4/30/2002                                                                                       View Comments

An Atheist on Judgment Day.

- The line seemed to stretch back forever. Hundreds of millions of souls, waiting patiently for their turn before the throne. The date... Well, the day is Judgment Day, so you won't find it on any calendar. The queue of people winds its way down the mountain, through the valley and off into the far distance. Everybody in the queue can see the final destination at the mountain peak. A hundred miles away, they can see it perfectly clearly. And they wait, moving forward a couple of steps at a time. Towards God, and the Decision.

At the head of the we find a young Christian, wearing an expression of awe and joy. Behind him, an atheist, looking slightly astonished, examining a leaf she has picked from a nearby bush, trying to decide if it is real or not. Heaven, she thinks, should be whiter, with more dry ice swirling about; not look like a Welsh hillside on a hot day.

The Christian steps forward for judgment.

"Hello Martin". God's voice is calm and gentle as He speaks.

"Erm.. Hello. Lord". Martin's voice is nervous, as a dozen emotions fight for room in his mind at once.

"This is it. This is where I decide what shall happen to you, Martin. In life, you were a Christian". It was a statement, not a question.

"I was, Lord. I still am. I have been all my life. I have dedicated myself to your service."

"Tell me, Martin. Why were you a Christian? Why did you believe in me?"

"Why? Well... Because you are God! I've always believed in you."

"That is not what I want to know. Why did you believe?"

"Because I knew it was true. You were always there for me. You helped me through the bad times. You answered my prayers. You gave me the strength and courage to get through life. I could feel your presence with me all the time."

"No."

"Pardon, Lord?"

"I said no, Martin. I have never helped you. You seemed to be doing perfectly alright by yourself. I heard your prayers, but never
answered a single one. Your belief in me definitely helped you on occasion, but I have never intervened in your life. Certainly, you
gave me credit for all the good times, but they were your own doing, not mine. You did not feel my presence, because it cannot be felt. The only actual proof you have that I exist at all is here and now. Again, tell me why you believed."

"I.. I had faith, Lord. Since I was a child I have been to church, prayed and sang every Sunday. My faith in you never wavered. Even
when my mother died, I had faith that it was your will, that it was a blessing from you that she passed peacefully. I was raised to believe in you, and as I grew I read the Bible for myself, and learnt of your miracles, and all the saints and martyrs, and the good done in your name. I read the works of great philosophers and they merely strengthened my faith. I knew it was true. "

"No, Martin. Your mother died of natural causes, and she died peacefully because of the actions of the hospital. I watched and saw,
but that is all. As for the rest - the saints, martyrs and philosophers had similar reasons for their belief in me, just as dictators and murderers have had. People have done great good and great harm in my name, and in the names of a thousand false gods. The
Bible was written about me, not by me, and was written by people who had similar reasons as you for their belief, just as a thousand other Holy Books have been written about the false gods, or different versions of myself. I ask for the third and final time. Why did you
believe in me?"

Martin looked shocked and ashen, but pulled himself together. His Lord was testing him, and he had lived his entire life for this moment.

"I believed because I could feel in my heart it was true. You sent your son to die for us, and I gladly accepted Him as my saviour. I..
I just knew it was true, and now that I see you, my faith has been vindicated. I no longer need to believe - I can see for myself the
truth and majesty of my religion."

Quietly, God spoke again. "Martin, you have impressed me". He paused.

"But... not enough. You believe because you were taught to believe. You believe because you mistakenly attribute to me anything positive that has happened in your life, and discount anything negative. You believe because it is comforting to believe, and because you are frightened of the consequences of my not existing. You believe because... you believe. I'm sorry, Martin, but there is no place for you here."

God gestured briefly with his fingers, and Martin vanished. His shadow lingered where he had stood, fading rapidly to nothingness.

The atheist, somewhat shaken by what she had just seen, stepped forward.

"Hello Eve. I like that name."

"Ah. Hello, God. Thanks", said Eve, not entirely sure how to address a being she had, until now, considered fictional.

"Yes, you may call me God. Eve, in life you were an atheist. You doubted my existence, even objecting to the very concept". Again, a
statement, not a question.

"Yes, I did. Clearly, I was mistaken."

"Clearly. Tell me, are you still an atheist?"

"I suppose not. I'm not a Christian, Jew or anything else. I guess I'd have to be called an involuntary theist. Ah ha ha", Eve laughed
nervously, hoping the very real and solid-looking deity before her had a good sense of humor.

"Mmm... Tell me, Eve. Why did you not believe in me?". God's voice was kind and gentle once more.

"At one point I did. I was raised as a Christian, and often went to hurch, and prayed every night before bed. When I was feeling down I
would read the Bible. The act of reading it seemed to comfort me, even though the words themselves didn't seem much help. I think, like Martin, I believed because I believed."

"And then you lost your faith? You decided I did not exist, and you knew better than those around you? You knew better than your pastor and family?" The voice was losing its kindly edge a little.

"That is one way of looking at it, yes. What I believed did not seem to fit with other things I knew. The Bible clearly could not be literally true, word for word. I knew from biology and paleontology that humans had evolved like all other life, and were not special
creations. How life or the universe began, I still don't know, but could not just merely accept 'God did it' as an explanation. I learned about other religions, and how they all claimed a monopoly on truth, happiness and morality. I saw the good done in your name, but
I also saw the oppression, genocide and wars. I saw that if people were in need, it was up to us to deal with it, not to rely on heavenly aid.". Eve felt a little braver, but was expecting the traditional thunderbolt any moment. The people behind her, now at the head of the queue, were slowly moving backwards, trying not to draw attention to themselves.

"Yet here you are, before your God, on the final Day of Judgment. Why should I allow you in - a heretic, a disbeliever, an infidel - when
your predecessor, devout and faithful, full of love for me, was consigned to Oblivion? Tell me why. Justify your entry to my Paradise."

Eve straightened up, looking God in the face. "Why should you let me in? Because I am better person than you."

If Eve had looked round, she would have seen the entire line of souls, perfectly still and wide-eyed, staring at her in shock.

"What did you say?", enquired God. His voice, though barely audible, caused tremors in the mountain.

Surprised at still being alive, her mouth dry, Eve continued. "I said, because I am a better person. You have shown it yourself already. You told Martin that you watched as his mother became ill and died. You destroyed him for believing for no good reason, when his whole life had been shaped by that belief. Your preachers on Earth encourage unquestioning faith, yet you do not tell us whether
that is what you want. You give people no rational basis for belief, and then when they make up their own that is not good enough for you. You listen to our prayers, yet do not answer, leaving people to rationalise events for themselves. People kill and slaughter over
trivial differences in doctrine, and you look on. In the churches and temples raised in your glory, children are mentally and physically
abused - in your so-called House! All over the world, throughout history, people have murdered each other for believing the wrong
thing about God, for believing in the wrong God, or for not believing in any God. The poorest and most helpless people are relentlessly
targeted, being told to give what little they have now, for the promise of eternal bliss later. When a person is at his lowest ebb, that is when the smiling missionaries appear, knowing that his life will probably get better naturally and they can give you the credit. In your name, the ends justify the means as long as souls are saved". Eve paused for breath, and continued.

