meant to be human. Took me a few more years to realise the answer. :0)

@Elphaba

Yes we can agree on few things when it comes to Jesus sadly.

The book was written in 1972 about a group of people living at that time not millions of years ago.

Our own society then could become like this couldn’t it?  I was not a Christian at the time I read it, but it made me think deeply about the human condition.

Cheers.

Sandobi says:

07:38pm | 04/04/11

If an evil man is about to murder me, and I find a gun next to me, and the only part of this evil man that I can point at is his head… what should I do?

Should I do the “morally-correct” thing and let him take my life (turn the other cheek)? Or do I defend myself at the cost of his life (my body is God’s temple, and I should not let this man destroy God’s temple)?

acotrel says:

10:21pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Anderson
‘If we lived by morals which existed before Jesus, we would be casting stones at criminals.’

There was justice BC.  Even Christ the dissident got a trial under Roman law.

acotrel says:

10:57pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas A nderson
‘Wolves kill innocent people. They attack other packs. They fight for leadership. They do not have a sense of morality, and their behaviour can not be explained by morals.’

My dog loves me, that’s all that matters.  And I know he’ll fight for me!. He’s half pit bull, and has a lot of attitude.  I’m just about to go and kiss him goodnight!

Elphaba says:

10:02am | 05/04/11

@TB, pockets of our society are always going to be like that, with or without religion, because we are animals.  If religion was the moral cure-all, then everyone would follow the rules.  But we don’t.  Morals are hardwired just like all our other abilities - and sometimes the wiring gets screwed up.  Therefore, you have people that don’t fit the ‘moral’ human mould - they’re intelligent, but lie, cheat, steal and kill with no regard for the consequences.  Not because religion has failed them, but because their biology has.

The human race existed long before religion.  Has they had no morals and no regard for others, they would have wiped each other out and we wouldn’t be sitting here.  But they had to work cooperatively to survive.  And since neurologists only know a tiny bit of the brain’s capabilities, I don’t see it as a great leap from the remarkable things we know now, and the things we might know in the future - like where those little nuances that make us human are stored in the brain, and how they develop and connect together.

Cathii Scott says:

11:01am | 05/04/11

@Thomas Anderson… Your arguments are typical of Christians (and for that matter ALL religions world wide)... You absolve all the evil done under the name of Christianity by claiming that these people were not Christian… In that case not even the Pope himself is a Christian nor are any of the popes before the current one… The evil that the Popes have done throughout time is well documented… Christianity has no morals. No organisation that systematically kills millions of people for simply “not believing” can have morals…

Thomas Anderson says:

01:04pm | 05/04/11

Well, buddy, if a corrupt cop murders someone and plants a gun on him, does that mean that what the Police Force stands for is a corrupt ideal? Do we blame the democratic system of government if a single politician takes bribes? Do you blame the Hippocratic Oath for the actions of a doctor that poisons his patients?

It’s not a cop out, the Christian message is clear, if you do not follow it, you are not acting as a Christian, no matter how you present it to people. Is Bin Laden a devout Muslim, or is he twisting the words of the Qu’ran to achieve his own personal goals? Clearly it is the latter. There are plenty of people in significant positions that do not do what they are supposed to.

braunman says:

01:58pm | 05/04/11

@Thomas Anderson

I notice that you’re still replying to this thread so I ask again: Why is religion the original source of morality? Please be detailed this time and really think about your answer. No Rush

James1 says:

02:15pm | 05/04/11

Cathii,

TB and Thomas are committing the “no true Scotsman” logical fallacy.  It is not even worth responding when such logical fallacies pass as arguments, because it is impossible to argue logically with a person who does not recognise logic.

Thomas Anderson says:

02:53pm | 05/04/11

@braunman

The morality of today, in this country and some others, is largely based on the teachings of Christ. The humanistic approach prevails. eg: the normal bulk of the population does not steal because they feel it is the wrong thing to do, not because of fear of punishment from the authority, be it human or Divine. We see corporal punishment as “barbaric”, an understanding which was influenced by Christianity. Charity is encouraged in our society, people are not indifferent to the suffering of others. Putting religious organisations aside, how many charities existed 2000 years ago?

@James1

You see, the birthplace determines whether you are a Scotsman or not. The actions of a human being determine whether he is a true Christian or whether he is pretending. Being born into a Christian family does not make you a true Christian by default, and the status may change depending on your actions. I know you said it’s not worth responding to fallacies being passed as arguments, but I could not resist responding to you.

True Believer says:

02:54pm | 05/04/11

@Elphaba

Well my friend you are determined to see yourself as an animal. So be it. I am not going to argue. The Lord knows you are much more, so do I. One day you will realise, but I respect where you are at with your choices just now.  Thanks for your post. On some things we just have to agree to disagree – for the time being. :0)

@ Cathii Scott

You said “@Thomas Anderson… Your arguments are typical of Christians (and for that matter ALL religions world wide)... You absolve all the evil done under the name of Christianity by claiming that these people were not Christian… In that case not even the Pope himself is a Christian nor are any of the popes before the current one…”

You make huge assumptions – quite erroneously.  You do not know all the Christians worldwide –  so why say that?

You also assume that all Christians are Roman Catholics – huge number are not, including me.  Popes are but men. God decides who is a Christian, no man, nor any man-made denomination.  Undoubtedly there are true Christians in various denominations and there are a lot of pretenders also. 

So before you make sweeping statements make sure you know the facts about what constitutes a Christian and Who decides whether one is or not.  A Christian is one who belongs to and follows Jesus Christ, if He is their Lord and Saviour then He tells us they belong to Him.

Denominational religion with its dogma and doctrines are man-made except where they devote themselves to the Word of God.  No denomination “owns” the Lord.  Evil has been done by people claiming to be Christians – just as much more evil has been done by those who reject Him.  Man commits these things - your fellow human beings, not Jesus.

Millions were killed by the Nazis, communist countries too have killed many, as have countries which are governed by “religion” (which is not Christianity).  You are just repeating the same old atheistic propaganda. 

@ James1

It is also futile to try to tell a person who chooses to be blind to the Truth and enslaved to human “logic” the reality that exists beyond their narrow field of vision.
I know that narrowness – I too walked that futile path, but no more thanks be to the Lord Jesus.

James1 says:

04:20pm | 05/04/11

Thomas, at least look up what a no true Scotsman logical fallacy is before debating about it.  Your post provides no evidence that you know what it is. Here’s a hint, its not about being born in Scotland - its not really about Scotland at all actually.

TB, I think we will have to agree to disagree.  I use logic and evidence, you use…  Well I’m not sure what you call that, to be honest.

Dkx says:

04:43pm | 05/04/11

@TB - Who are you to denote whether or not someone’s vision is narrowed purely because they believe in logic?
Christianity is a very narrow minded following, and you have showed that to all who are reading this.

And how can you, or anyone else for that matter, truly believe that some higher being has spoken to you, on some level?

Religion was created by the weak and insecure, and to this day, still follows the same traits.

Thomas Anderson says:

04:53pm | 05/04/11

@ James1

Sorry, I assumed you knew what you were talking about.

“A true Scotsman would never brutally murder” - the statement is incorrect, clearly, as a person who was born and lives in Scotland, ie: a true Scotsman by definition, can commit a brutal murder. The Scotsman does not need to behave in any certain way to be a true Scotsman, he only needs to be born and living in Scotland.

“A true Christian would never brutally murder” - the statement is correct, as murder is strictly prohibited by Christianity, thus a person who commits brutal murders cannot be a true Christian. The determining factors here are the thought process and the resulting actions of a person.

The two have been clearly distinguished above, the mentioned fallacy does not apply / is critically flawed at the outset.

Thomas Anderson says:

05:06pm | 05/04/11

@ Dkx

I did not say anyone’s vision is narrowed because they “believe” in logic. How do you believe in logic anyway, is that like someone believing that logic exists, or what exactly are you trying to say?

Funny you mention that, because I believe that a Supreme Being, does indeed speak to us, not by coming up to us and having a conversation but by giving signs in life, sometimes in the most strange ways. I do not wish to discuss this further though, as it’s a very personal thing to everyone and is not really debatable.

If anything, from the stand point of a logical atheist, religion was created by highly intelligent and cunning people as a way of achieving their own goals or exercising control, much like entertainment and money. Think on that.

James1 says:

05:48pm | 05/04/11

No Thomas, claiming that behaviour that does not conform to your own brand of Christianity means that the person committing that behaviour is “not a true Christian” is exactly what the no true Scotsman logical fallacy is about.

By those standards, there is only one Christian in the world - you.  However, I would say that you are no true Christian, because you do not believe in killing children who disobey their parents (I assume), even though the Bible tells you to do this.  As such, given that you are not a true Christian, you have no place commenting on what Christianity is about.

Please, at least look up the logical fallacy and its meaning.  This is getting a little embarrassing for you.

Jason Todd says:

06:47pm | 05/04/11

Thomas Anderson - Repeating the same logical fallacy does not make you immune to that fallacy. Like it or not, you are getting your mileage out of the no true scotsman fallacy here.
You say no true christian would commit murder. Fine. I take your point. Now what about all those who identify as christians but have commited murder?  Not true christians I take it, but where do you draw the line? Do others draw it in the same place?

The purpose of this fallacy that you seem to be missing is that it indicates the addition of the qualifier ‘true’ allows for any behaviour of any group to be excluded depending on the subjective determination of what the speaker deems the qualities of a ‘true’ member are. You say the rules and message of the bible and christianity are clear, but we are talking thousands of different people in different countries working from different translations and versions of the bible with different life experiences. Are you sure that you are all on exactly the same page? Differences between the factions would indicate that you are not.

True Believer says:

08:17pm | 05/04/11

@James1
“TB, I think we will have to agree to disagree.  I use logic and evidence, you use…  Well I’m not sure what you call that, to be honest.”
No matter I understand you lack what is necessary to have the Wisdom which comes from knowing God – so you just have human logic and “evidence” to rely on. Been there - know your dilemma. I once also suffered those narrow perimeters of understanding.  There is much more though. I do hope and pray you come to it also.  “Seek and ye shall find, knock and the door shall be opened to you.”

@Dkx  
Thank you for your comment.  If you read my post you will see that I said I too had been in the position of relying only on human logic. I know only too well from my time walking as an unbeliever how restrictive that is.  It is by the Grace of God I now know differently, nothing clever in me I assure you.  He invites - us to up to accept or reject. I accepted - that made the diffference.

Yes God does speak to His people today if one has ears to hear.  If following Jesus indicates I am weak that is fine, rather be weak and follow Him than tread those weary steps of the darkness and blindness of unbelief.  I am weak but He is strong – so strong, if only you realised. The “joy of the Lord is my strength”  - no human “strength,” whatever that means can come even close to that. I wish you well.

braunman says:

10:41am | 06/04/11

@Thomas Anderson

Sorry to sound like a repeating record, but that doesn’t really say why morality comes from religion. Basically what you said was “morality comes from religion because religion created morality”. It’s circular and doesn’t really say anything substantial. It’s like a dictionary definition that defines “robbery” as “the act of robbing”, which isn’t very helpful.

Also I agree with the others here, I don’t think you understand the logic behind the “no true scotsman” fallacy. To apply an example to us here, “all Australians eat meat, therefore vegitarians are not true Australians”. Only your example is “all Christians do moral things, therefore Christians who do immoral things are not true Christians.

Dkx says:

11:53am | 06/04/11

Saying that you are a Christian, and therefore are given some form of broader understanding is, from my point of view, incorrect.
I would ask of you TA and TB, what is it that you have specifically learnt from taking the path of God?

In every situation I have encountered, whether it is with a Christian, Muslim, or any other form of religious belief, the opposite party has your classic case of tunnel vision. Everything that they say is correct, and everything that they believe in will be re-enforced continuously by their apparent connection to their respective “God”.

However, you encounter someone who is an Atheist, or Anti-theist, you will notice a much broader view on all subjects.
A religious person will follow only the way that religion takes him; a non-believer will follow his own choices, make his own decisions and not be biased by some figurative being.

True Believer says:

12:24pm | 06/04/11

@Dkx

I cannot speak for “religions” - much is man-made. I just follow Jesus, not because of a “belief” - or anything I have done apart from accept His gift of life and having my spirit alive to Him. 

You do what so many non-believers endeavour to do, lump Jesus with “religion.”  Jesus is not religion and religion is not Jesus.  You need to get to know Him then you would understand the difference. Having been an unbeliever I know the dilemna of endeaving to understand God with the carnal mind.

Dkx says:

12:50pm | 06/04/11

I don’t believe that I ever made any connection between Jesus and religion.
All my points have been on the broader side of the topic of religion, not specified to one person.
You are the one that has made that connection.

The carnal mind?
Now you are saying that because of your belief that you are somehow better?

True Believer says:

01:17pm | 06/04/11

@Dkx

Aren’t you splitting straws, followers of Jesus are Christians. As I said, you refer to “Christian” in the context of “religion” - without Jesus there is no Christianity.  I follow Jesus, no man-made religions whether that be denominations of Christianity or other belief systems. I hope that explains it for you. :0)

As for the carnal mind - that is just how we are before we are born-again by the Holy Spirit. Does not make me any “better” - only difference between me and an unbeliever is that I have received Jesus as my Lord and Saviour - having been an unbeliever I know this is unfathomable to to the carnal mind. I know it because I have experienced the difference. It is there for anyone who in humility and an honest heart seeks the Lord, repents of sin and accepts His free gift of life - that is life spiritually as well as of the flesh.  It is not something I did - by His Grace He accepted me when I came to Him.  There is no human cleverness needed or deep theological meandering - simplest message in the whole world and so many miss it. I nearly did, thinking I knew He was not there. I have found out differently. I hope you do too. 

Jesus died for you just as much as He did for me. I have accepted that gift of love, you it seems have not.  That is the only difference between us.

My mind is broadened completely now, as your would be also, because now I know why I am here and can enjoy the wonders of creation because I know the Creator.

Dkx says:

05:27pm | 06/04/11

Your religion is false.

True Believer says:

11:19am | 07/04/11

@Dkx

I don’t have a religion. I have a relationship with Jesus - I can assure you He is very, very real, as is His love for me and for you.

ZSRenn says:

10:46am | 04/04/11

Ah here he is atheisms own fundamentalist.

1. Insults anyone who believes.
2. Whines about being called an atheist in the next sentence.
3. Has no feeling for music which is a true gift from God.
4 Tells people why they believe, is wrong and doesn’t understanding it.
5. Denies believers any place in the debate
6. More insults toward believers
7. Opens a conversation thread accusing people of asking him to prove God doesn’t exist because no thread doing so appears which he can reply to.
8. More insults towards believers.

What a sad little man and a fundamentalist believer in disbelief as bad as any fundamentalist of religion.

James1 says:

11:15am | 04/04/11

No counter arguments as usual, and just a stream of insults.  What gives you the right to criticise SRB, considering all your arguments are insults bereft of any point or counterpoint?  Your sense of outrage that someone, somewhere, might disagree with you?

Chris says:

12:37pm | 04/04/11

SRB, You’re opening comment sums up your stance for the rest of your post. “Sky Fairy Believer” shows the amount of respect (or lack of) you have for people that believe in a deity. Such is the case I find with people like Richard Dawkins et al.
I find your response very One Dimensional SRB. Your argument essentially surmises that We don’t have to take responsibility for our own actions because “flying spaghetti monster” will take care of us…
Really? We were commanded by God (in the Bible) to take care of each other. In the bigger picture, we haven’t done a good job on that point. So…blaming God for “starving children in africa” is really quite an absurd argument for there not being a God. It also almost absolves Man Kind for his actions because he expects God to intervene.

Simon says:

12:44pm | 04/04/11

Whilst I fundamentally agree with what you’re saying, and I understand your frustrations in being asked to prove the non-existence of something, I don’t particularly agree to the stereotyping of believers (disregarding the stereotyping of us non-believers in the main article).

I actually wanted to respond to ZSRenn’s point 3. I’m a musician who loves and feels music, but it’s not a “gift from God.” Yes, using music to express ones self and create an emotional response is art by the very definition, and my absolute favourite form of art at that, but the mechanism of music is science. The production of various frequencies that share mathematical consistencies produces sounds that we have come to accept as “right” (I use that terminology because other cultures use very different combinatyions of frequencies which, to most westerners, sound “wrong”).

Sure, a retort will be that the inspiration harnessed to create beautiful music is “a gift from God”, but i would argue that such inspiration is an extension of a natural physiological talent (no different from throwing a stone or kicking a ball), and practise manipulating the sounds. In fact, often when the world encounters a “musical genius” (think Mozart), we find the “source”, if you will, of that genius is a defect such as Autism.

I will be the first person in line to defend music as artistic, but I’m sorry, music is a derivative of human engineering refined over thousands of years. In my opinion, simplifying it as “a gift from God” is disrespectful to the true pioneers.

Chris L says:

01:05pm | 04/04/11

These discussions have been happening on the Punch for some time ZSRenn, and Ron is responsing to the more frequent of opposing views, pobably in an effort to get people to come up with better arguments that we haven’t heard before.

Where’s Zac by the way? Has he cut and pasted his usual invocation of Godwin yet?

ZSRenn says:

01:43pm | 04/04/11

@ Simon
Math’s does not explain the feeling I get when singing or playing something and I get it so damned right it’s oozing out of my pores and the people listening can hear it, see it and more importantly feel it.

It does not have to be technically correct to do this it just has to have soul! The science you describe as music does not have to be correct just heart felt.

Your argument that we are technically engineered to enjoy music is not only earlier negated by your comment that different cultures have different tastes in music but also the why of music.

Evolution, of which I believe, teaches us that we developed skills over millennia to enable us to survive and better prosper in our world. How does music help us do this?

Or is this just part of selection of the fittest and musicians get all the hot chicks?

Aaron says:

01:55pm | 04/04/11

SRB the interesting thing is that Atheists believe they are always needing to provide proof to the non-existence of a supreme deity while Believers believe they are always needing to provide proof to the existence of a supreme deity.

The truth is that neither will ever be able to provide proof as non-belief relies on the fact that the supreme deity hasn’t appeared to all individuals while belief can counter all arguments presented by science regarding the non-existence with the entirely acceptable argument that a supreme deity could still be responsible for creating the events that led to it happening.

But no matter what you believe/don’t believe the truth is that everyone believes that their lives are affected by external influences, the difference is one group prefers to believe that they can possibly alter those external influences to their benefit and the benefit of others while the rest just resign themselves to the possibility that nothing they do will change the outcome.

MikeH says:

02:25pm | 04/04/11

@sir ronald: Clearly, there will not be any “proof” of the existence of God until we ultimately go to meet Him or He returns, whichever comes first. There is, however, evidence, upon which many have made a decision. For example, the unlikelihood of the universe popping into existence by itself (everything else we see being created has a cause); the incredible fine-tuning of the universe, which could not support life if some of the fundamental parameters - the speed of light, the expansion rate of the universe and several others - were even slightly different; evidence for the historicity of Jesus; evidence for the resurrection. None of these is “proof”, but it is evidence. In the light of that evidence and my own personal experience of God, I’ve come to the conclusion that He exists. You may or may not have considered that evidence, but you’ve come to a different conclusion. That’s your right and I would never dream of abusing you, questioning your sanity or belittling things that you hold dear because you hold that opposing view. I wonder why you wouldn’t extend me the same courtesy?

This is a little like the climate change debate, I think. There is evidence (but not “proof”) that man-made climate change is occurring. On the basis of that evidence, some have determined it is a reality and are pushing for action; others are opposing it on the basis of their own view of the evidence, but (imho) the stakes are too high to just sit on the fence and say “let’s wait till there’s absolute proof” (it’ll be too late by then).

There is evidence that God exists. The existence or non-existence of God is an important issue (to many, “the” important issue). I’ve made a call based on the evidence. This side of heaven I’ll never be able to prove it to you, just as you’ll never be able to prove to me I’m wrong. Sorry if Christians have been putting the onus of proof on you - it’s not prove-able in the here and now. Maybe they were a little ticked off by the abuse (we’re not all perfect unfortunately).

Pau says:

03:15pm | 04/04/11

Most of the comments here appear well reasoned, articulate, intelligent and interesting to read…. until this low brow, insulting spiel brought the tone down to gutter level.

jabso says:

04:47pm | 04/04/11

Agree despite your abrasiveness bradman. How’s that saying go? “That which can be asserted without proof can also be dismissed without proof” I think that best sums it up.

Also as much as I believe that religion isn’t the forefather of morals, so what if it is? The fact is we no longer need religion to point our moral compass to, as morals have been instilled in us, whether they be from nature, DNA, religion, family, community or Andrew Bolt.

If religion is the forefather of morals, that’s all it is, it did a good job of building our morals but now we can take the ball and run with it. We are no longer primitive beings, we don’t need to band under one god (or a group of gods) in order to be convinced that killing each other is wrong. We MAY have as early humans, but not today.

Religion has been antiquated. I think people are starting to catch up to this. Faith in the human race, has overtaken religion, as the compass point of all morals.

Muttley says:

05:08pm | 04/04/11

ZSR, The feeling you are getting from music comes from your own emotions. Quite simple really. Music is one of the most powerful emotional triggers. It makes us recall happier times or sad times.

Jessie Clyne says:

05:29pm | 04/04/11

Then you obviously don’t know much about those ‘fairy tales’ because if you did you would know why there are dying starving children in Africa. The ‘fairy tale’ would tell you that it’s because of Original sin, and because Eve took the forbidden fruit ate some and gave a piece to Adam they were both condemned and were separated from God - until he offered us his only Son for those who have faith in Him, serve Him, trust HIM and follow HIM will be redeemed and have eternal life.

rufus says:

05:55pm | 04/04/11

ZS Renn, are you moonlighting from your calling as a propagandist for the Chinese government? Better get with the program, the communists are all atheists.

sir ronald bradnam says:

07:25pm | 04/04/11

ZSRenn not one insult involved all just personal opinion and i am actually very happy thanks you vey much.

James1 once again no insults you must be pretty thin skinned.

Aaron after death, nothing, nada blackness, nothing so meeting our maker cant happen.

Pau, well reasoned articulate well thought out response must have taken a while to come up with that little beauty congratulations well done.

Jessie ClyneThe ‘fairy tale’ would tell you that it’s because of Original sin, and because Eve took the forbidden fruit ............that says it all really doesnt it… what a copout I suppose you advocate the teaching of natives not to use condoms so that they die of aids.

sir ronald bradnam says:

09:49pm | 04/04/11

forgot to say, there is more evidence of the tooth fairy than there is of a ‘God’ at least when I put my kids teeth under the pillow there is a two dollar coin there in its place in the morning.

sir ronald bradnam says:

09:52pm | 04/04/11

Check out some of these loony opinions these people are actually walking the street.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/its-not-the-end-of-the-world-says-brisbane-radio-station-20110401-1crj0.html

http://www.raptureready.com/rap49.html

http://www.raptureready.com/lbl/left-behind.html

mel says:

10:13pm | 04/04/11

Sir Ronald talks about ‘sky fairy believers’ and lots of people get upset. Do you realise that not everyone shares your beliefs and just because you think you talk to some unseen being, it doesn’t mean it’s true? Anyway, what’s wrong with your version of a ‘supreme being’ being called a sky fairy?

MikeH says:

10:13am | 05/04/11

@mel: The point I was trying to get through to “sir ronald” earlier is that it is actually possible to disagree with someone’s views without belittling and insulting them.

Why do people get upset? We aren’t talking about a football club here, we are talking about deeply held beliefs and the “sky fairy” comments are a slight on someone we hold in higher esteem than anyone else. Imagine me getting on line and throwing personal insults at your mother or father and you might get some idea of the feelings involved.

This won’t alter the way that sir ronald or yourself or others behave, I’m sure. But at least be aware that what you are doing, what you are saying, is deeply offensive.

Jessie Clyne says:

11:04am | 05/04/11

HA! Of course I wouldn’t preach against condoms. Hahaha. We all know what happens when you ASS-U-ME.

sir ronald bradnam says:

11:30am | 05/04/11

MikeH i find some of the things you say offensive but I keep those thoughts to myself and how am I behaving? It is an opinion only no different than your deeply held belief, I think you are a little thin skinned my friend.
Jessie Clynne, idiot, you and your ilk fanatic nutters preach compassion and show nothing but contempt and ill concieved judgments because of your beliefs and what is fed to you by the other invisible friend worshipping loonies.

MikeH says:

12:12pm | 05/04/11

@sir ronald: “not one insult involved all just personal opinion”

1. If you can’t perceive the insults in both your words and your tone, I feel dreadfully sorry for those you interact with on a day to day basis.

2. “just personal opinion”. This is a little at odds with your other statement: “after death, nothing, nada blackness, nothing so meeting our maker cant happen”. No scope for discussion here is there? I think that puts the burden of proof, which you apparently want to avoid, back on you.

3. ” there is more evidence of the tooth fairy than there is of a ‘God’” No, there’s not. I pointed some of the evidences for God in my earlier post. No response to these?

MikeH says:

12:17pm | 05/04/11

@sir ronald: “MikeH i find some of the things you say offensive”

I wonder what you could have found offensive in the things I have written? Can you please take another read and point them out to me?

I wonder who is being “thin skinned” here?

MikeH says:

12:26pm | 05/04/11

@sir ronald: Oh, sorry. I wrote my earlier posts before I read the following:

“...idiot, you and your ilk fanatic nutters preach compassion and show nothing but contempt and ill concieved judgments because of your beliefs and what is fed to you by the other invisible friend worshipping loonies”.

I can see now that you are indeed not trying to offend and I now have much more respect for your “opinions”.

I’ve also decided that I’m wasting far too much time and emotional energy on this thread, with no chance of actually approaching anything like a considered discussion.

Cheers.

sir ronald bradnam says:

03:55pm | 05/04/11

MikeH when you learn to read you will notice that comment was for Jessie clynne with his homophobic response.

MikeH says:

05:38pm | 05/04/11

@sir ron: (I said I was going to stop didn’t I, but I can’t resist). I wasn’t suggesting that your diatribe was against me, just noting the continuing and escalating stream of insults from someone who has claimed many times that he hasn’t been insulting.

BTW, I read Jessie’s last sentence to be a reference to the well known saying that “If you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME” and saw nothing homophobic in it. Maybe I’m just naive (or maybe you’re being a bit thin skinned).

Do you have anything constructive at all to say about your rejection of the evidences for the existence of God?

Joseph says:

11:02am | 04/04/11

see! One doesn’t need a bloody diatribe to say something sensible.
Thank you CJ Morgan.

Peter says:

12:54pm | 04/04/11

Of course God exists, its no miraculous conception each morning he appears in the mirror, and when I look around theres only me.

Dan says:

01:12pm | 04/04/11

Religions have also formed the basis of numerous wars, the Christian dark ages, the Crusades. Region has been a great hurdle on the advancement of mankind by consistently holding back scientific advancement. All in all religions as a whole are a burden on society. The have no positive social functions, they cause quite the opposite in that they cause discrimination and fuel heated arguments.

Finally morals exist without religion, so do not confuse the two.

Muttley says:

05:10pm | 04/04/11

“No positive social functions” Thats a bit of a stretch Dan.

Tedd says:

08:45am | 04/04/11

Servaas,

Many agree on reality without a god/creator force. The desire for specifics that you articulate are at the heart of many doctrinal belief systems.

Also, of the dual carbon tax rallies some Australian cities have had recently, one pro- and one anti- (eg Sydney on Sat 2 April), which group was worshipping self and which was seeking a better world for their grandchildren despite the uncertainty of outcome of the action to reduce pollution?

Chris L says:

10:31am | 04/04/11

I often see people perform amazing feats of intellectual gymnastics in a valiant effort to make atheism look like a religion. Attempts to claim that we worship ourselves, or Darwin, or Satan or whatever simply show a lack of comprehension. It is simply a lack of belief, as difficult a concept as this may be for religious people to comprehend. We’re not replacing belief in gods with a belief in something else, we’re simply not taking that step of believing in deities in the first place.

Why this eagerness to make us sound religious? Are you trying to accuse us of being misguided?

skepdad says:

10:39am | 04/04/11

@Tedd: Specifically on the carbon tax issue, it’s disingenuous to associate your point of view with rationalism, and the opposing one as dogmatic (“worshipping self” indeed).  There are fundamentalists on both sides of the debate, and a large number of people in the middle who are unconvinced of the evidence either way, but come down on one side or the other on balance.

If someone critically evaluates the evidence and arrives at a reasoned position, they are being good rationalists whether or not their conclusion agrees with yours.  The tendency of the AGW fundies to label anyone on the other side of the debate with the perjorative “denier” is a very dishonest one.

Thomas Andersen says:

01:11pm | 04/04/11

@Servaas

“There is no peanut butter in a jar” is a negative statement.

Atheists indeed worship the negative statement “there is no God”.

Andrew says:

02:14pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas

So you christians are so negative by saying “there are no other gods except <insert diety of choice here>”??  Sounds like a negative proposition to me, to discount 99.999999% of known ‘gods’ and just keep your own?  You also reject the existance of fairies, goblins, purple flying elephants, and leprechauns, so I guess you’re negative on all those fronts as well?  Rejecting stupidity is not a flaw..

dave says:

02:38pm | 04/04/11

@ Thomas Andersen

how is it a negative statement? it is a statement with no feelings towards it. it is merely an observation stating what is known…like “this pen is blue”.

“there is no god” could only be perceived as negative to a staunch believer who cant fully trust their own ideas, morals and choices and feel threatened by a statement which goes against them.

Thomas Anderson says:

03:21pm | 04/04/11

Negative does not mean “bad”. Words have different meanings. A negative statement is a statement that denies something, a positive is one that affirms something. I would say “didn’t you people study at a university”, but this stuff is taught at schools….

As for “rejecting Deities” and such, maybe you don’t know, but the Jewish God, the Christian God and the Islam’s Allah are all one Deity. Yes, I reject Hindu Deities and Pagan Gods.

I do not believe in Zeus. There, negative statement.

Tedd says:

04:44pm | 04/04/11

Thomas Anderson,

So, you are atheist about all deities except the Jewish, Muslim and Christian trinity, or is that trifecta?

Thomas Anderson says:

05:45pm | 04/04/11

I am not an atheist at all, because I believe in a Supreme Being. Atheism is a state of non belief in any Supreme Being.

It’s not a “trinity”, it is One and the Same God.

Tedd says:

06:19pm | 04/04/11

Thomas, in rejecting Hindu Deities and Pagan Gods, and not believing in Zeus, you are professing selective atheism

Jay says:

06:36pm | 04/04/11

Again - must we point out that being atheist is no more a religion than ‘not collecting stamps’ is a hobby?

Thomas - you reject all other of the 2600 odd deities known to humanity, the rest of us have just eliminated one more on the list.

Servaas says:

11:05pm | 04/04/11

Organised religion is not necessary for worship. Atheists generally place most worth on themselves, ie their opinion/view. That is what worship is, truly valueing something greatly and then acting according to, and probably in favour of, that thing which you so greatly value. Therefore Is ay atheists are selfworshippers - not only atheists are that though,  Christians and anyone else for that matter are also selfworshippers. Difference is that Christians believe it is more beneficial and more God-honouring to worship God instead of themselves and therefore aim to worship God(holy,righteous,perfect,faithful,humble) rather than themselves(unfaithful,sinful,proud,self-seeking)

Chris L says:

02:57pm | 05/04/11

Very clever Servaas. Make up a definition of worship and cunningly craft it so that you can squeeze atheists into this definition.

wor·ship (wûrshp) n.
1.
a. The reverent love and devotion accorded a deity, an idol, or a sacred object.
b. The ceremonies, prayers, or other religious forms by which this love is expressed.
2. Ardent devotion; adoration.
3. often Worship Chiefly British Used as a form of address for magistrates, mayors, and certain other dignitaries: Your Worship

I guess I’m gonna have to call BS on your post.

Servaas says:

02:48am | 06/04/11

Chris L, here are two more ways to look at it:
http://homepage.mac.com/paulbeedle/worship.html
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=worship

We can get super technical about it but at the end of the day the atheist (another word which needs to be defined more often) position is that whatever you as an atheist deems to be true is true, even though your faith position does not logically allow for truth as a category to exist (which is why Christians and others struggle so much with this view point of life). You are thus in yourself a source of absolute knowledge and wisdom.

How can you then consider yourself to be the one with most worth to yourself? The thing you place most worth on will be the thing you worship. That is what it comes down to in practice.

Brutus Balan says:

09:44am | 04/04/11

Yours is a reactionary atheism. God is beyond the mumbo jumbo, bullocks, religious spectacles around the world and your small mind cannot see it. Atheism is probably the invention of ignorant minds of the egocentric elitists over time blind to the universal human phenomenon of believe in God and the divine intelligence behind the universe to see the Creator of all things, even of puny Rajend Naidu.  Ignorant atheists are in awe of themselves.

skepdad says:

10:41am | 04/04/11

Behold the theist in all his tolerant, loving glory.

KH says:

10:43am | 04/04/11

Brutus - it is not a ‘universal belief’ - some cultures had not heard of this imaginary being until Europeans showed up and flogged it into them.  The indoctrination of children is also central to the perpetuation of this nonsense.  In a couple of cases, the ‘religions’ were obviously made up by known people (L Ron Hubbard anyone?) and yet there are still people gullible enough to believe it.
Some of us are just intelligent enough to see it all for what it is - a man made (and I really mean man, because there don’t appear to be too many women involved) fabrication to explain things that they just weren’t advanced enough to explain, or had no ability to explain at that time, and to enforce an order on their societies using veiled and actual threats, and promises they didn’t have to keep (if it happens ‘after death’, you don’t have to keep the promise, as noone is coming back to tell us all it isn’t true - how convenient) - an order that was often highly restrictive, punished normal human behaviour, made you feel bad for being normal, and largely made women second class citizens, which still persists to this day.  If it isn’t there, it doesn’t exist. For every person who claims some god stepped in on their behalf, there are countless people who prayed in vain.

Brutus Balan says:

02:23pm | 04/04/11

@skepdad: Behold the A-theist in all his intolerant, self loving, self admiring, theists hating, awesome glory. You are entitled to your say and I , mine.

@KH: “it is not a ‘universal belief’ - some cultures had not heard of this imaginary being until Europeans showed up and flogged it into them.” ??? Are you sure you have understood anthropology right?

“If it isn’t there, it doesn’t exist.”???
Have you searched for God everywhere, even the galaxies?  Try the deep spaces of your mind and you may find Him there.

Muttley says:

05:18pm | 04/04/11

Tell you what Brutus, if you find the old fella, you let the rest of us know a coordinate to search. Or a Google Earth reference. I always try not to speak condescendingly to believers, but you are making it tough. Yours is a belief based on blind faith. Ours is a position taken on the evidence available. Just as man used to believe the Earth was flat, but we grew out of that belief. But not until it was proved. And that is where we strike a problem. You cant prove God exists and we cant prove he doesnt.

Brutus Balan says:

09:44pm | 04/04/11

Dear Muttley,

Thanks for the magnanimity of heart for treating me so kindly.  I assure you, you do not need my help to find God, for you WILL find Him in a nano moment, soon after your last breath on earth. I hope I am not condescending to you here. 

* “Yours is a belief based on blind faith. Ours is a position taken on the evidence available.” Your got this the other way around, Muttley.  My faith is based on evidence available and yours is illogical and is blind faith.

In addition to the biblical arguments for God’s existence, there are logical arguments.

First, the ontological argument. It begins with the definition of God as “a being than which no greater can be conceived.”

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.

A third logical argument for God’s existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something “un-caused” in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That “un-caused” cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

And fifthly, your very denial of the existence of God is proof that you do acknowledge God whom you vehemently like to deny.  A-theism is a religious jihad against God.

Now who is a ‘blind believer’ here Muttley? I have shown you reasons for the existence of God and how do you rebut these logical arguments with your A-theism?  A-theism is a blind faith denying the logical evidence that is available and is irrefutable.  No wonder the Bible says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God’” (Psalm 14:1).

mel says:

10:24pm | 04/04/11

Brutus Balan says: “God is beyond the mumbo jumbo, bullocks, religious spectacles around the world and your small mind cannot see it.” Could you give some proof/examples of that and why it’s your god and not the invisible pink unicorns that really rule the universe? Or are you just making stuff up?

Brutus Balan says:

10:06am | 05/04/11

@Mel:
Ok, by your own admission you do admit that it is possibly that it is your ” invisible pink unicorns (gods) that really rule the universe”.  The intelligence and the life giving power behind the universe must then be explained by your almighty “Invisible Pink Unicorn gods”.Or are you just making stuff up when your mind cannot venture beyond the mumbo jumbo, bullocks, religious A-theistic blindness around the world?

Could you give some proof/examples of why it’s your god, the “invisible pink unicorns” that really rule the universe and not the God of the Bible? It is you who should give an explanation of the origin of life, human identity, meaning and purpose to life and as to death and the hereafter. What A-theist cannot do is answer such vital questions BUT attack the God of the Bible with stuffed up prejudice. When A-theists start to answer the questions of life and death, then others can take them seriously and until then, the Bible stands calling them “Fools”. Just to say “We live and die and that’s it” is the talk of Bullock brains!

MikeH says:

11:23am | 07/04/11

@Brutus Balan (if you are still reading this thread): As a fellow Christian, I understand your frustration with the way in which our faith is trivialised and derided in these forums. And we are called to be prepared to give a defense of the faith (1 Peter 3:15). However; can I draw your attention to, the final phrase in that verse, to “do this with gentleness and respect”? You’ve made some good points, but much of this can be lost when it becomes a slanging match.

mel says:

10:32pm | 07/04/11

Brutus Balan: asked me: “Could you give some proof/examples of why it’s your god, the “invisible pink unicorns” that really rule the universe and not the God of the Bible?” First off, they aren’t gods nor supreme beings, just invisible pink unicorns (IPUs for short) who created the universe. Proof? They told me so, and there’s a slip of paper in my pocket that people say is a record of their achievements. It says they created the universe so it must be true. Sounds crazy, I know, but there you are. They also say that the ‘god’ of the bible is making stuff up and doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I’m glad you’ve come to accept the IPUs created the universe but why would you think we have a ‘purpose’ on this earth? The IPUs say there isn’t one, so there can’t be, can there? I find their argument entirely convincing, don’t you? The god of the bible doesn’t offer that level of proof, I’m sure you’d agree.