"And you? All-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing? You just sit here and you watch it all... Any person in this line, had they your power,
would show greater compassion and morality. You may be God, but you are far from Godliness."

God smiled. "Are you finished? Good. Eve, you have impressed me". He paused. Eve held her breath, shoulders tensing.

"You have impressed me a great deal. You may have believed in me for all the wrong reasons, but you disbelieved for the right reasons. You led a good life, and used the intelligence I give to everybody in the correct way. Even though you came to a conclusion about me that was hopelessly wrong, you came to it in a way that cannot be faulted. You may pass into paradise, Eve, with my blessing."

Eve did not step forward. Instead, she spoke once more. "No, I will not".

"No? You refuse Heaven? You defy my will?" The smile had left God's face again.

"Do you think I would want to spend one more minute, let alone eternity, in your company? You allow people to suffer, sometimes for
their entire lives, for no purpose, and then judge them on their reaction. You hide yourself from the world and allow your creations
to persecute each other over differing interpretations of the lack of evidence. You see all the pain and ignorance caused in your name, and just sit there as this queue grows daily? And then you have the audacity to punish good people for believing in you 'for the wrong
reasons'?"

"Eve. Enough of this. The gates to Paradise are open to you. Be silent now, and enter."

"No. If it is a choice between oblivion and an eternity with a monster like you, I gladly choose oblivion. I ask only one thing, before you destroy me."

"And what is that?" asked God, getting impatient.

"That, if you can, you look me in the eyes as you do it."





Shortly afterwards, the next person in the queue stepped towards the
top of the mountain, and Judgment.

36 comments:

Varokhar said...

Well-written and imspiring story - the courage of Eve and her committment to her convictions stands out as the finest part. Good job :)

Anonymous said...

Web master and anyone else who thinks Jesus is a myth. I beg of you to just take the time to sit down and talk to God for a moment. Don't demand signs though. That would be a sign of very little faith, and it is very hard to please God without faith. Hell isn't going to be some party. It's eternal damnation and separation from God.

The whole fear Hell thing is to warn you about it all because Jesus wants you to be saved, not because He wants you to be someone that has to live in constant fear. He brings warnings because He loves us. An unloving parent wouldn't give a crap about warning his/her child about upcoming troubles. Fortunaely, He does give a crap about you.

Hell is one place He does not want you to end up in. But He loves and respects your free will enough for you to make that choice. Look at it this way: How could a loving God force anyone to be with Him? He doesn't, although He wants to be with you. As for ignoring suffereing... it's a complicated topic. There could be no transformation of faith without any suffering. No one could build any character. He suffers right along with us.

As for God hating women... you've got to be kidding me. God doesn't make things He hates, He wouldn't waste the time and effort. Adam and Eve were both punished and the earth is cursed because of them. We have to go through this because He wants us to know that He hates sin. Okay, what if He just let it slide? Hmmm? He would be very gullible and people would get away with doing all kinds of evil.

And as for Jesus being made up by some pope or emperor? God would not let that deception slide. The Word (Bible) is living and breathing. It is all divinely inspired by God. Back to your terrible words against God. Do you realize that that stuff hurts Him? He loves you to pieces and yet you accuse Him of evil. It's a good thing He would forgive you if you ask for it.

If anyone is skeptic on God's motives in the things He did, then ask me.

Dano said...

Anonymous,
Do us all a big favor and click on the "other" button, and make up a screen name like "Naive young kid on fire for Jesus"

It will be more intelligent for all of us because then you will be someone other than just another one of the many Anonymous's, who I suspect, think that making up a screen name is evil or something.

I assure you that if you make up a name that you will still be Anonymous, and it won't effect your relationship with Jesus.

You are the epitome of what people on this site love to read, because many of them can look back 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, years and see themselves in your comments.

Dan (Looking back about 50 years)

Dae said...

Wow, Anonymous person. How exciting. You make God sound like a teddybear with a heart sewn on his chest. If a Christian stopped humping the bible and actually considered some other points of views and other books then maybe they would have a better view on the book that people rape all too much to support their own beliefs.

I found this story wonderful because it was logical. Christians mostly do 'just believe.' Too many people praise every single positive thing to God and every single negative thing to the devil. If I was ever in Eve's shoes I would have to say about the same thing (though maybe less respectful or well-spoken :-S).

Anonymous said...

Hmm...
So many people are self serving, what ever they believe.

Christians create this God so they could feel warm and fuzzy, so I hear.

And now the Atheist create this story so the can feel warm and fuzzy. Its all about a comfort zone.

My faith aside (for I do have faith). The historic figures in this world have succeeded by stepping out of there comfort zones, stepping out of normalities and creating a path themselves.

Through the years I have researched the "Truth" that I was taught and have since rejected some and embraced others, not through what I was told or taught, but through my pursuit of truth (Its all very socratic) But I pursue this truth within a faith I live by.

I'm not trying to convert or deconvert anyone. But I do believe in God and how I see God characterized in this story, he is characterized as a failure of a human perception of what God should be.

Unfortunately, it is a perception proselytized by many. But if you attempt to understand the characteristics of the Christian God (which is my God and so what I consider to be the only got, but for now that is neither here nor there) through the foundation of the Christian faith which is the bible, the expectations and accusations of God's character in this story does not fit within it.

Choose what you may, but understand the truth of the word (the Bible, I mean) over the possible distorted truths out there, so your rebuttals may have some validity within the foundation of Christianity.

With all this said, this is not a flame and I am not attempting to offend or demean anyone. I just love researching. Its just part of my pursuit of truth in life. I wish you all well.

MrRoadRage said...

Hello Anonymous!

You said: "I just love researching. Its just part of my pursuit of truth in life."

I am just like you! I love to research in pursuit of the truth. I would like to converse with you privately. Will you email me?
MrRoadRage@gmail.com

boomSLANG said...

Anonymous said: "I'm not trying to convert or deconvert anyone. But I do believe in God and how I see God characterized in this story, he is characterized as a failure of a human perception of what God should be."

The story is a characterization/satire. Obviously, it's not about a literal situation whereas an Atheist would think that God "should be" this or that, because an Atheist has no belief in God(s). And personally, I don't see the correlation between Agnosticism's/Atheism's position of neutrality, and a "comfort zone". Call me crazy, but I think it would be a little more "comforting" for those who think that they will be reunited with their deceased friends and family members in the clouds for eternity, sharing an existance of endless bliss, as opposed to just ceasing to exist, altogether.

Logical Bob said...

As far as im concerned, to believe anything that was written 2000 years ago, is not logical, and the only reason I can imagine that anyone would believe the bible, is if they were programmed to believe.

Logical Bob said...

anonymous said:
Adam and Eve were both punished and the earth is cursed because of them.

Not even close pal, the earth is cursed because of religion.

Templar said...

What I have always found interesting about the whole, does God / doesn’t God exist debate is that both sides depend on rhetoric to try to prove their case. The story is indeed well written, but it is biased, as one would expect, seeing as though it is published on an atheist weblog. In the same way The Bible is biased towards trying to convince people of God’s existence; this story is biased towards trying to convince people that He does not exist and at the very worst that if He does…He isn’t worth believing in.

Eve's final rejection of God in this story effectively reverses the 'role' of judge and judged...the atheists final act of rebellion against a God she has refused to ‘believe’ in all her life. Faced with the ultimate ‘proof’ of His existence on Judgement Day she chooses to refuse entry into paradise as she cannot ‘believe’ in what God has chosen to do. In other words she is saying that while alive she couldn’t believe that a deity existed because of all the injustices that occurred in the world and that now she knows that He does exist she can’t believe in This deity because of all the injustice that occurred in the world.

At one stage when asked by God why He should let her into paradise she answers by stating that she is a better person than He. In reality she is not claiming to be a better person at all…she is claiming that she would be a better God…that if she were God…She would do things differently…make different choices. And here lies the problem with both the theist and atheist arguments…human arrogance! Eve presumes to know WHAT God is in the same way the writers of Bible presume to know WHAT God is also…the only difference between them being, how they perceive the ‘WHAT’.

While the writers of the Bible perceive God to be benevolent, caring and loving, the writer of Eve’s story perceives God to be cruel, spiteful and hateful. In reality neither the writers of the Bible or Eve’s story are God (if such a thing exists) and therefore cannot truly understand WHAT God is. For example, if two people were to watch a documentary on the television about lions hunting one might find the fact that a predator such as a lion will invariably attack the weakest member of a group sad or pitiful. On the other hand someone else will view the same footage and say that this is logical. One may find nature cruel while the other finds it beautiful. Each has an opinion based on what they observe but in reality neither can truly know what it is to be a lion. The lion may in fact gain some sort of pleasure when killing, but on the other hand it may feel no emotion…only the lion truly knows how it feels.

My point is a simple one I believe. If believing in a deity makes your life feel more contented, then do it. Likewise, reject the idea if you gain more comfort from believing that everything is random. However, trying to justify your position by claiming that you KNOW God is as ridiculous as claiming that you are a lion and that you know why he does what he does.

Ps. Please don’t respond to this by stating that you know a lion exists because you can see it and that you don’t know of God’s existence because you can’t see Him. All this will do, is show me that you do not have the ability to understand anything beyond your own arrogance and that you understood nothing I said.

.:webmaster:. said...

Templar, If it makes me feel good to believe in UFOs, is that okay? If it makes me feel good to believe that 2+2=5, is that okay? If it makes me feel good to believe in unicorns, dragons, talking snakes, flying fiery chariots, walking undead god-men, and eternal horrific torture for the nasty unbelievers, is that okay?

You believe in your god because you want to. You have no evidence that any god-thing exists. You want to believe in it, so you do.

I want to believe that there is intelligent life on other planets. Unfortunately, at this time, there is no evidence of any intelligent life on other planets, so I don't believe in it. I hope that there is life out there, but I don't know that there is. I have no way to be confident that there is life out there. I can suppose, guess, use rhetoric to show how it's likely, but the reality is that I and everyone else at this time have no way of demonstrating that there is intelligent life beyond this planet.

When a Christian says he or she believes in god, it doesn't usually mean that he or she "hopes" there is a god out there. It usually means that he or she "KNOWs" there is a god out there. Or, it means that he or she has great confidence that a god (more specifically, his or her favorite god) exists. In fact, that confidence is so sure, that the believer conforms and models his or her whole life around that god.

So, since you apparently KNOW there is a god, could you please share your evidence with rest of us. I am sure we'd all love to be as confident as you that such a creature exists.

Thanks.

Templar said...

Dear Webmaster....I guess you chose not to read my comment and give it the respect I gave your original story...that's ok...I understand.

You see if you had bothered to read it you would know that nowhere in it did I claim to KNOW anything...nowhere did I say that you didn't have a right to believe in whatever you wanted...nowhere did I say I believed in God...read it if you don't believe me.

What I actually said was that it was incredibly arrogant to assume that you know WHY God does the things He does when you don't even know WHAT God is. That remark was aimed at both yourself and ANYONE else that claims to know WHAT God is...you can't know unless you are God.

Let's be honest here...it wasn't Eve who was standing before God claiming she could do a better job...it was You! Considering that you have no clue WHAT God is I would say that it was pretty arrogant of you to judge Him and think you could do a better job...next you will be telling us that you could be a better lion.

Templar said...

Dave...It is Dave isn't it? I too have no interest in a literary debate, however, I presumed that this was a forum for expressing theological opinion...forgive me if I am wrong. Your post, the poorly written story as you call it, was put here by yourself for a reason...what exactly was that reason? Are you really trying to tell me that it was posted for no reason at all or was it an attempt by yourself to express why you no longer believe there is a God? Am I wrong when I say that it is actually you who is Eve in the story and that her opinions reflect yours?

I claim you are arrogant because you are...you believe you are right and that anyone who believes differently to you has to justify why...has to prove to you that God exists...and yet you make no attempt to prove that He doesn't exist...you merely huff and puff and try to ridicule others and their beliefs.

My point in all of this is a simple one; I claim neither to believe in God nor do I claim to disbelieve...I am open minded about the debate because I do not know what God is. You claim that you do not believe in God and yet you do not know what God is. Others claim to believe in God and yet they do not know what God is either. If what you are really trying to say is that you don't believe in the God that is taught by the Christian Church, then fine, so be it...but that does not mean that God does not exist.

I opened my original comment by stating that I found it interesting how both sides depend on rhetoric to try and prove their opinions correct...I still stand by that.

.:webmaster:. said...

It's simple Templar, remarkable claims require remarkable evidence.

Requiring the skeptic to disprove the existence of god is a logical fallacy. Those making a positive claim are required to produce evidence. "I rode on a UFO!" will be quickly answered by a snide "Yeah, right. Take any pictures?"

If at that point the supposed UFO tourist gets all huffy and calls anyone who doubts the story arrogant...