MikeH says:

04:02pm | 08/04/11

@mel: Sorry, you don’t even come close. When you have around 25,000 ancient pieces of paper in your pocket, all written very close to the time of the said events, we might start to take your unicorns seriously. Otherwise, God trumps your unicorns (and every other recorded event of the ancient world) hands down.

mel says:

06:15pm | 09/04/11

Written close to the time? Was Genesis written on the seventh day after those six days of creation (and when was that exactly)? Was Exodus written when those hundreds of thousands of Jews (or was it millions?) left Egypt: those Egyptians forgot to mention that great event at all, which is surprising. (Again, when do you think Exodus was)?  Who wrote down the words of Gabriel announcing your god’s desire to get someone pregnant or the birth itself? The New testament books, most scholars say, were written a generation or two after the purported events, and not by eye witnesses. A lot of misinformation can aggregate around any story after so many years.

Scholars estimate that the Iliad was written down about 400-500 years after the event, although the oral poem had been around much longer. That seems closer to the event than the book of Genesis, doesn’t it? So that must make it true, if I follow your thinking. (Actually Homer gets it right most of the time, so it seems we have evidence for Zeus, Ares, etc).

Some people, however, argue that the IPUs invented the world last Thursday and implanted false memories in all of us to make us believe the world is much. No-one has been able to prove otherwise, so that means those ‘holy texts’ in my pocket are closer to the time of origin than yours. That must make them correct then, according to your reasoning!

Invisible pink unicorns rule!

MikeH says:

09:24am | 10/04/11

I was speaking of the New Testament, which recounts the life and ministry of Christ and the life of the early church. Christ said He was God and did a whole lot of stuff which proved it. There are, by far, more extant copies of the Old Testament, created far closer to the original events than any other ancient text. Many of the books were written by eye witnesses, who then dedicated their lives to spreading the gospel and were persecuted, tortured and executed for doing it. Not something you’d normally be willing to do for something you’d just made up.

mel says:

04:58pm | 10/04/11

You need to be a bit clearer then, if you are only referring to the NT. Again can you tell me which eye witness wrote about the annunciation, birth and early life of Christ? Also, I thought that while the gospels have been given the names of the four evangelists, we have no idea who were the authors. Were these ‘evangelists’ really eye witnesses anyway? Luke and Mark are not even apostles (or do I have that wrong). Paul admits himself that he is not an eyewitness to the life of Christ. And can you tell me which eye witness wrote the Acts? As far as I can see, we have lots of stories but no eye witness testimony. Let alone having no hard evidence that might prove the star in the east, the slaughter of the innocents, the miracles, the crucifixion and darkness all over the world, the empty tomb, I don’t recall there being any evidence for the persecution of the twelve apostles either?

Certainly in later generations, christians were persecuted but people have shown themselves willing to die for all sorts of fairy tales. Don’t you remember the Heaven’s Gate suicides in the US a few years back where the group willingly committed suicide so that they could be taken up into the spacecraft hiding behind the Hale-Bopp comet? (Co-incidentally, the males were also chemically castrated too. That shows commitment to a fairy tale, doesn’t it.) Their willingness to die, however, does not make their fairy tales true.

Let’s face facts: the proofs you’ve so far presented aren’t really proofs and do not go any way to show that the bible is true, let alone that god exists. At least invisible pink unicorns make sense!

ZSRenn says:

10:55am | 04/04/11

Prove there is idiot!

Just because you have faith doesn’t mean everybody else has. You really can’t prove your stance so you can’t expect others to prove theirs.

Rather than ask people to prove there isn’t a God add to the debate what evidence you have that there is!

Even Thomas had his doubts until he saw the marks on Jesus’ hands and feet.

skepdad says:

11:25am | 04/04/11

Prove there is no china teapot orbiting Neptune.

A Dose of Reality says:

11:29am | 04/04/11

ZSRenn,

This is laughable, and Ripa proves his point with your answer to his post.

Give it some thought - are you able to see what he is getting at?

Can you say “Moot Point”?  Ripa did!

If you respond to a post - try to address it!

Tubesteak says:

12:16pm | 04/04/11

My imaginary friend can beat your imaginary friend any day

MikeH says:

04:54pm | 04/04/11

The countries, political parties, football supporters, sects, tribes, Gen Y binge drinkers etc. etc. etc. are also always fighting. What’s your point? Unfortunately, it’s human nature. Best of luck in getting them all to believe in GOOD.

Jesus said “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

Richard Dawkins said “The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Which point of view has a better chance of approaching “GOOD”?

skepdad says:

12:26pm | 04/04/11

James, I’m genuinely curious about your nouveau theism.  Can you advise:

- is this still a monotheistic viewpoint (there is one God and only one religion is right), or a pantheistic one (all religions ultimately worship the same God with different names) or more a generally spiritual one (there is something bigger than us)?
- Is your god benevolent and omnipotent?
- Does your god involve itself in human affairs?
- Is there a positive/negative afterlife (e.g. heaven/hell), admittance to which depends on one’s behaviour in life?

And finally, the really tough one: without invoking faith or argument from authority, what evidence caused you to arrive at these conclusions?

My experience with theologians and the general religious population is very much God as an entity, not as an abstract concept of mind as you allude.  Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Bloke says:

12:26pm | 04/04/11

Well spoken.

Jason says:

05:23pm | 04/04/11

I don’t think James is coming back.

James T says:

08:14pm | 04/04/11

Skepdad, I thought about addressing all your questions, but I would have to write a massive treatise. 

There are many different philosophical systems within Christianity and across religions.  Some suggest a personal, finite God, others do not.  Thomas Aquinas, for instance, thought that God was Being as such, an infinite stability behind the world of becoming, which does not intervene in the world, but remains utterly changeless.  Yet the world always participates in Being and emanates from it.

All these attempts seek to describe the one God, understood as “ultimate reality”.  No system and no religion grasps that mystery fully; each has its own insights.

Christianity has never been bound to descriptions of God in the Bible.  It is commonplace to take them figuratively, and this has been so since the Philo of Alexandria wrote around the time of Christ. 

I advise not getting hung up on “the old man in the sky”.  But ponder holiness, goodness, truth and beauty, and think about the nature of reality.  That is itself a religious disposition, since then you will be a contemplative.

Alise Smith says:

10:22pm | 04/04/11

James T, I’m also really interested in your reference to more sophisticated versions of Christianity. Unfortunately my experience of church life in Australia (20 long years of it being force fed to me until early adulthood) was exactly the opposite; Sunday School faith with absolutely no room for deviation or intellectual reflection. I suspect that the more intellectualised descriptions of faith and religion are the product of a secular university, where individuals are able to freely explore notions of god and faith. This is not possible from within a religious institution.

James T says:

11:10pm | 04/04/11

Yes, Alise, I agree.  I studied theology in Melbourne, mainly with the Jesuits, some of whom were quite brilliant.  But I must admit I’ve always had a problem with the most of the churches…there is so often a fear of exploring ideas and a lack of vision.  It’s a real shame…don’t know what to do about that.

stu says:

01:44pm | 04/04/11

yeah, although mabye more like frank zappa

michael j says:

04:03pm | 04/04/11

I actually thought Jesus looked more like John Lennon with glasses,
but while looks may be similar,there’s still debate in the popularity stakes,

James1 says:

05:24pm | 04/04/11

Der.  Jesus was olive skinned, like all Jews used to be.  He probably looked more like an Arab than John Lennon.

skepdad says:

11:41am | 04/04/11

Ryan, if that sentiment were reciprocated I think atheists would be more than happy to live and let live.

Unfortunately we have christian mythology rammed into our kids’ heads at state school; we have our politics subverted by self-styled moral guardians twisting their holy books to support whatever agenda they are pushing, and delightful people such as Pastor Terry Jones inciting murder and riot under the aegis of their fundamentalist hate cult.

But sure, let’s tell the atheists to back off. Look at all the harm they’re doing in the world.  Um… erm…

Tubesteak says:

12:25pm | 04/04/11

I’d be more than happ to back off if all the fairytale believers did so, too.

If religion wasn’t so hell-bent on asserting it’s way onto all areas of life from birth (no abortion because the barble forbids it) to death (no euthanasia because the barble forbids it) then atheists wouldn’t have to crusade about atheism.

Dazeddazza says:

01:03pm | 04/04/11

And the religious should also mind their own business, allowing everyone to believe in whatever they want to believe in as well!

Ryan says:

01:18pm | 04/04/11

@skepdad and @Tubesteak: I can’t say that I agree with the assertion that religion is being rammed down our throats, in fact I see little to anything of it other than when its being reported that some religious festivity like Easter or Christmas is being done away with so as not to offend Muslims.
Then again I don’t see any of you supposed Atheists chasing around after Muslims, I wonder why that is?
One can only assert that your concentration on one religion in particular means that you hate only one religion? Perhaps you have an anterior motive Sharia law anyone?

Ryan says:

01:24pm | 04/04/11

@Dazeddazza: couldn’t agree more. In Australia I don’t feel like religion is being forced down my throat, Atheists on the other hand just can’‘t help themselves and bore me to tears, its like they really want to not believe so they spend their entire time trying to justify their position.

Shane says:

02:16pm | 04/04/11

Can’t say my Saturday mornings have ever been rudely interrupted by an atheist, calling in to tell me the “good news”.  It is, however, a semi-regular occurance with religious fundamentalists.

mike says:

02:34pm | 04/04/11

Ryan you must be off your head if you think athiests are against only christians, its the whole “religous” control they are against.

And if you don’t realise that christianity isnt being forced down our throats you are seriously deluded.  Our governments balls are being held by christian lobby groups that are connected with hillsong and the loopholes that allow $31b in tax free business for them.

Tubesteak says:

02:36pm | 04/04/11

Ryan

I gave perfect examples of religion being rammed down our throats. Much of our lives are curtailed because the religious among us don’t want us to do something.

Have a look at certain senators in state and federal parliaments and what they aim to achieve for further proof. Too many to mention.

Seanr says:

04:33pm | 04/04/11

@tubesteak, my view that killing babies (sorry abortion) is wrong has nothing to do with religion
@skepdad, you seem like one of the annoying athiests, Ryan was talking about, not really interested in the opposing argument just throwing out your own bullet points and insults.
Take your ‘Prove there is no china teapot orbiting Neptune” comment. I would say that it is impossible to prove either way, we don’t have the ability/technology/knowledge to prove there is or is not a teapot up there” So the constant ranting about ‘prove God exists’ doesn’t help anyone.

Also “rammed into our kids heads”, so you’re not happy that one of the foundations of Western society is taught at your school? You’d only like those viewpoints you agree with rammed down their throats? Ideological viewpoints are all you get in school, it is making sure children get a variety of viewpoints that is important.

I would describe myself as a deist by the way, another viewpoint you misrepresented, I’m very interested in the truth and rational thinking.

Finally ‘billion to one chances happen everyday’ LOL, how’s the lottery going for you?

Tubesteak says:

05:47pm | 04/04/11

seanr

Your opposition to abortion may be removed from religion but many of those who are opposed to abortion aren’t removed from religion and believe their actions to be an extension of god. So you are not the sum total of the debate/issue.

Ryan says:

05:54pm | 04/04/11

@mike: couldn’t agree more, religious organisations should not be allowed to operate businesses tax free, this is not their fault, this is something that needs to be rectified by the government.

@Shane: can’t say I have ever experienced what you have and under those circumstances I might also be quite angry at the caller for whatever reason they called me, hell if you ask me, I don’t think that religious organisations should be exempt from the do-not-call register.

Nick Buick says:

06:20pm | 04/04/11

@tubespeak
Seanr is right abortion has nothing to do with religion. I’m a devout atheist, and it seems pretty apparent to me that murdering full-term babies for non-medical reasons is a barbaric practice. I don’t believe the bible makes any mention of it - it’s simply a matter of pretty clear-cut right and wrong. I think Christians do this a diservice by attempting to quote the bible, make references to the baby having a soul, etc, etc… At the end of the day - you’re killing a human being. That is fundamentally wrong - god has nothing to do with it.

skepdad says:

06:33pm | 04/04/11

@Ryan: wow, you were doing so well until that rant about Sharia. What an amazing piece of non-logic.  If my kids start getting the koran rammed down their throats in school like they currently get the christian faith, you’ll see plenty of objection from me.

@Seanr: the Neptune comment is a way of illustrating that anyone can make an assertion that is not disprovable, but it doesn’t place the onus of disproof on the person who hears it.  I have no more responsibility to disprove your assertion of an omnipotent god then you have of disproving my assertion of the celestial teapot.  It’s called an analogy - you can look that up on wikipedia.  That which can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Tell me: how happy would you be to have Islam rammed into your kids’ heads?  Or Satanism? Or Scientology?  That is also an analogy, in case you missed it.  No more happy than I am about christianity, or any mythological belief system taught as fact.

And yes, people do indeed win the lottery every day at odds of millions to one.  Every one of those people probably feels like it was a miracle.  You sound a bit confused about statistics and maths.

Seanr says:

09:14am | 05/04/11

@skepdad,

Since you like analogies I’ll give you one, at one point we couldn’t prove the world was round, didn’t mean it wasn’t.

re Islam etc, I’d be quite happy for my children to learn about different viewpoints as I originally said, along with the alternate views. Christianity should hold a special place due to its impact on Western civilization, just as Islam would in Arab culture.

You originally said “billion-to-one chances happen every day”, there is a big difference between a billion and a million and the odds of either happening…basic maths

Ryan says:

03:50pm | 05/04/11

@skepdad: how is religion being rammed down your childs throat at school? Even when I went to school you could opt your child out of religion classes.

skepdad says:

10:07am | 10/04/11

@Ryan: I’ll give you a few examples.
Firstly there’s the whole RI thing.  Yes you can opt your child out.  If you do so, they get to sit in the corner or out in the hallway, by themselves, and are not allowed by law to do anything educational.  I choose not to have my child ostracised in this manner.
Then there’s the school prayer and the school creed, both of which reference God and both of which are placed in prominent places in each classroom.  In my son’s case, directly over the water bubbler where the kids see it multiple times per day.
Then there’s the daily reciting of the school prayer at assembly.
Then there’s the fundie christian teacher who told my son that dinosaur bones were planted in the ground by God to make people believe that the earth was more than 6000 years old (but it isn’t really).
Oh by the way, this is in a state primary school.

Matt says:

03:37pm | 04/04/11

How is that God? If you consider that we all have free choice here on earth, then you must distinguish that those are the actions of MAN.

Chris says:

06:38pm | 04/04/11

The problem with religion or “faith” isn’t God…it’s MAN.
Man is the one who can put beliefs into action for the better; or, for his own selfish and confused motives.
Blaming God for the starving Children in Africa or the Middle eastern conflicts is essentially absolving Man of his responsibility and I’m sorry if I offend, rather immature.

Tell us what happen then, if you must spruik off a says:

11:59am | 04/04/11

Well, do tell, what happened? Not to tell is doing the miracle a disservice and a slight on your credibility.

skepdad says:

12:35pm | 04/04/11

Paul, in a world of seven billion people, billion-to-one chances happen every day.  It’s not miracles, it’s maths.

I’m happy that you got lucky and that you’re getting a chance to live the rest of (probably) the only life you’ll ever have.

Tim the Toolman says:

01:25pm | 04/04/11

“so essentially atheists and believers are in very similar positions.”

With one critical difference.  There is absolutely no evidence for god.  Just as there is absolutely no evidence for an infinite number of other things you can imagine.  When you understand why you don’t believe in an invisible purple hamster currently orbiting Saturn who tells the origin of the universe by making a random person say a random word every day, across the universe, then you’ll understand why atheists dismiss all gods.

Paul says:

04:50pm | 04/04/11

Do you ascribe to a religion or is your God more generic (for lack of a better word)?

I think the problem for people who ascribe to a particular defined religion based on such a personal experience is that there is a Hindu person or a Muslim person or a Christian person or a Jewish person who has exactly the same reasons for believing in their religion.

Paul says:

09:11pm | 04/04/11

@Tim the Toolman
“With one critical difference.  There is absolutely no evidence for god.”

I disagree.

There’s my lived experience of being briefly in God’s presence and experiencing God’s intelligence and healing force during several incidents over the space of about 4 months – which is good enough evidence for me personally (but not for anyone else, I get that).

“When you understand why you don’t believe in an invisible purple hamster…”

What an insult.

And what an impoverished argument for your position.

That is a typical atheist response: not having anything more constructive or intelligent to say except to reduce someone’s lived experience to something ludicrous and laughable.

Your response does not change what I experienced.

I’ll say again: If you open your closed mind and examine the respective positions they really are very similar, except I would say my position is actually slightly stronger, because I have had a primary experience of being in God’s presence (I don’t expect you to believe that however).

Do you have access to ALL the evidence to claim there is no God?
Is omnipotence available to you?

Can you answer that without resorting to ridicule or contempt?

Jason Todd says:

07:07pm | 05/04/11

Paul, by the same token I could take your rejection of my learned experience and the acceptance of your experience over mine as an insult. After all, what makes you any better than me? Are your experiences somehow more valid?

Don’t get me wrong; I have no problem with people living their day to day lives believing whatever they want to believe. If it helps you live and be happy and noone else gets hurt, I don’t care if you believe in Yaweh, Thor, Zeus or Vishnu. Where I develop a problem with it is when people try to tell me that their experience with Yaweh, Thor, Zeus or Vishnu somehow invalidates my experiences, thoughts and views, because their belief grants them the right to over write the beliefs of those around them.

I freely admit that I cannot prove or disprove god. Noone can. To attempt to prove the unprovable is a fools errand. What I can say is that based on my assessment of the available evidence, there is nothing to indicate that there is any form of divine creator or caretaker. I choose to believe that this is the case and live my life as such. Is it really then fair when people with other beliefs tell me that I am wrong because they see things differently?

Chris L says:

02:43pm | 04/04/11

I’d like to have some examples of “religion bashing” so that I know how you define it. Many religious people take the assertion “I don’t believe in god” as a vicious attack on their faith. Believe it, I’ve seen this reaction plenty of times. What counts as religion bashing by your definition?

Shenanigans says:

03:05pm | 04/04/11

Childish name calling and hating on a religion and it’s people entirely because you think believing in a god is weak, is my definition of it. If you can’t substantiate your dodgey fucken claims then don’t call it, and don’t chuck a hissy fit if someone comes along and decides to argue the point. Man up and use intelligent words to argue straight back. That counts for both sided.

I too have seen that reaction and I find it hilariously entertaining.

Muffin Ears says:

01:51pm | 04/04/11

Zac?

Duff says:

04:07pm | 04/04/11

OMG, yes, it’s me - Zac.  Is that you God?

skepdad says:

12:42pm | 04/04/11

“Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst.  And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city.” (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Deity-sponsored rape, war and genocide in one paragraph.  Please, tell me more about the beauty of your good book and beneficent, wise god.

Shane From Melbourne says:

12:44pm | 04/04/11

That’s cool as long as the Catholic Church stops trying to impose their views about abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia, R rated video games etc upon the rest of secular society. Unfortunately the Catholic Taliban will never stop trying to do this…...

Thomas Andersen says:

01:16pm | 04/04/11

@ skepdad

You believe that the Bible is just a book written by humans who made it all up don’t you? Justify your comment “Deity-sponsored…”

Either you think the Bible is Word of God spoken through humans or your comment was one written by a man who speaks before he thinks.

skepdad says:

02:47pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas Andersen: indeed I do believe that the bible was written by humans, incorporating the morals and ethics of the Iron Age in which it was penned.  This is entirely consistent with its regular descent into savagery and lack of any knowledge or opinion that wasn’t held by the people of the time.

Quoting the barbarism in the bible is a perfectly reasonable response to those who quote the pleasant humanism in it, taking it a la carte.  It is either the inspired word of your god, or it is not.  If you structure your life around it (and force its dubious morality on others) you clearly believe the former, and it is very disingenuous to laud the good parts as godly while ignoring the barbaric remainder.

The paragraph in question and many others like it claim sponsorship from god for evils perpetrated by humans.  It’s not my belief, it’s the belief (or professed belief, for whatever purpose) of the authors or editors.  My belief is that it’s humans being humans - looking for an divine excuse to get what they want.

And I’ve given theology a lot more thought than the vast majority of people I’ve debated on the topic, including theists and probably including you.

Chris L says:

03:08pm | 04/04/11

@Thomas - Just in case at any time in the future I’m talking about Harry Potter I am not necessarily talking about a real Harry Potter or saying that I believe he is real.

Thomas Anderson says:

03:41pm | 04/04/11

@skepdad

It’s too hard to say whether everything in the Bible is truly Word of God, I wouldn’t dare speculate. Being written by humans, it may be subject to misunderstandings. It’s as close as we are going to get though.

Parts of the Bible predate the Iron Age by ten thousand years, and the New Testament was written after the conclusion of the Iron Age, at least by British standards.

You would find that the Old Testament / Torah / Jewish Bible teaches a bit differently to the Christian Bible. All those “barbaric” acts are found in the Torah. The Christian parts are pretty much all good, Jesus preached love, and not “eye for an eye”.

skepdad says:

07:25pm | 04/04/11

Thomas: er, I’m almost certain that the Christian bible is made up of the old and new testaments, including the book of Zecheriah.  I dimly remember being caned by my Marist Brother teacher until that was embedded in my memory.

Are you really stating that the bad bits are Jewish (or misunderstandings - what a beautifully convenient out) and the good bits are Christian?  Quite apart from the anti-semitism, it’s plainly untrue.  Hmm, let me see, this shouldn’t take long - aha: Jesus criticizes the Jews for not killing their disobedient children as required by Old Testament law (Mark 7:9-10):
“7:9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.
7:10 For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death.”

Quite a fan of the Jewish Old Testament, that Jesus! I’m glad that particular rule’s been rubbed out to be honest.  My kids wouldn’t have made it past their second birthday.

You got me on the Iron Age though - I always thought it ended around 400 AD.  Well done.  You’re right - the bible was indeed written and edited by a large number of people - from Bronze Age tribesmen to people who could not have been born at the time of Jesus.  Very convincing evidence for divine inspiration, I must say.

Bloke says:

12:35pm | 04/04/11

Actually it is just Love mate, close though, close…   God is Love, so you still kind of make sense at the beginning there.  Since God is love we all try to be more and more like him.  This leads us naturally to a way of interacting with one another.  Peace be with you.

Aitch says:

01:00pm | 04/04/11

But you only get the “love” if you do things god’s way.
Failure to accept him or failure to repent results in him torturing you in hell for eternity. Ask yourself this Bloke: Since god created everything, controls everything and has a master plan, WTF did he create satan for?

Take it easy baby says:

01:28pm | 04/04/11

Of all the comments on this blog, this one pretty much sums it up in relation to the Christian religion. As for some of the religions they are even less believable. Some christians like to espouse their bible as ‘the word of God’ and ‘the truth’. What about the bits where the christian bible says a women was made from man’s rib, the earth was made in seven days and the funniest one about Noah and the Ark and a flood that covered the earth. These ‘stories’ are just that, ‘stories”. They are no different from the stories of aboriginal dreamtime to explain things which were not understood at the time. What about the egyptian pharoahs stocking their pyramids with food and slaves they could use in the so called ‘afterlife’. We could laugh at them, but our own modern day religions are even kookier.

The whole concept of religion is based on peoples fear of dying and questions like ‘is this all there is.’

Most people have worked out that that this is all there is, and it is beautiful and wonderful and needs to be appreciated everyday. We all need to take a deep breath, be a bit nicer to each other, live for today (and not some mystical tommorow) and stop forcing our ideas on each other.

By the way when was the last time an athiest knocked on your door and handed you bits of paper, referring you to some book that was wriiten by who knows who, thousands of years ago, purporting to be the ‘truth’ and the way to live your life. When was the last time an atheist blew themselves up to kill a group of people who believe in some other type of god.

Both sides of the whole religious debate probably need to take an aspirin and have a good lie down (although it does make for interesting reading).

Shmeg says:

02:12pm | 04/04/11

@ Aitch,
God did create everything, inculding satan, but satan wasn’t created to be evil, he was given freewill to make his own choices (just as we are), and he did (just as we do).  The Love that you mentioned is unconditional, but that doesn’t mean that the actions and choices that we make don’t have consequences

Grant says:

02:47pm | 04/04/11

Okay, Christians… Think about it. A hugely vast universe, as far as we as humans know - it’s never ending, but you choose to think we are the only form of life? We have even witnessed on this earth over the last few hundred years that evolution is real. Different species finding new ways to adapt to new environments. Fish who would never be able to survive out of the water now have the ability to breath oxygen. Cane toads evolving, growing, jumping further, surviving elements they wouldn’t have before. The evidence is all around us. You call it a big lie… But you think we all need to repent our sins because a man made out of a piece of clay and a woman made out of a male rib bone ate a piece of forbidden fruit off a magical tree because they were conned into it by a talking snake? How about you take a look at your own morals and beliefs, before you judge us for choosing not to read a fictional book everyday. I feel sorry for all of you… what a waste of life you live.

Aitch says:

04:00pm | 04/04/11

Sorry Schmeg, it doesn’t stack up. The anomolous nature of the Christain faith dictates that God has a plan. A rock-solid god plan. “He knows the beginning and the end” as the big bible tells you. So when god created satan, he therefore must have known satan would fall. For an all-knowing god, it can’t have been a matter of “Ooops! Awww, what a shame - I wanted that angel to be a good angel.” Predetermination is a problem for Christians because god laid “the plan”. HE created satan as evil. You follow?

Shmeg says:

05:09pm | 04/04/11

@ Aitch
God does have a ‘rock solid god plan’ as you put it, but he doesn’t dictate who or what we are.  Yes he created satan and gave him the option to choose the path that he did, and yes it would have been a hell of a lot easier if there was no choice and we didn’t have to deal with all of this confusion.  I belive that satan wasn’t created evil, he chose that path.  You said that the bible tells us that God knows the beginning from the end and that is true.  It also says that the other angels tried to reason with satan (some of them ended up following him), and if you read the whole story that he was given many chances to ‘repent’ for want of a better word.  If God had prevented satan from sinning that would have made him a dictator and we wouldn’t have the freedom of choice like we do.  I’m sorry if I’m not explaining this very well, I am pretty new to the whole believing christianity thing…. I decided once that I wanted to be able to prove that christians were mislead and figured that the best way to do that would be to figure out what they believed by reading about it for myself and making my own judgement…. I guess it was the making my own judgement thing that must have been the problem….  a lot of what I have heard and read makes sense, I don’t know how else to describe it.

Aicth says:

06:30pm | 04/04/11

Shmeg says:
“I am pretty new to the whole believing christianity thing.”

Aitch says:
“Back out while you still can.”

skepdad says:

12:51pm | 04/04/11

Good for you rafal.  Just to clear it up though, which one do you believe in?  Jehovah, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Baal, Sol, Brahma, Gaia, Krishna, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Vulcan, Oprah?

Also I’m really interested in the clearly very convincing evidence that you have that such a god exists.  A lot of people would be happy to finally hear something to help them overcome their doubt.  Help a brother out?

HappyCynic says:

01:24pm | 04/04/11

@skepdad

How is it any of your business what god or gods rafal chooses to believe in?  Also why do you require evidence of his/her beliefs?  If rafal wants to look for evidence to validate or invalidate his beliefs he will look for them.

Mind your own business.  If you want to overcome your own doubt do it yourself.  Or do you lack the imagination and the intelligence to think for yourself?

skepdad says:

02:54pm | 04/04/11

It’s none of my business.  Except he posted his belief on the Punch, a site for debate.

There seem to be a lot of people genuinely convinced that god(s) exists.  I’m just looking for a reason to join them - surely someone’s got some compelling evidence?  Surely not everyone just believes this stuff without question?  After all it’s pretty serious stuff - what if you get it wrong?  If you come down on the side of Yahweh, and it turns out the Muslims are right, it’s eternal torment isn’t it?

Bob says:

02:52pm | 04/04/11

I find it odd that you didn’t clarify what science degree you hold.

It just seems like most people I come across who do have that will say they’ve got a degree in biology, chemistry, Information Technology (Mine - Which is a science, but not a terribly relevant one)

>>Open your mind to the fact that science is not the be all and end all of everything. <<

Well, as soon as evidence for something else comes up, elt us know.

Bob says:

02:55pm | 04/04/11

Seriously, you spend four years studying something, you’re going to be as specific as can be reasonably understood by laymen about what you did study. And this limit is a bit further out than “Science”

Grant says:

03:14pm | 04/04/11

My degree is in chemistry. It doesn’t really matter though, the point is I respect scientific endeavour and research and the pursuit of knowledge. It just irritates me when people claim to know everything and it is most irritating when this attitude comes from scientists. All I am asking is in the absence of us not knowing everything about the universe, it is only logical that an open mind is called for on the existence of God.

Bob says:

06:21pm | 04/04/11

That’s entirely reasonable. An open mind should be kept for anything for which there is solid evidence. As soon as such evidence exists. However, simply not knowing how or why something happened isn’t a reason to seriously entertain the idea that god did it.

Jason Sandborn says:

06:58pm | 04/04/11

Atheists are people who want concrete proof before they believe in God. On the other hand, a strong science background today may mean nothing in the future.

Remember the time when the galaxy revolves around the earth? There were even mathematical models to chart and predict the pattern of the stars, yet that turned out to be wrong.

Science is about observing a phenomenon, discovering the truth behind it (by postulating hypothesis and proving/disproving it with experiments), understanding it, and using it to better our daily lives. That is the true objective of science.

A person of science should/will never claim that something is 100% right or wrong (willing to be proved wrong with evidence). THIS is why religious people irks/angers atheists, and vice versa. Not religion (or lack-of) itself.

LOGIC says:

01:13pm | 04/04/11

Ahhh…thankyou Popsicola…...but more like a noose on society….I hope religion willl disappear one day, probably not in my lifetime, what a shame….God is for people stuck in a dark past. How right you are Grant!

James1 says:

12:54pm | 04/04/11

“What if there is?”

The next step is to work out which one will keep us from hell, I suppose.  Any thoughts?  Lets do this alphabetically: start with Allah and cycle through the thousands of gods until we get to Zeus.

I just hope South Park got it wrong when they said the Mormons got it right…

iansand says:

01:17pm | 04/04/11

I would hope that any being as wise, omniscient and omnipotent as God is said to be would look at the life I have lived when judging me, and not at the number of times I have worshipped it. 

One of the things I find hard to take about Christianity and Judaism (and Islam, for that matter) is that their God is so gosh darned insecure and neurotic.  Why would an omnipitotent, omniscient critter CARE if someone as unimportant as me worshipped it?  Hasn’t it something important to worry about?

CJ Morgan says:

02:03pm | 04/04/11

It’s actually a sign on a London bus, if I’m not mistaken.  I seem to recall that similar signs were planned for Melbourne buses, but were refused permission as being too controversial.

Personally, the sentiment that we shouldn’t worry about god/s because they probably don’t really exist pretty well describes my own feelings on the matter.  Hypothetically, if I was to encounter incontrovertible evidence of god/s (or any other supernatural beings for that matter) I would be prepared to alter my position.  However, despite an excellent education and a very broad life experience I haven’t seen or read anything that would alter my default position that there very probably isn’t a God.

That doesn’t make me a rabid atheist.  Indeed, there are many positive aspects to all religions that also probably outweigh their negatives, which is why we still have them.  I don’t decry anyone’s personal faith nor deny their right to follow whatever belief system suits their needs.

However, when religious groups demand special privileges that impact on my rights and freedoms on the basis of their probably unfounded beliefs, I reserve the right to tell them so.

Seanr says:

05:09pm | 04/04/11

My view is similar iansand, the ‘god’ I believe in will judge me on the life I have lived, not on whether I have gone to mass or not, why would a being that created life etc need my worship?

James1 - my thoughts are that you might as well pick one at random, they could all be wrong or all right. I think that religions are our feeble attempts to explain something beyond our current level of understanding.

jabso says:

05:27pm | 04/04/11

If there is a god I would hate god, but I would hedge my bets and pretend to be religous. Either way as god is all knowing he/she’d/they’d probably know I was being insencere and I actually hate him for his/her/their vengeance, irresponsibility and sheer jealousness (which is a sin). So either way if god existed I’d be stuffed if he came to us in a judgement day sort of deal.

James1 says:

01:13pm | 04/04/11

Humans are hard wired to accept “ought” statements and sentiments.

Have a look at moral philosophy - it has been grappling with these questions for centuries.  As such, your quibble with the article is more a gap in your own knowledge than anything else (seemingly coupled with a misunderstanding of the basis of evolutionary theory).

Matthew says:

01:34pm | 04/04/11

Nonsense. Here’s three clues to why atheists (and humans generally) have an abundance of “oughts” without God…

David Hume: “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”.

Bertrand Russell: “All human activity is prompted by desire… If you wish to know what men will do, you must know ... the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.”

Charles Darwin: “A man who has no assured and ever present belief in the existence of a personal God ... can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones”.

So there you go atheists, the foundation for our positive philosophy, the foundation of our future: the philosophy of desire/emotion. When you take away God, the only recognised source of motivation is our feelings. Reason is still important, but “It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger” says David Hume. Hume is right, reason is merely a means to accurate beliefs.

Now, emotion is both liberating and scary at the same time. But there’s only one way to go, and that’s forward. That’s why Tim Dean talks of “the language of morality itself is poetry”. He’s just trying to dress up emotion, which we ought to do to avoid a descent into hedonism. Did I just say “ought” against an emotion? Isn’t that a contradiction? No, it’s just a conflict of emotions. It quickly gets complicated, but that’s what humans are: complicated. And that’s the real reason why atheist philosophies are thin on the ground. Kudos to Tim for having a go.

David Terryl says:

02:25pm | 04/04/11

@ Matthew.

They are just differing points of view. If I believe the world to be ultimately meaningless then that view is just as valid. We are nothing but highly evolved slime, we have no purpose and meaning, the universe is an accident and so is life and death, merely just a blink in the eye of this universe. To try and attach meaning is stupid. Morals are nothing more than man made illusions that we try to force on other people, but ultimately, each individual has their own morals, they are all relative. I hate poetry, I don’t see beauty in much and that’s how I’m hardwired. I’m hardwired to look out for my own interests and to be happy in my life and pick up chicks as much as I can, it’s just my instinct. We are the equivilent to a germ, that is how meaningful we really are, we have no special purpose on this planet and an ant and a cow have just as much meaning, nothing!!

Matthew says:

03:54pm | 04/04/11

@ David Terryl: I didn’t provide points of view, I gave facts. The fact is there is only one recognised source of human motivation if you take God out of the equation: emotion/desire. I didn’t try to construct anything higher than emotion such as “purpose and meaning” as such questions only make sense when reduced to desires.

You clearly have a narrow range of emotions/desires, suggestive of an individual hedonistic lifestyle. If you want to dress in black, think of ourselves as slime, and kick the nearest cat, then what can I say? Well, here’s another fact to suggest your narrow outlook is self-depriving: psychology demonstrates that humans are tribal beings i.e. we love being part of a group. Professor Jonathan Haidt says “Morality is like The Matrix, from the movie “The Matrix.”  Morality is a consensual hallucination”. Hence belonging to a group is important to us, even if our morality/culture is somewhat arbitrary. So, pick a tribe, any tribe, and dance and sing along, or start your own depressing “we’re all slime” tribe.

One day you’ll probably be sick of “picking up chicks” and want to start a family. Don’t waste too much time before you realise this. And when you have a family you’ll suddenly start to care about what shape the world is taking.

It’s easy to say morality is individual and relative but, in reality, we’re all fairly similar so while this “moral relativism” stuff is somewhat true, it’s also exaggerated.

Now I know you don’t like poetry so I’ll end with some Van Halen:

“Well you don’t have to die and go to heaven
Or hang around to be born again
Just tune in to what this place has got to offer
Cause we may never be here again

I want the best of both worlds
A little heaven right here on earth”

Sorry, I couldn’t find any brooding songs about slime and cows.

bleD says:

02:32pm | 04/04/11

You probably had a migraine caused by the stress of your father’s illness. This sometimes causes flashes.

michael j says:

05:02pm | 04/04/11

There’s an invisible world all around us ,sometimes little bits are picked up with powerful microscopes given names and measures,
i don’t believe there is something else i know,but i don’t think GOD as such is part of my experience,,

Tim the Toolman says:

01:30pm | 04/04/11

“Most fellow Atheists deny to even give an argument and just hurl insults. “

The second you come up with an argument that’s valid against a logical fallacy such as “Prove god doesn’t exist”, you’ll have atheists listening.

Deano says:

02:16pm | 04/04/11

@ Tim

Please read the whole post, I am an Atheist. We can’t prove that nothing can produce something but that is in essence what we believe at this stage.

Bob says:

03:17pm | 04/04/11

Deano: I somehow doubt you are Atheist. Simply that very few people will see their own group in that manner.

You’re also using one of the favoured lines that are used by religious people against Atheists. However, if you were an Atheist, you’d understand that we’re not the only group that claims that something came from nothing (Based on our current knowledge, the only answer we have so far is “We don’t know” (but that’s no excuse for saying god did it)) The same logic can just as fairly be applied to “Where did God come from?”

Deano says:

04:05pm | 04/04/11

@ Bob

I am Atheist, I just find myself a little more tolerant and yes, I have alot of I don’t know questions. Unfortunately alot of atheists like on this blog like to pronounce bouldly how smart they are but also deny where their theories actually lead them. To say the universe has no purpose yet in the same breath claim that we have a purpose is contradictory. To say we are highly evolved organism yet say that there is good and evil is illusionary. We are just energy and matter, we have no purpose, simple.