But I digress. For further edification on proving negatives, click here.

Now, you don't claim to believe or disbelieve in a god? Forgive my presumption again, but methinks me smells thinly veiled disingenuousness.

Regardless, whether you're sincere or not, or whether I'm called names or not, I plainly admit that I am skeptical of the existence of any invisible magical entities for which believers can never present a shred of verifiable evidence.

But that's just my position on the subject. Others who regularly post on this site hold to some form of theism, or perhaps more accurately, deism. This isn't strictly an atheistic site, and people are in no way expected to agree with me on anything.

However, everyone pretty well understands that this is an ex-Christian site, though. And when it comes to Christianity, we all agree that it's bunk.

Are you a Christian, Templar?

J. C. Samuelson said...

Templar,

"I am open minded about the debate because I do not know what God is."

As a human, knowing what God is in the absence of descriptive terms is impossible. Theists 'know' what God is based on terms that derive from scripture and subjective personal experience. Atheists 'know' what God is based on terms derived from science and the historical record. Whether you are persuaded by the arguments presented by either side is mostly a matter of personal disposition. However, the burden of proof always rests with those making extraordinary claims. In this case, that's the theist.

The theist makes an extraordinary claim that an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnitemporal entity exists. In contrast, the atheist makes an ordinary claim that mankind has constructed, worshipped, and discarded many such entities throughout history, and asks why this one is any different. Do you see the difference?

Templar said...

Webmaster,

Firstly, I am certainly not disingenuous when I say that I am open minded on the whole debate concerning whether a God exists or not. Do I believe in the God of the Bible as described by men...No! Do I believe that there is order in the universe...Yes! Do I believe that all things can be explained by science...No! Do I believe that every human being has the right to believe what they want, whether that be little green men from Mars or that such things as dark matter cannot be explained....Yes.

My point throughout this has been... What does it matter to you what someone else chooses to believe in?
What do you gain by trying to undermine their beliefs? Are you trying to save them from some great folly? Isn't to presume that you know best, arrogant?

For some reason you think that I am calling you names...I am not...I am describing your behaviour. Although you have not answered any of my questions despite me answering a number of yours I still maintain that the purpose of posting your original story was to reflect your own mindset at the time. I believe you did relate to the character Eve, and in so doing you were claiming that if you were God you would make different choices...that you would be a better God. If this isn't arrogant then I don't know what is!

You claim that I demand of the skeptic to disprove God's existence...I asked no such thing. I stated that you asked people to prove God's existence otherwise you tried to ridicule them and yet offered no proof that he didn't exist yourself. You claim there is no burden on you to prove anything...there is no burden on the theist either by reason of argument from ignorance The only time that proof is ever required is when you seek to 'convert' someone to your way of thinking. If someone comes on here and states categorically that God exists and that you should change your way of thinking then it is fair to ask them for proof of such a claim, but the same can be said for those that categorically claim that He does NOT exist and seek to change the way others think also.

You have every right to believe as you wish....so do they! What I don't believe anyone has the right to do is ridicule someone else for what they believe.

I do agree with you on one thing however, you are certainly not what I would describe as a Christian. To me it is irrelevant whether you believe church dogma about Jesus. It is irrelevant whether He was the Son of God, died and was resurrected. What matters to me is what the man tried to teach us about how we treat others. I guess you could say that I am a Christian, a Ghandist and a Martin Luther Kingist all in one.

Templar said...

J.C.Samuelson,

...the burden of proof always rests with those making extraordinary claims. In this case, that's the theist.

With the greatest of respect nobody owes you anything with regards to what they believe and certainly not proof of it no matter how extraordinary the claim.

I believe for example that my children love me. Do I need to prove that to you...no...unless of course I want you to believe me. However, it makes no difference to me whether you believe my claim or not. I do not need you to believe that my children love me for me to know that they do. Evangelism is different to belief. Do you see the difference?

J. C. Samuelson said...

Templar,

Just to make sure you get this, I posted it on your blog.

People have been debating the existence of God for eons. It always has been, and always will be a rhetorical argument. Were we to explore every millimeter of the universe and map its boundaries, the argument would persist. Why? Because according to the theist God exists outside space and time, thereby being forever beyond our ability to study. Of course, universal exploration is also beyond our ability. All anyone can do is decide which side presents the most convincing argument.

Theists and atheists each 'know' what God is according to their own descriptive terms, each of which derives from different sources. In the absence of descriptive terms the discussion, by definition, can't happen. Debate does not occur in a vacuum. Saying you don't know what God is merely means that you haven't accepted the descriptive terms offered by either side. That is, you find neither persuasive. Therefore, the first problem in resolving the question seems to be finding a set of descriptive terms you would accept, if only tentatively. Only then can you examine the supporting arguments.

Assuming you do find a set of terms you will accept, it is important to also become familiar with logical fallacies. Furthermore, a definition and understanding of the difference between ordinary and extraordinary claims seems prudent.

An ordinary claim, as defined here, is falsifiable. That is, it asserts something about the observable world that can be disproven. To be sure, such claims often assume certain facts but ultimately can be disproven by observation or experimentation. Continental drift, for example, was ultimately disproven by plate tectonics. Evolution can be disproven, or at least its mechanisms. Even gravity can, in principle, be disproven. Historical claims can be disproven by the discovery of new evidence.

An extraordinary claim, as defined here, is not falsifiable. It asserts something about the observable world that can't be disproven. Such claims assume certain facts that, while not completely immune from observation or experimentation, can't be conclusively demonstrated to be false. Paranormal and supernatural claims, as well as conspiracy theories, fall into this category. The existence of ghosts, for example, can't be disproven. We simply choose to believe or not believe depending on how credulous we are. The same is true when we talk about deities.

Take, for example, a man who claims to have spoken with his mother yesterday. This might be an ordinary or extraordinary claim depending on the facts. If his mother is alive, is able to communicate, and the means and opportunity for communication existed, it's an ordinary claim. On the other hand, if his mother is dead, unable to communicate, or the means and opportunity did not exist it's an extraordinary claim. In the former case, we can easily falsify his claim by any method we choose that produces results. In the latter, we can choose to ask for qualification, hoping he's speaking metaphorically, or we can ask for evidence. Assuming he persists in his claim without qualifying it the way we'd hoped, we can only choose to believe or disbelieve regardless of any evidence he provides. Naturally, our decision will be based on what we know about the observable world and our disposition toward it.

So, returning to the question, the claim that God exists is an extraordinary claim. No matter how much evidence exists that the world simply is as it is without supernatural elements, such a claim can never be falsified. Now, it is also true that a claim that God doesn't exist is an extraordinary claim. The subject is simply beyond observation or experimentation. But don't get too comfortable yet.