Matt says:

02:45pm | 04/04/11

Because it is a proper noun.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun if you missed this lesson in primary school.

You may also learn that your name should start with a capital letter too.

LC says:

02:51pm | 04/04/11

Regardless of wether or not they exist, it is still a name, and if you paid attention during 1st Grade English, you’d know that you have to capitalize the first letter of a name.

I’m pretty sure we can both agree Harry Potter does not exist, and neither of us belive in him as a deity, yet we still capitalize the first letters of his name. Same thing here.

stephen says:

10:35pm | 04/04/11

If a thing does not exist then capitals are incorrect.

antman says:

06:13pm | 05/04/11

Should we take it that you don’t exist or that Harry Potter does?

P. Darvio says:

01:35pm | 04/04/11

Quote: A Virgin birth -common on - who in their right mind would believe such claptrap

Well…..let see…lets try North Korea as a possibility !!!

North Korea – possibly the most theocratic State on Earth, comparable to the Vatican and Iran.

Why?

Well..there’s The Father…..Kim Il-sung

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Il-sung

“Kim was raised in a Presbyterian family; his maternal grandfather was a Protestant minister, his father had gone to a missionary school and was an elder in the Presbyterian Church, and both his parents were reportedly very active in the religious community. Kim was an accomplished church organist.”

What the…. !!!!

..and The Son…..Kim Jong-il

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il#Birth

“Official biographers claim that his birth at Baekdu Mountain was foretold by a swallow, and heralded by the appearance of a double rainbow over the mountain and a new star in the heavens.”

What the….. !!

“…birth…foretold by a swallow…“ and “…a new star in the Heavens”…M’mmmm – this has a familiar ring to it – where have I heard all this before…? Maybe that swallow was really an angel? Maybe his mother was a virgin as well….?

The Father, and the Son and the ………again where have I heard this before? As Christopher Hitchens describes it - its one short of the Trinity……

Still these communists are hardly orginally on fairy stories on Miraculous/Virgin births are they now.

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

Zoroaster loves you…

Non-reality reality says:

01:58pm | 04/04/11

Hi reality. How do you know this unless you’ve lived outside your reality?

reality says:

02:06pm | 04/04/11

just keep denying it. it’ll make you feel all safe and warm.

ZZ says:

01:42pm | 04/04/11

Religion is used as an excuse for war. Religion is not the reason, the reason is man’s greed.

Shane says:

01:53pm | 04/04/11

That’s a but short-sighted given even the author acknowledges the good of religion. Schools, hospitals, respite homes, charities, welfare agencies and literally millions of people of the “non-fundamentalist” variety living good lives in the service of the community at the expense of themselves. Better off without it? If it literally disappeared tomorrow society would crumble and fall…

P. Darvio says:

03:13pm | 04/04/11

Quote: Schools, hospitals, respite homes, charities, welfare agencies and literally millions of people of the “non-fundamentalist” variety living good lives in the service of the community at the expense of themselves.

The people of Gaza (and others) would claim this is a perfect description of Hezbollah as that’s what they do (well aside from sending rockets into Israel and killing people there…).

There are plenty of schools, hospitals, charities etc that don’t need to invoke a sky daddy to do good work and also do it at the expense of themselves (nor do they feel the need to fire rockets into other countries for GOD, or blow up Policeman in Ireland for GOD, or hack each other to death in Africa for GOD…)

Shane says:

03:51pm | 04/04/11

Palestine and Ireland are wars over territory. Don’t kid yourself. Religion is a peripheral. African wars are either religious or (more often) over power. Humans find plenty of reasons to butcher each other right here on planet earth, we don’t need to invoke religion to do so.

Nothing of that changes the fact that, despite not being particularly relgious, I was born in a Catholic hospital to a single mother and was educated in a Catholic school that didn’t kick me out when fees weren’t paid on time…

malohi says:

02:01pm | 04/04/11

Exactly,
If you say one religion is good, why not all religions. All have the same abscence of evidential support.
If you say god, which god, there is no eveidence of any.
The anecdotal evidence is just as strong for each individual god.
It is so rediculous ,I cannot believe religion has any credibility in 2011.

Stephy says:

04:31pm | 04/04/11

Well, Malohi, I’m actually offended. As a Christian, I see many benefits of religion in our society.

What I don’t understand is the lack of tolerance Athiests have. You claim we’re an intolerant, bigoted religion who have no time for anyone but ourselves. In the next breath, you call us brainwashed idiots who believe in sky fairies and can’t think past our next prayer. I mean seriously, can’t you see the hypocrisy? Christians may say we disagree with certain things, but we don’t mouth off at them, individuals, people who believe a certain system, the system itself, and we certainly don’t attack with open claws like many, many posters I can see here.

What I want to know is, what have we as a Christian community done to you? Have we hurt a relative? Killed your cat? What did we do to draw such hate? Do we lurk in bushes and spring out, ready to hit you with Bibles? No?

So how do you justify such levels of hate?

Regardless of how you feel against us, why stop us practicing our religion - even if you think it is backward and soooo 18th century. Why take our events out of schools and instill your own instead? Why trample us and push us down so low we can’t say the word Christian without someone verbally giving us a beating?

Again, I repeat - how have we harmed you to make you want us to stop our practice?

If you don’t have an answer to that, then let us practice in peace. Keep your nasty comments to yourself - because we don’t want to hear them. You telling us we believe in sky fairies isn’t going to stop us. You deliberately saying comments you know hurt isn’t going to stop us. It’s probably going to make you feel good, but what does that say about your character?

Religion has been in societies - many, many societies - for thousands of years. Even today, as of the last census, 60% of the Australian population proclaimed themselves as Christians.
Now the athiestic minority want to stand up and dismiss religion. Get rid of it.

Tell you what. You leave us alone and we’ll leave you alone. But you still won’t stop making snide, nasty remarks, will you? It’s your religion, after all. Intolerant bigots.

malohi says:

06:40pm | 04/04/11

I do not hate christians. But if you want to know where the so called intolerance stems from…
Religion relys on faith. Faith in the ways and rules of god. It is the same faith that makes a devout christian abstain from meat on fridays that makes a muslim blow up a bus of children. You cannot condem one and not the other, both are following rules that may inconvenience ones life for the sole reason that they think god wants it.
It is the systematic disregard for logic with the cop out excuse of, a book told me god said so.
Religion might inspire good, but it is an all too convenient excuse for not thinking.
I am not attacking religious people so loose the victim complex, i just have my views on religion itself. Whether you think so or not people are dying and killing for the supernatural and they feel justified doing so. Your ritgheousness in your faith is implicit endorsement for anothers faith. Just because your faith may be gentle and theirs barbaric does not justify the use of such dangerous logic.

Stephy says:

08:33pm | 04/04/11

That’s like saying you hate apricots because if you swallow the seed it’ll kill you and lumping grapes into the same hate category - it’s all fruit, right?

The difference between doing something for someone you love and doing something for God is nil. There is, however, a difference between the action commited for love. Would you hate someone who gave their love flowers as much as someone who killed someone else for the person they love? Why not? It’s all in the name of love, right?

Lumping all religions into the one based on the definition alone is a bit silly. It’s like saying I hate Mary at school because she’s in the same class as Johnny, and I hate Johnny, he does bad things. The difference between religions is really quite astounding and hating them all because of the actions of a few is very prejudiced.

As for inconveniencing someone for their faith - if it doesn’t harm anyone else, what’s the problem? If I abstain from meat on Fridays (Which is a Catholic thing, I know you probably don’t think there’s a difference but there is. It’s a tradition that sprung from a passage of the Bible they mistranslated regarding Jesus eating fish on a certain day. He didn’t always eat fish on a certain day, he just happened to in a passage of a gospel. The Catholics took that and ran. Same with the contraceptive thing. There’s NOTHING in the Bible that says “Don’t use contraceptives”, they took a passage out of context) how is that harming my neighbour, or my friend? If I abstain from sex before marriage how is that harming anyone else? The difference between not eating meat on Fridays and blowing up a bus is worlds apart. My personal choices, if they don’t harm anyone else, shouldn’t be critisized.

Chris L says:

10:08pm | 04/04/11

Stephy, please point out what tangible threat there is to your right to be christian. A couple of people here spouting on about how much better they think the world would be without religion doesn’t constitute much of a threat on your faith. If that were the case the threats of hellfire I’ve received more than once would count as far, far worse.

When removing specific faith-themed ceremonies from public systems (such as school) it is understandable you will feel some sense of loss, but this sacrifice brings comfort to those (there are a lot and growing) who do not share your faith and are made to feel as outcasts. They are certainly not replacing them with some sort of atheist ritual or satanic rites. You are still free to practise your religion at home or at your holy building of choice.

This is tolerance, when you recognise that you are (even if unintentionally) causing distress to others and you make a gesture to make things even between everyone.

Also note: Saying I don’t believe in any gods or that I find people’s faith bemusing is not an assault. I’m not even raising my voice as I type

malohi says:

10:37pm | 04/04/11

Stephy you clearly miss the point.
If you do things, like say eat no meat on fridays, and the only reason you do it is because god says so;
What is the difference between someone killing someone because his god said so?
You do your somewhat bizarre thing because you honestly believe it is the will of god and you want to go to heaven, not because it is Gods will AND conveniently is within the realms of the law.
He does his somewhat bizarre thing because he honestly believed he will go to heaven. It is the word of his god after all.
Why should the rules of your god be respected, no matter how bizarre, if his cannot be. They are the rules of his god, if someone dies it was gods plan (in his mind).
What makes you right and him wrong. I am sure he is just as faithful as you, he has just as much evidence of his god as you do yours.

By any one religion wanting acceptance to believe what they want without critisism no matter how illogical- It sends the message that other religions are justified believeing what they want without question, including perhaps the belief that they should kill a certain amount of people to go to eternal paradise.
If you cannot see this corollary, you are the problem.

malohi says:

03:24pm | 04/04/11

You obviously don’t understand evolution.
1- people can be tricked and fooled, people can be lazy and find it easier to say “god did it” thsn “I dont know, let’s find out.“He chose the later. You can too. Your point is as arbitary as saying why are some people fast and some slow if we all evolved.(clearly you no nothing of evolution)
2. No
3, You shouldn’t, you should evaluate the evidence for each side and make an informed desicion. Don’t trust anything blindly, that is the problem with faith, it is a cop out requiring no evidence or critical thinking.

There is no evidence supportin God as there is no evidence supporting unicorns. I am sure you are of the opinion that there are probably no unicorns, but could not say with 100 percent certainty that there are no unicorns on earth.
It is impossible to 100 percent disprove something, so an intelligent person must make a reasoned assessment.
If Dawkins said he was sure there is no God he would be just as stupid as people who are sure that there is a god.
Get it?

Paul says:

03:30pm | 04/04/11

I don’t think Dawkins is asking you to “trust” his brain. He’s asking you to examine what he says, not simply accept it.

It is a simple fact that most religious people (at the very least) are wrong in their beliefs. That isn’t a terribly good testament to the reasons for religious belief.

andre says:

04:53pm | 04/04/11

yeah .. obviously you guys are deluded, just like Dawkins that somehow your brains are trick and delusions free especially in the aspect of God’s existence and therefore you can state that God is not there. Evidence for God existence is in DNA code.DNA being the most efficient information storage..Just one of many proof that God does exist..

malohi says:

08:10pm | 04/04/11

@ Andre.
I dont know how DNA is made and how it got so complex.
options;
1) Let us explore this through research, perhaps even bettering society in the progress, let’s make hypotheses (like evolution) and test their validity.
or
2) It is too complex for me… that means it is too complex for you or anyone else.. It must be god, case closed.

It is not hard to see the option you chose.

Jason Todd says:

08:15pm | 05/04/11

Andre, When you publish your paper on how DNA is the most efficent information storage and how this proves god, I would dearly like to see all the other forms of information storage that you considered and rejected as too innefficient on the path to your conclusion. I would also be very interested to see how you managed to link “DNA is the most efficient information storage medium of all tested media” and “Therefore God exists”  as your joint conclusion.
DNA is not known to be ‘the most efficient” form of information storage. It is just a form of information storage that we happen to utilise and is therefore the most ubiquitous.
Just because something is beautiful, elegant and complicated like DNA doesn’t mean that it had to be created by a divine being. After all, the rules, theories and techniques we used to map these discoveries are all created by man. We may learn tomorrow that everything is false. Either way, God doesn’t play into it.

LC says:

02:37pm | 04/04/11

Here we go - The conservatives are STILL doing thier “reds under the bed” routine to argue against anything which they do not agree with.

Sigh.

P. Darvio says:

02:56pm | 04/04/11

...and Stalin was trained as a Christian Priest for 4 years…no wonder he murdered the way he did, just like Pol Pot who was trained at a Christian Catholic School for 7 years, and like Robert Mugabe, a Christian Catholic, and like the Duvalier’s of Hati, all Christians, and Mao Zedong, who grew up in a Buddist household and not to foregt that Christian Hitler who slaugtered 6 million Jews in accordance with BIBLE LAW as he started in his Christian Doctrine in Mein Kampf (and was helped into power by the Christian Vatican and then later helped NAZI war criminals escape to South America) and who started WW2 that slaughtered over 50 million.

Yep wherever one finds the tentacles of religion one almost always finds the greatest mass murders.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:28pm | 04/04/11

@P. Darvio

Of course, Hitler wanted to be a missionary in Africa before Christianity corrupted him.

What about Ted Bundy, did you know he was a Mormon!? He was such a sweet boy before becoming religious…

Your argument is ridiculous.

Jason Todd says:

08:19pm | 05/04/11

I’m glad we agree Thomas. The suggestion that atheists are evil (or communists) purely because they are atheists is laughable.

True Believer says:

12:34pm | 06/04/11

@Elphaba

I cannot recall referring to non-believers as “haters.”  I know at times, sadly they resort to comments which reflect a hatred of Christians, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity.

Far from “lecturing” I posed a query.

Here is a question - (and I am prepared to conisder well your rationalisation) -  in what way does interspersing conversation with referrals to bodily functions or human anatomy enhance one’s conversation?

bleD says:

02:25pm | 04/04/11

Nonsense. Read Dawkins’ book : Climbing mount improbable. Slow evolution is the answer.

P. Darvio says:

02:27pm | 04/04/11

....but did the dinosaurs become extinct when they fell off the Ark and drowned or did Noah not feed them and they were starved into extinction on the Ark? Your Bible isn’t clear on this - so can you advise please.

James1 says:

03:41pm | 04/04/11

“The probability of that is minuscule, and sciences teach us to disregard it.”

No actually it doesn’t.  You just think the sciences do that, because you just don’t know much about evolutionary theory, probability, and the vast timescales we are talking about here.

Kevin says:

03:53pm | 04/04/11

Why did God give me nipples?

Thomas Anderson says:

03:57pm | 04/04/11

Don’t know why dinosaurs died, maybe they ran out of food supplies, maybe they could not hide from some natural disaster. Maybe they made irrelevant comments in otherwise intelligent discussions. Science is not clear.

If by what you wrote you meant to ask “How do you reconcile the Biblical Creation with the archaeological finds of remains of species known as “dinosaurs”?” then I don’t see any contradictions. Humans could have existed at the same time as dinosaurs, and species die out all the time, for one reason or another. Even Catholicism, with all its human imposed rules and traditions does not deny the existence of dinosaurs. What’s your point?

Paul says:

03:57pm | 04/04/11

If you think that an amazing but observable world is best ‘logically’ explained by an even more amazing but unobservable super being I don’t think you are thinking too hard.

If you think something like this world couldn’t exist without a god being there first how can you accept the innate existence of something as amazing as a god?

Or does this world somehow fit in a precise window where it is too amazing to exist on it’s own isn’t amazing enough to exist solely in it’s own right?

The Redman says:

04:06pm | 04/04/11

It’s more logical to believe that god had nothing better to do so created the world and all its’ creatures in six days and six nights and on the seventh he had a rest? Please. Spare me.

The Redman says:

04:28pm | 04/04/11

Why did god create dinosaurs in the first place, Thomas?

Thomas Anderson says:

04:29pm | 04/04/11

@James1

The science of statistics teaches us to disregard it.

A building with a 0.000000001% chance of falling over will be approved and built. The science of engineering teaches us to disregard it.

There are too many “accidents” and “coincidences” in our world, which logically suggests that these things did not occur by themselves, but rather, were designed.

The Redman says:

04:52pm | 04/04/11

And yet the science of religion teaches us that god can be praised for saving the life of a single child with a seemingly fatal illness, yet be completely blameless for a storm that kills hundreds or a tsunami that kills hundreds of thousands. And not only that, even when weather kills a hundred thousand people, god will still be thanked for ‘saving’ the life of a single person for some reason or another. How often have I heard someone thanking god for saving their child in the midst of an unmitigated disaster (Katrina springs to mind). Funny that these same people never wonder what the other couple of thousand of others did to ensure god decided not to save them while he/she/it was at it.

James1 says:

04:55pm | 04/04/11

Not quite Thomas.  It teaches us that the building is not likely to be in use long enough that the probability of it falling over is statistically significant when quanitified that way.  That is not disregarding something, it is accounting for it.

That you reply by comparing the 4.5 billions years of the Earth’s existence with a building only reinforces the point that you are having trouble grasping the vast timescales involved here, and the effect this has on probability.

That you conflate coincidence and accident with design is interesting.  Could you please elaborate on how logic tells us that coincidences don’t happen?  I must say, I am intrigued by this line of thought.

The Redman says:

05:10pm | 04/04/11

Dinosaur’s died from a natural disaster, Thomas? Does that mean your god does not control nature? Or that your god deliberately wiped out an entire species? Just what is your god responsible for at all? Why are we talking about god if he/she/it can’t control nature? Does god cause cyclone’s, and if he doesn’t, does he/she/it have the power to stop it? And if he/she/it does, why doesn’t he/she/it. And if he/she/it doesn’t, what use is he/she/it?

Paul says:

05:10pm | 04/04/11

Thomas, the odds of winning lotto are minuscule yet people win lotto all the time.

Astronomically unlikely things happen all the time, particularly where there are an astronomically large number of opportunities for that possibility to occur.

The Redman says:

05:10pm | 04/04/11

Dinosaur’s died from a natural disaster, Thomas? Does that mean your god does not control nature? Or that your god deliberately wiped out an entire species? Just what is your god responsible for at all? Why are we talking about god if he/she/it can’t control nature? Does god cause cyclone’s, and if he doesn’t, does he/she/it have the power to stop it? And if he/she/it does, why doesn’t he/she/it. And if he/she/it doesn’t, what use is he/she/it?

Thomas Anderson says:

05:58pm | 04/04/11

If the same person wins the lotto 1000 times in a row, then I will change my mind and accept that even the most far fetched coincidences happen.

There are coincidences, but if there are too many of them, it starts smelling of a plan.

For all these “accidents” to happen, the time line would have to be approaching infinity. It is not, it is still very much a conceivable number.

Lastly, I don’t know whether God intervenes, or what role do natural disasters play in the Plan. To say anything on the subject would be pure speculation.

Wynston Cruso says:

06:58pm | 04/04/11

“Humans could have existed at the same time as dinosaurs”

This statement actually made me dumber, thanks.

Jacob says:

07:57pm | 04/04/11

TA, you have attributed God’s existence to numerical statistics. You’ve twisted the book of Genesis to somehow include dinosaurs. And you’ve attributed their demise as a “natural disaster” instead of God’s plans.

Forget the atheists, YOU sir, sully the Lord’s name. You are making things up, not for the sake of the Lord, but for your own ego (and assurance) on an Internet blog.

Is your faith so fickle, that you have to resort to story-telling to preach the Lord’s words? The Lord is not putting words in your mouth. You are preaching YOUR twisted version of what YOU think is called Christianity.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:12pm | 04/04/11

@ Jacob

I have shown that statistically, a Supreme Being exists. No more no less. Sorry if that offended you, it was merely a logical conclusion.

I did not twist anything. Does Genesis include kangaroos? Koalas? If it does not, does that mean that Christianity denies their existence? No.

A natural disaster is not a substitute for God’s Plan, the former may be used as a tool, or it may not be. I did not attribute, again, I said maybe it was this, maybe that, I speculated.

I am hardly preaching, I am engaging in debate, for the sake of the debate, for my own enjoyment rather than my ego.

Good attempt to troll, but you failed.

The Redman says:

11:30pm | 04/04/11

Well, Thomas, given the disasters of weather, war, pestilence and poverty, god’s plan seems to be to wipe the human race out/

Thomas Anderson says:

11:51pm | 04/04/11

You’re pretty pessimistic there, if that’s all you see in this world.

Jessie Clyne says:

11:14am | 05/04/11

Kevin - all embryos are females for the first few weeks of life and mammary glands form. You still have mammary glands despite being male just as males can develop breast cancer.

Redman - God was there. No doubt. When that wave and eqarthquake happened I have no doubt that Japan was smited for their sins. God is telling us and showing us the ‘labour pains’ so spoken about. He is telling us to repent and turn towards him.

Elphaba says:

01:36pm | 05/04/11

@Jessie, you’re an insensitive turd.  Your brand of Christianity that punishes with a vengeful God makes me sick.

Sinner.  Go pray for forgiveness for delighting in other people’s suffering.  You are not the kind of Christian God talks about.  You’re just a horrible human being.

James1 says:

02:26pm | 05/04/11

Jessie,

In other words, your god is kinda like Bin Laden, going around smiting infidels where he finds them.  If your god is that cruel, I don’t know if I want any part of it.

True Believer says:

04:11pm | 05/04/11

@Elphaba

Again I find myself partly in agreement with you (minus the reference to excreta) .

I don’t go along with what Jessie said about God smiting Japan for its sins - there is sin in many places. Yes I believe the “whole of creation is groaning,’ as the Word of God said it would. 

The destroyer, Satan is in his death throes and he is busy bringing his usual package of death, destruction, confusion and deception.  He is responsible for these terrible things, sadly I think there will be much more.  Tis all there for anyone to read in the Bible for those who have “eyes to see and ears to hear.” 

I believe the Lord weeps for every soul lost and every life destroyed, but the world chooses to go its own way - mankind wants to put itself above God - and old old story, but still very relevant today.

Elphaba says:

05:10pm | 05/04/11

@TB,

People died in Japan, just as people suffer and die everywhere in the world, because shit happens.  That’s it.  It’s nature, it’s cyclical, it happens.  We are at the mercy of a planet and a universe in a constant state of flux because it’s always been in a state of flux ever since it was born.  Earthquakes and cyclones and tsunamis will happen, and people will die, because that’s life.

Butting heads again.  Chalk it up, we disagree again.  Gotta be 0 from 100 by now…

And they’re just words.  When you pick on my terminology, I picture Hyacinth Bucket. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaDcJyLzgnQ

True Believer says:

10:02am | 06/04/11

@elphaba

Fair enough. I don’t pick on your terminology it is just that I find normal use of the English language is sufficient to carry on a conversation I have never felt the need to intersperse conversations with references to sexual intercourse, excreta, bovine excreta, urine or vagina.  I guess it is a matter of how comfortable one feels with ones conversation.  Seems to be trendy these days to use bad language. I just do not need to speak/write like that.  If you find the need to that is your choice. :0)

On nature being the cause - yeppers we will have to disagree.  Cheers.

Elphaba says:

11:01am | 06/04/11

@TB - you do feel the need to highlight how I say things.  It is picking at what I say, and your post further demonstrates that you feel superior to me when you do it.  If you could do me a favour and not patronisingly lecture me on every little thing I say, that would be great.

True Believer says:

11:15am | 06/04/11

@Elphaba

Ok my friend, I get the message, tis ok for you to liken me to Hyacinth Bucket because I prefer conversation to be without bad language, but when I make a comment back I am “patronising.”  Could there be a double standard operating here?? Just a thought. Cheers.

Elphaba says:

11:19am | 06/04/11

@TB, when atheists criticise your beliefs they’re being haters, but when you criticise atheists, you’re ‘showing them the truth’.

I wouldn’t lecture me about double standards, either.

LC says:

12:59pm | 06/04/11

“Humans could have existed at the same time as dinosaurs”

I think you’ve been watching too much of The Flintstones.

Stu says:

03:12pm | 06/04/11

@ True Believer: “@Elphaba I cannot recall referring to non-believers as “haters.”  I know at times, sadly they resort to comments which reflect a hatred of Christians, Jesus, the Bible and Christianity.”
I’ll recall for you: (03:31pm | 05/04/11).”@Redman Why do atheists run to the word “religion” - they use it lazily to cover all they wish to hate.”

True Believer says:

03:45pm | 06/04/11

@Stu

“I’ll recall for you: (03:31pm | 05/04/11).”@Redman Why do atheists run to the word “religion” - they use it lazily to cover all they wish to hate.” “

I do not call them “haters” there, I refer to the things they wish to hate.  One is about the person/s"haters”) my reference is to their behaviour. 

I think there is a difference, you of course, can and probably will, disagree. Cheers.

Stu says:

04:38pm | 06/04/11

@ True Believer: When you make the statement “Why do atheists run to the word “religion” - they use it lazily to cover all they wish to hate.” you are making a sweeping generalisation about all atheists whether you meant to or not. You are saying that atheist are people who are characterised by hating things (as evidenced by their use of the word “religion” you say) and by implication you are calling atheists haters.

mel says:

08:56pm | 06/04/11

Thomas Anderson says to Jacob: “I have shown that statistically, a Supreme Being exists. No more no less.” I went through all your posts on this website and I can’t find your statistical proof anywhere. There was a comment about evolution being statistically impossible but that goes more to your lack of understanding of evolution theory that proving the existence of a supreme being. Could you go through it again so I can follow it?

And are you sure your proof shows the existence of a supreme being and not those nice invisible pink unicorns (the ones that really created the world? They told me they did, so it must be true). They’re nice but they’re not supreme.

Paul says:

03:37pm | 04/04/11

I quite like that thought.
The difference between knowing the “meaning of life” and having “a meaningful life”.

Jessie Clyne says:

03:25pm | 04/04/11

How can you apply science applied by human logic to something well outside the scope of human intelligence?

String theory is a relatively new concept in physics. If string theory was proven to be true, and there are dimensions outside of our present one now then you cannot put the possibility of ‘God’ outside of the scope of being in another dimension. For eg. Heaven could be on one string, hell on another and so on and so on.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:46pm | 04/04/11

Take it in context, the whole discussion was about religion being responsible for the morals of today. Back then they had a different understanding of right and wrong, and many things that are wrong now were right back then. That was the whole point of my post, man.

Servaas says:

06:54pm | 06/04/11

What about homosexual practices is natural?

mel says:

06:46pm | 09/04/11

Servaas says: “What about homosexual practices is natural?” In fact, what’s more natural than two (or let’s be honest, even more) people loving each other? Or just ‘enjoying each other’s company’ so to speak? Perhaps it’s just you’re against sodomy? It’s still natural (in fact I have heard that heterosexual couples engage in it too. Shocking, I know!) Indeed, you haven’t explained what’s unnatural about it? Do oral sex, masturbation, and the hundred and one other sexual options pass your ‘natural’ test?

True Believer says:

07:01pm | 04/04/11

AC

Those people “knocking on your door” are most likely members of non-Christian cults - they knock on mine too and I tell them “I am a Christian” - that sends them on their way.  You do not know the difference so you make generalisations from your stance of ignorance.

Athiest Christian says:

10:40am | 05/04/11

@true believer - don’t call me ignorant unless you know me personally. You shouldn’t make generalisations about other people based on their beliefs or opinions. How about I make a generalisation about you based on your comment…you’re an ignorant moron.

True Believer says:

11:02am | 05/04/11

@Atheist Christian

I was not saying you are ignorant per se, but on matters relating to Christianity and the negative generalisations you made it was obvious this was something where your knowledge was lacking. I apologise if my comment offended.  It becomes tiresome when unbelievers/atheists lump all people who have a faith into “religion or religious”  -  I am not interested in religion, that to me is man-made. I just know Jesus and I do not knock on anyone’s door, nor do any of the hundreds of real Christians I know. It is likely those knocking on your door were from a non-Christian cult - dressed up as they are to deceive.

The Redman says:

03:57pm | 04/04/11

And where was your god when this priest was sodamising Dawkins? Or where is you god when thousands of priests across the world are sodamising other young boys and girls? You walk a slippery slope if you are trying to use christian priests’ sexual perversions as an argument for the existence of your god. I am quite happy to continue my atheistic existence without reference to it. A bit different from religion, though, which is constanty ramming various theologies down one’s throat. When was the last time an atheist interrupted your Sunday by knocking on your door and trying to flog off some fundamentalist magazine glorifying god (or the non-existance of same)?

When my boy was very young, he asked me what being a Christian was. Basically, I told him that to be a Christian, that is to believe in the divinity of Christ, one had to believe that a man was flogged almost to death, tortured, crucified, died and then rose from the dead and thence ascended unto the right hand of God. Being the clever lad that he is, he of course dismissed such a belief as being nonsense.

Jessie Clyne says:

04:17pm | 04/04/11

Dont contort my words to suit you Redman. If you read what I said you would have seen I was saying that to explain the hypocrisy Dawkins has against his own abuser to his stance on the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church. If that’s not some form of Stockholm syndrome, I don’t know what is.

God has nothing to do with darkness. Priests are humans and are sinners just as we all are. They are just as tempted to sin as everybody else. There is nothing immortal about them.

The Redman says:

04:34pm | 04/04/11

Except that priests and the Church represents themselves as having a special relationship with god. That god’s will and god’s word is delivered through them to the ignorant masses. I mean, wars where waged by Catholicism against the bible being published in any other language than Latin. Ignorance is the fundamental basis of all religion. I don’t find any hypocrisy in forgiving or understanding a human weakness, albeit an abhorrant one in paedophilia. I find it far more hypocritical for an organisation like the Catholic church representing itself as the ultimate conduit to your merciful god and turning a blind eye to its’ members raping and tormenting children. You are on a losing argument on this one. There is no argument that can possible defend the Catholic Church’s attitude to paedophiles within its’ priesthood, and Dawkin accepting the weakness of his abuser. And your god did nothing to protect either the abuser or the abused, let alone your Church.

James1 says:

04:49pm | 04/04/11

“God has nothing to do with darkness. Priests are humans and are sinners just as we all are.”

See, I’m confused now.  I had thought that Christians believe that god created everything.  But now he didn’t create everything.

The Redman says:

04:56pm | 04/04/11

Jessie, you’re basically saying that it is perfectly acceptable for the Catholic Church to forgive it’s paeophilic priests, not to report them to police, not to remove them from their positions of trust, not to allow the full force of the law to punish them for their crimes, to hide and protect these men for decades, but it is hypocrisy for Dawkin’s to forgive his abuser. Do you see the problem with your position here?

Jessie Clyne says:

05:24pm | 04/04/11

Redman - In no way am i defending the Catholic church and once again you are contorting my words to suit your own argument. I was merely making a comparison to the way Dawkins is against the Catholic Church for turning a blind eye to paedophile priests (and rightly so) and the way he viewed his own abuser. Different churches, same story.  The enemy is everywhere my friend. Even within the ranks of the church. He is the master of the air and is corrupting the world each and every way possible to turn us all away from our Creator to serve his own vendetta against him. What a great way of doing it too, by corruptiong and tempting those on earth serving the Lord. An excellent way to turn people away from knowing the Good Lord Jesus. Though he will not win. God will always overcome and Jesus will return to make right the wrongs.

James1 - Of course God didn’t create ‘darkness’. Darkness is from the realm of the Devil who was damned because of his own arrogance and greed.

James1 says:

06:01pm | 04/04/11

So god didn’t create the devil?  If god created everything in existence, as your bible claims, yet did not create the devil, then logically the devil does not exist, and god still created the darkness.  Or alternatively, god created everything, including the devil, and by extension the darkness.

Either that or god and the devil both are just ancient myths made up by goatherds to explain the world around them in terms they could understand, and carries no more weight than does the idea that Zeus causes lightning and the idea that a giant, rainbow snake carved out the Australian landscape.

In that regard, what made you choose your god over mighty Thor, or any other god from history?

Chris L says:

10:22pm | 04/04/11

“There’s no atheists in foxholes” - If you’re right, there’s been a hell of a lot of dead christians in foxholes.

The Redman says:

10:33pm | 04/04/11

So Satan, whom god created, will not win ultimately, but tough luck to the billions that have apparently been abused by Satan in the meantime? Interesting theory.

Jessie Clyne says:

11:11am | 05/04/11

Redman- Your research is showing. If you reject God and are corrupted by the evil one, that is your choice. If you know the Lord and have heard his word and still refuse to accept Him, your choice. Good luck to you.

James - oh it is very real. Very real indeed. But to the everyday person, atheist, pursuing their own goals, greed, gluttony, lust etc you would not know. He already is control of your life. It’s nice to follow your own way. In fact it’s probably easy to do that instead of repenting and following the light. If you don’t know the story, Lucifer was an angel who rejected God and wanted the power & glory for himself. God condemned him to hell and ever since he’s been trying to claw his way back.  James I hope you never ever come across anything like tarot cards, ouija boards or seances. If you did then you would know what I am talking about. Reject the darkness and repent. Follow the light and flory of Christ you will be saved.

James1 says:

02:48pm | 05/04/11

So now I’m a lustful, greedy glutton who follows the devil?

I see what you did there.  You figure if you just insult me, I will not notice that you did not even come close to answering my question.  Transparent, clumsy, and entirely insufficient.

I don’t worry about tarot cards etc, because I know it is all a massive scam designed to fleece idiots of their money.  A massive scam designed by the trickster Loki to trap fools and prevent them from going to Valhalla to assist Odin in the Final Battle.  Repent, Jessie, turn to Odin and you will die an honourable warrior’s death in defence of the gods (in the afterlife) by his side when Ragnarok finally comes.

Now if you can explain to me why your set of myths is more valid that those I have just outlined (please note the parallels between Christian mythology and Norse mythology), I will become an unlapsed Catholic tomorrow.  Good luck.

The Redman says:

03:59pm | 04/04/11

Religion is, after all, the opiate of the masses, designed purely to keep the great unwashed in delusion and dependance.

True Believer says:

04:31pm | 05/04/11

@Redman

Why do atheists run to the word “religion” - they use it lazily to cover all they wish to hate.

Religion - for the umpteemth time is man-made as is atheism. Yes there are faults with “religion” - however, there is no fault in Jesus.  That is what you people carefully avoid. Your arguments are futile and so you misuse words to try to bait Christians.  Not realising how foolish you sound to those who believe in Jesus.  True Christians are not into “religion”.  We are interested in what God says not what man tries to “make” Him say.

Stu says:

11:41am | 06/04/11

@ True Believer: If you don’t subscribe to the understanding that Christianity is a religion, when the census asks you in August to mark your religion, will you you mark “Christian” or “No religion”?

True Believer says:

12:13pm | 06/04/11

@Stu

I acknowledge that for the secular government “religion” is the terminology used in the census.  I put Christian.

The Redman says:

03:47pm | 04/04/11

Come on, now. If there wasn’t a God, we’d just invent one anyway!!

The Redman says:

04:01pm | 04/04/11

I don’t believe in god and I don’t believe in ghosts. I do, however, on the balance of probabilities believe that their is probably intelligent life in the universe (there’s bugger all down here on earth. Does this conflict with my atheism, I wonder? In any case, it is wrong to equate atheism with a disbelief in spiritualism. I consider myself to be spritual, but not in a religious sense.

Norma Babbitt of Battery Point TAS says:

04:39pm | 04/04/11

Sorry? I was talking about ghosts. Not whether there is or isn’t God.

The Redman says:

05:05pm | 04/04/11

From your original post, I got the impression that you were saying that believers in god didn’t believe in ghosts, while non-believers did believe in ghosts. I was merely saying that I don’t believe in god and I don’t believe in ghosts. That was the question you asked in the very first sentence of your post. Isn’t that what you wanted to know? If not, then why ask the question?

Norma Babbitt of Battery Point TAS says:

05:17pm | 04/04/11

Then you couldn’t be completely ‘atheist’ because you do believe in something else. Dawkins doesn’t believe in any of it. Even though atheist simply means you don’t believe in a theistic view of God - you may be a Deist and you don’t know it.

Horatio says:

09:01pm | 04/04/11

funny you mention ghosts I was having this conversation the other night…there maybe a rational scientific explanation for the phenomenon.

What is the difference between a dead body and a live one? A/  The power is on ...so there is an energy , electrical is the nearest comparison that fits, that keeps us going.

As physivcs tells us,energy can never be destroyed (die) it can only change form. So upon death the energy that fires our physiologcal our system does not die it simply changes form .

Perhaps with old people the “battery” simply runs out but a young life cut short leaves a lot of potential energy needing somewhere to go

Chris L says:

09:36am | 05/04/11

@Norma, Dawkins is not the emperor of atheists. One can be an atheist and believe in ghosts because they don’t involve any theology.

Of course, apart from occasional anecdotal reports, there’s no more evidence for ghosts than for gods. Mind you, ghosts still seem a bit less unlikely since there is already an idea of where they come from and how they came into being.

Dan says:

03:51pm | 04/04/11

OK I’ll bite, but I’m a retired Christian these days, so I haven’t heard these stories in years. Jesus was born in modern day Palestine in a barn in Bethlehem and his last words were “It is done”.

How is my memory?

The Redman says:

04:22pm | 04/04/11

Well, yes and no.

Matthew says Jesus was born in Bethlahem, but doesn’t mention a barn or a manger, or three shephards (but does mention the wise men - but not three). Matthew says Jesus’ last word’s where “My God, My God why have you foresaken me?”

Mark’s gospel, almost certainly the first written around 70CE, doesn’t mention Jesus’ birth at all. His gospel starts at his baptism at the hands of John the Baptist. He says Jesus’ last words were also “My God, My God why have you forsesaken me?”

Luke introduces the manger story (Luke was probably written in about 100CE) and he quotes Jesus’ last words as being “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit”.