While there are some atheists who positively assert the non-existence of God, a majority simply lack belief. They observe the natural world, accept it as such, and see no evidence of, or need for, supernatural interference. Everything has a natural explanation, and the atheist observes that the gaps in our knowledge of the universe that once were the domain of God have diminished. Furthermore, they observe the historical record in which mankind has constructed, worshipped, and discarded many supernatural beings. They observe mankind has written books about them. And they rightfully ask, what's the difference between all those other gods and books and the one the theist now worships? Finally, they observe the dangers of dogma, particularly as promulgated by religious faith, and determine that it is detrimental to human survival.

To wrap up, the burden of proof lies with the one making an extraordinary claim. Those who simply lack belief do not have to prove anything. Whether God exists or not is an interesting question, but its discussion will always be confined to rhetoric. And, it is not likely to be resolved beyond the boundaries of individual minds.

J. C. Samuelson said...

"...nobody owes you anything with regards to what they believe and certainly not proof of it no matter how extraordinary the claim."

They do if they witness to me and insist that I should believe. They do if they lobby government to make laws that affect my life based on their faith. They do if they strap a bomb to their waist and blow themselves up in the midst of a crowd of people.

That's the problem with the Abrahamic religions. They all insist they are right, everyone else is wrong, and that they have the right to impose their beliefs on whomever they choose.

"I believe for example that my children love me. Do I need to prove that to you...no...unless of course I want you to believe me."

I have no doubt your children do love you. More than likely, they've affirmed this love verbally and physically with hugs, kisses, etc. No, you do not need to prove that to me, partly because as human beings we can all independently affirm love's expression and how it feels, and partly because I'm neither that rude or incredulous as to demand evidence for such a thing.

An important distinction needs to be made, however. You are not trying to convince me or impose your beliefs about your children's love on the rest of the world. The Abrahamic religions are categorically different. Apples and oranges, mate.

J. C. Samuelson said...

Just to clarify, claiming your children love you is not an extraordinary claim.

boomSLANG said...

Heavens-to-Betsy!... a Deist in the house! Well, howdy!

"To me it is irrelevant whether you believe church dogma about Jesus. It is irrelevant whether He was the Son of God, died and was resurrected. What matters to me is what the man tried to teach us about how we treat others. I guess you could say that I am a Christian, a Ghandist and a Martin Luther Kingist all in one."

Guys, guys.... as long as there's no link drawn between "order", and how a couple-few mortal guys---one who "had a dream", another who taught that human suffering is a "virtue", and yet another, some sand-dwelling dude who tried to teach people how to treat others, but got fanatical and ended up getting tacked to a cross---these discussions shouldn't be a problem, right? I mean, there's nothing "meta-physical/super-natural" in those attributes, is there? After all, Oprah still HAS "a dream", and while Captain Kangeroo might be dead, he taught people how to treat others!(and for those who can't figure out "how to treat others" on their own, you can purchase the reruns on DVD)

lol.

Templar said...

J. C. Samuelson

Thank you for the extensive reply and I appreciate your input into all of this. However, you confuse a type of fundamentalism with mere faith. To have faith one must simply believe; the fundamentalism you describe in your 'suicide bombings' scenario has very little to do with faith and more to do with politics and I think that many sociologists would agree with me on this.

To claim that both theists and atheists 'know' God by their own defining terms is in itself a flaw. Humans are capable of understanding only what is calculable to our mind. If something exists outside of our ability to comprehend or experience then we can never truly 'know' it. We can believe we 'know' something through observation and by theorising; for example 'black holes', but until we actually quantify in terms understandable to us, by mathematics let's say, we can never really know what one is.

Let me try and expound this a little more if I may. Humans exist as do ants. This can be quantified empirically by observation etc. Both ants and humans live in colonies or communities and as humans we can gain an understanding into how an ant colony works by studying it. We can gain insight into the hierarchy by observing the distribution of food, work etc within the colony. We can measure pheromone production and conclude that ants follow scent trails left by others. We can do all of this and yet our definition of what is an ant would be completely different to how an ant would view himself I am sure. Conversely, does an ant 'know' humans? Do they observe us in the same way we observe them...who knows? Could an ant ever describe to another ant what driving an automobile is? I doubt it. It is beyond his capability...beyond his experience. Does the fact that he does not have the ability to quantify a situation mean that we don't drive cars? Is it a good enough argument because we can't quantify God to say he doesn't exist? Is our inability to understand what God may be a reason to discount His possible existence?

I will repeat myself one more time...I do not claim God exists, nor do I claim He does not. I do not KNOW God because I accept that He may be beyond my ability to comprehend. He may exist outside of my experience.

However, to some, the mere fact that we are alive is proof in itself of His existence. This is all the empirical data that they need. They observe the world that they live in; the complex chaotic systems that exist and yet are in harmony with each other and conclude that this could not happen by chance. In the same way many astronomers are convinced that black holes exist because we can see the effect that they have on their surroundings without actually being able to observe the 'hole' itself.

Just to clarify, what may seem like an extraordinary claim to you because it lies outside of your understanding is in fact an ordinary one to others because it lies within theirs. Stating that God's existence is an extraordinary claim and thus requires a burden of proof just depends on which angle you are looking at....don't you think? To some, stating that God doesn't exist is just as extraordinary.

Finally, with regards to the statement that my children love me and whether that is extraordinary or not...surely that would depend on whether you know what love is. Yes you can observe our interactions and make conclusions based on that but at the end of the day if you don't know what love is you are going to have to rely on what someone has defined it to be. The only way you could truly know if my children loved me would be to know what it is like to be loved by your own children. Do you have children? Do they love you? Prove it!

boomSLANG said...

"Stating that God's existence is an extraordinary claim and thus requires a burden of proof just depends on which angle you are looking at....don't you think?"

'Don't mind if I do---I think Samuelson said such a burden is required only if the believer "pimps" their belief as an objective/universal truth, complete with threats of hellfire and damnation.(please see posts from 99.999999999999999% of the X-ian's who pop in here) If I'm way off, I think he(j.c. Samuelson) will probably correct me.

"To some, stating that God doesn't exist is just as extraordinary."

To UFOlogists, stating that UFOs don't exist, might be "extraordinary"; To bigfoot trackers, stating that sasquatch doesn't exist, might be "extraordinary". Such claims are easy to shrug off, and go about your biz. Nonetheless, if they expect us to believe it, then they'd better produce some evidence.

Not IMO, but biblegod does not, and cannot, exist---nor does any other "personal" deity. Okay, sure, it cannot be known if a super-natural NON-personal "cause", existed. But from where we sit now, it wouldn't matter if it could be known. It would be like worshipping a paper weight. In other words, IF it "might" matter later, then whatever... THAT'S when it'll matter.......LATER.(when physical life ends) And BTW, this says nothing of an "afterlife".

As far as a parent proving their children love them?--- I don't think any parent really cares if anyone else believes whether or not their children love them, or not. Notwithstanding, there's no conditions attached for all of humanity to "believe" such a thing, or not. Moreover, "love" is a verb, not just a noun.

My 2 cents.

Templar said...

boomslang,

If you read all my comments on this thread you will see that I agree with your assessment about 'pimping' ones opinion requiring a burden of proof...however, that was not what I was talking about.

...Such claims are easy to shrug off, and go about your biz. Nonetheless, if they expect us to believe it...

I personally wasn't asking you to believe anything.

biblegod does not, and cannot, exist---nor does any other "personal" deity.

Using your criteria of demanding a burden of proof for 'pimping' ones beliefs...could you prove that to me please?

...And BTW, this says nothing of an "afterlife"...

I don't think I have mentioned an afterlife in any of my comments.

As far as a parent proving their children love them?--- I don't think any parent really cares if anyone else believes whether or not their children love them, or not.

I couldn't agree more. The problem occurs when people either go around telling everyone that their children love them also and that they will be punished if they dont start worshipping the children...or somebody states that their children's love doesn't exist merely because they themselves don't have children.

Some people don't really care if anyone accepts that they believe in a deity in the same way some parents don't care if anyone accepts that they believe their children love them.

.:webmaster:. said...

Templar,

The Argumentum ad Ignorantiam (argument from ignorance) falls under the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof -- the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions an assertion.

The argument from ignorance fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, as you observed, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.

Saying something must be false, however, isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true.

For instance, it is a generally accepted rule of life that things are assumed to not exist unless evidence is presented that those things do exist. Even theists follow this rule most of the time. For example, religious people generally don't believe in unicorns, even though it can't be conclusively proven that no unicorns exist anywhere in the universe.

Why the site at all? Read the disclaimer!

And, ideas have consequences to the individual and society at large. The consequences of religious ideas have had an historically unappealing track record. In fact, when religous ideas have been allowed to dominate the minds of men and women in government, horrific times have reigned. Religous knights, like yourself, should well know the tragic consequences of theocratic rule.

You accuse me of undermining other peope's faith. Do you believe that all Christian websites are trying to undermine the "faith" of Muslims? Do you believe that Christian televangelists are attempting to undermine the "faith" of the Animist? This website is merely a discussion forum for ideas. No one has ever been threatened with eternal painful torture for not accepting the ideas expressed here. In contrast, reject the religous viewpoint and threating words will vomit and spew all over the screen.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand why you would view one skeptical website as any threat at all to omnipotent deity. Especially when his or her Internet arsenal contains hundreds of millions of religous websites.

It makes me wonder: Is religous "faith" so fragile? Does it really need to protectors?

Now, if I've offended some deity, or your deity, with pointed words, then I'm guessing that same deity would be able to defend him or herself against such barbs. She or he certainly wouldn't need assistance from a clown prancing around in a Middle Ages role playing club, would he/she? Seriously, I'm not mocking your chilvary, or whatever, I'm just remarking on your cute smocks: picture link.

Back to the topic of shifting the burden of proof. Please listen to this short mp3: click here.

.:webmaster:. said...

A better picture link: click here.

.:webmaster:. said...

Templar said: "I am open minded on the whole debate concerning whether a God exists or not."

Yet as a Templar, you have certain rules to "Almighty God" with which you've sworn agreement: click here.

It seems as though if you've not been disingenuous with us regarding your god belief, perhaps you've been just a tad disingenuous with your fellow knights.

boomSLANG said...

Templar said: "If you read all my comments on this thread you will see that I agree with your assessment about 'pimping' ones opinion requiring a burden of proof...however, that was not what I was talking about."

I think we all know what you are talking about, and like many have suggested, and I agree, the crux seems to be that you are shifting the burden of proof by using the thinnly veiled "God exists by default" argument. It's nothing new around here, trust me. Notwithstanding, what's this about an "opinion"? Is it your 'opinion' that Muhammad doesn't exist? Because Muhammad COULD exist by your reasoning.... after all, this "God" is presumably "undefinable" just like that jesus guy you revere as a "God". I'm taking it that since you use upper case letters when you write "Son of God", that you think a little more highly of "the man" than as stated here:

"What matters to me is what the man tried to teach us about how we treat others."

If jesus was just "a man", then there are many other people to look up to for treating others---people who are actually living.(that is...if one should actually need 'help' in knowing how to treat others)And BTW, why the togas? Is wearing that garb supposed to make your belief less subjective, and more "objective"?

Templar said: "I personally wasn't asking you to believe anything."

No? Per Templar, I thought we are to "believe" that since "God is undefinable", that we shouldn't be disuading people from their beliefs because we "can't prove that God doesn't exist"? Are we NOT to "believe" that this is your position? If we are not to "believe" this, then can we go about our biz, uninterupted? Furthermore, if you are "not asking" us to believe "anything" you say, then what are you doing here?

The point is, you ARE asking us to "believe" something---you are asking us to believe Templar's way of thinking, that OUR way of thinking is errant.

boomslang: "biblegod does not, and cannot, exist---nor does any other 'personal' deity."

Templar: "Using your criteria of demanding a burden of proof for 'pimping' ones beliefs...could you prove that to me please?"

Well, in your case---jesus was just "a man", right? That man is dead. He doesn't exist. As for all of the the other THOUSANDS of gods, Templar has ALREADY concluded that those personal deities don't exist. So you did most of the work for me. Thank ya ; )

If you want to now change your position and say that your personal man/god was both natural, AND supernatural.....YOU prove it.

Boomslang: "And BTW, this says nothing of an "afterlife"..."

Templar said: "I don't think I have mentioned an afterlife in any of my comments."

Simple. Do you believe in an afterlife? Call me crazy, but I'm leaning toward "yes". lol

Templar said: "The problem occurs when people either go around telling everyone that their children love them also and that they will be punished if they dont start worshipping the children...or somebody states that their children's love doesn't exist merely because they themselves don't have children."

The "problem occurs" when people go around and compare an interactional situation between two or more physical beings, with that of a hypothetical situation with a non-physical "being".

Dave8 said...

Templar: "What I have always found interesting about the whole, does God / doesn’t God exist debate is that both sides depend on rhetoric to try to prove their case."

Templar: "And here lies the problem with both the theist and atheist arguments…human arrogance!"

Arrogance... making generalizations about "all" theist or atheist people.

Templar: "Eve presumes to know WHAT God is in the same way the writers of Bible presume to know WHAT God is also…the only difference between them being, how they perceive the ‘WHAT’."