John, like Mark, doesn’t mention the circumstances of Jesus’ birth at all, and his gospel also starts with his baptism by John (the Baptist). John’s gospel was certainly the last written (which is included in the bible at any rate) and probably about 200 years after Jesus was alleged to have lived. He indeed describes Jesus’ last words as “It is finished” (rather than “it is done”.

This is my problem. None of the gospel writers where witnesses. None agree with fundamental points. None are consistent. None provide any real evidence to Jesus’ divinity. Not any of the gospels agree on what Jesus said on the most momentous day in human history, according to Christians, and that is what he did or did not say on the cross.

Jessie Clyne says:

06:08pm | 04/04/11

Yes but Redman, if you ask 4 witnesses to a crime are all of them going to say exactly “Yes the thief had black hair, blue eyes and was 6’3 feet tall and was wearing a red and white spotted bandana, and he had a tattoo of a snake on his left arm and he said that he would come back later and he was riding a 1967 Harley. He also said his name was Bob”

If all 4 witnesses said exactly the same thing you would know something isn’t quite right - nobody sees, hears the same thing as someone else and they likelihood that all 4 would write the same story word for word is even less likely. Mostly likely the 4 witnesses will provide a testimony which follows the same lines as the other but the main facts are the same.

You said it yourself Matthew and Luke roughly say Jesus was born in Bethlehem and Matthew talks about the manger. Mark and John both started at his baptism. But all 4 gospels mostly follow the same story, not word for word. Which to me is a better testment than 4 stories being written by 4 different people in exactly the same way and same words. If they truly were ‘made up’ and wanted to convince people it was true wouldn’t you think they would have written them exactly the same as each other?

Brad says:

08:42pm | 04/04/11

Jessie, the point Redman made was that none of them were witnesses. They were reporting the views of others which may or may not have been fantasy. If you took that to court it wouldn’t stick. 50+ year old memories that were at LEAST second hand? Given the level of education and expected lifespan of the era?? Come on.

The Redman says:

10:27pm | 04/04/11

It would be interesting for Jessie to explain the modern day depiction of the saviour; blond, six foot something, blue eyed, white skinned. How many people matching that description do you thing were around Judea in 33 ad? Unless they were Roman, of course.

Jessie Clyne says:

11:02am | 05/04/11

Redman, the depictions of Jesus around the world are different. Expressions of the people there. In Japan the Virgin Mother is depicted as Asian, in Ethiopia Jesus is black. There is no doubt Jesus would have looked like a Palestinian man, for that is who he is. Any depiction of Jesus otherwise would be wrong.  I find it amusing you would have presumed my view of Jesus would be so naive.

Ross says:

04:41pm | 04/04/11

To outdoorgriffin wonder no more there really is a dog. He is a Gordon Setter named Gordon.

Norma Babbitt of Battery Point TAS says:

04:44pm | 04/04/11

That’s very funny!

The Redman says:

05:25pm | 04/04/11

But your god says “believe in me”. God provides no evidence for it’s existence, does not manifest itself before its’ people, simply says “believe in me” and when you die it might not be as bad as you think. But god doesn’t expect to have to display any evidence that it actually exists. In fact, your god says that not only am I not going to show you I exists, if you don’t accept I exists, when you die you will suffer eternal agony. Even though I’m not going to do a thing to prove to you that I do, in fact, exist.

It is interesting to note the Ten Commandments, for example. The first has been bastardised over the century, which has always amused me. It is generally qouted as god saying that “thou shalt bow down to no other god but me” (paraphrasing), implying that there is no other god but the god of the Jews.

I’ve read an old bible that quotes the first commandment as “thou shalt not honour any god BEFORE me”, implying that the early Jews recognised other gods, but insisted that their god was the most powerful powerful - the Zeus of the religion, if you will.

Just a thought.

The Redman says:

04:52pm | 04/04/11

...and given the state of the world, if their is a god, he/she/it is doing a lousy job…

andre says:

05:00pm | 04/04/11

well chris , as many atheists you just lacking of knowledge about the “somethng written long time ago”. Lear more histiry and archeology. British Musem is full of artefacts confirming the Bible..

The Redman says:

05:36pm | 04/04/11

Noone doubts there are some historical facts contained within the bible, Andre. Indeed, I’d accept that Jesus is almost certainly an historical figure (although his name was probably Yeshuah - Jesus being the Greek translation from the Hebrew, ignorant atheist that I am). The question is Jesus’ divinity. Do I believe it when the bible, and only the bible, tells me that Jesus was in fact divine, and rose from the dead, and performed miracles. And no I do not.

And while the British Museum (which I’ve never been fortunate enough to visit) might have archeological evidence for some of the events related in the bible, it has none whatsoever to support the major, miraculous events claimed by writers of the bible. Like the Exodus, or the Flood, or Eden, or David, or, indeed, whether Jesus was ever born, or whether Jesus conducted a ministry, or whether he was tortured, or whether he was crucified, or whether he rose from the dead, or whether he ascended to the right hand of god.

In fact, the only facts in the bible proved by archeology where almost certainly known at the time the bible was written. It is the divinity of the bible for which there is no evidence, and for which there will never be any evidence, because it simply doesn’t exist.

outdoorgriffin says:

05:40pm | 04/04/11

@ Andre, exactly what artifacts are you talking about?

Stu says:

05:57pm | 04/04/11

@ The Redman: “I’d accept that Jesus is almost certainly an historical figure”. I wouldn’t, as I haven’t been able to source any credible contemporary evidence to support the hypothesis. I would say that there is some historical evidence that support the notion that Jesus MAY have been a historical figure.

Chris Clowne says:

06:03pm | 04/04/11

@ Andre: Sorry, I should have been more specific.. when I say ‘was true’, I really mean, ‘the claims that Jesus was truly the son of god, that he performed miracles, was born of a virgin, rose from the dead’ etc.

If you can prove those things, I’d like to see it

The Redman says:

10:10pm | 04/04/11

Stu, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus mentioned Jesus, or at least Christians, in their histories, that is why I accept that at least a person like Jesus existed; a Jewish leader defying the occupation by the Romans. It is not a special story. There have always been leaders defying the conquerer. I accept the person of a Jewish rebel fighting against the Roman occupier, but I don’t accept that person’s divinity. It seems that there are some similarities to the ancient christians defying Rome and the modern muslims defying America.

Stu says:

10:49am | 05/04/11

@ Redman: The problem with accepting the testimony of historians like Josephus, Tacitus and PTY is that they were all born after the alleged death of Jesus - as such their testimony is second hand (or hearsay)and therefore not a historical fact by modern standards of scholarship. Compare this with the archaeological evidence and eyewitness accounts of contemporaries of Julius Caesar. Note, I’m not saying Jesus did not exist, just that this is not an undisputed historical fact.

The Redman says:

05:01pm | 04/04/11

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth;

I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 10:34-39 NASB)

Jesus, the Prince of Peace.

outdoorgriffin says:

05:42pm | 04/04/11

the meaning of Life?
42

Stu says:

05:48pm | 04/04/11

@ Troy Davis: What about option 3: that Jesus never existed?

The Redman says:

05:26pm | 04/04/11

Amen to that, Brother!! (Pun intended). Couldn’t have said it better if I tried.

Horatio says:

09:20pm | 04/04/11

@ Colin . ““Yes, there is religious infrastructure in our society, but it can be realistically replaced in a few generations,”’

LOL

Preach it brother - i’m a scientist myself so i realise the amount of stalinist revsionism required to do that is probably too much to ask in this day and age…

as you say science and reason - and i’m prepared to say history will show religion for good or ill and whether you like it or not will still be a factor in the next 40 years

dream on

notSue says:

01:36pm | 05/04/11

I don’t think the author wants to abolish religion, I think he’s merely acknowledging the demise of religion as a force in the western world. Just a cursory glance at this site on any given day will confirm that as fact.

His argument may be a a ‘watered down” Kant or Shoppenhauer, but honestly, apart from philosophy/theology students, who reads them these days? Perhaps some of these ideas need expressing in a way that ordinary citizens can understand. I respectfully suggest it’s snobbish, or the dreaded ‘elitist” to denigrate ideas which have been kicking around for a long time merely because they aren’t expressed in ‘intellectual-ese.”

Paul says:

05:51pm | 04/04/11

It is not a logical answer because if existence points to a creator then the existence of a creator must also necessitates a creator there too etc, etc.
The result is a clear logical absurdity.

I do not “believe” that I have a brain or heart. I “think” that it is extremely likely that I have a brain and heart based on indirect observation and documented historical experience.

Trentus says:

06:10pm | 04/04/11

I wonder if the creator thinks the same way. “I have never seen my creator therefore he doesn’t exist.”

Kika says:

06:10pm | 04/04/11

Good point!

And even Richard Dawkins himself cannot explain and refuses to explain what ‘was’ before day 1 (i.e. Big Bang).

Trentus says:

11:41am | 05/04/11

@ Kika, Dawkins and no other non-believer refuses to explain the origins of the universe. Exact opposite in fact. I’d love to explain the many theories on how everything came to be to you, including the Christian/Islam and Hindu theories. Though something says it would be like Sheldon teaching Penny a ‘little’ physics

Jason Todd says:

09:15pm | 05/04/11

You’re right. Let’s do this logically. How do you know enough to make the statement “We all have a brain, heart, veins”.  How do you know that? Because of the evidence. We know a great deal about the anatomy of mammals. Medical science has allowed us to open up and operate on living humans and disect cadavers. The established foundation of medical science dictates what we do and do not have. Therefore evidence and experience would dictate that as I am a mammal and a human, I possess the anatomical features common to those groups. While I have not seen my own, I am confident that based on the evidence that I posess a heart, lungs, brain, veins and all the other organs in my body.

But we aren’t discussing something tangible here. We are discussing something that is by definition intangible. Like the wind, how do we know the wind blows? Because we can see the leaves move. Cause and effect. We cannot objectively see the wind, but we can see the evidence of its passing.
Here is where it gets tricky. As an agnostic atheist, I demmand evidence of a god or creator before I ascribe any credit to his\her existence. I don’t believe there is a god, because the current evidence presented to me is lacking. I don’t see any good objective evidence that would indicate the prescence of a creator. However, many religious sorts would suggest that the evidence is all around me. What both sides of this debate consider to be ‘evidence’ is different, and that is the reason that we will likely never agree.

notSue says:

05:51pm | 04/04/11

Further, I need to reiterate how much I love this article. A participatory culture based on a poetic, positive, humanist philosophy sounds just fine to me!

Jessie Clyne says:

05:53pm | 04/04/11

To equate your Jesus with David Koresh of L Ron Hubbard is absolutely ridiculous. When did Jesus kill hundreds of his followers? In fact he discouraged people from following him because he knew how hard it would be for them. He didn’t sit there and write a science fiction book. He merely pointed people back to the scriptures and told them to ‘get real’. His resurrection was positive for Eden’s negative. Simple.

Thomas Anderson says:

06:08pm | 04/04/11

Scientology is a pseudoreligion that was created by a science fiction writer. I like Tolkien, but if he encouraged me to worship dragons, I would think twice.

notSue says:

06:37pm | 04/04/11

Tom Cruise. 
“Battleship Earth”.
I rest my case.

outdoorgriffin says:

06:49pm | 04/04/11

@ Sue - it’s actually Battlefield Earth, and funnily enough, it’s a great a great work of science fiction too (the book, not the movie)

Thomas Anderson says:

11:58pm | 04/04/11

Yeah, Battlefield Earth with Travolta. That is such a good, good sci fi film. I recommend you all to watch it, you would never regret spending the 2 hours of your life watching that definitely.

notSue says:

01:10pm | 05/04/11

Oopsy “BattleField Earth” (forgive the brain fade.)
Believe me I’ve seen if, and I guess we must have been watching a different movie, cos, erm, it sucks, majorly! ha! Possibly the most simplistic, illogical, ridiculous piece of drivel ever glorified with the term ‘science fiction’ and committed to film only because of Travolta being a scientologist..

Here’s the IMDb index ref. The 2 and a half stars are generous, IMO Check out the reviews! LOL! . http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0185183/

Thomas Anderson says:

01:44pm | 05/04/11

Oh, I thought it’s a masterpiece, definitely better than Godfather and Shawshank Redemption.

No seriously, why does Travolta make such bad movies!? How do you go from Pulp Fiction to like… Swordfish and Battlefield Earth?

notSue says:

04:24pm | 05/04/11

@ Thomas A.
Unfortunately,  sarcasm often doesn’t translate well in posts, (hence the need for emoticons on most forums.) Thank goodness you *weren’t* recommending the atrocity which is BE! haha!

Bob says:

09:14pm | 04/04/11

What’s really interesting is how little you’d be able to back that up in a debate, and how clueless you are about history to ignore that the basic causes of communism were rich, incompetent aristrocrats an extremely poor society that had been literal slaves within living memory and a lost war.

But, hey. A lie for Jesus, right?

James1 says:

02:37pm | 05/04/11

Indeed Bob.  The Communist Manifesto and the works of Robert Owen came well before the publication of On the Origin of Species, let alone the synthesis of Darwin’s work on natural selection with Gregor Mendel’s work on genetic inheritance.  Try again, Peter.  That was a very poor effort.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:15pm | 04/04/11

I really don’t understand how atheists can be so passionate about their lack of belief.

You remind me of a sad goth kid screaming “I HATE RAP MUSIC”.

Terry says:

07:12am | 05/04/11

Absolutely passionate, because for too long religion has dictated how we live and imposed laws on us. Religions demand curious minds be hidden. Religion which today is only a belief in ancient magic and story time is a human folly, and as such we need to fight off the shackles. I actually like rap music. And you patronise me by assuming that I have no belief. My belief is not bound by your religions.

Thomas Anderson says:

10:38am | 05/04/11

Oh, guess what? A lot of the laws we have today were dictated by religion. That’s right, the law that governs your actions right now has close ties to a religion, namely, Christianity.

And I don’t think religion should hold back progress. There are plenty of great scientists that were members of a religious order. See, the problem might be in the human created religious orders, eg: there may be a Catholic Pope who is not progressive, and as a result of that human being, progress may be slowed down. But not all Christians are Catholic, and not all follow some sort of a denomination.

I believe in a Supreme Deity, and I am monotheistic, so I believe in God. I believe that a man as wise as Jesus was the Son of God, if that is what He claimed. Muslims only see Him as a Prophet of Allah, but I see no reason to doubt His Word. So I am a Christian. I don’t blindly follow whatever a man in the Vatican says, we just believe in the same God.

Terry says:

09:28pm | 05/04/11

Whilst religion has had a hand in the development of laws, you’ll find that societies, regardless of their belief system develop a set of societal laws. How is it that the tribes people of the pacific survived so long without your divinely guided laws. What a weak and insipid response you provide. In addition you mention the wisdom of Jesus, one of a thousand prophets. Invented by piecing together popular components of previous prophets. Quick back to your holy book for further guidance.

Godfrey Zohn says:

07:14pm | 04/04/11

I’m with Brooke on this, despite my reluctance to add to these manufactured debates.  It’s not religion, or the lack of it, which is the problem. The problem is Zeal.  Extremism. Blind Faith.
R A Wilson wrote some unintelligible acid-fuelled nonsense in his time, but I often quote him on one particular comment, “convictions cause convicts”.  Anyone who believes anything with all his/her heart etc., etc., is falling into this trap.  Some healthy scepticism is usually, well… healthy.  Once you zero in on a particular belief system, you feel the need to protect it from criticism, even if your arguments are not supportable.  They become a matter of “faith”.  No point either side trying to cure the other in this debate - you’re all in different rooms in the same prison.  Convicted by your own convictions.
No point, either, in replacing one religious system with another.  How about leaving important spiritual decisions to the individual people involved?  As soon as we get into a group and declare “This is what we believe” the dissent begins.  Very very human.

Nexus says:

07:20pm | 04/04/11

You don’t need religion to be a moral person and as many have pointed out morality does not have a uniquely religious basis . On the other hand acts of barbarism and exploitation have occurred in the name of religion throughout history. You can therefore be religious and immoral and use religion and an excuse to repent for bad deeds.

As none of you are in my head and understand my inner thoughts and therefore like Brooke I don’t care what other people believe if it does not impose on me.

Personally, I’d put all religious texts in the fairy tales and fables section of a library.

outdoorgriffin says:

07:17pm | 04/04/11

I was looking for Dog but apparently he exists and his name is Gordon (he’s a Gordon Setter)

Your name: Brad says:

08:55pm | 04/04/11

It’s really funny that earlier in the argument people pointed out that all these mass murderers you mentioned either had religious training or were following the belief that they were doing god’s work (and mostly the Christian god too!). The question you need to ask is: if the power structure established by religion didn’t exist, would those mass murderers have been so successful? Personally, I think not- you are free to think whatever you want.

Shane says:

09:18pm | 04/04/11

Christianity does not warrant respect as a philosophy, nor do its adherents.  And it is just empty philosophy because like all philosophies, it does not and cannot demonstrate that it has any connection to reality.  There is no ‘evidence’ to way up on the side of Christianity.  It is all talk with not one credible demonstration of fact.  Not one iota of evidence or substance.  A rational person does not posit imaginary beings as an explanation for something that is not yet completely explainable. 
Science, however, demonstrates reality continuously, unequivocally, and undeniably.  Heart surgery is not just a fanciful theory it works; it saves lives.  Science endlessly demonstrates its ability to improve the life of humanity.
By contrast, Christianity is focussed on the end time destruction and eternal torment of humanity.  Christianity is about judgement and condemnation; and is lacking in tolerance, patience and forgiveness.  This hypocrisy is endemic to Jesus’ own words.  Jesus himself is reported to have said that you should not judge or condemn, that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment, and if you call anyone a fool you will be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.  Yet, he himself continually condemned the Jews, whole towns and individuals, calling them fools and hypocrites.  This same son-of- a-trinity is implicated in all the brutality, genocide and child molestation that was wrought in the Old Testament by this petty, tribal-tyrant-god Yahweh.  The blazing-eyed son of this abhorrent god threatens in Revelation to come back and torture 99% of humanity for all eternity.  How fortunate for humanity that this moral monster is only a fiction, created to scare the gullible and weak-minded.

Thomas Anderson says:

11:22pm | 04/04/11

@Shane

Know what’s funny? This is actually getting under your skin and making your eye twitch, while the religious people here are just feeling sorry for you.

John says:

08:32am | 05/04/11

Shane your deluded.

“tolerance, patience and forgiveness” This why he hanged with with tax collectors and prostitutes. If he was for condemnation then why did he stop a prostitute from being stoned to death. He knew that killing someone was far worse then being prostitute, this is something some people don’t seem to understand.

“Christianity is about judgment and condemnation;” Why not? It must see the impurity’s and corruption and then condemn them. It’s like the LAW. Christianity’s condemnation is usually forgiveness, nobody loss’s theirs heads or are they stoned to death like some other religions. Christianity has like a mother to son relationship. The mother would never kill her own son in punishment.