Arrogance, laying down the limits of rhetoric, and then portraying "meaning" based on a second hand parties' rhetoric.

Templar: "My point is a simple one I believe. If believing in a deity makes your life feel more contented, then do it. Likewise, reject the idea if you gain more comfort from believing that everything is random."

That's a whimsical statement... what if someone derives pleasure out of murder, and it gives them peace, does that line up with your "live and let live" statement.

Templar: "However, trying to justify your position by claiming that you KNOW God is as ridiculous as claiming that you are a lion and that you know why he does what he does."

However, trying to justify your position by claiming you KNOW Eve's thoughts is as ridiculous as claiming that you are an atheist and that you know why atheists think the way they do.

Templar: "Ps. Please don’t respond to this by stating that you know a lion exists because you can see it and that you don’t know of God’s existence because you can’t see Him. All this will do, is show me that you do not have the ability to understand anything beyond your own arrogance and that you understood nothing I said."

Nice... rhetoric.

J. C. Samuelson said...

Ok, this is a bit long and pointless, I admit. All the same I spent the time writing it so here it is.

Templar,

"To have faith one must simply believe;"

I agree that, in principle, having faith requires very little in and of itself. A person can attach any meaning desired to objects of faith without needing to justify that faith to anyone. However, as soon as that person expects that others should believe the same way and acts in a manner intended to convince or coerce conformity to that faith it ceases to be simply a matter of personal conviction. That is, it enters the public dialogue and it is incumbent on the believer to provide evidence that such a practice is beneficial and reflects objective truth as much as possible.

To be sure, the mere fact that someone believes something or not is in no way indicative of its veracity. God's status as a real entity does not depend on what we think about it. However, we do not have an objective frame of reference from which to judge empirical claims about its existence. The interaction between our physical and mental realities are inherently subjective. Thus, discussions of God necessarily consist of subjective descriptions of what we believe about God.

"...the fundamentalism you describe in your 'suicide bombings' scenario has very little to do with faith and more to do with politics and I think that many sociologists would agree with me on this."

It has everything to do with faith in practice. This is because for the majority of the faithful, their faith is informed by books that are quite specific in their descriptions of God and the actions God expects of the faithful. The Islamic faith, for example, is informed by the belief that the Koran and Hadith contain guidance for Muslim governance and society. In other words, Islam is inseparable from society and government if one adheres to their holy texts. Ask a Muslim if his desire to see the world embrace Islam is motivated by politics. His answer will be that God desires everyone to adopt Islam and conduct themselves accordingly in public and in private.

Many Christians believe that the Bible was written or directly inspired by God. That is, they believe it literally true and inerrant. It too is quite specific in its description of God and the actions God expects of believers, and contains guidance for society and governance. This prompts many believers to become politically active due to their desire to see Christian principles integrated into society as a whole. Some of these principles, such as the Golden Rule, are compatible with society regardless of whether they originate with Christian teaching or not. Others, such as the Commandment to worship only the Christian God or those that prescribe the death penalty for adultery, homosexuality, disobedient children, unbelievers, etc. are not compatible with society. Modern interpretation has it that this simply means they are intolerable 'sins,' and not fit for a Christian society. Thus they attempt to legislate morality based on their faith in God as informed by the Bible.

Fundamentalism, therefore, has everything to do with faith. Whether or not a person becomes a fundamentalist depends on personal disposition, cultural influence, and so on but it is inextricable from their faith. Attempts to recast current events as pure politics or economics minimize the component of faith or ignore it altogether. Doing so is both absurd and dangerous.

"To claim that both theists and atheists 'know' God by their own defining terms is in itself a flaw. Humans are capable of understanding only what is calculable to our mind. If something exists outside of our ability to comprehend or experience then we can never truly 'know' it. We can believe we 'know' something through observation and by theorising; for example 'black holes', but until we actually quantify in terms understandable to us, by mathematics let's say, we can never really know what one is."

As I already mentioned it is impossible to define God in objective terms. Subjective terms are the only way in which a discussion of the existence of God can take place. The quotes around the word 'know' should've been an indication that I did not mean it to be objective. Theists cannot objectively know God exists through empirical evidence; no such evidence exists. Neither can the atheist objectively know God doesn't exist through empirical evidence; again, no such evidence exists. God is ultimately outside the realm of objective observation and data collection, and not falsifiable.

On the other hand, we can objectively know the existence of natural entities and phenomena. To use your example, black holes are ultimately falsifiable. Scientists collect data and perform calculations that either confirm or deny their existence. Once there is independent agreement that such bodies exist, they can then begin the process of developing a theory - a description of the object, its mechanisms, its characteristics, and its influence (if any). If scientists collect data that refutes the theory or one of its components, then more work needs to be done to understand the observations. In any case, a theory only works in the presence of positive evidence for what it describes.

Having said all that, I think you've misunderstood the purpose of this website. It does not exist to disprove God. It exists to support those who've left Christianity. As the WM pointed out, there are those here who do subscribe to some form of theism. There are some deists here too. There are, of course, more than a few atheists (including myself). However, all of us have something in common - we believe the Christian faith is an absurd and dangerous religion and can be demonstrated as such. And, like all human creations, the Bible is falsifiable as a reliable document.

"I will repeat myself one more time...I do not claim God exists, nor do I claim He does not. I do not KNOW God because I accept that He may be beyond my ability to comprehend. He may exist outside of my experience."

Or, He may not. Again, atheists lack belief. This is not a position that requires positive evidence. For example, I don't believe my car can levitate. If someone claims to have witnessed it levitating or that all cars do, such a thing would be a remarkable departure from the laws of physics. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon the claimant to provide evidence, not vice versa.

The same can be said of claims for God's existence. If God exists, this would be a remarkable departure from the behavior of other gods, who were created, worshipped, and discarded by our ancestors. Thus, the burden of proof is upon the theist.

Imagine a conversation in which someone says, "I believe in God." Someone else responds, "I don't." Then the first person says, "No? Prove he doesn't exist." This is backward. You can't prove a negative.

"However, to some, the mere fact that we are alive is proof in itself of His existence. This is all the empirical data that they need."

Sure, but that does not mean He exists. The data is empirical but they interpret it to mean more than it does. Our existence does not confirm His existence, in much the same way as it doesn't confirm the existence of aliens on Pluto. The existence of mountains near my home doesn't confirm that they're made of gold. For these kinds of things, evidence is required.

"They observe the world that they live in; the complex chaotic systems that exist and yet are in harmony with each other and conclude that this could not happen by chance. In the same way many astronomers are convinced that black holes exist because we can see the effect that they have on their surroundings without actually being able to observe the 'hole' itself."

Personal incredulity is not positive objective evidence. I have no problem admitting I can't prove God doesn't exist. I observe the world I live in and accept it as it is, without the need to describe it in supernatural terms. The natural ones do just fine. And your analogy doesn't work because, as I said, black holes are observable objects that have specific characteristics we can objectively verify. God is not an observable object with specific characteristics we can objectively verify.

"Just to clarify, what may seem like an extraordinary claim to you because it lies outside of your understanding is in fact an ordinary one to others because it lies within theirs."

It seems you are saying there's no such thing as an extraordinary claim. With that assumption, all knowledge and truth are equally valid. This is simply not the case. There are those things we can observe, verify, and ultimately falsify. Then there are those things that don't fit in this category, and thus cannot be considered reliable descriptions of reality. In the end, it comes down to that which enhances human society compared to that which doesn't. Religion has long since ceased to add value to society, instead inhibiting advancement and even harming large numbers of people. Since faith is at the core of religion, it too must go the way of the dinosaur.

"Stating that God's existence is an extraordinary claim and thus requires a burden of proof just depends on which angle you are looking at....don't you think? To some, stating that God doesn't exist is just as extraordinary."

If people could actually examine God, objectively collecting data and analyzing it to understand its properties, each of which would be subject to verification and ultimately falsification, claiming His existence would not be extraordinary. I don't know how many different ways I can say the same thing.

"Finally, with regards to the statement that my children love me and whether that is extraordinary or not...surely that would depend on whether you know what love is. Yes you can observe our interactions and make conclusions based on that but at the end of the day if you don't know what love is you are going to have to rely on what someone has defined it to be. The only way you could truly know if my children loved me would be to know what it is like to be loved by your own children. Do you have children? Do they love you? Prove it!"

With near unanimity, humans agree on the terms that describe love and the behaviors associated with its expression. Observing the interactions between your children and you can be considered objective evidence for your claim that they love you. If their behavior is not consistent with the definition of love, the claim becomes doubtful and requires further verification or it is considered a false claim. Even you can do this if their behavior becomes inconsistent with that definition, such as if they try to harm you. Of course, you could claim your children love you and because of geographic separation or other obstacles we are forced to take your claim on faith. However, you are not expecting us to love your children, and we already agree on love's description, so we can decide to trust that you have children and that they love you in a manner consistent with the definition without evidence. In any event, your claim that your children love you is an ordinary claim.

Religious faith is categorically different. Theists regular expect - even demand in many cases - that others share their faith in God. Groups of theists regularly disagree on what God is, so there is no consistent description of God. Nor can any data about God be gathered independently of these competing descriptions that can settle those disputes. Essentially this makes all positive claims about the nature of God and whether it exists extraordinary.

If I haven't made myself abundantly clear, the question of God's existence can never be settled empirically, and positive claims about it are extraordinary because they cannot be falsified. Lastly, extraordinary claims always require extraordinary evidence.

One final note: please read the Site Purpose & Disclaimer. This is not http://wecanprovegoddoesntexist.net.

J. C. Samuelson said...

By the way, as the WM observed, you appear to have been thoroughly disingenuous throughout our communications. Here is an excerpt from the Templar site you link to:

"THE MODERN RULE FOR TEMPLARS

FIRST: THE TEMPLE AND SERVICE THEREOF

Brethren!

"Remember that you are a descendant of the 'POOR FELLOW SOLDIERS OF JESUS CHRIST' whose first house was in the precincts of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Meditate upon the word and the meaning of the Temple. Remember also that you are but a rough stone and must continually work to build with smooth stones a Temple within yourself"


SECOND: THE LOVE OF MEDITATION

"Recognise with joy that you are neither God's host nor a stranger to Him but truly one of his creatures. In our Temples you will have the joy of meeting brothers and sisters from many nations and Christian denominations. Deny all evil. Be not afraid to seek God daily and welcome Him into your very own Temple. Take Him not for granted for you will expose yourself more easily to outside evil influences. Each day put aside time for meditation and prayers for the Order and its work."


THIRD: DISCIPLINE

"The principles of the life of our beloved St. Bemard of Clairvaux are still valid today. You must care for mind, body and soul. Care not for worldly goods. Work happily but with humility and at all times honour your fellow men."


FOURTH: KNIGHTLY COMBAT

"The white mantle decorated with the blood red cross of the Order which you wear is a constant reminder of the sacrifices which you must make. Do not strive for worldly wealth for one day you will have to give account of yourself, that day you shall not know and on that day it will be too late for excuses, which are not acceptable to Almighty God.

FIFTH: BROTHERHOOD

"Each and every day you must aid your brethren whose struggles are akin to yours - this is your responsibility for one day God will ask you: 'Where is thy brother?' Expect no reward. Always be chivalrous and a pillar of the Temple, for all that the Order offers you is the opportunity to fight the sins of the world. Live charitably. Be penitent and above all be the servant of Almighty God.

Copyright© OSMTHU 2005 - 2006. All Rights Reserved."


So, it appears you either believe in God and have deliberately misrepresented yourself, or you are in violation of the rules of your Order. Which is it?

.:webmaster:. said...

Templar's ability to post further comments has been disabled.

Those interested in continuing the thread are welcome to do so on his site.

.:webmaster:. said...

More on the Knights Templars today: knightstemplar.org/

boomSLANG said...

Man, I slipped out for a quick bite to eat, but not before I got a quick glimpse of Sir Templar's last few "rebutals" calling me(and others) names for speaking up and calling him out on his dishonest, incohesive...all-in-all, totally misleading rhetoric.(I'd call him "disingenuous", but then I'd be "riding on the coat tails of others", lol)

Anyway, it turns out he's a Christian all along. Golly gee, what a shocker that is. Nonetheless, he's apparently banned, however, I won't go to his site to continue this discussion. Adult men and women who parade around in embroidered bathrobes give me the creeps.


SIXTH: DON'T BE A BOLD-FACED LIAR.

Okay my "Brethren"?

Chris said...

anonymous (the chicken shit little bastard that chose to hide his/her identity) said:

"Okay, what if He just let it slide? Hmmm? He would be very gullible and people would get away with doing all kinds of evil."

Apparently this moron doesn't realize that there has been "all kinds of evil" done in this world, even by Christians. Do the Crusades ring a bell?

Also, notice the presumptuous "Hmmm?" that better-than-thou retards use. They can't think of something intelligent to say, so out comes "hmmm".

Lastly, as I looked at the beginning of my comment I started to feel bad about calling this person a bastard. Then I realized I was right. This person thinks an invisible god is their father. They don't know who really is their father. I do feel bad about calling them chicken shit though. Chicken shit never tried to persuade me to waste time on religion. I'm sorry, chicken shit. I'll make it up to you sometime.

simbelmyne11 said...

aham...