Kate says:

03:46pm | 05/04/11

Shane, I think your comments are fabulous.
John, I already dismissed everything you have to say because you are clearly unintelligent and don’t know the difference between you’re and your.
Thomas A, rest assured that we ‘non believers’ feel sorry for YOU! I couldn’t imagine having air-fairy belief, based on absolutely nothing but what you’ve been told.
Critical thinking is not your strong point, mate.

Thomas Anderson says:

04:35pm | 05/04/11

@ Kate

You probably did not listen well at school, because most Deists do not believe in air, fire, earth or water fairies. And some foolish people want to take Religious Education away from schools, my, my, kids are growing up so educationally stunted and embarrassing themselves in conversations.

True Believer says:

04:46pm | 05/04/11

@Shane

Nope Christianity is not a philosophy - at least you got that right. The rest is just an atheistic slant - the old ho hum “rationalism” rant.

Boy are you in for a biggggggggggggg shock.

Shane says:

09:52pm | 04/04/11

The great question for suckers: What gives my life meaning?  Gasp, panic, OMG! It’s true my life is meaningless, I’d better believe in Jesus, Mohamed or Buddha or otherwise I’ll sink into an existential black hole.  The gullible fall right into this manipulative ploy.  The meaning of like is the meaning I give to it.  Christians are people who don’t think hard enough about the question and grab for a ready-made pre-packaged answer.  I did that once, but when I’d suffered enough misery I woke up.  My very existence is joyful, peaceful, sorrowful and wonderful. The very experience of it is more than enough.  If your life isn’t its own meaning, its own beauty, wonder and joy, then you must be psychologically dead and emotionally frozen.  If your very existence is not meaningful enough, then perhaps you’re just too ungrateful to appreciate what you’ve got

skepdad says:

01:02am | 05/04/11

Fair question TB.  I can’t claim to speak for all atheists, but I can speak for me.

As a kid I lived for what I was told I should live for.  To get good results at school, get a good job and do it until I retired.  Like most kids I suppose - you don’t really become self-aware in that sense until later in life.

As I got older I realised more and more that the world is an amazing place, and the more I saw of it, the more I wanted to see.  I still remember vividly the unique sunlight in Provence, the hot chocolate in Stockholm, the powerful feeling of calm and happiness I felt when on approach to Adelaide airport over the sea listening to the Audrey’s cover of “Don’t Change”, the moment I first felt like a local in London, the thrill of driving the Formula 1 tunnel in Monaco, the utter fear of my first shark dive on the Sunshine Coast.  These experiences mean nothing to you, but each and every one of them is a memory I treasure, and every now and then I have a new one.  They’re worth living for.

Also, the more I looked at life and the world, the more I realised that I didn’t understand it.  Like many rationalists, I wasn’t satisfied with authoritarian pronouncements of theory as fact.  I discovered critical thinking, deductive reasoning and skepticism, and learned that it was ok to not have an answer, and to be at peace with doubt; but to shun self-delusion.  The search for the actual truth of why things are the way they are drives me.  Do the religious not ever get a vague sense of unease at their beliefs?  When it’s just you and the dark, do you never think to yourself “I know this is probably nonsense, but it gives me comfort.”?

I also believe that what most people want is to leave some sort of legacy.  To be remembered after they’re gone, by someone and for something, and to leave the world somehow better off than it would have been without you.  Having no belief in an afterlife, strongly suspecting that when I die that’s it, it’s serious business.  I’m not sure what I’ll be remembered for yet, and if I die today that desire will be unfilled. So I need to discover that and work towards it.

Finally, since my kids were born, they form a large part of my daily motivation.  They keep me going out the door in the morning, getting on those planes and enduring meetings with people I wouldn’t usually socialise with.  It’s my responsibility to give them the opportunites they need, and to raise them to be good people; simple as that.  So that sense of duty drives me.

With my hand on my heart, I swear to you I would trade every promise ever made to me about the afterlife, every empty assurance that God loves me, every piteous thought from a “believer”, every second I spent in church, every communion wafer and every blessing from my parish priest - every single one I would trade for having one of my kids fall asleep on me.

True Believer says:

10:55am | 05/04/11

@Skepdad

Thank you for your honest and polite answer. I appreciated that. Yes I can relate to the wonderful experiences you have had, the world is indeed a wonderful place.  I enjoyed the way you described those things that particularly touched you. Thank you for sharing them.

What I have seen I have loved, especially Israel and Petra, two places I had wanted to see for many years.  Because the trip was spur of the moment and thus unexpected it was even more joyful. I found it a spiritual journey as well as being a tourist.  To walk where Jesus walked, sail on the sea of Galilee, visit Bethleham, have communion in the Garden Tomb - walking the streets of Old Jerusalem with all its colour and people from many lands, amazing. Petra was another amazing place. To see the huge tombs carved out of the cliffs so many thousands of years before - no technology, just rudimentary tools and perseverance.  Coming through the chasm to the Rose City is an experience I will never forget.

I can understand your feeling of fulfilment and from your comments I guess you are another who has been damaged by man-made doctrine and dogma. It is great you have such a bond of love with your children also.

It sounds as if you along with so many others have been damaged by man-made doctrine and dogma. Guilt and rules come by man, not by God.  Jesus just asks us to come to Him, no need for all the stuff created by man. Tis a simple message of Divine Love.

@Shane

It is a shame you had to reply in such negative terms. You really have no knowledge of what it is to be a believer in Jesus, I know because I too was an unbeliever who scoffed at believers to my shame.

I don’t know what “pre-packaged answer” you grabbed, but it was not Jesus - He does not come in any package made by man I can assure you.  He comes offering love, life and truth - if you were turned off by a denomination do not assume that represented the Lord. So often His people, we, all let Him down, we are but human. He is God.

I wish you well and encourage you to seek Him when the time seems right to you.

Shelly says:

12:03pm | 05/04/11

@ True Believer - I think it’s quite fascinating that two people can visit some of the same places and have such completely different experiences. I’ve spent time in Israel. I’ve walked the streets of Jerusalem, walked up to Masada, the stations of the cross, visited the Red Sea (and the Dead Sea). An overwhelmingly I felt amazed and sad. Amazed and sad that people’s lives were so constrained by an historical attachment to the mythical. So sad.

The things that give my life meaning are the relationships I have with people: the friends that call me to say congratulations on your new job, or happy birthday; the friends I call or visit with a meal when they’re sick or have a new baby. My relationship with my teenaged son who still gives me a kiss when he says good night. These things are real and rewarding.

Aidan says:

12:17pm | 05/04/11

Oh, there you are TB!
How are you? We were starting to get worried : )

My answer to your question is pretty simple;
All the things you hope to experience in Heaven, I hope to experience in life.

True Believer says:

02:02pm | 05/04/11

@Shelley

Thanks for your comment. I guess the difference in our experiences comes down to I went in the fellowship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as well as the flesh.  For me I saw it through spiritual eyes not just the eyes of the flesh. 

It makes a huge difference I can assure you. The Lord took me there, He walked with me, it was amazing. Without Him I guess it would just be like any other tourist destination. 

What a shame you missed out on that dimension.  Knowing Jesus makes all the difference, Perhaps one day you will visit it again and see it with those other eyes you lack just now.

True Believer says:

02:13pm | 05/04/11

@Aiden

I am very fine. Thanks for asking.  I was tied up with my new computer - getting to know all the bells and whistles. :0)

Well you want to experience war, hunger, pain, death, illness, anguish, sorrow, along with your good feelings. MMMMMMMM think I have chosen the better option. Hope you are well also.  You will need good health to enjoy this life if you are determined to miss out on the wonderful things Jesus has laid up for you. Why do people choose the lesser things?

Aidan says:

04:56pm | 05/04/11

@TB

“Well you want to experience war, hunger, pain, death, illness, anguish, sorrow, along with your good feelings.”
No. Although I do acknowledge that they’re all pretty much inevitable.

“You will need good health to enjoy this life if you are determined to miss out on the wonderful things Jesus has laid up for you.”
I don’t know if “determined” is the word I’d use.
God/Jesus may exist. I’m one of those people humble enough to utter the magic words; “I don’t know.”

Jason Todd says:

09:47pm | 05/04/11

I believe in a lot of things. Life. Love. Friendship. Joy. Laughter. What gives my life meaning? The search for truth. I seek to understand all that I am able about the world around me and the people in it. I read, write, study, talk to people, all in the journey for greater understanding.

What gives me hope? Lots of things! Science, debate, discovery, exploration, evolution, growth and change. The gleam of curiosity and understanding in a child’s eyes. A question asked in earnest, hoping for an honest reply.

What gives me peace and assurance? I draw from my family and friends. My past, my knowledge and experience.

At the end of the day, I will take great solace in the fact if I can look back on my life with my final breath and honestly feel that the world is a little better for my contribution.

Matthew says:

03:27pm | 06/04/11

@ True Believer ... When you take God out of the equation there is only one recognised source of human motivation: emotion/desire/feelings. The philosophy of desire is thus the foundation of atheism’s future.

Bertrand Russell: “All human activity is prompted by desire… If you wish to know what men will do, you must know ... the whole system of their desires with their relative strengths.”

So, despite atheism’s current leaders celebrating “reason”, they are merely the first “rebellious” phase of atheism. The next crop of atheist leaders will (I hope) be philosophers, politicians, and community leaders, who celebrate “emotion”.

Now, emotion as a motivating authority is both liberating and scary. There are real dangers of hedonism/nihilism taking over. But there are other human desires to balance these such as the need for tradition and stable culture. It won’t be easy, and there’s no guarantees that phase 2 of atheism will arrive, but there’s hope.

Oh, and it’s not only atheists who are motivated by feelings. Every decision a Christian makes is motivated by the same. Why are you so interested in God? Because you fear or love God, you fear an afterlife, etc.

True Believer says:

04:31pm | 06/04/11

@Mathew

Thank you for your comment.

I am interested in the Lord because I know He is interested in and loves me.  He is interested in you too, but you choose the atheistic path. Oh well I think Bertrand Russell is now contemplating his error in leading others to unbelief.  No future there. Sounds clever, but is only ever second best to the real thing.  The Lord is there for all to know Him. It takes humility, an honest heart, repentance and the desire to have Jesus as Lord and Saviour.  So simple, is that why it offends those who think themselves “clever?” 

I tried atheism. Lost cause.  So glad I found out.  The afterlife holds no fear for me, I know where I am going, do you? Don’t think you will find Bertrand sending you a lifeline somehow. :0) Cheers.

True Believer says:

04:31pm | 06/04/11

@Mathew

Thank you for your comment.

I am interested in the Lord because I know He is interested in and loves me.  He is interested in you too, but you choose the atheistic path. Oh well I think Bertrand Russell is now contemplating his error in leading others to unbelief.  No future there. Sounds clever, but is only ever second best to the real thing.  The Lord is there for all to know Him. It takes humility, an honest heart, repentance and the desire to have Jesus as Lord and Saviour.  So simple, is that why it offends those who think themselves “clever?” 

I tried atheism. Lost cause.  So glad I found out.  The afterlife holds no fear for me, I know where I am going, do you? Don’t think you will find Bertrand sending you a lifeline somehow. :0) Cheers.

Servaas says:

11:12pm | 04/04/11

Forget about religion. Morality is an argument for God, the one atheists choose not to believe in.

James1 says:

02:11pm | 05/04/11

“Morality is an argument for God, the one atheists choose not to believe in.”

You also choose not to believe in thousands of gods.  Why is that?  To an ancient Greek, you are basically an atheist.

Servaas says:

03:07am | 06/04/11

Yes, iIm indeed an atheist to the ancient Greek.

It is because the other gods never presented themselves with something I need. I believe that they possibly existed (some of them at least) however but they are not God in the sense of being the creator of heaven and earth, the law determiner, the one who offers me salvation, etc. That is basically what it comes down to, not so much whether I believe in their existence but that I believe the one God, who presented Himself as such can actually save me from the human condition and in Him is the purpose of life - outside of Him there is no real life, a lifestyle of death only.

The Redman says:

10:37pm | 04/04/11

Sorry Ken, there either is a god or there isn’t. No compromise there, and I think all would agree there is no grey area. Nothing in between. Either god exists or it doesn’t. And in my view, god does not exist.

Craig says:

11:44am | 05/04/11

I connect with the world and share experience and find love and happiness. My world is complete because God completed it. I will go to church and sing hymns, and be happy with it. That is where i find my happiness. Its not a ritual, its not a rule, its not something I have to do because I have been instructed. Its not a chore, I do it because i want to, and that is my happiness. God is my happiness. God is the world. God is ENOUGH!

True Believer says:

12:23pm | 05/04/11

@Cat

Oooooo well-named and scratchy too!! :0)

I asked a simple question which one atheist at least answered honestly and without insult. That gave me heart that there are some atheists who do not have to resort to insults and rudeness to explain where they are coming from and I appreciated that.

For your information I too was an unbeliever/atheist for a lot of wasted years.  I know what that was like for me. Yes I had education, top job, wonderful friends, great family, but there was much more I found out. Not through any man-made doctrine. I met Jesus in the lounge room of my home, not a church building or minister/pastor/whatever, in sight.

Then I read His book, having met the Author. Although I had tried to read it before, but without Him it made no sense, now it does. My spirit has been awakened to Him. You choose to have a dead spirit within you. That is your God-given choice and I respect that is your belief system.

I am not into “religion” a term thrown around in here in a meaningless way because often those who use it do not know what they are meaning by the word.  Religion, doctrine, dogma, denominational rules and regulations, exclusions etc are made by man, not by God.

For me I now know my Lord and Saviour and my God because I stepped from the darkness of atheism to the light of Truth in Him.

I wish you well.

Megs says:

12:18pm | 05/04/11

My grandpa is soon to turn 97 and looking at him I can only agree with your statement. Its a remarkable thing indeed, but not one I am necessarily envious of.

I sat with my 91yr old grandma as she lay freshly deceased, her body finally quiet. There was no place for a god; sitting alone with her and reflecting on all the times we shared was all that was needed.

I believe in life, what ever that is for each of us. What happens after life, who knows and quite seriously, who cares.

True Believer says:

02:07pm | 05/04/11

@CJ

I agree you are not a bad person just because you choose not to believe in God - from my experience of being an atheist I look back now and realise I was not a complete - now I know Jesus I am.

Jesus is not into control - if He was you would not have the choice to reject Him.

If you are talking about denominations and their attempts to control - that is of man, not God. Do not be fooled into thinking otherwise.

Jesus came to set us free, not to put us into bondage to man-made religious doctrines, dogmas etc.  I serve the Lord not something man-made.

Tim Dean says:

10:58am | 05/04/11

And any belief system that is based on the supernatural also has to contend with human limitations. The very magnitude of disagreement between supernaturalist religions regarding which is correct reinforces this point. Naturalism at least dispenses with one speed bump towards truth.

Servaas says:

02:59am | 06/04/11

Great use of sarcasm

CJ says:

12:08pm | 05/04/11

Woah man no one needed a life story!

Craig says:

12:26pm | 05/04/11

I just hope you read it, that is all. And mate, this isn’t my life story. Its yours.

True Believer says:

12:40pm | 05/04/11

@Craig

Beautifully put and oh so true. God bless you bro.  All the best for your bub’s safe arrival. :0)

CJ says:

12:41pm | 05/04/11

unlikely

Jason Todd says:

10:03pm | 05/04/11

Hey Craig,

I have read the bible. Multiple versions. I have investigated, thought, meditated, researched and soul searched. And it does not make sense. It does not make sense to me that our perfectly flawed world is the divine creation of an all loving, all knowing god. The world is broken, but it soldiers on. Life finds a way through adversity. I cannot look at the beauty and splendor of all the evidence around me day to day and resign myself to the fact that it was all created on a whim by some omnipotent deity. That view is much too pessimistic for me. That all that we have worked for, all that we have achieved through the centuries of growth, toil and evolution is the work of a puppetmaster behind the scenes.

It is a beautiful world, and there is plenty more to learn and discover. I choose to take that journey optimistically, free from the burden of a god looming over me.

All the best for the birth of your child.

Shane O says:

11:30pm | 05/04/11

I agree with your observations about the intricacies, complexity and wonder of the world and the universe.  However, your unwarranted interpretation that it’s made by some imaginary being is where we part company.  You advise atheists to read and investigate the Bible.  That sounds reasonable.  I have read and investigated the Bible and it does not reconcile with your soppy sentimentality about a loving, forgiving god.  If you have ever read the Bible you would know that the Jewish tribal god Yahweh described in it is a petty tyrant and a moral abomination, who like his son threatens calamity, judgement and eternal damnation – they are anti-human.  You’re not kidding anyone with your hokey white-washed Reader’s Digest version.  By the way most atheists see just fine.

Craig says:

10:59am | 06/04/11

@Shane O - All i can say is good luck to you Shane. You seem to be very bitter on this subject. I hope you do enjoy and live a good life in this world.

Craig says:

10:59am | 06/04/11

@Shane O - All i can say is good luck to you Shane. You seem to be very bitter on this subject. I hope you do enjoy and live a good life in this world.

True Believer says:

03:03pm | 05/04/11

@adie

No Christian will tell anyone it is all sorted for them after they die. That is in the hands of the Lord. It is our choice. Our decision, our eternity. 

Man of himself cannot “sort it all out while they are still alive.”  We either do it the way Jesus told us, or we end up eternally separated from God. Our choice though. Don’t blame Christians and don’t blame God if you find yourself somewhere you will wish you weren’t.

True Believer says:

10:09am | 06/04/11

@Vic

No you are right, but not for the reason you infer.  Jesus is the Christ - those who follow Him (not denominations) are Christians.

True Believer says:

11:00am | 06/04/11

@Shane O

Oh dear typical ole atheist arrogance “I can’t see Jesus therefore He does not exist - nah nah de nah naH”

You will find your comments about Jesus are very, very wrong - I just hope for you it is this side of death. 

I too have wandered in the darkness of unbelief mate - I can speak from both sides, you can’t so just have the humility to accept you do not know everything.  Jesus is real and you will stand before Him, that I can promise you.

MrMac says:

07:51am | 07/04/11

The proposition Jesus is real is a proposition about him in the afterlife.

The after life is speculation.

Anything else is typical ole ....

True Believer says:

10:53am | 07/04/11

@Mr Mac

You give your opinion, which I know is erroneous. I have been in unbelief, now I know Jesus - speculation does not come into it I assure you. He is real.

xyz says:

12:03am | 12/04/11

True Believer,  how did you know to speak to Jesus if, as you say, you did not believe in him? What happened to you to make you believe in Jesus?

True Believer says:

06:14pm | 14/04/11

@xyz

I met Him.

xyz says:

09:08pm | 14/04/11

True Believer, I am genuinely interested in finding out how you knew you met Jesus… please give some more details on your first meeting.

F says:

09:18pm | 14/04/11

@True Believer

You met him? What does he look like? More importantly - Where did you purchase the time machine? Don’t get all symbolical on me now, saying things like “I felt his presence” or “his light shone upon me”. You and I both know that is complete and utter bullshit.

Now answer the question that was presented to you instead that pathetic, half-arsed attempt you think will get you off the hook. There is nothing more insulting than someone who argues above their comprehension level.